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.”

Could You Write the Book of Mormon?

A few years ago I responded to a news article in which the author stated that Joseph was a polygamist. My response generated other responses, one of which indicated Joseph was a fraud and wrote the Book of Mormon himself, which was an easy task to do. In my response I challenged him to write another book just like it—since it was so easy to do. He never replied and I have not seen a book published by him to date. When I discussed this event with a friend, he candidly quipped, "If Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon himself, he must have been a pretty smart fella." After studying the Book of Mormon for over 48 years, I could not agree more with my friend's off-the-cuff observation. With all of its plots, sub-plots, interwoven story lines, and Christian doctrines aligning with the Bible but contrary to the teachings of the day, the book is brilliant. If it was not of divine origin and did not come forth just as Joseph testified, then Joseph, with less than a forth grade education, was the most brilliant author the world has ever known.

Price Publishing Company publishes a tract entitled, "Could You Write the Book of Mormon?" While many of you may have read this or something similar to it, since this blog is about defending Joseph, I thought it would be good to reproduce here the contents of that tract. It lists 33 criteria necessary to write a book like the Book of Mormon under similar conditions as did Joseph. Its intent is to show how impossible it was for Joseph to write the Book of Mormon himself, thus confirming its divinity. The points it makes are probably not all inclusive. So, if you can come up with additional points of your own to show that Joseph could not have written the Book of Mormon himself, please share them with us in your comments.

Before I begin reciting the points of the tract, I need to say a few things about it. According to this Price Publishing Company publication, "the author of this article is unknown. The article was circulated in the Independence area in 1948. Dates and numbers relating to how many years have passed since the Book of Mormon was printed, have been changed to correspond with the year 2008." In addition, the references to the number of chapters, the length of the book, the number of words per page, etc. correspond to the RLDS 1908 version of the Book of Mormon. These references are different in other Book of Mormons such as those published by the LDS and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

Now to the points of the tract. Review the list below to see if you could write a book similar to the Book of Mormon under conditions comparable to those experienced by Joseph.

1. You must be between twenty-three and twenty-four years of age.
2. You cannot be a college graduate. In fact, you can have only three years of formal schooling.
3. Whatever you write must be on the basis of what you know and not what you learn through research.
4. You must write a history of an ancient country, such as Tibet, covering a period from 2200 B.C. to 421 A.D.
5. You must write a book with 102 chapters, twenty-five of them about wars, ten about history, twenty-one about prophecy, thirty-two about doctrines, five about missionaries, and nine about the mission of Christ.
6. You must include in your writings the history of two distinct and separate nations, along with histories of different contemporary nations or groups of people.
7. Your writings must describe the religious, economic, social, and political cultures and institutions of these two nations.
8. You must weave into your history the religion of Jesus Christ and the pattern for Christian living.
9. When you start to produce this record covering a period of over twenty-six hundred years, you must finish in approximately eighty days.
10. When you have finished, you must not make any changes in the text. The first edition must stand forever (this does not include grammatical errors, etc).
11. After pauses for sleep and food, if you are dictating to a stenographer, you must never ask to have the last paragraph or last sentence read back to you. You must start right where you stopped previously.
12. Your history or record must be long, approximately 777 pages with over 500 words per page.
13. You must add 180 proper nouns to the English language (William Shakespeare added thirty).
14. You must announce that your "smooth narrative" is not fiction, but true—yes, a sacred history.
15. In fact, your narrative must fulfill the Bible prophecies; even in the exact manner in which it shall come forth, to whom given, and its purpose and accomplishments.
16. You must publish  it to  every nation,  kindred, tongue, and people, declaring it to be the Word of God.
17. You must include with the record itself this marvelous promise:  "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
18. Tens of thousands must bear record to the world for the next 178 years that they know the record to be true. Because they put the promise to the test, the truth is manifested to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.
19. Thousands of great men, intellectual giants, and scholars, must subscribe discipleship to the record of its movement, even to the point of laying down their lives.
20. There can be no flaw, whatever, in the entire book (except in grammar, or other errors of man in transcribing, etc.).
21. Your descriptions of the cultures in these civilizations, of which you will write about, is not known when you publish your manuscript.
22. Yet, you must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements.
23. Even so, many of the facts, ideas, and statements given as true in your record must be entirely inconsistent with, even the direct opposite of, the prevailing belief of the world. Yet very little is even claimed to be known about these civilizations and their thousands of years of history.
24. You must invite the ablest scholars and experts to examine the text with care.   You must strive diligently to see that your book gets into the hands of all those most eager to prove it a forgery and who are most competent to expose any flaws in it.
25. After 178 years of extensive analysis, no claim or fact in the book is disproven, but all are vindicated. Other theories and ideas as to its origin rise and fall, leaving your claims as the only possible ones.
26. Thorough investigation, scientific evidence, and archaeological discoveries for the next 178 years must verify your claims and prove even the minutest details of your history to be perfectly true.
27. Internal and external prophecies must be confirmed and fulfilled in the next 178 years.
28. Three honest, accreditable witnesses must testify to the whole world that an angel from heaven appeared to them and showed them the ancient records from which you claim your record was translated.
29. You must hear out of heaven the voice of the Redeemer declaring to you and those three witnesses that your record is true, and that it is their responsibility to bear testimony of it—and that they do.
30. Eight other witnesses must testify to the world that they saw the ancient records in broad daylight, and that they handled them and felt the engravings thereon.
31. The first three and the second eight witnesses must bear their testimony, not for profit or gain, but under great personal sacrifice and severe persecution, even to their deaths.
32. You must talk a friend into financing your book with the understanding that he or you will never receive any monetary remuneration from it. This person must mortgage his farm to have it printed. You must sell the book at cost or less.
33. Finally, after suffering persecution and revilement for twenty-four years in the process of producing and defending this book, you must give, willingly, your own life for your testimony that the record is of God.

So, what do you think? Could you write the Book of Mormon? If you could not, how could Joseph do so with less than a fourth grade education? I know I could not do so and I have had 18 years of formal education. The thing I like about this list is that it gives an everyday perspective to writing such a book and helps me relate to just how difficult it would be to do this on my own without direction from God. This list confirms to me that the book is of divine origin and could not have come about in any other way than was described by Joseph.

