Sarah Pratt Revisited

For those of you who regularly read my blog, I'm sure you have wondered if I still exist, considering I haven't posted a new article in about a year and a half. Well, I'm still alive and hope to get back to putting up more articles defending Joseph. Thank you for being so patient in my posting absence.

Several years ago I posted a blog article entitled, “Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?” According to John C. Bennett's accusations against Joseph, which were printed in the Wasp Extra (July 27, 1842) and the Sangamo Journal (July 15, 1842), while Sarah Pratt's husband, Apostle Orson Pratt, was in the British Isles (between 1839 and 1841 according to Wikipedia), Joseph propositioned her to be his polygamous wife and she flatly and indignantly refused him. When Joseph III visited Utah in 1885, he interviewed Sarah Pratt to find out from her directly (a primary source) if Bennett's accusations were true. The essence of my previous blog post was to relate Sarah's interview as recorded by Joseph III (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III [1832-1914], 226). Her statement to him indicated that Joseph Smith Jr. never made such a proposition to her, which refuted Bennett's 1842 accusations.

However, since the time of my previous article, I've read portions of the book Mormon Portraits, by Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, published in 1886 by Salt Lake City Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. This is an “exposé” on Mormonism with a volume dedicated to the subject of ”JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET, HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.” In this volume is recorded Wymetal's interview with Sarah Pratt regarding her relationship with Joseph Smith Jr. and her comments about her interview with Joseph III a year earlier when he visited her in Utah. It seems that Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal was totally different than what Joseph III reported. In addition, her statement to Wymetal about her relationship to Joseph Smith Jr. corroborated John C. Bennett's statements printed in the Wasp Extra (July 27, 1842) and the Sangamo Journal (July 15, 1842). On the surface this gives credibility to her statement to Wymetal that Joseph Smith Jr. propositioned her and brings doubt as to the truthfulness of her statement to Joseph III. 

The purpose of this blog post is to determine which of Sarah Pratt's statements are true—the one given to Wymetal or the one given to Joseph III. However, before we can honestly analyze the truthfulness of her statements, we need to discuss the probability that either Wymetal or Joseph III lied about what Sarah Pratt told them. Wymetal had "no dog in the fight" so to speak. He was a disinterested party. As a freelance reporter for various newspapers, the story that Joseph Smith Jr. was innocent of propositioning Sarah Pratt would have been as newsworthy, if not more so because of popular belief, as the one he actually reported. Based on no real motive to lie, I have to believe Wymetal actually reported what Sarah Pratt told him. 

On the other hand then, did Joseph III lie? Some would say that he certainly had motive to do so. However, I don't believe he did. Having an RLDS background, some might think that I’m biased to believe Joseph III, and maybe I am. But if I am, it is because he was known in my church, as well as the community, as a man of unimpeachable integrity and honesty. His belief about polygamy was that it was wrong, even if his father had practiced it. While he hoped that his father hadn’t done so, the point of his many investigations about his father’s activities was to find the truth. Because Joseph III’s religious beliefs didn’t rest upon whether or not his father was a polygamist, he was open to any evidence proving his father guilty of polygamy. I believe that if Sarah Pratt told him—after some intense cross-examination to get to the truth—the same story that Wymetal reported, Joseph III would have relayed it exactly as she told it. The fact that he always sought the truth about his father is the reason I believe he correctly reported what Sarah Pratt told him. Thus, I believe both men accurately reported what Sarah told them. They didn't change her story—she did!

So here are her conflicting stories.

Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal

According to Wymetal, Sarah Pratt gave her interview to him in 1885 and 1886, which was over 40 years after her alleged incident with Joseph Smith Jr. He quoted her as saying, "'I want you to have all my statements correct in your book,' said the noble lady, 'and put my name to them; I want the truth, the full truth, to be known, and bear the responsibility of it'" (Mormon Portraits, 60). Her statement in Wymetal’s book about her relationship with Joseph Smith Jr. is as follows:

When my husband went to England as a missionary, he got the promise from Joseph that I should receive provisions from the tithing-house. Shortly afterward Joseph made his propositions to me and they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the tithing-house or from the bishop. Having been always very clever and very busy with my needle, I began to take in sewing for the support of myself and children, and succeeded soon in making myself independent. When Bennett came to Nauvoo, Joseph brought him to my house, stating that Bennett wanted some sewing done, and that I should do it for the doctor. I assented and Bennett gave me a great deal of work to do. He knew that Joseph had his plans set on me; Joseph made no secret of them before Bennett, and went so far in his impudence as to make propositions to me in the presence of Bennett, his bosom friend. Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate me. One day they came both, Joseph and Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: “Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.” Saying this, he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.

Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his troubles with Emma, his wife. “He asked me” said Bennett, smilingly, “what he should do to get out of the trouble?” I said, “This is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.” 

You should bear in mind that Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.” He only introduced as marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind. If any woman, like me, opposed his wishes, he used to say: “Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interests of the church.” When he had assailed me and saw that he could not seal my lips, he sent word to me that he would work my salvation, if I kept silent. I sent back that I would talk as much as I pleased and as much as I knew to be the truth, and as to my salvation, I would try and take care of that myself.  

In his endeavors to ruin my character Joseph went so far as to publish an extra-sheet containing affidavits against my reputation. When this sheet was brought to me I discovered to my astonishment the names of two people on it, man and wife, with whom I had boarded for a certain time. I never thought much of the man, but the woman was an honest person, and I knew that she must have been forced to do such a thing against me. So I went to their house; the man left the house hurridly when he saw me coming. I found the wife and said to her rather excitedly: “What does it all mean?” She began to sob. “It is not my fault,” said she. Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. “Joseph and the church must be saved,” said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers. (ibid., 61-63)

Sarah Pratt's statement to Joseph Smith III

The statement made by Joseph III in his memoirs about what Sarah Pratt told him in his interview with her totally contradicts her statement to Wymetal. As quoted in my blog, “Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?,” Joseph III stated:

The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?"
"You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied.
I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Doctor Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer.  

I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such revealment prove I had been in error.  

She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place.  

"Did you know my father in Nauvoo?"

"Yes, I knew him well."  

"Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?" 

"Yes."

"Did you ever know him to be guilty of any impropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?"  

"No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful." 

"Did he ever visit you or at your house?" 

"He did."  

"Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of the question?"  

To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better."  

"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me."  

"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man."  

That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her. The result was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Doctor Benedict.  

It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes.  

Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said:  

"My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!"  

Not a great while after this, just how long I do not know, Mrs. Pratt passed "over the river." I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III [1832-1914], 33-34)

Now about John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt

Because Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal is so similar to John C. Bennett's published articles about Joseph and Sarah in 1842, it is impossible to evaluate the truth of her statement to him without briefly discussing Bennett's morality and veracity as well as his relationship with Sarah Pratt.

These two attributes of Bennett's character are well discussed in Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 11, Chapter 14, Chapter 15, and Chapter 16 of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy—Volume 1 and I suggest a review of these chapters before continuing on. Regardless of an author's position on whether or not Joseph was a polygamist, most if not all will agree that John C. Bennett was a serial adulterer and liar. Thus, the fact that Sarah Pratt's statement to Wymetal was very similar to Bennett's published articles brings into question the truth of what she told Wymetal.

