William Clayton Lied

Background

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:

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, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account of these events was published in the "Plural Marriage" article of Historical Record 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—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

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.

William Clayton's Testimony and the Lie

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.

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. 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.

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. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added)

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.

Why this Statement Is a Lie

Joseph stated in his history:

... 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. (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

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.

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, Book of Mormon Studies, Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri, 32)

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.... (Times and Seasons, 3:943)

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."

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.

Conclusion

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 (see my blog post on Emma), 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.

As additional proof that Joseph didn't author Section 132, if you have not already done so, download Enid DeBarthe's writing style analysis of Section 132. 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, "The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement."

The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement

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 "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" 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. My next post will deal with the issue of Helen Mar Kimball.

The Original Position of the LDS Church in Utah Was That Joseph Founded Polygamy

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.

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 (an apostle in the LDS Church at the time) 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.

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.... (Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History, Brian C. Hales, p. 9)

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 (Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 2: History, Brian C. Hales, pp. 352-357).

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:

In July 1887, Jenson published a twenty-seven page article, "Plural Marriage," in his monthly Historical Record. It identified by name twenty-seven plural wives of Joseph Smith. He also printed all seven of the Joseph F. Smith affidavits that the Deseret News had printed in 1879 and added several more new attestations [some of which were originally recorded by Joseph F. Smith] (Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History, Brian C. Hales, p.11).

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.

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" (The Church in Court, compiled and arranged by Elbert A. Smith).

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 "Why is the Temple Lot Suit important?"

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.

The LDS Church Stopped Teaching that Joseph Was a Polygamist

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.

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"—Part 1 and Part 2. 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.

What Is My Take on All of This?

First, My Beliefs about Joseph

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 Historical Record, Udney Jacob's The Peace Maker, the Nauvoo Expositor, 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 (truth, 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 if 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.

Why Did the LDS Church Revisit Their Original Position that Joseph was a Polygamist?

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 video interview on the The Salt Lake Tribune Web site, that Brian C. Hales—who recently published (2013) the three-volume book, Joseph Smith's Polygamy—is co-authoring with his wife, Laura Hales, another book entitled, Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Polygamy—Separating Fact from Fiction, which should released in early 2015. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, Volume 2 of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, 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.

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 video interview by The Salt Lake Tribune 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.

What Is Next?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Third, don't forget to investigate and evaluate the defendant's (Joseph's) evidence. The best source of this information is the book, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, 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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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?

Addendum (2/6/15): Authorship of LDS D&C Section 132 Determined by Writing Style Analysis

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.”

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.

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).

Today, the type of writing analysis she used is called stylometry, 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.

Since there has been so much interest expressed to read this analysis, I have made a PDF file of it available for you to download. If you have trouble downloading it, you may contact me at jsdefender1@gmail.com and I will email it to you.

Emma Smith on Polygamy

Why Quote Emma?

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.

Emma's Statements

Interviews by Edmund C. Briggs

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 Expositor, 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.”

I said, “Those were city councils?”

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.”

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.

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: “The people who did know of the revelation, supposed it was not now in existence.” (Early History of the Reorganization, Apostle Edmund C. Briggs, pp. 88, 93-95)

Interview by Jason W. Briggs

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, "The Lord Declared Joseph Innocent of Polygamy") 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:

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 original and 'burnt it'. 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.

J. W. Briggs.—Mrs. Bidamon, have you seen the revelation on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt, in the Seer, in 1852?

Mrs. B.—I have.

J. W. B.—Have you read it?

Mrs. B.—I have read it, and heard it read.

J. W. B.—Did you ever see that document in manuscript, previous to its publication, by Pratt?

Mrs. B.—I never did.

J. W. B.—Did you ever see any document of that kind, purporting to be a revelation, to authorize polygamy?

Mrs. B.—No; I never did.

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?

Mrs. B.—He never did.

J. W. B.—What about that statement of Brigham Young, that you burnt the original manuscript of that revelation?

Mrs. B.—It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth.