After reading the list, I have a couple of additional observations about the Book of Mormon that confirm to me that Joseph did not write it himself. First, for all you readers out there that have higher than a third grade education, what is the direction you travel going away from Jerusalem along the eastern shore of the Red Sea? No fair peaking at a globe or using Google Earth. Time is ticking—what is your answer? Do you know it off the top of your head or do you give up? For those that do not know, the answer is found in 1 Nephi 5:15-16, 18 (RLDS) or 1 Nephi 16:12-14 (LDS). With less than a fourth grade education, how could Joseph have known this to be true when some of us with a much better education do not know it and the rest of us that did know it certainly did not know it in the fourth grade. While this is a small thing, to me it is further testimony that Joseph did not write the Book of Mormon in any other way than he claimed.

The second observation I have about the Book of Mormon is the use of first-person and third-person writing styles. As we know, Martin Harris lost the first 119 pages of Joseph's translation. According to Joseph, this translation was of Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi (a third-person narrative with quotes from first-person narrative). The Lord told Joseph not to re-translate it but to translate the small plates of Nephi instead (a first-person narrative only). The small plates of Nephi covered the same period of time as did the first 119 pages of Joseph's translation. If Joseph's account is true, then the first part of the published Book of Mormon should be strictly a first-person narrative and the remaining part should be mainly a third-person narrative with quotes from first-person narrative. And that is exactly what occurs in the published Book of Mormon.

By my calculations, the translation of the small plates of Nephi ends somewhere in the middle of the "Words of Mormon" chapter where Mormon's abridgement picks up regarding King Benjamin. The first part of the published Book of Mormon is written in first-person narrative by the original authors of the plates—Nephi, Jacob, Enos, etc. The second part of the published Book of Mormon from Mosiah to Mormon is Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi. As such, it is written in third-person narrative by Mormon with quotes from the original text in first-person narrative plus Mormon's own comments in first-person narrative. Thus, the first-person and third-person writing styles of the published Book of Mormon supports Joseph's account of the translation and is further testimony that the book is exactly what Joseph said it was.

So these are my two additions to this list. What are yours? If you have any, please add them through comments. I am anxious to hear what you have to say.

Sidney Rigdon and the Messenger and Advocate

Recently, a reader posed a question about Sidney Rigdon's claims in the Messenger and Advocate that Joseph practiced polygamy. I wish to answer the reader's inquiry in this article.
The claims in the Messenger and Advocate, published by Sidney Rigdon, that Joseph was a polygamist are very interesting. Because of Sidney's close relationship with Joseph from almost the beginning of the Church, including becoming a first counselor to Joseph in the First Presidency in March 1833, one would assume that the allegations in the Messenger and Advocate are true. After all, who better than Sidney should know the truth about Joseph and polygamy? And expectedly he did know the truth, but he did not publish it in the Messenger and Advocate. From Sidney's close association with Joseph, he knew that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. It was only after Joseph's death that Sidney changed his position as published in the Messenger and Advocate. So let us look at some of the events in Sidney's relationship with Joseph that point to Sidney's knowledge of Joseph's innocence and compare them to what Sidney published in the Messenger and Advocate. By doing this we should be able to see that what Sidney stated in the Messenger and Advocate was not reflective of what he knew about Joseph during their close association from 1830 to 1844.

The Early 1830s

Sidney's and Joseph's relationship started very early in the Church and they quickly became close associates. They first met in December, 1830, when Sidney came to New York to visit Joseph and subsequently became his scribe for the process of correcting the King James Version of the Bible into what is known as the Inspired Version or New Translation of the Bible. Sidney's association with Joseph on this project continued until it was completed on July 2, 1833 (Times and Seasons 6:802), with the vast majority of the work being done in Hiram, Ohio. During this time they spent many days together under the influence of the Spirit working on this document, and they received great spiritual manifestations such as the open vision of the glories as recorded in D&C 76. In addition, they suffered great persecutions together, such as the time they were dragged from their homes by the mob and beaten and tarred and feathered. These types of experiences tend to create closeness between people and reveal both the good and bad about them. Thus, both Sidney and Joseph probably came to know each other very well during this time.
Proponents that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy suggest that he did so as early as 1831 when he brought forth a revelation supporting this doctrine. To support their position they cite a letter written by W. W. Phelps to Brigham Young in 1861 which quoted parts of the alleged revelation. In addition, such proponents also indicate that Joseph's first plural wife was Fanny Alger who he allegedly married as early as 1833 in Kirtland, Ohio. If these events were true, Sidney Rigdon, with his closeness to Joseph in working on the Inspired Verson, would have had to have known about them. As adamant as Sidney was against polygamy after Joseph's death in June 1844, he would have also felt as strongly against it in the 1830s. Yet during this time he was silent on the subject. Similarly, the Messenger and Advocate in the mid-1840s makes no mention of polygamy existing during that time in the Church. In addition, Sidney was new to the Church as was everyone else. If Joseph was involved with polygamy, Sidney could have easily left the Church and returned to preaching in the Protestant world. But he did not. In fact, he was so convinced of the truth of the Restored Gospel that he accepted a calling to further responsibility in the highest quorum of the Church, the First Presidency. Because of Sidney's adamancy against polygamy after Joseph's death, his supportive actions for Joseph and the Church in the 1830s indicate to me that Joseph was not teaching or practicing polygamy at that time. Thus, I do not believe that the position of the Messenger and Advocate that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy came from Sidney's observations of Joseph in the early 1830s.

The Early 1840s

In the early 1840s, Sidney was still closely associated with Joseph in the First Presidency. In addition, he was Joseph's next door neighbor in Nauvoo. He lived ½ block to the north of both the Mansion House and the Homestead with no other houses in between. Those within his dwelling could easily note the activities surrounding Joseph's dwellings. Sidney was also the Postmaster of Nauvoo and for a while the kitchen of his home served as the post office (www.historicnauvoo.net). This placed him in a position to note who was writing to Joseph and to whom Joseph was writing. Because of Sidney's easy access to Joseph in Nauvoo, he would have definitely been in a position to know if Joseph was teaching or practicing polygamy, especially since it is alleged that from April 1841 to November 1843 Joseph married 31 women. (www.wivesofjosephsmith.org)
Again, as adamant as Sidney was against polygamy after Joseph's death, I have to believe he would have also felt as strongly against it in the 1840s prior to his death. Interestingly though, up until Joseph's death, Sidney was silent about Joseph's alleged involvement in polygamy except for allegations surrounding his daughter, Nancy Rigdon. Again, Sidney's silence about polygamy indicates to me that Joseph was not teaching or practicing polygamy during this time.
The allegations surrounding Nancy Rigdon are thoroughly covered in the article "Bennett's Sixth Letter, or the Essay on 'Happiness'" in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. I strongly suggest that all readers review the entire article. From this article, the issue was that "an unsigned letter favoring polygamy was delivered to Nancy, which Dr. Bennett published as his 'Sixth Letter,' claiming that it was a love letter from Joseph to Nancy." The letter was in Willard Richards' handwriting and Joseph denied he authored it. After Joseph told the Rigdons about Dr. Bennett's and Francis Higbee's involvement with Nancy, and after Joseph raised Eliza Rigdon, Sidney's daughter, from the dead by the power of God, Sidney believed Joseph about the letter. Sidney wrote a letter to the editor of a neighboring newspaper, the Wasp, which was printed in the September 3, 1842 issue. In the letter Sidney stated that Nancy denied that Joseph was the author of the letter. He also stated that Joseph had denied to him that he had authored the letter.
The raising of Eliza from the dead was additional confirmation to Sidney that Joseph was innocent of the polygamy allegations surrounding him. When Eliza came back from the dead, she told her father under the direction of the Spirit that Dr. Bennett was a wicked man and that God would deal with him. In late August, 1842, on a Sunday at the public stand near the temple, Sidney declared that Joseph had raised his daughter from the dead and told the testimony of what happened. He then stated, "It has also been rumored that I believe that Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet:—In regard to this, I unequivocally state, that I never thought so— but declare that I know he is a prophet of the Lord, called and chosen in this last dispensation, to roll on the kingdom of God for the last time" (ibid.) Three years later in the Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2 No. 2 (December 1845) Sidney states:

