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.”

William Clayton Lied

Background

The primary testimony pertaining to the creating and recording of what is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants comes from William Clayton. Allegedly, he recorded the revelation as it fell from Joseph's lips on July 12, 1843, on the second floor of the Red Brick Building in Nauvoo in the presence of Hyrum Smith. As his story goes, the original copy of the alleged revelation was given to Emma who shortly thereafter destroyed it. While Clayton didn't record the complete details of this event until 1874, his story appears to have been circulated by word of mouth prior to his publishing it. This story was first recorded from a speech given by Brigham Young at the LDS Church conference in 1852 when the alleged plural marriage revelation was first read to the members. At that conference on August 29, 1852, Brigham Young stated:

The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:78; Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young," Deseret News Extra, September 14, 1852.)

William Clayton's 1874 account of these events was published in the "Plural Marriage" article of Historical Record 6 by Andrew Jenson. According to Clayton, he as well as Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma Smith were primary witness to his account. However, when Clayton's testimony was first published, Hyrum and Joseph were dead which made it impossible for them to either corroborate or refute his claim. However, during Emma's lifetime, she made several statements at different times consistently refuting his testimony—one to Jason W. Briggs in 1867, one to J. C. Chrestensen in 1872, and one to her son Joseph III in 1879.

Since Section 132 was never approved by a vote of the Church as a revelation from God, its authenticity, as a revelation given by God to Joseph in 1843, rests soley upon Clayton's testimony as an alleged primary witness to the event. Because Emma, another primary witness, consistently refuted his allegations, it is of utmost importance that William Clayton was completely truthful in his statement. However, he was not. He embellished his account of Joseph giving the revelation with a substantial lie.

William Clayton's Testimony and the Lie

Below is the part of Clayton's testimony about recording the polygamy revelation (LDS D&C 132) which contains the lie. I italicized the lie for ease in recognition.

On the morning of 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated this opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentance by sentance, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (Historical Record 6:225–226, italics added)

This statement in Clayton's testimony about the Urim and Thummim is very important. It is the seal of authenticity regarding the truth of this revelation. Joseph's refusal to use this tool to bring forth the revelation indicates his complete confidence in his knowledge of the truth of the revelation and his familiarity with it. This part of his testimony reassures the reader that Joseph knew what he was doing and that the revelation is true. However, this statement by William Clayton is a lie.

Why this Statement Is a Lie

Joseph stated in his history:

... the [Book of Mormon] plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate ... remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. (Times and Seasons, May 2, 1842, 3:772)

According to the above, after Joseph was through translating the Book of Mormon, he delivered the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate back into the hands of the angel from whom he had received them.

The translation [of the Book of Mormon] was completed about June 1, 1829. The title page was entered with the clerk of the United States District Court in western New York, June 11, 1829. Printing was begun in August, 1829, by E. B. Grandin at Palmyra, New York, and completed March 26, 1830. (Thelona D. Stevens, Book of Mormon Studies, Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri, 32)

I [Joseph Smith, Jr.] wish to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated.... (Times and Seasons, 3:943)

Because the title page of the Book of Mormon was the last inscription upon the plates, presumably, it was the last to be translated. Since the title page—the last page of translation—was registered on June 11, 1829, Joseph would have "accomplished by them [the Book of Mormon plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate] what was required at my hand" and "delivered them up" to the angel probably some time in June 1829 because he no longer had use for them. According to Joseph above, from the time he delivered the Urim and Thummim back to the angel until May 2, 1838, the angel had charge of them. In addition, there is no indication from Joseph that the angel ever returned them to him after that date until his death in 1844. Thus, in 1843 Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim and would have known he didn't. So if Hyrum would have "very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim," Joseph's response would have been that he didn't have them—not that "he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end."

In 1843, Hyrum Smith would have also known Joseph didn't have access to the Urim and Thummim. As one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon and a brother to Joseph, he would have known Joseph returned them to the angel shortly after completing the translation of the plates. As the Presiding Patriarch of the Church in 1843, he would also have known if Joseph received them again, which he didn't. Thus, Hyrum wouldn't have "very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim" knowing he didn't have them.

Conclusion

Thus, it appears that William Clayton lied about this exchange between Hyrum and Joseph. Some may say that he lied about a minor point which doesn't affect the the major thrust of his testimony that Joseph was a polygamist and brought forth the polygamy revelation which Emma destroyed. I disagree. If he was telling the truth about Joseph and the polygamy revelation, why would he have felt a need to embellish his account with a lie? The lie he told was for the purpose of giving credibility to the revelation. And if the revelation was truly the word of God, why would he need to give it credibility? The fact that he lied in his testimony about the Urim and Thummim makes me wonder what else he lied about—Joseph's polygamy and the revelation itself? I think so. Considering Emma's consistent testimony, as well as her outstanding honor and integrity throughout her entire life (see my blog post on Emma), I have to believe her testimony is true that Joseph didn't bring forth what is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants and that William Clayton's testimony is false.

As additional proof that Joseph didn't author Section 132, if you have not already done so, download Enid DeBarthe's writing style analysis of Section 132. After comparing the writing style of Joseph, Brigham Young, and others to that of Section 132, she concludes it was written by Brigham Young. If you have trouble downloading the PDF file, you may contact me at jsdefender1@gmail.com and I will email it to you. If you wish to know more about Enid's study or the method she used, go to the addendum at the bottom of my post, "The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement."

Helen Mar Kimball—Was She Joseph's Plural Wife?

As many are aware, in October 2014 the LDS Church posted an article to their Web site stating that Joseph Smith, Jr., was a polygamist and that one of his 30 to 40 plural wives was a 14-year-old named Helen Mar Kimball. (See my previous post, "The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement," as to why I believe they posted this article.) This official statement from the LDS Church created quite a media storm, in particular the part that Joseph married a 14-year-old girl. While the LDS Church may believe he married Helen Mar Kimball, after reviewing all of her available writings, I don't believe he did.

