I’ve been speaking to various historians about the problem with “historical consensus” and accepting it as settled truth. That is what we keep bumping up against in this debate. The historical consensus is that Joseph was a polygamist, so nobody needs to actually do the work to be able to defend or even discuss that narrative, because it is already settled.
Who are the experts?
Time and time again I have discussion with historians (off the record – most refuse to discuss this topic on the record) where they start out kind, but a bit smug and condescending – knowing they are being kind by even listening to the “polygamy denier” – but after about ten minutes of discussing sources they realize they don’t have adequate responses and they always revert to, “This isn’t really my area of expertise,” or “I’m not a frontline researcher on this topic,” or “I only deal with polygamy as a side topic, so you would need to talk to someone who focuses primarily on polygamy.” I always then ask who that might be, and they again never have an answer. We just go back to, “There is not a single professionally trained historian who thinks Joseph wasn’t a polygamist.” The historical consensus is set, and while they all quickly acknowledge they are not sufficiently informed to defend their position, they still revert to the consensus that none of them can defend.
I very much appreciate that Don Bradley allows the buck to stop with him and that he is willing to engage both in private and in public on this topic. I have immense respect for him for both reasons. We have had some great discussions, and I am looking forward to many more. And yet, I think we are both aware that there is still a large gap in our mutual awareness of sources that we see as important. I really do appreciate that he is willing to engage and to put in the effort to try to get up to speed, but I wish more people were aware of the actual state of things. Most historians are unwilling to engage (presumably because they feel unprepared) and the primary researcher on this topic, who is arguably more informed on the actual evidence than anybody else, is not yet fully aware of our arguments and sources and has not yet been able to respond to them. At this point anyone trying to respond to our evidence is playing catch-up, yet the general public and the majority of historians don’t even know they haven’t already won the race.
Stuck in the 80’s
The fact is, the historical consensus is very badly outdated. It was established in the 80’s based on the very limited research and sources that were just beginning to come out, and the very one-sided interpretation of them. D. Michael Quinn and others began to gain access to church records, and it was such a big deal to be able to see affidavits, reminiscent journals, records, etc. that they were all accepted without question. It was an exciting (and somewhat troubling) time. Everything they had been taught about Joseph was being turned on its head.
But, we are not in that world any longer. The Joseph Smith Papers Project has been a giant leap forward for all of us. Now any “lay” historian (like myself) can dig in and see and interpret the sources for ourselves.
In addition to the incredible access we have all been granted, we also now have DNA evidence that has proven conclusively that every single claim of Joseph having any children is false. Joseph had no children with anyone other than Emma. Very few people still argue that Joseph MIGHT have had children that we just haven’t found (Lindsay Hansen Park is the only I know still saying this, and even people on her side have expressed embarrassment for her.)
The landscape is now so different from what it was when this historical consensus of Joseph’s polygamy was set, that it is honestly hard to believe that the entire historical community is so backward. It is like they are still relying on library card catalogs from the 80’s while the rest of us are immersed in online research. Historically speaking, they are stuck in a world of fax machines, pagers, VCR’s, cassette tapes and floppy disks, while the rest of us have smartphones.
Nothing Lasts Forever
The good news is, this can’t last forever. Eventually the historians are going to have to engage. I have been told recently by a very highly respected historian that at this point no historian will engage with me on this topic because they recognize that I know more about this topic than they do. (I don’t think this applies to me specifically, but to many of us who have been researching this question for years.) She told me that in their historical circles they talk about how it would take months and months of serious study for anyone to get up to speed enough to actually have a serious discussion defending the consensus. That was quite an admission, but I think it is very likely true. The question I desperately wanted to ask in response was, if they recognize that we know more about this topic than they do, why don’t they defer to us? If they agree that we have studied this question more, have more experience and a better understanding of the sources on the topic, why do they, with their inferior knowledge, study and understanding, still insist that they are right and we are wrong? I didn’t ask because I didn’t want to risk sounding arrogant or rude, but I do think it is a very good question.
steph
Do you feel like this has sparked any interest in these “trained historians” to educate themselves more? Even if they feel they won’t find anything to change their minds, they ought to know more because this surely is a rolling stone!
Michelle Stone
I HOPE so! I think a lot of historians are still unaware of what is coming as this grows. I think they will be caught completely off guard. And from what I have been told by those who do know, is that they just don’t have the interest to do the study required to be able to respond. I do sense a strong hesitancy to go against the consensus. Even the historians who do acknowledge that we have a strong case, and that they don’t have good answers, are sure to keep saying that they stick with the narrative. I just think it will take time until some of them will become more honest and courageous. As soon as a few start acknowledging, I believe it will grow quite quickly.
K
I think historians are nervous to go against the previous narrative. They worry they might lead people to leave their faith vs trusting that testimonies of Christ might be gained by full and honest truth coming forward. Anyone who studies truth will tell you, it always, ALWAYS, comes bubbling to the top. I believe it far better to be on the side of truth.
Michelle Stone
I agree. I think there is a lot at stake. And I agree that truth wins out — as it should.
Wendi
Thank you Michelle for all your time and diligence to study out this topic! You have truly helped soany people. Unfortunately the historians are paid instead of lay and therefore they are not willing to engage honestly with you!
Jon Bystrom
The biggest difference between you and “the experts,” is that they get paid by the Church Educational System AND YOU DO NOT. A soldier gets paid. A warrior works for the Truth and does not do it for money.
JOEL BURNHAM
You would think, based on your original question “is polygamy of God?”, that they would at least have some interest in defending their narrative. Are they not even a little curious, based on all the new information available? Is it not important to at least be as historically honest as possible with such important doctrinal questions? But then again, what lays down that road are scary implications. It takes courage to seek the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
JOEL BURNHAM
“And the truth shall set you free”
Curt Carver
All though Michelle Stone has and will continue to be attacked personally and critized unfairly because she presents an opposing view to a belief and doctrine that is part of the bedrock of the lds church. The consequences for her conclusions being correct are of the greatest of magnitudes. The implications are far reaching in both present and past, it would be an admission of such colossal proportions that it would tear at the church’s morality, authority so severely that the church would fall to pieces as so many other things are tied to the legitimacy of polgamy.
The church would need a major overhaul to the surprise and shock of so many. Even to contemple this would cause so much cognitive dissonance to the faithful members of church they would shutter to contemplate this as soon as they realize what is being presented. In short the church can’t afford to accept that Joesph never practiced polgamy, let alone consider it, but am so hopeful it becomes overwhelmingly evident and must be addressed.
Curt Carver
Michelle I am so glad you are doing this work. I see you have annoyed many people who dispise what you are doing and they resort to personal attacks when they can’t respond to the evidence. My recommendation is to not trade insults, but let your character be more noble than your opposition. This post makes some small insults that I don’t think benefit the goal of sharing the evidence against polgamy and supporting your credibility.