There is and always has been one governing principle in the church of Christ, and that is that the Lord always has and always will, give his spirit to them that obey him. If a person is found without the spirit of God, it is because he or she is a transgressor. This holds good in all cases. Persons who through obedience have attained the spirit of God, and afterwards found without it is transgressor; for had they not been so, the spirit would have continued with them. Nothing but transgression can deprive a person of the spirit of God, and the nearer a person walks to God, the greater portion of the spirit he will enjoy.

Because Sidney's belief was that the Lord only gives His Spirit to His obedient, he had to believe that Joseph could not have raised Eliza from the dead unless he was still the Lord's prophet and telling the truth. Hence, he made his public statement in August 1842 that Joseph was a true prophet and not a fallen one. And Eliza's statement under the Spirit about Bennett was confirmation to him that Joseph was telling the truth about Dr. Bennett and Francis Higbee.
In May 1844, when Sidney defended Joseph in the suit brought by Francis Higbee, Sidney reaffirmed his belief that Joseph was innocent of polygamy and that he had told the truth in 1842 about Dr. Bennett and Francis Higbee. According to the article "Francis M. Higbee Sued Joseph for Five Thousand Dollars" in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Higbee brought suit against Joseph allegedly for damages received from the Church's High Council 1842 investigation of Higbee's involvement in "'spiritual wifery' which was being practiced by Francis M. Higbee, Doctor John C. Bennett, and others. Testimony was given before the Council that Higbee had seduced at least six women, and that he had contracted a venereal disease from a prostitute, a French woman who had come to Nauvoo from the neighboring town of Warsaw." If Sidney believed or had evidence that Joseph was involved with polygamy, he could not have defended him for the following reason. This suit dealt in part with alleged scandalous events surrounding his daughter, Nancy Rigdon, including the alleged love letter written by Joseph to her favoring polygamy as mentioned above.

Engaging Rigdon was wisdom on the part of both Joseph and Sidney, because Joseph had been accused by Francis Higbee of attempting to take Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's daughter, as a plural wife. Both Joseph and Sidney were aware that it would be necessary to discuss events relative to Nancy during the hearing, because there would be a reviewing of events in 1842. That was the year that Higbee was investigated before the High Council, and since he had been Nancy's suitor, her name had been discussed. This made it probable that her name would be brought into the testimonies in the hearing before the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
Elder Rigdon, knowing that Nancy and Francis' relationship would be referred to in the hearing, still accepted the task of defending Joseph. Sidney's agreement to serve as one of Joseph's attorneys showed that he had faith in Joseph's innocence. (ibid.)

In the trial Sidney stated, "In relation to the matters before the court I am unacquainted with[,] I was sick at the time but I have heard it talked of back and fro.... I recollect Joseph Smith came to me with a complaint against [Francis] Higbee and Bennet, and made affidavit that it was true; I have the affidavit in my house" (ibid).
From the above, we see that in the 1840s, as late as May 1844 (one month prior to Joseph's death), Sidney Rigdon indicated it was true that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. Thus, I do not believe that the position of the Messenger and Advocate that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy came from Sidney's observations of Joseph in the 1840s.

The Messenger and Advocate Articles

After Sidney's attempt to lead the LDS Church was rejected, he began to publish the Messenger and Advocate in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 15, 1844. He published the last issue in September 1846. He was the editor of this paper and as such was responsible for its content. (You may read the Messenger and Advocate online.) Having read all the available issues online, I found that the paper was strongly opposed to both the LDS Church leadership in Nauvoo at that time and its polygamy doctrine. The paper supported the position that Sidney was the true successor to Joseph as President of the High Priesthood and Prophet to the Church. In addition, many articles were published which both inferred and stated that the doctrine of polygamy was taught and practiced by Joseph and that he was a fallen prophet.
In the beginning issues, this position about Joseph was stated by authors other than Sidney or in unsigned articles which may have been written by Sidney. Interestingly, Sidney only wrote three articles over his name indicating Joseph was a polygamist. The first of these articles did not appear in the Messenger and Advocate until March 15, 1845, when he reported about holding preaching services at the Kirtland Temple on Sunday evening February 16, 1845, as well as the following Tuesday and Thursday nights. Of the Thursday evening service he stated:

On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day. An unexpected circumstance took place that evening, it was the arrival of brethren William Law and William E. McLellan, from Hampton, Rock Island County, Illinois. Brother Law addressed the congregation for some time, setting forth what he knew about the people and the affairs of Nauvoo; some of which were new to us. He settled the question forever on the public mind, in, relation to the spiritual wife system, and the abominations concerning it. As Joseph Smith and others had attempted to get him into it, and in order to do so had made him acquainted with many things about it that we never knew before. The whole combined put the matter at rest, and the public mind was quieted, and all doubts removed.
During our stay there were lectures delivered by Dr. Samuel Bennett, and brethren Law and McLellan, all of which tended greatly to enlighten and settle the public mind. (italics added)

The second article over his name was entitled "Tour East" and was published nine months later in the Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 1845) issue. Sidney stated that Joseph "had become basely corrupt, and put at defiance the laws of his God, to hide his iniquity from the world…." I assume he was alleging that Joseph practiced polygamy.
The third article over his name (a letter to the editor) was entitled "Communications" and was published six months later in the Vol. 2, No. 6 (June 1846) issue. Sidney stated:

We are well aware that the leaders of this people [Mormons], introduced many corruptions among them, and was the thing which gave their enemies power over them, had they not have become basely corrupt, no enemy would have had power over them. They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death. This system the twelve, so called, undertook to carry out, and it has terminated in their overthrow, and the complete ruin of all those who follow their pernicious ways.
We warned Joseph Smith and his family, of the ruin that was coming on them, and of the certain destruction which awaited them, for their iniquity, for making their house, instead of a house of God a sink of corruption. The Smiths have fallen before their enemies, as the Lord said they would, and their families sunk into everlasting shame, and disgrace, until their very name is a reproach; and must remain so forever. (italics added)

In all, there were 33 issues of the Messenger and Advocate published by Sidney Rigdon. All but two (which are still under construction) are available to read online at www.sidneyrigdon.com. Of the 31 issues available to review, only three articles indicating Joseph was involved with polygamy were over Sidney's name. In addition, 22 issues mentioned nothing about Joseph and polygamy. Prior to the March 15, 1845 issue, there were several unsigned articles indicating this position about Joseph. After this issue, there were no such unsigned articles. All of the articles that associated Joseph with polygamy, including those signed by Sidney, gave no evidence (i.e., events, dates, observer's name, etc.) to support their allegations.

My Analysis of the Issue

It is assumed that because Sidney and Joseph had a close association from 1830 until Joseph's death in June, 1844, the articles published in the Messenger and Advocate that Joseph was a polygamist and a fallen prophet, whether they were written by Sidney or others, were reflective of Sidney's knowledge about Joseph from his association with him. Thus, these articles are assumed to be necessarily true. However, I believe this is a false assumption.
In the Vol. 2, No. 6 (June 1846) issue of Messenger and Advocate, Sidney stated that "we warned Joseph Smith and his family, of the ruin that was coming on them, and of the certain destruction which awaited them, for their iniquity…." Yet, as pointed out above, while Joseph was alive, Sidney never gave any indication that he did this or that he believed Joseph was involved with polygamy or that he was a fallen prophet. In fact, just the opposite occurred. Certainly, the Nancy Rigdon scandal would have been a time for Sidney to lose faith in Joseph. No father, especially a moral one with strong anti-polygamy feelings, would have supported a religious leader's attempt to seduce his daughter into polygamy. Yet both Sidney and Nancy claimed publicly in a local newspaper that Dr. John C. Bennett's allegations that Joseph wrote the unsigned love letter to Nancy were false. Shortly after this scandal, Joseph raised Eliza Rigdon, Nancy's sister and Sidney's daughter, from the dead. This experience was so spiritually powerful that Sidney had to know of Joseph's innocence of the allegations surrounding him. As he later wrote in the Messenger and Advocate, the Lord will only "give his spirit to them that obey him." In addition, the Spirit spoke to Sidney through Eliza indicating that Joseph was telling the truth about Bennett. As a result of these experiences, Sidney declared publicly in August 1842 that Joseph was a true prophet. I believe Sidney was thoroughly convinced that the allegations against Joseph were false and that Joseph was God's servant. Subsequently, in May of 1844, about one month before Joseph's death, Sidney defended Joseph in Francis Higbee's suit indicating that Joseph told the truth about Dr. John C. Bennett's and Francis Higbee's immoral conduct in 1842. Had Sidney truly warned Joseph about his "iniquity" as he stated in the Messenger and Advocate, he would not have defended Joseph against Higbee and indicated Joseph was telling the truth about him.
Thus, from Sidney's actions throughout his association with Joseph, it is clear to me that while Joseph was alive, Sidney knew that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. He had no personal knowledge to indicate Joseph was involved with polygamy and the Lord had confirmed to him that Joseph was still His prophet and obedient to Him. Sidney's later "conversion" to the position that Joseph was a polygamist and a fallen prophet was obviously not based on his observations of Joseph during the 14 years of his close association with him and it was not based on revelation from the Lord. Therefore, it should not be assumed that the information published about Joseph in the Messenger and Advocate was necessarily true because of any knowledge that Sidney had from his association with Joseph. The information published about Joseph in the Messenger and Advocate must stand on its own merits and nothing else.
All of the allegations made in the Messenger and Advocate about Joseph, whether by Sidney or others, are totally unfounded. They give no specific examples of events, dates, times, or individuals involved. Thus, because they cannot be corroborated, they are not proof of anything. Truly, from Sidney's close association with Joseph he should have known of at least one event to support his allegations. He did not even mention the letter to Nancy, which if Joseph had written it, would have been perfect to discuss as proof that Joseph "had become basely corrupt, and put at defiance the laws of his God, to hide his iniquity from the world…" (Messenger and Advocate, June 1846). Oddly enough, this statement itself was in direct opposition to the one he made in public in Nauvoo in August 1842 after Joseph had raised Eliza from the dead. Because of Sidney's close association with Joseph, the fact that he did not mention any specifics about Joseph's involvement with polygamy indicates to me that there were none to mention, which is further proof of Joseph's innocence.
It is interesting to me that Sidney only wrote three articles over his name in which he indicated that Joseph was a polygamist, or a fallen prophet, or both. As indicated above, the first was published in the March 15, 1845 Messenger and Advocate. Prior to that issue there were signed and unsigned articles supporting this position about Joseph. Because Sidney was the editor of the paper, he would have had to have been sympathetic to this position about Joseph to have allowed these articles to be printed. Thus, it is possible that some or all of the unsigned articles could have been authored by him. If the unsigned articles were written by Sidney, the question comes to mind, "Why didn't he put his name to them?" I'm not sure of the reason, but possibly because, at that time, he was not thoroughly convinced of this position about Joseph, considering his experiences with Joseph while he was alive.
I believe the final "conversion" of Sidney to this position about Joseph came from William Law (an associate of Francis Higbee) and William E. McLellan when they joined the preaching series held at the Kirtland Temple in February 1845, as reported in the March 15, 1845 Messenger and Advocate. From that point on, Sidney published three articles over his name alleging Joseph's involvement with polygamy and did not publish any unsigned articles about this issue. In the March 15, 1845 report, Sidney stated:

Brother Law addressed the congregation for some time, setting forth what he knew about the people and the affairs of Nauvoo; some of which were new to us. He settled the question forever on the public mind, in, relation to the spiritual wife system, and the abominations concerning it. As Joseph Smith and others had attempted to get him into it, and in order to do so had made him acquainted with many things about it that we never knew before. The whole combined put the matter at rest, and the public mind was quieted, and all doubts removed." (italics added)

From what Sidney reported, I believe he was finally convinced from this point on of Joseph's involvement in polygamy. As I interpret his report, Law gave new information about polygamy in the Church and "settled the question forever." He stated things that Joseph had taught him about polygamy which "we never knew before." Law removed "all doubts" that Joseph was practicing polygamy. In addition, his subsequent two articles and the publishing of no unsigned articles confirm the solidifying of his belief. However, Sidney's belief that Joseph was a polygamist came from believing William Law and others but not from his association with Joseph.