In addition, the truth of her statement to Wymetal is further called into question considering her relationship with Bennett. Both the chapter entitled “The Sarah Pratt Case” in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy (Volume 2) and chapter 21 of Joseph Smith's Polygamy (Volume 1) by Brian C. Hales strongly indicate that Sarah Pratt and John C. Bennett had an extramarital affair during the time that Joseph supposedly propositioned Sarah. According to Hales, "evidence indicates that she and John C. Bennett experienced a sexual relationship while Orson [Pratt, her husband,] was in England. Joseph Smith intervened and was afterwards accused by Sarah of making an improper proposal" (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 1:235). Both sources indicate that there were several credible witnesses who made affidavits that Sarah and Bennett were having and extramarital affair. The evidence was strong enough to try them in Church court and find them guilty. John C. Bennett was expelled from the Church on May 11, 1842, for his affair with Sarah Pratt, as well as other sexually immoral activities (Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Volume 2, chapter 5). Sarah Pratt was excommunicated from the Church on August 20, 1842, for adultery with John C. Bennett (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 1:584). 

The actions by the Church court indicate that the allegations by Bennett against Joseph in the Wasp Extra (July 27, 1842) and the Sangamo Journal (July 15, 1842) and later by Sarah Pratt to Wymetal were untrue and merely an attempt to cover-up their affair by publicly accusing Joseph of propositioning Sarah. And except for the recent investigative work on this subject by various authors, it seemed to have worked. Keep in mind that the Church court proceedings (including testimony) were private and not reported to the public, so in essence Sarah's and Bennett's affair was kept secret. On the other hand, Bennett's allegations in the newspapers, as well as Sarah's statement to Wymetal, were public statements. From Joseph III's interview with Sarah Pratt, it is evident that the prevailing public story about Joseph Smith Jr. and Sarah Pratt was that he made improper advances toward her—not that she and Bennett had an extramarital affair. To my knowledge, the only statements Sarah ever made regarding this event was to Joseph III and to Wymetal.

Which Story Are We to Believe from Sarah Pratt—Wymetal's or Joseph III's?

I believe Joseph III's interview with Sarah is the truth.

First, based on the evidence, I believe that Sarah Pratt and John C. Bennett had an extramarital affair, which indicates Bennett lied to the press and Sarah lied to Wymetal. Since Bennett was a proven serial liar, lying about this issue would not be out of character for him. Furthermore, in Sarah's statement to Wymetal, I could find no date that the event occurred or, in particular, where it occurred. In addition, John C. Bennett’s 1842 letters published in the press, which were the first public announcements of this alleged event, made no mention of these facts either. I find it peculiar that such a repulsive proposition from the Prophet to Sarah, who was married, did not impress upon her the date of the event or the circumstances surrounding it. Traumatic events like these do not flee our memory and when we relate them, we tell the events surrounding the traumatic one. The absence of this detail in her testimony to Wymetal is another reason I do not believe she told the truth to him.

Second, while her affair with Bennett was known in Church court proceedings as early as 1841 (see Chapter 3, “The Sarah Pratt Case,” in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Volume 2), she made no public statement of the alleged proposition from Joseph at that time. You would think that when all of this erupted in Nauvoo in 1841 about Bennett and her, she would have set the record straight that it was Joseph, not Bennett, who was being improper with her. She evidently told Orson this version and if it was true, why not make it public to save herself from adultery charges and support Orson who supported her?

Third, why would a woman who was so repulsed by such a proposal from Joseph endure years of her own husband's (Orson Pratt’s) polygamy? Why wouldn’t she be just as repulsed, if not more so, by her husband taking additional wives and living the principle for many years? According to the Jared Pratt Family Association Web site, Sarah and Orson were married July 4, 1836, and had twelve children together. Orson took four additional wives in Nauvoo beginning in 1844 and was married to five others by 1868—the year Sarah divorced him, according to Wikipedia. If she wasn’t repulsed by the principle enough to prevent her from living in polygamy for many years with a total of nine other wives and giving birth to twelve of Orson's 45 children, she wouldn’t have been so repulsed by Joseph’s alleged proposition.

For these reasons, I believe Sarah Pratt lied to Wymetal and told the truth to Joseph III.

So Why Did Sarah Lie to Wymetal?

Maybe she had second thoughts about having told Joseph III the truth, and when Wymetal came along a few years later, she took that opportunity to counter what she had told Joseph III. It was one thing for her to stand against polygamy in Utah, but totally another to reveal that church leaders had lied about this event with Joseph. Or, maybe after her interview with Joseph III, she realized that if the truth got out that this event never happened between Joseph Smith Jr. and her, the issue of her affair with Bennett might resurface. And in Utah, at the time, while polygamy was acceptable, adultery was not. Or maybe, since she was divorced from Orson and was involved with helping women come out of polygamy, she couldn't afford to give up her reputation as the one woman who was strong enough to refuse the advances of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. If Joseph III published her interview, she could loose that reputation. Her interview with Wymetal could have been just damage control in case her interview with Joseph III was published. However, the fact of the matter is that I don’t know why she lied to Wymetal, and without evidence, any attempt to provide a reason is pure speculation on my part. But whatever it was, I'm sure she had a reason since the version she gave to Wymetal was so different. 

An Interesting Note

In her statement to Wymetal (Mormon Portraits, 60-61), she said about her interview with Joseph III, “I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father [that he was a polygamist], so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?'” If she had truly said this to him in 1885, he would have told her that in 1883, several years after his mother’s death, he did receive a communication from the Lord—in the form of a vision—as to exactly what kind of man his father was. Following is Joseph III's account of that vision:

I suddenly found myself, after my evening devotions, in a room where my mother was. It is just as literal and real to me as I see you people this afternoon. It was a two-story house such as we frequently see, about sixteen by twenty-four, without a division in the center; upon the one side at the end was her stove, and right over at the other side was her table, and next the door to the right was the chair where I sat. Mother had just got her dishes done and had wrung out her dish cloth and hung up her pan against the wall as you women folks do, you know, and she had taken her side comb out of her hair and combed her hair as they did in the old-fashioned way. She took some hair down on either side of her face and rolled it up and stuck a pin through it — you’ve seen it done, many of you. She took off her apron that she had been using and put on a clean one, drew the white handkerchief like some of you used to wear, across her breast and sat down on the chair and said to me, “Now Joseph, your father is here and you can ask him the questions that you have been asking me, to see whether I have been telling you the truth or not.” Now, remember, mother died as I told you awhile ago, aged seventy-four, with all the marks of age upon her; and as she sat in that chair, she was as I remember her to have been when she was about thirty-five years of age. All that she seemed to have lost was restored to her. I did not mark it at the time, but when she spoke of my father, I turned to the left and there, on an old-fashioned settee, I saw my father. In my estimation father presented an appearance more matured than when I saw him last; he was an older man, such as he might have been had he lived to be forty-two. That is my understanding of it. I turned and asked him the question, “Father, do you know what mother and I have been talking about?” He said, “Yes, my son, I do.” Are you prepared to answer the question whether she has told me the truth or not? “I am.” What is your answer? “You may depend upon it that your mother has told you nothing but the truth” (Infallible Proofs, 67-68; Zion’s Ensign, December 22, 1894, in sermon on “Future Conditions”).

Of course, the question Joseph III had been asking his mother was whether or not his father was a polygamist. As my blog post “Emma Smith on Polygamy” states, her answer was always emphatically “no.”

A Summary of Why I Believe Joseph was not a Polygamist

I am responding to a recent post with the reasons why I believe Joseph was not a polygamist in spite of all the “evidence” that he was.

First, I believe he was a prophet of God because I have received testimony from God that the work He did through Joseph—Book of Mormon, Inspired Version, Doctrine and Covenants (not including Utah LDS D&C 132), restoring His true Church in 1830—is true. For God to have used Joseph to do these things, Joseph had to have been a good, honorable man—not a lying, wicked one. As it says in Helaman 2:59, the “Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples."

