tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8284888127257313232024-03-17T16:01:06.127-05:00In Defense of Joseph<b>Defending the character and honor of Joseph Smith, Jr.</b><br><br>
"...stand by my servant Joseph faithfully ... for the word's sake." -- RLDS D&C 6:8aJSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-6599396848337885422017-07-21T02:02:00.006-05:002020-06-13T20:47:04.682-05:00Sarah Pratt Revisited<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those of you who regularly read my blog, I'm sure you have wondered if I still exist, considering I haven't posted a new article in about a year and a half. Well, I'm still alive and hope to get back to putting up more articles defending Joseph. Thank you for being so patient in my posting absence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Several years ago I posted a blog article entitled, “<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/02/did-joseph-smith-jr-make-improper.html">Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?</a>” According to John C. Bennett's accusations against Joseph, which were printed in the <em>Wasp Extra</em> (July 27, 1842) and the <em>Sangamo Journal</em> (July 15, 1842), while Sarah Pratt's husband, Apostle Orson Pratt, was in the British Isles (between 1839 and 1841 according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Pratt">Wikipedia</a>), Joseph propositioned her to be his polygamous wife and she flatly and indignantly refused him. When Joseph III visited Utah in 1885, he interviewed Sarah Pratt to find out from her directly (a primary source) if Bennett's accusations were true. The essence of my previous blog post was to relate Sarah's interview as recorded by Joseph III (<em>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III [1832-1914]</em>, 226). Her statement to him indicated that Joseph Smith Jr. never made such a proposition to her, which refuted Bennett's 1842 accusations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
However, since the time of my previous article, I've read portions of the book <em>Mormon Portraits, </em>by Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, published in 1886 by Salt Lake City Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. This is an “exposé” on Mormonism with a volume dedicated to the subject of ”JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET, HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.” In this volume is recorded Wymetal's interview with <a href="http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm#pg060a">Sarah Pratt regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith Jr.</a> and her comments about her interview with Joseph III a year earlier when he visited her in Utah. It seems that Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal was totally different than what Joseph III reported. In addition, her statement to Wymetal about her relationship to Joseph Smith Jr. corroborated John C. Bennett's statements printed in the <em>Wasp Extra</em> (July 27, 1842) and the <em>Sangamo Journal</em> (July 15, 1842). On the surface this gives credibility to her statement to Wymetal that Joseph Smith Jr. propositioned her and brings doubt as to the truthfulness of her statement to Joseph III. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
The purpose of this blog post is to determine which of Sarah Pratt's statements are true—the one given to Wymetal or the one given to Joseph III. However, before we can honestly analyze the truthfulness of her statements, we need to discuss the probability that either Wymetal or Joseph III lied about what Sarah Pratt told them. Wymetal had "no dog in the fight" so to speak. He was a disinterested party. As a <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Wymetal&prev=search">freelance reporter for various newspapers</a>, the story that Joseph Smith Jr. was innocent of propositioning Sarah Pratt would have been as newsworthy, if not more so because of popular belief, as the one he actually reported. Based on no real motive to lie, I have to believe Wymetal actually reported what Sarah Pratt told him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
On the other hand then, did Joseph III lie? Some would say that he certainly had motive to do so. However, I don't believe he did. Having an RLDS background, some might think that I’m biased to believe Joseph III, and maybe I am. But if I am, it is because he was known in my church, as well as the community, as a man of unimpeachable integrity and honesty. His belief about polygamy was that it was wrong, even if his father had practiced it. While he hoped that his father hadn’t done so, the point of his many investigations about his father’s activities was to find the truth. Because Joseph III’s religious beliefs didn’t rest upon whether or not his father was a polygamist, he was open to any evidence proving his father guilty of polygamy. I believe that if Sarah Pratt told him—after some intense cross-examination to get to the truth—the same story that Wymetal reported, Joseph III would have relayed it exactly as she told it. The fact that he always sought the truth about his father is the reason I believe he correctly reported what Sarah Pratt told him. Thus, I believe both men accurately reported what Sarah told them. They didn't change her story—she did!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
So here are her conflicting stories.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<h2>
Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal</h2>
According to Wymetal, Sarah Pratt gave her interview to him in 1885 and 1886, which was over 40 years after her alleged incident with Joseph Smith Jr. He quoted her as saying, "'I want you to have all my statements correct in your book,' said the noble lady, 'and put my name to them; I want the truth, the full truth, to be known, and bear the responsibility of it'" (<em>Mormon Portraits</em>, 60). Her statement in Wymetal’s book about her relationship with Joseph Smith Jr. is as follows: <br />
<blockquote>
When my husband went to England as a missionary, he got the promise from Joseph that I should receive provisions from the tithing-house. Shortly afterward Joseph made his propositions to me and they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the tithing-house or from the bishop. Having been always very clever and very busy with my needle, I began to take in sewing for the support of myself and children, and succeeded soon in making myself independent. When Bennett came to Nauvoo, Joseph brought him to my house, stating that Bennett wanted some sewing done, and that I should do it for the doctor. I assented and Bennett gave me a great deal of work to do. He knew that Joseph had his plans set on me; Joseph made no secret of them before Bennett, and went so far in his impudence as to make propositions to me in the presence of Bennett, his bosom friend. Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate me. One day they came both, Joseph and Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: “<em>Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble</em>.” Saying this, he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the <em>woman</em> was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.</blockquote><blockquote>Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his troubles with Emma, his wife. “He asked me” said Bennett, smilingly, “what he should do to get out of the trouble?” I said, “This is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.” </blockquote><blockquote>
You should bear in mind that Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: “<em>God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.</em>” He only introduced as marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind. If any woman, like me, opposed his wishes, he used to say: “Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interests of the church.” When he had assailed me and saw that he could not seal my lips, he sent word to me that he would work my salvation, if I kept silent. I sent back that I would talk as much as I pleased and as much as I knew to be the truth, and as to my salvation, I would try and take care of that myself. </blockquote><blockquote>In his endeavors to ruin my character Joseph went so far as to publish an extra-sheet containing affidavits against my reputation. When this sheet was brought to me I discovered to my astonishment the names of two people on it, man and wife, with whom I had boarded for a certain time. I never thought much of the man, but the woman was an honest person, and I knew that she must have been <em>forced</em> to do such a thing against me. So I went to their house; the man left the house hurridly when he saw me coming. I found the wife and said to her rather excitedly: “What does it all mean?” She began to sob. “It is not my fault,” said she. Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. “<em>Joseph and the church must be saved</em>,” said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers. (ibid., 61-63) </blockquote>
<h2>
Sarah Pratt's statement to Joseph Smith III</h2>
The statement made by Joseph III in his memoirs about what Sarah Pratt told him in his interview with her totally contradicts her statement to Wymetal. As quoted in my blog, “<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/02/did-joseph-smith-jr-make-improper.html">Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?</a>,” Joseph III stated: <br />
<blockquote>
The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?" <br />
"You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied. <br />
I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Doctor Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer. </blockquote><blockquote>I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such revealment prove I had been in error. </blockquote><blockquote>
She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place. </blockquote><blockquote>
"Did you know my father in Nauvoo?" <br /></blockquote><blockquote>"Yes, I knew him well." </blockquote><blockquote>
"Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?" </blockquote><blockquote>"Yes."</blockquote><blockquote>"Did you ever know him to be guilty of any impropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?" </blockquote><blockquote>
"No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful." </blockquote><blockquote>"Did he ever visit you or at your house?" </blockquote><blockquote>"He did." </blockquote><blockquote>"Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of the question?" </blockquote><blockquote>To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better." </blockquote><blockquote>"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me." </blockquote><blockquote>"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man." </blockquote><blockquote>That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her. The result was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Doctor Benedict. </blockquote><blockquote>It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes. </blockquote><blockquote>Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said: </blockquote><blockquote>"My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!" </blockquote><blockquote>Not a great while after this, just how long I do not know, Mrs. Pratt passed "over the river." I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue. (<em>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III [1832-1914]</em>, 33-34) </blockquote>
<h2>
Now about John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt</h2>
Because Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal is so similar to John C. Bennett's published articles about Joseph and Sarah in 1842, it is impossible to evaluate the truth of her statement to him without briefly discussing Bennett's <em>morality</em> and <em>veracity</em> as well as his relationship with Sarah Pratt.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
These two attributes of Bennett's character are well discussed in <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp7.htm">Chapter 7</a>, <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp8.htm">Chapter 8</a>, <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp11.htm">Chapter 11</a>, <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp14.htm">Chapter 14</a>, <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp15.htm">Chapter 15</a>, and <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol1/chp16.htm">Chapter 16</a> of <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy—</em>Volume 1 and I suggest a review of these chapters before continuing on. Regardless of an author's position on whether or not Joseph was a polygamist, most if not all will agree that John C. Bennett was a serial adulterer and liar. Thus, the fact that Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal was very similar to Bennett's published articles brings into question the truth of what she told Wymetal. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition, the truth of her statement to Wymetal is further called into question considering her relationship with Bennett. Both the chapter entitled “<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp3.htm">The Sarah Pratt Case</a>” in <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em> (Volume 2) and chapter 21 of <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em> (Volume 1) by Brian C. Hales strongly indicate that Sarah Pratt and John C. Bennett had an extramarital affair during the time that Joseph supposedly propositioned Sarah. According to Hales, "evidence indicates that she and John C. Bennett experienced a sexual relationship while Orson [Pratt, her husband,] was in England. Joseph Smith intervened and was afterwards accused by Sarah of making an improper proposal" (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em> 1:235). Both sources indicate that there were several credible witnesses who made affidavits that Sarah and Bennett were having and extramarital affair. The evidence was strong enough to try them in Church court and find them guilty. John C. Bennett was expelled from the Church on May 11, 1842, for his affair with Sarah Pratt, as well as other sexually immoral activities (<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp5.htm"><em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, </em>Volume 2, chapter 5</a>). Sarah Pratt was excommunicated from the Church on August 20, 1842, for adultery with John C. Bennett (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em> 1:584). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The actions by the Church court indicate that the allegations by Bennett against Joseph in the <em>Wasp Extra</em> (July 27, 1842) and the <em>Sangamo Journal</em> (July 15, 1842) and later by Sarah Pratt to Wymetal were untrue and merely an attempt to cover-up their affair by publicly accusing Joseph of propositioning Sarah. And except for the recent investigative work on this subject by various authors, it seemed to have worked. Keep in mind that the Church court proceedings (including testimony) were private and not reported to the public, so in essence Sarah's and Bennett's affair was kept secret. On the other hand, Bennett's allegations in the newspapers, as well as Sarah's statement to Wymetal, were public statements. From Joseph III's interview with Sarah Pratt, it is evident that the prevailing public story about Joseph Smith Jr. and Sarah Pratt was that he made improper advances toward her<em>—</em>not that she and Bennett had an extramarital affair. To my knowledge, the only statements Sarah ever made regarding this event was to Joseph III and to Wymetal.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<h2>
Which Story Are We to Believe from Sarah Pratt—Wymetal's or Joseph III's?</h2>
I believe Joseph III's interview with Sarah is the truth. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
First, based on the evidence, I believe that Sarah Pratt and John C. Bennett had an extramarital affair, which indicates Bennett lied to the press and Sarah lied to Wymetal. Since Bennett was a proven serial liar, lying about this issue would not be out of character for him. Furthermore, in Sarah's statement to Wymetal, I could find no date that the event occurred or, in particular, where it occurred. In addition, John C. Bennett’s 1842 letters published in the press, which were the first public announcements of this alleged event, made no mention of these facts either. I find it peculiar that such a repulsive proposition from the Prophet to Sarah, who was married, did not impress upon her the date of the event or the circumstances surrounding it. Traumatic events like these do not flee our memory and when we relate them, we tell the events surrounding the traumatic one. The absence of this detail in her testimony to Wymetal is another reason I do not believe she told the truth to him.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, while her affair with Bennett was known in Church court proceedings as early as 1841 (<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp3.htm">see Chapter 3, “The Sarah Pratt Case,” in <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, </em>Volume 2</a>), she made no public statement of the alleged proposition from Joseph at that time. You would think that when all of this erupted in Nauvoo in 1841 about Bennett and her, she would have set the record straight that it was Joseph, not Bennett, who was being improper with her. She evidently told Orson this version and if it was true, why not make it public to save herself from adultery charges and support Orson who supported her? <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
Third, why would a woman who was so repulsed by such a proposal from Joseph endure years of her own husband's (Orson Pratt’s) polygamy? Why wouldn’t she be just as repulsed, if not more so, by her husband taking additional wives and living the principle for many years? According to the <a href="http://jared.pratt-family.org/orson_histories/list_orson.html">Jared Pratt Family Association Web site</a>, Sarah and Orson were married July 4, 1836, and had twelve children together. Orson took four additional wives in Nauvoo beginning in 1844 and was married to five others by 1868—the year Sarah divorced him, according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Marinda_Bates_Pratt">Wikipedia</a>. If she wasn’t repulsed by the principle enough to prevent her from living in polygamy for many years with a total of nine other wives and giving birth to twelve of Orson's 45 children, she wouldn’t have been so repulsed by Joseph’s alleged proposition.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
For these reasons, I believe Sarah Pratt lied to Wymetal and told the truth to Joseph III.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<h2>
So Why Did Sarah Lie to Wymetal?</h2>
Maybe she had second thoughts about having told Joseph III the truth, and when Wymetal came along a few years later, she took that opportunity to counter what she had told Joseph III. It was one thing for her to stand against polygamy in Utah, but totally another to reveal that church leaders had lied about this event with Joseph. Or, maybe after her interview with Joseph III, she realized that if the truth got out that this event never happened between Joseph Smith Jr. and her, the issue of her affair with Bennett might resurface. And in Utah, at the time, while polygamy was acceptable, adultery was not. Or maybe, since she was divorced from Orson and was involved with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Marinda_Bates_Pratt">helping women come out of polygamy</a>, she couldn't afford to give up her reputation as the one woman who was strong enough to refuse the advances of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. If Joseph III published her interview, she could loose that reputation. Her interview with Wymetal could have been just damage control in case her interview with Joseph III was published. However, the fact of the matter is that I don’t know why she lied to Wymetal, and without evidence, any attempt to provide a reason is pure speculation on my part. But whatever it was, I'm sure she had a reason since the version she gave to Wymetal was so different. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<h2>
An Interesting Note</h2>
In her statement to Wymetal (<em>Mormon Portraits</em>, 60-61), she said about her interview with Joseph III, “I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father [that he was a polygamist], so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you <em>what kind of a man your father really was</em>?'” If she had truly said this to him in 1885, he would have told her that in 1883, several years after his mother’s death, he did receive a communication from the Lord—in the form of a vision—as to exactly what kind of man his father was. Following is Joseph III's account of that vision: <br />
<blockquote>
I suddenly found myself, after my evening devotions, in a room where my mother was. It is just as literal and real to me as I see you people this afternoon. It was a two-story house such as we frequently see, about sixteen by twenty-four, without a division in the center; upon the one side at the end was her stove, and right over at the other side was her table, and next the door to the right was the chair where I sat. Mother had just got her dishes done and had wrung out her dish cloth and hung up her pan against the wall as you women folks do, you know, and she had taken her side comb out of her hair and combed her hair as they did in the old-fashioned way. She took some hair down on either side of her face and rolled it up and stuck a pin through it — you’ve seen it done, many of you. She took off her apron that she had been using and put on a clean one, drew the white handkerchief like some of you used to wear, across her breast and sat down on the chair and said to me, “Now Joseph, your father is here and you can ask him the questions that you have been asking me, to see whether I have been telling you the truth or not.” Now, remember, mother died as I told you awhile ago, aged seventy-four, with all the marks of age upon her; and as she sat in that chair, she was as I remember her to have been when she was about thirty-five years of age. All that she seemed to have lost was restored to her. I did not mark it at the time, but when she spoke of my father, I turned to the left and there, on an old-fashioned settee, I saw my father. In my estimation father presented an appearance more matured than when I saw him last; he was an older man, such as he might have been had he lived to be forty-two. That is my understanding of it. I turned and asked him the question, “Father, do you know what mother and I have been talking about?” He said, “Yes, my son, I do.” Are you prepared to answer the question whether she has told me the truth or not? “I am.” What is your answer? “You may depend upon it that your mother has told you nothing but the truth” (<em>Infallible Proofs,</em> 67-68; <em>Zion’s Ensign</em>, December 22, 1894, in sermon on “Future Conditions”). </blockquote>
Of course, the question Joseph III had been asking his mother was whether or not his father was a polygamist. As my blog post “<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2013/12/emma-smith-on-polygamy.html">Emma Smith on Polygamy</a>” states, her answer was always emphatically “no.” </div>
JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-25716961033415147142015-12-15T22:48:00.001-06:002015-12-15T22:48:27.525-06:00Joseph's Words of Hope<div style="text-align:justify">
<p>The days in which we live are indeed perilous times. Men's hearts are failing them with fear because the love of man is waxing cold. All parts of society are in turmoil including the very churches whose heritage is the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Truly, peace in society—collectively and individually—is no where to be found, for peace has been taken from the earth. As a new year approaches and we look to the future, we see these conditions of mankind only worsening. Yet Joseph, knowing the calamities that would come upon mankind in the latter days, wrote words of consolation and hope to the saints of his day as well as ours. On May 2, 1842 as editor of the <em>Times and Seasons</em>, Joseph wrote the following words of hope. As we enter the new year with these uncertainties before us, may Joseph's words remind us that the Lord will fulfill all of His promises to His faithful and establish His Kingdom Zion for the social salvation of mankind. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The building up of Zion is a cause that has interested the people of God in every age; it is a theme upon which prophets, priests, and kings have dwelt with peculiar delight; they have looked forward with joyful anticipation to the day in which we lived; and fired with heavenly and joyful anticipations they have sung, and wrote, and prophesied of this our day;—but they died without the sight; we are the favored people that God has made choice of to bring about the Latter Day glory; it is left for us to see, participate in, and help to roll forward the Latter Day glory; "the dispensation of the fulness of times, when God will gather together all things that are in heaven, and all things that are upon the earth, even in one," when the saints of God will be gathered in one from every nation, and kindred, and people, and tongue, when the Jews will be gathered together into one, the wicked will also be gathered together to be destroyed, as spoken of by the prophets; the spirit of God will also dwell with his people, and be withdrawn from the rest of the nations, and all things whether in heaven or on earth will be in one, even in Christ. The heavenly priesthood will unite with the earthly, to bring about those great purposes; and while we are thus united in the one common cause to roll forth the kingdom of God, the Heavenly Priesthood are not idle spectators; the spirit of God will be showered down from above, it will dwell in our midst. The blessings of the Most High will rest upon our tabernacles, and our name will be handed down to future ages; our children will rise up and call us blessed; and generations yet unborn will dwell with peculiar delight upon the scenes that we have passed through, the privations that we have endured; the untiring zeal that we have manifested; the insurmountable difficulties that we have overcome in laying the foundation of a work that brought about the glory and blessings which they will realize; a work that God and angels have contemplated with delight, for generations past; that fired the souls of the ancient patriarchs and prophets—a work that is destined to bring about the destruction of the powers of darkness, the renovation of the earth, the glory of God, and the salvation of the human family. (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 3:776)</p>
</blockquote>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-48589299943166128052015-05-29T18:39:00.000-05:002015-05-29T18:46:11.248-05:00William Clayton Lied<div style="text-align:justify">
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The primary testimony pertaining to the creating and recording of what is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants comes from William Clayton. Allegedly, he recorded the revelation as it fell from Joseph's lips on July 12, 1843, on the second floor of the Red Brick Building in Nauvoo in the presence of Hyrum Smith. As his story goes, the original copy of the alleged revelation was given to Emma who shortly thereafter destroyed it. While Clayton didn't record the complete details of this event until 1874, his story appears to have been circulated by word of mouth prior to his publishing it. This story was first recorded from a speech given by Brigham Young at the LDS Church conference in 1852 when the alleged plural marriage revelation was first read to the members. At that conference on August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence. (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em>, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," <em>Deseret News Extra</em>, September 14, 1852.) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>William Clayton's 1874 account of these events was published in the "Plural Marriage" article of <em>Historical Record</em> 6 by Andrew Jenson. According to Clayton, he as well as Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma Smith were primary witness to his account. However, when Clayton's testimony was first published, Hyrum and Joseph were dead which made it impossible for them to either corroborate or refute his claim. However, during Emma's lifetime, she made several statements at different times consistently refuting his testimony—<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/prints/josephemma.htm">one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879</a>. </p>
<p>Since Section 132 was never approved by a vote of the Church as a revelation from God, its authenticity, as a revelation given by God to Joseph in 1843, rests soley upon Clayton's testimony as an alleged primary witness to the event. Because Emma, another primary witness, consistently refuted his allegations, it is of utmost importance that William Clayton was completely truthful in his statement. However, he was not. He embellished his account of Joseph giving the revelation with a substantial lie. </p>
<h2>William Clayton's Testimony and the Lie </h2>
<p>Below is the part of Clayton's testimony about recording the polygamy revelation (LDS D&C 132) which contains the lie. I italicized the lie for ease in recognition. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write.<em> Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.</em></p>
<p>Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (<em>Historical Record</em> 6:225–226, italics added) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statement in Clayton's testimony about the Urim and Thummim is very important. It is the seal of authenticity regarding the truth of this revelation. Joseph's refusal to use this tool to bring forth the revelation indicates his complete confidence in his knowledge of the truth of the revelation and his familiarity with it. This part of his testimony reassures the reader that Joseph knew what he was doing and that the revelation is true. However, this statement by William Clayton is a lie.</p>
<h2>Why this Statement Is a Lie </h2>
<p>Joseph stated in his history:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. (<em>Times and Seasons</em>, May 2, 1842, 3:772) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the above, after Joseph was through translating the Book of Mormon, he delivered the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate back into the hands of the angel from whom he had received them.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The translation [of the Book of Mormon] was completed about June 1, 1829. The title page was entered with the clerk of the United States District Court in western New York, June 11, 1829. Printing was begun in August, 1829, by E. B. Grandin at Palmyra, New York, and completed March 26, 1830. (Thelona D. Stevens, <em>Book of Mormon Studies</em>, Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri, 32) </p>
<p>I [Joseph Smith, Jr.] wish to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated.... (<em>Times and Seasons</em>, 3:943) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because the title page of the Book of Mormon was the last inscription upon the plates, presumably, it was the last to be translated. Since the title page—the last page of translation—was registered on June 11, 1829, Joseph would have "accomplished by them [the Book of Mormon plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate] what was required at my hand" and "delivered them up" to the angel probably some time in June 1829 because he no longer had use for them. According to Joseph above, from the time he delivered the Urim and Thummim back to the angel until May 2, 1838, the angel had charge of them. In addition, there is no indication from Joseph that the angel ever returned them to him after that date until his death in 1844. Thus, in 1843 Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim and would have known he didn't. So if Hyrum would have "very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim," Joseph's response would have been that he didn't have them—not that "he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end." </p>
<p>In 1843, Hyrum Smith would have also known Joseph didn't have access to the Urim and Thummim. As one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon and a brother to Joseph, he would have known Joseph returned them to the angel shortly after completing the translation of the plates. As the Presiding Patriarch of the Church in 1843, he would also have known if Joseph received them again, which he didn't. Thus, Hyrum wouldn't have "very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim" knowing he didn't have them. </p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Thus, it appears that William Clayton lied about this exchange between Hyrum and Joseph. Some may say that he lied about a minor point which doesn't affect the the major thrust of his testimony that Joseph was a polygamist and brought forth the polygamy revelation which Emma destroyed. I disagree. If he was telling the truth about Joseph and the polygamy revelation, why would he have felt a need to embellish his account with a lie? The lie he told was for the purpose of giving credibility to the revelation. And if the revelation was truly the word of God, why would he need to give it credibility? The fact that he lied in his testimony about the Urim and Thummim makes me wonder what else he lied about—Joseph's polygamy and the revelation itself? I think so. Considering Emma's consistent testimony, as well as her outstanding honor and integrity throughout her entire life (<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2013/12/emma-smith-on-polygamy.html">see my blog post on Emma</a>), I have to believe her testimony is true that Joseph didn't bring forth what is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants and that William Clayton's testimony is false.</p>
<p>As additional proof that Joseph didn't author Section 132, if you have not already done so, <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdqf2jfwp26wqck/LDS%20D%26C%20132%20Writing%20Style%20Analysis%20by%20Enid%20DeBarthe.pdf?dl=0">download Enid DeBarthe's writing style analysis of Section 132</a>. After comparing the writing style of Joseph, Brigham Young, and others to that of Section 132, she concludes it was written by Brigham Young. If you have trouble downloading the PDF file, you may contact me at jsdefender1@gmail.com and I will email it to you. If you wish to know more about Enid's study or the method she used, go to the addendum at the bottom of my post, "<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2014/11/the-lds-churchs-plural-marriage.html">The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement</a>." </p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-6311600775021636942015-03-30T23:09:00.001-05:002015-03-31T09:34:36.528-05:00Helen Mar Kimball—Was She Joseph's Plural Wife?<div style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>As many are aware, in October 2014 the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng">LDS Church posted an article</a> to their Web site stating that Joseph Smith, Jr., was a polygamist and that one of his 30 to 40 plural wives was a 14-year-old named Helen Mar Kimball. (See my previous post, "<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2014/11/the-lds-churchs-plural-marriage.html">The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement</a>," as to why I believe they posted this article.) This official statement from the LDS Church created quite a media storm, in particular the part that Joseph married a 14-year-old girl. While the LDS Church may believe he married Helen Mar Kimball, after reviewing all of her available writings, I don't believe he did. </p>
<h2 style="font-size:14pt">Helen Mar's Background </h2>
<p> Helen Mar was the daughter of Heber C. Kimball (an apostle in the Quorum of Twelve at Joseph's death) and Vilate Murray. In his life, Heber admittedly married 43 women including some alleged plural wives of Joseph (Lucy Walker, Sarah Ann Whitney, Martha McBride, Prescinda Huntington, and Sarah Lawrence) as well as Hyrum Smith's second monogamous wife (after his first died), Mary Fielding Smith, mother of Joseph F. Smith. These marriages took place after Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths. Heber took his first plural wife in 1842 (see <a href="http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Heber_Chase_Kimball_(1801-1868)">familypedia.wikia.com</a>), which, for chronological reference, was prior to Joseph's alleged celestial marriage revelation of July 12, 1843.</p>
<p> According to Andrew Jenson, Helen Mar Kimball allegedly married Joseph Smith, Jr., in May 1843 (Andrew Jenson, <em>Historical Record</em> 6, 234). Todd Compton lists her as Joseph's 25th plural wife (Todd Compton, <em>In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith</em>, 6). When she allegedly married Joseph, she was 14 years old and was one of two 14-year-olds possibly married to Joseph, the other being Nancy Winchester (ibid., 6). These are the two girls that critics reference to accuse Joseph of pedophilia. In 1846, prior to leaving Nauvoo for the West, Helen Mar was married for time (and possibly eternity) to Horace Whitney (ibid., 504), son of Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Ann Smith. Horace was a brother to Sarah Ann Whitney (ibid., 343), who, as previously stated, was another alleged plural wife of Joseph. (See my blog post on <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2012/03/sarah-ann-whitney.html">Sarah Ann Whitney</a>.) Sarah Ann Whitney became the plural wife of Helen Mar's father (Heber C. Kimball) on January 12, 1846, in the Nauvoo Temple (ibid., 354). In 1856 Horace Whitney married a plural wife, Mary Cravath (ibid., 513). Horace died on November 22, 1884 (ibid., 523), and Helen Mar died November 15, 1896 (ibid., 533). </p>
<p>Even though Helen Mar allegedly started her polygamous life with Joseph Smith, Jr., in great opposition to this principle, she later became one of its most vocal female advocates and published several writings in support of its practice. According to Todd Compton, because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," she is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (ibid., 467). </p>
<h2 style="font-size:14pt">Helen Mar's Writings </h2>
<p>According to Todd Compton, Helen Mar wrote several items pertaining to her life in the LDS Church. </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>Her writings can be divided into four categories: two pamphlets, both defenses of polygamy; the <em>Woman’s Exponent</em> memoir; editorials published in the <em>Deseret News</em> and <em>Woman’s Exponent</em>; and her diary. </p>
<p>The first pamphlet—a broadside response to Reorganized Latter Day Saints president Joseph Smith III’s denial of his father, Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, involvement in polygamy—was <em>Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald.”</em> It was published by the Juvenile Instructor Office in 1882. The second was <em>Why We Practice Plural Marriage</em>, published by the same office two years later. References to these pamphlets appear frequently in Helen’s diaries. She gave copies of them to her relatives and friends outside of Salt Lake City to sell, and she often received payment for sales (for example, on January 2, 1885). These two pamphlets were impassioned defenses of polygamy that almost denounced monogamy as evil per se. They garnered attention as pleas for plural marriage from the perspective of a woman, although most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt. From May 1880 to August 1886, the<em> Woman’s Exponent</em> published Helen’s memoirs in serial form under the titles “Scenes and Incidents at Nauvoo,” “Our Travels beyond the Mississippi,” and “Scenes and Incidents at Winter Quarters.” (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 33) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Helen Mar's complete diary is contained in the book, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, edited by Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton. She began to write her diary in 1884 when her husband Horace became very ill unto death. She continued writing it until the month before her death in 1896 (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 1). </p>
<p>The series of her recollections (memoirs) published in the <em>Woman’s Exponent</em> have been compiled into the publication, <em>A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</em> by Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds. and can be read on-line. This publication also includes her March 30, 1881, autobiographical letter to her children and her obituary. According to "The Rest of Her Story" section of this publication, "Helen Mar notes in her earliest written autobiography [1876]: 'I never wrote or kept a Diary one day in my life [(Whitney, 'Autobiography,' 9 January 1876)].'" Also, the "Introduction" states : </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>In addition to this series of recollections [memoirs], Helen Mar wrote letters and poems for publication in the same newspaper [<em>Woman’s Exponent</em>] between 1 October 1880 and 1 March 1891, adding important details of her life and activity during this period.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain digital copies of her 1876 autobiography or her editorials published in the <em>Deseret News</em> and <em>Woman’s Exponent</em>. The conclusions I have made in this article are based on her writings listed below, which to my knowledge are the only ones available in digital format: </p>
<ul>
<li><em><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/268x70vfvebo0nq/Plural Marriage--Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith.pdf?dl=0">Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald”</a></em> </li>
<li><em><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/f60qgmmsy2ce7b5/Why_we_practice_plural_marriage.pdf?dl=0">Why We Practice Plural Marriage</a></em></li>
<li><em><a href="http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=usupress_pubs">A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</a></em></li>
<li><em><a href="http://rsc.byu.edu/out-print/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history">A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</a></em></li>
</ul>
<p>In my opinion, writers have taken quotes from her writings and have interpreted them to their prejudice, as well as interwoven them with the hearsay testimonies of others to support their position that she was Joseph's plural wife. I found that when I read her above writings without an author interpreting them for me, I received a totally different impression of her relationship with Joseph than that portrayed by other writers. </p>
<h2 style="font-size:14pt">Analysis of Her Writings </h2>
<p>Helen Mar's writings give us a true sense of who she was and whether or not she had a polygamous relationship with Joseph. Only she can tell us who she is. Only she can tell us about her relationship with Joseph. Her writings are considered primary evidence and as such are extremely important in proving whether or not she was Joseph's plural wife. If her writings, as primary evidence, don't prove they were married, in my opinion it is improbable that they actually were. </p>
<p>Any widow, even 35 years after her husband's death, should be able to provide enough details about her marriage ceremony and her marital relationship to convince anyone she was married to him. Since Compton said, as previously quoted, her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," make her "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, <em>In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith</em>, 467), I was expecting her writings to clearly support the position that she was married to Joseph—including personal references to their relationship as well as a detailed account of their wedding ceremony with a date of marriage. However, her writings are <em>almost silent</em> about these things. And, what little she does state about being married to Joseph, is not personal or consistent. Thus, it is both what she said, as well as what she didn't say, that has convinced me she was not Joseph's plural wife. </p>
<p>For the sake of analyzing her writings, I am dividing them into two categories: <em>her diary</em> and <em>her other writings</em>.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Her Diary </h3>
<p> Helen Mar's diary was written about her life from 1884–1896. In her diary, there are almost no entries pertaining to her alleged marriage to Joseph. However, scanning the diary, it appears she made a couple of references that need to be considered in determining whether she was actually married to Joseph. Her diary entry of June 27, 1887, includes the statement:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>Bro. Gensen called to see me—wants me to write up incidents of my life as soon as I can. I gave him a few incidents of Flora Gove’s life who was a wife of Joseph Smith (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, transcribers and editors,<em> A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 246) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The summary of her 1887 diary entries provided by the editors on page 213 of this work indicate that this diary entry was a reference that Helen Mar was visited by Andrew Jenson, who wrote the "Plural Marriage" article of <em>Historical Record</em> 6. </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>In July 1887, Jenson published a twenty-seven page article, "Plural Marriage," in his monthly <em>Historical Record</em>. It identified by name twenty-seven plural wives of Joseph Smith. (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em>, 1:11) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the "Plural Marriage" article, Jenson listed Helen Mar Kimball as a plural wife of Joseph and that they were married in May 1843. However, he didn't state the source for this information (Andrew Jenson, <em>Historical Record</em> 6, 234). If it is true that the "Gensen" in Helen Mar's diary is in fact Andrew Jenson, and since Jenson's article was published a month after the interview, then they may have talked about her alleged marriage to Joseph, including the date. </p>
<p>However, the diary entry itself doesn't support that such a conversation occurred. It is only evidence that Jenson wanted her to write about her life as soon as she could and that she told him of Flora Gove's marriage to Joseph. (Of course, this information about Flora Gove and Joseph from Helen Mar—a third party—is considered hearsay.) </p>
<p>It is interesting to me that she told of Gove's alleged plural marriage to Joseph—but not of her own. I would think that if she truly had been married to Joseph in 1843, she would have also mentioned it when she mentioned Gove's. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this statement by Helen Mar in her diary does not provide any evidence that she was actually married to Joseph. To conclude anything else is pure speculation. </p>
<p>The second diary reference that needs to be considered is a direct reference to her alleged marriage to Joseph. According to Hales, </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>It is obvious that Helen's sealing [to Joseph] was for both time and eternity. In 1886 Helen told a Brother Hyrum Kimball that she "was sealed to the Prophet in Nauvoo." She wrote: "He was astonished and so was I that he was ignorant of this fact." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:295; <em>The Widows Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, July 11, 1886 entry, 169). </p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is obvious from this diary entry is that in 1886 Helen Mar <em>believed</em> she had been married to Joseph in Nauvoo. However, her statement doesn't indicate <em>when</em> the alleged marriage took place. Was she referencing a sealing for time and eternity in 1843 or, as the Nauvoo Temple records state, a sealing for eternity in 1846 after Joseph's death? (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em>, 2:272) This is unclear, and her statement could have referenced either one. Thus, this entry doesn't substantiate that she was in fact married to Joseph in 1843 as his plural wife. </p>
<p>In addition, Helen Mar's shock that Hyrum Kimball didn't know about this event possibly shows that her alleged marriage to Joseph was not a known fact among those whom she felt should have known about this event. If her diary entry was referencing her alleged marriage to Joseph in 1843, this could indicate that such a marriage was merely in her mind and not in reality. As I proceed with the analysis of <em>her other writings</em>, this possibility will become more apparent.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Her Other Writings </h3>
<p>Some of <em>her other writings</em>, including the pamphlets, extensively discuss polygamy indicating Joseph as the author of this principle within the LDS Church. In reading these writings, both what she said about Horace and what she didn't say about Joseph has clearly convinced me that Helen Mar Kimball was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. </p>
<h4 style="font-size:12pt;font-style:italic">What She Said about Horace </h4>