Conclusion

While at first it might appear that Sidney Rigdon's publication of the Messenger and Advocate is proof that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy, closer scrutiny indicates it does not. First, there is strong evidence that during his association with Joseph he knew Joseph was innocent of the polygamy allegations. Second, the statements made in the Messenger and Advocate against Joseph were not supported by any facts. Third, Sidney's final "conversion" to the belief that Joseph was a polygamist came from William Law in February 1845 and not from his first-hand association with Joseph. I am uncertain why Sidney would allow the testimonies of men to change his position against what he knew and publicly testified to be true. Since Joseph was dead, maybe it was easier to say he was a fallen prophet than to defend him and prove his innocence. Maybe this disassociation with Joseph made it easier to start and run his church. Maybe such a position legitimized his new church in the eyes of the "Joseph" critics. Whatever his reason, the fact remains that during his association with Joseph, Sidney knew Joseph was innocent of teaching and practicing polygamy. Thus, the position against Joseph expressed in the Messenger and Advocate was, in the words of Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Macbeth: Act V, Scene V).

Joseph and Brigham: Truth vs. Lies

Lying Successfully Is Hard

In my life, I have found that telling the truth is always easier than lying.  This is true because all you have to do is remember what happened and tell it to the best of your ability.  And generally, when this is done over time regarding the same event, the resulting stories, while maybe not exactly alike, greatly resemble each other in substance.  Lies, however, are a different matter.  To lie successfully about an event is hard.  It requires great mental powers.  First, you have to construct a story (sometimes on the fly) that is believable to your audience.  This requires a good imagination as well as knowing something about the audience and what they will believe.  Second, since you already know the truth, you have to remember the lie you told and not get it confused with the truth.  Since the truth never changes because it is actually what happened, a lie that is being passed off as the truth must also never change.  In addition, the liar must remember to whom he told the lie so as not to repeat something different to the same individual or group of people.  Third, if the liar never wishes to be caught in the lie, over time, he must remember the lie and to whom he told it.  And this is the most difficult part because after 5, 10, or 20 years, our memories fade and it is hard to remember the lies you told and to whom you told them.  Keeping this in mind let me proceed to the point of this blog.

Did Joseph Lie about Polygamy?

Joseph is accused of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy and lying about his involvement in it from about 1831 until his death in June 1844.  Joseph never preached a public sermon nor made a public statement in favor of plural marriage.  In fact, he did just the opposite.  He publically denounced its practice as evil and tried to eradicate it from the Church by pursuing punitive actions against those who were practicing it and accusing him of doing so.  Even the historians who state he did practice polygamy confirm that he never publically said he did and always spoke against it.

In Brigham Young: American Moses, p. 100, the author, Leonard J. Arrington, states that Joseph “unquestionably began to introduce the principle [of celestial marriage] to some associates in the spring of 1841, while the Twelve were still in England.”  According to WivesOfJosephSmith.org, Joseph took two wives during the period of 1831 to 1841, three wives in 1841, eleven wives in 1842, and seventeen wives in 1843.  From 1831 until his death in 1844, if Joseph lied about the doctrine and practice of polygamy, he would have lied to his family, Church members, and Church leaders in varying degrees.  If the above statement by Arrington is correct, during the first 10 years (1831–1841) he would have had to remember all of his lies so no one would have known.  Then beginning in 1841, he would have begun to reveal the truth to an increasing number of a select group, continuing to keep the general Church membership ignorant of the doctrine and practice.  If he truly did this, he must have been a very smart man to keep it all straight.  Remember, if you lie and want people to believe it, you have to remember the lie and to whom you told it over time—13 years in Joseph’s case.  However, I believe he kept it straight because he told the truth that he did not teach or practice polygamy.  If you tell the truth, you only have to remember the truth.  In addition, it is much easier to be consistent in your story.  Since there was no variance in Joseph’s position on polygamy, I have to believe he was telling the truth.

However, Joseph did more than just state he wasn’t a polygamist.  He actively pursued those who indicated he was a polygamist and defended himself against rumors.  One of the many examples was Joseph’s address to a Church conference in Nauvoo on April 6, 1843:

President Joseph then asked the conference if they were satisfied with the First Presidency, so far as he was concerned, as an individual, to preside over the whole church; or would they have another? If, said he, I have done any thing that ought to injure my character, reputation, or standing; or have dishonored our religion by any means in the sight of men, or angels, or in the sight of men and women, I am sorry for it, and if you will forgive me, I will endeavor to do so no more. I do not know that I have done anything of the kind; but if I have, come forward and tell me of it. If any one has any objection to me, I want you to come boldly and frankly, and tell of it; and if not, ever after hold your peace. (Times and Seasons 4 [May 1,1843]: 181)

Not one hand was lifted. Not one voice was raised. No complaint was made against Joseph, and he was unanimously chosen to continue as Prophet. (Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Vision 50)

If Joseph was lying about teaching and practicing polygamy and wanting to continue that lie, he would not have opened himself up to possible attack on this issue.  But even if for some strange reason he did, the result speaks for itself.  No one came forward to prove he was practicing polygamy.  And in those days there was no concern for being politically correct.  As the expression says, they called “an ace an ace and a spade a spade.”  So if he had been teaching or practicing polygamy, someone would have come forth to challenge him.

Did Brigham Lie about Polygamy?

However, Brigham Young had major problems with consistency in his story about how he learned of the plural marriage doctrine.  I am sure we are all familiar with the following statement made by him in the Bowery, Provo, Utah, July 14, 1855:

Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do. (Journal of Discourses 3:266)

So according to this statement, Brigham first heard the doctrine of plural marriage from Joseph, and he was so repulsed by it that he would have rather been dead than to obey it.  According to Arrington above, Joseph informed Brigham of this doctrine after Brigham returned from England, about July 1841.