Second, the reasons given by those who say he lied about his involvement in polygamy are pretty shallow. One reason given is that Joseph was afraid to admit polygamy because he feared for his life. However, he had been beaten and incarcerated many times for issues not related to polygamy. If polygamy was a commandment of God, why would he fear admitting this to the public? He certainly would not have been treated any worse than he already had. The fact is that if polygamy was a command of God as many say it was, Joseph would have made it known publicly just as he had done with the rest of the Restored Gospel. The fact that he denied its practice is evidence it was not a command of God and he did not practice it. Another reason given for Joseph’s denial of polygamy was to protect Emma and keep it secret from her. Those supporting this position also believe the affidavits of Eliza and Emily Partridge (Historical Record, Volume 6, Edited and Published by Andrew Jenson, 1887) are true that Emma was present at their plural marriages to Joseph. However, proponents of these two positions cannot have it both ways because the positions are in opposition to each other. If they support the Partridge sisters’ affidavits, they have to give up the “protection of Emma” reason for Joseph’s lying about polygamy. If they do not support the Partridge sister’s affidavits as true, they punch a big hole in the evidence against Joseph because the Partridge sisters are considered eye-witnesses that Joseph practiced polygamy. Thus, the “protection of Emma” argument is very weak. Since there was no good reason for Joseph to keep silent about practicing polygamy, the fact that he continued to publicly deny it supports the position that he was telling the truth about not teaching or practicing polygamy.

Third, those that knew Joseph best and were with him the most—Emma and Joseph III—were convinced he was not a polygamist. Until Emma’s dying day, she testified that Joseph was only married to her and had no other wives. Emma was known for her honesty throughout her entire life. If she had observed plural marriage ceremonies with Joseph, as the Partridge sisters stated, she would not have faithfully insisted he was innocent. Joseph Smith III spent his entire life interviewing people who allegedly knew his father was a polygamist. Through all of his investigations, Joseph III never found a shred of credible evidence (facts and not opinions), even from alleged plural wives, to prove his father guilty of polygamy. He remained faithful to this position until the end of his life.

Fourth, the case presented against Joseph is biased. It is obvious Joseph is on trial in the minds of many people. Some say he was a righteous prophet of God. Some say he was an evil liar. Some are undecided. Since he is in essence on trial, it is my belief he should be afforded the same rights as anyone on trial. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The evidence used to judge him should meet judicial standards--only facts, not opinions or hearsay, should be used to render a judgment. Unfortunately, the books that are being written today supporting the position that Joseph was a polygamist do not use that approach. While they appear at first look to use a well documented, unbiased approach to this subject, their basic premise is that Joseph lied and everyone else told the truth. Their books presume Joseph’s guilt, not his innocence. I say this because they omit pertinent evidence of his innocence: his writings, statements of Emma, Joseph III’s interviews, Temple Lot Case, etc. Some of the evidence they quote is hearsay and opinion, not fact. They make little attempt to evaluate the evidence based on how close to the event the statement was recorded or whether there was motive to lie. In my opinion, based on judicial standards, the evidence they do quote is dubious in nature. The allegations of John C. Bennett cannot be given serious consideration because he was a liar and an adulterer and had motive to impugn Joseph’s character. The allegations made in the Nauvoo Expositor were just that—allegations. There were no names, dates, or places given to corroborate their truth. The testimonies published by Andrew Jenson in the Historical Record 6 (which are the heart of the evidence against Joseph) were made thirty to forty years after the alleged incidents by those heavily involved with polygamy in Utah—some of which were wives of Brigham Young and other Utah LDS Church leaders. They were not unbiased witnesses that recorded their observations chronologically close to the events. When some of these witnesses were cross-examined in the Temple Lot Case in the 1890s, their testimonies fell apart. Even though the Utah LDS Church provided their best witnesses in that trial to prove Joseph began polygamy in the Church, the U. S. Circuit Court Judge ruled there was not sufficient evidence presented to prove Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Thus, when judicial standards apply, the evidence against Joseph becomes weak. And if the evidence against him is weak, he should be found innocent, not guilty, because in our nation innocence is presumed, not proven.

Fifth, Joseph has no proven children of alleged polygamous marriages. One of the main purposes of polygamy was to produce offspring. If Joseph married over thirty wives, which author’s say he did, his offspring from polygamist wives would have been numerous, as was the case with Brigham Young. Joseph had several children by Emma and thus would have had several by other wives. Yet DNA is proving Joseph had no children other than with Emma. This fact is proof, according to the purpose of celestial marriage, that Joseph had no wives other than Emma.

In light of all the books being published against Joseph, it helps me to remember that the intent of the authors of these books is not to tell the truth. It is to dissuade my belief in Joseph as a prophet of God. This approach was used within the RLDS Church to move it into mainstream Christianity, which has happened to the Community of Christ. I believe it is the intent of these authors to do the same with the Mormon Church.

The "New" Attack on Joseph--Part 1

I recently received comments from a reader about my blog, "Did Joseph lie about polygamy?" In partial response to his comments, I wrote the following words. Because they are pertinent to defending Joseph against the "new" attack on him, I decided to make a blog of them.

When one looks at all the recent books that have been published proclaiming Joseph to be a polygamist, it may be difficult for some to understand how anyone can believe he wasn’t. However, it is not the volume of information that is important -- only its integrity and truthfulness. And in my opinion that is where these books fail. In June, 2009, Joseph will have been dead for 165 years. Obviously, there is no new information on this subject to write about (except for DNA that is mostly ignored by the more current books). All these books just re-interpret old information to draw conclusions the author wants to draw. And when one objectively looks at the old information and evaluates it according to standards used in courts of law (i.e., how close to the event it was recorded, if it was first-hand knowledge, if there was a motive to lie or slant the truth, etc.), he finds that the old information doesn’t stand up to such scrutiny. Thus, there is no real proof Joseph taught or practiced polygamy.

If anyone doubts this, read the Temple Lot Case (which is also ignored in the books about Joseph and polygamy) in which, after considering all the evidence presented by the Utah LDS Church, the Hedrikite Church, and the RLDS Church, the judge determined there was no substantial evidence to determine Joseph was a polygamist and indicated the Utah LDS Church witnesses had pretty well lied about Joseph’s involvement in polygamy. If there is still doubt, read Joseph Smith III’s memoirs about how he purposely interviewed all the people he could that professed his father was a polygamist. Not one interview provided any creditable proof of his father’s guilt. If doubt still exists, read the interviews of Emma who, throughout her life, consistently testified of Joseph’s innocence. And if all of this is still not convincing, read all of Joseph’s statements and other evidence presented of his innocence in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. When one considers the flimsiness of the allegations (as shown by the work of Joseph III) against Joseph in comparison to the strength of a court decision, his wife’s testimony, and his own testimony as well as that of others, he begins to realize the truth in the statement made by Israel A. Smith (Joseph’s grandson), “Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify ... Utah Mormon polygamy.”

