Emma Smith on Polygamy

Why Quote Emma?

For the most part, those who write that Joseph was a polygamist quote some of his alleged plural wives who state that Emma Smith supported polygamy. However, these writers avoid quoting Emma herself. In fact, they seem to "forget" that Emma made statements against polygamy and gave several interviews supporting the position that Joseph was not a polygamist. However, when authors do mention her statements, they rarely quote them but just say that Emma verbally opposed polygamy after Joseph's death so that her children would be sheltered against Joseph's polygamist activities. I feel that either the omission or degredation of Emma's testimony on their part is at best self-serving because it does not fit their paradyme that Joseph was a polygamist. At worst, it is disrespectful to Emma considering all the great personal sacrafices she made to support and promote the Restored Gospel. If anyone knew the truth about Joseph, it was Emma for she was his companion and helpmate who suffered with him from the beginning of the Restoration Movement through his death. She has earned the right for her opinions to be heard and given great weight concerning Joseph and polygamy. By all who knew her both within the church and the community, she was a women of great compassion, honor, integrity, and truthfulness until the day she died. She truly embodied the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout her entire life. If we cannot believe Emma about Joseph, who can we believe! For these reasons I have decided to quote some of the more emphatic statements Emma made in defense of Joseph. It is time that Emma's testimony is heard and given its proper due.

Emma's Statements

Interviews by Edmund C. Briggs

As background, Edmund C. Briggs was one of the first missionaries for the Reorganization. In 1856, he and Samuel Gurley were commissioned to visit Joseph Smith III, inform him about the Reorganization, and tell him that the Lord had revealed to them that he was to succeed his father as president of the Church and priesthood and join them in the Reorganization. At that time, Joseph refused to entertain this idea but remained open to the Lord leading him how He willed. Edmund remained in Nauvoo and came to know the Smith's quite well, including Emma who he interviewed several times. He stated:

I remained in Nauvoo and vicinity until the fall of 1857; worked a part of the time for Joseph on his farm—though he had moved into the city and his brother, Frederick, worked the place.

I became quite well acquainted with the Smith family. Frederick was prepossessing; in fact, a gentleman in his appearance, open and frank in his countenance, six feet high and well proportioned, and I noticed he was very affectionate to his mother and often saluted her with a loving kiss and good morning or good-bye. Everybody loved him.

Joseph was always cheerful, very respectful to his mother, always seemed to be busy. Alexander was always quiet around the house and doing chores. David was a handsome boy, modest and retiring in disposition, studious, and quite an artist; loved and admired by everybody who formed his acquaintance. Sister Emma was an exceptionally good woman, whom everybody spoke of as an example worthy of imitation. In fact, the whole family were esteemed by all people who knew them as good, worthy citizens above reproach, having the reputation of being strictly moral and temperate in all things.

The people in and out of the Church about Nauvoo, who personally knew Joseph Smith before he was murdered, spoke of him with respect and declared he was a good, honorable man, a worthy citizen, and declared the scandalous stories circulated about him were base misrepresentations put in circulation because of religious intolerance, or by his political enemies.

And Sister Emma, in speaking of the condition of the Church after her husband’s death, said to me, “I was threatened by Brigham Young because I opposed and denounced his measures and would not go west with them. At that time, they did not know where they were going themselves, but he told me that he would yet bring me prostrate to his feet. My house was set on fire several times, and one time wood was piled up at the side of the house and set afire. It burned the siding considerably and went out before we discovered it. It was either set on fire, or by accident or carelessness caught afire a number of times, and went out of itself when we did not discover it and put it out; but I never had any fear that the house would bum down as long as the Inspired Translation of the Bible was in it. I always felt safe when it was in the house, for I knew it could not be destroyed.”

She spoke very affectionately of Joseph, and said, “I never had any reason to oppose him, for we were always on the best of terms ourselves, but he allowed some others to persuade him in some measures against his will, and those things I opposed. He was opposed to the destroying of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, but the council overruled him by vote and he told them they were the cause of its destruction, but he would be held personally responsible for it; and I often heard Joseph contend against measures in council, and sometimes he would yield to them.”

I said, “Those were city councils?”

She replied, “Sometimes, and other times in councils of the Church, which were often held in our house. For the last eighteen months or two years before his death, it seemed the best elders were kept away from him as much as possible on missions, and the worst characters in the Church hovered around him all the time.”