<p>What she said about her marriage to Horace Whitney (in the Nauvoo Temple in 1846 just prior to their evacuation from Nauvoo) indicates to me she was never married to Joseph. She gives two accounts of her marriage to Horace which materially conflict with one another. In "The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo" she states: </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>At early twilight on the 3rd of February [1846] a messenger was sent by my father, informing H. K. Whitney and myself that this day finished their work in the temple, and that we were to present ourselves there that evening. The weather being fine we preferred to walk; and as we passed through the little graveyard at the foot of the hill a solemn covenant we entered into—to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity, <em>and this vow was solemnized at the holy altar</em>. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,<em> A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History, </em>"The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo";<em> Woman’s Exponent</em>, vol. 12, no. 11, 1 November 1883, p. 81, emphasis added) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this account, Helen Mar states that the vow ("to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity") was "solemnized at the holy altar." To me, this indicates that she and Horace were married for both time and eternity on February 3, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple. </p>
<p>However, in Helen Mar's earlier (March 30, 1881) autobiographical letter to her children she states: </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>Two years after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum I loved and married your father, Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney. He stood proxy for Joseph & I stood for Elizabeth Sikes. We were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple over the alter on the 3 of Feb. 1846. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,<em> A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</em>; "Appendix One")</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To me, this account means that on February 3, 1846, Helen Mar was married for <em>time</em> to Horace, but she was married for <em>eternity</em> to Joseph, who had died in 1844. Thus, her 1881 statement materially conflicts with her 1883 statement. Compton's chapter on Helen Mar Kimball supports her 1881 statement and suggests that she was remarried to Joseph for eternity in 1846, although he gives no reason why he accepted her 1881 statement over her 1883 statement. The Nauvoo Temple Proxy Sealing records also support Helen Mar's 1881 statement that she was sealed to Joseph for eternity in 1846 (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em>, 2:272). </p>
<p>Nevertheless, whichever statement of hers you want to believe, in my opinion they both support the position that Helen Mar was never sealed to Joseph as a plural wife during his life. If she had been sealed to Joseph in 1843 for time and eternity, she couldn't have also been sealed to Horace for eternity according to her 1883 statement. Similarly, if she had gone through a formal sealing ceremony (like the one alleged for Sarah Ann Whitney in 1842—<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2012/03/sarah-ann-whitney.html">see my blog post</a>) with Joseph in 1843 for both time and eternity, why would she have been sealed again in 1846 to Joseph for eternity according to her 1881 statement? Wasn't the first eternal sealing to the Prophet in his presence (and probably in the presence of other church officials including her father) sufficient? Since eternity never forgets, why would an eternal sealing have to be re-done? The fact that Helen Mar was sealed for eternity in 1846 to either Horace or Joseph indicates to me she was never sealed to Joseph in 1843, and thus she was never Joseph's plural wife. </p>
<p>Considering her diary statement in 1886 quoted above, these discrepancies give more support to the possibility that her marriage to Joseph in 1843 was a delusion and not a reality. If she had truly been married to Joseph, her actions and memories would have been true and consistent with the event. But the gross discrepancies in her accounts show that her belief that she was married to Joseph in 1843 was just that—a belief and not a fact. </p>
<h4 style="font-size:12pt;font-style:italic">What She Didn't Say about Joseph </h4>
<p>What Helen Mar didn't say about Joseph in<em> her other writings</em> makes me also believe she was not married to him in 1843. While her writings adamantly profess polygamy as truth and reference Joseph as the author of this principle, she never states anything personal about her relationship with him. She never indicates that her belief in the principle was a result of her actually living it with the Prophet himself. She never gives her date of marriage or any details about her marriage ceremony. She never states the fact of their marriage and only alludes to it once. </p>
<p>Others have also made similar observations. The editors of <em>A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</em> in their introduction state: </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>She makes no mention of the sealing [to Joseph Smith, Jr.] in these articles, in the brief autobiographical chapter in <em>Representative Women of Deseret</em>, nor in the two important pamphlets on the subject published in 1882. Apparently, the first sympathetic public announcement of her marriage to Joseph Smith was Andrew Jenson’s listing of the Prophet’s plural wives in 1887.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, Spencer Fluhman, an LDS historian, stated about the writings of Helen Mar:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>. . . her reminiscences convey little social interaction with Joseph Smith after the marriage, let alone an intimate physical relationship. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2:296; J. Spencer Fluhman, " 'A Subject That Can Bear Investigation': Anguish, Faith, and Joseph Smith's Youngest Plural Wife," 41-51)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, the position she takes about polygamy in<em> her other writings </em>does not appear to have been forged by a polygamous relationship with the Prophet of the LDS Church and author of the celestial marriage doctrine. Instead, it seems to be a parroting of the positions taken on this issue by the leaders of her church in that day. I agree with Compton's statement above that "most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt" (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 33)<em>.</em></p>
<h5 style="font-size:11pt;font-style:italic">Two Examples of What She Didn't Say about Joseph </h5>
<p>First, in <em>her other writings</em>, she makes some references that her father, Heber C. Kimball, explained the principle of celestial marriage to her and asked her to marry Joseph. One of these references is in her autobiographical letter to her children, March 30, 1881. According to this account, her father explained the principle and made his request to her on one day and on the next day Joseph came to her and her family to explain the principle and request her to marry him. About this event she states that her father: </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marriage—after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. </p>
<p>This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,<em> A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</em>; "Appendix One")</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Her <em>only</em> reference in all of<em> her other writings </em>which could be construed that she married Joseph was her vague statement above: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." Yet, as previously stated, in all of<em> her other writings </em>she never mentions the date of their marriage or anything more about their marriage, even though she mentions details of many other events occurring in her life during the year of 1843. </p>
<p>In addition, it seems odd to me in the above letter to her children that she didn't say more about her marriage to Joseph. If she had truly been married to him in 1843, this letter would have been the perfect vehicle to tell her family about their relationship and the influence it had on her belief in the correctness of plural marriage. Helen Mar was a part of the LDS Church royalty and elite (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 1, 2, 20, 34–35). This letter would have been an excellent way to pass on to her children the legacy and social status of her marriage to the Prophet so they could be proud of her as well as their own position in the LDS Church. It would have been a great opportunity to testify to them of the truth of the principle as one who lived it with the Prophet himself, setting an example for the women in her family as well as for all other women in the LDS Church. In my opinion, the fact that she did not state these things or similar ones in her letter to her children, or in <em>her other writings</em>, supports the position she was not married to Joseph in 1843. </p>
<p>Second, another instance of Helen Mar's failure to reference her personal relationship and marriage to Joseph in <em>her other writings</em> was her response to Joseph Smith III in her pamphlet, <em>Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald"</em>. In both of her pamphlets, she was passionate about her belief in the truth of the principle of celestial marriage or plurality of wives (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 33). And with her ability to passionately present her belief in the truth of the principle, she should have had no difficulty in presenting herself in her writing to Joseph Smith III as his father's plural wife. Yet in her response to Joseph Smith III, the prophet and president of the RLDS Church at the time, she never once referenced herself as Joseph Smith, Jr.'s, wife or gave any detail about him or their marriage. In order to convince Joseph Smith III that his father was a polygamist, this would have been the perfect time to have provided personal references and details of her and Joseph's relationship and marriage. And she could have spoken with authority as Joseph's plural wife who had lived the principle with him. In my opinion, the fact that she did not say these things in her writing to Joseph III indicates she was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. </p>
<h5 style="font-size:11pt;font-style:italic">The Importance of What She Didn't Say about Joseph </h5>
<p>According to Todd Compton, </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>. . . most polygamous men held elite status in Mormon society, so polygamy often offered plural wives similar status. Helen Mar had great prestige because of her marriage to Joseph Smith. Historians and visitors to Salt Lake City called on her to hear her experiences with polygamy in Nauvoo." (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, <em>A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney</em>, 20) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If this is true, why didn't she state in<em> her other writings </em>anything personal about her marriage to Joseph? The fact that she didn't do so has convinced me that she was not married to Joseph in reality, and greatly supports the possibility that she deluded herself, for whatever reason, into believing that she was married to him 1843.</p>
<h2 style="font-size:14pt">Other Considerations </h2>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Was Helen Mar's "Silence" for Another Reason? </h3>
<p>Could the argument be made that Helen Mar Kimball was so traumatized by her marital relationship with Joseph at age 14 that she buried it deep within her, refusing to bring it forth in her public writings? While I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, I understand that the details of such trauma can be hidden so deeply within the brain as a coping mechanism that they are not consciously recognized by the person as ever happening. However, this does not seem consistent with her publicly adamant support of polygamy later in life. In her writings she mentions the names of many other alleged plural wives of Joseph. In addition, she seems to have had no problem publicly defending and promoting in writing the principle of celestial marriage as allegedly taught by Joseph, even to the challenging of statements made by Joseph Smith III, as son of the Martyr and president of the RLDS Church. For these reasons I don't believe this argument could be substantiated. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Helen Mar's Signature </h3>
<p>On her autobiographical letter to her children dated March 30, 1881, she first signed the letter "Helen Mar Kimball Whitney" and then inserted "Smith" between "Kimball" and "Whitney" (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,<em> A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History</em>; "Appendix One") as an afterthought. If she had truly been married to the Prophet according to the principle of celestial marriage—which she adamantly believed in, prolifically wrote about, defended publicly against his son Joseph III, sacrificed so much for, and pioneered with the Prophet himself—she would not have forgotten to sign her married name of "Smith." While this may be a minor point, it is just another indication to me that she was never married to Joseph during his life. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Why Didn't Helen Mar Testify in the Temple Lot Suit? </h3>
<p>According to Hales, Helen Mar would have been a likely candidate to have testified for the Respondents (Church of Christ, Temple Lot and LDS Church) that she was a plural wife of Joseph, but she wasn't used for a specific reason. </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>At that time she lived in Salt Lake City where the depositions were held and had been a vocal defender of plural marriage in the 1880s. . . . I can identify no reason for Helen Mar Kimball to have been bypassed as a witness except that she could not testify of experiencing a full conjugal plural marriage with Joseph Smith, which was a primary focus of the defensive tactics of the attorneys for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). This observation provides support for my conclusion that the couple did not experience conjugality during their thirteen-month marriage. (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em> 2:29) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have two issues with this statement. First, if there were no sexual relations between Helen Mar and Joseph, in my opinion there was no plural marriage since one of the commonly known basic purposes of celestial marriage was to raise up righteous seed. And, if Joseph was the author of the principle of plural marriage, as prophet and leader of the Church, he would have felt the need to set the example for others to follow. Thus, in my way of thinking, if he was truly married to Helen Mar he would have had sexual relations with her. So, if he didn't have sexual relations with her, he wasn't married to her. </p>
<p>Second, I don't believe it was the lack of her sexual relations with Joseph that convinced the lawyers to not use her testimony in the case. I believe it was her lack of personal marriage references in her writings that would have made her a poor witness. Before the attorneys could establish that she had sexual relations with Joseph as his plural wife, they would first have to prove she had been married to him. With no personal references to their marriage in Helen Mar's public writings, it would have been impossible to establish in court with cross-examination that she had even been married to Joseph. In my opinion, she wasn't asked to testify in the Temple Lot Suit because the lawyers had no evidence to prove she was even married to Joseph. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:13pt">Catherine Lewis' Statement</h3>
<p>Hales stated about Catherine Lewis:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>After leaving the Church, dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen's saying: "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony." (Brian C. Hales, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy</em>, 2:296; Catherine Lewis, <em>Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities</em>, 19) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>A reader of this blog has provided me with Lewis' complete statement from her 1848 publication: </p>
<blockquote style="text-align:justify;font-size:11pt">
<p>The Twelve took Joseph's wives after his death. Kimball and Young took most of them; the daughter of Kimball was one of Joseph's wives. I heard her say to her mother, "I will never be sealed to my Father, and I would never have been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it. I say again, I will never be sealed to my Father; no, I will sooner be damned and go to hell, if I must. Neither will I be sealed to Brigham Young." The Apostles said they only took Joseph's wives to raise up children, carry them through to the next world, there deliver them up to him, by so doing they should gain his approbation, &c. (Catherine Lewis, <em>Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities</em>, 19)." </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This work was published in 1848 and Helen Mar Kimball was alive at the time. If she was aware of the publication, she could have commented in her writings about the truth or falsity of this statement. However, in her writings, I could find no reference to Lewis' publication. With no acknowledgement from Helen Mar, Lewis' above statement has to be considered hearsay and, as such, has little to no value in proving Helen Mar was a plural wife of Joseph. </p>
<h2 style="font-size:14pt">Conclusion</h2>
<p>As stated earlier, Todd Compton believes that because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," Helen Mar Kimball is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, <em>In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith</em>, 467). However, in her writings I found very little personal reference to Joseph, to their marital relationship, or to the event of their marriage including the date. And what she did mention about the event of their marriage was vague and contradictory. In my opinion, Helen Mar Kimball presented no evidence in her writings to support her belief, or anyone else's, that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. Thus, I don't believe that she was ever married to Joseph during his life. </p>
<p>And if Helen Mar Kimball, who allegedly is the most documented plural wife of Joseph, was never married to him, what about all the others?</p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-10451887909691852572014-11-11T23:05:00.000-06:002015-07-03T23:09:36.223-05:00The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement<div style="text-align:justify">
<p>For the last weeks of October and the first part of November, 2014, headlines similar to "The LDS Church Finally Admits Joseph Smith Was a Polygamist and Had a 14-Year-Old Bride" have been splashed across news sources from Salt Lake City to all points east and west. Of course, this is a result of the LDS Church recently posting the "<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng">Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo</a>" article to lds.org stating their official position that Joseph was a polygamist and, among other things, was married to a 14-year-old girl, Helen Mar Kimball. Naturally, because the LDS Church has been officially silent for almost a century about Joseph and polygamy, the news sources are under the impression that this is the first official statement by the LDS Church that Joseph was a polygamist. Actually, this was one of many actions of the LDS Church (since migrating to Utah) that have accused Joseph of being a polygamist. In addition, because of the sensationalism of the official statement by the LDS Church that Joseph was married to a 14-year-old girl, the news sources have taken up this chant so as to eagerly prove his allegedly depraved nature. However, when looking at the prolific writings of Helen Mar Kimball in support of polygamy, they don't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. Because both of these subjects are too lengthy to address in one blog post, today I will address the fact that the belief of the LDS Church has always been that Joseph was a polygamist. <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/search/label/Helen%20Mar%20Kimball">My next post will deal with the issue of Helen Mar Kimball</a>. </p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt">The Original Position of the LDS Church in Utah Was That Joseph Founded Polygamy </h2>
<p>The belief that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy is not a new position for the LDS Church. In 1852, Orson Pratt at the direction of Brigham Young, publicly read for the first time the purported revelation from Joseph Smith, Jr. on plural marriage, which is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Allegedly, prior to its public reading, Brigham Young had been holding this document in secret. This was the first official statement from the LDS Church legitimizing the practice of polygamy and crediting Joseph with its origin. Publicly crediting Joseph as the author of both the revelation and the doctrine—whether such credit was fact or fiction—was the galvanizing agent used by the LDS Church to bring their people together to openly accept and practice this principle. Those in the rank and file of the church who knew Joseph, both loved and revered him. Thus, when they were told in 1852 by their leaders, who they also respected, that Joseph had received a revelation nine years earlier indicating they were to openly practice celestial marriage and that their eternal salvation depended upon it, for the most part, they readily accepted it without question. </p>
<p>In the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s the sons of Joseph (Joseph III, Alexander, and David) came to Utah to preach against polygamy and try to establish that it was not taught or practiced by their father and was not a principle of the Church established through him. As a result of their efforts, their cousin Joseph F. Smith (<span class="style2">an apostle in the LDS Church at the time</span>) began a search for documentation to prove Joseph was a polygamist. According to Brian C. Hales, Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt (who had openly presented the alleged revelation on celestial marriage and who was a more senior apostle) in 1875 about his efforts to obtain evidence regarding Joseph's polygamy and was astonished at the lack of existing evidence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A few years ago [May 1869 to April 1870] I obtained the affidavits of as many as I knew of, with a few exceptions, who received personal instructions or commandment from The Prophet respecting the Subject of celestial marriage [,] all of which are filed away in the H.O. [Historian's Office].... When the subject first came before my mind I must say I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the Subject, as connected with the Prophet Joseph himself. There was nothing written and but few living who were personally knowing to the fact that Joseph Taught the principle. True much had been written in support of the Doctrine, bearing upon scriptural—and rational evidences, but not a word, except the Revelation itself. Showing that the The Prophet was the Author—under God.... (<em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History</em>, Brian C. Hales, p. 9) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since there was "almost total absence of direct evidence" of Joseph teaching or practicing polygamy, Joseph F. Smith had to resort to obtaining affidavits (signed statements, not made under penalty of law for perjury) of alleged plural wives of Joseph as well as those who stated they knew Joseph was a polygamist. According to Brian C. Hales, Joseph F. Smith obtained such affidavits from about fifty individuals (<em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 2: History</em>, Brian C. Hales, pp. 352-357). </p>
<p>In the 1880s Andrew Jenson, an LDS author, obtained additional affidavits (again, not made under penalty of law for perjury) and published them along with a list of 27 plural wives of Joseph Smith by name. According to Brian C. Hales:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In July 1887, Jenson published a twenty-seven page article, "Plural Marriage," in his monthly <em>Historical Record</em>. It identified by name twenty-seven plural wives of Joseph Smith. He also printed all seven of the Joseph F. Smith affidavits that the <em>Deseret News</em> had printed in 1879 and added several more new attestations [some of which were originally recorded by Joseph F. Smith] (<em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History</em>, Brian C. Hales, p.11). </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While the work done by Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson was not officially directed by the LDS Church, at the time of its collection, it was certainly not discouraged or denied by the Church. Today, it remains the core of evidence used to "prove" Joseph was a polygamist by the LDS Church in the mid to late 1800s, as well as by contemporary authors today. </p>
<p>However, in the 1890s, the LDS Church took another official stand that Joseph was a polygamist. The RLDS Church brought suit (Circuit Court of the United States, for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, at Kansas City, Missouri, Judge John F. Philips) against the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) for ownership of the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri. The LDS Church entered the suit on behalf of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) against the RLDS Church. The presence of the LDS Church in the trial was so notable "that Judge Philips in his decision spoke of it as 'the power behind the throne.' They furnished many leading witnesses, including Wilford Woodruff, president of the LDS Church, Lorenzo Snow, president of the Twelve, and at least two of the women who had become notorious by reason of their claim that they were plural wives of Joseph Smith the Martyr" (<em>The Church in Court</em>, compiled and arranged by Elbert A. Smith). </p>
<p>Since neither party owned a warranty deed to the land, the court had to decide who was the proper successor to the original LDS Church which had purchased the 63.27 acre tract containing the Temple Lot. Thus, the court investigated the original beliefs of the Church, as well as the beliefs of the churches represented at the suit, to determine which church was the legitimate continuation of the original church and entitled to the property. The LDS Church officially took the position that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. However, according to the Judge, they could not prove their case. While the court's decision to award ownership of the Temple Lot to the RLDS Church was overturned in appeals court because of laches (too much time delay in suing for ownership), the lower court's decision about the original teachings of the church and Joseph's innocence regarding polygamy was not overturned. For more information about the Temple Lot Suit see my blog "<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/10/why-is-temple-lot-suit-important.html">Why is the Temple Lot Suit important?</a>"</p>
<p>From the above it is important to remember that, according to Joseph F. Smith, the only evidence the LDS Church has that Joseph was a polygamist are the statements of individuals associated with polygamy. And when the LDS Church presented their case in a court of law to prove that Joseph was a polygamist, their evidence was too weak to convince the judge that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Nevertheless, the original position of the LDS Church from 1852 on was that polygamy originated with Joseph. </p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt">The LDS Church Stopped Teaching that Joseph Was a Polygamist </h2>
<p>It is my understanding that since the Manifesto in 1890, the LDS Church gradually stopped teaching their previous position that Joseph was a polygamist. As a result, several generations of LDS were not taught about polygamy in their church, but emphasis was placed on monogamy as the basis of the family unit. Joseph and Emma, in a monogamous relationship, with their children were depicted as the perfect example of harmony and family life. The concept of polygamy and the history of its past practice was skillfully eradicated from common LDS thought. It wasn't until about the mid-1900s that the work of Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson as well as the allegations made by Bennett, the Laws, the Higbee's, and anti-Mormon enemies of Joseph, began to be revisited by authors to paint Joseph as a polygamist. However, the publishing explosion of these types of books didn't occur until about the 1980s. Because the LDS Church had "covered up" these allegations from the past about Joseph practicing polygamy in order to distance itself from the teaching and practice of polygamy, authors have treated their books as exposés about Joseph—he was a deceiver, a liar, a whoremonger, a dictator, an adulterer, a pedophile, and in general a sex-driven maniac. In their minds they have uncovered the "truth" about him and informed not only the membership of the LDS Church, but the world, of his "true" nature and actions. But in my opinion, what they have uncovered are the lies told about Joseph by both his enemies and the mid-1800 leaders of the Utah LDS Church.</p>
<p>After having read several of these authors, it is my opinion that their purpose is only to prove how much of a polygamist Joseph was. They never consider any evidence (including his relentless statements and those of his family) that point to the possibility he was telling the truth that he was not a polygamist. So all they have done with their books is resurrect all the old evidence stating Joseph was a polygamist and made it "new" again. See my blog posts on "The 'New' Attack of Joseph"—<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/04/new-attack-on-joseph.html">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/08/new-attack-on-joseph-part-2.html">Part 2</a>. And now the LDS Church has officially taken the same position as these authors, which ironically, was the Utah LDS Church's original position. Officially, the LDS Church has gone full circle in their assertions that Joseph was a polygamist. </p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt"> What Is My Take on All of This? </h2>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt">First, My Beliefs about Joseph </h3>
<p>To understand my opinion about the recent plural marriage statement of the LDS Church, whether you agree with it or not, you need to understand my position about Joseph and polygamy. I don't believe Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. I believe that many of the high officials (including most of the Council of Twelve Apostles) began to secretly teach and practice polygamy in Nauvoo and attached Joseph's name to it in order to promote their position. I don't believe that the polygamy revelation (Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants) was authored by the Lord or Joseph. Some might say I have this belief because of my RLDS upbringing. It is true that this background influenced my original beliefs on this subject, as anyone's upbringing affects their original belief system. However, as I have investigated both sides of the issues including scrutinizing source materials such as Jenson's "Plural Marriage" article in the <em>Historical Record</em>, Udney Jacob's <em>The Peace Maker</em>, the <em>Nauvoo Expositor</em>, statements made by the Whitney's, Eliza Snow, John C. Bennett, the Laws and Higbee's, the writings of Helen Mar Kimball, interviews of Sarah Pratt, etc., I have found that the truthfulness of their allegations break down and don't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Joseph is on trial in our minds, and as such, should be considered innocent until the facts (<em>truth</em>, not hearsay or opinions) prove him guilty. None of the source material I have read proves him guilty, and thus he remains innocent to me. The contemporary authors stating Joseph was a polygamist, and now the LDS Church, have not proven to me that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. The reason they have not done so is that I don't agree with their interpretation of the source material I have read for myself, and they fail—almost refusing—to deal with all the evidence proving Joseph was innocent. Their approach has been to show how much of a polygamist Joseph was, not to determine <em>if</em> he was. I feel their conclusions are tainted because their paradigm that he was a polygamist excludes evidence supporting his innocence and brings them to only one conclusion--he is really guilty of the most heinous acts including marriage to the 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. However, my investigations have not proved him to be such, and until they do, he will remain innocent to me.</p>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt">Why Did the LDS Church Revisit Their Original Position that Joseph was a Polygamist? </h3>
<p>In short, they did so for damage control. As stated earlier, for about 100 years the LDS Church did not teach to their members their original position that Joseph was a polygamist. Several generations were raised on monogamous family values with their first prophet, Joseph, leading the way. Since the 1980s, there has been an explosion of books using documentation by the mid-1800s LDS Church, as well as enemies of Joseph, to "prove" Joseph was not only a polygamist, but an evil person. Because of this information and silence from the LDS Church on this issue, many members became disillusioned and left, and are still leaving, the LDS Church. And it seems the issue is not dying, only heating up. I recently learned from a <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1742980-155/tribtalk-smith-com-joseph-mormon-essay">video interview</a> on the <em>The Salt Lake Tribune</em> Web site, that Brian C. Hales—who recently published (2013) the three-volume book, <em>Joseph Smith's Polygamy—</em>is co-authoring with his wife, Laura Hales, another book entitled, <em>Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Polygamy—Separating Fact from Fiction</em>, which should released in early 2015. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, Volume 2 of <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em>, the only series of books defending Joseph's innocence, has recently been released in print. Because of their silence on the issue, the LDS Church has appeared to its members to be covering up the issues made public by the contemporary authors supporting the position that Joseph was a polygamist. The appearance of cover-up by the LDS Church has only fueled the disillusionment among the members. Thus, the LDS Church was forced to take a stand on the issue to assure their membership they are aware of the issues and are not covering up anything.</p>
<p>So why did the LDS Church stand against Joseph's innocence? In my opinion, they had no choice but to do so if they wished to preserve their church. Since I believe that the leaders of the LDS Church that went west with Brigham lied about Joseph teaching and practicing polygamy to justify their continued practice of the principle, the current LDS Church could not expose that lie and preserve their church. For the LDS Church leaders today to say that Brigham, the apostles, other church leaders, and their plural wives lied about Joseph's involvement in polygamy would put in question the authority of their church as the "true" church and heir to the Church established by Joseph. In addition, it would put in question other beliefs and practices emanating from Brigham Young. Since the LDS Church could no longer be silent about the issue and could not defend Joseph's innocence and still maintain the authority of their church, their only choice was to once again throw Joseph "under the bus" to preserve their way of life. (If you think my criticism is unwarranted because of my RLDS background, please be assured it is not about the LDS Church as such, but about their treatment of Joseph. I am just as critical about the RLDS Church leadership that also threw Joseph "under the bus" many years ago in order to promote the current liberal Protestantism of the Community of Christ.) I believe that, unfortunately, the LDS Church leadership have only just started their descent down a very slippery slope because their statement was too general and too rationalizing of polygamy to satisfy the intellectual and liberal members of their church. According to some of the opinions of the three women on the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1742980-155/tribtalk-smith-com-joseph-mormon-essay">video interview</a> by <em>The Salt Lake Tribune </em>reporter mentioned above, the statement made by the LDS Church on plural marriage was good for a start, but the church needs to address the issues of polygamy and its beginnings in the church more in-depth.</p>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt"> What Is Next? </h3>
<p>For me, the statement by the LDS Church was inevitable. They had to control the damage done to their church by the Joseph-was-a-polygamist authors by jumping on board to spin the information in a way that would minimize its adverse impact on their members. In my opinion, the plural marriage statement is just the beginning for the LDS Church because these authors and the intellectual, liberal members will not stop until the LDS Church admits the full extent of what these authors say about Joseph and polygamy. </p>
<p>What is next for me? I will still continue to defend Joseph. The fact that the LDS Church is again officially saying Joseph was a polygamist has no bearing on my stand. They are just reiterating what authors have already said. Since these authors haven't yet proven their case to me, the LDS Church jumping on the band wagon is certainly not going to make a difference. The reason I can say this is that I have evaluated many sources used by these authors and have determined they are very weak in proving Joseph was a polygamist. Since Joseph's alleged polygamy took place over 170 years ago, I don't foresee any "new and convincing evidence" surfacing that would push me to the other side. However, I do find the study of this subject very interesting and will continue to pursue the truth about Joseph and polygamy.</p>
<p>But how about you? What is next for you? For those of you who already believe Joseph was a polygamist, the official statement by the LDS Church is confirmation to you of what you believe to be true. For those of you who have studied out this issue and, like me, have come to the conclusion that Joseph was not a polygamist, the statement is just a reiteration of what authors have already said against Joseph and thus, not too earth shaking. But for those LDS who have either heard the "rumors" about Joseph and polygamy or are hearing this about Joseph for the first time, you could be very disturbed and overwhelmed. For you it isn't an issue that some "wacko" authors are bringing to your attention. Your church, which has probably not taught you anything about this issue in the past, is now officially stating that Joseph was a polygamist. Since you can't ignore the official position of your church, what do you do about it? In my opinion, you can either choose to accept it and go on, or you can choose to investigate the issue for yourself and make up your own mind as to whether you agree or disagree with the official opinion of your church.</p>
<p>If you choose to investigate this for yourself, I have some suggestions for you. First, you need to get your head in the game. Don't be concerned about what other people believe or say about this issue. As I indicated earlier, just because published authors and now the LDS Church are saying Joseph was a polygamist, doesn't make it so. The only thing that makes it so, is if he really was a polygamist. So the only thing that should matter to you is that you find out the truth about Joseph and polygamy for yourself. </p>
<p>Second, you need to approach your investigation as if Joseph is on trial (which he is) and you are the jury. Remember that in our court system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. To come to the truth, you must presume Joseph's innocence until the presented facts prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means you must review the evidence against him to determine if it is a fact (or true). If the evidence presented against him is not a fact (or not true) then you must reject it. Opinions and hearsay are not facts. Eyewitness accounts are acceptable as long as the witness is a person of integrity and has no reason to lie. Discrepancies in a person's testimony, or with what they said earlier, or with other accounts of the same event must be resolved. Otherwise, the truthfulness of their testimony is questionable. Evidence collected or statements made close to the event tend to be more accurate and reliable than those collected or made many years after the event. Generally, statements made close to the event are more detailed than those made many years after the event. Detailed statements made many years after an event tend to be questionable due to the fact that memory fades over time. </p>
<p>Third, don't forget to investigate and evaluate the defendant's (Joseph's) evidence. The best source of this information is the book, <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</a>, which is over three volumes of information supporting Joseph's innocence and is free to read. Since the book is not finished yet, continue to check back for new chapters. </p>
<p>Fourth, when doing your investigation, don't just take the author's word for interpretation of source material. Go to the source they reference and evaluate it yourself. If you do this you will be surprised, as I have been, how authors can misinterpret or bend the meaning of source material to fit their premise or support their conclusions. </p>
<p>Fifth, the whole issue of Joseph and polygamy can be a big, complicated mess. So as not to get overwhelmed, take one aspect of it that interests you, study it thoroughly from both sides, and make your judgment on that issue. Then, move on to the next one. </p>
<p>Sixth, if after evaluating all the evidence pro and con, you reasonably doubt that Joseph is guilty of being a polygamist, you must in your mind acquit him of the charges and deem him innocent.. </p>
<p>While I realize this process is a little legalistic, it is the only way to fairly evaluate Joseph's guilt or innocence and give you the ability to determine this for yourself without being influenced by the opinions of others. In addition to the above, I suggest you add one more important step to your investigation—make it a diligent matter of prayer. Ask the Lord to show you in your studies whether or not Joseph was a polygamist. He knows the truth and He will show it to you in the way that will convince you. When He does, you will be satisfied in your soul about this issue. These are all the steps I have used to research this issue and they have led me to believe Joseph was innocent of both teaching and practicing polygamy. </p>
<p>God bless you in your pursuit of the truth about Joseph and polygamy. My next post will be about Helen Mar Kimball—was she really Joseph's wife? </p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt">Addendum (2/6/15): Authorship of LDS D&C Section 132 Determined by Writing Style Analysis</h2>
<p>The following was posted on 12/31/14 anonymously as a comment: “Have you ever read Enid DeBarthe's thesis paper on an analysis of the writing style of the author of Section 132 MDC? She proves incontrovertibly that Brigham Young was its author. I have had a physical copy of it for almost 30 years, but didn't take the time to digitize it until a couple of weeks ago. I have never heard anybody mention it in any polygamy discussions. It is quite lengthy and technical, but if you would be interested in reading it, I can send it to your email.”</p>
<p>I responded that I was interested in getting a digital copy and gave my email address. However, I never received a copy of this document. Since this post, I asked around locally if any of my contacts knew of this document and where I could get a copy to digitize. I soon found out that Enid DeBarthe’s sister had recently begun attending our church. Her sister put me in contact with Enid’s son who had a copy of the document. It is a 348 page book which he allowed be to digitize. There are only three in existence.</p>
<p>According to the title page, the book is entitled, “A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON JOSEPH SMITH II THE MORMON PROPHET-LEADER.” Enid DeBarthe wrote this book as a “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Library Science” for the “Faculty of the Graduate School Northern Illinois University” in July 1969. The major portion of the book is about Joseph Smith (his teachings and writings), the movement of the Church from New York to eventually Illinois, and the disbursement of the Church after Joseph’s death. It is the appendix of the book (oddly not listed in the table of contents) which analyzes the writing styles of both LDS D&C 132 and the King Follett sermon and compares them to the writing styles of several men, including Joseph and Brigham Young, to determine the likely author of these documents. It is her conclusion that “Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon” (p. 315).</p>
<p>Today, the type of writing analysis she used is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry">stylometry</a>, which compares the writing style, using various criteria, of a document with unknown or disputed authorship to the writing styles of various authors to determine correct authorship. Presently, there are several computer programs which are used to do this task. However, Enid DeBarthe, in 1969, had to do this manually by counting words as well as comparing sentence structure and phraseology. The study and analysis she did was very detailed and remarkable for her time. </p>
<p>Since there has been so much interest expressed to read this analysis, I have made a PDF file of it available for you to <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdqf2jfwp26wqck/LDS%20D%26C%20132%20Writing%20Style%20Analysis%20by%20Enid%20DeBarthe.pdf?dl=0">download</a>. If you have trouble downloading it, you may contact me at <a href="mailto:jsdefender1@gmail.com">jsdefender1@gmail.com</a> and I will email it to you. </p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com52tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-68872341740682550112013-12-16T14:26:00.001-06:002022-02-20T14:32:57.320-06:00Emma Smith on Polygamy<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Why Quote Emma? </h2>
<p>For the most part, those who write that Joseph was a polygamist quote some of his alleged plural wives who state that Emma Smith supported polygamy. However, these writers avoid quoting Emma herself. In fact, they seem to "forget" that Emma made statements against polygamy and gave several interviews supporting the position that Joseph was not a polygamist. However, when authors do mention her statements, they rarely quote them but just say that Emma verbally opposed polygamy after Joseph's death so that her children would be sheltered against Joseph's polygamist activities. I feel that either the omission or degredation of Emma's testimony on their part is at best self-serving because it does not fit their paradyme that Joseph was a polygamist. At worst, it is disrespectful to Emma considering all the great personal sacrafices she made to support and promote the Restored Gospel. If anyone knew the truth about Joseph, it was Emma for she was his companion and helpmate who suffered with him from the beginning of the Restoration Movement through his death. She has earned the right for her opinions to be heard and given great weight concerning Joseph and polygamy. By all who knew her both within the church and the community, she was a women of great compassion, honor, integrity, and truthfulness until the day she died. She truly embodied the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout her entire life. If we cannot believe Emma about Joseph, who can we believe! For these reasons I have decided to quote some of the more emphatic statements Emma made in defense of Joseph. It is time that Emma's testimony is heard and given its proper due. </p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Emma's Statements </h2>
<h3 style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic;">Interviews by Edmund C. Briggs</h3>
<p>As background, Edmund C. Briggs was one of the first missionaries for the Reorganization. In 1856, he and Samuel Gurley were commissioned to visit Joseph Smith III, inform him about the Reorganization, and tell him that the Lord had revealed to them that he was to succeed his father as president of the Church and priesthood and join them in the Reorganization. At that time, Joseph refused to entertain this idea but remained open to the Lord leading him how He willed. Edmund remained in Nauvoo and came to know the Smith's quite well, including Emma who he interviewed several times. He stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I remained in Nauvoo and vicinity until the fall of 1857; worked a part of the time for Joseph on his farm—though he had moved into the city and his brother, Frederick, worked the place.</p>