Helen Mar's Background

Helen Mar was the daughter of Heber C. Kimball (an apostle in the Quorum of Twelve at Joseph's death) and Vilate Murray. In his life, Heber admittedly married 43 women including some alleged plural wives of Joseph (Lucy Walker, Sarah Ann Whitney, Martha McBride, Prescinda Huntington, and Sarah Lawrence) as well as Hyrum Smith's second monogamous wife (after his first died), Mary Fielding Smith, mother of Joseph F. Smith. These marriages took place after Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths. Heber took his first plural wife in 1842 (see familypedia.wikia.com), which, for chronological reference, was prior to Joseph's alleged celestial marriage revelation of July 12, 1843.

According to Andrew Jenson, Helen Mar Kimball allegedly married Joseph Smith, Jr., in May 1843 (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record 6, 234). Todd Compton lists her as Joseph's 25th plural wife (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 6). When she allegedly married Joseph, she was 14 years old and was one of two 14-year-olds possibly married to Joseph, the other being Nancy Winchester (ibid., 6). These are the two girls that critics reference to accuse Joseph of pedophilia. In 1846, prior to leaving Nauvoo for the West, Helen Mar was married for time (and possibly eternity) to Horace Whitney (ibid., 504), son of Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Ann Smith. Horace was a brother to Sarah Ann Whitney (ibid., 343), who, as previously stated, was another alleged plural wife of Joseph. (See my blog post on Sarah Ann Whitney.) Sarah Ann Whitney became the plural wife of Helen Mar's father (Heber C. Kimball) on January 12, 1846, in the Nauvoo Temple (ibid., 354). In 1856 Horace Whitney married a plural wife, Mary Cravath (ibid., 513). Horace died on November 22, 1884 (ibid., 523), and Helen Mar died November 15, 1896 (ibid., 533).

Even though Helen Mar allegedly started her polygamous life with Joseph Smith, Jr., in great opposition to this principle, she later became one of its most vocal female advocates and published several writings in support of its practice. According to Todd Compton, because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," she is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (ibid., 467).

Helen Mar's Writings

According to Todd Compton, Helen Mar wrote several items pertaining to her life in the LDS Church.

Her writings can be divided into four categories: two pamphlets, both defenses of polygamy; the Woman’s Exponent memoir; editorials published in the Deseret News and Woman’s Exponent; and her diary.

The first pamphlet—a broadside response to Reorganized Latter Day Saints president Joseph Smith III’s denial of his father, Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, involvement in polygamy—was Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald.” It was published by the Juvenile Instructor Office in 1882. The second was Why We Practice Plural Marriage, published by the same office two years later. References to these pamphlets appear frequently in Helen’s diaries. She gave copies of them to her relatives and friends outside of Salt Lake City to sell, and she often received payment for sales (for example, on January 2, 1885). These two pamphlets were impassioned defenses of polygamy that almost denounced monogamy as evil per se. They garnered attention as pleas for plural marriage from the perspective of a woman, although most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt. From May 1880 to August 1886, the Woman’s Exponent published Helen’s memoirs in serial form under the titles “Scenes and Incidents at Nauvoo,” “Our Travels beyond the Mississippi,” and “Scenes and Incidents at Winter Quarters.” (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33)

Helen Mar's complete diary is contained in the book, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, edited by Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton. She began to write her diary in 1884 when her husband Horace became very ill unto death. She continued writing it until the month before her death in 1896 (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1).

The series of her recollections (memoirs) published in the Woman’s Exponent have been compiled into the publication, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History by Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds. and can be read on-line. This publication also includes her March 30, 1881, autobiographical letter to her children and her obituary. According to "The Rest of Her Story" section of this publication, "Helen Mar notes in her earliest written autobiography [1876]: 'I never wrote or kept a Diary one day in my life [(Whitney, 'Autobiography,' 9 January 1876)].'" Also, the "Introduction" states :

In addition to this series of recollections [memoirs], Helen Mar wrote letters and poems for publication in the same newspaper [Woman’s Exponent] between 1 October 1880 and 1 March 1891, adding important details of her life and activity during this period.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain digital copies of her 1876 autobiography or her editorials published in the Deseret News and Woman’s Exponent. The conclusions I have made in this article are based on her writings listed below, which to my knowledge are the only ones available in digital format:

• Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald”
• Why We Practice Plural Marriage
• A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney
• A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History

In my opinion, writers have taken quotes from her writings and have interpreted them to their prejudice, as well as interwoven them with the hearsay testimonies of others to support their position that she was Joseph's plural wife. I found that when I read her above writings without an author interpreting them for me, I received a totally different impression of her relationship with Joseph than that portrayed by other writers.

Analysis of Her Writings

Helen Mar's writings give us a true sense of who she was and whether or not she had a polygamous relationship with Joseph. Only she can tell us who she is. Only she can tell us about her relationship with Joseph. Her writings are considered primary evidence and as such are extremely important in proving whether or not she was Joseph's plural wife. If her writings, as primary evidence, don't prove they were married, in my opinion it is improbable that they actually were.

Any widow, even 35 years after her husband's death, should be able to provide enough details about her marriage ceremony and her marital relationship to convince anyone she was married to him. Since Compton said, as previously quoted, her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," make her "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 467), I was expecting her writings to clearly support the position that she was married to Joseph—including personal references to their relationship as well as a detailed account of their wedding ceremony with a date of marriage. However, her writings are almost silent about these things. And, what little she does state about being married to Joseph, is not personal or consistent. Thus, it is both what she said, as well as what she didn't say, that has convinced me she was not Joseph's plural wife.