So, if Joseph was “lied about” to justify polygamy, why do the books written today continue that lie? Possibly, the authors with Mormon backgrounds have been so schooled in the idea that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy and lied about it that they can’t get past this notion. However, this doesn’t really explain why many ignore or dismiss evidence like the Temple Lot Case, or Joseph III's investigations, or present DNA evidence showing that about half of Joseph's alleged children from polygamist marriages have been proven not to be his biological children. I believe that the majority of these authors have hidden agendas to demean the character of Joseph and thus negate the work of God through him. To me, this is most evident in the recent book, Nauvoo Polygamy “… but we called it celestial marriage” by George D. Smith, publisher of Signature Books. (Gregory L. Smith in his FARMS Review of this book comes to the same conclusion about the author’s intent in writing this book when he states, “Why was this book published? To advance an agenda? The result often reads like the product of a vanity press rather than a serious attempt to synthesize the best available scholarship.”) Briefly, the great majority of the books now being written about Joseph and polygamy are coming from authors associated with three groups: John Whitmer Historical Association (JWHA), Sunstone, and Mormon History Association (MHA). It is interesting to note that Signature Books, mentioned above, sells Sunstone Magazine, the Journal of Mormon History, and publishes and sells some books of authors associated with JWHA and MHA. The JWHA was established by and continues to have membership of those who led the RLDS Church (now Community of Christ) into mainstream Christianity. I believe their attack on Joseph continues in order to rid that church of its Restoration Movement origins and doctrine. President Veazey of the Community of Christ (CoC), who gave a talk at the 2009 Restoration Studies Symposium sponsored by Sunstone and JWHA, recently intimated in his “Defining Moment” address to the members of the CoC that the church is moving away from Joseph Smith, Jr. and embracing Joseph Smith III, because he taught the “peaceable things of the Kingdom.” Because many JWHA members are involved with Sunstone and MHA, I’m speculating that an underlying motive of many involved with Sunstone and MHA is to influence the members and leadership of the Utah LDS Church to move away from Joseph Smith. Thus, I believe the lie continues to be promoted and magnified by those whose agenda is not to tell the truth but to move the Restoration Movement away from its roots into mainstream Christianity.

Go to The "New" Attack on Joseph--Part 2.

Did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt?

Several sites on the Internet indicate that Joseph Smith, Jr. made improper advances toward Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah Pratt, in Nauvoo while Orson was on a mission to England. According to an article on Sarah Pratt at Wikipedia,

Sarah Pratt claimed in an 1886 interview that, while in Nauvoo around 1840 or 1841, Joseph Smith was attracted to her and intended to make her "one of his spiritual wives." According to Bennett, while Orson was in England on missionary service, Smith proposed to Pratt by claiming divine inspiration: "Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as he granted holy men of old, and I have long looked upon you with favor, and hope you will not repulse or deny me", to which Bennett claimed Pratt replied: "Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant … to my lawful husband! I never will. I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in NO SUCH revelations, neither will I consent under any circumstances. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me." Also according to Bennett, Smith made three additional proposals. By Bennett's account, Pratt issued an ultimatum to Smith: "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will tell Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it," a warning that elicited the threat from Smith, "Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me; if I am to suffer, all suffer; so do not expose me.... If you should tell, I will ruin your reputation, remember that."

After Orson returned from England, Bennett claims another incident between Pratt and Smith at her home occurred. According to Sarah Pratt's neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her [declaring that he had found Bennett] in bed with her." Sarah told her husband about the incident; Orson took Sarah's side and confronted Smith, who denied Sarah's allegation and responded that she was Bennett's lover.

The Wikipedia article quotes three sources for this information: Van Wagoner, Richard A. (1986), "Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (2): 79; Smith, Andrew F. (1971), The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p. 141; Bennett, John C. (1842), The History of the Saints; or An Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism, Boston: Leland & Whiting. In addition to the Wikipedia article, other sites such as Rethinking Mormonism, make similar statements about Sarah Pratt and Joseph Smith, Jr.

However, these sites do not consider the exceptional documentation and rationale presented in the Sarah Pratt Case of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. In the Price's work, they clearly show how Joseph was innocent of any inappropriate behavior with Sarah Pratt. At the end of the article, they quote a most revealing interview which Joseph Smith III conducted with Sarah Pratt. Joseph III last met with Orson Pratt in 1876 and in a later visit to Salt Lake City, he had the opportunity to visit with his wife, Sarah Pratt, about her relationship with Joseph Smith, Jr. According to Joseph Smith III,

The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?"

"You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied.

I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Doctor Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer.

I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such revealment prove I had been in error.

She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place.

"Did you know my father in Nauvoo?"

"Yes, I knew him well."

"Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?"

"Yes."

"Did you ever know him to be guilty of any impropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?"

"No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful."

"Did he ever visit you or at your house?"

"He did."

"Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of the question?"

To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better."

"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me."

"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man."

That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her. The result was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Doctor Benedict.

It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes.

Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said:

"My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!"

Not a great while after this, just how long I do not know, Mrs. Pratt passed "over the river." I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), pp. 33-34)

It is obvious to me that Sarah Pratt's in-depth interview, with repeated questions and answers designed to reveal the truth, carries much more evidentiary weight than a simple statement to the contrary. And indeed, it carries much more weight than third party statements to the contrary. So, did Joseph Smith, Jr. make improper advances toward Sarah Pratt? Absolutely not! In Sarah Pratt's own words to Joseph III, "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man" (ibid., p.34).

Howard Corey's Testimony Refuted

The Historical Record 6, edited and published by Andrew Jenson, provides the following affidavit made by Howard Corey, in June, 1882:

As many false statements have been made in relation to the authorship of the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem it but justice to all lovers of truth for me to express what I know concerning this very important matter.

On the 22nd day of July, A. D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; he invited me and my wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, as soon as we could make ourselves ready, we got into the carriage and he set off in the direction of Carthage. Having gone a short distance, he observed to us that his brother, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had received a revelation on marriage, that was not for the public yet, which he would rehearse to us, as he had taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced rehearsing the revelation on celestial marriage, not stopping till he had gone quite through with the matter. After which he reviewed that part pertaining to plurality of wives, dwelling at some length upon the same in order that we might clearly understand the principle. And on the same day (July 22nd, 1843) he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane Knowlton, to me; and when I heard the revelation on celestial marriage read on the stand in Salt Lake City in 1852, I recognized it, as the same as that repeated to me by Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after this I was present when Brother David Fullmer and wife were sealed by Brother Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, according to the law of celestial marriage. And, besides the foregoing, there was quite enough came within the compass of my observation to have fully satisfied my mind that plural marriage was practiced in the city of Nauvoo.

Joseph Smith III's interview with Howard Corey in 1885 (only three years later) revealed a much different understanding than the above.

As I look back today over the events of my visit to Provo in 1885, I see in memory one man who had been an in­mate of my father's house in Nauvoo from time to time, and to me always an agreeable companion. I refer to the school teacher, Howard S. Corey. After obeying the gospel, he and his wife came from the East with a company desiring to settle among the Saints. It was his wife, as I have stated, who wrote, at the dictation of my grandmother, the book entitled Joseph Smith and His Progenitors, commonly known among us as “Lucy Smith’s History.”

Mr. Corey taught the second school I remember attending after my earliest lessons at home. I have written of this school, kept in the double loghouse, one end of which was occupied as a living room, situated in the same block as the homes of Uncle Hyrum and John Taylor. He was the man whose leg father broke when engaged in a friendly tussle, as I have related. After father's death he and his wife remained a year or two at Nauvoo, and then went West with other immigrants to Utah soon after grand­mother's history was completed.

On Friday, July 10, about noon, a man came to Brother Gammon's desiring a talk with me. I bade him be seated and was just about to settle down beside him when two others came in, one of whom had a whip in his hand. They came for­ward, and one announced himself as Howard S. Corey, introducing the other as a Mr. Dusenberry, nephew of Judge Dusenberry, of Provo. The young man had brought Mr. Corey over in his buggy, for, having heard I was in town, the latter desired to see me and have an interview with me. I told him I was very glad to meet him again and that he was very welcome.

The gentleman who had first come in asked if he should not retire and come another time, but I told him to stay, for nothing would be said that he might not hear; so he was present throughout the interview. The young man Dusenberry, a much younger man than Corey, took a seat nearby where he also could hear well what was said, and there were pres­ent, besides, Thomas Gammon, our host, and Elders Anthony and Luff whom I in­troduced to my visitors.