<p>I became quite well acquainted with the Smith family. Frederick was prepossessing; in fact, a gentleman in his appearance, open and frank in his countenance, six feet high and well proportioned, and I noticed he was very affectionate to his mother and often saluted her with a loving kiss and good morning or good-bye. Everybody loved him.</p>
<p>Joseph was always cheerful, very respectful to his mother, always seemed to be busy. Alexander was always quiet around the house and doing chores. David was a handsome boy, modest and retiring in disposition, studious, and quite an artist; loved and admired by everybody who formed his acquaintance. Sister Emma was an exceptionally good woman, whom everybody spoke of as an example worthy of imitation. In fact, the whole family were esteemed by all people who knew them as good, worthy citizens above reproach, having the reputation of being strictly moral and temperate in all things.</p>
<p>The people in and out of the Church about Nauvoo, who personally knew Joseph Smith before he was murdered, spoke of him with respect and declared he was a good, honorable man, a worthy citizen, and declared the scandalous stories circulated about him were base misrepresentations put in circulation because of religious intolerance, or by his political enemies. </p>
<p>And Sister Emma, in speaking of the condition of the Church after her husband’s death, said to me, “I was threatened by Brigham Young because I opposed and denounced his measures and would not go west with them. At that time, they did not know where they were going themselves, but he told me that he would yet bring me prostrate to his feet. My house was set on fire several times, and one time wood was piled up at the side of the house and set afire. It burned the siding considerably and went out before we discovered it. It was either set on fire, or by accident or carelessness caught afire a number of times, and went out of itself when we did not discover it and put it out; but I never had any fear that the house would bum down as long as the Inspired Translation of the Bible was in it. I always felt safe when it was in the house, for I knew it could not be destroyed.”</p>
<p>She spoke very affectionately of Joseph, and said, “I never had any reason to oppose him, for we were always on the best of terms ourselves, but he allowed some others to persuade him in some measures against his will, and those things I opposed. He was opposed to the destroying of the press of the Nauvoo <span class="italic">Expositor</span>, but the council overruled him by vote and he told them they were the cause of its destruction, but he would be held personally responsible for it; and I often heard Joseph contend against measures in council, and sometimes he would yield to them.”</p>
<p>I said, “Those were city councils?”</p>
<p>She replied, “Sometimes, and other times in councils of the Church, which were often held in our house. For the last eighteen months or two years before his death, it seemed the best elders were kept away from him as much as possible on missions, and the worst characters in the Church hovered around him all the time.”</p>
<p>When Sister Emma made the above statements, it was a real revelation to me. I had not realized before how the Church came to so soon run into such a horrible apostasy. She spoke so endearingly of Joseph, in confidence, tears filling her eyes, that I could see she reverenced his very memory, and had full faith in Joseph’s inspiration as a prophet of God, and she always denied to me in the most emphatic language that he taught or practiced polygamy.</p>
<p>Again, she said several times in conversation with me that the Utah Mormons had by their acts, since the death of her husband, made true all the slanders and vile things charged against the Church. I was also present when my brother, Jason Briggs, asked Sister Emma in relation to the purported revelation on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt in 1852, and she again denied that her husband ever taught polygamy, or that she ever burned any manuscript of a revelation purporting to favor polygamy, and that “the statement that I burned the original of the copy Brigham Young claimed to have, is false, and made out of whole cloth, and not true in any particular.” My brother was quite particular in his inquiry, when she said, “I never saw anything purporting to be a revelation authorizing polygamy until I saw it in the Seer, published by Orson Pratt.” Several were present at the time, and I shall never forget the candid manner of her expression when she, without a single hesitancy, with honesty and truthfulness marking her countenance, gave the lie to Brigham Young’s assertion on the twenty-ninth of August 1852 in Salt Lake City, when he said, “The original of this revelation was burned up.... Sister Emma burned the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation, supposed it was not now in existence.” Mark the thought: <i>“The people who did know of the revelation, supposed it was not now in existence.”</i> (<i>Early History of the Reorganization</i>, Apostle Edmund C. Briggs, pp. 88, 93-95) </p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic;">Interview by Jason W. Briggs </h3>
<p>Historically, in 1851 Jason W. Briggs (older brother to Edmund C. Briggs) received a revelation which was the beginning point of the Reorganization. In the revelation, the Lord confirmed that Joseph was not a polygamist (see my blog article, "<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2010/03/lord-declared-joseph-innocent-of.html">The Lord Declared Joseph Innocent of Polygamy</a>") and promised the scattered Saints that He would bring forth the seed of Joseph Smith, Jr. to lead them as their prophet. In 1867, after Joseph III had led the Reorganization for seven years and Emma had been a member for the same amount of time, Jason Briggs visited Emma in Nauvoo to inquiry of her about Joseph's purported polygamy revelation (LDS D&C 132) and his involvement with polygamy. Concerning the alleged revelation and subsequent interview with Emma, Jason W. Briggs states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> It [the polygamy revelation] purports to have been given through Joseph Smith; which, if true, our conclusions respecting its character, would make him either the victim or the instrument of deception and fraud. It must be remembered that its appearance, other than in some dark corner, if indeed there, was not until August, 1852, over eight years after the death of Joseph Smith. And when introduced, certain statements are made, which, if true, would seem to establish the claim that it came through him. This statement of facts is, that when the revelation was given, Emma Smith got possession of it in its<i> original and 'burnt it'.</i> Upon this point we subjoin the following questions and answers from a memorandum of an interview with the Sister Emma Smith referred to (now Mrs. Bidamon), at Nauvoo, in April, 1867.</p>
<p>J. W. Briggs.—Mrs. Bidamon, have you seen the revelation on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt, in the Seer, in 1852? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—I have. </p>
<p>J. W. B.—Have you read it? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—I have read it, and heard it read. </p>
<p>J. W. B.—Did you ever see that document in manuscript, previous to its publication, by Pratt? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—I never did. </p>
<p>J. W. B.—Did you ever see any document of that kind, purporting to be a revelation, to authorize polygamy? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—No; I never did. </p>
<p>J. W. B.—Did Joseph Smith ever teach you the principles of polygamy, as being revealed to him, or as a correct and righteous principle? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—He never did. </p>
<p>J. W. B.—What about that statement of Brigham Young, that you burnt the original manuscript of that revelation? </p>
<p>Mrs. B.—It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth. </p>
<p>This certainly stamps the most circumstantial fact alleged, in support of the genuineness of that document, as a base fraud, in keeping with the document itself. False facts are usually alleged to support false theories. Thus at every step in the investigation of this subject, proof develops how untenable is the position assumed for polygamy, both in its alleged facts, its principles, and its fruits.—<i>The Messenger</i>, vol. 1, p. 23. (RLDS <i>History of the Church</i> 3:351-352) </p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic;">Interview by Joseph Smith III </h3>
<blockquote>
<h4 align="center" style="font-size: 10pt;">LAST TESTIMONY OF SISTER EMMA. </h4>
<p>In a conversation held in the Herald Office during the early days of the present year [1879], between Bishop Rogers, Elders W. W. Blair, H. A. Stebbins, and a few others, leading minds in the church, it was thought advisable to secure from Mother Bidamon (Sister Emma Smith) her testimony upon certain points upon which various opinions existed; and to do this, it was decided to present to her a few prominent questions, which were penned and agreed upon, the answers to which might, so far as she was concerned, settle these differences of opinion. In accordance with this understanding the Senior Editor of the Herald [Joseph III] visited Nauvoo, in February last, arriving on the 4th and remaining until the 10th. Sister Emma answered the questions freely and in the presence of her husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, who was generally present in their sitting room where the conversation took place. We were more particular in this, because it had been frequently stated to us: "Ask your mother, she knows." "Why don't you ask your mother; she dare not deny these things." "You do not dare to ask your mother!" </p>
<p>Our thought was, that if we had lacked courage to ask her, because we feared the answers she might give, we would put aside that fear; and, whatever the worst might be, we would hear it. The result is given below; it having been decided to give the statements to the readers of the <i>Herald</i>, in view of the death of Sister Emma having occurred so soon after she made them, thus giving them the character of a last testimony. </p>
<p>It is intended to incorporate these questions and answers in the forthcoming history of the Reorganization. </p>
<p>We apologized to our mother for putting the questions respecting polygamy and plural wives, as we felt we ought to do. </p>
<p>Question.—Who performed the marriage ceremony for Joseph Smith and Emma Hale? When? Where? </p>
<p>Answer.—I was married at South Bainbridge, New York; at the house of Squire Tarbell, by him, when I was in my twenty—second or twenty—third year. </p>
<p>We here suggested that Mother Smith's History gave the date of the marriage as January 18, 1827. To this she replied:— </p>
<p>I think the date correct. My certificate of marriage was lost many years ago, in some of the marches we were forced to make. </p>
<p>In answer to a suggestion by us that she might mistake about who married Father and herself; and that it was rumored that it was Sidney Rigdon, or a Presbyterian clergyman, she stated:— </p>
<p>It was not Sidney Rigdon, for I did not see him for years after that. It was not a Presbyterian clergyman. I was visiting at Mr. Stowell's, who lived in Bainbridge, and saw your father there. I had no intention of marrying when I left home; but, during my visit at Mr. Stowell's, your father visited me there. My folks were bitterly opposed to him; and, being importuned by your father, aided by Mr. Stowell, who urged me to marry him, and preferring to marry him to any other man I knew, I consented. We went to Squire Tarbell's and were married. Afterwards, when Father found that I was married, he sent for us. The account in Mother Smith's History is substantially correct as to date and place. Your father bought your uncle Jesse's [Hale] place, off Father's farm, and we lived there till the Book of Mormon was translated; and I think published. I was not in Palmyra long. </p>
<p>Q—What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery? </p>
<p>A.—There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that, in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possibly be, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven." </p>
<p>No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of. </p>
<p>Q.—Did he not have other wives than yourself? </p>
<p>A.—He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have. </p>
<p> Q—Did he not hold marital relation with women other than yourself? </p>
<p>A.—He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge. </p>
<p>Q.—Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect? </p>
<p>A.—At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise. </p>
<p>Q.—What was the condition of feeling between you and Father? </p>
<p>A.—It was good. </p>
<p>Q.—Were you in the habit of quarreling?</p>
<p> A.—No. There was no necessity for any quarreling. He knew that I wished for nothing but what was right; and, as he wished for nothing else, we did not disagree. He usually gave some heed to what I had to say. It was quite a grievous thing to many that I had any influence with him. </p>
<p>Q.—It has been stated sometimes that you apostatized at Father's death, and joined the Methodist Church. What do you say to this? </p>
<p>A.—I have been called apostate; but I have never apostatized, nor forsaken the faith I at first accepted; but was called so because I would not accept their new—fangled notion. </p>
<p>Q.—By whom were you baptized? Do you remember? </p>
<p>A.—I think by Oliver Cowdery, at Bainbridge. </p>
<p>Q.—You say that you were married at South Bainbridge, and have used the word Bainbridge. Were they one and the same town? </p>
<p>A.—No. There was Bainbridge and South Bainbridge; some distance apart; how far I don't know. I was in South Bainbridge. </p>
<p>These questions, and the answers she had given to them, were read to my mother by me, the day before my leaving Nauvoo for home, and were affirmed by her. Major Bidamon stated that he had frequently conversed with her on the subject of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and her present answers were substantially what she had always stated in regard to it.</p>
<p align="right"> Joseph Smith [III]. —<i>The Saints' Herald</i>, vol. 26, pp. 289, 290.<br />
(RLDS <i>History of the Church</i> 3:353-358;<br />
<i>The Saints Advocate</i> 2:49-52, October 1879) </p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic;">Vienna Jaques' Conversation with Joseph Smith III </h3>
<p>According to Joseph Smith III:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>During the weeks of my stay at Salt Lake City on this mission [his first to Utah, 1876], I was visited by several whom I had known at Nauvoo. They were people who, I had reason to know, under the common circumstances of life would have had opportunity to know something of the life of my parents, either favorable or otherwise as events might have proved.</p>
<p>One of these was a woman, Vienna Jaques, whom I first remembered as having been at Kirtland when I was but a child. Later I saw her frequently at Nauvoo, a reputed "old maid" who was often a visitor in our home. She called at Brother Reinsimar's one afternoon, ostensibly to "tell me what she knew." I was indeed pleased to meet her again. I need not attempt to relate all the communication which passed between us, but after she had, in a way, spoken favorably of the plural wife system of marriage, I asked her how it happened she was still an unmarried woman, jocularly remarking:</p>
<p>"Sister Vienna, since this is such a much-marrying country, I marvel that you have not married long ago, and become the plural wife of some respectable high priest or bishop!"</p>
<p>Rather blushingly she answered. "No, Brother Joseph, I have never married, either as a one wife or as a plural one."</p>
<p>"How does this happen, and you such a warm advocate of the doctrine?"</p>
<p>To my surprise she became intensely sober and tears started from her eyes. With trembling lips and in a hushed voice she said: </p>
<p>"Brother Joseph, I will tell you. Do you remember the Ladies' Society that was formed at Nauvoo, of which your mother was president?"</p>
<p>I told her that I did, that the <i>Times and Seasons</i> had a record of it, too. </p>
<p>"Well," she went on, "at one of the meetings of the society when your mother was not present the subject of spiritual wifery came up as a matter of talk and speculation. Some said there was such a doctrine as that being taught. I had always been peculiarly disposed toward marriage. I considered it to be a relation of such high and sacred character that no one should enter into it hastily or think or speak of it in a light and foolish manner. When those women discussed the matter and asserted that such a doctrine was being talked of, I refused to believe it, and said I would ask your mother about it. Some of them tried to persuade me not to do that, but my mind was made up, and I told them so.</p>
<p>"The next day I visited your mother at her home, and had a talk with her. She told me she had asked her husband, the prophet, about the stories which were being circulated among the women concerning such a doctrine being taught, and that he had told her to tell the sisters of the society that if any man, no matter who he was, undertook to talk such stuff to them in their houses, to just order him out at once, and if he did not go immediately, to take the tongs or the broom and drive him out, for the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing." </p>
<p>Naturally I was pleased to hear this testimony. I said, "Did you go back and tell the ladies of the society what my mother told you?"</p>
<p>"Yes, I did; I talked to them in the society and with many of them privately, and tried my best to set them right." (<i>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III</i>, p. 170; <i>The Saint's Herald</i>, October 15, 1935, p. 1329) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>For additional statements by Emma regarding Joseph and polygamy, read "<a href="https://restorationbookstore.org/pages/emmas-fight-against-polygamy">Emma's Fight Against Polygamy</a>," by Richard Price. </p>
<p>The statements made by Emma about Joseph and polygamy spanned many years from before Joseph's death in 1844 until hers in 1879. All of her statements emphatically denied that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. To either ignore her testimony or demean it is irresponsible, for who knew Joseph better than Emma. And of all those who knew Joseph, she is the witness with the highest reputation for truth and honesty. If we cannot believe Emma about Joseph, who can we believe? </p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-42007352938682976872013-01-01T19:10:00.000-06:002013-01-02T11:17:48.408-06:00The Inspired Version<div style="text-align: justify;">
<p>The Inspired Version (Joseph Smith’s New Translation) of the Bible is an amazing book. It stands with the Book of Mormon as tangible evidence that the Restored Gospel ever occurred. The Inspired Version restores many parts left out of the Bible (RLDS D&C 22:24 or Moses 1:41) which were given as God appointed (RLDS D&C 42:15 or LDS D&C 42:56) even from His own bosom (RLDS D&C 34:5b or LDS D&C 35:20). But aside from all of this, its value is especially evident when compared to other Bible translations. Except for the stories in Genesis of the creation, Adam & Eve, Enoch, and Melchizedek, it is difficult to appreciate the genius of the Inspired Version without comparing it to other versions, which pale in comparison to its clarity of meaning and true representation of the nature of God. </p>
<p>The purpose of this blog is to allow you to do such a comparison, hopefully in a way that is a little fun. However, before we do that, I want to state some things about the Inspired Version for you to consider.</p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
Criticisms</h2>
<p>People not only criticize Joseph for bringing forth the Book of Mormon but also the Inspired Version. How can an unlearned man with no source translations from which to work correct the King James Version of the Bible with any sort of accuracy? It took Bible scholars about 13 years to complete the New International Version of the Bible according to its preface (New International Version, Preface revised 1983, pp. vii–viii). The preface also states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.</p>
<p>All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one. (ibid, p. vii) </blockquote>
Yet Joseph and his scribe, Sidney Rigdon, completed the Inspired Version in three years, with many interruptions during that time (RLDS D&C 22 or Moses 1; Times and Seasons 6:802). Logically then, from the above quote, the New International Version should be far superior to the Inspired Version (as well as the King James Version) in its clarity of meaning and true representation of the nature of God. At the end of this blog, you will be able to find out for yourselves whether this is true. (That is the fun part I promised.)</p>
<p>Another criticism of the Inspired Version is Joseph’s claim that God told him the changes to make to the King James Version. Similarly, Moses claimed that God spoke to him. Even though Moses lived four hundred years after the people of Israel became slaves in Egypt, he wrote the first book of the Bible, Genesis, which is an account of the creation and the events leading up to the time of Moses. So, how did Moses know what to write? God revealed it to him. If we <em>can</em> believe that God revealed all of Genesis to Moses so he could write it, is it not just as easy, or possibly easier, to believe that God <em>could</em> reveal to Joseph corrections to the King James Version? Conversly, if we do not believe God <em>could</em> reveal to Joseph the corrections to make to the King James Version, how <em>can</em> we believe He told Moses what to write for Genesis?</p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Scripture Should Reflect God’s True Nature</h2>
<p>Scriptures are about revealing God’s true nature to mankind so that we can become like Him. If scriptures incorrectly reflect His nature, then we may miss the mark. Thus, it is very important that scriptures are as accurate as possible. According to the Preface of the New International Version, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task (New International Version, Preface revised 1983, pp. ix–x).</p></blockquote>
<p>In contrast, while Joseph and Sidney were working on the Inspired Version, they received the following testimony:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We, Joseph Smith, Jr., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, <em>by the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened, and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God</em>; even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning, of whom we bear record, and the record which we bear is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, <em>whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision</em>; for while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, <em>which was given unto us as follows</em>: speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; they who have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust.</p>
<p>Now this caused us to marvel, for <em>it was given unto us of the Spirit</em>, and while we meditated upon these things, <em>the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings, and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about</em>; and we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fullness; and saw the holy angels, and they who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God and the Lamb, who worship him for ever and ever. </p>
<p>And, now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him, that he lives; for <em>we saw him, even on the right hand of God</em>; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father; that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created; and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (RLDS D&C 76:3 or LDS D&C 76:11–24, emphasis added)</p></blockquote>
<p>From these two statements there is a great difference between the authority of the two Bibles. One was corrected by man and one by God.</p>
<p>It is important to understand that there are <a href="http://biblemanuscripts.org/">no original manuscripts</a> of any part of the Bible in existence today. All that was available for the New International Version were copies of copies of copies, etc., of translations of the original. Thus, the accuracy of the New Internation Version, done by man, is only as good as the copies of the translations they used. The advantage of the Inspired Version is that God gave Joseph the corrections to the scriptures as they were in His own bosom. God revealed to Joseph the changes to make — just like He revealed to Moses what to write for Genesis. Joseph did not have to rely upon copies of translations for his source material. God, the original giver of all the scriptures, was Joseph's source material.</p>
<p>Which Bible do you want to read — one corrected by the best efforts of men, or one corrected by God? I will take the one corrected by God any day since it should be the most accurate.</p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions</h2>
<p>Now for the fun part. The time has come for you to decide how the Inspired Version compares to other versions of the Bible. The list below compares a few verses from the Inspired Version (IV) with corresponding verses from the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV), which are the two most popular versions of the Bible in the United States <a href="http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf">according to the CBA</a>, an association of Christian retailers. It is interesting to note that the current popularity of the King James Version, which Joseph used as a basis for the Inspired Version in the 1830s, demonstrates that the Inspired Version is still relevant to today’s Bible reader. Your job is to choose the scripture from each verse below that has the clearest meaning and is most representative of the true nature of God: unchangeable, just, merciful, truthful, no respecter of persons, loving, righteous, etc. Please read and consider each scripture carefully because some of the differences are subtle, but nevertheless important. (If you have difficulty understanding the differences, please reply to the blog and I will explain them.) The scriptures below do not show the version of the Bible from which they came. I purposely did this so the Bible version would not influence your choices. However, the answer key is at the very bottom of the page so you can know what version you selected. If God is the author of the Inspired Version as Joseph claimed, then it should come out the winner — the version you chose the most.</p>
<p>Also, after doing this exercise, if you are interested in more comparisons of the Inspired Version to other Bible versions, I suggest you obtain <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rbs&Product_Code=ppc29010&Category_Code=29">Three Bibles Compared</a> or <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rbs&Product_Code=90229001&Category_Code=29">Unbelievable Differences between King James Version and Inspired Version</a> or <a href="http://www.heraldhouse.org/cart/edit.asp?p=97949">Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible</a>. While these are RLDS sources, there may be LDS sources of which I am unaware that are as good or better than these. If you know of any, please tell me what they are. </p>
<p>So now to the exercise. Enjoy and have fun. Keep score if you like and let me know how you did. </p>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Lord’s Prayer — Matthew 6:13 (IV 6:14)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And lead us not into temptation </li>
<li>And lead us not into temptation </li>
<li>And suffer us not to be led into temptation</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 John 2:1</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. But if any man sin and repent, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;</li>
<li>My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.</li>
<li>My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Ezekiel 14:9</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.</li>
<li>And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have not deceived that prophet; therefore I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.</li>
<li>And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Hebrews 6:1–2</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.</li>
<li>Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.</li>
<li>Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. Of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Luke 23:35</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. (Meaning the soldiers who crucified him,) and they parted his raiment and cast lots.</li>
<li>Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.</li>
<li>Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do . And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 8:10–12</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” </li>
<li>Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith; no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east, and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the wicked one shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.</li>
<li>When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. </li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 7: 22–23 (IV 7:32–33)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. </li>
<li>And many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name; and in thy name cast out devils; and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I say, Ye never knew me; depart from me ye that work iniquity.</li>
<li>Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ </li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 26:26 (IV 26:22)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."</li>
<li>And as they were eating , Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said , Take , eat ; this is my body.</li>
<li>And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and brake it, and blessed it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is in remembrance of my body which I give a ransom for you.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Exodus 32:14</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And the Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them, and turn away my fierce wrath….</li>
<li>And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.<strong></strong></li>
<li>Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.<strong></strong></li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 Samuel 15:11</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>I have set up Saul to be a king, and he repenteth not that he hath sinned, for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.</li>
<li>"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.</li>
<li>It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Romans 6:7</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>For he that is dead to sin is freed from sin.</li>
<li>For he that is dead is freed from sin.</li>
<li>because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Luke 2:46–47</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And it came to pass , that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.</li>
<li>After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.</li>
<li>And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, and they were hearing him, and asking him questions. And all who heard him were astonished at his understanding, and answers.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Mark 1:8 (IV 1:6)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."</li>
<li>I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall not only baptize you with water, but with fire, and the Holy Ghost.</li>
<li>I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Exodus 4:21</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. </li>
<li>And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.</li>
<li>And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand, and I will prosper thee; but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Exodus 7:1–2</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a prophet to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy spokesman. Thou shalt speak unto thy brother all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.</li>
<li>And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.</li>
<li>Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 Samuel 16:23</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And it came to pass, when the evil spirit, which was not of God, was upon Saul, that David took a harp, and played with his hand; so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.</li>
<li>Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.</li>
<li>And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well , and the evil spirit departed from him.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>John 2:1–4</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.</li>
<li>On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."</li>
<li>And on the third day of the week, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, his mother said unto him, They have no wine. Jesus said unto her, Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 7:1 (IV 7:2)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Do not judge, or you too will be judged.</li>
<li>Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.</li>
<li>Judge not, that ye be not judged.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Exodus 23:3</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.</li>
<li>Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.</li>
<li>Neither shalt thou countenance a wicked man in his cause.</li>
</ol>
<p><em>(According to the American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, countenance means to support or to aid.)</em></p>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 16:24 (IV 16:25–26)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments.</li>
<li>Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.</li>
<li>Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Luke 10:21 (IV 10:22)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from them who think they are wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.</li>
<li>At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.</li>
<li>In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said , I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Leviticus 22:9</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.</li>
<li>The priests are to keep my requirements so that they do not become guilty and die for treating them with contempt. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.</li>
<li>They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die; therefore, if they profane not mine ordinances, I the Lord will sanctify them.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>John 4:1–2 (IV 4:1–3)</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.</li>
<li>When therefore the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, They sought more diligently some means that they might put him to death; for many received John as a prophet, but they believed not on Jesus. Now the Lord knew this, though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples;</li>
<li>When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Matthew 18:10–11</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost, and to call sinners to repentance; but these little ones have no need of repentance, and I will save them.</li>
<li>"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.</li>
<li>Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. </li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Deuteronomy 14:21</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.</li>
<li>Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.</li>
<li>Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt not give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest not sell it unto an alien; for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 Kings 3:14</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.</li>
<li>And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes, and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father David.</li>
<li>And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk , then I will lengthen thy days.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 Kings 11:4–6</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.</li>
<li>For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.</li>
<li>As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 Kings 14:8</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>And rent the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it thee, because he kept not my commandments. But thou hast not been as my servant David, when he followed me with all his heart only to do right in mine eyes.</li>
<li>I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes.</li>
<li>And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes;</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>1 John 3:9</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.</li>
<li>Whosoever is born of God doth not continue in sin; for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot continue in sin, because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise.</li>
<li>Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin , because he is born of God.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Psalms 119:109</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>My soul is continually in thy hand; and I do not forget thy law.</li>
<li>Though I constantly take my life in my hands, I will not forget your law.</li>
<li>My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Psalms 119:126</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>It is time for you to act, O LORD; your law is being broken.</li>
<li>And the time, O Lord, for me to work; for they have made void thy law.</li>
<li>It is time for thee, LORD, to work : for they have made void thy law.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Psalms 141:5</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.</li>
<li>Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it. Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers;</li>
<li>When the righteous smite me with the word of the Lord it is a kindness; and when they reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, and shall not destroy my faith; for yet my prayer also shall be for them. I delight not in their calamities.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>Isaiah 2:9</u></h3>
<ol>
<li>So man will be brought low and mankind humbled—do not forgive them.</li>
<li>And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.</li>
<li>And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not; therefore forgive them not.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
<u>James 2:1</u><u>–</u><strong><u>4</u></strong></h3>
<ol>
<li>My brethren, ye cannot have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and yet have respect to persons. Now if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; Are ye not then in yourselves partial judges, and become evil in your thoughts?</li>
<li>My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?</li>
<li>My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="font-size: 11pt;">
NIV, KJV, IV Scripture Comparisons Key</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Matthew 6:13 (IV 6:14) </strong>— 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>1 John 2:1</strong> — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Ezekiel 14:9</strong> — 1. KJV, 2. IV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>Hebrews 6:1–2</strong> — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 2. IV</li>
<li><strong>Luke 23:35 </strong>— 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 8:10–12</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 7: 22–23 (IV 7:32–33)</strong> — 1. KJV, 2. IV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 26:26 (IV 26:22) </strong>— 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Exodus 32:14</strong> — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>1 Samuel 15:11</strong> — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Romans 6:7</strong> — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>Luke 2:46–47 </strong>— 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Mark 1:8 (IV 1:6 )</strong>— 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Exodus 4:21</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Exodus 7:1–2 </strong>— 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>1 Samuel 16:23 </strong>— 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>John 2:1–4</strong> — 1. KJN, 2. NIV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 7:1 (IV 7:2)</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Exodus 23:3 </strong>— 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 16:24 (IV 16:25–26)</strong> — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>Luke 10:21 (IV 10:22)</strong> — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Leviticus 22:9 </strong>— 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>John 4:1–2 (IV 4:1–3)</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Matthew 18:10–11</strong> — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Deuteronomy 14:21</strong> — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>1 Kings 3:14</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>1 Kings 11:4–6</strong> — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV</li>
<li><strong>1 Kings 14:8 </strong>— 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>1 John 3:9</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Psalms 119:109 </strong>— 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Psalms 119:126 </strong>— 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV</li>
<li><strong>Psalms 141:5</strong> — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>Isaiah 2:9</strong> — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV</li>
<li><strong>James 2:1–4</strong> — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV</li>
</ul>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-36713898172033146012012-06-26T10:56:00.001-05:002012-06-26T11:03:31.943-05:00Could You Write the Book of Mormon?<div style="text-align: justify">
<p>A few years ago I responded to a news article in which the author stated that Joseph was a polygamist. My response generated other responses, one of which indicated Joseph was a fraud and wrote the Book of Mormon himself, which was an easy task to do. In my response I challenged him to write another book just like it—since it was so easy to do. He never replied and I have not seen a book published by him to date. When I discussed this event with a friend, he candidly quipped, "If Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon himself, he must have been a pretty smart fella." After studying the Book of Mormon for over 48 years, I could not agree more with my friend's off-the-cuff observation. With all of its plots, sub-plots, interwoven story lines, and Christian doctrines aligning with the Bible but contrary to the teachings of the day, the book is brilliant. If it was not of divine origin and did not come forth just as Joseph testified, then Joseph, with less than a forth grade education, was the most brilliant author the world has ever known.</p>
<p>Price Publishing Company publishes a tract entitled, "<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rbs&Product_Code=ppc35010&Category_Code=">Could You Write the Book of Mormon?</a>" While many of you may have read this or something similar to it, since this blog is about defending Joseph, I thought it would be good to reproduce here the contents of that tract. It lists 33 criteria necessary to write a book like the Book of Mormon under similar conditions as did Joseph. Its intent is to show how impossible it was for Joseph to write the Book of Mormon himself, thus confirming its divinity. The points it makes are probably not all inclusive. So, if you can come up with additional points of your own to show that Joseph could not have written the Book of Mormon himself, please share them with us in your comments.</p>
<p>Before I begin reciting the points of the tract, I need to say a few things about it. According to this Price Publishing Company publication, "the author of this article is unknown. The article was circulated in the
Independence area in 1948. Dates and numbers relating to how many years have
passed since the Book of Mormon was printed, have been changed to correspond
with the year 2008." In addition, the references to the number of chapters, the length of the book, the number of words per page, etc. correspond to the RLDS 1908 version of the Book of Mormon. These references are different in other Book of Mormons such as those published by the LDS and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). </p>
<p>Now to the points of the tract. Review the list below to see if you could write a book similar to the Book of Mormon under conditions comparable to those experienced by Joseph.</p>
<ol>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You must be between twenty-three and twenty-four years of age.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You cannot be a college graduate. In fact, you can have only three years
of formal schooling.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Whatever you write must be on the basis of what you know and not what
you learn through research.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You must write a history of an ancient country, such as Tibet, covering
a period from 2200 B.C. to 421 A.D.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You must write a book with 102 chapters, twenty-five of them about wars,
ten about history, twenty-one about prophecy, thirty-two about doctrines, five
about missionaries, and nine about the mission of Christ.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You must include in your writings the history of two distinct and
separate nations, along with histories of different contemporary nations or
groups of people.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Your writings must describe the religious, economic, social, and
political cultures and institutions of these two nations.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You must weave into your history the religion of Jesus Christ and the
pattern for Christian living.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">When you start to produce this record covering a period of over
twenty-six hundred years, you must finish in approximately eighty days.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">When
you have finished, you must not make any changes in the text. The first edition
must stand forever (this does not include grammatical errors, etc).</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">After
pauses for sleep and food, if you are dictating to a stenographer, you must
never ask to have the last paragraph or last sentence read back to you. You
must start right where you stopped previously.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Your
history or record must be long, approximately 777 pages with over 500 words per
page.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must add 180 proper nouns to the English language (William Shakespeare added
thirty).</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must announce that your "smooth narrative" is not fiction, but
true—yes, a sacred history.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">In
fact, your narrative must fulfill the Bible prophecies; even in the exact
manner in which it shall come forth, to whom given, and its purpose and
accomplishments.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must publish it to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, declaring it
to be the Word of God.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must include with the record itself this marvelous promise: "And when ye
shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the
eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye
shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he
will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Tens
of thousands must bear record to the world for the next 178 years that they
know the record to be true. Because they put the promise to the test, the truth
is manifested to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Thousands
of great men, intellectual giants, and scholars, must subscribe discipleship to
the record of its movement, even to the point of laying down their lives.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">There
can be no flaw, whatever, in the entire book (except in grammar, or other
errors of man in transcribing, etc.).</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Your
descriptions of the cultures in these civilizations, of which you will write
about, is not known when you publish your manuscript.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Yet,
you must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Even
so, many of the facts, ideas, and statements given as true in your record must
be entirely inconsistent with, even the direct opposite of, the prevailing
belief of the world. Yet very little is even claimed to be known about these
civilizations and their thousands of years of history.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must invite the ablest scholars and experts to examine the text with care.