For the sake of analyzing her writings, I am dividing them into two categories: her diary and her other writings.

Her Diary

Helen Mar's diary was written about her life from 1884–1896. In her diary, there are almost no entries pertaining to her alleged marriage to Joseph. However, scanning the diary, it appears she made a couple of references that need to be considered in determining whether she was actually married to Joseph. Her diary entry of June 27, 1887, includes the statement:

Bro. Gensen called to see me—wants me to write up incidents of my life as soon as I can. I gave him a few incidents of Flora Gove’s life who was a wife of Joseph Smith (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, transcribers and editors, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 246)

The summary of her 1887 diary entries provided by the editors on page 213 of this work indicate that this diary entry was a reference that Helen Mar was visited by Andrew Jenson, who wrote the "Plural Marriage" article of Historical Record 6.

In July 1887, Jenson published a twenty-seven page article, "Plural Marriage," in his monthly Historical Record. It identified by name twenty-seven plural wives of Joseph Smith. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 1:11)

In the "Plural Marriage" article, Jenson listed Helen Mar Kimball as a plural wife of Joseph and that they were married in May 1843. However, he didn't state the source for this information (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record 6, 234). If it is true that the "Gensen" in Helen Mar's diary is in fact Andrew Jenson, and since Jenson's article was published a month after the interview, then they may have talked about her alleged marriage to Joseph, including the date.

However, the diary entry itself doesn't support that such a conversation occurred. It is only evidence that Jenson wanted her to write about her life as soon as she could and that she told him of Flora Gove's marriage to Joseph. (Of course, this information about Flora Gove and Joseph from Helen Mar—a third party—is considered hearsay.)

It is interesting to me that she told of Gove's alleged plural marriage to Joseph—but not of her own. I would think that if she truly had been married to Joseph in 1843, she would have also mentioned it when she mentioned Gove's. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this statement by Helen Mar in her diary does not provide any evidence that she was actually married to Joseph. To conclude anything else is pure speculation.

The second diary reference that needs to be considered is a direct reference to her alleged marriage to Joseph. According to Hales,

It is obvious that Helen's sealing [to Joseph] was for both time and eternity. In 1886 Helen told a Brother Hyrum Kimball that she "was sealed to the Prophet in Nauvoo." She wrote: "He was astonished and so was I that he was ignorant of this fact." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:295; The Widows Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, July 11, 1886 entry, 169).

What is obvious from this diary entry is that in 1886 Helen Mar believed she had been married to Joseph in Nauvoo. However, her statement doesn't indicate when the alleged marriage took place. Was she referencing a sealing for time and eternity in 1843 or, as the Nauvoo Temple records state, a sealing for eternity in 1846 after Joseph's death? (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:272) This is unclear, and her statement could have referenced either one. Thus, this entry doesn't substantiate that she was in fact married to Joseph in 1843 as his plural wife.

In addition, Helen Mar's shock that Hyrum Kimball didn't know about this event possibly shows that her alleged marriage to Joseph was not a known fact among those whom she felt should have known about this event. If her diary entry was referencing her alleged marriage to Joseph in 1843, this could indicate that such a marriage was merely in her mind and not in reality. As I proceed with the analysis of her other writings, this possibility will become more apparent.

Her Other Writings

Some of her other writings, including the pamphlets, extensively discuss polygamy indicating Joseph as the author of this principle within the LDS Church. In reading these writings, both what she said about Horace and what she didn't say about Joseph has clearly convinced me that Helen Mar Kimball was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.

What She Said about Horace

What she said about her marriage to Horace Whitney (in the Nauvoo Temple in 1846 just prior to their evacuation from Nauvoo) indicates to me she was never married to Joseph. She gives two accounts of her marriage to Horace which materially conflict with one another. In "The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo" she states:

At early twilight on the 3rd of February [1846] a messenger was sent by my father, informing H. K. Whitney and myself that this day finished their work in the temple, and that we were to present ourselves there that evening. The weather being fine we preferred to walk; and as we passed through the little graveyard at the foot of the hill a solemn covenant we entered into—to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity, and this vow was solemnized at the holy altar. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History, "The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo"; Woman’s Exponent, vol. 12, no. 11, 1 November 1883, p. 81, emphasis added)

In this account, Helen Mar states that the vow ("to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity") was "solemnized at the holy altar." To me, this indicates that she and Horace were married for both time and eternity on February 3, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple.

However, in Helen Mar's earlier (March 30, 1881) autobiographical letter to her children she states:

Two years after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum I loved and married your father, Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney. He stood proxy for Joseph & I stood for Elizabeth Sikes. We were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple over the alter on the 3 of Feb. 1846. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One")

To me, this account means that on February 3, 1846, Helen Mar was married for time to Horace, but she was married for eternity to Joseph, who had died in 1844. Thus, her 1881 statement materially conflicts with her 1883 statement. Compton's chapter on Helen Mar Kimball supports her 1881 statement and suggests that she was remarried to Joseph for eternity in 1846, although he gives no reason why he accepted her 1881 statement over her 1883 statement. The Nauvoo Temple Proxy Sealing records also support Helen Mar's 1881 statement that she was sealed to Joseph for eternity in 1846 (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:272).

Nevertheless, whichever statement of hers you want to believe, in my opinion they both support the position that Helen Mar was never sealed to Joseph as a plural wife during his life. If she had been sealed to Joseph in 1843 for time and eternity, she couldn't have also been sealed to Horace for eternity according to her 1883 statement. Similarly, if she had gone through a formal sealing ceremony (like the one alleged for Sarah Ann Whitney in 1842—see my blog post) with Joseph in 1843 for both time and eternity, why would she have been sealed again in 1846 to Joseph for eternity according to her 1881 statement? Wasn't the first eternal sealing to the Prophet in his presence (and probably in the presence of other church officials including her father) sufficient? Since eternity never forgets, why would an eternal sealing have to be re-done? The fact that Helen Mar was sealed for eternity in 1846 to either Horace or Joseph indicates to me she was never sealed to Joseph in 1843, and thus she was never Joseph's plural wife.