When Sister Emma made the above statements, it was a real revelation to me. I had not realized before how the Church came to so soon run into such a horrible apostasy. She spoke so endearingly of Joseph, in confidence, tears filling her eyes, that I could see she reverenced his very memory, and had full faith in Joseph’s inspiration as a prophet of God, and she always denied to me in the most emphatic language that he taught or practiced polygamy.

Again, she said several times in conversation with me that the Utah Mormons had by their acts, since the death of her husband, made true all the slanders and vile things charged against the Church. I was also present when my brother, Jason Briggs, asked Sister Emma in relation to the purported revelation on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt in 1852, and she again denied that her husband ever taught polygamy, or that she ever burned any manuscript of a revelation purporting to favor polygamy, and that “the statement that I burned the original of the copy Brigham Young claimed to have, is false, and made out of whole cloth, and not true in any particular.” My brother was quite particular in his inquiry, when she said, “I never saw anything purporting to be a revelation authorizing polygamy until I saw it in the Seer, published by Orson Pratt.” Several were present at the time, and I shall never forget the candid manner of her expression when she, without a single hesitancy, with honesty and truthfulness marking her countenance, gave the lie to Brigham Young’s assertion on the twenty-ninth of August 1852 in Salt Lake City, when he said, “The original of this revelation was burned up.... Sister Emma burned the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation, supposed it was not now in existence.” Mark the thought: “The people who did know of the revelation, supposed it was not now in existence.” (Early History of the Reorganization, Apostle Edmund C. Briggs, pp. 88, 93-95)

Interview by Jason W. Briggs

Historically, in 1851 Jason W. Briggs (older brother to Edmund C. Briggs) received a revelation which was the beginning point of the Reorganization. In the revelation, the Lord confirmed that Joseph was not a polygamist (see my blog article, "The Lord Declared Joseph Innocent of Polygamy") and promised the scattered Saints that He would bring forth the seed of Joseph Smith, Jr. to lead them as their prophet. In 1867, after Joseph III had led the Reorganization for seven years and Emma had been a member for the same amount of time, Jason Briggs visited Emma in Nauvoo to inquiry of her about Joseph's purported polygamy revelation (LDS D&C 132) and his involvement with polygamy. Concerning the alleged revelation and subsequent interview with Emma, Jason W. Briggs states:

It [the polygamy revelation] purports to have been given through Joseph Smith; which, if true, our conclusions respecting its character, would make him either the victim or the instrument of deception and fraud. It must be remembered that its appearance, other than in some dark corner, if indeed there, was not until August, 1852, over eight years after the death of Joseph Smith. And when introduced, certain statements are made, which, if true, would seem to establish the claim that it came through him. This statement of facts is, that when the revelation was given, Emma Smith got possession of it in its original and 'burnt it'. Upon this point we subjoin the following questions and answers from a memorandum of an interview with the Sister Emma Smith referred to (now Mrs. Bidamon), at Nauvoo, in April, 1867.

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

Mrs. B.—I have.

J. W. B.—Have you read it?

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

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

Mrs. B.—I never did.

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

Mrs. B.—No; I never did.

J. W. B.—Did Joseph Smith ever teach you the principles of polygamy, as being revealed to him, or as a correct and righteous principle?

Mrs. B.—He never did.

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

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

This certainly stamps the most circumstantial fact alleged, in support of the genuineness of that document, as a base fraud, in keeping with the document itself. False facts are usually alleged to support false theories. Thus at every step in the investigation of this subject, proof develops how untenable is the position assumed for polygamy, both in its alleged facts, its principles, and its fruits.—The Messenger, vol. 1, p. 23. (RLDS History of the Church 3:351-352)

Interview by Joseph Smith III

LAST TESTIMONY OF SISTER EMMA.

In a conversation held in the Herald Office during the early days of the present year [1879], between Bishop Rogers, Elders W. W. Blair, H. A. Stebbins, and a few others, leading minds in the church, it was thought advisable to secure from Mother Bidamon (Sister Emma Smith) her testimony upon certain points upon which various opinions existed; and to do this, it was decided to present to her a few prominent questions, which were penned and agreed upon, the answers to which might, so far as she was concerned, settle these differences of opinion. In accordance with this understanding the Senior Editor of the Herald [Joseph III] visited Nauvoo, in February last, arriving on the 4th and remaining until the 10th. Sister Emma answered the questions freely and in the presence of her husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, who was generally present in their sitting room where the conversation took place. We were more particular in this, because it had been frequently stated to us: "Ask your mother, she knows." "Why don't you ask your mother; she dare not deny these things." "You do not dare to ask your mother!"