You must strive diligently to see that your book gets into the hands of all
those most eager to prove it a forgery and who are most competent to expose any
flaws in it.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">After
178 years of extensive analysis, no claim or fact in the book is disproven, but
all are vindicated. Other theories and ideas as to its origin rise and fall,
leaving your claims as the only possible ones.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Thorough
investigation, scientific evidence, and archaeological discoveries for the next
178 years must verify your claims and prove even the minutest details of your
history to be perfectly true.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Internal
and external prophecies must be confirmed and fulfilled in the next 178 years.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Three
honest, accreditable witnesses must testify to the whole world that an angel
from heaven appeared to them and showed them the ancient records from which you
claim your record was translated.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must hear out of heaven the voice of the Redeemer declaring to you and those
three witnesses that your record is true, and that it is their responsibility
to bear testimony of it—and that they do.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Eight
other witnesses must testify to the world that they saw the ancient records in
broad daylight, and that they handled them and felt the engravings thereon.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The
first three and the second eight witnesses must bear their testimony, not for
profit or gain, but under great personal sacrifice and severe persecution, even
to their deaths.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">You
must talk a friend into financing your book with the understanding that he or
you will never receive any monetary remuneration from it. This person must
mortgage his farm to have it printed. You must sell the book at cost or less.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Finally,
after suffering persecution and revilement for twenty-four years in the process
of producing and defending this book, you must give, willingly, your own life
for your testimony that the record is of God.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, what do you think? Could you write the Book of Mormon? If you could not, how could Joseph do so with less than a fourth grade education? I know I could not do so and I have had 18 years of formal education. The thing I like about this list is that it gives an everyday perspective to writing such a book and helps me relate to just how difficult it would be to do this on my own without direction from God. This list confirms to me that the book is of divine origin and could not have come about in any other way than was described by Joseph.</p>
<p>After reading the list, I have a couple of additional observations about the Book of Mormon that confirm to me that Joseph did not write it himself. First, for all you readers out there that have higher than a third grade education, what is the direction you travel going away from Jerusalem along the eastern shore of the Red Sea? No fair peaking at a globe or using Google Earth. Time is ticking—what is your answer? Do you know it off the top of your head or do you give up? For those that do not know, the answer is found in 1 Nephi 5:15-16, 18 (RLDS) or 1 Nephi 16:12-14 (LDS). With less than a fourth grade education, how could Joseph have known this to be true when some of us with a much better education do not know it and the rest of us that did know it certainly did not know it in the fourth grade. While this is a small thing, to me it is further testimony that Joseph did not write the Book of Mormon in any other way than he claimed.</p>
<p>The second observation I have about the Book of Mormon is the use of first-person and third-person writing styles. As we know, Martin Harris lost the first 119 pages of Joseph's translation. According to Joseph, this translation was of Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi (a third-person narrative with quotes from first-person narrative). The Lord told Joseph not to re-translate it but to translate the small plates of Nephi instead (a first-person narrative only). The small plates of Nephi covered the same period of time as did the first 119 pages of Joseph's translation. If Joseph's account is true, then the first part of the published Book of Mormon should be strictly a first-person narrative and the remaining part should be mainly a third-person narrative with quotes from first-person narrative. And that is exactly what occurs in the published Book of Mormon. </p>
<p>By my calculations, the translation of the small plates of Nephi ends somewhere in the middle of the "Words of Mormon" chapter where Mormon's abridgement picks up regarding King Benjamin. The first part of the published Book of Mormon is written in first-person narrative by the original authors of the plates—Nephi, Jacob, Enos, etc. The second part of the published Book of Mormon from Mosiah to Mormon is Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi. As such, it is written in third-person narrative by Mormon with quotes from the original text in first-person narrative plus Mormon's own comments in first-person narrative. Thus, the first-person and third-person writing styles of the published Book of Mormon supports Joseph's account of the translation and is further testimony that the book is exactly what Joseph said it was.</p>
<p>So these are my two additions to this list. What are yours? If you have any, please add them through comments. I am anxious to hear what you have to say.</p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com141tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-62197319480685217722012-03-04T18:37:00.001-06:002012-03-04T19:31:28.352-06:00The Whitney Letter<div style="text-align: justify;">
<p>Recently, a reader asked if I had a response to the letter written by Joseph to Newel K. Whitney indicating that Joseph was a polygamist and was hiding these relationships from Emma. The following article is my answer to this inquiry.</p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">The Issue</h2>
<p>On August 18, 1842, while in hiding at Carlos Granger’s, Joseph allegedly wrote a letter to the Whitneys with the salutation, “Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.” Many say that the “&c.” in the salutation refers to the Whitneys' daughter, Sarah Ann. Proponents of the position that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy quote excerpts from this letter to prove it was a love letter to Sarah asking her and her parents to visit him in hiding so he could see Sarah. They allege that about three weeks prior to the letter, on July 27, 1842, Joseph gave a revelation to Newel K. Whitney that Sarah was to be his plural wife and that Newel was to marry them. In the supposed revelation the Lord told Newel the very words to use in the marriage ceremony and on that day they were married. So, according to the proponents of this position, the requested visit was so Joseph could be with his new plural wife. </p>
<p>Joseph's critics not only point to this letter (and the alleged revelation) to prove Joseph practiced polygamy but also to show that he was a deceiver, liar, and lustful man. To them, Joseph lied to Emma when he wrote her two days previous to the Whitney letter and closed it by telling her, “Yours in haste, your affectionate husband until death, through all eternity; for evermore” (<a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13">The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney</a>, REVISED EDITION, 1982
by H. Michael Marquardt). To them, Joseph was practicing deception against Emma when he stated in the Whitney letter, “the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty” and “I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.” In addition, when in the letter he requested the Whitneys to burn it as soon as they read it, his critics believe that he was continuing his deception by trying to keep the meeting secret. (<a href="http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter">Fairwiki.org about the Whitney letter</a>). Thus, according to the supporters of this position, Joseph was requesting a secret rendezvous with his new plural wife because he needed marital companionship from her and he did not want Emma to know about it.</p>
<p>However, close scrutiny of the facts surrounding both the Whitney letter and the alleged revelation indicate this interpretation is not correct..</p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">Facts About the Two Documents</h2>
<p>According to chapter 34 of <em><a href="http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=9489">The Essential Joseph Smith</a></em>, published by Signature Books, the alleged <a href="http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=9573">revelation from Joseph to Newel K. Whitney and the letter to Newel, Elizabeth, and Sarah Whitney</a> are maintained in the archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. For the revelation, the <a href="http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/JS_Polygamy_Timeline.htm">Joseph Smith's Polygamy Chronology</a> Web page states that it was recorded in the “Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2." However, in the article "<a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=47&chapid=1558">Historical Perspectives on the Kirtland Revelation Book</a>" by John A. Tvedtnes of the Maxwell Institute, this revelation is not listed as being in the book. The oldest revelation in the book was dated November, 1834, which preceded the alleged Whitney revelation by eight years. </p>
<p>For the Whitney letter, an image of a photograph of it is displayed on the “<a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13">Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney</a>” site. This site states the following about the photograph:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Photographs of both sides of the original letter written in the handwriting of Joseph Smith are in the George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. </p>
</blockquote>
<p> In chronological order, the first of the two documents is the alleged revelation given by Joseph to Newel on July 27, 1842. As previously stated, it contained the authority for Joseph to marry Sarah Ann Whitney and the words for the marriage ceremony which her father, Newel, was to conduct. The text of this document follows. Please pay particular attention to the italicized parts.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, <em>You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live,</em> <em>preserving yourselves for each other and from all others</em> <em>and also throughout eternity</em>, reserving only those rights which have been given to <em>my servant Joseph</em> by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times passed. If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S. A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in me by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Gethrow [Jethro?] and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life hereafter be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. (<a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13#3">Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney</a>, REVISED EDITION, 1982
by H. Michael Marquardt, italics added)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second document, the letter allegedly from Joseph to the Whitneys, was written August 18, 1842, which was 22 days after the alleged revelation. The following text of the entire document comes from the <a href="http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter">Fairwiki.org article about the letter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.— <br />
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend. </p>
<p>Joseph Smith </p>
</blockquote>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">The Validity of the Two Documents</h2>
<p>I was very disappointed not to find specific information online as to how these two documents were validated as being Joseph's. (If anyone has information as to the validation of these documents, I would appreciate your responding to this blog with that information.) Before we can conclude anything about Joseph's behavior based on these documents, we must be certain that he wrote them. If he did not write them, then certainly they cannot be used to prove he was a polygamist.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Authentication of the Alleged Revelation</h3>
<p>There seems to be discrepancies about the written source of the document even though all sources I have found, including Todd Compton's <em>In Sacred Loneliness</em>, agree that the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. It would be easy to assume that if LDS officials said this revelation came through Joseph, then it did. However, this is not necessarily true. Matthew L. Jockers, Stanford University, wrote the paper “<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~mjockers/pubs/SmithNSCAnalysis.pdf">Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC Classification</a>” which stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As Mormon scholar Dean Jessee makes clear in the introduction to <em>Personal Writings of Joseph Smith</em> (Smith and Jessee 2002), Smith's speeches, letters, and even journal entries were frequently written by scribes or written in tandem with one or more of his collaborators. In another article that appears in the pages of the "Joseph Smith Papers" online archive (Jessee n.d.) Jessee writes, "only a tiny proportion of Joseph Smith’s papers were penned by Smith himself." In many of the documents Jessee collected, we see the handwriting of Smith interwoven with the handwriting of his scribes, sometimes side by side in the exact same letter, journal entry, or document. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, unless the original document is in Joseph's handwriting, which from the above quote is highly unlikely, how do we know that it truly came from Joseph?</p>
<p>The other issue is the one put forth by Richard S. Van Wagoner in "The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young," <em>Dialogue</em>, Vol. 28, No. 4, Winter 1995, pp.2–3. He states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Twelve’s nineteenth-century propaganda mill was so adroit that few outside Brigham Young’s inner circle were aware of the behind-the-scenes alterations that were seamlessly stitched into church history. Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian who later left the church, was aghast at these emendations. Commenting on the many changes made in the historical work as it was being serialized, Wandell noted in his diary: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian’s office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph’s death his memoir was “doctored” to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More than a dozen references to Brigham Young’s involvement in transposing the written history may be found in the post-martyrdom record first published in book form in 1902 as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, an 1 April 1845 citation records Young saying: “I commenced revising the History of Joseph Smith at Brother Richard’s office: Elder Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith were with me.”</p>
<p>That this revision, or censorship, of the official history came from Brigham Young is evidenced by an 11 July 1856 reference in Wilford Woodruff’s diary. Apostle Woodruff, working in the church historian’s office, questioned Young respecting a “p[ie]ce of History on Book E-1 page 1681-2 concerning Hyr[u]m leading this Church & tracing the [A]aronic Priesthood.” Young advised, “it was not essential to be inserted in the History & had better be omitted.” Woodruff then queried him about “Joseph[s] words on South Carolina” (see D&C 87; 130:12-13) which had recently been published in the Deseret News . Young said he “wished it not published.” Years later Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the First Presidency, admitted that after Joseph Smith’s death some changes were made in the official record “for prudential reasons.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because of the many scribes used to pen Joseph's works and because of the credibility problem of the LDS historians of the post-Joseph era, it is most difficult to be sure of the authenticity of this alleged revelation. And if we cannot be sure of its authenticity, how can we use it as proof that Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy? </p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Authentication of the Letter </h3>
<p>Even though a photograph is available for viewing, the Whitney letter also has authentication issues. Since this letter was allegedly written by Joseph while he was in hiding, I seriously doubt that he would have dictated it to a scribe to write. Thus, if it is from Joseph, odds are that it should be in his handwriting. As indicated above, the “<a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13">Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney</a>” site states the letter is in Joseph's handwriting. However, the site gives no indication as to how they know that to be true other than the photograph of the letter is maintained by the Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Chapter 34 of <em><a href="http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=9489">The Essential Joseph Smith</a></em>, published by Signature Books and Todd Compton's <em>In Sacred Loneliness</em> ( p. 719, V.) state the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. However, the writers of both of these works do not address how they know it is Joseph's handwriting. Has the handwriting of the letter from the original or the photograph been authenticated as Joseph's handwriting by outside, professional experts? In addition, how do we know the original letter is not a forgery like those produced by Mark Hofmann? Until a complete, independent, and unbiased validation of this document has been done, how can we draw any conclusions from it about Joseph's motives or behaviors?</p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">Analyzing the Alleged Revelation </h2>
<p>After reading both of the complete documents, it is obvious to me that the interpretation of the Whitney letter as a love letter depends on the validity of the alleged revelation and whether or not Sarah Ann was a plural wife of Joseph. Without these two events, it is a real stretch of one's imagination to interpret the Whitney letter as anything other than a letter between very good friends.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Questionable Text </h3>
<p>Some of the text along with the circumstances of the alleged revelation make it very questionable to me. According to the <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/">Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith</a> site, Sarah Ann Whitney was Joseph's sixteenth wife including Emma. Fourteen times previous to Sarah Ann he had allegedly entered into a plural marriage and all of these women were still living. In addition, this site indicates that in the following fifteen months he entered into an additional eighteen plural marriages after Sarah Ann. This means that after allegedly marrying Sarah Ann, he was less than half done and would continue marrying plural wives at the average rate of a little more than one a month. This scenario gives me a problem with a sentence in the alleged revelation which states "You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live, <em>preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity</em>..." (italics added). If this alleged revelation was given by God, He would have known that Joseph had fifteen wives previous to Sarah Ann and would have another eighteen after her. He would have known that Joseph could not (because of his previous wives) and would not (because of his future wives) preserve himself only for Sarah Ann. In addition, if God was authorizing Joseph's polygamy, He would not have made a statement which restricted his involvement to one wife and excluded his involvement with his previous and future wives. Also, since a <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/10/is-dna-proving-joseph-smith-was-not.html">main purpose of polygamy was to obtain a greater reward in eternity</a>, why would God restrict Joseph to a marital relationship with only one wife "throughout eternity." On the other hand, if Joseph created this alleged revelation for his own benefit, knowing about his previous wives and his desire for future wives (averaging more than one a month) he would not have restricted his marital activities to only Sarah Ann. Therefore, from this sentence alone in the alleged revelation, I do not believe this document came from God or that it was created by Joseph. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Questionable Subject Agreement </h3>
<p>From my reading of Joseph's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, I have never noticed the subject agreement to be incorrect. Admittedly, I have not studied each revelation for this purpose, but I have never noticed one while studying a revelation for meaning. I attribute this to God's impeccable understanding of all languages and that He always knows who He is talking to and what He is saying. However, in the above alleged revelation the subject agreement is incorrect. Through Joseph, God is supposedly telling Newel what he is to say when conducting the marriage ceremony between Joseph and Sarah Ann. In the words Newel was to use, a reference was made to Joseph as "my servant Joseph." This means that during the service Newel, by command of God, would reference Joseph as "my servant Joseph" which would communicate the meaning that Joseph was Newel's servant. God would have known that when Newel was addressing Joseph, he should state something like "God's servant Joseph" and not "my servant Joseph" as is stated in the alleged revelation. This little discrepancy is an indication that this document was not God given but was created by man.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Sarah Ann's Immediate Response is Questionable </h3>
<p>Another issue I have with this alleged revelation is its timing in relation to the date of the marriage. Orson F. Whitney (the nephew of Sarah Ann Whitney) stated about Sarah Ann in <em>The Contributor</em>, Vol. 6, No. 4, January 1885, p. 131:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This girl was but seventeen years of age, but she had implicit faith in the doctrine of plural marriage, as revealed to and practiced by the Prophet, was of celestial origin. She was the first woman, in this dispensation, who was given in plural marriage by and with the consent of both parents. Her father himself officiated in the ceremony. The revelation commanding and consecrating this union, is in existence, though it has never been published. It bears the date of July 27, 1842, and was given through the Prophet to the writer's grandfather, Newel K. Whitney, whose daughter Sarah, on that day, became the wedded wife of Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. (<a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13">Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney</a>) </p>
</blockquote>
<p> I find it very hard to believe that on July 17, 1842, a 17-year-old woman received a revelation that she was to become a plural wife of 36-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. and with no hesitation she married him on that same day. In Todd Compton's analysis of the above statement he indicates that her acceptant state of mind about embracing polygamy may have been a "family tradition that has idealized the story." But he goes on to say that her father and mother and Joseph had instructed her in this doctrine prior to her alleged marriage to Joseph on the date of the alleged revelation (<em>In Sacred Loneliness</em>, p. 348). Yet his references to support this notion are unclear. Even if she was the most serious-minded and obedient child, her thoughts at age 17 of having to marry a 36-year-old man with 15 other wives would have been very scary, if not repulsive, to her. At age 17, with her whole life ahead of her, she was being required to sacrifice all of her dreams to participate in a new doctrine, that was only taught in secret, so her family could be assured of eternal life. And this new secret doctrine would require her at 17 to embrace sexual behavior that had been previously taught to her by her parents and society as being immoral. Keeping this in mind, I find it a bit contrived that she was so convinced of the truth of this doctrine that as soon as the alleged revelation came, she obeyed it and was married on the same day. </p>
<p>My wife's great, great grandfather and family followed Brigham Young west to Utah after Joseph's death. In the 1860s their daughter was in love with a young man and was desirous to be married to him. However, a Bishop decided that she was to be one of his plural wives. This thought was so repulsive to her that her entire family and her fiance's family fled Salt Lake City under cover of darkness with wagon wheels and horse hooves padded so as to leave unnoticed. As the story goes, they feared being caught and killed. They risked all so that their daughter would not have to participate in polygamy. And this was after polygamy had been taught and practiced openly for years as a doctrine of God brought forth in revelation by His Prophet Joseph (LDS D&C 132). Thus, is it probable that another young woman with less instruction and exposure to this doctrine, Sarah Ann Whitney, embraced it so thoroughly that on the day the alleged revelation was given to her father, she was not only ready to obey it, but did? I just do not believe so. If the document had been received and she had been given time to come around to this position, then it would be more feasible. But to receive such a life- and morality-changing command and to completely obey it the same day, to me is way outside of normal human behavior for this circumstance and as such gives question to the validity of this event. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Elizabeth's Autobiography Omitted Reference to the Alleged Revelation</h3>
<p>The most important issue I have with this alleged revelation is the portion of Elizabeth Whitney's autobiography printed in the <em><a href="http://www.archive.org/details/womenofmormondom00tullrich">The Women of Mormondom</a>, </em>pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. When reading her statement, it is not so much what she says that casts great doubts upon the validity of the alleged revelation, but what she does not say. Even though it is lengthy, I am including the entire quote from this book so that no one thinks I purposely left anything out. Please pay particular attention to the parts I have italicized.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A very proper one to speak here is Mother Whitney, for it was her husband, Bishop Whitney, who preserved the revelation on polygamy. Speaking of the time when her husband kept store for Joseph (1842-3), she says: "It was
during this time that Joseph received <em>the revelation concerning celestial marriage</em>; also concerning the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He had been
strictly charged, by the angel who committed these precious things into his keeping, that he should only reveal them to such ones as were pure, and full of integrity to the truth, and worthy and capable of
being entrusted with divine messages; that to spread them abroad would only be like casting pearls before swine; and that the most profound secresy was
to be maintained, until the Lord saw fit to make it known publicly through his servants. Joseph had the most implicit confidence in my husband's uprightness
and integrity of character, and so he confided to him the principles set forth in that revelation, and also <em>gave him the privilege of reading and making a copy of it, believing it would be perfectly safe with him. It is this same copy that was preserved in the providence of God; for Emma (Joseph's wife), afterwards becoming indignant,
burned the original, thinking she had destroyed the only written document upon the subject in existence. My husband revealed these things to me.</em> We had always been united, and had the utmost faith and
confidence in each other. We pondered upon the
matter continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation <em>concerning this new and strange doctrine.</em> The Lord was very merciful to us, revealing unto us his power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision; a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own bosoms that God heard and approved our prayers and intercedings before him. <em>Our hearts were comforted, and our faith made so perfect that we were willing to give our eldest daughter, then seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the order of plural marriage. Laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage, we gave her with our mutual consent. She was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents.</em> Of course these things had to be kept an inviolate secret; and as
some were false to their vows and pledges of secresy, persecution arose, and caused grievous sorrow to
those who had obeyed, in all purity and sincerity, the requirements of this celestial order of marriage. The Lord commanded his servants; they themselves did not comprehend what the ultimate course of action would be, but were waiting further developments from heaven. Meantime, the ordinances of the house of the Lord were given, to bless and strengthen us in our future endeavors to promulgate the principles of divine light and intelligence; but
coming in contact with all preconceived notions and principles heretofore taught as the articles of religious faith, it was not strange that many could not receive it. Others doubted; and only a few remained firm and immovable."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe that the revelation "concerning celestial marriage" referenced by Elizabeth Whitney in her autobiography is what is known today as Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. She indicates that a copy of the document was kept in safety by her husband Newel and that the original document was burned by Emma, which events are commonly known to be associated with the document on celestial marriage that became Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Allegedly this revelation was dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. When reading Elizabeth's statement above, we must keep in mind that her daughter Sarah allegedly married Joseph a year earlier on July 27, 1842—the same date that Newel Whitney, Sarah's father, allegedly received a revelation from God through Joseph authorizing Sarah's and Joseph's plural marriage and dictating the marriage ceremony which Newel was to use to marry them that day. This alleged date of marriage is confirmed by affidavits obtained from both Sarah and Elizabeth in 1869. (I will discuss these affidavits a little later.) </p>
<p>I have read and re-read the above statement by Elizabeth trying to find some reference to the alleged revelation requiring Newel to perform the plural marriage ceremony between his Sarah and Joseph. However, I can find none. All references to a plural marriage revelation are to the one allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. She associates Newel's and her experience as to the validity of polygamy with this revelation and not with the one allegedly given to Newel a year earlier authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph. In addition, she associates Sarah's marriage to the 1843 revelation and not to the alleged July 27, 1842 revelation given to Newel upon which date Sarah was allegedly married to Joseph. </p>
<p> To me, both Elizabeth's omission of acknowledging the alleged 1842 revelation to Newel and her associating the beginning of their plural wife experience to the 1843 revelation is very strong indication that the earlier revelation to Newel, authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph, did not occur. To the Whitneys, the revelation to Newel would have been a very important revelation and worthy of inclusion in Elizabeth's autobiography. It is the one, not the "Section 132" revelation, that told them plural marriage was of God. It indicated to them that it was acceptable to God for Sarah, their beloved daughter, to obey "this new and strange doctrine" (to quote Elizabeth) and enter into a plural marriage with Joseph. Because this revelation required Newel and Elizabeth to allow their 17-year-old daughter to participate in a unorthodox system of marriage thought by society to be wicked, it is the revelation given in 1842—not the one given in 1843—that would have caused Newel and Elizabeth to seek and receive a testimony of its truth. It was the revelation given to Newel in 1842, not the one in 1843, that was the first written revelation authorizing plural marriage and setting a precedent for the marriage ceremony that was to be performed. And yet, Elizabeth did not mention this important revelation in her autobiography about the authority for the practice of polygamy and their involvement with this system of marriage. She was detailed in her account and very proud that her daughter "was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents," yet she failed to mention the 1842 revelation and associated these actions with the 1843 revelation which occurred a year after the date of Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. Because of the importance to the Whitneys of the alleged revelation to Newel, her omission of it in her above statement was a result of more than forgetful thinking. The only possible explanation is that the alleged revelation to Newel on July 27, 1842, never occurred. If it had, Elizabeth would have mentioned it in her autobiography as the basis for their belief in plural marriage. And if that revelation did not happen, neither did the marriage. </p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">Analyzing the Letter</h2>
<p>For the purpose of analyzing the contents of the letter, I am going to assume that Joseph wrote it even though, as discussed above, further authentication may need to be done in this area. </p>
<p>If you believe that Joseph was a polygamist and married Sarah Ann Whitney on July 17, 1842, then it is easy to construe some of the contents of the letter as a "love letter" requesting his new wife to visit him. Although, the entire letter is more difficult to view in this manner than many of the briefer excerpts quoted by various authors that run together the "convicting" sentences and leave the other parts out. However, if you believe Joseph was not a polygamist and did not marry Sarah Ann Whitney, then such an interpretation of the letter is a real stretch of imagination. Standing alone, the letter gives no proof that Joseph was a polygamist or that he was married to Sarah Ann Whitney.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Statements in the Letter used to Support the Position that Joseph Practiced Polygamy</h3>
<p>The statements in the letter which authors point to as "proof" of Joseph's polygamy and marriage to Sarah are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief...</p>
<p>...all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...</p>
<p>...the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible...</p>
<p>...burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.</p>
<p> ...I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.</p>
</blockquote>
<p align="left">If the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann were not true, all that can be learned from these portions of the letter is:</p>
<ul>
<li> Joseph's friendship with the Whitneys was very strong,</li>
<li> he was lonely and anxious to see them,</li>
<li> they should keep this letter secret (burn it),</li>
<li>they should use utmost caution in meeting with him in secret,</li>
<li>keeping the meeting secret will insure their safety, and </li>
<li>for their safety they should not meet with him when Emma is there. </li>
</ul>
<p align="left">It is only the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann that interprets these parts as a "love letter." Without the "polygamy" issue, this is just a letter between very good friends from one who is in hiding and wants to remain hidden for both his safety and that of his friends. </p>
<p align="left">Admittedly, the part about Emma is very curious. Why would Emma's presence, without the polygamy interpretation, make it unsafe for the Whitneys? <a href="http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter">Fairwiki.org</a> gives a good answer to this question. However, they do not follow this rationale through to their conclusion because they finally interpret the letter in light of the alleged revelation and marriage. <a href="http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter">Fairwiki.org</a> states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p align="left">The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted, </p>
<blockquote>
<p align="left">There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)</p>
</blockquote>
<p align="left"> It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma. Joseph wrote the next day in his journal, </p>
<blockquote>
<p align="left">Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118) </p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Without the predisposition that Joseph was a polygamist and had recently married Sarah Ann, this position logically explains why he wanted the Whitneys to come when Emma was not there. Both Joseph and the Whitneys would be safer if they visited when Emma was not there because she could be followed by authorities wanting to arrest Joseph. Even if Emma was not followed, her presence in addition to some of Joseph's other friends would be a certain tip-off to anyone watching the house that Joseph was indeed hiding there. </p>
<p>The necessity of Joseph's hiding place remaining a secret could explain why he wanted the Whitneys to burn the letter. This would prevent it from falling into the wrong hands which would allow his hiding place to be revealed. In addition, the need to protect his whereabouts would explain the secrecy he requested of Newel in contacting him at his hiding place by knocking "at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty..." Possibly, Joseph wanted Newel to be very careful in his approach to his hiding place in case it was being watched by authorities. Joseph's assurance to Newel that he had a room by himself was indication that their visit would be private and safe. </p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Other Problems with the "Love Letter" Theory </h3>
<p>Even if one believes Joseph was a polygamist, brought forth the revelation to Newel, and married Sarah Ann Whitney, this letter still has problems being interpreted as a "love letter" to Sarah. Again, <a href="http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter">Fairwiki.org</a> does a good job explaining this position. In their conclusion they state:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The categorizing of the purpose of this letter as a "love letter" is wishful thinking on the part of those who believe Joseph was a polygamist. As indicated above, Joseph certainly would not invite his new wife's parents to come with her to a private room so he could be with her as her husband. Thus, the loneliness expressed in the letter had to be for friendship from those of like faith and not for a new plural wife. In addition, their meeting was also for another purpose as indicated in the letter:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> ..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joseph wanted to give his friends a spiritual blessing for which, as expressed in the letter, it was important to "have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...." </p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">Other Evidences in the Sara Ann Whitney Case</h2>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Discrepancies in Affidavits and Statements </h3>
<p>At the <a href="http://ldsfreedom.org/node/13">Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney site</a> we find the following affidavits by Sarah Ann and her mother Elizabeth regarding her alleged plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr.:</p>
<blockquote>
<p align="center">AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL</p>
<p> Territory of Utah }<br />
County of Salt Lake.}ss.<br />
Be it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said county, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A.D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of said Church, <em>according to the laws of the same regulating marriage</em>, in the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.<br />
<br />
Sarah A. Kimball.<br />
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
E. Smith, Probate Judge.<br />
(Joseph Fielding Smith, <em>Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage</em>, [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press], p. 73., italics added)</p>
<p align="center">AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY<p>
Territory of Utah }<br />
County of Salt Lake.} ss.<br />
Be it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Handcock, state of Illinois, she was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and all eternity, by her husband Newel K. Whitney then Presiding Bishop of the Church.<br />
<br />
E. A. Whitney.<br />
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
James Jack, Notary Public.<br />
(Andrew Jensen, <em>Historical Record</em>, Vol. 6, May 1887, pp. 224-226.) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, both Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Whitney stated differently in October, 1842—just a little over two months after their daughter allegedly entered into a polygamous marriage with Joseph Smith, Jr. The <em>Times and Seasons,</em> October 1, 1842, published the following statement signed by twelve men including Newel K. Whitney:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did. (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939–940)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <em>Times and Seasons,</em> October 1, 1842, also published the following statement signed by nineteen women of the Ladies Relief Society including Elizabeth Whitney:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make. (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, how can it be that two months after the alleged plural marriage of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith, Jr. her parents signed and published a statement in the widely circulated <em>Times and Seasons</em> that they "know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants" (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)? Yet, 27 years after the alleged marriage Elizabeth signs an affidavit attesting to the marriage and some 35 years after the alleged marriage she writes her thoughts about the event as published in <em><a href="http://www.archive.org/details/womenofmormondom00tullrich">The Women of Mormondom</a>, </em>pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. Even Sarah's affidavit is discrepant with her parents' statements in the <em>Times and Seasons</em>. In her affidavit, also made 27 years after her alleged plural marriage to Joseph, Sarah stated, "she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... according to the laws of the same regulating marriage...." Thus, Sarah stated that her marriage to Joseph was according to the marriage laws of the Church. However, her parents stated in <em>Times and Seasons</em> that those Church laws did not support polygamous marriages. They said that other than "J. C. Bennett's 'secret wife system,'" the only marriage system known within the Church was the one taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, which was a monogamous system of marriage. The statements published in the <em>Times and Seasons</em> are in direct opposition to both affidavits of marriage, Elizabeth's autobiography, and the alleged revelation itself. </p>