After these preliminaries Elder Corey stated that he had been very anxious to meet me ever since he heard I was in Utah and that now he had come to tell me his story in order that I might not be entirely ignorant of matters which had happened in the past. After a few words exchanging memories of affairs at Nauvoo, he began his story, and told it well—that is, it would have been well for him had I not remembered quite clearly a number of things which proved somewhat troublesome for him to ex­plain or answer, in view of his anxiety to enlighten me upon things which he thought I ought to know.

After he had finished his recital, I be­gan questioning him, being particularly desirous to obtain directly from him whatever he might know of my father's reputed connection with the introduction and practice of plural marriage, celes­tial marriage, polygamy or spiritual wifery. He had stated that he was taught celestial marriage by my uncle, Hyrum Smith, and by him had been so married to his wife. Our interview took about this form:

"Brother Corey, did you see or hear read in Nauvoo any 'revelation' on celes­tial marriage?"

"No; I was taught it in conversation by Hyrum Smith."

"Was it publicly preached at Nauvoo to your knowledge?"

"It was not."

"Did you hear my father teach or preach it?"

"No, sir."

I knew that this man had been a fre­quent visitor at my father's house, often eating meals there, and sometimes doing clerical work for father. Therefore, having been so intimate an acquaintance with the members and affairs of my father's household, he was in a position to be fairly well informed about what ordi­narily occurred there. Recollecting these conditions, I asked him:

"Did you ever see at my father's house any woman besides my mother who was known and recognized as my father's wife?"

"No, sir. I did not."

"Did you ever see him abroad in company with any woman, other than my mother, who was known or reputed to be his wife?"

"I never did."

By this time he had grown a little res­tive under the questioning, but I told him to have patience with me, that I was anxious to find out all I could, and knowing and remembering him, as I did, to have been an intimate acquaintance of the family, it was natural for me to believe he would be able to give me direct and fairly authentic information on these important matters. I told him I was not a child, and was prepared and willing to face either the worst or the best as the truth might reveal it to be. He expressed a willingness to give me any information within his power and therefore I continued my questions.

"Did you attend the social gatherings held among the Saints at Nauvoo?"

"Yes, to some extent."

"Did you ever see my father present at any of those festivities?"

"Yes."

"Did you ever see any woman with him, other than my mother, who was introduced by him as his wife?"

"No, sir; I never saw him in the com­pany of any other woman than your mother, Emma."

"Do you have personal knowledge that my father was, married to, or lived as husband with, any woman, other than my mother?"

Without hesitation or qualification, he answered, "No sir; I never did."

Coming back to the thought of the "revelation" about which I had asked him, and to his statement about his "celestial" marriage to his wife, I asked:

"Did your 'celestial marriage' to your wife take place in the Temple?"

"No, sir; the Temple was not finished then."

"Did it take place in the Masonic Hall?"

"No."

"In the Brick Store office?"

"No, sir."

"Was it in a dwelling house?"

"No, sir; it was on the street."

"How was that?"

"Well, I had held conversations with your Uncle Hyrum, in which he taught me that married couples who felt that they were sufficiently agreeable to one another in their married life together that they wished those associations to be continued after death could go before some high priest and be sealed for eter­nity, in order to assure the continuance on the other side of their ties as married companions. My wife and I had talked this over, and one day, riding in a buggy up Main Street, we met Brother Hyrum on his way home. At his suggestion, we stood up in the buggy, clasped our hands together, and he pronounced the ceremony uniting us as husband and wife for eternity, having already been married for time."

"Do you know of any other persons who were sealed in a similar way?"

"Yes, an elderly couple well past mid­dle age, whose children were away from home, were sealed in my presence with this ceremony."

"Was it done by father?"

"No; it was a high priest who was a neighbor to them."

"Was it taught that this ceremony which was said to be revealed was in­tended as a marriage ceremony in the ordinary use of the term, used to unite those not already married and who con­templated living together as husband and wife in the flesh as is done in the case of the civil marriage?"

Distinctly he answered. "It was not. It was only intended for those already married, who were desirous of continu­ing in the next life their associations as husband and wife found pleasant here. It was not contemplated or considered as a marriage ceremony such as that one contained in the Book of Covenants which is used as a form and authority in the church."

"Did you know any man already mar­ried, who was sealed by this ceremony to any woman, or to women, other than his own wife?"

"No, sir; I did not. It was not intended to be used in that way, and it did not in­clude the joining in marriage for the purpose of domestic life together as does the usual marriage ceremony."

I was particularly pleased with these answers to my questions. Thinking to test his memory and also to justify my­self, if possible, by what he would an­swer, I then asked him how he accounted for the fact now generally conceded that no children were born to my father or to my Uncle Hyrum in polygamy or plural marriage, since it had so often been stated that they had a number of wives.

Mr. Corey waited for a moment, as if thinking deeply, and then answered:

"Brother Joseph, I confess that ques­tion has been quite a stumblingblock to me for I have no way of answering it satisfactorily to myself except I should do it in the way the mother of a young friend of mine accounted for it. He used to work with me up in the canyons after wood, and we used often to talk about the Prophet Joseph and his work. One day he asked me this same question you have asked, and plied me with a number of arguments that I could not an­swer. He then said he intended to ask his mother."

At this point in Mr. Corey's story I interjected: "Was she one of Father's reputed wives?"

"Oh, yes," he answered, "his mother was one of your father's wives. I tried to persuade him not to broach the subject to his mother, but he seemed determined, for he was plainly curious to know why your father, in the vigor of young manhood, had never had children by any of his plural wives. When next we met and sat down to lunch in the wood, my young companion told me he had carried out his intention and had asked his mother about this matter, and she had replied, after due deliberation, 'My son, the prophet was very considerate in his associations with women, and did not wish to subject them to the disgrace of having children without being married!'"

At this astounding statement I exclaimed, "Disgrace, Brother Corey, disgrace?"

A flush spread over his features, and he said, slowly, "Perhaps she should have said 'supposed disgrace,' but her answer to the young man was as I have stated it to you."

At this the young Mr. Dusenberry hastily arose and said, "Come, Brother Howard, it is time we were going."

I could not repress the impulse to say, smiling broadly, "That is right, Brother Dusenberry; better take him away before he makes any further admissions that are damaging to your case."

I thanked Elder Corey most heartily for his kindness in coming to see me and for the reassuring statements he had made, which had greatly encouraged and heartened me.

We discussed numbers of people and events of those earlier days, and he said before we parted, "I perceive, Brother Joseph, that you remember a good deal more than I thought possible."

After he and his companion took their departure, I turned to the gentleman who had been waiting for his interview and found to my surprise that he was suffering under the influence of some excitement. His face was very red, he was perspiring freely, and when he attempted to speak his lips quivered, and tears threatened to flow down his cheeks. He burst out with the words:

"My God, my God! Brother Smith, what shall we do, what shall we do?"

"What do you mean, friend?" I asked him.

"Why, when I thought of all I had been told about your father, I came here to ask you some questions and to overwhelm you with what I supposed I knew. And you have kindly let me stay and hear this conversation between you and a man who must have been thoroughly acquainted with the facts, and here I have heard him testify just contrary to what has always been claimed and charged out here. I am astonished and bewildered!"

"You do not blame me for making the inquiries I did, do you?"

"Oh, no, not at all—but see what a fix it puts us all in, Brother Smith."

His words will have more meaning for the reader when I state that he was, as he told me, one of the three presiding officers of the local Mormon church at Provo and had come, in a spirit of bravado, to see me and "face me down" on some of the points I had made in my sermon the night before. He seemed to be curiously wrought upon, almost fearful. I comforted him the best I could, telling him that if a man did the best he knew and lived as near God as was possible, he need have no fear of consequences.