However, in 1874 (19 years after his previous statement) Brigham reported to the Deseret News a significantly different account of how he first learned of this doctrine:

While we were in England, (in 1839 and 40), I think the Lord manifested to me by vision and his Spirit things [concerning polygamy] that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any one concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo; Joseph had never mentioned this; there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I ever knew anything about at that time, but I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself. And when I returned home, and Joseph revealed those things to me, then I understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this (communication with Joseph on the subject) was not until after I had told him what I understood—this was in 1841. The revelation [Section 132 in the Utah Doctrine and Covenants] was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this. (Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Volume 1, Chapter 4; The Messenger of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1 [June 1875]: 29; Deseret News, July 1, 1874)

According to this statement by Brigham, during 1839–1840 the Lord, not Joseph, revealed to him the doctrine of plural marriage.  Upon his return to Nauvoo in 1841, he told Joseph what the Lord had shown him and Joseph confirmed it.

In comparing these two statements, each one greatly contradicts the other.  If the first one was true, Brigham would have remembered the account 19 years later, particularly because the event was so traumatic that he wanted to die.  It is not easy to forget those types of memories over time, and even if they are forgotten, they do not morph into an entirely different story.  If the second one was true, Brigham would not have been astonished or repulsed by the doctrine as indicated in the first account because the Lord had shown him up to two years previously that it was correct.  In addition, if the second statement was true, he would have told it the first time, especially considering it gave the authority of the Lord to practice polygamy.

Who Told the Truth?

So who was telling the truth about Joseph’s involvement in polygamy?  For 13 years, Joseph stated he did not teach or practice polygamy and sought to take action against those who were practicing it and accusing him of doing so.  Joseph’s story never varied.  However, after 19 years, Brigham’s second story made the first one look false and the first one made the second look false.    Who was telling the truth?  I believe Joseph was because his story never varied.

The Book of Commandments vs. The Doctrine and Covenants

I recently received a question on one of my blogs in reference to the Book of Commandments. The individual asked:

How do you reconcile or refute others when they bring up the scripture in D&C 5 about JS "pretending to no other gift" and they are quoting from Book of Commandments not a 1835 version or later?

This is an excellent question, and since it deals with the integrity of Joseph, I thought it would be a good subject for a new blog.

The Book of Commandments Issue

Throughout the years the issue of using the revelations in the Book of Commandments instead of the corresponding ones in the Doctrine and Covenants has surfaced many times in the RLDS Church. Indeed, there are substantial differences between many of the same revelations in both books. Because the revelations in the Book of Commandments were printed first and they were allegedly copied from the originals, many assume these revelations are correct, or true. In addition, they also assume that the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants differ from those in the Book of Commandments because they were changed by Joseph to support his evolving theology. Thus, some point to the Book of Commandments as the more pure doctrine of the Restoration, while others say the discrepancy between the revelations in the two books is proof Joseph was not a prophet of God but was making up church doctrine as he went along.

Answering the Question

Before I get into the explanation of which set of revelations is correct, I wish to address the specific difference mentioned in the above question. According to Book of Commandments 4:2:

...and he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

The same part of the revelation found in RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 5:1d (LDS D&C 5:4) states:

And you have a gift to translate the plates, and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you, and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

By using a little logic it is obvious to me which version of this revelation is correct, or true. As we look at the life and ministry of Joseph Smith, Jr., God bestowed on him many gifts. Among other things, he was a prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church and at various times in his adult life expressed all the gifts of the Spirit as enumerated in D&C 46. After he finished the translation of the Book of Mormon, by the power of God he corrected the Bible which was published by the RLDS Church as the Inspired Version. And he led the priesthood and members of the Church to receive a partial endowment of the Spirit at the Kirtland Temple in 1836. So to me, it is obvious that the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants is correct because he received gifts from God in his life other than the gift to translate the plates of the Book of Mormon.

The Sources

Because I did not know the intricacies of this subject very well, I had to quickly find sources to use as a basis for this blog. I chose to use two RLDS sources because the information in them seems to be well documented and I am familiar with the integrity of the authors. However, there may be LDS sources just as good as these of which I am not aware. The first is the pamphlet, Book of Commandments Versus the Doctrine and Covenants, reviewed by President Joseph Smith, III, which is a cursory presentation of the subject. The second is the book, Our Beliefs Defended, by Apostle J. F. Curtis, which contains a discussion of the subject in detail. Both of these sources can be purchased online from the Restoration Bookstore by clicking the above links for the respective sources. Since my explanation will be a very brief summary of the issues, I strongly recommend the purchase of these sources for those wanting a more complete study of this subject with full documentation.

The Explanation of which Set of Revelations Is Correct

On November 1, 1831, a special conference was held in Hiram, Ohio, where Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were preparing the Inspired Version of the Bible. This conference discussed and decided to print all of the revelations received by Joseph. On the above date, Joseph received a revelation which the Lord designated as the preface to the Book of Commandments (D&C 1). After this revelation was received, the language of all the revelations was questioned by the elders and some felt they could use better language than Joseph did. As a result, the Lord spoke to the elders through Joseph (D&C 67) challenging the elders to choose the greatest among them to write a revelation better than the least of all the revelations Joseph had written. In response to the challenge, William E. McLellin (who, according to Joseph, felt he was the wisest man among them) was chosen to write the revelation, but he failed. It was then decided that Joseph should prepare the revelations for printing (make copies from the originals) and send the copies with Oliver Cowdery to Independence where W. W. Phelps would print and publish them in the Book of Commandments. The Lord appointed Joseph, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and William W. Phelps "to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them..." (RLDS D&C 70:1 and LDS D&C 70:1-3).

From the beginning date of the conference to when Oliver left for Missouri with John Whitmer on November 10, Joseph had only 10 days to copy all the revelations received to date. While the Lord had designated the above six men to do the work, there is some discrepancy who actually prepared the copies. David Whitmer said that Joseph, Sidney Rigdon, Orson Hyde, and others prepared the revelations for publication. William E. McLellin stated that he presided over the meeting where the revelations were prepared for publication. He also stated that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon copied the revelations but changed them to suit themselves. However, this was not true. During this ten day period, Joseph attended four conferences. While he stated that he and John Whitmer "began to arrange and copy the revelations" (Our Beliefs Defended, 27; Millennial Star, vol. 14, supplement, 36), because of the conference activities, Joseph would have had very little time to do any of this work. In addition, prior to the preparation of the revelations, Oliver Cowdery left Hiram to prepare for the trip to Missouri and W. W. Phelps left for Independence making a stop in Cincinnati to purchase the printing press. Thus, while William E. McLellin may have presided over the preparation process, Joseph, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps had very little, if anything, to do with this work. Thus, according to J. F. Curtis, William E. McLellin may have been directly involved in changing the revelations when copying them. McLellin admitted that he presided over the work and that the copies of the revelations were changed before being sent to Independence for printing. Since he was the one who thought he could improve the revelations, Curtis believed he had motive to make the changes. While it is really unknown who changed the revelations, it is certain that the copies were changed prior to sending them to Independence and that Joseph was not the one who changed them.