<p>With all due respect to the Whitneys, they were lying somewhere. The first scenario is that Newel and Elizabeth lied in their <em>Times and Seasons</em> statement to cover up the alleged revelation and Sarah's alleged marriage to Joseph. The second scenario is that they told the truth in their <em>Times and Seasons'</em> statement but Sarah and Elizabeth lied in their affidavits 27 years later, and Elizabeth lied in her autobiographical reflections 35 years later. Most Mormon history authors support the first scenario. I support the second. However, before I can give my reasoning, I need to discuss a little about the nature of the statements made by the Whitneys.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">The Nature of Affidavits and Statements </h3>
<p>So, are the affidavits made by Sarah and Elizabeth and Elizabeth's biography statement more reliable for telling the truth than Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the <em>Times and Seasons</em>? According to Todd Compton in the prologue to his book, <em>In Sacred Loneliness</em>, affidavits and biographies are very good evidence. He states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What criteria can be used to evaluate whether a woman's marriage to Joseph Smith (during his lifetime) can be reliabley documented? In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him. <em>An affidavit is very good evidence. A woman mentioning in a journal or autobiography that she married the prophet is also good evidence, as is a close family member's or friend's testimony or affidavit or reminiscence, especially if he or she supplies convincing detail, anecdotal or documentary.</em> (page 1, italics added) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, with all due respect to Mr. Compton, I do not necessarily consider affidavits, journals, and autobiographies very good evidence. The reason why is that they are personal statements made without penalty for lying. Unless an affidavit is part of a court proceeding, there is no penalty for perjury. The only thing official about a notarized affidavit outside of a court proceeding is that the notary verifies that the person who is making the statement has provided sufficient proof that they are the person they allege to be. The two affidavits above, as well as all the affidavits obtained by Joseph F. Smith mentioned by Mr. Compton above, fall into this category. They are merely a person's statement—true or false. Likewise, a person's journal or autobiography falls into the same category—it is their personal statement, true or false. Only a statement which is made in a court of law under penalty for perjury and which withstands cross examination can be assumed to have a high probability of truthfulness. Thus, the affidavit made by Sarah and the affidavit and biography statement made by Elizabeth have no more inherent truthfulness than the signed statements by Newel and Elizabeth in the <em>Times and Seasons</em>. At face value, they are on equal footing as to the probability of their truthfulness.</p>
<h3 style="font-size:10pt; font-style:italic;">Evaluating the Whitneys' Affidavits and Statements </h3>
<p>There are some considerations that I believe weigh in favor of the 1842 <em>Times and Seasons</em> statements being the truthful ones. First, they were made publicly with the corroboration of twenty-nine others. This lends credibility to their statements. Second, they were made very close to the time of the events they addressed. Usually statements made close in time to the event referenced are the most accurate because the person's memory has not been faded by time, and their interpretation of the events has not been influenced by other opinions. Third, the statements regarding the alleged plural marriage between Sarah and Joseph were made many years after that alleged event. In addition, they were made by those involved in polygamous activities at a time when it was important to the LDS Church to justify the doctrine of polygamy. As stated by Todd Compton above, "In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him" (ibid.). Actually, by that time, there had been a sustained three-year missionary effort to Salt Lake City and other parts of Utah by the Reorganized Church. Many LDS joined the Reorganization but soon left the area for Idaho or the Mid-West. Alexander Smith was there in 1866 and again in 1869 with his brother David. During this missionary effort, both of these sons of Joseph Smith, Jr. (and cousins of Joseph F. Smith) defended their father and spoke against polygamy to the LDS priesthood (including Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith) and members of the LDS Church (RLDS <em>History of the Church</em> 4:427–553). Because of their success and the high regard for Joseph Smith, Jr. in the LDS Church, this challenge from Joseph's sons must have brought considerable pressure upon the leaders of the LDS Church as well as those involved in polygamy to "prove" the position that their practice of polygamy came directly from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself. Such pressure to prove that Joseph was the originator of polygamy brings into question for me the validity of their affidavits and statements. Fourth, as previously discussed, Elizabeth's autobiographical statement in <em><a href="http://www.archive.org/details/womenofmormondom00tullrich">The Women of Mormondom</a></em> omits reference to the alleged revelation to Newel in 1842 authorizing the plural marriage of Joseph and Sarah and associates all their celestial marriage involvement with the alleged 1843 revelation, which came one year after Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. This failure of Elizabeth to mention in her autobiography such an important event in the lives of the Whitneys indicates to me that both the revelation and the marriage did not occur. Because of these reasons, I have to give credibility to Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the <em>Times and Seasons</em> as being true rather than to Elizabeth's later affidavit and statement as well as to Sarah's later affidavit. </p>
<h2 style="font-size:12pt">Summary</h2>
<p>To interpret the Whitney letter as a love letter from Joseph to Sarah Ann Whitney, the validity of the previous alleged revelation to Newel K. Whitney and Joseph's plural marriage to Sarah Ann would have to be established. Without the occurrence of these two events, the letter becomes merely a request from Joseph to his good friends, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney, for a visit. As presented above, the need for validation of the author of the revelation, discrepancies within the revelation, the grammatical structure of the revelation, the immediate response of 17-year-old Sarah Ann to the revelation, the <em>Times and Seasons</em> statements of Newel and Elizabeth, and the discrepancies in the later affidavit and biographical statement of Elizabeth and affidavit of Sarah Ann cast serious doubts about the validity of the alleged July 27, 1842, revelation to Newel and the subsequent plural marriage on that date of Joseph and Sarah Ann Whitney. Thus, in my opinion, there was no such revelation and no such marriage, which makes the letter nothing more than just a communication between friends.</p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com54tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-65005493446364452852011-12-19T20:52:00.005-06:002018-06-24T20:16:12.046-05:00Sidney Rigdon and the Messenger and Advocate<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently, a reader posed a question about Sidney Rigdon's claims in the Messenger and Advocate that Joseph practiced polygamy. I wish to answer the reader's inquiry in this article. <br />
The claims in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, published by Sidney Rigdon, that Joseph was a polygamist are very interesting. Because of Sidney's close relationship with Joseph from almost the beginning of the Church, including becoming a first counselor to Joseph in the First Presidency in March 1833, one would assume that the allegations in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> are true. After all, who better than Sidney should know the truth about Joseph and polygamy? And expectedly he did know the truth, but he did not publish it in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>. From Sidney's close association with Joseph, he knew that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. It was only after Joseph's death that Sidney changed his position as published in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>. So let us look at some of the events in Sidney's relationship with Joseph that point to Sidney's knowledge of Joseph's innocence and compare them to what Sidney published in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>. By doing this we should be able to see that what Sidney stated in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> was not reflective of what he knew about Joseph during their close association from 1830 to 1844. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
The Early 1830s </h2>
Sidney's and Joseph's relationship started very early in the Church and they quickly became close associates. They first met in December, 1830, when Sidney came to New York to visit Joseph and subsequently became his scribe for the process of correcting the King James Version of the Bible into what is known as the Inspired Version or New Translation of the Bible. Sidney's association with Joseph on this project continued until it was completed on July 2, 1833 (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 6:802), with the vast majority of the work being done in Hiram, Ohio. During this time they spent many days together under the influence of the Spirit working on this document, and they received great spiritual manifestations such as the open vision of the glories as recorded in D&C 76. In addition, they suffered great persecutions together, such as the time they were dragged from their homes by the mob and beaten and tarred and feathered. These types of experiences tend to create closeness between people and reveal both the good and bad about them. Thus, both Sidney and Joseph probably came to know each other very well during this time. <br />
Proponents that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy suggest that he did so as early as 1831 when he brought forth a revelation supporting this doctrine. To support their position they cite a letter written by W. W. Phelps to Brigham Young in 1861 which quoted parts of the alleged revelation. In addition, such proponents also indicate that Joseph's first plural wife was Fanny Alger who he allegedly married as early as 1833 in Kirtland, Ohio. If these events were true, Sidney Rigdon, with his closeness to Joseph in working on the Inspired Verson, would have had to have known about them. As adamant as Sidney was against polygamy after Joseph's death in June 1844, he would have also felt as strongly against it in the 1830s. Yet during this time he was silent on the subject. Similarly, the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> in the mid-1840s makes no mention of polygamy existing during that time in the Church. In addition, Sidney was new to the Church as was everyone else. If Joseph was involved with polygamy, Sidney could have easily left the Church and returned to preaching in the Protestant world. But he did not. In fact, he was so convinced of the truth of the Restored Gospel that he accepted a calling to further responsibility in the highest quorum of the Church, the First Presidency. Because of Sidney's adamancy against polygamy after Joseph's death, his supportive actions for Joseph and the Church in the 1830s indicate to me that Joseph was not teaching or practicing polygamy at that time. Thus, I do not believe that the position of the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy came from Sidney's observations of Joseph in the early 1830s. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
The Early 1840s </h2>
In the early 1840s, Sidney was still closely associated with Joseph in the First Presidency. In addition, he was Joseph's next door neighbor in Nauvoo. He lived ½ block to the north of both the Mansion House and the Homestead with no other houses in between. Those within his dwelling could easily note the activities surrounding Joseph's dwellings. Sidney was also the Postmaster of Nauvoo and for a while the kitchen of his home served as the post office (<a href="http://www.historicnauvoo.net/2010/01/post-office-and-mercantile/">www.historicnauvoo.net</a>). This placed him in a position to note who was writing to Joseph and to whom Joseph was writing. Because of Sidney's easy access to Joseph in Nauvoo, he would have definitely been in a position to know if Joseph was teaching or practicing polygamy, especially since it is alleged that from April 1841 to November 1843 Joseph married 31 women. (<a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/">www.wivesofjosephsmith.org</a>) <br />
Again, as adamant as Sidney was against polygamy after Joseph's death, I have to believe he would have also felt as strongly against it in the 1840s prior to his death. Interestingly though, up until Joseph's death, Sidney was silent about Joseph's alleged involvement in polygamy except for allegations surrounding his daughter, Nancy Rigdon. Again, Sidney's silence about polygamy indicates to me that Joseph was not teaching or practicing polygamy during this time. <br />
The allegations surrounding Nancy Rigdon are thoroughly covered in the article "<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp2.htm">Bennett's Sixth Letter, or the Essay on 'Happiness'</a>" in <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em>. I strongly suggest that all readers review the entire article. From this article, the issue was that "an unsigned letter favoring polygamy was delivered to Nancy, which Dr. Bennett published as his 'Sixth Letter,' claiming that it was a love letter from Joseph to Nancy." The letter was in Willard Richards' handwriting and Joseph denied he authored it. After Joseph told the Rigdons about Dr. Bennett's and Francis Higbee's involvement with Nancy, and after Joseph raised Eliza Rigdon, Sidney's daughter, from the dead by the power of God, Sidney believed Joseph about the letter. Sidney wrote a letter to the editor of a neighboring newspaper, the <em>Wasp</em>, which was printed in the September 3, 1842 issue. In the letter Sidney stated that Nancy denied that Joseph was the author of the letter. He also stated that Joseph had denied to him that he had authored the letter. <br />
The raising of Eliza from the dead was additional confirmation to Sidney that Joseph was innocent of the polygamy allegations surrounding him. When Eliza came back from the dead, she told her father under the direction of the Spirit that Dr. Bennett was a wicked man and that God would deal with him. In late August, 1842, on a Sunday at the public stand near the temple, Sidney declared that Joseph had raised his daughter from the dead and told the testimony of what happened. He then stated, "It has also been rumored that I believe that Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet:—In regard to this, I unequivocally state, that I never thought so— but declare that I know he is a prophet of the Lord, called and chosen in this last dispensation, to roll on the kingdom of God for the last time" (ibid.) Three years later in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, Vol. 2 No. 2 (December 1845) Sidney states: <br />
<blockquote>
There is and always has been one governing principle in the church of Christ, and that is that the Lord always has and always will, give his spirit to them that obey him. If a person is found without the spirit of God, it is because he or she is a transgressor. This holds good in all cases. Persons who through obedience have attained the spirit of God, and afterwards found without it is transgressor; for had they not been so, the spirit would have continued with them. Nothing but transgression can deprive a person of the spirit of God, and the nearer a person walks to God, the greater portion of the spirit he will enjoy. </blockquote>
Because Sidney's belief was that the Lord only gives His Spirit to His obedient, he had to believe that Joseph could not have raised Eliza from the dead unless he was still the Lord's prophet and telling the truth. Hence, he made his public statement in August 1842 that Joseph was a true prophet and not a fallen one. And Eliza's statement under the Spirit about Bennett was confirmation to him that Joseph was telling the truth about Dr. Bennett and Francis Higbee. <br />
In May 1844, when Sidney defended Joseph in the suit brought by Francis Higbee, Sidney reaffirmed his belief that Joseph was innocent of polygamy and that he had told the truth in 1842 about Dr. Bennett and Francis Higbee. According to the article "<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopolygamy/jsfp-visionarticles/higbeesued.htm">Francis M. Higbee Sued Joseph for Five Thousand Dollars</a>" in <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em>, Higbee brought suit against Joseph allegedly for damages received from the Church's High Council 1842 investigation of Higbee's involvement in "'spiritual wifery' which was being practiced by Francis M. Higbee, Doctor John C. Bennett, and others. Testimony was given before the Council that Higbee had seduced at least six women, and that he had contracted a venereal disease from a prostitute, a French woman who had come to Nauvoo from the neighboring town of Warsaw." If Sidney believed or had evidence that Joseph was involved with polygamy, he could not have defended him for the following reason. This suit dealt in part with alleged scandalous events surrounding his daughter, Nancy Rigdon, including the alleged love letter written by Joseph to her favoring polygamy as mentioned above. <br />
<blockquote>
Engaging Rigdon was wisdom on the part of both Joseph and Sidney, because Joseph had been accused by Francis Higbee of attempting to take Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's daughter, as a plural wife. Both Joseph and Sidney were aware that it would be necessary to discuss events relative to Nancy during the hearing, because there would be a reviewing of events in 1842. That was the year that Higbee was investigated before the High Council, and since he had been Nancy's suitor, her name had been discussed. This made it probable that her name would be brought into the testimonies in the hearing before the Nauvoo Municipal Court. <br />
Elder Rigdon, knowing that Nancy and Francis' relationship would be referred to in the hearing, still accepted the task of defending Joseph. Sidney's agreement to serve as one of Joseph's attorneys showed that he had faith in Joseph's innocence. (ibid.)</blockquote>
In the trial Sidney stated, "In relation to the matters before the court I am unacquainted with[,] I was sick at the time but I have heard it talked of back and fro.... I recollect Joseph Smith came to me with a complaint against [Francis] Higbee and Bennet, and made affidavit that it was true; I have the affidavit in my house" (ibid). <br />
From the above, we see that in the 1840s, as late as May 1844 (one month prior to Joseph's death), Sidney Rigdon indicated it was true that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. Thus, I do not believe that the position of the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy came from Sidney's observations of Joseph in the 1840s. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
The <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> Articles </h2>
After Sidney's attempt to lead the LDS Church was rejected, he began to publish the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 15, 1844. He published the last issue in September 1846. He was the editor of this paper and as such was responsible for its content. (You may read the <em><a href="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/MA-1844.htm">Messenger and Advocate</a></em><a href="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/MA-1844.htm"> online</a>.) Having read all the available issues online, I found that the paper was strongly opposed to both the LDS Church leadership in Nauvoo at that time and its polygamy doctrine. The paper supported the position that Sidney was the true successor to Joseph as President of the High Priesthood and Prophet to the Church. In addition, many articles were published which both inferred and stated that the doctrine of polygamy was taught and practiced by Joseph and that he was a fallen prophet. <br />
In the beginning issues, this position about Joseph was stated by authors other than Sidney or in unsigned articles which may have been written by Sidney. Interestingly, Sidney only wrote three articles over his name indicating Joseph was a polygamist. The first of these articles did not appear in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> until March 15, 1845, when he reported about holding preaching services at the Kirtland Temple on Sunday evening February 16, 1845, as well as the following Tuesday and Thursday nights. Of the Thursday evening service he stated: <br />
<blockquote>
On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day. An unexpected circumstance took place that evening, it was the arrival of brethren William Law and William E. McLellan, from Hampton, Rock Island County, Illinois. Brother Law addressed the congregation for some time, setting forth what he knew about the people and the affairs of Nauvoo; <em>some of which were new to us. He settled the question forever on the public mind, in, relation to the spiritual wife system, and the abominations concerning it. As Joseph Smith and others had attempted to get him into it, and in order to do so had made him acquainted with many things about it that we never knew before. The whole combined put the matter at rest, and the public mind was quieted, and all doubts removed. </em><br />
During our stay there were lectures delivered by Dr. Samuel Bennett, and brethren Law and McLellan, <em>all of which tended greatly to enlighten and settle the public mind</em>. (italics added) </blockquote>
The second article over his name was entitled "Tour East" and was published nine months later in the Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 1845) issue. Sidney stated that Joseph "had become basely corrupt, and put at defiance the laws of his God, to hide his iniquity from the world…." I assume he was alleging that Joseph practiced polygamy. <br />
The third article over his name (a letter to the editor) was entitled "Communications" and was published six months later in the Vol. 2, No. 6 (June 1846) issue. Sidney stated: <br />
<blockquote>
We are well aware that the leaders of this people [Mormons], introduced many corruptions among them, and was the thing which gave their enemies power over them, had they not have become basely corrupt, no enemy would have had power over them. They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. <em>This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death</em>. This system the twelve, so called, undertook to carry out, and it has terminated in their overthrow, and the complete ruin of all those who follow their pernicious ways. <br />
<em>We warned Joseph Smith and his family, of the ruin that was coming on them, and of the certain destruction which awaited them, for their iniquity</em>, for making their house, instead of a house of God a sink of corruption. The Smiths have fallen before their enemies, as the Lord said they would, and their families sunk into everlasting shame, and disgrace, until their very name is a reproach; and must remain so forever. (italics added) </blockquote>
In all, there were 33 issues of the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> published by Sidney Rigdon. All but two (which are still under construction) are available to read online at www.sidneyrigdon.com. Of the 31 issues available to review, only three articles indicating Joseph was involved with polygamy were over Sidney's name. In addition, 22 issues mentioned nothing about Joseph and polygamy. Prior to the March 15, 1845 issue, there were several unsigned articles indicating this position about Joseph. After this issue, there were no such unsigned articles. All of the articles that associated Joseph with polygamy, including those signed by Sidney, gave no evidence (i.e., events, dates, observer's name, etc.) to support their allegations. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
My Analysis of the Issue </h2>
It is assumed that because Sidney and Joseph had a close association from 1830 until Joseph's death in June, 1844, the articles published in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> that Joseph was a polygamist and a fallen prophet, whether they were written by Sidney or others, were reflective of Sidney's knowledge about Joseph from his association with him. Thus, these articles are assumed to be necessarily true. However, I believe this is a false assumption. <br />
In the Vol. 2, No. 6 (June 1846) issue of <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, Sidney stated that "we warned Joseph Smith and his family, of the ruin that was coming on them, and of the certain destruction which awaited them, for their iniquity…." Yet, as pointed out above, while Joseph was alive, Sidney never gave any indication that he did this or that he believed Joseph was involved with polygamy or that he was a fallen prophet. In fact, just the opposite occurred. Certainly, the Nancy Rigdon scandal would have been a time for Sidney to lose faith in Joseph. No father, especially a moral one with strong anti-polygamy feelings, would have supported a religious leader's attempt to seduce his daughter into polygamy. Yet both Sidney and Nancy claimed publicly in a local newspaper that Dr. John C. Bennett's allegations that Joseph wrote the unsigned love letter to Nancy were false. Shortly after this scandal, Joseph raised Eliza Rigdon, Nancy's sister and Sidney's daughter, from the dead. This experience was so spiritually powerful that Sidney had to know of Joseph's innocence of the allegations surrounding him. As he later wrote in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, the Lord will only "give his spirit to them that obey him." In addition, the Spirit spoke to Sidney through Eliza indicating that Joseph was telling the truth about Bennett. As a result of these experiences, Sidney declared publicly in August 1842 that Joseph was a true prophet. I believe Sidney was thoroughly convinced that the allegations against Joseph were false and that Joseph was God's servant. Subsequently, in May of 1844, about one month before Joseph's death, Sidney defended Joseph in Francis Higbee's suit indicating that Joseph told the truth about Dr. John C. Bennett's and Francis Higbee's immoral conduct in 1842. Had Sidney truly warned Joseph about his "iniquity" as he stated in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, he would not have defended Joseph against Higbee and indicated Joseph was telling the truth about him. <br />
Thus, from Sidney's actions throughout his association with Joseph, it is clear to me that while Joseph was alive, Sidney knew that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. He had no personal knowledge to indicate Joseph was involved with polygamy and the Lord had confirmed to him that Joseph was still His prophet and obedient to Him. Sidney's later "conversion" to the position that Joseph was a polygamist and a fallen prophet was obviously not based on his observations of Joseph during the 14 years of his close association with him and it was not based on revelation from the Lord. Therefore, it should not be assumed that the information published about Joseph in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> was necessarily true because of any knowledge that Sidney had from his association with Joseph. The information published about Joseph in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> must stand on its own merits and nothing else. <br />
All of the allegations made in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> about Joseph, whether by Sidney or others, are totally unfounded. They give no specific examples of events, dates, times, or individuals involved. Thus, because they cannot be corroborated, they are not proof of anything. Truly, from Sidney's close association with Joseph he should have known of at least one event to support his allegations. He did not even mention the letter to Nancy, which if Joseph had written it, would have been perfect to discuss as proof that Joseph "had become basely corrupt, and put at defiance the laws of his God, to hide his iniquity from the world…" (<em>Messenger and Advocate</em>, June 1846). Oddly enough, this statement itself was in direct opposition to the one he made in public in Nauvoo in August 1842 after Joseph had raised Eliza from the dead. Because of Sidney's close association with Joseph, the fact that he did not mention any specifics about Joseph's involvement with polygamy indicates to me that there were none to mention, which is further proof of Joseph's innocence. <br />
It is interesting to me that Sidney only wrote three articles over his name in which he indicated that Joseph was a polygamist, or a fallen prophet, or both. As indicated above, the first was published in the March 15, 1845 <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>. Prior to that issue there were signed and unsigned articles supporting this position about Joseph. Because Sidney was the editor of the paper, he would have had to have been sympathetic to this position about Joseph to have allowed these articles to be printed. Thus, it is possible that some or all of the unsigned articles could have been authored by him. If the unsigned articles were written by Sidney, the question comes to mind, "Why didn't he put his name to them?" I'm not sure of the reason, but possibly because, at that time, he was not thoroughly convinced of this position about Joseph, considering his experiences with Joseph while he was alive. <br />
I believe the final "conversion" of Sidney to this position about Joseph came from William Law (an associate of Francis Higbee) and William E. McLellan when they joined the preaching series held at the Kirtland Temple in February 1845, as reported in the March 15, 1845 <em>Messenger and Advocate</em>. From that point on, Sidney published three articles over his name alleging Joseph's involvement with polygamy and did not publish any unsigned articles about this issue. In the March 15, 1845 report, Sidney stated: <br />
<blockquote>
Brother Law addressed the congregation for some time, setting forth what he knew about the people and the affairs of Nauvoo; <em>some of which were new to us</em>. <em>He settled the question forever</em> on the public mind, in, relation to the spiritual wife system, and the abominations concerning it. As Joseph Smith and others had attempted to get him into it, and in order to do so had made him acquainted with many things about it that <em>we never knew before</em>. The whole combined <em>put the matter at rest</em>, and the public mind was quieted, and <em>all doubts removed</em>." (italics added) </blockquote>
From what Sidney reported, I believe he was finally convinced from this point on of Joseph's involvement in polygamy. As I interpret his report, Law gave new information about polygamy in the Church and "settled the question forever." He stated things that Joseph had taught him about polygamy which "we never knew before." Law removed "all doubts" that Joseph was practicing polygamy. In addition, his subsequent two articles and the publishing of no unsigned articles confirm the solidifying of his belief. However, Sidney's belief that Joseph was a polygamist came from believing William Law and others but not from his association with Joseph. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">
Conclusion </h2>
While at first it might appear that Sidney Rigdon's publication of the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> is proof that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy, closer scrutiny indicates it does not. First, there is strong evidence that during his association with Joseph he knew Joseph was innocent of the polygamy allegations. Second, the statements made in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> against Joseph were not supported by any facts. Third, Sidney's final "conversion" to the belief that Joseph was a polygamist came from William Law in February 1845 and not from his first-hand association with Joseph. I am uncertain why Sidney would allow the testimonies of men to change his position against what he knew and publicly testified to be true. Since Joseph was dead, maybe it was easier to say he was a fallen prophet than to defend him and prove his innocence. Maybe this disassociation with Joseph made it easier to start and run his church. Maybe such a position legitimized his new church in the eyes of the "Joseph" critics. Whatever his reason, the fact remains that during his association with Joseph, Sidney knew Joseph was innocent of teaching and practicing polygamy. Thus, the position against Joseph expressed in the <em>Messenger and Advocate</em> was, in the words of Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (<em>Macbeth</em>: Act V, Scene V). </div>
JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-2693451545240429322011-03-31T20:04:00.001-05:002011-03-31T20:30:27.380-05:00Joseph and Brigham: Truth vs. Lies<div style="text-align:justify"> <h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Lying Successfully Is Hard</h2> <p>In my life, I have found that telling the truth is always easier than lying. This is true because all you have to do is remember what happened and tell it to the best of your ability. And generally, when this is done over time regarding the same event, the resulting stories, while maybe not exactly alike, greatly resemble each other in substance. Lies, however, are a different matter. To lie successfully about an event is hard. It requires great mental powers. First, you have to construct a story (sometimes on the fly) that is believable to your audience. This requires a good imagination as well as knowing something about the audience and what they will believe. Second, since you already know the truth, you have to remember the lie you told and not get it confused with the truth. Since the truth never changes because it is actually what happened, a lie that is being passed off as the truth must also never change. In addition, the liar must remember to whom he told the lie so as not to repeat something different to the same individual or group of people. Third, if the liar never wishes to be caught in the lie, over time, he must remember the lie and to whom he told it. And this is the most difficult part because after 5, 10, or 20 years, our memories fade and it is hard to remember the lies you told and to whom you told them. Keeping this in mind let me proceed to the point of this blog.</p> <h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Did Joseph Lie about Polygamy?</h2> <p>Joseph is accused of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy and lying about his involvement in it from about 1831 until his death in June 1844. Joseph never preached a public sermon nor made a public statement in favor of plural marriage. In fact, he did just the opposite. He publically denounced its practice as evil and tried to eradicate it from the Church by pursuing punitive actions against those who were practicing it and accusing him of doing so. Even the historians who state he did practice polygamy confirm that he never publically said he did and always spoke against it.</p> <p>In <em>Brigham Young: American Moses</em>, p. 100, the author, Leonard J. Arrington, states that Joseph “unquestionably began to introduce the principle [of celestial marriage] to some associates in the spring of 1841, while the Twelve were still in England.” According to <a href="http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/">WivesOfJosephSmith.org</a>, Joseph took two wives during the period of 1831 to 1841, three wives in 1841, eleven wives in 1842, and seventeen wives in 1843. From 1831 until his death in 1844, if Joseph lied about the doctrine and practice of polygamy, he would have lied to his family, Church members, and Church leaders in varying degrees. If the above statement by Arrington is correct, during the first 10 years (1831–1841) he would have had to remember all of his lies so no one would have known. Then beginning in 1841, he would have begun to reveal the truth to an increasing number of a select group, continuing to keep the general Church membership ignorant of the doctrine and practice. If he truly did this, he must have been a very smart man to keep it all straight. Remember, if you lie and want people to believe it, you have to remember the lie and to whom you told it over time—13 years in Joseph’s case. However, I believe he kept it straight because he told the truth that he did not teach or practice polygamy. If you tell the truth, you only have to remember the truth. In addition, it is much easier to be consistent in your story. Since there was no variance in Joseph’s position on polygamy, I have to believe he was telling the truth.</p> <p>However, Joseph did more than just state he wasn’t a polygamist. He actively pursued those who indicated he was a polygamist and defended himself against rumors. One of the many examples was Joseph’s address to a Church conference in Nauvoo on April 6, 1843:</p> <blockquote> <p>President Joseph then asked the conference if they were satisfied with the First Presidency, so far as he was concerned, as an individual, to preside over the whole church; or would they have another? If, said he, I have done any thing that ought to injure my character, reputation, or standing; or have dishonored our religion by any means in the sight of men, or angels, or in the sight of men and women, I am sorry for it, and if you will forgive me, I will endeavor to do so no more. I do not know that I have done anything of the kind; but if I have, come forward and tell me of it. If any one has any objection to me, I want you to come boldly and frankly, and tell of it; and if not, ever after hold your peace. (<em>Times and Seasons</em> 4 [May 1,1843]: 181)</p> <p>Not one hand was lifted. Not one voice was raised. No complaint was made against Joseph, and he was unanimously chosen to continue as Prophet. (<em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/joseph1843.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Vision</a></em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/joseph1843.htm"> 50</a>)</p> </blockquote><p>If Joseph was lying about teaching and practicing polygamy and wanting to continue that lie, he would not have opened himself up to possible attack on this issue. But even if for some strange reason he did, the result speaks for itself. No one came forward to prove he was practicing polygamy. And in those days there was no concern for being politically correct. As the expression says, they called “an ace an ace and a spade a spade.” So if he had been teaching or practicing polygamy, someone would have come forth to challenge him.</p> <h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Did Brigham Lie about Polygamy?</h2> <p>However, Brigham Young had major problems with consistency in his story about how he learned of the plural marriage doctrine. I am sure we are all familiar with the following statement made by him in the Bowery, Provo, Utah, July 14, 1855:</p> <blockquote> <p>Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do. (<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_3/Plurality_of_Wives%E2%80%94The_Free_Agency_of_Man"><em>Journal of Discourses</em> 3:266</a>)</p> </blockquote><p>So according to this statement, Brigham first heard the doctrine of plural marriage from Joseph, and he was so repulsed by it that he would have rather been dead than to obey it. According to Arrington above, Joseph informed Brigham of this doctrine after Brigham returned from England, about <a href="http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pres-sm/manualindex.asp">July 1841</a>.</p> <p>However, in 1874 (19 years after his previous statement) Brigham reported to the Deseret News a significantly different account of how he first learned of this doctrine:</p> <blockquote> <p>While we were in England, (in 1839 and 40), I think the Lord manifested to me by vision and his Spirit things [concerning polygamy] that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any one concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo; Joseph had never mentioned this; there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I ever knew anything about at that time, but I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself. And when I returned home, and Joseph revealed those things to me, then I understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this (communication with Joseph on the subject) was not until after I had told him what I understood—this was in 1841. The revelation [Section 132 in the Utah Doctrine and Covenants] was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this. (<em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp4.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, </a></em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp4.htm">Volume 1, Chapter 4</a>; <em>The Messenger of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints</em> 1 [June 1875]: 29; <em>Deseret News</em>, July 1, 1874)</p> </blockquote> <p>According to this statement by Brigham, during 1839–1840 the Lord, not Joseph, revealed to him the doctrine of plural marriage. Upon his return to Nauvoo in 1841, he told Joseph what the Lord had shown him and Joseph confirmed it.</p> <p>In comparing these two statements, each one greatly contradicts the other. If the first one was true, Brigham would have remembered the account 19 years later, particularly because the event was so traumatic that he wanted to die. It is not easy to forget those types of memories over time, and even if they are forgotten, they do not morph into an entirely different story. If the second one was true, Brigham would not have been astonished or repulsed by the doctrine as indicated in the first account because the Lord had shown him up to two years previously that it was correct. In addition, if the second statement was true, he would have told it the first time, especially considering it gave the authority of the Lord to practice polygamy.</p> <h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Who Told the Truth?</h2> <p>So who was telling the truth about Joseph’s involvement in polygamy? For 13 years, Joseph stated he did not teach or practice polygamy and sought to take action against those who were practicing it and accusing him of doing so. Joseph’s story never varied. However, after 19 years, Brigham’s second story made the first one look false and the first one made the second look false. Who was telling the truth? I believe Joseph was because his story never varied. </p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-78082301013909926402011-01-22T15:43:00.000-06:002015-02-08T16:10:59.642-06:00Polygamy Statements Conflict with LDS D&C 132<div style="text-align:justify"><p>At the very heart of the position that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a polygamist is the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false">Plural Marriage section of <em>Historical Record</em> 6</a> and <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng">Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants</a>. This part of <em>Historical Record</em> 6 contains statements of individuals attesting to Joseph's involvement in polygamy. It was edited and published by Andrew Jenson in 1889. Section 132 is purported by the LDS Church to be a revelation on celestial marriage (polygamy) given by God through Joseph Smith, Jr. It was allegedly recorded July 12, 1843, by William Clayton “sentence by sentence, as he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] dictated” (<em>Historical Record</em> 6, 226). This document was first made public in 1852 by the LDS Church. </p><p>Recently, I re-read this section of <em>Historical Record</em> 6 and found that the statements of Eliza M. Partridge, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza R. Snow (alleged plural wives of Joseph), Lovina Walker (Hyrum Smith's daughter and Joseph F. Smith's sister), and William Clayton (Joseph's scribe) regarding Emma Smith were in conflict with parts of Section 132. I wish to discuss these discrepancies because I believe they cast serious doubt about the entire truthfulness of both the statements and Section 132.</p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Evaluation Criteria for the Truthfulness of Witness Statements and Revelation</h2><p>Because of these discrepancies I had to evaluate both the statements and the revelation to determine if they were true about Emma. And more importantly, if they were false about Emma, were they also false about Joseph?</p><p>By my way of thinking, witness statements or affidavits made in a court of law have a much higher probability of truth because of cross-examination by the opposition and an enforceable penalty for perjury. However, if they are made outside of a court of law, as is the case of the statements in the Plural Marriage section of <em>Historical Record</em> 6, there is no cross-examination by the opposition and no penalty for perjury. Thus, they may or may not be true. In addition, if part of a statement or affidavit which is made outside of a court of law is false, the other part may be false because it is possible they also lied about that part. So, the credibility of the entire statement becomes suspect. </p><p>On the other hand, revelations, as I look at it, have a more strict requirement for being truthful. While I have never received a revelation from the Lord and probably never will, the revelations of the type that Joseph received were, as alleged in them, supposed to be the mind and will of God. Most, if not all, of Joseph's revelations begin "Behold, thus saith the Lord" or something of a similar nature to indicate that Deity is speaking through His servant the prophet. While the revelations may be in the language of Joseph, they are not supposed to be his words put together by him to express the leadings of the Spirit. They should be more than that. They should be the word of God--the spoken mind and will of Deity, <em>who does not lie</em>. If the author of the revelation is God, I do not believe the prophet is given the power to pick and choose what parts of the revelation are delivered or what words are used to deliver the message. As a result, I do not believe that part of a revelation can be from God and part from man or Satan. If God is the author of the revelation, then all of the revelation is of Him and is true. Thus, I believe that if part of a revelation can be proved to be false, the entire revelation is not of God and is false.</p><p>So, using these criteria, if the witness statements about Emma are false, there is a high probability that they are also false about Joseph. In addition, if the statements about Emma in Section 132 are false, then the entire revelation is false. However, before I discuss these issues in depth, I wish to quote the statements along with Section 132 and analyze the content of the discrepant portions. </p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">The Witness Statements<br />
