tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post6440083133178187177..comments2024-03-17T16:01:04.762-05:00Comments on In Defense of Joseph: Was Melissa Lott Willis a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.?JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-60402705253513635212017-06-06T00:07:00.322-05:002017-06-06T00:07:00.322-05:00Robert—-
Thank you for reading my blog and making...Robert—-<br /><br />Thank you for reading my blog and making comment. The issue before the judge was whether the LDS and Temple Lot Churches could prove their allegations that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. According to the judge, the testimonies of the alleged plural wives (including Melissa Lot) and others that Joseph was a polygamist were weak and lacking credible evidence. Thus, their testimonies didn’t prove Joseph was a polygamist. In fact, their testimonies relating to fact were so poor that it begged the question as to whether or not they were lying about Joseph being a polygamist. In my opinion, the judge’s decision on this issue corroborates the truth of the conversation Melissa Lot and her sisters had with Joseph III. Conversely, it negates the truth of her affidavit to Joseph F. Smith and other statements she made that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith Jr. and that he taught and practiced polygamy.<br />JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-91512656922526581882017-06-02T11:55:35.060-05:002017-06-02T11:55:35.060-05:00Judge Phillips never accused her of lying about he...Judge Phillips never accused her of lying about her involvement with his father. Rather he gave his father a legal acquittal only because of legal weaknesses in the claims he heard. Under Illinois law committing adultery could not be convictable unless the affair was known. Since the affair was secret, and private he was declarable innocent. Plus she could not have been introduced in public as his wife, or live with him as his wife under the plural marriage system at Nauvoo. Those details he brought out in questioning of her were the details contradictory to the system at Nauvoo. The affidavits had more religious value against his father than unquestionable legal value. Still being Community of Christ I also have a Reorganized LDS heritage with or without the name change.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787559234115705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-55953713303957898792015-04-08T19:04:27.390-05:002015-04-08T19:04:27.390-05:00Anonymous 1/22/14:
My sincere apologies. When I ...Anonymous 1/22/14:<br /><br />My sincere apologies. When I wrote my previous response to you, I had fully intended to write about the issues you discussed. However, for whatever reason, I totally forgot about responding to you until I read runtu’s comments (see below). Indeed, as you point out, Melissa Lott’s position about her alleged marriage to Joseph was certainly different in her interview with Joseph III than any of her other statements on the subject including her testimony in the Temple Lot Case. Since you and runtu seem to have similar questions about this discrepancy, I will try to explain my position on this issue in my response to runtu.<br /><br />As far as Joseph III’s memoirs are concerned, to my knowledge, they are not online. They can be purchased in paper book form from the Restoration Bookstore online at www.restorationbookstore.org. Originally, his memoirs were published serially in The Saints’ Herald by his daughter, Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, after his death. What I posted online in this blog was published originally in The Saints’ Herald, April 28, 1936 and May 5, 1936 issues. Since this magazine was strictly an RLDS publication, it was probably not widely distributed outside of that community. Thus, Joseph III’s account of his meeting with Melissa, since it is not online, would not be easy to access by the LDS community. One of the reasons I posted it to my blog was so that those who didn’t know about it could read it.<br />JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-39605215571094396802015-04-08T19:01:10.086-05:002015-04-08T19:01:10.086-05:00Runtu--Part 2:
After reading his decision, it wou...Runtu--Part 2:<br /><br />After reading his decision, it would be fair to say that the testimony of the alleged wives didn’t convince Judge Philips that they were Joseph’s plural wives. This unbiased, third-party decision (by a man trained to evaluate the truth of evidence and testimony) corroborates Joseph III’s account of his meeting with Melissa in 1885. In my opinion, it gives validation to the truth of what Joseph III reported about their meeting.