After the revelations were prepared, they were taken by Oliver Cowdery to Independence where W. W. Phelps began to print them for inclusion in the Book of Commandments. During the printing the mob in Independence destroyed the press and strewed printed revelations in the street. After the assault, the printed revelations were gathered up and loosely bound into several copies. The printing of the Book of Commandments was never completed. What exists today as the Book of Commandments are those revelations which were loosely bound after the press was destroyed.

After the mob action against the press in Independence, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, and John Whitmer returned to Kirtland and compared the original revelations to the copies they had been given for the Book of Commandments. They found that the copies were substantially different than the originals.

When the revelations were prepared for the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, great care was taken to ensure that the revelations published were exactly the same as the original ones. Many who were on the committee for publishing the Book of Commandments were on the committee for publishing the Doctrine and Covenants. By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was published, all who were on the Book of Commandments committee approved the revelations printed in the Doctrine and Covenants as correct according to the originals. In addition, all the quorums of the Church (including McLellin in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles) plus the General Assembly approved the revelations printed in the Doctrine and Covenants as correct. Because the Book of Commandments was destroyed in mid-printing, it was never approved by the quorums or the General Assembly. Thus, it was never an authorized publication of the Church. Only the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants were approved by a vote of the people and the quorums of the Church. For these reasons plus the fact that the revelations in the Book of Commandments are inconsistent with the originals, the Doctrine and Covenants contains the revelations which are correct.

What Is Truth?

According to RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 90:4b (LDS D&C 94:24-25), “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this, is the spirit of that wicked one, who was a liar from the beginning.” In my opinion, this is the most accurate definition of truth I have ever read. When we see things for what they really were, really are, really will be, we see the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” And anything different than this is a lie.

Recently, I have been following the blogs of Alan Rock Waterman, Why I’m Abandoning Polygamy and Why Mormon History Is Not What They Say. If you have not read them, I suggest you do. They are excellent presentations of his discovery that Joseph Smith, Jr. may not have promoted or practiced polygamy and his view that mainstream history on this issue may need to be revised to support that finding. In other words, all the spin, all the hype, and all the interpretation needs to be peeled away from this issue to get down to just the facts. What has impressed me is his keen grasp that noted historians of LDS polygamy have omitted numerous documents by Joseph and other primary witnesses that Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy. I have always felt that any biography of Joseph dealing with the issue of polygamy which does not adequately consider his stand against it and does not consider the findings in the Temple Lot Case and does not consider the statements of his family who knew him best, is either suspect in its motives or just poor history. How can we get to the truth (“knowledge of things as they are, and as they were”) without considering all documents pertinent to this issue? My hat is off to Mr. Waterman for considering a shift in his thinking to the possibility that Joseph was telling the truth and for his eloquent and tireless defense of his position.

Since the basis for his shifting paradigm is the book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by Richard and Pamela Price, some of his responders commented that the Price’s association with the RLDS Church and their firm belief that Joseph was not a polygamist has tainted the information. In addition, some indicated that the quality of their work is suspect because their educational degrees in history are not sufficient to write credible history. When I was a young man, I heard a minister state in a sermon, “It doesn’t matter who is right. What matters is ‘what is right.’” In other words, truth is truth, no matter who speaks it or writes it. This principle has guided me in my life to accept the truth whether it is my idea or someone else’s or whether it comes from the most learned and degreed person or the simplest one. “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” regardless of where, or with whom, it originates. This principle has allowed me in my personal, professional, and religious relationships to cut through the “I’m right—No, I’m right” communication barrier to get to the heart, or truth, of the issue.

Even though the Prices do not have doctorate degrees in history and are associated with the fundamentalist part of the RLDS Church and believe with all their hearts that Joseph was not a polygamist, the principle indicated above allows one to look at the evidence on its own merit. Knowing the Prices, this is exactly what they want to happen. And this is what Mr. Waterman has done. He has looked at the evidence presented and decided it merits consideration, regardless from where it came. If the mystery of Joseph and polygamy is to be unraveled, then those who are unraveling it must look for the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” regardless of who is presenting it.

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is far from being completed. While the first volume is in print, the complete work to date (about 2 2/3 volumes) is online. However, the Prices have indicated there is enough documentation for four to five volumes. Thus, they believe Joseph did not teach or practice polygamy because the volumes of documentation, which they are working to make available to the public, support that position. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is not a biography of Joseph. It is, as the title states, documentation showing the extent of Joseph’s fight against polygamy. All of the biographies about him that deal with the polygamy issue indicate he lied about his involvement in polygamy and do not attempt to show otherwise. It is easy to conclude he lied if you do not show he stood against it. The purpose of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is to let Joseph defend himself by his actions and his statements. It is to present the evidence which other writers have omitted. It is to show that in spite of all the allegations made against him, Joseph stood firm against the teaching and practice of polygamy. When this work is completed, the reader will have to judge for themselves. Did Joseph lie about practicing polygamy? Or, do the volumes of evidence supporting his actions and statements against practicing it necessitate the alternative conclusion that, in fact, Joseph Smith fought polygamy?

The Lord Declared Joseph Innocent of Polygamy

For those of us associated with the Reorganization, the revelation received by Jason Briggs in November, 1851, is significant. It was not only the beginning point of the Reorganization, but according to an article at restorationbookstore.org entitled “The Importance of the Revelation Given to Jason Briggs,” it was the Lord’s declaration that Joseph was innocent of polygamy.

As background to the revelation the article states,

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., on June 27, 1844, the Church was thrown into chaos, and many factions formed due to two points of doctrine. Even though Joseph had designated his son, Joseph III, four times—in the Liberty Jail, the Red Brick Store, the Grove in Nauvoo, and the Mansion House—to succeed him according to [RLDS] Doctrine and Covenants, Section 43:1–2 and the law of father-to-son lineal priesthood descent ([RLDS] DC 83:2; 84:3; 104:18), many Church leaders believed it was their right to lead the Church after his death. The men who led the largest groups were Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, James J. Strang, and Lyman Wight. William Smith (the Martyr's brother) and Lyman Wight, who were both apostles, were the only ones who supported Young Joseph as the next prophet. However, in the years just prior to the Reorganization, William Smith recanted that position and claimed that he was the successor of Joseph Smith, Jr. (see RLDS History of the Church 3:738). The second false doctrine common to many of the factions was the teaching and practice of spiritual wifery (also known as plural marriage, celestial marriage, or polygamy). Within those factions this false teaching proved to be a source of discontent to those who sought to remain true to the beliefs of the Church.