Considering her diary statement in 1886 quoted above, these discrepancies give more support to the possibility that her marriage to Joseph in 1843 was a delusion and not a reality. If she had truly been married to Joseph, her actions and memories would have been true and consistent with the event. But the gross discrepancies in her accounts show that her belief that she was married to Joseph in 1843 was just that—a belief and not a fact.

What She Didn't Say about Joseph

What Helen Mar didn't say about Joseph in her other writings makes me also believe she was not married to him in 1843. While her writings adamantly profess polygamy as truth and reference Joseph as the author of this principle, she never states anything personal about her relationship with him. She never indicates that her belief in the principle was a result of her actually living it with the Prophet himself. She never gives her date of marriage or any details about her marriage ceremony. She never states the fact of their marriage and only alludes to it once.

Others have also made similar observations. The editors of A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History in their introduction state:

She makes no mention of the sealing [to Joseph Smith, Jr.] in these articles, in the brief autobiographical chapter in Representative Women of Deseret, nor in the two important pamphlets on the subject published in 1882. Apparently, the first sympathetic public announcement of her marriage to Joseph Smith was Andrew Jenson’s listing of the Prophet’s plural wives in 1887.

Also, Spencer Fluhman, an LDS historian, stated about the writings of Helen Mar:

. . . her reminiscences convey little social interaction with Joseph Smith after the marriage, let alone an intimate physical relationship. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2:296; J. Spencer Fluhman, " 'A Subject That Can Bear Investigation': Anguish, Faith, and Joseph Smith's Youngest Plural Wife," 41-51)

In addition, the position she takes about polygamy in her other writings does not appear to have been forged by a polygamous relationship with the Prophet of the LDS Church and author of the celestial marriage doctrine. Instead, it seems to be a parroting of the positions taken on this issue by the leaders of her church in that day. I agree with Compton's statement above that "most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt" (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33).

Two Examples of What She Didn't Say about Joseph

First, in her other writings, she makes some references that her father, Heber C. Kimball, explained the principle of celestial marriage to her and asked her to marry Joseph. One of these references is in her autobiographical letter to her children, March 30, 1881. According to this account, her father explained the principle and made his request to her on one day and on the next day Joseph came to her and her family to explain the principle and request her to marry him. About this event she states that her father:

asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marriage—after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One")

Her only reference in all of her other writings which could be construed that she married Joseph was her vague statement above: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." Yet, as previously stated, in all of her other writings she never mentions the date of their marriage or anything more about their marriage, even though she mentions details of many other events occurring in her life during the year of 1843.

In addition, it seems odd to me in the above letter to her children that she didn't say more about her marriage to Joseph. If she had truly been married to him in 1843, this letter would have been the perfect vehicle to tell her family about their relationship and the influence it had on her belief in the correctness of plural marriage. Helen Mar was a part of the LDS Church royalty and elite (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1, 2, 20, 34–35). This letter would have been an excellent way to pass on to her children the legacy and social status of her marriage to the Prophet so they could be proud of her as well as their own position in the LDS Church. It would have been a great opportunity to testify to them of the truth of the principle as one who lived it with the Prophet himself, setting an example for the women in her family as well as for all other women in the LDS Church. In my opinion, the fact that she did not state these things or similar ones in her letter to her children, or in her other writings, supports the position she was not married to Joseph in 1843.

Second, another instance of Helen Mar's failure to reference her personal relationship and marriage to Joseph in her other writings was her response to Joseph Smith III in her pamphlet, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald". In both of her pamphlets, she was passionate about her belief in the truth of the principle of celestial marriage or plurality of wives (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33). And with her ability to passionately present her belief in the truth of the principle, she should have had no difficulty in presenting herself in her writing to Joseph Smith III as his father's plural wife. Yet in her response to Joseph Smith III, the prophet and president of the RLDS Church at the time, she never once referenced herself as Joseph Smith, Jr.'s, wife or gave any detail about him or their marriage. In order to convince Joseph Smith III that his father was a polygamist, this would have been the perfect time to have provided personal references and details of her and Joseph's relationship and marriage. And she could have spoken with authority as Joseph's plural wife who had lived the principle with him. In my opinion, the fact that she did not say these things in her writing to Joseph III indicates she was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.

The Importance of What She Didn't Say about Joseph

According to Todd Compton,

. . . most polygamous men held elite status in Mormon society, so polygamy often offered plural wives similar status. Helen Mar had great prestige because of her marriage to Joseph Smith. Historians and visitors to Salt Lake City called on her to hear her experiences with polygamy in Nauvoo." (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 20)

If this is true, why didn't she state in her other writings anything personal about her marriage to Joseph? The fact that she didn't do so has convinced me that she was not married to Joseph in reality, and greatly supports the possibility that she deluded herself, for whatever reason, into believing that she was married to him 1843.

Other Considerations

Was Helen Mar's "Silence" for Another Reason?

Could the argument be made that Helen Mar Kimball was so traumatized by her marital relationship with Joseph at age 14 that she buried it deep within her, refusing to bring it forth in her public writings? While I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, I understand that the details of such trauma can be hidden so deeply within the brain as a coping mechanism that they are not consciously recognized by the person as ever happening. However, this does not seem consistent with her publicly adamant support of polygamy later in life. In her writings she mentions the names of many other alleged plural wives of Joseph. In addition, she seems to have had no problem publicly defending and promoting in writing the principle of celestial marriage as allegedly taught by Joseph, even to the challenging of statements made by Joseph Smith III, as son of the Martyr and president of the RLDS Church. For these reasons I don't believe this argument could be substantiated.