Our thought was, that if we had lacked courage to ask her, because we feared the answers she might give, we would put aside that fear; and, whatever the worst might be, we would hear it. The result is given below; it having been decided to give the statements to the readers of the Herald, in view of the death of Sister Emma having occurred so soon after she made them, thus giving them the character of a last testimony.

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

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

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

Answer.—I was married at South Bainbridge, New York; at the house of Squire Tarbell, by him, when I was in my twenty—second or twenty—third year.

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

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

In answer to a suggestion by us that she might mistake about who married Father and herself; and that it was rumored that it was Sidney Rigdon, or a Presbyterian clergyman, she stated:—

It was not Sidney Rigdon, for I did not see him for years after that. It was not a Presbyterian clergyman. I was visiting at Mr. Stowell's, who lived in Bainbridge, and saw your father there. I had no intention of marrying when I left home; but, during my visit at Mr. Stowell's, your father visited me there. My folks were bitterly opposed to him; and, being importuned by your father, aided by Mr. Stowell, who urged me to marry him, and preferring to marry him to any other man I knew, I consented. We went to Squire Tarbell's and were married. Afterwards, when Father found that I was married, he sent for us. The account in Mother Smith's History is substantially correct as to date and place. Your father bought your uncle Jesse's [Hale] place, off Father's farm, and we lived there till the Book of Mormon was translated; and I think published. I was not in Palmyra long.

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

A.—There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that, in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possibly be, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven."

No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.

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

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

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

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

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

A.—At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.

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

A.—It was good.

Q.—Were you in the habit of quarreling?

A.—No. There was no necessity for any quarreling. He knew that I wished for nothing but what was right; and, as he wished for nothing else, we did not disagree. He usually gave some heed to what I had to say. It was quite a grievous thing to many that I had any influence with him.

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

A.—I have been called apostate; but I have never apostatized, nor forsaken the faith I at first accepted; but was called so because I would not accept their new—fangled notion.

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

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

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

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

These questions, and the answers she had given to them, were read to my mother by me, the day before my leaving Nauvoo for home, and were affirmed by her. Major Bidamon stated that he had frequently conversed with her on the subject of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and her present answers were substantially what she had always stated in regard to it.

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

Vienna Jaques' Conversation with Joseph Smith III

According to Joseph Smith III:

During the weeks of my stay at Salt Lake City on this mission [his first to Utah, 1876], I was visited by several whom I had known at Nauvoo. They were people who, I had reason to know, under the common circumstances of life would have had opportunity to know something of the life of my parents, either favorable or otherwise as events might have proved.

One of these was a woman, Vienna Jaques, whom I first remembered as having been at Kirtland when I was but a child. Later I saw her frequently at Nauvoo, a reputed "old maid" who was often a visitor in our home. She called at Brother Reinsimar's one afternoon, ostensibly to "tell me what she knew." I was indeed pleased to meet her again. I need not attempt to relate all the communication which passed between us, but after she had, in a way, spoken favorably of the plural wife system of marriage, I asked her how it happened she was still an unmarried woman, jocularly remarking:

"Sister Vienna, since this is such a much-marrying country, I marvel that you have not married long ago, and become the plural wife of some respectable high priest or bishop!"

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

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

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

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

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

"Well," she went on, "at one of the meetings of the society when your mother was not present the subject of spiritual wifery came up as a matter of talk and speculation. Some said there was such a doctrine as that being taught. I had always been peculiarly disposed toward marriage. I considered it to be a relation of such high and sacred character that no one should enter into it hastily or think or speak of it in a light and foolish manner. When those women discussed the matter and asserted that such a doctrine was being talked of, I refused to believe it, and said I would ask your mother about it. Some of them tried to persuade me not to do that, but my mind was made up, and I told them so.

"The next day I visited your mother at her home, and had a talk with her. She told me she had asked her husband, the prophet, about the stories which were being circulated among the women concerning such a doctrine being taught, and that he had told her to tell the sisters of the society that if any man, no matter who he was, undertook to talk such stuff to them in their houses, to just order him out at once, and if he did not go immediately, to take the tongs or the broom and drive him out, for the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."

Naturally I was pleased to hear this testimony. I said, "Did you go back and tell the ladies of the society what my mother told you?"

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

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

The statements made by Emma about Joseph and polygamy spanned many years from before Joseph's death in 1844 until hers in 1879. All of her statements emphatically denied that Joseph taught or practiced polygamy. To either ignore her testimony or demean it is irresponsible, for who knew Joseph better than Emma. And of all those who knew Joseph, she is the witness with the highest reputation for truth and honesty. If we cannot believe Emma about Joseph, who can we believe?