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.—The Messenger, vol. 1, p. 23. (RLDS History of the Church 3:351-352)

Interview by Joseph Smith III

LAST TESTIMONY OF SISTER EMMA.

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!"

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 Herald, 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.

It is intended to incorporate these questions and answers in the forthcoming history of the Reorganization.

We apologized to our mother for putting the questions respecting polygamy and plural wives, as we felt we ought to do.

Question.—Who performed the marriage ceremony for Joseph Smith and Emma Hale? When? Where?

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.

We here suggested that Mother Smith's History gave the date of the marriage as January 18, 1827. To this she replied:—

I think the date correct. My certificate of marriage was lost many years ago, in some of the marches we were forced to make.

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:—

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.

Q—What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?

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."

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.

Q.—Did he not have other wives than yourself?

A.—He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.

Q—Did he not hold marital relation with women other than yourself?

A.—He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge.

Q.—Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?

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.

Q.—What was the condition of feeling between you and Father?

A.—It was good.

Q.—Were you in the habit of quarreling?

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.

Q.—It has been stated sometimes that you apostatized at Father's death, and joined the Methodist Church. What do you say to this?

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.

Q.—By whom were you baptized? Do you remember?

A.—I think by Oliver Cowdery, at Bainbridge.

Q.—You say that you were married at South Bainbridge, and have used the word Bainbridge. Were they one and the same town?

A.—No. There was Bainbridge and South Bainbridge; some distance apart; how far I don't know. I was in South Bainbridge.

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.

Joseph Smith [III]. —The Saints' Herald, vol. 26, pp. 289, 290.
(RLDS History of the Church 3:353-358;
The Saints Advocate 2:49-52, October 1879)

Vienna Jaques' Conversation with Joseph Smith III

According to Joseph Smith III:

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.

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:

"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!"

Rather blushingly she answered. "No, Brother Joseph, I have never married, either as a one wife or as a plural one."

"How does this happen, and you such a warm advocate of the doctrine?"

To my surprise she became intensely sober and tears started from her eyes. With trembling lips and in a hushed voice she said:

"Brother Joseph, I will tell you. Do you remember the Ladies' Society that was formed at Nauvoo, of which your mother was president?"

I told her that I did, that the Times and Seasons had a record of it, too.

"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.

"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."

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?"

"Yes, I did; I talked to them in the society and with many of them privately, and tried my best to set them right." (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, p. 170; The Saint's Herald, October 15, 1935, p. 1329)

For additional statements by Emma regarding Joseph and polygamy, read "Emma's Fight Against Polygamy," by Richard Price.

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?

The Whitney Letter

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.

The Issue

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. 

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” (The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney, 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. (Fairwiki.org about the Whitney letter).  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.

However, close scrutiny of the facts surrounding both the Whitney letter and the alleged revelation indicate this interpretation is not correct..

Facts About the Two Documents

According to chapter 34 of The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books, the alleged revelation from Joseph to Newel K. Whitney and the letter to Newel, Elizabeth, and Sarah Whitney are maintained in the archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. For the revelation, the Joseph Smith's Polygamy Chronology 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 "Historical Perspectives on the Kirtland Revelation Book" 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.

For the Whitney letter, an image of a photograph of it is displayed on the “Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney” site. This site states the following about the photograph:

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.

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.

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, You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph 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. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney, REVISED EDITION, 1982 by H. Michael Marquardt, italics added)

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 Fairwiki.org article about the letter:

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
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.

Joseph Smith

The Validity of the Two Documents

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.

Authentication of the Alleged Revelation

There seems to be discrepancies about the written source of the document even though all sources I have found, including Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, 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 “Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC Classification” which stated:

As Mormon scholar Dean Jessee makes clear in the introduction to Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (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.

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?

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," Dialogue, Vol. 28, No. 4, Winter 1995, pp.2–3. He states:

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:

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.

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.”

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.”

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?