Helen Mar's Signature

On her autobiographical letter to her children dated March 30, 1881, she first signed the letter "Helen Mar Kimball Whitney" and then inserted "Smith" between "Kimball" and "Whitney" (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One") as an afterthought. If she had truly been married to the Prophet according to the principle of celestial marriage—which she adamantly believed in, prolifically wrote about, defended publicly against his son Joseph III, sacrificed so much for, and pioneered with the Prophet himself—she would not have forgotten to sign her married name of "Smith." While this may be a minor point, it is just another indication to me that she was never married to Joseph during his life.

Why Didn't Helen Mar Testify in the Temple Lot Suit?

According to Hales, Helen Mar would have been a likely candidate to have testified for the Respondents (Church of Christ, Temple Lot and LDS Church) that she was a plural wife of Joseph, but she wasn't used for a specific reason.

At that time she lived in Salt Lake City where the depositions were held and had been a vocal defender of plural marriage in the 1880s. . . . I can identify no reason for Helen Mar Kimball to have been bypassed as a witness except that she could not testify of experiencing a full conjugal plural marriage with Joseph Smith, which was a primary focus of the defensive tactics of the attorneys for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). This observation provides support for my conclusion that the couple did not experience conjugality during their thirteen-month marriage. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2:29)

I have two issues with this statement. First, if there were no sexual relations between Helen Mar and Joseph, in my opinion there was no plural marriage since one of the commonly known basic purposes of celestial marriage was to raise up righteous seed. And, if Joseph was the author of the principle of plural marriage, as prophet and leader of the Church, he would have felt the need to set the example for others to follow. Thus, in my way of thinking, if he was truly married to Helen Mar he would have had sexual relations with her. So, if he didn't have sexual relations with her, he wasn't married to her.

Second, I don't believe it was the lack of her sexual relations with Joseph that convinced the lawyers to not use her testimony in the case. I believe it was her lack of personal marriage references in her writings that would have made her a poor witness. Before the attorneys could establish that she had sexual relations with Joseph as his plural wife, they would first have to prove she had been married to him. With no personal references to their marriage in Helen Mar's public writings, it would have been impossible to establish in court with cross-examination that she had even been married to Joseph. In my opinion, she wasn't asked to testify in the Temple Lot Suit because the lawyers had no evidence to prove she was even married to Joseph.

Catherine Lewis' Statement

Hales stated about Catherine Lewis:

After leaving the Church, dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen's saying: "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:296; Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities, 19)

A reader of this blog has provided me with Lewis' complete statement from her 1848 publication:

The Twelve took Joseph's wives after his death. Kimball and Young took most of them; the daughter of Kimball was one of Joseph's wives. I heard her say to her mother, "I will never be sealed to my Father, and I would never have been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it. I say again, I will never be sealed to my Father; no, I will sooner be damned and go to hell, if I must. Neither will I be sealed to Brigham Young." The Apostles said they only took Joseph's wives to raise up children, carry them through to the next world, there deliver them up to him, by so doing they should gain his approbation, &c. (Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities, 19)."

This work was published in 1848 and Helen Mar Kimball was alive at the time. If she was aware of the publication, she could have commented in her writings about the truth or falsity of this statement. However, in her writings, I could find no reference to Lewis' publication. With no acknowledgement from Helen Mar, Lewis' above statement has to be considered hearsay and, as such, has little to no value in proving Helen Mar was a plural wife of Joseph.

Conclusion

As stated earlier, Todd Compton believes that because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," Helen Mar Kimball is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 467). However, in her writings I found very little personal reference to Joseph, to their marital relationship, or to the event of their marriage including the date. And what she did mention about the event of their marriage was vague and contradictory. In my opinion, Helen Mar Kimball presented no evidence in her writings to support her belief, or anyone else's, that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. Thus, I don't believe that she was ever married to Joseph during his life.

And if Helen Mar Kimball, who allegedly is the most documented plural wife of Joseph, was never married to him, what about all the others?

The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement

For the last weeks of October and the first part of November, 2014, headlines similar to "The LDS Church Finally Admits Joseph Smith Was a Polygamist and Had a 14-Year-Old Bride" have been splashed across news sources from Salt Lake City to all points east and west. Of course, this is a result of the LDS Church recently posting the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" article to lds.org stating their official position that Joseph was a polygamist and, among other things, was married to a 14-year-old girl, Helen Mar Kimball. Naturally, because the LDS Church has been officially silent for almost a century about Joseph and polygamy, the news sources are under the impression that this is the first official statement by the LDS Church that Joseph was a polygamist. Actually, this was one of many actions of the LDS Church (since migrating to Utah) that have accused Joseph of being a polygamist. In addition, because of the sensationalism of the official statement by the LDS Church that Joseph was married to a 14-year-old girl, the news sources have taken up this chant so as to eagerly prove his allegedly depraved nature. However, when looking at the prolific writings of Helen Mar Kimball in support of polygamy, they don't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. Because both of these subjects are too lengthy to address in one blog post, today I will address the fact that the belief of the LDS Church has always been that Joseph was a polygamist. My next post will deal with the issue of Helen Mar Kimball.

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

The belief that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy is not a new position for the LDS Church. In 1852, Orson Pratt at the direction of Brigham Young, publicly read for the first time the purported revelation from Joseph Smith, Jr. on plural marriage, which is now Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Allegedly, prior to its public reading, Brigham Young had been holding this document in secret. This was the first official statement from the LDS Church legitimizing the practice of polygamy and crediting Joseph with its origin. Publicly crediting Joseph as the author of both the revelation and the doctrine—whether such credit was fact or fiction—was the galvanizing agent used by the LDS Church to bring their people together to openly accept and practice this principle. Those in the rank and file of the church who knew Joseph, both loved and revered him. Thus, when they were told in 1852 by their leaders, who they also respected, that Joseph had received a revelation nine years earlier indicating they were to openly practice celestial marriage and that their eternal salvation depended upon it, for the most part, they readily accepted it without question.