</h2><p>As background, the statements below from <em>Historical Record</em> 6 indicate that Emma Smith supported polygamist marriages of Joseph prior to July 12, 1843—the date which the celestial marriage document (Section 132) was allegedly first recorded and read to Emma by Hyrum Smith. These statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events. According to Andrew Jenson, they were all published in the <em>Historical Record</em> to prove Joseph Smith introduced plural marriage to the Latter-day Saints (ibid., 219). Also, prior to being published in the <em>Historical Record</em>, all but William Clayton's statement were published in the <em>Deseret News</em> in October, 1879, to refute an article in the <em>Saints' Advocate. </em>According to Joseph F. Smith, that article was entitled "'Last Testimony of Sister Emma,' in which that lady is made responsible for a statement to the effect that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, never in his lifetime taught nor practiced the principle of plural marriage" (ibid., 220-224). </p><p>Eliza M. Partridge Lyman's statement: </p><blockquote> <p>"Be it remembered that <em>on the first day of July, A.D. 1869</em>, personally appeared before me, Edward Partridge, probate Judge in and for said county, Eliza M. (Partridge) Lyman, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the <em>11th day of May, 1843</em>, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ...<em> in the presence of Emma (Hale) Smith</em> and Emily D. Partridge." (ibid., 223, italics added) </p></blockquote><p>Emily Dow Partridge Young's statement:</p><blockquote> <p>"Be it remembered that <em>on this the first day of May, A.D. 1869</em>, personally before me, Elias Smith, probate judge for said county, Emily Dow (P.) Young, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said, that on the <em>11th day of May, A.D. 1843</em>, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, <em>she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith</em>, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, ... <em>in presence of Emma (Hale) Smith, (now Emma Bidamon)</em> and Eliza M. Partridge Smith, (now Eliza M. Lyman)." (ibid., italics added)</p> <p>(Sister Young, in her autobiography published in the <em>Woman's Exponent</em> Vol. 14, page 38, says: "The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May, 1843, by Elder James Adams. <em>Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph with Emma's consent. Emma, about this time, gave her husband two other wives—Maria and Sarah Lawrence</em>.") (ibid., italics added) </p> </blockquote><p>It should be noted that the statements of both Eliza and Emily Partridge included the phrase, "who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said [or saith]...." I presume this phrase was included to assure the reader that the statement was true because it was made under oath to a judge. However, there is no indication on the statement or elsewhere that they were made in a court of law. In addition, it is important to remember that the judges were probate judges. Since the statements did not concern probate matters, it is highly unlikely that they were made before the judge in a court of law. Thus, there would have been no cross-examination and no penalty for perjury. As a result, even though these two statements were made to a judge under oath, I do not believe that they have a higher probability of truth than any other statements made outside a court of law.</p><p>Lovina Walker’s statement, given June 16, 1869: </p><blockquote> <p>"I Lovina Walker (eldest daughter of Hyrum Smith), hereby certify, that while I was living with Aunt Emma Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton County, Illinois, in the year 1846, she told me that she, <em>Emma Smith, was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah Lawrence to her husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent thereto</em>." (ibid., italics added)</p> </blockquote><p>Eliza R. Snow’s statement, in part, first published in the <em>Deseret News</em>, October 22, 1879: </p><blockquote> <p>"It is a <em>fact</em> that <em>Sister Emma, of her own free will and choice, gave her husband four wives</em>, two of whom are now living, and ready to testify that <em>she, not only gave them to her husband, but that she taught them the doctrine of plural marriage and urged them to accept it</em>." (ibid., 224, italics added) </p></blockquote><p>William Clayton’s statement given February 16, 1874: </p><blockquote> <p>"On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, <em>at his own residence</em>. </p> <p>"During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. <em>His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly.</em></p> <p>"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum ... remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.</p> <p>"Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present." (ibid., 225-226, italics added) </p></blockquote><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Analyzing the Witness Statements</h2><p>All of the above statements agree that just prior to Joseph dictating the celestial marriage revelation (now Section 132 of the LDS D&C), Emma was very supportive of Joseph teaching and practicing this new doctrine. According to the above accounts, she attended the weddings, gave her complete consent to the plural marriages, taught the principle, and even gave from two to four wives to Joseph. From their statements, she appeared to not only be a willing participant in polygamy but an enthusiastic one. And she maintained this attitude toward the four to eight additional wives Joseph allegedly married during the period from May to July, 1843. There is nothing in their observations of Emma to indicate that she did not accept this doctrine or was antagonistic toward the plural wives or Joseph during this time. She was observed by them to be a model plural wife. The position of these statements definitely reflects the reason for which they were collected and published—to refute Emma's statement published in the <em>Saints' Advocate</em> and prove Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to the Latter-day Saints.</p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Section 132</h2><p>The above statements indicating that Emma was a model plural wife seems to be in direct conflict with the celestial marriage revelation allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. This document brings stern warnings to Emma if she does not embrace this new doctrine. LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56 states:</p><blockquote> <p>51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. </p> <p>52 <em>And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph</em>, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. </p> <p>53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. </p> <p>54 <em>And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.</em> </p> <p>55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and <em>I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. </em></p> <p>56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice. (italics added) </p> </blockquote><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Analyzing Section 132</h2><p>According to this part of the alleged revelation on celestial marriage, God told Emma to "receive all those that have been given" to Joseph. He commanded her "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else." And He warned her that if she did not "abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." If this revelation is true, it was a stern reprimand from God to Emma to accept the principle, support it, and support Joseph's practice of it. If she did not do this, God threatened to destroy her. Since it is not stated whether this destruction would be temporal or eternal, I assume it means a complete destruction which would be both temporal and eternal. According to this document, God was telling Emma that He would destroy her both physically and eternally (cast into outer darkness) if she disobeyed His command. Thus, this document was a warning to Emma of gravest consequences if disobeyed.</p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">The Witness Statements Conflict with Section 132</h2><p>If this revelation is true, why was God being so stern with Emma? According to the above statements in <em>Historical Record</em> 6, prior to the date the revelation was given she had received "all those that have been given" to Joseph with open and supportive arms. Not only this, but she had willingly given wives to Joseph, attended some of their weddings, taught them the principle, and by her actions was showing them how to obey it. And she was doing this with faith in her husband as a prophet of God and belief that the principle of celestial marriage taught by him was of divine origin. To me, this sounds like a very obedient handmaiden of the Lord. However, instead of recognizing and praising Emma for her faith and obedience, the Lord threatened her with both physical and eternal destruction if she was not faithful to the principle. </p><p>So, how can the above testimonies be reconciled with the Lord threatening Emma in Section 132? The truth is, they cannot be. If the testimonies are true, certainly the Lord would have observed the same and commended Emma in the revelation for her faith and obedience to the new celestial principle. However, He did not do this. Instead, He threatened her with total destruction. This indicates she was reluctant or disobedient in accepting and living the principle, which is in direct opposition to the testimonies. </p><p>In regards to Emma, the above statements and Section 132 are in opposition to each other. Thus, one or the other must be false about her. Logically they both cannot be true.</p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Either the Witness Statements or Section 132 Are Entirely False</h2><p>If the revelation is true, the witness statements about Emma are false. And if the statements about Emma are false, I believe that the statements which these individuals also made about Joseph have no credibility for being true. As I stated previously, if part of a statement or affidavit is false, I believe the credibility of the entire statement becomes suspect. On the other hand, if the witness statements about Emma are true, the part about Emma in the celestial marriage revelation is false. And, as I stated earlier about revelation, if part of the revelation is false, I believe the entire revelation is false. So logically, either the entire revelation is true and the entire witness statements are false or the entire revelation is false and the entire witness statements are true. If the revelation is false, Joseph did not give it as purported by William Clayton. If the witness statements are false, they cannot prove Joseph's involvement in polygamy. Whichever the case, both the witness statements and Section 132 cannot be used together as proof that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. </p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Emma's and Joseph's Lives Prove Both Are False</h2><p>While both the statements and Section 132 can be in opposition to each other and one be true, they can also be in opposition to each other and both be false. It is my opinion that both are false. All statements made by Emma throughout her life opposed polygamy and supported the position that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. Since she was accepted in her community throughout her life as a person of honor and integrity, we have to assume her statements truly reflected her position on polygamy. In addition, her strong opposition to Brigham Young's leadership and her refusal to go West with her family and friends are also good indications of her opposition to polygamy. Thus, the probability of the truth of the above statements in <em>Historical Record</em> 6 regarding Emma is very low. This is especially true considering that the statements were made from 26 to 36 years after the events, these individuals were heavily involved with polygamy in Utah, and the purpose of their statements was to refute Emma by proving that Joseph was a polygamist and that she supported the principle. And I believe that if these statements were not true about Emma, they were also not true that Joseph was a polygamist.. </p><p>Actually, Emma's stand against polygamy in her life is more reflective of the position taken in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Yet, the prophetic nature of this document comes short of fulfillment. Verse 54 states, "But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." As stated earlier, since the type of destruction was not specified, we can assume it was intended to be a total destruction—both physical and spiritual. However, after July 12, 1843 (the date this revelation was allegedly given), Emma lived another 35 years—to the age of 74—in opposition to polygamy.** Obviously, this part of the alleged revelation was not fulfilled. </p><p>In addition, according to verse 55, the Lord stated about Joseph that if he is faithful to the principle, "I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of ... houses and lands, wives and children...." This means the Lord promised to give Joseph 100 times the number of "houses and lands, wives and children...." that he possessed on July 12, 1843. However, within a year Joseph was dead and this blessing, I believe, was unfulfilled as follows:</p><ol style="text-align:justify"> <li>At the time of his death, he had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... houses and lands...." He left Emma with very little financial means to support herself and their children. </li>
<li>Since July 12, 1843, Joseph had not received a "hundredfold ... of ... children...." In 1843, all of his children with Emma had been born except for David Hyrum. In addition, it is alleged that he had twelve children by plural marriages, which if true is hardly a "hundredfold" increase. However, DNA studies have proved that five of these children (almost half) were not his children and may eventually prove that the remaining seven children were also not his. </li>
<li>While many claim that Joseph had over 30 plural wives, they do not claim he had a "hundredfold" increase in them since July 12, 1843. In addition, Joseph's involvement in polygamy is not a <em>proven fact</em>. There is too much evidence against it to be a <em>proven fact</em>. Throughout Joseph's life, he denied his involvement. Emma and his immediate family—those that should know—always denied his involvement. His sons pursued allegations of his involvement but never found credible evidence to support the allegations. The statements of alleged plural wives did not withstand cross-examination in court during the <em>Temple Lot Case</em> and the judge ruled that there was no credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. </li>
</ol><p>Since God is all knowing and <u>always</u> speaks the truth, why did He promise these "hundredfold" blessings to Joseph knowing that he would not live long enough to receive them? And why did He promise to physically destroy Emma but did not do so? These promises to both Joseph and Emma in Section 132 were not fulfilled because they were not God's promises, but man's.</p><p>We must remember that this revelation was first made public in 1852, approximately eight years after Joseph's death, by those heavily involved in polygamy. Thus, Joseph had no opportunity to acknowledge or deny it as true. Its authenticity was never voted upon by the Church, which was the final authority prior to Joseph's death to decide if a revelation was the mind and will of God. Throughout Emma's life she denied that Joseph gave this revelation and that he taught or practiced polygamy. Those who did not go west with Brigham Young did not embrace this revelation as God-given through Joseph. In addition, the judge's ruling in the <em>Temple Lot Case</em> found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Joseph gave this revelation. Considering the dubious circumstances surrounding this revelation and the fact that the promises to both Emma and Joseph were not fulfilled, I can only conclude that it was not of God and was not given by Joseph. As such, I do not believe it is credible evidence that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. </p><h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Summary</h2><p>When the above testimonies are compared to Section 132, it is obvious to me that either one or the other is false. And when they are analyzed separately according to known facts, they both appear to be false. In my opinion, neither one is credible proof that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.</p><hr align="center" width="80%" /><p>** According to <a href="http://pages.uoregon.edu/maphist/english/US/US39-01.html">http://pages.uoregon.edu/maphist/english/US/US39-01.html</a>, U. S. women who reached age 40 in 1850 had an average life expectancy of age 68. Emma was age 39 (date of birth 7/10/1804) in July, 1843, and lived until the age of 74 (date of death 4/30/1979). Thus, her age exceeded her life expectancy. This would certainly indicate that her life was not cut short by God because of her disobedience to the principle as section 132 stated it would be.</p>
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt">Addendum (2/6/15): Authorship of LDS D&C Section 132 Determined by Writing Style Analysis</h2>
<p>The following was posted on 12/31/14 anonymously as a comment to my “The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement” blog post: “Have you ever read Enid DeBarthe's thesis paper on an analysis of the writing style of the author of Section 132 MDC? She proves incontrovertibly that Brigham Young was its author. I have had a physical copy of it for almost 30 years, but didn't take the time to digitize it until a couple of weeks ago. I have never heard anybody mention it in any polygamy discussions. It is quite lengthy and technical, but if you would be interested in reading it, I can send it to your email.”</p>
<p>I responded that I was interested in getting a digital copy and gave my email address. However, I never received a copy of this document. Since this post, I asked around locally if any of my contacts knew of this document and where I could get a copy to digitize. I soon found out that Enid DeBarthe’s sister had recently begun attending our church. Her sister put me in contact with Enid’s son who had a copy of the document. It is a 348 page book which he allowed be to digitize. There are only three in existence.</p>
<p>According to the title page, the book is entitled, “A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON JOSEPH SMITH II THE MORMON PROPHET-LEADER.” Enid DeBarthe wrote this book as a “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Library Science” for the “Faculty of the Graduate School Northern Illinois University” in July 1969. The major portion of the book is about Joseph Smith (his teachings and writings), the movement of the Church from New York to eventually Illinois, and the disbursement of the Church after Joseph’s death. It is the appendix of the book (oddly not listed in the table of contents) which analyzes the writing styles of both LDS D&C 132 and the King Follett sermon and compares them to the writing styles of several men, including Joseph and Brigham Young, to determine the likely author of these documents. It is her conclusion that “Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon” (p. 315).</p>
<p>Today, the type of writing analysis she used is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry">stylometry</a>, which compares the writing style, using various criteria, of a document with unknown or disputed authorship to the writing styles of various authors to determine correct authorship. Presently, there are several computer programs which are used to do this task. However, Enid DeBarthe, in 1969, had to do this manually by counting words as well as comparing sentence structure and phraseology. The study and analysis she did was very detailed and remarkable for her time. </p>
<p>Since there has been so much interest expressed to read this analysis, I have made a PDF file of it available for you to <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdqf2jfwp26wqck/LDS%20D%26C%20132%20Writing%20Style%20Analysis%20by%20Enid%20DeBarthe.pdf?dl=0">download</a>. If you have trouble downloading it, you may contact me at <a href="mailto:jsdefender1@gmail.com">jsdefender1@gmail.com</a> and I will email it to you. </p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com76tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-21178841428182912902010-10-10T22:43:00.003-05:002015-11-21T15:22:56.280-06:00The Book of Commandments vs. The Doctrine and Covenants<div style="text-align: justify;">I recently received a question on one of my blogs in reference to the Book of Commandments. The individual asked:<br />
<blockquote>How do you reconcile or refute others when they bring up the scripture in D&C 5 about JS "pretending to no other gift" and they are quoting from Book of Commandments not a 1835 version or later?</blockquote>This is an excellent question, and since it deals with the integrity of Joseph, I thought it would be a good subject for a new blog. <br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">The Book of Commandments Issue </h2>Throughout the years the issue of using the revelations in the Book of Commandments instead of the corresponding ones in the Doctrine and Covenants has surfaced many times in the RLDS Church. Indeed, there are substantial differences between many of the same revelations in both books. Because the revelations in the Book of Commandments were printed first and they were allegedly copied from the originals, many assume these revelations are correct, or true. In addition, they also assume that the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants differ from those in the Book of Commandments because they were changed by Joseph to support his evolving theology. Thus, some point to the Book of Commandments as the more pure doctrine of the Restoration, while others say the discrepancy between the revelations in the two books is proof Joseph was not a prophet of God but was making up church doctrine as he went along.<br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">Answering the Question </h2>Before I get into the explanation of which set of revelations is correct, I wish to address the specific difference mentioned in the above question. According to Book of Commandments 4:2:<br />
<blockquote>...and he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift. </blockquote>The same part of the revelation found in RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 5:1d (LDS D&C 5:4) states:<br />
<blockquote>And you have a gift to translate the plates, and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you, and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.</blockquote>By using a little logic it is obvious to me which version of this revelation is correct, or true. As we look at the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, Jr., God bestowed on him many gifts. Among other things, he was a prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church and at various times in his adult life expressed all the gifts of the Spirit as enumerated in D&C 46. After he finished the translation of the Book of Mormon, by the power of God he corrected the Bible which was published by the RLDS Church as the Inspired Version. And he led the priesthood and members of the Church to receive a partial endowment of the Spirit at the Kirtland Temple in 1836. So to me, it is obvious that the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants is correct because he received gifts from God in his life other than the gift to translate the plates of the Book of Mormon.<br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">The Sources </h2>Because I did not know the intricacies of this subject very well, I had to quickly find sources to use as a basis for this blog. I chose to use two RLDS sources because the information in them seems to be well documented and I am familiar with the integrity of the authors. However, there may be LDS sources just as good as these of which I am not aware. The first is the pamphlet, <em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rbs&Product_Code=90135000&Category_Code=">Book of Commandments Versus the Doctrine and Covenants</a></em>, reviewed by President Joseph Smith, III, which is a cursory presentation of the subject. The second is the book, <em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rbs&Product_Code=90113013&Category_Code=">Our Beliefs Defended</a></em>, by Apostle J. F. Curtis, which contains a discussion of the subject in detail. Both of these sources can be purchased online from the Restoration Bookstore by clicking the above links for the respective sources. Since my explanation will be a very brief summary of the issues, I strongly recommend the purchase of these sources for those wanting a more complete study of this subject with full documentation.<br />
<h2 style="font-size: 12pt;">The Explanation of which Set of Revelations Is Correct </h2>On November 1, 1831, a special conference was held in Hiram, Ohio, where Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were preparing the Inspired Version of the Bible. This conference discussed and decided to print all of the revelations received by Joseph. On the above date, Joseph received a revelation which the Lord designated as the preface to the Book of Commandments (D&C 1). After this revelation was received, the language of all the revelations was questioned by the elders and some felt they could use better language than Joseph did. As a result, the Lord spoke to the elders through Joseph (D&C 67) challenging the elders to choose the greatest among them to write a revelation better than the least of all the revelations Joseph had written. In response to the challenge, William E. McLellin (who, according to Joseph, felt he was the wisest man among them) was chosen to write the revelation, but he failed. It was then decided that Joseph should prepare the revelations for printing (make copies from the originals) and send the copies with Oliver Cowdery to Independence where W. W. Phelps would print and publish them in the Book of Commandments. The Lord appointed Joseph, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and William W. Phelps "to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them..." (RLDS D&C 70:1 and LDS D&C 70:1-3).<br />
<br />
From the beginning date of the conference to when Oliver left for Missouri with John Whitmer on November 10, Joseph had only 10 days to copy all the revelations received to date. While the Lord had designated the above six men to do the work, there is some discrepancy who actually prepared the copies. David Whitmer said that Joseph, Sidney Rigdon, Orson Hyde, and others prepared the revelations for publication. William E. McLellin stated that he presided over the meeting where the revelations were prepared for publication. He also stated that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon copied the revelations but changed them to suit themselves. However, this was not true. During this ten day period, Joseph attended four conferences. While he stated that he and John Whitmer "began to arrange and copy the revelations" (<em>Our Beliefs Defended</em>, 27; <em>Millennial Star</em>, vol. 14, supplement, 36), because of the conference activities, Joseph would have had very little time to do any of this work. In addition, prior to the preparation of the revelations, Oliver Cowdery left Hiram to prepare for the trip to Missouri and W. W. Phelps left for Independence making a stop in Cincinnati to purchase the printing press. Thus, while William E. McLellin may have presided over the preparation process, Joseph, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps had very little, if anything, to do with this work. Thus, according to J. F. Curtis, William E. McLellin may have been directly involved in changing the revelations when copying them. McLellin admitted that he presided over the work and that the copies of the revelations were changed before being sent to Independence for printing. Since he was the one who thought he could improve the revelations, Curtis believed he had motive to make the changes. While it is really unknown who changed the revelations, it is certain that the copies were changed prior to sending them to Independence and that Joseph was not the one who changed them. <br />
<br />
After the revelations were prepared, they were taken by Oliver Cowdery to Independence where W. W. Phelps began to print them for inclusion in the Book of Commandments. During the printing the mob in Independence destroyed the press and strewed printed revelations in the street. After the assault, the printed revelations were gathered up and loosely bound into several copies. The printing of the Book of Commandments was never completed. What exists today as the Book of Commandments are those revelations which were loosely bound after the press was destroyed.<br />
<br />
After the mob action against the press in Independence, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, and John Whitmer returned to Kirtland and compared the original revelations to the copies they had been given for the Book of Commandments. They found that the copies were substantially different than the originals.<br />
<br />
When the revelations were prepared for the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, great care was taken to ensure that the revelations published were exactly the same as the original ones. Many who were on the committee for publishing the Book of Commandments were on the committee for publishing the Doctrine and Covenants. By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was published, all who were on the Book of Commandments committee approved the revelations printed in the Doctrine and Covenants as correct according to the originals. In addition, all the quorums of the Church (including McLellin in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles) plus the General Assembly approved the revelations printed in the Doctrine and Covenants as correct. Because the Book of Commandments was destroyed in mid-printing, it was never approved by the quorums or the General Assembly. Thus, it was never an authorized publication of the Church. Only the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants were approved by a vote of the people and the quorums of the Church. For these reasons plus the fact that the revelations in the Book of Commandments are inconsistent with the originals, the Doctrine and Covenants contains the revelations which are correct. </div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-24042465315871946942010-08-09T20:03:00.005-05:002010-08-10T12:02:55.345-05:00What Is Truth?<div style="text-align: justify;">According to RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 90:4b (LDS D&C 94:24-25), “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this, is the spirit of that wicked one, who was a liar from the beginning.” In my opinion, this is the most accurate definition of truth I have ever read. When we see things for what they really were, really are, really will be, we see the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” And anything different than this is a lie.<br />
<br />
Recently, I have been following the blogs of Alan Rock Waterman, <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html" target="_blank">Why I’m Abandoning Polygamy</a> and <a href="http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-mormon-history-is-not-what-they-say.html" target="_blank">Why Mormon History Is Not What They Say</a>. If you have not read them, I suggest you do. They are excellent presentations of his discovery that Joseph Smith, Jr. may not have promoted or practiced polygamy and his view that mainstream history on this issue may need to be revised to support that finding. In other words, all the spin, all the hype, and all the interpretation needs to be peeled away from this issue to get down to just the facts. What has impressed me is his keen grasp that noted historians of LDS polygamy have omitted numerous documents by Joseph and other primary witnesses that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. I have always felt that any biography of Joseph dealing with the issue of polygamy which does not adequately consider his stand against it and does not consider the findings in the Temple Lot Case and does not consider the statements of his family who knew him best, is either suspect in its motives or just poor history. How can we get to the truth (“knowledge of things as they are, and as they were”) without considering all documents pertinent to this issue? My hat is off to Mr. Waterman for considering a shift in his thinking to the possibility that Joseph was telling the truth and for his eloquent and tireless defense of his position.<br />
<br />
Since the basis for his shifting paradigm is the book <em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</a></em> by Richard and Pamela Price, some of his responders commented that the Price’s association with the RLDS Church and their firm belief that Joseph was not a polygamist has tainted the information. In addition, some indicated that the quality of their work is suspect because their educational degrees in history are not sufficient to write credible history. When I was a young man, I heard a minister state in a sermon, “It doesn’t matter who is right. What matters is ‘what is right.’” In other words, truth is truth, no matter who speaks it or writes it. This principle has guided me in my life to accept the truth whether it is my idea or someone else’s or whether it comes from the most learned and degreed person or the simplest one. “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” regardless of where, or with whom, it originates. This principle has allowed me in my personal, professional, and religious relationships to cut through the “I’m right—No, I’m right” communication barrier to get to the heart, or truth, of the issue.<br />
<br />
Even though the Prices do not have doctorate degrees in history and are associated with the fundamentalist part of the RLDS Church and believe with all their hearts that Joseph was not a polygamist, the principle indicated above allows one to look at the evidence on its own merit. Knowing the Prices, this is exactly what they want to happen. And this is what Mr. Waterman has done. He has looked at the evidence presented and decided it merits consideration, regardless from where it came. If the mystery of Joseph and polygamy is to be unraveled, then those who are unraveling it must look for the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” regardless of who is presenting it.<br />
<br />
<em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em> is far from being completed. While the first volume is in print, the complete work to date (about 2 2/3 volumes) is online. However, the Prices have indicated there is enough documentation for four to five volumes. Thus, they believe Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy because the volumes of documentation, which they are working to make available to the public, support that position. <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em> is not a biography of Joseph. It is, as the title states, documentation showing the extent of Joseph’s fight against polygamy. All of the biographies about him that deal with the polygamy issue indicate he lied about his involvement in polygamy and do not attempt to show otherwise. It is easy to conclude he lied if you do not show he stood against it. The purpose of <em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em> is to let Joseph defend himself by his actions and his statements. It is to present the evidence which other writers have omitted. It is to show that in spite of all the allegations made against him, Joseph stood firm against the teaching and practice of polygamy. When this work is completed, the reader will have to judge for themselves. Did Joseph lie about practicing polygamy? Or, do the volumes of evidence supporting his actions and statements against practicing it necessitate the alternative conclusion that, in fact, Joseph Smith fought polygamy?</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-14789693653054523532010-03-27T20:50:00.001-05:002013-12-16T14:41:31.267-06:00The Lord Declared Joseph Innocent of Polygamy<div style="text-align:justify">
<p>For those of us associated with the Reorganization, the revelation received by Jason Briggs in November, 1851, is significant. It was not only the beginning point of the Reorganization, but according to an article at restorationbookstore.org entitled “<a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/current/briggsrevelation.htm">The Importance of the Revelation Given to Jason Briggs</a>,” it was the Lord’s declaration that Joseph was innocent of polygamy. </p>
<p>As background to the revelation the article states, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., on June 27, 1844, the Church was thrown into chaos, and many factions formed due to two points of doctrine. Even though Joseph had designated his son, Joseph III, four times—in the Liberty Jail, the Red Brick Store, the Grove in Nauvoo, and the Mansion House—to succeed him according to [RLDS] Doctrine and Covenants, Section 43:1–2 and the law of father-to-son lineal priesthood descent ([RLDS] DC 83:2; 84:3; 104:18), many Church leaders believed it was their right to lead the Church after his death. The men who led the largest groups were Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, James J. Strang, and Lyman Wight. William Smith (the Martyr's brother) and Lyman Wight, who were both apostles, were the only ones who supported Young Joseph as the next prophet. However, in the years just prior to the Reorganization, William Smith recanted that position and claimed that he was the successor of Joseph Smith, Jr. (see RLDS History of the Church 3:738). The second false doctrine common to many of the factions was the teaching and practice of spiritual wifery (also known as plural marriage, celestial marriage, or polygamy). Within those factions this false teaching proved to be a source of discontent to those who sought to remain true to the beliefs of the Church. </p>