Authentication of the Letter

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 “Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney” 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 The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books and Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness ( 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?

Analyzing the Alleged Revelation

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.

Questionable Text

Some of the text along with the circumstances of the alleged revelation make it very questionable to me. According to the Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith 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, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity..." (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 main purpose of polygamy was to obtain a greater reward in eternity, 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.

Questionable Subject Agreement

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.

Sarah Ann's Immediate Response is Questionable

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 The Contributor, Vol. 6, No. 4, January 1885, p. 131:

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. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney)

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 (In Sacred Loneliness, 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.

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.

Elizabeth's Autobiography Omitted Reference to the Alleged Revelation

The most important issue I have with this alleged revelation is the portion of Elizabeth Whitney's autobiography printed in the The Women of Mormondom, 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.

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 the revelation concerning celestial marriage; 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 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. 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 concerning this new and strange doctrine. 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. 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. 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."

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.)

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.

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.

Analyzing the Letter

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.

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.

Statements in the Letter used to Support the Position that Joseph Practiced Polygamy

The statements in the letter which authors point to as "proof" of Joseph's polygamy and marriage to Sarah are:

...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...

...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...

...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...

...burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.

...I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.

If the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann were not true, all that can be learned from these portions of the letter is:

• Joseph's friendship with the Whitneys was very strong,
• he was lonely and anxious to see them,
• they should keep this letter secret (burn it),
• they should use utmost caution in meeting with him in secret,
• keeping the meeting secret will insure their safety, and
• for their safety they should not meet with him when Emma is there.

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.

Admittedly, the part about Emma is very curious. Why would Emma's presence, without the polygamy interpretation, make it unsafe for the Whitneys? Fairwiki.org 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. Fairwiki.org states:

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,

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)

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,

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)

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.

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.

Other Problems with the "Love Letter" Theory

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, Fairwiki.org does a good job explaining this position. In their conclusion they state:

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?

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:

..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads...

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...."

Other Evidences in the Sara Ann Whitney Case

Discrepancies in Affidavits and Statements

At the Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney site we find the following affidavits by Sarah Ann and her mother Elizabeth regarding her alleged plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr.:

AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL

Territory of Utah }
County of Salt Lake.}ss.
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, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage, in the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.
 
Sarah A. Kimball.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the day and year first above written.
 
E. Smith, Probate Judge.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press], p. 73., italics added)

AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY

Territory of Utah }
County of Salt Lake.} ss.
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.
 
E. A. Whitney.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and year first above written.
 
James Jack, Notary Public.
(Andrew Jensen, Historical Record, Vol. 6, May 1887, pp. 224-226.)

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 Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, published the following statement signed by twelve men including Newel K. Whitney:

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. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939–940)

The Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, also published the following statement signed by nineteen women of the Ladies Relief Society including Elizabeth Whitney:

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. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)

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 Times and Seasons 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" (Times and Seasons 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 The Women of Mormondom, pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. Even Sarah's affidavit is discrepant with her parents' statements in the Times and Seasons. 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 Times and Seasons 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 Times and Seasons are in direct opposition to both affidavits of marriage, Elizabeth's autobiography, and the alleged revelation itself.

With all due respect to the Whitneys, they were lying somewhere. The first scenario is that Newel and Elizabeth lied in their Times and Seasons 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 Times and Seasons' 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.

The Nature of Affidavits and Statements

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 Times and Seasons? According to Todd Compton in the prologue to his book, In Sacred Loneliness, affidavits and biographies are very good evidence. He states:

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. 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. (page 1, italics added)

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 Times and Seasons. At face value, they are on equal footing as to the probability of their truthfulness.

Evaluating the Whitneys' Affidavits and Statements

There are some considerations that I believe weigh in favor of the 1842 Times and Seasons 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 History of the Church 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 The Women of Mormondom 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 Times and Seasons as being true rather than to Elizabeth's later affidavit and statement as well as to Sarah's later affidavit.

Summary

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 Times and Seasons 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.