He kept reverting to the fact that they were "all in trouble," that their leading men were being arrested, and that he did not know what was the best to be done. I did not ask him to tell me about his own life, whether polygamous or not, but I rather inferred that it was. He finally thanked me for my courtesy and went his way.

Whatever may have been the ultimate result to him of the conversation and testimony he had heard, I have had no means of ascertaining, but when the guests were all gone, Brethren Anthony, Luff, Gammon, and I compared notes and were all quite surprised at the developments. By some means, or under the influence of some power, Corey had been moved to give information which we were quite sure he had not intended and which he would have been glad if he had not imparted to me. It had come into our conversation so naturally and informally he had been quite unsuspecting and off his guard, while I, on the contrary, in my anxiety had been quite on the qui vive. I shall never forget the bewildered expression that came over his face following his repetition of the answer the mother had given to her son, "The Prophet Joseph was a very, very considerate man and did not want to subject the women to the disgrace of haying children when they were not married. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), pp. 230-232)

Obviously from the answers given by Howard Corey to Joseph Smith III, his testimony published in The Historical Record was not true. He just made it up to support the position of the Utah LDS Church that the celestial marriage revelation (Utah LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132) came from Joseph Smith, Jr. This is additional evidence that the affidavits and statements obtained by Joseph F. Smith do not "prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, did teach and practice the principle of plural marriage in his lifetime" (The Historical Record 6, page 233). In fact, their untruthfulness testifies that Joseph Smith, Jr. was indeed innocent of teaching or practicing polygamy.

Did Joseph hide polygamy because he feared opposition?

It is said in many discussion groups, blogs, and sites on the Internet that Joseph hid his practice of polygamy because he feared violent repercussions from the community if they found out. I've always felt this argument was extremely weak because Joseph was already persecuted (beaten, tarred and feathered, thrown in jail) for what he believed and taught. Exposing to the public a belief and practice of polygamy wouldn't have made the persecutions any worse.

The other night I happened to read again Chapter 7 of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. At the end of the chapter, the authors address this issue in an excellent manner. So I thought I would quote what they said.

The belief that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy, but did it secretly because he feared opposition, is a ridiculous, weak belief according to Joseph's sons, Joseph III, Alexander, and David.

Joseph Smith III was eleven and a half years old at the time of his father's death. The young lad had a deep respect for, and a close relationship with, his father. He was intelligent and studious, and knew more about the polygamy conspiracy against his father than most Saints, because he often witnessed his mother and father's joint work to counteract the false polygamous charges which Bennett had made. He had the opportunity to observe his father's behavior, language, and mindset in public and private, both in the Prophet's office and home. As an example, the father required that Joseph III sometimes accompany him upon the rostrum during worship services; and the boy stayed at least once with his father while the Prophet was in hiding. Joseph III had this to say in answer to Brigham Young and others' claims that his father kept a polygamous revelation and polygamous marriages secret because of fear of the public:

To assert that Joseph Smith was afraid to promulgate that doctrine [polygamy], if the command to do so had come from God, is to charge him with a moral cowardice to which his whole life gives the lie. Nor does it charge him alone with cowardice, but brands his compeers with the same undeserved approbrium. The very fact that men are now found who dare to present and defend it, is proof positive that Joseph and Hyrum Smith would have dared to do the same thing had they been commanded so to do.

The danger to the lives of those men would have been no more imminent, nor any greater in the preaching of "Celestial Marriage," than it was in preaching the "Golden Bible" and the doctrine that Joseph Smith was a prophet blessed with divine revelation. For the preaching of these tenets many lost their lives; Joseph and Hyrum Smith were repeatedly mobbed, were imprisoned and finally died, in the faith originally promulgated, but—if we may judge from their public records,—not believers in polygamy. (Joseph Smith III, Reply to Orson Pratt [tract], 4)

Alexander Hale Smith, a son of the Prophet, was six years old when his father was slain. After studying the polygamous charges against his father he wrote:

We also learn another fact: ... That in the brain of J. C. Bennett was conceived the idea, and in his practice was the principle first introduced into the church; and from this hellish egg was hatched the present degrading, debasing, and destructive polygamic system, known as "spiritual wifery," or the "celestial marriage," so called.

It is said that Joseph Smith, the martyr, received a revelation revealing the "celestial marriage" and instituting "plurality of wives." I have already examined the testimony of Joseph Smith, concerning the marriage ceremony; and he declares that he knew of no other system of marriage than the one quoted from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [1835 Kirtland Edition, 101; 1844 Nauvoo Edition, 109; 1866 Liverpool Edition, 109; RLDS DC, 111]. . . .

But says one, "that was only a sham to blind the eyes of our enemies." Shame on the man, or set of men, who will thus wilfully charge the two best men of the nineteenth century, the two Prophets of the most high God, with publishing to the church and the public at large a lie, and signing their names to it.

"Oh! but it was done to save their lives." A very likely story, when those two men had faced death and the world for fourteen long years, preaching the word of God to a sin-cursed generation. No, no, it will not do, you must meet the truth with better weapons than that, if you expect to make much of a battle. Besides all that, Is it not written, that "He who seeketh to save his life shall lose it, and he who loseth his life for my sake shall find it," and did not they know this. Yes, a thousand times yes; it was their hope, their consolation in times of danger. (Alexander H. Smith, Polygamy: Was It an Original Tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? [tract], 6)

In spite of all that Joseph did to proclaim that he was not lying when he said he had not had a polygamous revelation, and that he was honest in his condemning of polygamy, members of the LDS Church proclaim even to this day that Joseph did receive Section 132 and was a polygamist. Joseph's side of the story has been, and is being, purposefully ignored by the LDS Church. They never give Joseph credit for having spoken the truth on this subject. In fact, they consider it was necessary and acceptable for the Prophet to lie, even though the Scriptures teach that lying is a major sin. It is ridiculous to believe that Joseph lied about polygamy because he feared a prejudiced public—for even the Mormons publish that Joseph bravely faced death at Carthage, saying, "I am calm as a summer's morning" (Times and Seasons 5 [July 15, 1844]: 585; RLDS DC 113:4b; LDS DC 135:4). When Joseph's statements against polygamy are taken at face value and are read with the realization that he was not a cowardly liar—an astounding fact becomes obvious—that it was Brigham and his pro-polygamist party that palmed a fraudulent polygamy conspiracy upon the Saints, which has blighted the Latter Day Saint Movement for over a century and a half.

So well said, there is nothing more to comment about this issue.

Who was the greatest defender of Joseph Smith, Jr.?

Many blogs, discussion groups, and even Wikipedia assert that toward the end of Joseph Smith III's life he wavered in his belief that his father, Joseph Smith, Jr., did not teach or practice polygamy. According to a Wikipedia article on the origin of LDS polygamy, "In the end, Smith concluded that he was 'not positive nor sure that [his father] was innocent' and that if, indeed, the elder Smith had been involved, it was still a false practice." This position is used by those believing Joseph Smith, Jr. taught and practiced polygamy to diminish Joseph III's lifelong defence of his father's honor so their position can be made stronger. However, this position is just not true.