In the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s the sons of Joseph (Joseph III, Alexander, and David) came to Utah to preach against polygamy and try to establish that it was not taught or practiced by their father and was not a principle of the Church established through him. As a result of their efforts, their cousin Joseph F. Smith (an apostle in the LDS Church at the time) began a search for documentation to prove Joseph was a polygamist. According to Brian C. Hales, Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt (who had openly presented the alleged revelation on celestial marriage and who was a more senior apostle) in 1875 about his efforts to obtain evidence regarding Joseph's polygamy and was astonished at the lack of existing evidence.

A few years ago [May 1869 to April 1870] I obtained the affidavits of as many as I knew of, with a few exceptions, who received personal instructions or commandment from The Prophet respecting the Subject of celestial marriage [,] all of which are filed away in the H.O. [Historian's Office].... When the subject first came before my mind I must say I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the Subject, as connected with the Prophet Joseph himself. There was nothing written and but few living who were personally knowing to the fact that Joseph Taught the principle. True much had been written in support of the Doctrine, bearing upon scriptural—and rational evidences, but not a word, except the Revelation itself. Showing that the The Prophet was the Author—under God.... (Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History, Brian C. Hales, p. 9)

Since there was "almost total absence of direct evidence" of Joseph teaching or practicing polygamy, Joseph F. Smith had to resort to obtaining affidavits (signed statements, not made under penalty of law for perjury) of alleged plural wives of Joseph as well as those who stated they knew Joseph was a polygamist. According to Brian C. Hales, Joseph F. Smith obtained such affidavits from about fifty individuals (Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 2: History, Brian C. Hales, pp. 352-357).

In the 1880s Andrew Jenson, an LDS author, obtained additional affidavits (again, not made under penalty of law for perjury) and published them along with a list of 27 plural wives of Joseph Smith by name. According to Brian C. Hales:

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

While the work done by Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson was not officially directed by the LDS Church, at the time of its collection, it was certainly not discouraged or denied by the Church. Today, it remains the core of evidence used to "prove" Joseph was a polygamist by the LDS Church in the mid to late 1800s, as well as by contemporary authors today.

However, in the 1890s, the LDS Church took another official stand that Joseph was a polygamist. The RLDS Church brought suit (Circuit Court of the United States, for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, at Kansas City, Missouri, Judge John F. Philips) against the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) for ownership of the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri. The LDS Church entered the suit on behalf of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) against the RLDS Church. The presence of the LDS Church in the trial was so notable "that Judge Philips in his decision spoke of it as 'the power behind the throne.' They furnished many leading witnesses, including Wilford Woodruff, president of the LDS Church, Lorenzo Snow, president of the Twelve, and at least two of the women who had become notorious by reason of their claim that they were plural wives of Joseph Smith the Martyr" (The Church in Court, compiled and arranged by Elbert A. Smith).

Since neither party owned a warranty deed to the land, the court had to decide who was the proper successor to the original LDS Church which had purchased the 63.27 acre tract containing the Temple Lot. Thus, the court investigated the original beliefs of the Church, as well as the beliefs of the churches represented at the suit, to determine which church was the legitimate continuation of the original church and entitled to the property. The LDS Church officially took the position that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. However, according to the Judge, they could not prove their case. While the court's decision to award ownership of the Temple Lot to the RLDS Church was overturned in appeals court because of laches (too much time delay in suing for ownership), the lower court's decision about the original teachings of the church and Joseph's innocence regarding polygamy was not overturned. For more information about the Temple Lot Suit see my blog "Why is the Temple Lot Suit important?"

From the above it is important to remember that, according to Joseph F. Smith, the only evidence the LDS Church has that Joseph was a polygamist are the statements of individuals associated with polygamy. And when the LDS Church presented their case in a court of law to prove that Joseph was a polygamist, their evidence was too weak to convince the judge that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Nevertheless, the original position of the LDS Church from 1852 on was that polygamy originated with Joseph.

The LDS Church Stopped Teaching that Joseph Was a Polygamist

It is my understanding that since the Manifesto in 1890, the LDS Church gradually stopped teaching their previous position that Joseph was a polygamist. As a result, several generations of LDS were not taught about polygamy in their church, but emphasis was placed on monogamy as the basis of the family unit. Joseph and Emma, in a monogamous relationship, with their children were depicted as the perfect example of harmony and family life. The concept of polygamy and the history of its past practice was skillfully eradicated from common LDS thought. It wasn't until about the mid-1900s that the work of Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson as well as the allegations made by Bennett, the Laws, the Higbee's, and anti-Mormon enemies of Joseph, began to be revisited by authors to paint Joseph as a polygamist. However, the publishing explosion of these types of books didn't occur until about the 1980s. Because the LDS Church had "covered up" these allegations from the past about Joseph practicing polygamy in order to distance itself from the teaching and practice of polygamy, authors have treated their books as exposés about Joseph—he was a deceiver, a liar, a whoremonger, a dictator, an adulterer, a pedophile, and in general a sex-driven maniac. In their minds they have uncovered the "truth" about him and informed not only the membership of the LDS Church, but the world, of his "true" nature and actions. But in my opinion, what they have uncovered are the lies told about Joseph by both his enemies and the mid-1800 leaders of the Utah LDS Church.