<p>After Joseph's death, Brigham Young, with the support of eight other apostles, took control of the Church at Nauvoo. Those in disagreement with them were either expelled or left the Church on their own. At the time of Joseph's death, the total Church membership was estimated to be from 150,000 to 200,000 members worldwide with about 30,000 living in and around Nauvoo (see ibid., 1). Brigham took a total of about 10,000 with him to Utah (see ibid., 27), rebaptizing all the members and reordaining the priesthood (see ibid., 18–19). He also took with him the Church structure including the bishopric and quorums, as well as Church records and assets. Church members who did not follow Brigham to Utah and believed in the original doctrines of the Church, associated with one of the other leaders until doctrines were taught that were not in the original Church. Then they would associate with someone else, hoping to find the Church in its purity (see ibid., 196–198). It was under these circumstances that the Saints tried to hold on to the Church and Gospel as best as they could during the "dark and cloudy day" after Joseph's death. </p>
<p>In the first part of 1851, Jason Briggs and the Beloit, Wisconsin, Branch left Strang and associated with William Smith's group. William was teaching that Young Joseph was the rightful heir to the Presidency of the High Priesthood. However, in the fall of that year Briggs learned that William Smith was beginning to advocate two new doctrines in his organization: the practice of polygamy and that he was the true successor to Joseph the Martyr (see ibid., 738). In addition, none of the other factions seemed to be teaching the original doctrines of the Church established by Joseph. Briggs had been ordained an elder in the Church prior to Joseph's death and wanted to continue to minister for the Lord, but he could not find a group that he believed represented the Church in Joseph's day. Under these circumstances Jason Briggs went to the Lord in prayer asking for divine guidance as to what he was to do. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>About the revelation, Jason Briggs stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>While pondering in my heart the situation of the church, on the 18th day of November, 1851, on the prairie, about three miles northwest of Beloit, Wisconsin, the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and the visions of truth opened to my mind, and the Spirit of the Lord said unto me, </p>
<p>"Verily, verily, saith the Lord, even Jesus Christ, unto his servant, Jason W. Briggs, concerning the church: Behold, I have not cast off my people; neither have I changed in regard to Zion. Yea, verily, my people shall be redeemed, and my law shall be kept which I revealed unto my servant, Joseph Smith, Jr., for I am God and not man, and who is he that shall turn me from my purpose, or destroy whom I would preserve? Wolves have entered into the flock, and who shall deliver them? Where is he that giveth his life for the flock? Behold, I will judge those who call themselves shepherds, and have preyed upon the flock of my pastures. </p>
<p>"And because you have asked me in faith concerning William Smith, this is the answer of the Lord thy God concerning him: I, the Lord, have permitted him to represent the rightful heir to the presidency of the high priesthood of my church by reason of the faith and prayers of his father, and his brothers, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, which came up before me in his behalf; and to respect the law of lineage, by which the holy priesthood is transmitted, in all generations, when organized into quorums. And the keys which were taught him by my servant Joseph were of me, that I might prove him therewith. And for this reason have I poured out my Spirit through his ministrations, according to the integrity of those who received them. </p>
<p>"But as Esau despised his birthright, so has William Smith despised my law, and forfeited that which pertained to him as an apostle and high priest in my church. And his spokesman, Joseph Wood, shall fall with him, for they are rejected of me. They shall be degraded in their lives, and shall die without regard; for they have wholly forsaken my law, and given themselves to all manner of uncleanness, and prostituted my law and the keys of power entrusted to them, to the lusts of the flesh, and have run greedily in the way of adultery. </p>
<p>"Therefore, let the elders whom I have ordained by the hand of my servant Joseph, or by the hand of those ordained by him, resist not this authority, nor faint in the discharge of duty, which is to preach my gospel as revealed in the record of the Jews, and the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and cry repentance and remission of sins through obedience to the gospel, and I will sustain them, and give them my Spirit; and in mine own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph Smith, and will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and he shall preside over the high priesthood of my church; and then shall the quorums assemble, and the pure in heart shall gather, and Zion shall be reinhabited, as I said unto my servant Joseph Smith; after many days shall all these things be accomplished, saith the Spirit. Behold, that which ye received as my celestial law is not of me, but is the doctrine of Baalam. And I command you to denounce it and proclaim against it; and I will give you power, that none shall be able to withstand your words, if you rely upon me; for my Spirit shall attend you." And the Spirit said unto me, "Write, write, write; write the revelation and send it unto the saints at Palestine, and at Voree, and at Waukesha, and to all places where this doctrine is taught as my law; and whomsoever will humble themselves before me, and ask of me, shall receive of my Spirit a testimony that these words are of me. Even so. Amen." (RLDS History of the Church 3:200–201; The Messenger, edited by Jason W. Briggs, vol. 2, p. 1 ) </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article then goes on to explain how the revelation proves Joseph was innocent of polygamy. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the most important parts of this revelation is the Lord's condemnation of polygamy and His indication of Joseph's innocence. In the last paragraph the Lord states, "Behold, that which ye received as my celestial law is not of me, but is the doctrine of Baalam. And I command you to denounce it and proclaim against it...." (Of course, the reference to "celestial law" means celestial marriage which is spiritual wifery or polygamy.) [In recent years] polygamy has become newsworthy, and Joseph Smith, Jr., is unquestioningly credited by the media for its inception within the Latter Day Saint movement. For those of us having the common heritage of the Reorganization, the revelation received by Jason Briggs should remove all doubt of Joseph's innocence in the teaching or practice of polygamy. In the third paragraph of the revelation, the Lord said that William Smith and his spokesman, Joseph Wood, had "given themselves to all manner of uncleanness, and prostituted my law and the keys of power intrusted to them, to the lusts of the flesh, and have run greedily in the way of adultery." In essence, because of William Smith's polygamy teachings, the Lord called him an adulterer. However, four times in the same revelation, the Lord called Joseph His servant. Since God is unchangeable and no respecter of persons, if Joseph had taught or practiced polygamy, the Lord would have also indicated he was an adulterer. Since the Lord unmistakably called Joseph His servant, this revelation is confirmation that Joseph did not teach nor practice polygamy. Thus, no one who claims the divinity of the Reorganization should ever doubt the innocence of Joseph regarding polygamy—for the Lord, Himself, proclaimed him innocent. </p>
</blockquote>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-58911064536360222312010-01-17T20:53:00.001-06:002010-01-17T21:11:00.283-06:00Joseph will be Exonerated<p align="justify">Because of the “<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/04/new-attack-on-joseph.html">new attack</a>” which is being mounted today against Joseph, I thought it would be interesting to discuss a Book of Mormon scripture which is pertinent to this issue. </p>
<p align="justify">In 2 Nephi 2:17, 24-31 (<a href="http://centerplace.org/Default.asp?CTUrl=http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/&CTTitle=1908%20Book%20of%20Mormon">RLDS Book of Mormon, 1908 Edition</a>) and <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/3">2 Nephi 3:11, 13-16</a> (LDS Book of Mormon) it states: </p>
<blockquote><p align="justify">But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins…. And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord. </p>
<p align="justify">And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; And they that seek to destroy him, shall be confounded: For this promise, of which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of thy loins, shall be fulfilled. </p>
<p align="justify">Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise. </p>
<p align="justify">And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. </p>
<p align="justify">And he shall be like unto me; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation; Yea, thus prophesied Joseph, I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses: for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed for ever. </p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify">This scripture is part of Lehi’s blessing to his son Joseph where he quotes the prophecy of Joseph of old, the son of Jacob or Israel. The above scripture is Joseph’s prophecy about Joseph Smith, Jr. There are two parts to this scripture I wish to discuss.</p>
<p align="justify"> First, it says, “And out of weakness he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.” I believe this scripture is yet to be fulfilled. Joseph has never been in a weaker position than he is today. He is under attack from not only outside the Restoration Movement, as he has always been, but also from within. The RLDS Church traditionally promoted the position that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. However, since about 1958 the RLDS Church has liberalized and moved away from this position. The RLDS Church (presently called Community of Christ) now takes the <a href="http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp">position</a> on this matter that it has no official position. While the Utah LDS Church does not officially condone polygamy, it originally taught, and is returning to the position, that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. (See <em>Teachings of Presidents of the Church—Joseph Smith</em>, published 2007 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 22. Also see pages 479–481 for a more complete description of what the Utah LDS Church officially states was Joseph’s teachings on the issue of celestial marriage.) Mormon and ex-Mormon members have combined with Community of Christ leaders (in organizations like the John Whitmer Historical Association and the Mormon History Association and in events like the Sunstone Symposiums) to demean Joseph’s character and work. <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/08/new-attack-on-joseph-part-2.html">Recent books</a> published by Mormons and ex-Mormons demonize him into a mystical, lying, evil pedophile. Internet sites and discussion groups continue this abuse ad nauseam. Truly, Joseph’s name is being “had for … evil” more today than ever, especially from within the organizations that point to him as their first prophet. (The only voice actively supporting Joseph as an honorable man who did not teach or practice polygamy is <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm"><em>Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</em></a>.) </p>
<p align="justify">Since Joseph is in his weakest position ever, the Book of Mormon scripture quoted above applies to today but is yet to be fulfilled. Those of us who believe he was not a polygamist, but an honorable prophet of God, can take great hope. For "out of weakness he shall be made strong." The fullness of the gospel restored through him will again go forth in power to the convincing of many of its truth. As a result, Joseph's name will no longer be “had ... for evil” but will be “had for good.” And when this happens God will begin to restore the house of Israel to the promises He made with them. </p>
<p align="justify">Second, the scripture says, “And they that seek to destroy him, shall be confounded: For this promise ... shall be fulfilled.” When the time comes that God makes Joseph, and the gospel restored through him, strong again, those who have sought to demean his character and his work "to destroy him" will no longer be allowed to do so. Their mouths will be shut and Joseph and the work he did will be honored in power by the Spirit of God to bring the house of Israel back to the true and living God. This of course will take place at the great and last gathering under the power of the endowment. </p>
<p align="justify">While those who seek to destroy Joseph will have their pleasure for a while, Joseph’s name and his work will eventually triumph by the power of God. </p>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-19813798462575508632010-01-06T22:33:00.001-06:002010-01-06T22:36:53.912-06:00A Summary of Why I Believe Joseph was not a Polygamist<p align="justify">I am responding to a recent post with the reasons why I believe Joseph was not a polygamist in spite of all the “evidence” that he was. </p>
<p align="justify">First, I believe he was a prophet of God because I have received testimony from God that the work He did through Joseph—Book of Mormon, Inspired Version, Doctrine and Covenants (not including Utah LDS D&C 132), restoring His true Church in 1830—is true. For God to have used Joseph to do these things, Joseph had to have been a good, honorable man—not a lying, wicked one. As it says in Helaman 2:59, the “Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples." </p>
<p align="justify">Second, the reasons given by those who say he lied about his involvement in polygamy are pretty shallow. One reason given is that <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/02/did-joseph-hide-polygamy-because-he.html">Joseph was afraid to admit polygamy</a> because he feared for his life. However, he had been beaten and incarcerated many times for issues not related to polygamy. If polygamy was a commandment of God, why would he fear admitting this to the public? He certainly would not have been treated any worse than he already had. The fact is that if polygamy was a command of God as many say it was, Joseph would have made it known publicly just as he had done with the rest of the Restored Gospel. The fact that he denied its practice is evidence it was not a command of God and he did not practice it. Another reason given for Joseph’s denial of polygamy was to protect Emma and keep it secret from her. Those supporting this position also believe the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=&f=false">affidavits of Eliza and Emily Partridge</a> (Historical Record, Volume 6, Edited and Published by Andrew Jenson, 1887) are true that Emma was present at their plural marriages to Joseph. However, proponents of these two positions cannot have it both ways because the positions are in opposition to each other. If they support the Partridge sisters’ affidavits, they have to give up the “protection of Emma” reason for Joseph’s lying about polygamy. If they do not support the Partridge sister’s affidavits as true, they punch a big hole in the evidence against Joseph because the Partridge sisters are considered eye-witnesses that Joseph practiced polygamy. Thus, the “protection of Emma” argument is very weak. Since there was no good reason for Joseph to keep silent about practicing polygamy, the fact that he continued to publicly deny it supports the position that he was telling the truth about not teaching or practicing polygamy. </p>
<p align="justify">Third, those that knew Joseph best and were with him the most—Emma and Joseph III—were convinced he was not a polygamist. Until Emma’s dying day, she testified that Joseph was only married to her and had no other wives. Emma was known for her honesty throughout her entire life. If she had observed plural marriage ceremonies with Joseph, as the Partridge sisters stated, she would not have faithfully insisted he was innocent. Joseph Smith III spent his entire life interviewing people who allegedly knew his father was a polygamist. Through all of his investigations, Joseph III never found a shred of credible evidence (facts and not opinions), even from alleged plural wives, to prove his father guilty of polygamy. <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/01/who-was-greatest-defender-of-joseph.html">He remained faithful to this position until the end of his life.</a> </p>
<p align="justify">Fourth, the case presented against Joseph is biased. It is obvious Joseph is on trial in the minds of many people. Some say he was a righteous prophet of God. Some say he was an evil liar. Some are undecided. Since he is in essence on trial, it is my belief he should be afforded the same rights as anyone on trial. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The evidence used to judge him should meet judicial standards--only facts, not opinions or hearsay, should be used to render a judgment. Unfortunately, the books that are being written today supporting the position that Joseph was a polygamist do not use that approach. While they appear at first look to use a well documented, unbiased approach to this subject, their basic premise is that Joseph lied and everyone else told the truth. Their books presume Joseph’s guilt, not his innocence. I say this because they omit pertinent evidence of his innocence: his writings, statements of Emma, Joseph III’s interviews, Temple Lot Case, etc. Some of the evidence they quote is hearsay and opinion, not fact. They make little attempt to evaluate the evidence based on how close to the event the statement was recorded or whether there was motive to lie. In my opinion, based on judicial standards, the evidence they do quote is dubious in nature. The allegations of John C. Bennett cannot be given serious consideration because he was a liar and an adulterer and had motive to impugn Joseph’s character. The allegations made in the <a href="http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm">Nauvoo Expositor</a> were just that—allegations. There were no names, dates, or places given to corroborate their truth. The <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA219#v=onepage&q=&f=false">testimonies</a> published by Andrew Jenson in the Historical Record 6 (which are the heart of the evidence against Joseph) were made thirty to forty years after the alleged incidents by those heavily involved with polygamy in Utah—some of which were wives of Brigham Young and other Utah LDS Church leaders. They were not unbiased witnesses that recorded their observations chronologically close to the events. When some of these witnesses were cross-examined in the Temple Lot Case in the 1890s, their testimonies fell apart. Even though the Utah LDS Church provided their best witnesses in that trial to prove Joseph began polygamy in the Church, the <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/heritage/articles/churchincourt.htm#start">U. S. Circuit Court Judge ruled</a> there was not sufficient evidence presented to prove Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Thus, when judicial standards apply, the evidence against Joseph becomes weak. And if the evidence against him is weak, he should be found innocent, not guilty, because in our nation innocence is presumed, not proven. </p>
<p align="justify">Fifth, Joseph has no proven children of alleged polygamous marriages. One of the <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/10/is-dna-proving-joseph-smith-was-not.html">main purposes of polygamy</a> was to produce offspring. If Joseph married over thirty wives, which author’s say he did, his offspring from polygamist wives would have been numerous, as was the case with Brigham Young. Joseph had several children by Emma and thus would have had several by other wives. Yet DNA is proving Joseph had no children other than with Emma. This fact is proof, according to the purpose of celestial marriage, that Joseph had no wives other than Emma. </p>
<p align="justify">In light of all the <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/search/label/New Attack on Joseph">books being published against Joseph</a>, it helps me to remember that the intent of the authors of these books is not to tell the truth. It is to dissuade my belief in Joseph as a prophet of God. This approach was used within the RLDS Church to move it into mainstream Christianity, which has happened to the Community of Christ. I believe it is the intent of these authors to do the same with the Mormon Church. </p>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-26172370550044982042009-08-27T20:46:00.006-05:002009-08-29T08:15:57.834-05:00The "New" Attack on Joseph--Part 2<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<p>It has been a very busy spring and summer for me and as a result, I haven’t been able to post anything since April. A few days ago I received a comment from a reader about “<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/04/new-attack-on-joseph.html">The ‘New’ Attack on Joseph</a>” post. They said, “Thanks for your post. I’m interested in hearing more.” So in response to their inquiry, I thought I would write a little more about the subject.</p>
<p>The idea in the first post is that the “new” attack on Joseph Smith, Jr. is being fueled mainly from those involved with the Mormon History Association (MHA), the John Whitmer Historical Association (JWHA), Sunstone, and Signature Books. The heart of the attack is coming from inside the Restoration Movement. I call it a “new” attack because it is a current day attack, but it doesn’t use new information or sources. The attack is based on many of the same old sources that have been used in attacks on Joseph from the beginning. The information is just being reinterpreted, respun, repackaged, and made to appear new and different. While attacks in the past have focused mainly on the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet, the “new” attack, using old sources, draws additional conclusions which impugn his personal honor and integrity. The “new” attack is not satisfied to merely conclude he was a false prophet, but viciously concludes he was evil, deceitful, a liar, an adulterer, and a pedophile.</p>
<p>As stated earlier, one of the groups substantially involved in this attack is the JWHA. According to the <a href="http://jwha.info/about/jhist.asp">JWHA history page</a>, this group was formed in September, 1972, by members of the RLDS Church. The founding members included professors at Graceland College (RLDS Church college), editorial staff of the Herald Publishing House (RLDS Church publishing organization), RLDS Church historian, members of the RLDS Church Department of Religious Education, and future president of the RLDS Church. According to Bill Russell, one of the founding members of JWHA, in a <a href="http://mormonstories.org/?p=389">presentation given in 2000 at the Sunstone Symposium</a> in Salt Lake City, many of the founding members of JWHA were heavily involved in liberalizing (Bill Russell’s word) the RLDS Church away from its original beliefs and into the Community of Christ (CofC), which today is nothing more than a mainstream Christian church. Bill Russell stated that this liberalization began in 1958 (which coincides with the year W. Wallace Smith became the president of the RLDS Church) and has continued to the present. To accomplish this task, the liberal founders of JWHA and other liberal leaders systematically began to teach liberal doctrines and to discredit Joseph Smith as a prophet and a man through published articles in the Saints’ Herald, church curriculum, and instruction at Graceland College in the areas of church history and religion. This included questioning the <a href="http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=6&num=2&id=152">authenticity of the Book of Mormon</a> and the Inspired Version, the authority of the church and priesthood, an all male priesthood, the practice of close communion and other doctrines of the church. The First Presidency and higher quorums of the church remained aloof from these discussions to allow deniability if questioned by the membership. The more radical opinions and controversial issues, such as allegations that Joseph was a polygamist, were allowed to be printed in “unofficial” church publications like <i>Courage</i> and <i>The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal. Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi</i>, by Robert Flanders, a founding member of JWHA, portrayed Joseph as less than a moral man and indicated he started the practice of polygamy in the church. The founders of the JWHA definitely had a strong influence in moving the RLDS Church away from its Restoration doctrine and into mainstream Christianity. In part, they accomplished this task by discrediting the character, prophetic calling, and works of Joseph Smith. The JWHA continues to support this position regarding Joseph and the Restoration Movement through its <a href="http://www.jwha.info/resources/">publications</a>, <a href="http://www.jwha.info/awards/">writing achievement awards</a>, and <a href="http://www.jwha.info/meetings/">annual meetings</a>. In addition, the annual meetings support liberal social and religious change. Their ideological position is important to remember as we discuss the relationship between the JWHA and the MHA, Sunstone, and Signature Books.</p>
<p>The MHA was founded in 1965 as an affiliate of the American Historical Association and became an independent organization in 1972. According to the <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/about/mha_history.php">history page</a> of the MHA Web site, “MHA was organized to promote understanding, scholarly research, and publication in the field of Mormon History.” There is an obvious connection and association between the MHA and the JWHA. Some <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/about/officers.php">presidents of the MHA</a> have also been members and <a href="http://www.jwha.info/about/leadership.asp">presidents of the JWHA</a> and visa versa. One can apply for membership to both organizations from both the <a href="http://www.jwha.info/membership/form.asp">JWHA Web site</a> and the <a href="https://webser.securesites.net/mhasecure/membership/join_now_authnet2.php">MHA Web site</a> and receive a discount if they do so. Members of both organizations publish in <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/pubs/journal_TOC.php">MHA</a> and <a href="http://www.jwha.info/resources/default.asp">JWHA</a> publications. <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/conferences/index.php">Conferences</a>, articles in the <i><a href="http://www.mhahome.org/pubs/journal_TOC.php">Journal of Mormon History</a></i>, (published by MHA) and <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/awards/index.php">writing achievement awards</a> granted in the past by the MHA have, like the JWHA, supported discrediting the character, prophetic calling, and works of Joseph. According to the <i>Journal of Mormon History</i> page of the MHA Web site, “Manuscripts dealing with all aspects of Mormon history are welcome…. First consideration will be given to those which make a strong contribution to knowledge <strong>through new interpretations</strong> and/or new information” (emphasis added). In addition, MHA conferences and <i>Journal of Mormon History </i>articles have supported reform of Mormonism (including social change) toward mainstream Christianity. So, it seems, the MHA and the JWHA have similar ideological positions about Joseph and the Restoration Movement. Hopefully, this will become even clearer with the information provided below.</p>
<p>The books fueling the “new” attack are many, and the authors come from a Utah LDS background. Some are still members, some are not. Either these books or their authors have received awards from the MHA or the JWHA or both. In addition, many of these authors have written articles published in either the <i>Journal of Mormon History</i> or <i>The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.</i> Their association with the <a href="http://www.mhahome.org/">MHA</a> or the <a href="http://www.jwha.info/">JWHA</a> can be verified at the respective Web sites. Books fueling the “new” attack are listed below. I’ve included links to information and reviews about these books so you can briefly see how they attempt to discredit the character, prophetic calling, and works of Joseph Smith.</p></div>
<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<ul>
<li><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Enigma:_Emma_Hale_Smith">Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith</a></i>, by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery.
<ul>
<li>Published by Doubleday, 1984.</li>
<li>MHA 1984 Best Book Award.</li>
<li>Linda King Newell was president of both MHA and JWHA.</li>
<li>Valeen Tippetts Avery was president of MHA.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.irr.org/mit/mormon-enigma-br.html">Review by Luke Wilson</a>.</li></ul></li>
<li><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/mp.htm">Mormon Polygamy: A History</a>, by Richard S. Van Wagoner. </li>
<ul>
<li>Published by Signature Books, 1989.</li>
<li>Richard S. Van Wagoner’s writings have been published by both MHA and JWHA and he has received awards from MHA.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/mp.htm">Reviews by <i>The Arizona Daily Star,</i> by Linda K. Newell in <i>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, </i>by Richard P. Howard in <i>Saints’ Herald</i></a>.
</li>
<ul>
<li>Richard P. Howard was a Church Historian for the RLDS Church in the 1970s.</li>
<li>Richard P. Howard was a founding member of the JWHA.</li></ul></ul></ul></div>
<ul>
<li><i><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/insacred.htm">In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith</a>,</i> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Sacred_Loneliness:_The_Plural_Wives_of_Joseph_Smith">Todd Compton</a>. </li>
<ul>
<li>Published by Signature Books, 1997.</li>
<li>Best Book Award from JWHA.</li>
<li>Best Book Award from MHA.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/insacred.htm">Review by Carmon
Hardy in <i>Journal of Mormon History</i></a>.</li>
<li>Todd
Compton serves on the Board of
Editors for the <i>Journal of Mormon History.</i>
</li></ul>
<li><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn">Early Mormonism and the Magic World View</a></i>, by D. Michael Quinn.
<ul>
<li>Published by Signature Books, 1997.</li>
<li>D. Michael Quinn received several awards from MHA.</li>
<li>D. Michael Quinn wrote several articles for <i>The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.</i></li>
<li>D. Michael Quinn served on the editorial committee of the JWHA.</li></ul></li>
<li><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith:_The_Making_of_a_Prophet">Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet</a>,</i> by Dan Vogel.
<ul>
<li>Published by Signature Books, 2004.</li>
<li>Best Book Award from JWHA.</li>
<li>Best Biography Award from MHA.</li>
<li>Dan Vogel wrote
several articles for <i>The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.</i></li></ul></li>
<li><i><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/polygamy.htm">Nauvoo Polygamy “…but we called it celestial marriage”</a>,</i> by George D. Smith.
</li>
<ul>
<li>Published by Signature Books, 2008.</li>
<li>George D. Smith is founder and publisher of Signature Books.</li>
<li>George D. Smith <a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/clayton.htm">wrote articles</a> for <i>The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal </i>and <i>Journal of Mormon History.</i></li>
<li><a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/polygamy.html">Reviews</a>.
</li></ul></ul>
<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<p>While the above information is just a cursory look at these books and their authors, it is sufficient to show that the JWHA and MHA are cooperative in their approach against Joseph and fully support the books which are making this “new” attack. It is also interesting to note that most of these books have been published by Signature Books, making it a publishing conduit for the “new” attack. In addition to and intertwined with these three organizations, <a href="http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/">Sunstone Education
Foundation</a>, which publishes <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunstone_Magazine">Sunstone Magazine</a></i>, is also involved in supporting the “new” attack. </p>
<p>Sunstone started to sponsor symposiums in 1979 to explore all issues related to Mormonism. Those participating in these discussions are members of JWHA, MHA, and authors of some of the above books. The <a href="http://www.jwha.info/meetings/scheduleRSS09.asp">April, 2009, Midwest Symposium</a> was themed “Examining the Origins of Scripture.” It was held at Graceland University, Independence, MO. It was co-sponsored by the John Whitmer Historical Association, the Community of Christ Seminary, and the Sunstone Education Foundation. CofC presenters included CofC President Stephen Veazey, Richard P. Howard (JWHA), Bill Russell (JWHA), and CofC Apostle Dale Luffman. George D. Smith presented his book, <i>Nauvoo Polygamy “…but we called it celestial marriage.</i>” The <a href="https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/SLC09finalprogram.pdf">August, 2009, Salt Lake Symposium</a> was themed “Zion’s Sisterhood: Celebrating Mormon Women’s Contributions to Church & Culture.” It included participation by CofC apostles, Andrew Bolton and Dale Luffman, as well as Bill Russell, Linda King Newell, and D. Michael Quinn. The Sunstone symposiums support the same liberal social and religious reform issues and the same position about the character, prophetic calling, and works of Joseph Smith as does the JWHA and MHA.</p>
<p>So, what does all of this information point to? It points to a coordinated effort between these organizations to demean the character of Joseph Smith, Jr. But why? If people can be convinced that the vision in the grove didn’t happen, that Joseph lied about his early experiences with God and angels, and that he was an evil person, they will no longer believe in the truth of the Restoration Movement. The liberal leaders of the CofC, including the founders of the JWHA, used this tactic to help move the RLDS Church away from its Restoration distinctives and into mainstream Christianity. It is my opinion that the efforts of the JWHA, the MHA, Sunstone, and Signature Books to demean the character of Joseph Smith are intended to effectuate the same change within the Utah LDS Church.</p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-69265460796183039972009-04-27T15:56:00.009-05:002011-07-11T22:09:45.228-05:00The "New" Attack on Joseph--Part 1<div style="text-align: justify;">I recently received comments from a reader about my blog, "<a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/09/did-joseph-lie-about-polygamy.html">Did Joseph lie about polygamy?</a>" In partial response to his comments, I wrote the following words. Because they are pertinent to defending Joseph against the "new" attack on him, I decided to make a blog of them. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When one looks at all the recent books that have been published proclaiming Joseph to be a polygamist, it may be difficult for some to understand how anyone can believe he wasn’t. However, it is not the volume of information that is important -- only its integrity and truthfulness. And in my opinion that is where these books fail. In June, 2009, Joseph will have been dead for 165 years. Obviously, there is no new information on this subject to write about (except for DNA that is mostly ignored by the more current books). All these books just re-interpret old information to draw conclusions the author wants to draw. And when one objectively looks at the old information and evaluates it according to standards used in courts of law (i.e., how close to the event it was recorded, if it was first-hand knowledge, if there was a motive to lie or slant the truth, etc.), he finds that the old information doesn’t stand up to such scrutiny. Thus, there is no real proof Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If anyone doubts this, read the <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc18021&Category_Code=">Temple Lot Case</a> (which is also ignored in the books about Joseph and polygamy) in which, after considering all the evidence presented by the Utah LDS Church, the Hedrikite Church, and the RLDS Church, the <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/heritage/articles/churchincourt.htm#start">judge determined</a> there was no substantial evidence to determine Joseph was a polygamist and indicated the Utah LDS Church witnesses had pretty well lied about Joseph’s involvement in polygamy. If there is still doubt, read <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc01007&Category_Code=">Joseph Smith III’s memoirs</a> about how he purposely interviewed all the people he could that professed his father was a polygamist. Not one interview provided any creditable proof of his father’s guilt. If doubt still exists, read the interviews of Emma who, throughout her life, consistently testified of Joseph’s innocence. And if all of this is still not convincing, read all of Joseph’s statements and other evidence presented of his innocence in <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</a>. When one considers the flimsiness of the allegations (as shown by the work of Joseph III) against Joseph in comparison to the strength of a court decision, his wife’s testimony, and his own testimony as well as that of others, he begins to realize the truth in the statement made by Israel A. Smith (Joseph’s grandson), “Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify ... Utah Mormon polygamy.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, if Joseph was “lied about” to justify polygamy, why do the books written today continue that lie? Possibly, the authors with Mormon backgrounds have been so schooled in the idea that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy and lied about it that they can’t get past this notion. However, this doesn’t really explain why many ignore or dismiss evidence like the Temple Lot Case, or Joseph III's investigations, or present <a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/10/is-dna-proving-joseph-smith-was-not.html">DNA evidence</a> showing that about half of Joseph's alleged children from polygamist marriages have been proven not to be his biological children. I believe that the majority of these authors have hidden agendas to demean the character of Joseph and thus negate the work of God through him. To me, this is most evident in the recent book, <em>Nauvoo Polygamy “… but we called it celestial marriage”</em> by George D. Smith, publisher of Signature Books. (Gregory L. Smith in his <a href="http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=20&num=2&id=721">FARMS Review</a> of this book comes to the same conclusion about the author’s intent in writing this book when he states, “Why was this book published? To advance an agenda? The result often reads like the product of a vanity press rather than a serious attempt to synthesize the best available scholarship.”) Briefly, the great majority of the books now being written about Joseph and polygamy are coming from authors associated with three groups: John Whitmer Historical Association (JWHA), Sunstone, and Mormon History Association (MHA). It is interesting to note that Signature Books, mentioned above, sells <em>Sunstone Magazine</em>, the <em>Journal of Mormon History</em>, and publishes and sells some books of authors associated with JWHA and MHA. The JWHA was established by and continues to have membership of those who led the RLDS Church (now Community of Christ) into mainstream Christianity. I believe their attack on Joseph continues in order to rid that church of its Restoration Movement origins and doctrine. President Veazey of the Community of Christ (CoC), who gave a talk at the <a href="http://www.jwha.info/meetings/scheduleRSS09.asp">2009 Restoration Studies Symposium</a> sponsored by Sunstone and JWHA, recently intimated in his <a href="http://www.cofchrist.org/presidency/sermons/_040509Veazey.asp">“Defining Moment” address</a> to the members of the CoC that the church is moving away from Joseph Smith, Jr. and embracing Joseph Smith III, because he taught the “peaceable things of the Kingdom.” Because many JWHA members are involved with Sunstone and MHA, I’m speculating that an underlying motive of many involved with Sunstone and MHA is to influence the members and leadership of the Utah LDS Church to move away from Joseph Smith. Thus, I believe the lie continues to be promoted and magnified by those whose agenda is not to tell the truth but to move the Restoration Movement away from its roots into mainstream Christianity. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/08/new-attack-on-joseph-part-2.html">Go to The "New" Attack on Joseph--Part 2.</a></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-38008794560945257612009-03-27T20:45:00.002-05:002009-03-27T20:49:02.824-05:00Current proof Joseph Smith was a prophet<div style="text-align:justify">
<p>According to the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22, verses 21–23:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And worlds without number have I created... Behold there are many worlds
which have passed away by the word of my power; and there are many also which
now stand, and numberless are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto
me; for they are mine, and I know them. The heavens, they are many and they
can not be numbered unto man, but they are numbered unto me, for they are
mine; and as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall
another come; and there is no end to my works....</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, in the Inspired Version of the Bible, Enoch states to God:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea,
and millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number
of thy creations....</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In essence these passages from both the Doctrine and Covenants and the Inspired
Version state that God has created many worlds in addition to Earth. At the
time this was written by Joseph in the early 1830s, there was no evidence or
even the slightest indication that inhabitable worlds existed in the universe
other than Earth. Yet Joseph claimed they were true and given to him by God.