In 1913, during the last part of his 80th year and a little more than a year prior to his death, Joseph Smith III wrote the following in his memoirs:

It may be supposed at this writing (I am now nearing the close of my eightieth year), after the lapse of thirty-six years since I took the stand I did in Salt Lake City, among those people so diverse and hostile to my faith, that I should have some regrets that I had not adopted a different policy and followed, possibly, a more conciliatory course in order to make a more favorable impression. But I now record that such is not the case. Through all these years of reflection over the experiences which attended that first visit and several later ones, in which I preached at many places as opportunity offered--north, south, east, and west--and came in contact with many advocates of polygamy and plural marriage, I have entertained no wish that I had taken a less positive stand. I have never felt that any softer policy would have been wiser, for I am satisfied that I have found and occupied the only tenable ground open to me as the son of the prophet Joseph Smith, whom I believed to be innocent of responsibility for the evils they had embraced. As leader of the church reorganized, I felt sure that position was the one which could be maintained and successfully defended from the beginning of the conflict to the very end. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), p. 164, italics added)

Just a little over a year prior to his death, Joseph Smith III still believed his father "to be innocent of responsibility for the evils [polygamy] they [Utah LDS] had embraced." Thus, contrary to what many proclaim, he did not waiver in this position. He was firm in his belief to the end.

So, with all the information presented to him indicating his father's involvement in polygamy, how did he retain his firm belief of his father's innocence? Simply, his belief was founded in the truth because he could separate opinion from fact. As he said earlier in his memoirs:

I had made the law my study, and I had not regretted it, for I had already found that what knowledge along those lines I had acquired had been of much value to me in the work I had undertaken. I had gone into the conflict against error and false claims with a mind at least partially trained along legal lines, and I knew how to value evidence. I knew the difference between assumption and fact, and was prepared to examine whatever was presented as evidence in such a manner as to determine whether or not it was worth of the name of proof, especially in the controversy then existing between the various factions of the church. (ibid., p. 163)

Through all of his investigations, Joseph III never found a shred of credible evidence, even from the alleged plural wives, to prove his father guilty of polygamy. Thus, he remained convinced of his father's innocence to the end of his life. Indeed, Joseph Smith III was his father's greatest defender.

Was Melissa Lott Willis a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.?

I have recently been reading The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914) and found his statement of a conversation he had with the Lott sisters (Melissa, Mary, and Alzina) in October, 1885, at Lehi, Utah. Melissa Lott Willis was one listed on page 234 of The Historical Record 6, edited and published by Andrew Jenson, as a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. A sketch of her life is found on page 119 of this work and in part states:

…on Sept 1843 she was married to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. She spent most of the following winter in his family going to school in the so-called brick store. The Prophet's children, Joseph, Frederick and Alexander, went to same school, under the immediate watch-care of Sister Malissa. In the spring of she went back to live with her parents on the farm, where she remained until after martyrdom of her husband in Carthage Jail. Subsequently she lived with Emma, occasionally, until the exodus in 1846, when she left Nauvoo with the rest of Saints.

She is ever unflinching in her testimony of what she knows to be true, and states in the most positive terms, and without any hesitation, that she was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet on the above named date, and became, in the full meaning of the term, his wife according to the sacred order of celestial marriage. She further states that when she was married to Ira Jones Willes, he fully understood that he was marrying a widow of Joseph Smith, the martyred Prophet; that their association together would end with this life, and that in the morning of the resurrection she would pass from him to the society of her deceased husband.

However, in her October, 1885, meeting with Joseph Smith III her statement was quite different, making the truth of the above suspect. From what he states, this meeting took place sometime after her sworn affidavit was published by Joseph F. Smith. According to Joseph Smith III:

In the evening we held a service in the Music Hall of the city [Lehi, Utah]. We went early to the room and were met and welcomed by a number of our own members, as well as other friends and citizens. In chatting before the services somebody came and told me that Mrs. Ira Willis was present. I referred to this woman in the early part of these Memoirs.

This news was of interest for I had frequently been told that she, who used to be Melissa Lott, claimed to have been a wife to my father and would so testify, and that I would not dare to visit and interview her for she would tell me unwelcome things. I had, of course, seen the affidavits which she and others made, published by Joseph F. Smith to bolster up his statement that Father had more wives than one.

I at once went to Mrs. Willis, was introduced, and promptly asked the privilege of calling upon her for an interview. This permission she very cordially granted. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), p.244)

By appointment I went to the home of Mrs. Willis at ten o'clock on the Tuesday following our meeting in the Music Hall. As I have already stated in connection with this woman, she was a daughter of Cornelius P. Lott, a man who had come to Nauvoo from the East, his family consisting of wife, sons John and baby Peter, and daughters Melissa, Martha, Mary, and Alzina. They lived in a house on the farm belonging to Father, just east of the city, and I knew them all in a general way. I was fairly well acquainted with Melissa and with her history and movements up to the time of their departure from Nauvoo, when they all emigrated to Utah.

Melissa married Ira Willis, as I have related—a kind, shrewd Yankee and most excellent man. I had heard that they had had two sons, but when I went to call on her she was living alone. One son had died as he approached manhood, and the husband and the other son had together met death in an accident occurring when they were coming down from the mountains with a load of wood. So she was left a widow and childless at the same time.

Her home was a one-room cottage, and when bidden to enter I found her sitting by the fireside preparing things for the midday meal. It was an old-fashioned fireplace such as I was used to seeing, with broad hearth and wide-throated chimney in which were the traditional hooks to support the kettles swung over the fire, the big dogs on which the logs rested, and nearby the fireshovel, tongs, and poker. Ira Willis had always been a thrifty and handy man-of-all-work and loved to make and provide many conveniences and accessories for his home. I have told how Ira Willis once released my tongue from a frosty axe by pouring warm water on the imprisoned member. He had a hearty laugh at my expense, and for several hours I nursed an extra mouthful of swollen tongue. Mother too had laughed at the occurrence when she heard of it and told me it would be well for me if I could learn some things without trying too many experiments for myself! I have never forgotten that instance and even today, as I retell the story, my stenographer and I have had a hearty laugh over the predicament of an excited boy rushing into the house with his tongue glued to a frosted axe!

I was well received by Mrs. Willis whom I knew by the old familiar name of Melissa. I told her I had a great desire to talk with her for I had been informed she knew things I would not dare to question her about. I said I wanted to know the truth, whatever it was, and believed that in answer to my questions she would be willing to tell me what she knew.

She answered that she would be glad to grant the interview, but explained that some unexpected company was coming for lunch and she would prefer if I could call in the afternoon instead, when she would be more at liberty and with leisure for a conversation. Of course this was agreeable to me, and after exchanging a few reminiscences I left her.

Returning in the afternoon I found her guests had gone, and she was ready for a chat, willing, as she said, to answer any question I would ask about conditions in Nauvoo of which she had any knowledge. I began by asking:

"Did you know of the teaching of plural marriage or polygamy at Nauvoo?"

"I had heard of it in private but not publicly."

"Did you know of any woman having been married to, my father and living with him as his wife, besides my mother?"

"No; and nothing of the kind occurred to my knowledge."

"Do you have any reason to believe such a thing took place and that my mother knew of there being another woman besides herself who was wife to my father?"

"No," quite emphatically, "I am sure she did not."

"Now, Melissa, I have been told that there were women, other than my mother, who were married to my father and lived with him as his wife, and that my mother knew it. How about it?"

She answered rather tremulously, "If there was anything of that kind going on you may be sure that your mother knew nothing about it."

I then asked her what was her opinion of my mother's character for truth and veracity. She replied that she considered my mother one of the noblest women in the world, and that she had known her well and knew her to be as good and truthful a woman as ever lived.

"Then you think I would be justified in believing what my mother told me?"

"Yes, indeed, for she would not lie to you."

"Well, Melissa, my mother told me that my father had never had any wife other than herself, had never had any connection with any other woman as a wife, and was never married to any woman other than herself, with her consent or knowledge, or in any manner whatsoever. Do you consider I am justified in believing her?"