After having read several of these authors, it is my opinion that their purpose is only to prove how much of a polygamist Joseph was. They never consider any evidence (including his relentless statements and those of his family) that point to the possibility he was telling the truth that he was not a polygamist. So all they have done with their books is resurrect all the old evidence stating Joseph was a polygamist and made it "new" again. See my blog posts on "The 'New' Attack of Joseph"—Part 1 and Part 2. And now the LDS Church has officially taken the same position as these authors, which ironically, was the Utah LDS Church's original position. Officially, the LDS Church has gone full circle in their assertions that Joseph was a polygamist.

What Is My Take on All of This?

First, My Beliefs about Joseph

To understand my opinion about the recent plural marriage statement of the LDS Church, whether you agree with it or not, you need to understand my position about Joseph and polygamy. I don't believe Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. I believe that many of the high officials (including most of the Council of Twelve Apostles) began to secretly teach and practice polygamy in Nauvoo and attached Joseph's name to it in order to promote their position. I don't believe that the polygamy revelation (Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants) was authored by the Lord or Joseph. Some might say I have this belief because of my RLDS upbringing. It is true that this background influenced my original beliefs on this subject, as anyone's upbringing affects their original belief system. However, as I have investigated both sides of the issues including scrutinizing source materials such as Jenson's "Plural Marriage" article in the Historical Record, Udney Jacob's The Peace Maker, the Nauvoo Expositor, statements made by the Whitney's, Eliza Snow, John C. Bennett, the Laws and Higbee's, the writings of Helen Mar Kimball, interviews of Sarah Pratt, etc., I have found that the truthfulness of their allegations break down and don't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. Joseph is on trial in our minds, and as such, should be considered innocent until the facts (truth, not hearsay or opinions) prove him guilty. None of the source material I have read proves him guilty, and thus he remains innocent to me. The contemporary authors stating Joseph was a polygamist, and now the LDS Church, have not proven to me that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy. The reason they have not done so is that I don't agree with their interpretation of the source material I have read for myself, and they fail—almost refusing—to deal with all the evidence proving Joseph was innocent. Their approach has been to show how much of a polygamist Joseph was, not to determine if he was. I feel their conclusions are tainted because their paradigm that he was a polygamist excludes evidence supporting his innocence and brings them to only one conclusion--he is really guilty of the most heinous acts including marriage to the 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. However, my investigations have not proved him to be such, and until they do, he will remain innocent to me.

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

In short, they did so for damage control. As stated earlier, for about 100 years the LDS Church did not teach to their members their original position that Joseph was a polygamist. Several generations were raised on monogamous family values with their first prophet, Joseph, leading the way. Since the 1980s, there has been an explosion of books using documentation by the mid-1800s LDS Church, as well as enemies of Joseph, to "prove" Joseph was not only a polygamist, but an evil person. Because of this information and silence from the LDS Church on this issue, many members became disillusioned and left, and are still leaving, the LDS Church. And it seems the issue is not dying, only heating up. I recently learned from a video interview on the The Salt Lake Tribune Web site, that Brian C. Hales—who recently published (2013) the three-volume book, Joseph Smith's Polygamy—is co-authoring with his wife, Laura Hales, another book entitled, Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Polygamy—Separating Fact from Fiction, which should released in early 2015. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, Volume 2 of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, the only series of books defending Joseph's innocence, has recently been released in print. Because of their silence on the issue, the LDS Church has appeared to its members to be covering up the issues made public by the contemporary authors supporting the position that Joseph was a polygamist. The appearance of cover-up by the LDS Church has only fueled the disillusionment among the members. Thus, the LDS Church was forced to take a stand on the issue to assure their membership they are aware of the issues and are not covering up anything.

So why did the LDS Church stand against Joseph's innocence? In my opinion, they had no choice but to do so if they wished to preserve their church. Since I believe that the leaders of the LDS Church that went west with Brigham lied about Joseph teaching and practicing polygamy to justify their continued practice of the principle, the current LDS Church could not expose that lie and preserve their church. For the LDS Church leaders today to say that Brigham, the apostles, other church leaders, and their plural wives lied about Joseph's involvement in polygamy would put in question the authority of their church as the "true" church and heir to the Church established by Joseph. In addition, it would put in question other beliefs and practices emanating from Brigham Young. Since the LDS Church could no longer be silent about the issue and could not defend Joseph's innocence and still maintain the authority of their church, their only choice was to once again throw Joseph "under the bus" to preserve their way of life. (If you think my criticism is unwarranted because of my RLDS background, please be assured it is not about the LDS Church as such, but about their treatment of Joseph. I am just as critical about the RLDS Church leadership that also threw Joseph "under the bus" many years ago in order to promote the current liberal Protestantism of the Community of Christ.) I believe that, unfortunately, the LDS Church leadership have only just started their descent down a very slippery slope because their statement was too general and too rationalizing of polygamy to satisfy the intellectual and liberal members of their church. According to some of the opinions of the three women on the video interview by The Salt Lake Tribune reporter mentioned above, the statement made by the LDS Church on plural marriage was good for a start, but the church needs to address the issues of polygamy and its beginnings in the church more in-depth.

What Is Next?

For me, the statement by the LDS Church was inevitable. They had to control the damage done to their church by the Joseph-was-a-polygamist authors by jumping on board to spin the information in a way that would minimize its adverse impact on their members. In my opinion, the plural marriage statement is just the beginning for the LDS Church because these authors and the intellectual, liberal members will not stop until the LDS Church admits the full extent of what these authors say about Joseph and polygamy.

What is next for me? I will still continue to defend Joseph. The fact that the LDS Church is again officially saying Joseph was a polygamist has no bearing on my stand. They are just reiterating what authors have already said. Since these authors haven't yet proven their case to me, the LDS Church jumping on the band wagon is certainly not going to make a difference. The reason I can say this is that I have evaluated many sources used by these authors and have determined they are very weak in proving Joseph was a polygamist. Since Joseph's alleged polygamy took place over 170 years ago, I don't foresee any "new and convincing evidence" surfacing that would push me to the other side. However, I do find the study of this subject very interesting and will continue to pursue the truth about Joseph and polygamy.