After Joseph's death, Brigham Young, with the support of eight other apostles, took control of the Church at Nauvoo. Those in disagreement with them were either expelled or left the Church on their own. At the time of Joseph's death, the total Church membership was estimated to be from 150,000 to 200,000 members worldwide with about 30,000 living in and around Nauvoo (see ibid., 1). Brigham took a total of about 10,000 with him to Utah (see ibid., 27), rebaptizing all the members and reordaining the priesthood (see ibid., 18–19). He also took with him the Church structure including the bishopric and quorums, as well as Church records and assets. Church members who did not follow Brigham to Utah and believed in the original doctrines of the Church, associated with one of the other leaders until doctrines were taught that were not in the original Church. Then they would associate with someone else, hoping to find the Church in its purity (see ibid., 196–198). It was under these circumstances that the Saints tried to hold on to the Church and Gospel as best as they could during the "dark and cloudy day" after Joseph's death.

In the first part of 1851, Jason Briggs and the Beloit, Wisconsin, Branch left Strang and associated with William Smith's group. William was teaching that Young Joseph was the rightful heir to the Presidency of the High Priesthood. However, in the fall of that year Briggs learned that William Smith was beginning to advocate two new doctrines in his organization: the practice of polygamy and that he was the true successor to Joseph the Martyr (see ibid., 738). In addition, none of the other factions seemed to be teaching the original doctrines of the Church established by Joseph. Briggs had been ordained an elder in the Church prior to Joseph's death and wanted to continue to minister for the Lord, but he could not find a group that he believed represented the Church in Joseph's day. Under these circumstances Jason Briggs went to the Lord in prayer asking for divine guidance as to what he was to do.

About the revelation, Jason Briggs stated:

While pondering in my heart the situation of the church, on the 18th day of November, 1851, on the prairie, about three miles northwest of Beloit, Wisconsin, the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and the visions of truth opened to my mind, and the Spirit of the Lord said unto me,

"Verily, verily, saith the Lord, even Jesus Christ, unto his servant, Jason W. Briggs, concerning the church: Behold, I have not cast off my people; neither have I changed in regard to Zion. Yea, verily, my people shall be redeemed, and my law shall be kept which I revealed unto my servant, Joseph Smith, Jr., for I am God and not man, and who is he that shall turn me from my purpose, or destroy whom I would preserve? Wolves have entered into the flock, and who shall deliver them? Where is he that giveth his life for the flock? Behold, I will judge those who call themselves shepherds, and have preyed upon the flock of my pastures.

"And because you have asked me in faith concerning William Smith, this is the answer of the Lord thy God concerning him: I, the Lord, have permitted him to represent the rightful heir to the presidency of the high priesthood of my church by reason of the faith and prayers of his father, and his brothers, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, which came up before me in his behalf; and to respect the law of lineage, by which the holy priesthood is transmitted, in all generations, when organized into quorums. And the keys which were taught him by my servant Joseph were of me, that I might prove him therewith. And for this reason have I poured out my Spirit through his ministrations, according to the integrity of those who received them.

"But as Esau despised his birthright, so has William Smith despised my law, and forfeited that which pertained to him as an apostle and high priest in my church. And his spokesman, Joseph Wood, shall fall with him, for they are rejected of me. They shall be degraded in their lives, and shall die without regard; for they have wholly forsaken my law, and given themselves to all manner of uncleanness, and prostituted my law and the keys of power entrusted to them, to the lusts of the flesh, and have run greedily in the way of adultery.

"Therefore, let the elders whom I have ordained by the hand of my servant Joseph, or by the hand of those ordained by him, resist not this authority, nor faint in the discharge of duty, which is to preach my gospel as revealed in the record of the Jews, and the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and cry repentance and remission of sins through obedience to the gospel, and I will sustain them, and give them my Spirit; and in mine own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph Smith, and will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and he shall preside over the high priesthood of my church; and then shall the quorums assemble, and the pure in heart shall gather, and Zion shall be reinhabited, as I said unto my servant Joseph Smith; after many days shall all these things be accomplished, saith the Spirit. Behold, that which ye received as my celestial law is not of me, but is the doctrine of Baalam. And I command you to denounce it and proclaim against it; and I will give you power, that none shall be able to withstand your words, if you rely upon me; for my Spirit shall attend you." And the Spirit said unto me, "Write, write, write; write the revelation and send it unto the saints at Palestine, and at Voree, and at Waukesha, and to all places where this doctrine is taught as my law; and whomsoever will humble themselves before me, and ask of me, shall receive of my Spirit a testimony that these words are of me. Even so. Amen." (RLDS History of the Church 3:200–201; The Messenger, edited by Jason W. Briggs, vol. 2, p. 1 )

The article then goes on to explain how the revelation proves Joseph was innocent of polygamy.

One of the most important parts of this revelation is the Lord's condemnation of polygamy and His indication of Joseph's innocence. In the last paragraph the Lord states, "Behold, that which ye received as my celestial law is not of me, but is the doctrine of Baalam. And I command you to denounce it and proclaim against it...." (Of course, the reference to "celestial law" means celestial marriage which is spiritual wifery or polygamy.) [In recent years] polygamy has become newsworthy, and Joseph Smith, Jr., is unquestioningly credited by the media for its inception within the Latter Day Saint movement. For those of us having the common heritage of the Reorganization, the revelation received by Jason Briggs should remove all doubt of Joseph's innocence in the teaching or practice of polygamy. In the third paragraph of the revelation, the Lord said that William Smith and his spokesman, Joseph Wood, had "given themselves to all manner of uncleanness, and prostituted my law and the keys of power intrusted to them, to the lusts of the flesh, and have run greedily in the way of adultery." In essence, because of William Smith's polygamy teachings, the Lord called him an adulterer. However, four times in the same revelation, the Lord called Joseph His servant. Since God is unchangeable and no respecter of persons, if Joseph had taught or practiced polygamy, the Lord would have also indicated he was an adulterer. Since the Lord unmistakably called Joseph His servant, this revelation is confirmation that Joseph did not teach nor practice polygamy. Thus, no one who claims the divinity of the Reorganization should ever doubt the innocence of Joseph regarding polygamy—for the Lord, Himself, proclaimed him innocent.