The Inspired Version

The Inspired Version (Joseph Smith’s New Translation) of the Bible is an amazing book.  It stands with the Book of Mormon as tangible evidence that the Restored Gospel ever occurred.  The Inspired Version restores many parts left out of the Bible (RLDS D&C 22:24 or Moses 1:41) which were given as God appointed (RLDS D&C 42:15 or LDS D&C 42:56) even from His own bosom (RLDS D&C 34:5b or LDS D&C 35:20).  But aside from all of this, its value is especially evident when compared to other Bible translations.  Except for the stories in Genesis of the creation, Adam & Eve, Enoch, and Melchizedek, it is difficult to appreciate the genius of the Inspired Version without comparing it to other versions, which pale in comparison to its clarity of meaning and true representation of the nature of God.

The purpose of this blog is to allow you to do such a comparison, hopefully in a way that is a little fun.  However, before we do that, I want to state some things about the Inspired Version for you to consider.

Criticisms

People not only criticize Joseph for bringing forth the Book of Mormon but also the Inspired Version.  How can an unlearned man with no source translations from which to work correct the King James Version of the Bible with any sort of accuracy?  It took Bible scholars about 13 years to complete the New International Version of the Bible according to its preface (New International Version, Preface revised 1983, pp. vii–viii).  The preface also states:

How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness.  The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars.  Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision.  This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication.  In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.

All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English.  It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one. (ibid, p. vii)

Yet Joseph and his scribe, Sidney Rigdon, completed the Inspired Version in three years, with many interruptions during that time (RLDS D&C 22 or Moses 1; Times and Seasons 6:802).  Logically then, from the above quote, the New International Version should be far superior to the Inspired Version (as well as the King James Version) in its clarity of meaning and true representation of the nature of God.  At the end of this blog, you will be able to find out for yourselves whether this is true. (That is the fun part I promised.)

Another criticism of the Inspired Version is Joseph’s claim that God told him the changes to make to the King James Version.  Similarly, Moses claimed that God spoke to him.  Even though Moses lived four hundred years after the people of Israel became slaves in Egypt, he wrote the first book of the Bible, Genesis, which is an account of the creation and the events leading up to the time of Moses.  So, how did Moses know what to write?  God revealed it to him.  If we can believe that God revealed all of Genesis to Moses so he could write it, is it not just as easy, or possibly easier, to believe that God could reveal to Joseph corrections to the King James Version?  Conversly, if we do not believe God could reveal to Joseph the corrections to make to the King James Version, how can we believe He told Moses what to write for Genesis?

Scripture Should Reflect God’s True Nature

Scriptures are about revealing God’s true nature to mankind so that we can become like Him.  If scriptures incorrectly reflect His nature, then we may miss the mark.  Thus, it is very important that scriptures are as accurate as possible.  According to the Preface of the New International Version,

Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task (New International Version, Preface revised 1983, pp. ix–x).

In contrast, while Joseph and Sidney were working on the Inspired Version, they received the following testimony:

We, Joseph Smith, Jr., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth of February, in the  year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, by the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened, and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God; even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning, of whom we bear record, and the record which we bear is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision; for while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows:  speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; they who have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust.

Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit, and while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings, and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about; and we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fullness; and saw the holy angels, and they who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God and the Lamb, who worship him for ever and ever.

And, now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him, that he lives; for we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father; that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created; and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (RLDS D&C 76:3 or LDS D&C 76:11–24, emphasis added)

From these two statements there is a great difference between the authority of the two Bibles. One was corrected by man and one by God.

It is important to understand that there are no original manuscripts of any part of the Bible in existence today. All that was available for the New International Version were copies of copies of copies, etc., of translations of the original. Thus, the accuracy of the New Internation Version, done by man, is only as good as the copies of the translations they used. The advantage of the Inspired Version is that God gave Joseph the corrections to the scriptures as they were in His own bosom. God revealed to Joseph the changes to make — just like He revealed to Moses what to write for Genesis. Joseph did not have to rely upon copies of translations for his source material. God, the original giver of all the scriptures, was Joseph's source material.