<br /><br />So why would this discrepancy in testimony possibly happen? According to Todd Compton, “most polygamous men held elite status in Mormon society, so polygamy often offered plural wives similar status." (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 20). If this is true, it would logically follow that being the plural wife of the original prophet of the LDS Church would certainly carry with it great status. It would be particularly important to defend that status in court, especially considering the legal problems the LDS Church was having with the Federal government over the polygamy issue. In addition, Melissa had already gone on record with Andrew Jenson as being one of Joseph’s plural wives and had been a source of information to him about other alleged plural wives of Joseph. As a result, there would have been great personal pressure upon Melissa to maintain her allegations about practicing polygamy with Joseph—even under oath in court.<br /><br />On the contrary, a private interview with Joseph III—the son of Joseph who Melissa knew in Nauvoo—would have encouraged her to be honest about her true relationship with Joseph. Because of JS III’s age in Nauvoo, she wouldn’t have been sure what he knew about their relationship. In addition, she knew that her sisters knew the truth and that she couldn’t lie in front of them. This is evidenced by the fact that her testimony that she was not Joseph’s wife and that he had no other wives than Emma was much stronger after they appeared at the interview. <br /><br />So, considering all of this plus the corroborating opinion of Judge Philips, I have to give weight to Joseph III’s account of her interview with him over her other statements, including that given in the Temple Lot Case, as to the truth of her relationship with Joseph.<br />JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-47919001837046360822015-04-08T18:57:58.951-05:002015-04-08T18:57:58.951-05:00Runtu--Part 1:
Thanks for your comment. I went to...Runtu--Part 1:<br />Thanks for your comment. I went to your site and your Melissa Lott Willes post. I really appreciate your link to the Temple Lot Case online. For anyone interested, the URL is https://archive.org/details/TempleLotCase. Unfortunately, this online version doesn’t include Judge Philips decision which evaluates and weighs the evidence to arrive at his judgment. However, his decision is online at http://archive.org/stream/decisionofjohnfp00philrich#page/42/mode/2up and free to read.<br /><br />If you haven’t already done so, you might want to read my post, “Why is the Temple Lot Suit Important.” Both the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the RLDS Church owned Quit Claim Deeds to the Temple Lot and ownership needed to be resolved when the Church of Christ began to build on the Temple Lot. It was the judge’s decision to resolve the issue by determining which church was the true successor of the original one. As you indicated, the origin of polygamy needed to be resolved because the LDS Church practiced it and the RLDS Church didn’t. For some reason, the LDS Church produced only 3 (out of the 27 listed by Andrew Jenson in Historical Record 6) alleged plural wives of Joseph to testify that polygamy originated with Joseph. According to Brian Hales in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:29, both Melissa Lott and Lucy Walker were deposed for the Temple Lot Case in Salt Lake City.<br /><br />I find Melissa Lott Willes’ testimony in the Temple Lot Case interesting. She is very assured in her testimony until she is asked questions requiring explanations—then she seems flustered. This indicates to me that possibly her testimony where she appears assured is somewhat scripted. But this is just my perception based on what I read. However, to fairly draw such conclusions, I would have had to have been there to observe her testimony. That is why the most important opinion in this case about the testimony of the alleged plural wives is the judge’s decision. He observed first hand their testimony and incorporated that with their words to formulate his opinion. <br /><br />In his decision regarding the case, Judge Philips stated, "It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, 'the Martyr,' secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in 'nest hiding.' In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the 'secret wife system,' charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Doctor Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the Utah Church. And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies' Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's death" (This quote can be found on pages 42-43 of the above link to Judge Philips decision or The Temple Lot Case, Price Publishing Company, pp. 543–551).<br />JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-62833912486096413572015-03-13T09:28:41.295-05:002015-03-13T09:28:41.295-05:00I thought you might be interested in reading Melis...I thought you might be interested in reading Melissa Lott's testimony in the Temple Lot case. She's pretty clear about the relationship she had with Joseph Smith, and she specifically denies Joseph Smith III's version of her conversation with him. If nothing else, you can't read her testimony and square her feisty personality with the weepy, remorseful woman JS III describes. <br /><br />Anyway, here's the relevant testimony, which includes a link to the complete testimony. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/polygamy-sources-melissa-lott-willes/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-21438169113435758912014-03-25T17:57:16.499-05:002014-03-25T17:57:16.499-05:00Joseph Smith had one wife!!!! Emma!!! All the peop...Joseph Smith had one wife!!!! Emma!!! All the people that still say they were married to him is only in their dreams or pretend marriage after his deathe. People will continue to lie and speak untruths!!! A proxy marriage after someone dies is a farce! A fake! A lie! Joseph only was wed to one wife....Emma! Thanks for this very important blog site!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-7616680935130015122014-01-26T20:42:22.417-06:002014-01-26T20:42:22.417-06:00Anonymous—
Thank you for your post. I appreciate...Anonymous—<br /><br />Thank you for your post. I appreciate you reading the article. You bring up some interesting points which I wish to address, but it will take me some time to formulate a reply. Until then, I ask your patience and want to assure you that I am neither a fraud nor a fool.<br />JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-8920047039056841022014-01-22T15:24:30.532-06:002014-01-22T15:24:30.532-06:00This post is a complete lie. Malissa Lott testifie...This post is a complete lie. Malissa Lott testified to Joseph F. Smith, to George A. Smith, it was written in her family bible, she testified of her sexual cohabitation with Joseph in the Temple Lot case, she was one of the major sources of providing the list of Joseph's other wives in addition to herself, plus she was sealed again to Joseph in 1846... but randomly in 1885 she suddenly spills the beans and rats herself out as a liar/conspirator? This so-called October 1885 meeting cannot be found ANYWHERE on the internet other than here. Suspicions arise. You, my friend, are either a complete fraud or a complete fool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-15847783233881479072014-01-05T12:31:30.082-06:002014-01-05T12:31:30.082-06:00I appreciate what you're doing here in defendi...I appreciate what you're doing here in defending Joseph from the notion that he practiced polygamy. Given the climate of modern society mainstream Mormons would also like to ascribe to this view because polygamy is such a hard thing to accept. <br /><br />To be intellectually honest, I think it's important to consider that there are four firsthand accounts and five credible secondhand accounts of women telling how they were not only married to Joseph but that their marriage included sexual relations. http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MASTERJSPSexuality.html. Authors Todd Compton and Brian C. Hales do a very good job at pulling together nearly every account on the matter and it's worth reading what they have to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-69933078145416106232012-02-28T22:26:41.659-06:002012-02-28T22:26:41.659-06:00Melody,
Thank you for your posts and kind words....Melody, <br /><br />Thank you for your posts and kind words. Continue the good work of defending Joseph in your “little corner of the world.” As the Lord told Oliver Cowdery, “stand by my servant Joseph faithfully … for the word’s sake.” (RLDS D&C 6:8a) I firmly believe that one day Joseph will be fully vindicated. I believe that when the priesthood go out under the power of the endowment to gather the Lord’s elect into Zion, the mouths of those who have ridiculed Joseph and the Gospel brought forth through him will be shut and they will no longer have power to utter against him or the Lord’s work.<br /><br />Emma's statement is an interesting one. In February 1879 Emma Smith was interviewed by Joseph Smith III, her son, who at the time was President of the Reorganization. This interview was published in the Saint’s Herald, October 1, 1879, and also appears in the RLDS History of the Church 3:353-358 (http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v3ch18.htm#353). Joseph III asked her many questions about the Book of Mormon, polygamy, and other subjects. In the interview she stated about the translation of the Book of Mormon, “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” <br /><br />It is important to note that those who state Joseph used a “stone” to translate the Book of Mormon do so to diminish the divine authenticity of the book. However, this was not Emma’s intent in so stating. A few paragraphs later in her interview she said: <br /><br />"My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible."<br /><br />We must remember that Joseph was under strict command to not show the plates or interpreters to anyone except those to whom he was commanded to do so. Delbert Smith wrote a pamphlet, “How the Plates of the Book of Mormon Were Translated,” (http://personal.graceland.edu/~rsmith/translation/preface.html) which deals with this issue. I suggest you read it in its entirety. In the pamphlet, after an exhaustive analysis of the many statements of individuals explaining how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, Delbert Smith concludes there were only two individuals who actually observed the tool used by Joseph to do the translation—Joseph and Oliver Cowdery. Obviously, Joseph used the tool all the time and Oliver used it when the Lord had him try to translate. Both of these men agree in their testimonies that the tool used to translate the Book of Mormon was the Urim and Thummim. Since these were the only two men who saw the tool, their testimony trumps all others.JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-427319856431821202012-02-25T16:41:30.346-06:002012-02-25T16:41:30.346-06:00I read this comment on FB today:
"In terms...I read this comment on FB today: <br /><br />"In terms of the validity of the Book of Mormon, how do you explain Joseph's use of a Seer Stone instead of the Urim and Thummim to 'translate' the manuscript--this is in RLDS Church History as a personal account given by Emma to her son."<br /><br />I know there are lengthy eye-witness testimonies of Joseph's use of the Urim and Thummim and of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Apparently, Emma did make some remarks in her last years of life that were different from Joseph's consistent testimony re the exclusive use of the Urim and Thummim. I cannot personally find such statements from Emma in Church History, as the FB inquirer alleges. Can you provide more information on this matter? Thank you so much. God bless.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10754522060490417242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-82567432649888153372012-02-25T16:13:41.232-06:002012-02-25T16:13:41.232-06:00Thank you so much for your research and for this b...Thank you so much for your research and for this blog! Both will be of immense help to me as I continue to defend the Restoration truths in my little corner of the world. I am an adult RLDS convert from the Lutheran Church, and the persecution for my RLDS affiliation from non-latter day saint [professing]Christians never stops. This has been particularly harsh in the course of my work with interdenominational Christian education and conservative political action groups. But thanks to individuals such as yourself, who continue to defend the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. by presenting the facts re his life and mission, and who continue to proclaim the Old Jerusalem Gospel, I grow ever stronger in my commitment to Jesus Christ and His Church. Again, thank you and may God bless you.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10754522060490417242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-48022330947887543852012-02-11T09:11:23.895-06:002012-02-11T09:11:23.895-06:00Anonymous (2/9/2012)—
Thank you. What a beautifu...Anonymous (2/9/2012)—<br /><br />Thank you. What a beautiful testimony. You made my day.JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-82690616683556363452012-02-10T00:07:08.623-06:002012-02-10T00:07:08.623-06:00Thank you. I read something inadvertently on the ...Thank you. I read something inadvertently on the web that shook me. I prayed for guidance to help me find the truth about Joseph Smith. Tonight, I sat down at the computer and googled "In Defense of Joseph". I had no idea there was such a blog with this name. I continually find people using old rumors over and over to prop up their disaffection from their chosen faith. I am at peace once again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-45089946517643405352010-10-06T14:08:45.216-05:002010-10-06T14:08:45.216-05:00Anonymous—
My apologies for a delayed response. ...Anonymous—<br /><br />My apologies for a delayed response. Thank you for your words of encouragement.JSDefenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-68980053157735401162010-09-20T12:21:22.724-05:002010-09-20T12:21:22.724-05:00It means a lot to see this and other things you...It means a lot to see this and other things you've written on this blog. I appreciate your taking the time to do this. All too often I see claims (put forth by persons who believe Joseph Smith to be "guilty as charged") that 'new techniques of scholarship and research' allow us in modern times to see what those in times past could not or would not see. However, such claims are often curiously short on any substantiating details. In fact, any arguments accompanying such claims seem often to be openly, even unabashedly irrational. It is very important for as many people as possible nowadays to see extent and painstaking efforts of the research and investigations of Joseph III, the Prices, and others in trying to establish more balanced (and more truthful accounts) of what really happened, and why many of us firmly believe Joseph Smith was a person of high character and truthfulness. I hope you'll continue to expand and add to this blog, and best wishes for your efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com