Without hesitation she answered, "If your mother told you any such thing as that you may depend upon what she said and feel sure she was telling the truth, and that she knew nothing about any such state of affairs. Yes, you would be entirely justified in believing her."

Our conversation continued for some time. Finally I asked, plainly, "Melissa, will you tell me just what was your relation to my father, if any?"

She arose, went to a shelf, and returned with a Bible which she opened at the family record pages and showed me a line written there in a scrawling handwriting:

"Married my daughter Melissa to Prophet Joseph Smith—" giving the date, which I seem to remember as late in 1843.

I looked closely at the handwriting and examined the book and other entries carefully. Then I asked:

"Who were present when this marriage took place—if marriage it may be called?"

"No one but your father and myself."

"Was my mother there?"

"No, sir."

"Was there no witness there?"

"No, sir."

"Where did it occur?"

"At the house on the farm."

"And my mother knew nothing about it, before or after?"

"No, sir."

"Did you ever live with my father as his wife, in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, as has been claimed?"

"No, sir."

"Did you ever live with him as his wife anywhere?" I persisted.

At this point she began to cry, and said, "No, I never did; but you have no business asking me such questions. I had a great regard and respect for both your father and your mother. I do not like to talk about these things."

"Well, Melissa, I have repeatedly been told that you have stated that you were married to my father and lived with him as his wife and that my mother knew of it. Now you tell me you never did live with him as his wife although claiming: to have been married to him. You tell me there was no one present at that purported marriage except the three of you and that my mother knew nothing about such an alliance. Frankly, I am at a loss to know just what you would have me believe about you."

I was about to make still closer inquiries in order to find out if she ever had any relations of any sort with my father other than the ordinary relations that may properly exist between such persons under the usual conditions of social procedure, when just then there came a rap on the door, and in walked her sisters Mary and Alzina.

Alzina lived rather near Melissa, but Mary, the older, was living some twenty-five or thirty miles away. Hearing I was in Lehi she had hitched up her team andt come to see me, stopping at Alzina's on the way and bringing her along.

They expressed great pleasure in meeting me again, and I was glad to see them. Our talk was general for a while, for their entrance had changed my line of inquiry somewhat. Then, urged to put to Melissa a question of importance, I asked:

"Melissa, do you know where I can find a brother or a sister, child or children of my father, born to him by some woman other than my mother—in Illinois, Utah, or anywhere else?"

She answered that she did not, whereupon Mary broke in and said:

"No, Brother Joseph, for there isn't any!”

Then she went on to say, "For twelve years I have made it my business to run down every rumor I have heard about the existence of children born to the Prophet by those women who were reputed to have been his wives. I have traveled a good many miles here and there for the purpose of finding out the truth about such statements, and not in one single instance have I ever found them substantiated or any evidence presented that had the least bit of truth in it. I have never been able to find a single child which could possibly have been born to Joseph Smith in plural marriage."

At this juncture Alzina snapped in with an explosive and characteristic exclamation:

"No, Brother Joseph, there is none, and what's more, I don't believe there ever was any chance for one!"

The earnestness of her manner and the snap with which she pointed her remark caused a ripple of laughter among us, in which, however, Melissa did not join. Noticing this, I turned to her and said:

"Melissa, how about it? You hear what your sisters are saying?"

Tears began to trickle down her face as she said, "Yes, Brother Joseph, I hear them."

"Well, what do you say? Can I believe as they do?"

She drew a deep breath, as if making a sudden decision, and then, with a sigh with lips trembling:

"Yes; you can believe that they are telling you the truth. There was no chance for any children."

Mary then explained in more detail about certain places she had gone to make inquiries directly of the persons involved (whom she named) and to see the women and the children who, it was stated, were wives and offspring of the Prophet. She said in every instance she proved the report false, either as to the woman claiming to be such a wife or as to children being there as claimed.

I thanked her and the other girls for the statements they had made. Our conversation on this and other topics continued for some time. We recalled many incidents of old times, and I learned from them of the deaths of their parents and the whereabouts and fortunes of others of the family.

I left these sisters feeling well repaid for my persistence in obtaining the interview with Mrs. Willis. In spite of what I had been told, she had neither been able to "face me down" nor to convince me that my father had done reprehensible things which I would be unwilling to believe. Instead, I left her presence and that of her sisters with my previous convictions more firmly established, if such a thing were possible. The interview had convinced me that the statement made in an affidavit of this Melissa Lott Willis, published by Joseph F. Smith along with others of similar import, to the effect that she had been married to Joseph Smith, was not true, provided the word married be construed as conveying the right of living together as man and wife, a relation she had unequivocally denied in my presence. I was convinced that wherever the word married or sealed occurred in such testimonials regarding my father it meant nothing more than that possibly those women had gone through some ceremony or covenant which they intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come, and could by no means have any reference whatever to marital rights in the flesh.

I was also convinced from the statements of Mrs. Willis that the entry in the Bible which she showed to me was a line written by her father, or some other person, recording an untruth. When I asked her in plain language how it happened she had not lived with my father as his wife if she had really been married to him, she had answered in equally plain language, that she had not lived with him in that manner because it was not right that she should do so.

I had made up my mind when I went to Utah that whenever and wherever I found opportunity I would converse with those women who had claimed, or were reputed, to be wives of my father— wives in polygamy, plural marriage, celestial, sealed, or any kind of arrangement—and in so doing I would subject them to as severe a cross examination as was within my power, to get as near as possible to the actual truth of the circumstances and the reports. It was for this reason I had called upon this woman, and I should have questioned her still further and in a more specific manner had not the entrance of her sisters turned the trend of conversation in a measure.

After my visit south, to Beaver, we passed through Lehi again on our way back to Salt Lake City, at which time I tried to have another conversation with Mrs. Willis, but learned she was not at home. I knew it would have been entirely useless to question her in the presence of an elder of their church as she would either evade my questions or refuse utterly to answer. Indeed, it is possible she may have been so far under domination and surveillance as to have stated, in such a contingency, that which was not true. As it was, I felt I had secured truthful statements from her, for she had betrayed some real depths of emotion as we conversed. She had stated that I might believe what my mother had told me for she regarded my mother as an honest, upright woman who was absolutely truthful. She had also stated that notwithstanding the "marriage" entry scribbled in her Bible, purported to be written by her father, she had not lived with Joseph Smith as his wife, believing it was "not right" to do so, and further, that he had never urged her to do so. I had also learned from her and her sisters that so far as their knowledge went there had been no issue of any polygamous marriages made by Joseph Smith, such as had been alleged. (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832-1914), pp. 245-246)

Obviously, Melissa Lott Willis was not "unflinching in her testimony of what she knows to be true ... that she was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet ... in the full meaning of the term [and was] his wife according to the sacred order of celestial marriage." However, I firmly believe she told the truth to Joseph III. It’s easy to lie to someone who doesn’t know the truth, but almost impossible to lie to someone who does. According to Joseph III, he was “fairly well acquainted with Melissa and with her history and movements up to the time of their departure from Nauvoo….” He knew her and the truth of what happened and didn’t happen in his home. In addition, her sisters, who knew her and her life well, were also present at the interview. As a result Melissa couldn’t lie to them. She had to tell them the truth—and she did!

Melissa Lott Willis was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. At most, according to Joseph Smith III, she “had gone through some ceremony or covenant which [she] intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come….” Obviously there was not enough evidence to even conclude Joseph Smith, Jr. was involved in such a ceremony, nor was it the belief of Joseph III, according to this statement, that he was. Thus, the affidavit of Melissa Lott Willis which Joseph F. Smith published is false regarding her plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr. Since The Historical Record account of Melissa Lott Willis’ plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr. was based on this affidavit, it too is false.