</p>
<p>For over 170 years belief in the truth of these statements has been an exercise
of faith—until now. In a recent article at CNN.com, "<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/">Galaxy
may be full of 'Earths,' alien life</a>," the author states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As NASA prepares to hunt for Earth-like planets in our corner of the Milky
Way galaxy, there's new buzz that "Star Trek's" vision of a universe
full of life may not be that far-fetched. </p>
<p>There may be 100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for
every sun-type star in the galaxy, said Alan Boss, an astronomer with the
Carnegie Institution and author of the new book "The Crowded Universe:
The Search for Living Planets."</p>
<p>Boss said that if any of the billions of Earth-like worlds he believes exist
in the Milky Way have liquid water, they are likely to be home to some type
of life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The test of a true prophet is that God reveals His truths through him before
the rest of the world comes to that understanding. As Amos 3:7 states, "Surely
the Lord God will do nothing, until he revealeth the secret unto his servants
the prophets." The truth of other inhabitable worlds was revealed to Joseph
Smith, Jr. 170 years before the rest of the world came to that knowledge, thus
proving Joseph was a prophet of God.</p>
</div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-5737963775839969092009-02-23T19:36:00.019-06:002012-02-11T09:20:42.352-06:00Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<p>Several sites on the Internet indicate that Joseph Smith, Jr. made improper advances toward Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah Pratt, in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Nauvoo</span> while Orson was on a mission to England. According to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Pratt">article on Sarah Pratt at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Wikipedia</span></a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sarah Pratt claimed in an 1886 interview that, while in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Nauvoo</span> around 1840 or 1841, Joseph Smith was attracted to her and intended to make her "one of his spiritual wives." According to Bennett, while Orson was in England on missionary service, Smith proposed to Pratt by claiming divine inspiration: "Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as he granted holy men of old, and I have long looked upon you with favor, and hope you will not repulse or deny me", to which Bennett claimed Pratt replied: "Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant … to my lawful husband! I never will. I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in NO SUCH revelations, neither will I consent under any circumstances. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me." Also according to Bennett, Smith made three additional proposals. By Bennett's account, Pratt issued an ultimatum to Smith: "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will tell Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it," a warning that elicited the threat from Smith, "Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me; if I am to suffer, all suffer; so do not expose me.... If you should tell, I will ruin your reputation, remember that."</p>
<p>After Orson returned from England, Bennett claims another incident between Pratt and Smith at her home occurred. According to Sarah Pratt's neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her [declaring that he had found Bennett] in bed with her." Sarah told her husband about the incident; Orson took Sarah's side and confronted Smith, who denied Sarah's allegation and responded that she was Bennett's lover.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Wikipedia</span> article quotes three sources for this information: Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986), "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate", <em>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought</em> 19 (2): 79; Smith, Andrew F. (1971), <em>The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett</em>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Urbana</span> and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p. 141; Bennett, John C. (1842), <em>The History of the Saints; or An <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Exposé</span> of Joe Smith and Mormonism</em>, Boston: Leland & Whiting. In addition to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Wikipedia</span> article, other sites such as <a href="http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Joseph_Smth_mens_wives.htm">Rethinking Mormonism</a>, make similar statements about Sarah Pratt and Joseph Smith, Jr.</p>
<p>However, these sites do not consider the exceptional documentation and rationale presented in the <a href="http://www.restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/sarahprattcase.htm">Sarah Pratt Case</a> of <em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</a></em>. In the Price's work, they clearly show how Joseph was innocent of any inappropriate behavior with Sarah Pratt. At the end of the article, they quote a most revealing interview which Joseph Smith III conducted with Sarah Pratt. Joseph III last met with Orson Pratt in 1876 and in a later visit to Salt Lake City, he had the opportunity to visit with his wife, Sarah Pratt, about her relationship with Joseph Smith, Jr. According to Joseph Smith III,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?"</p>
<p>"You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied.</p>
<p>I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Doctor Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer.</p>
<p>I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">revealment</span> prove I had been in error.</p>
<p>She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place.</p>
<p>"Did you know my father in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Nauvoo</span>?"</p>
<p>"Yes, I knew him well."</p>
<p>"Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?"</p>
<p>"Yes."</p>
<p>"Did you ever know him to be guilty of any impropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?"</p>
<p>"No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful."</p>
<p>"Did he ever visit you or at your house?"</p>
<p>"He did."</p>
<p>"Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of the question?"</p>
<p>To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better."</p>
<p>"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me."</p>
<p>"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man."</p>
<p>That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her. The result was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Doctor Benedict.</p>
<p>It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes.</p>
<p>Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said:</p>
<p>"My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!"</p>
<p>Not a great while after this, just how long I do not know, Mrs. Pratt passed "over the river." I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue. (<em>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914)</em>, pp. 33-34)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is obvious to me that Sarah Pratt's in-depth interview, with repeated questions and answers designed to reveal the truth, carries much more <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">evidentiary</span> weight than a simple statement to the contrary. And indeed, it carries much more weight than third party statements to the contrary. So, did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt? Absolutely not! In Sarah Pratt's own words to Joseph III, "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man" (ibid., p.34).</p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-28671801758464348482009-02-10T17:38:00.010-06:002013-10-08T12:04:29.057-05:00Howard Corey's Testimony Refuted<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<p><em>The Historical Record </em>6, edited and published by Andrew Jenson, provides the following <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA228&ci=583,914,308,26&source=bookclip">affidavit made by Howard Corey</a>, in June, 1882:</p>
<blockquote><p>As many false statements have been made in relation to the authorship of the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem it but justice to all lovers of truth for me to express what I know concerning this very important matter.</p>
<p>On the 22nd day of July, A. D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; he invited me and my wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, as soon as we could make ourselves ready, we got into the carriage and he set off in the direction of Carthage. Having gone a short distance, he observed to us that his brother, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had received a revelation on marriage, that was not for the public yet, which he would rehearse to us, as he had taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced rehearsing the revelation on celestial marriage, not stopping till he had gone quite through with the matter. After which he reviewed that part pertaining to plurality of wives, dwelling at some length upon the same in order that we might clearly understand the principle. And on the same day (July 22nd, 1843) he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane Knowlton, to me; and when I heard the revelation on celestial marriage read on the stand in Salt Lake City in 1852, I recognized it, as the same as that repeated to me by Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after this I was present when Brother David Fullmer and wife were sealed by Brother Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, according to the law of celestial marriage. And, besides the foregoing, there was quite enough came within the compass of my observation to have fully satisfied my mind that plural marriage was practiced in the city of Nauvoo.</p></blockquote>
<p>Joseph Smith III's interview with Howard Corey in 1885 (only three years later) revealed a much different understanding than the above.</p>
<blockquote><p>As I look back today over the events of my visit to Provo in 1885, I see in memory one man who had been an in­mate of my father's house in Nauvoo from time to time, and to me always an agreeable companion. I refer to the school teacher, Howard S. Corey. After obeying the gospel, he and his wife came from the East with a company desiring to settle among the Saints. It was his wife, as I have stated, who wrote, at the dictation of my grandmother, the book entitled <em>Joseph Smith and His Progenitors</em>, commonly known among us as “Lucy Smith’s History.”</p>
<p>Mr. Corey taught the second school I remember attending after my earliest lessons at home. I have written of this school, kept in the double loghouse, one end of which was occupied as a living room, situated in the same block as the homes of Uncle Hyrum and John Taylor. He was the man whose leg father broke when engaged in a friendly tussle, as I have related. After father's death he and his wife remained a year or two at Nauvoo, and then went West with other immigrants to Utah soon after grand­mother's history was completed.</p>
<p>On Friday, July 10, about noon, a man came to Brother Gammon's desiring a talk with me. I bade him be seated and was just about to settle down beside him when two others came in, one of whom had a whip in his hand. They came for­ward, and one announced himself as Howard S. Corey, introducing the other as a Mr. Dusenberry, nephew of Judge Dusenberry, of Provo. The young man had brought Mr. Corey over in his buggy, for, having heard I was in town, the latter desired to see me and have an interview with me. I told him I was very glad to meet him again and that he was very welcome.</p>
<p>The gentleman who had first come in asked if he should not retire and come another time, but I told him to stay, for nothing would be said that he might not hear; so he was present throughout the interview. The young man Dusenberry, a much younger man than Corey, took a seat nearby where he also could hear well what was said, and there were pres­ent, besides, Thomas Gammon, our host, and Elders Anthony and Luff whom I in­troduced to my visitors.</p>
<p>After these preliminaries Elder Corey stated that he had been very anxious to meet me ever since he heard I was in Utah and that now he had come to tell me his story in order that I might not be entirely ignorant of matters which had happened in the past. After a few words exchanging memories of affairs at Nauvoo, he began his story, and told it well—that is, it would have been well for him had I not remembered quite clearly a number of things which proved somewhat troublesome for him to ex­plain or answer, in view of his anxiety to enlighten me upon things which he thought I ought to know.</p>
<p>After he had finished his recital, I be­gan questioning him, being particularly desirous to obtain directly from him whatever he might know of my father's reputed connection with the introduction and practice of plural marriage, celes­tial marriage, polygamy or spiritual wifery. He had stated that he was taught celestial marriage by my uncle, Hyrum Smith, and by him had been so married to his wife. Our interview took about this form:</p>
<p>"Brother Corey, did you see or hear read in Nauvoo any 'revelation' on celes­tial marriage?"</p>
<p>"No; I was taught it in conversation by Hyrum Smith."</p>
<p>"Was it publicly preached at Nauvoo to your knowledge?"</p>
<p>"It was not."</p>
<p>"Did you hear my father teach or preach it?"</p>
<p>"No, sir."</p>
<p>I knew that this man had been a fre­quent visitor at my father's house, often eating meals there, and sometimes doing clerical work for father. Therefore, having been so intimate an acquaintance with the members and affairs of my father's household, he was in a position to be fairly well informed about what ordi­narily occurred there. Recollecting these conditions, I asked him:</p>
<p>"Did you ever see at my father's house any woman besides my mother who was known and recognized as my father's wife?"</p>
<p>"No, sir. I did not."</p>
<p>"Did you ever see him abroad in company with any woman, other than my mother, who was known or reputed to be his wife?"</p>
<p>"I never did."</p>
<p>By this time he had grown a little res­tive under the questioning, but I told him to have patience with me, that I was anxious to find out all I could, and knowing and remembering him, as I did, to have been an intimate acquaintance of the family, it was natural for me to believe he would be able to give me direct and fairly authentic information on these important matters. I told him I was not a child, and was prepared and willing to face either the worst or the best as the truth might reveal it to be. He expressed a willingness to give me any information within his power and therefore I continued my questions.</p>
<p>"Did you attend the social gatherings held among the Saints at Nauvoo?"</p>
<p>"Yes, to some extent."</p>
<p>"Did you ever see my father present at any of those festivities?"</p>
<p>"Yes."</p>
<p>"Did you ever see any woman with him, other than my mother, who was introduced by him as his wife?"</p>
<p>"No, sir; I never saw him in the com­pany of any other woman than your mother, Emma."</p>
<p>"Do you have personal knowledge that my father was, married to, or lived as husband with, any woman, other than my mother?"</p>
<p>Without hesitation or qualification, he answered, "No sir; I never did."</p>
<p>Coming back to the thought of the "revelation" about which I had asked him, and to his statement about his "celestial" marriage to his wife, I asked:</p>
<p>"Did your 'celestial marriage' to your wife take place in the Temple?"</p>
<p>"No, sir; the Temple was not finished then."</p>
<p>"Did it take place in the Masonic Hall?"</p>
<p>"No."</p>
<p>"In the Brick Store office?"</p>
<p>"No, sir."</p>
<p>"Was it in a dwelling house?"</p>
<p>"No, sir; it was on the street."</p>
<p>"How was that?"</p>
<p>"Well, I had held conversations with your Uncle Hyrum, in which he taught me that married couples who felt that they were sufficiently agreeable to one another in their married life together that they wished those associations to be continued after death could go before some high priest and be sealed for eter­nity, in order to assure the continuance on the other side of their ties as married companions. My wife and I had talked this over, and one day, riding in a buggy up Main Street, we met Brother Hyrum on his way home. At his suggestion, we stood up in the buggy, clasped our hands together, and he pronounced the ceremony uniting us as husband and wife for <em>eternity</em>, having already been married for <em>time</em>."</p>
<p>"Do you know of any other persons who were sealed in a similar way?"</p>
<p>"Yes, an elderly couple well past mid­dle age, whose children were away from home, were sealed in my presence with this ceremony."</p>
<p>"Was it done by father?"</p>
<p>"No; it was a high priest who was a neighbor to them."</p>
<p>"Was it taught that this ceremony which was said to be revealed was in­tended as a marriage ceremony in the ordinary use of the term, used to unite those not already married and who con­templated living together as husband and wife in the flesh as is done in the case of the civil marriage?"</p>
<p>Distinctly he answered. "It was not. It was only intended for those already married, who were desirous of continu­ing in the next life their associations as husband and wife found pleasant here. It was not contemplated or considered as a marriage ceremony such as that one contained in the <em>Book of Covenants</em> which is used as a form and authority in the church."</p>
<p>"Did you know any man already mar­ried, who was sealed by this ceremony to any woman, or to women, other than his own wife?"</p>
<p>"No, sir; I did not. It was not intended to be used in that way, and it did not in­clude the joining in marriage for the purpose of domestic life together as does the usual marriage ceremony."</p>
<p>I was particularly pleased with these answers to my questions. Thinking to test his memory and also to justify my­self, if possible, by what he would an­swer, I then asked him how he accounted for the fact now generally conceded that no children were born to my father or to my Uncle Hyrum in polygamy or plural marriage, since it had so often been stated that they had a number of wives.</p>
<p>Mr. Corey waited for a moment, as if thinking deeply, and then answered:</p>
<p>"Brother Joseph, I confess that ques­tion has been quite a stumblingblock to me for I have no way of answering it satisfactorily to myself except I should do it in the way the mother of a young friend of mine accounted for it. He used to work with me up in the canyons after wood, and we used often to talk about the Prophet Joseph and his work. One day he asked me this same question you have asked, and plied me with a number of arguments that I could not an­swer. He then said he intended to ask his mother."</p>
<p>At this point in Mr. Corey's story I interjected: "Was she one of Father's reputed wives?"</p>
<p>"Oh, yes," he answered, "his mother was one of your father's wives. I tried to persuade him not to broach the subject to his mother, but he seemed determined, for he was plainly curious to know why your father, in the vigor of young manhood, had never had children by any of his plural wives. When next we met and sat down to lunch in the wood, my young companion told me he had carried out his intention and had asked his mother about this matter, and she had replied, after due deliberation, 'My son, the prophet was very considerate in his associations with women, and did not wish to subject them to the disgrace of having children without being married!'"</p>
<p>At this astounding statement I exclaimed, "Disgrace, Brother Corey, <em>disgrace</em>?"</p>
<p>A flush spread over his features, and he said, slowly, "Perhaps she should have said 'supposed disgrace,' but her answer to the young man was as I have stated it to you."</p>
<p>At this the young Mr. Dusenberry hastily arose and said, "Come, Brother Howard, it is time we were going."</p>
<p>I could not repress the impulse to say, smiling broadly, "That is right, Brother Dusenberry; better take him away before he makes any further admissions that are damaging to your case."</p>
<p>I thanked Elder Corey most heartily for his kindness in coming to see me and for the reassuring statements he had made, which had greatly encouraged and heartened me.</p>
<p>We discussed numbers of people and events of those earlier days, and he said before we parted, "I perceive, Brother Joseph, that you remember a good deal more than I thought possible."</p>
After he and his companion took their departure, I turned to the gentleman who had been waiting for his interview and found to my surprise that he was suffering under the influence of some excitement. His face was very red, he was perspiring freely, and when he attempted to speak his lips quivered, and tears threatened to flow down his cheeks. He burst out with the words: <p></p>
<p>"My God, my God! Brother Smith, what shall we do, what shall we do?"</p>
<p>"What do you mean, friend?" I asked him.</p>
<p>"Why, when I thought of all I had been told about your father, I came here to ask you some questions and to overwhelm you with what I supposed I knew. And you have kindly let me stay and hear this conversation between you and a man who must have been thoroughly acquainted with the facts, and here I have heard him testify just contrary to what has always been claimed and charged out here. I am astonished and bewildered!"</p>
<p>"You do not blame me for making the inquiries I did, do you?"</p>
<p>"Oh, no, not at all—but see what a fix it puts us all in, Brother Smith."</p>
<p>His words will have more meaning for the reader when I state that he was, as he told me, one of the three presiding officers of the local Mormon church at Provo and had come, in a spirit of bravado, to see me and "face me down" on some of the points I had made in my sermon the night before. He seemed to be curiously wrought upon, almost fearful. I comforted him the best I could, telling him that if a man did the best he knew and lived as near God as was possible, he need have no fear of consequences.</p>
<p>He kept reverting to the fact that they were "all in trouble," that their leading men were being arrested, and that he did not know what was the best to be done. I did not ask him to tell me about his own life, whether polygamous or not, but I rather inferred that it was. He finally thanked me for my courtesy and went his way.</p>
<p>Whatever may have been the ultimate result to him of the conversation and testimony he had heard, I have had no means of ascertaining, but when the guests were all gone, Brethren Anthony, Luff, Gammon, and I compared notes and were all quite surprised at the developments. By some means, or under the influence of some power, Corey had been moved to give information which we were quite sure he had not intended and which he would have been glad if he had not imparted to me. It had come into our conversation so naturally and informally he had been quite unsuspecting and off his guard, while I, on the contrary, in my anxiety had been quite on the <em>qui vive</em>. I shall never forget the bewildered expression that came over his face following his repetition of the answer the mother had given to her son, "The Prophet Joseph was a very, very considerate man and did not want to subject the women to the disgrace of haying children when they were not married. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), pp. 230-232)</p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously from the answers given by Howard Corey to Joseph Smith III, his testimony published in <em>The Historical Record</em> was not true. He just made it up to support the position of the Utah LDS Church that the celestial marriage revelation (Utah LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132) came from Joseph Smith, Jr. This is additional evidence that the affidavits and statements obtained by Joseph F. Smith <strong>do not</strong> "prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, did teach and practice the principle of plural marriage in his lifetime" (<em>The Historical Record</em> 6, page 233). In fact, their untruthfulness testifies that Joseph Smith, Jr. was indeed innocent of teaching or practicing polygamy.</p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-10199467541458936842009-02-06T20:00:00.003-06:002013-10-08T12:05:09.769-05:00Did Joseph hide polygamy because he feared opposition?<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<p>It is said in many discussion groups, blogs, and sites on the Internet that Joseph hid his practice of polygamy because he feared violent repercussions from the community if they found out. I've always felt this argument was extremely weak because Joseph was already persecuted (beaten, tarred and feathered, thrown in jail) for what he believed and taught. Exposing to the public a belief and practice of polygamy wouldn't have made the persecutions any worse.</p>
<p>The other night I happened to read again Chapter 7 of <a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm">Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy</a>. At the end of the chapter, the authors address this issue in an excellent manner. So I thought I would quote what they said.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The belief that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy, but did it secretly because he feared opposition, is a ridiculous, weak belief according to Joseph's sons, Joseph III, Alexander, and David.</p>
<p>Joseph Smith III was eleven and a half years old at the time of his father's death. The young lad had a deep respect for, and a close relationship with, his father. He was intelligent and studious, and knew more about the polygamy conspiracy against his father than most Saints, because he often witnessed his mother and father's joint work to counteract the false polygamous charges which Bennett had made. He had the opportunity to observe his father's behavior, language, and mindset in public and private, both in the Prophet's office and home. As an example, the father required that Joseph III sometimes accompany him upon the rostrum during worship services; and the boy stayed at least once with his father while the Prophet was in hiding. Joseph III had this to say in answer to Brigham Young and others' claims that his father kept a polygamous revelation and polygamous marriages secret because of fear of the public:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To assert that Joseph Smith was afraid to promulgate that doctrine [polygamy], if the command to do so had come from God, is to charge him with a moral cowardice to which his whole life gives the lie. Nor does it charge him alone with cowardice, but brands his compeers with the same undeserved approbrium. The very fact that men are now found who dare to present and defend it, is proof positive that Joseph and Hyrum Smith would have dared to do the same thing had they been commanded so to do.</p>
<p>The danger to the lives of those men would have been no more imminent, nor any greater in the preaching of "Celestial Marriage," than it was in preaching the "Golden Bible" and the doctrine that Joseph Smith was a prophet blessed with divine revelation. For the preaching of these tenets many lost their lives; Joseph and Hyrum Smith were repeatedly mobbed, were imprisoned and finally died, in the faith originally promulgated, but—if we may judge from their public records,—not believers in polygamy. (Joseph Smith III, Reply to Orson Pratt [tract], 4)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Alexander Hale Smith, a son of the Prophet, was six years old when his father was slain. After studying the polygamous charges against his father he wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We also learn another fact: ... That in the brain of J. C. Bennett was conceived the idea, and in his practice was the principle first introduced into the church; and from this hellish egg was hatched the present degrading, debasing, and destructive polygamic system, known as "spiritual wifery," or the "celestial marriage," so called.</p>
<p>It is said that Joseph Smith, the martyr, received a revelation revealing the "celestial marriage" and instituting "plurality of wives." I have already examined the testimony of Joseph Smith, concerning the marriage ceremony; and he declares that he knew of no other system of marriage than the one quoted from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [1835 Kirtland Edition, 101; 1844 Nauvoo Edition, 109; 1866 Liverpool Edition, 109; RLDS DC, 111]. . . .
</p>
<p>But says one, "that was only a sham to blind the eyes of our enemies." Shame on the man, or set of men, who will thus wilfully charge the two best men of the nineteenth century, the two Prophets of the most high God, with publishing to the church and the public at large a lie, and signing their names to it.</p>
<p>"Oh! but it was done to save their lives." A very likely story, when those two men had faced death and the world for fourteen long years, preaching the word of God to a sin-cursed generation. No, no, it will not do, you must meet the truth with better weapons than that, if you expect to make much of a battle. Besides all that, Is it not written, that "He who seeketh to save his life shall lose it, and he who loseth his life for my sake shall find it," and did not they know this. Yes, a thousand times yes; it was their hope, their consolation in times of danger. (Alexander H. Smith, Polygamy: Was It an Original Tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? [tract], 6)
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In spite of all that Joseph did to proclaim that he was not lying when he said he had not had a polygamous revelation, and that he was honest in his condemning of polygamy, members of the LDS Church proclaim even to this day that Joseph did receive Section 132 and was a polygamist. Joseph's side of the story has been, and is being, purposefully ignored by the LDS Church. They never give Joseph credit for having spoken the truth on this subject. In fact, they consider it was necessary and acceptable for the Prophet to lie, even though the Scriptures teach that lying is a major sin. It is ridiculous to believe that Joseph lied about polygamy because he feared a prejudiced public—for even the Mormons publish that Joseph bravely faced death at Carthage, saying, "I am calm as a summer's morning" (Times and Seasons 5 [July 15, 1844]: 585; RLDS DC 113:4b; LDS DC 135:4). When Joseph's statements against polygamy are taken at face value and are read with the realization that he was not a cowardly liar—an astounding fact becomes obvious—that it was Brigham and his pro-polygamist party that palmed a fraudulent polygamy conspiracy upon the Saints, which has blighted the Latter Day Saint Movement for over a century and a half.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So well said, there is nothing more to comment about this issue.</p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-969463919075262872009-01-31T00:01:00.003-06:002011-07-11T22:13:52.664-05:00Who was the greatest defender of Joseph Smith, Jr.?<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> <p>Many blogs, discussion groups, and even Wikipedia assert that toward the end of Joseph Smith III's life he wavered in his belief that his father, Joseph Smith, Jr., did not teach or practice polygamy. According to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy">Wikipedia article on the origin of LDS polygamy</a>, "In the end, Smith concluded that he was 'not positive nor sure that [his father] was innocent' and that if, indeed, the elder Smith had been involved, it was still a false practice." This position is used by those believing Joseph Smith, Jr. taught and practiced polygamy to diminish Joseph III's lifelong defence of his father's honor so their position can be made stronger. However, this position is just not true.</p><p>In 1913, during the last part of his 80th year and a little more than a year prior to his death, Joseph Smith III wrote the following in his memoirs:</p><blockquote> <p>It may be supposed at this writing (I am now nearing the close of my eightieth year), after the lapse of thirty-six years since I took the stand I did in Salt Lake City, among those people so diverse and hostile to my faith, that I should have some regrets that I had not adopted a different policy and followed, possibly, a more conciliatory course in order to make a more favorable impression. But I now record that such is not the case. Through all these years of reflection over the experiences which attended that first visit and several later ones, in which I preached at many places as opportunity offered--north, south, east, and west--and came in contact with many advocates of polygamy and plural marriage, I have entertained no wish that I had taken a less positive stand. I have never felt that any softer policy would have been wiser, for I am satisfied that I have found and occupied the only tenable ground open to me as the son of the prophet Joseph Smith,<em> whom I believed to be innocent of responsibility for the evils they had embraced</em>. As leader of the church reorganized, I felt sure that position was the one which could be maintained and successfully defended from the beginning of the conflict to the very end. (<em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc01007&Category_Code=">The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914)</a></em>, p. 164, italics added)</p></blockquote><p>Just a little over a year prior to his death, Joseph Smith III still believed his father "to be innocent of responsibility for the evils [polygamy] they [Utah LDS] had embraced." Thus, contrary to what many proclaim, he did not waiver in this position. He was firm in his belief to the end. </p><p>So, with all the information presented to him indicating his father's involvement in polygamy, how did he retain his firm belief of his father's innocence? Simply, his belief was founded in the truth because he could separate opinion from fact. As he said earlier in his memoirs: </p><blockquote> <p>I had made the law my study, and I had not regretted it, for I had already found that what knowledge along those lines I had acquired had been of much value to me in the work I had undertaken. I had gone into the conflict against error and false claims with a mind at least partially trained along legal lines, and I knew how to value evidence. I knew the difference between assumption and fact, and was prepared to examine whatever was presented as evidence in such a manner as to determine whether or not it was worth of the name of proof, especially in the controversy then existing between the various factions of the church. (ibid., p. 163)</p></blockquote><p>Through all of his investigations, Joseph III never found a shred of credible evidence, even from the alleged plural wives, to prove his father guilty of polygamy. Thus, he remained convinced of his father's innocence to the end of his life. Indeed, Joseph Smith III was his father's greatest defender. </p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-828488812725731323.post-64400831331781871772009-01-28T20:00:00.014-06:002012-02-11T09:17:56.354-06:00Was Melissa Lott Willis a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.?<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><p>I have recently been reading <em><a href="http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc01007&Category_Code=">The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914)</a> </em>and found his statement of a conversation he had with the Lott sisters (Melissa, Mary, and Alzina) in October, 1885, at Lehi, Utah. Melissa Lott Willis was one listed on page 234 of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA219&ci=291,486,337,36&source=bookclip"><em>The Historical Record</em> 6</a>, edited and published by Andrew Jenson, as a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&ots=i8d1v8TwoB&dq=historical%20record%20andrew%20jenson&pg=PA119&ci=475,164,280,26&source=bookclip">A sketch of her life</a> is found on page 119 of this work and in part states: </p><blockquote><p>…on Sept 1843 she was married to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. She spent most of the following winter in his family going to school in the so-called brick store. The Prophet's children, Joseph, Frederick and Alexander, went to same school, under the immediate watch-care of Sister Malissa. In the spring of she went back to live with her parents on the farm, where she remained until after martyrdom of her husband in Carthage Jail. Subsequently she lived with Emma, occasionally, until the exodus in 1846, when she left Nauvoo with the rest of Saints. </p><p>She is ever unflinching in her testimony of what she knows to be true, and states in the most positive terms, and without any hesitation, that she was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet on the above named date, and became, in the full meaning of the term, his wife according to the sacred order of celestial marriage. She further states that when she was married to Ira Jones Willes, he fully understood that he was marrying a widow of Joseph Smith, the martyred Prophet; that their association together would end with this life, and that in the morning of the resurrection she would pass from him to the society of her deceased husband. </p></blockquote><p>However, in her October, 1885, meeting with Joseph Smith III her statement was quite different, making the truth of the above suspect. From what he states, this meeting took place sometime after her sworn affidavit was published by Joseph F. Smith. According to Joseph Smith III:</p><blockquote><p>In the evening we held a service in the Music Hall of the city [Lehi, Utah]. We went early to the room and were met and welcomed by a number of our own members, as well as other friends and citizens. In chatting before the services somebody came and told me that Mrs. Ira Willis was present. I referred to this woman in the early part of these <em>Memoirs</em>. </p><p>This news was of interest for I had frequently been told that she, who used to be Melissa Lott, claimed to have been a wife to my father and would so testify, and that I would not dare to visit and interview her for she would tell me unwelcome things. I had, of course, seen the affidavits which she and others made, published by Joseph F. Smith to bolster up his statement that Father had more wives than one. </p><p>I at once went to Mrs. Willis, was introduced, and promptly asked the privilege of calling upon her for an interview. This permission she very cordially granted. (<em>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914)</em>, p.244) </p><p>By appointment I went to the home of Mrs. Willis at ten o'clock on the Tuesday following our meeting in the Music Hall. As I have already stated in connection with this woman, she was a daughter of Cornelius P. Lott, a man who had come to Nauvoo from the East, his family consisting of wife, sons John and baby Peter, and daughters Melissa, Martha, Mary, and Alzina. They lived in a house on the farm belonging to Father, just east of the city, and I knew them all in a general way. I was fairly well acquainted with Melissa and with her history and movements up to the time of their departure from Nauvoo, when they all emigrated to Utah. </p><p>Melissa married Ira Willis, as I have related—a kind, shrewd Yankee and most excellent man. I had heard that they had had two sons, but when I went to call on her she was living alone. One son had died as he approached manhood, and the husband and the other son had together met death in an accident occurring when they were coming down from the mountains with a load of wood. So she was left a widow and childless at the same time. </p><p>Her home was a one-room cottage, and when bidden to enter I found her sitting by the fireside preparing things for the midday meal. It was an old-fashioned fireplace such as I was used to seeing, with broad hearth and wide-throated chimney in which were the traditional hooks to support the kettles swung over the fire, the big dogs on which the logs rested, and nearby the fireshovel, tongs, and poker. Ira Willis had always been a thrifty and handy man-of-all-work and loved to make and provide many conveniences and accessories for his home. I have told how Ira Willis once released my tongue from a frosty axe by pouring warm water on the imprisoned member. He had a hearty laugh at my expense, and for several hours I nursed an extra mouthful of swollen tongue. Mother too had laughed at the occurrence when she heard of it and told me it would be well for me if I could learn some things without trying too many experiments for myself! I have never forgotten that instance and even today, as I retell the story, my stenographer and I have had a hearty laugh over the predicament of an excited boy rushing into the house with his tongue glued to a frosted axe! </p><p>I was well received by Mrs. Willis whom I knew by the old familiar name of Melissa. I told her I had a great desire to talk with her for I had been informed she knew things I would not dare to question her about. I said I wanted to know the truth, whatever it was, and believed that in answer to my questions she would be willing to tell me what she knew. </p><p>She answered that she would be glad to grant the interview, but explained that some unexpected company was coming for lunch and she would prefer if I could call in the afternoon instead, when she would be more at liberty and with leisure for a conversation. Of course this was agreeable to me, and after exchanging a few reminiscences I left her. </p><p>Returning in the afternoon I found her guests had gone, and she was ready for a chat, willing, as she said, to answer any question I would ask about conditions in Nauvoo of which she had any knowledge. I began by asking: </p><p>"Did you know of the teaching of plural marriage or polygamy at Nauvoo?" </p><p>"I had heard of it in private but not publicly." </p><p>"Did you know of any woman having been married to, my father and living with him as his wife, besides my mother?" </p><p>"No; and nothing of the kind occurred to my knowledge." </p><p>"Do you have any reason to believe such a thing took place and that my mother knew of there being another woman besides herself who was wife to my father?" </p><p>"No," quite emphatically, "I am sure she did not." </p><p>"Now, Melissa, I have been told that there were women, other than my mother, who were married to my father and lived with him as his wife, and that my mother knew it. How about it?" </p><p>She answered rather tremulously, "If there was anything of that kind going on you may be sure that your mother knew nothing about it." </p><p>I then asked her what was her opinion of my mother's character for truth and veracity. She replied that she considered my mother one of the noblest women in the world, and that she had known her well and knew her to be as good and truthful a woman as ever lived. </p><p>"Then you think I would be justified in believing what my mother told me?" </p><p>"Yes, indeed, for she would not lie to you." </p><p>"Well, Melissa, my mother told me that my father had never had any wife other than herself, had never had any connection with any other woman as a wife, and was never married to any woman other than herself, with her consent or knowledge, or in any manner whatsoever. Do you consider I am justified in believing her?" </p><p>Without hesitation she answered, "If your mother told you any such thing as that you may depend upon what she said and feel sure she was telling the truth, and that she knew nothing about any such state of affairs. Yes, you would be entirely justified in believing her." </p><p>Our conversation continued for some time. Finally I asked, plainly, "Melissa, will you tell me just what was your relation to my father, if any?" </p><p>She arose, went to a shelf, and returned with a Bible which she opened at the family record pages and showed me a line written there in a scrawling handwriting: </p><p>"Married my daughter Melissa to Prophet Joseph Smith—" giving the date, which I seem to remember as late in 1843. </p><p>I looked closely at the handwriting and examined the book and other entries carefully. Then I asked: </p><p>"Who were present when this marriage took place—if marriage it may be called?" </p><p>"No one but your father and myself." </p><p>"Was my mother there?" </p><p>"No, sir." </p><p>"Was there no witness there?" </p><p>"No, sir." </p><p>"Where did it occur?"</p><p>"At the house on the farm." </p><p>"And my mother knew nothing about it, before or after?" </p><p>"No, sir." </p><p>"Did you ever live with my father as his wife, in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, as has been claimed?" </p><p>"No, sir." </p><p>"Did you ever live with him as his wife anywhere?" I persisted. </p><p>At this point she began to cry, and said, "No, I never did; but you have no business asking me such questions. I had a great regard and respect for both your father and your mother. I do not like to talk about these things." </p><p>"Well, Melissa, I have repeatedly been told that you have stated that you were married to my father and lived with him as his wife and that my mother knew of it. Now you tell me you never did live with him as his wife although claiming: to have been married to him. You tell me there was no one present at that purported marriage except the three of you and that my mother knew nothing about such an alliance. Frankly, I am at a loss to know just what you would have me believe about you." </p><p>I was about to make still closer inquiries in order to find out if she ever had any relations of any sort with my father other than the ordinary relations that may properly exist between such persons under the usual conditions of social procedure, when just then there came a rap on the door, and in walked her sisters Mary and Alzina. </p><p>Alzina lived rather near Melissa, but Mary, the older, was living some twenty-five or thirty miles away. Hearing I was in Lehi she had hitched up her team andt come to see me, stopping at Alzina's on the way and bringing her along. </p><p>They expressed great pleasure in meeting me again, and I was glad to see them. Our talk was general for a while, for their entrance had changed my line of inquiry somewhat. Then, urged to put to Melissa a question of importance, I asked: </p><p>"Melissa, do you know where I can find a brother or a sister, child or children of my father, born to him by some woman other than my mother—in Illinois, Utah, or anywhere else?"</p><p>She answered that she did not, whereupon Mary broke in and said: </p><p>"No, Brother Joseph, for there isn't any!” </p><p>Then she went on to say, "For twelve years I have made it my business to run down every rumor I have heard about the existence of children born to the Prophet by those women who were reputed to have been his wives. I have traveled a good many miles here and there for the purpose of finding out the truth about such statements, and not in one single instance have I ever found them substantiated or any evidence presented that had the least bit of truth in it. I have never been able to find a single child which could possibly have been born to Joseph Smith in plural marriage." </p><p>At this juncture Alzina snapped in with an explosive and characteristic exclamation: </p><p>"No, Brother Joseph, there is none, and what's more, I don't believe there ever was any chance for one!" </p><p>The earnestness of her manner and the snap with which she pointed her remark caused a ripple of laughter among us, in which, however, Melissa did not join. Noticing this, I turned to her and said: </p><p>"Melissa, <em>how about it</em>? You hear what your sisters are saying?" </p><p>Tears began to trickle down her face as she said, "Yes, Brother Joseph, I hear them." </p><p>"Well, what do you say? Can I believe as they do?" </p><p>She drew a deep breath, as if making a sudden decision, and then, with a sigh with lips trembling: </p><p>"Yes; you can believe that they are telling you the truth. There was no chance for any children." </p><p>Mary then explained in more detail about certain places she had gone to make inquiries directly of the persons involved (whom she named) and to see the women and the children who, it was stated, were wives and offspring of the Prophet. She said in every instance she proved the report false, either as to the woman claiming to be such a wife or as to children being there as claimed. </p><p>I thanked her and the other girls for the statements they had made. Our conversation on this and other topics continued for some time. We recalled many incidents of old times, and I learned from them of the deaths of their parents and the whereabouts and fortunes of others of the family. </p><p>I left these sisters feeling well repaid for my persistence in obtaining the interview with Mrs. Willis. In spite of what I had been told, she had neither been able to "face me down" nor to convince me that my father had done reprehensible things which I would be unwilling to believe. Instead, I left her presence and that of her sisters with my previous convictions more firmly established, if such a thing were possible. The interview had convinced me that the statement made in an affidavit of this Melissa Lott Willis, published by Joseph F. Smith along with others of similar import, to the effect that she had been married to Joseph Smith, was not true, provided the word married be construed as conveying the right of living together as man and wife, a relation she had unequivocally denied in my presence. I was convinced that wherever the word married or sealed occurred in such testimonials regarding my father it meant nothing more than that possibly those women had gone through some ceremony or covenant which they intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come, and could by no means have any reference whatever to marital rights in the flesh. </p><p>I was also convinced from the statements of Mrs. Willis that the entry in the Bible which she showed to me was a line written by her father, or some other person, recording an untruth. When I asked her in plain language how it happened she had not lived with my father as his wife if she had really been married to him, she had answered in equally plain language, that she had not lived with him in that manner <em>because it was not right</em> that she should do so. </p><p>I had made up my mind when I went to Utah that whenever and wherever I found opportunity I would converse with those women who had claimed, or were reputed, to be wives of my father— wives in polygamy, plural marriage, celestial, sealed, or any kind of arrangement—and in so doing I would subject them to as severe a cross examination as was within my power, to get as near as possible to the actual truth of the circumstances and the reports. It was for this reason I had called upon this woman, and I should have questioned her still further and in a more specific manner had not the entrance of her sisters turned the trend of conversation in a measure. </p><p>After my visit south, to Beaver, we passed through Lehi again on our way back to Salt Lake City, at which time I tried to have another conversation with Mrs. Willis, but learned she was not at home. I knew it would have been entirely useless to question her in the presence of an elder of their church as she would either evade my questions or refuse utterly to answer. Indeed, it is possible she may have been so far under domination and surveillance as to have stated, in such a contingency, that which was not true. As it was, I felt I had secured truthful statements from her, for she had betrayed some real depths of emotion as we conversed. She had stated that I might believe what my mother had told me for she regarded my mother as an honest, upright woman who was absolutely truthful. She had also stated that notwithstanding the "marriage" entry scribbled in her Bible, purported to be written by her father, she had not lived with Joseph Smith as his wife, believing it was "not right" to do so, and further, that he had never urged her to do so. I had also learned from her and her sisters that so far as their knowledge went there had been no issue of any polygamous marriages made by Joseph Smith, such as had been alleged. (<em>The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914)</em>, pp. 245-246) </p></blockquote><p>Obviously, Melissa Lott Willis was not "unflinching in her testimony of what she knows to be true ... that she was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet ... in the full meaning of the term [and was] his wife according to the sacred order of celestial marriage." However, I firmly believe she told the truth to Joseph III. It’s easy to lie to someone who doesn’t know the truth, but almost impossible to lie to someone who does. According to Joseph III, he was “fairly well acquainted with Melissa and with her history and movements up to the time of their departure from Nauvoo….” He knew her and the truth of what happened and didn’t happen in his home. In addition, her sisters, who knew her and her life well, were also present at the interview. As a result Melissa couldn’t lie to them. She had to tell them the truth—and she did! </p><p>Melissa Lott Willis was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. At most, according to Joseph Smith III, she “had gone through some ceremony or covenant which [<em>she</em>] intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come….” Obviously there was not enough evidence to even conclude Joseph Smith, Jr. was involved in such a ceremony, nor was it the belief of Joseph III, according to this statement, that he was. Thus, the affidavit of Melissa Lott Willis which Joseph F. Smith published is false regarding her plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr. Since <em>The Historical Record</em> account of Melissa Lott Willis’ plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr. was based on this affidavit, it too is false. </p></div>JSDefenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11841376815958094645noreply@blogger.com17