But how about you? What is next for you? For those of you who already believe Joseph was a polygamist, the official statement by the LDS Church is confirmation to you of what you believe to be true. For those of you who have studied out this issue and, like me, have come to the conclusion that Joseph was not a polygamist, the statement is just a reiteration of what authors have already said against Joseph and thus, not too earth shaking. But for those LDS who have either heard the "rumors" about Joseph and polygamy or are hearing this about Joseph for the first time, you could be very disturbed and overwhelmed. For you it isn't an issue that some "wacko" authors are bringing to your attention. Your church, which has probably not taught you anything about this issue in the past, is now officially stating that Joseph was a polygamist. Since you can't ignore the official position of your church, what do you do about it? In my opinion, you can either choose to accept it and go on, or you can choose to investigate the issue for yourself and make up your own mind as to whether you agree or disagree with the official opinion of your church.

If you choose to investigate this for yourself, I have some suggestions for you. First, you need to get your head in the game. Don't be concerned about what other people believe or say about this issue. As I indicated earlier, just because published authors and now the LDS Church are saying Joseph was a polygamist, doesn't make it so. The only thing that makes it so, is if he really was a polygamist. So the only thing that should matter to you is that you find out the truth about Joseph and polygamy for yourself.

Second, you need to approach your investigation as if Joseph is on trial (which he is) and you are the jury. Remember that in our court system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. To come to the truth, you must presume Joseph's innocence until the presented facts prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means you must review the evidence against him to determine if it is a fact (or true). If the evidence presented against him is not a fact (or not true) then you must reject it. Opinions and hearsay are not facts. Eyewitness accounts are acceptable as long as the witness is a person of integrity and has no reason to lie. Discrepancies in a person's testimony, or with what they said earlier, or with other accounts of the same event must be resolved. Otherwise, the truthfulness of their testimony is questionable. Evidence collected or statements made close to the event tend to be more accurate and reliable than those collected or made many years after the event. Generally, statements made close to the event are more detailed than those made many years after the event. Detailed statements made many years after an event tend to be questionable due to the fact that memory fades over time.

Third, don't forget to investigate and evaluate the defendant's (Joseph's) evidence. The best source of this information is the book, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, which is over three volumes of information supporting Joseph's innocence and is free to read. Since the book is not finished yet, continue to check back for new chapters.

Fourth, when doing your investigation, don't just take the author's word for interpretation of source material. Go to the source they reference and evaluate it yourself. If you do this you will be surprised, as I have been, how authors can misinterpret or bend the meaning of source material to fit their premise or support their conclusions.

Fifth, the whole issue of Joseph and polygamy can be a big, complicated mess. So as not to get overwhelmed, take one aspect of it that interests you, study it thoroughly from both sides, and make your judgment on that issue. Then, move on to the next one.

Sixth, if after evaluating all the evidence pro and con, you reasonably doubt that Joseph is guilty of being a polygamist, you must in your mind acquit him of the charges and deem him innocent..

While I realize this process is a little legalistic, it is the only way to fairly evaluate Joseph's guilt or innocence and give you the ability to determine this for yourself without being influenced by the opinions of others. In addition to the above, I suggest you add one more important step to your investigation—make it a diligent matter of prayer. Ask the Lord to show you in your studies whether or not Joseph was a polygamist. He knows the truth and He will show it to you in the way that will convince you. When He does, you will be satisfied in your soul about this issue. These are all the steps I have used to research this issue and they have led me to believe Joseph was innocent of both teaching and practicing polygamy.

God bless you in your pursuit of the truth about Joseph and polygamy. My next post will be about Helen Mar Kimball—was she really Joseph's wife?

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

The following was posted on 12/31/14 anonymously as a comment: “Have you ever read Enid DeBarthe's thesis paper on an analysis of the writing style of the author of Section 132 MDC? She proves incontrovertibly that Brigham Young was its author. I have had a physical copy of it for almost 30 years, but didn't take the time to digitize it until a couple of weeks ago. I have never heard anybody mention it in any polygamy discussions. It is quite lengthy and technical, but if you would be interested in reading it, I can send it to your email.”

I responded that I was interested in getting a digital copy and gave my email address. However, I never received a copy of this document. Since this post, I asked around locally if any of my contacts knew of this document and where I could get a copy to digitize. I soon found out that Enid DeBarthe’s sister had recently begun attending our church. Her sister put me in contact with Enid’s son who had a copy of the document. It is a 348 page book which he allowed be to digitize. There are only three in existence.

According to the title page, the book is entitled, “A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON JOSEPH SMITH II THE MORMON PROPHET-LEADER.” Enid DeBarthe wrote this book as a “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Library Science” for the “Faculty of the Graduate School Northern Illinois University” in July 1969. The major portion of the book is about Joseph Smith (his teachings and writings), the movement of the Church from New York to eventually Illinois, and the disbursement of the Church after Joseph’s death. It is the appendix of the book (oddly not listed in the table of contents) which analyzes the writing styles of both LDS D&C 132 and the King Follett sermon and compares them to the writing styles of several men, including Joseph and Brigham Young, to determine the likely author of these documents. It is her conclusion that “Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon” (p. 315).

Today, the type of writing analysis she used is called stylometry, which compares the writing style, using various criteria, of a document with unknown or disputed authorship to the writing styles of various authors to determine correct authorship. Presently, there are several computer programs which are used to do this task. However, Enid DeBarthe, in 1969, had to do this manually by counting words as well as comparing sentence structure and phraseology. The study and analysis she did was very detailed and remarkable for her time.

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