Which Bible do you want to read — one corrected by the best efforts of men, or one corrected by God?  I will take the one corrected by God any day since it should be the most accurate.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Now for the fun part.  The time has come for you to decide how the Inspired Version compares to other versions of the Bible. The list below compares a few verses from the Inspired Version (IV) with corresponding verses from the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV), which are the two most popular versions of the Bible in the United States according to the CBA, an association of Christian retailers. It is interesting to note that the current popularity of the King James Version, which Joseph used as a basis for the Inspired Version in the 1830s, demonstrates that the Inspired Version is still relevant to today’s Bible reader. Your job is to choose the scripture from each verse below that has the clearest meaning and is most representative of the true nature of God: unchangeable, just, merciful, truthful, no respecter of persons, loving, righteous, etc. Please read and consider each scripture carefully because some of the differences are subtle, but nevertheless important. (If you have difficulty understanding the differences, please reply to the blog and I will explain them.) The scriptures below do not show the version of the Bible from which they came. I purposely did this so the Bible version would not influence your choices. However, the answer key is at the very bottom of the page so you can know what version you selected. If God is the author of the Inspired Version as Joseph claimed, then it should come out the winner — the version you chose the most.

Also, after doing this exercise, if you are interested in more comparisons of the Inspired Version to other Bible versions, I suggest you obtain Three Bibles Compared or Unbelievable Differences between King James Version and Inspired Version or Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible.  While these are RLDS sources, there may be LDS sources of which I am unaware that are as good or better than these.  If you know of any, please tell me what they are. 

So now to the exercise. Enjoy and have fun.  Keep score if you like and let me know how you did. 

Lord’s Prayer — Matthew 6:13 (IV 6:14)

1. And lead us not into temptation
2. And lead us not into temptation
3. And suffer us not to be led into temptation

1 John 2:1

1. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. But if any man sin and repent, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2. My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
3. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Ezekiel 14:9

1. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have not deceived that prophet; therefore I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
3. And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.

Hebrews 6:1–2

1. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
2. Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
3. Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.  Of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Luke 23:35

1. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. (Meaning the soldiers who crucified him,) and they parted his raiment and cast lots.
2. Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
3. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do . And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Matthew 8:10–12

1. When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.  I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
2. Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith; no, not in Israel.  And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east, and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.  But the children of the wicked one shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
3. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.  And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.   But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 7: 22–23 (IV 7:32–33)

1. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
2. And many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name; and in thy name cast out devils; and in thy name done many wonderful works?   And then will I say, Ye never knew me; depart from me ye that work iniquity.
3. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Matthew 26:26 (IV 26:22)

1. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
2. And as they were eating , Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said , Take , eat ; this is my body.
3. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and brake it, and blessed it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is in remembrance of my body which I give a ransom for you.

Exodus 32:14

1. And the Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them, and turn away my fierce wrath….
2. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
3. Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

1 Samuel 15:11

1. I have set up Saul to be a king, and he repenteth not that he hath sinned, for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
2. "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
3. It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night

Romans 6:7

1. For he that is dead to sin is freed from sin.
2. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
3. because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Luke 2:46–47

1. And it came to pass , that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.  And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
2. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.  Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.
3. And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, and they were hearing him, and asking him questions.  And all who heard him were astonished at his understanding, and answers.

Mark 1:8 (IV 1:6)

1. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
2. I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall not only baptize you with water, but with fire, and the Holy Ghost.
3. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Exodus 4:21

1. The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
2. And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
3. And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand, and I will prosper thee; but Pharaoh will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:1–2

1. And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a prophet to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy spokesman.  Thou shalt speak unto thy brother all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
2. And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.  Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
3. Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.  You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.

1 Samuel 16:23

1. And it came to pass, when the evil spirit, which was not of God, was upon Saul, that David took a harp, and played with his hand; so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
2. Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.
3. And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well , and the evil spirit departed from him.

John 2:1–4

1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:  And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.  And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
2. On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.  When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."  "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
3. And on the third day of the week, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.  And Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.  And when they wanted wine, his mother said unto him, They have no wine.  Jesus said unto her, Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come.

Matthew 7:1 (IV 7:2)

1. Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.
3. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Exodus 23:3

1. and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
2. Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.
3. Neither shalt thou countenance a wicked man in his cause.

(According  to the American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, countenance means to support or to aid.)

Matthew 16:24 (IV 16:25–26)

1. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.  And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments.
2. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
3. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Luke 10:21 (IV 10:22)

1. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from them who think they are wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
2. At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
3. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said , I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Leviticus 22:9

1. They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.
2. The priests are to keep my requirements so that they do not become guilty and die for treating them with contempt. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.
3. They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die; therefore, if they profane not mine ordinances, I the Lord will sanctify them.

John 4:1–2 (IV 4:1–3)

1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
2. When therefore the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, They sought more diligently some means that they might put him to death; for many received John as a prophet, but they believed not on Jesus.  Now the Lord knew this, though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples;
3. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Matthew 18:10–11

1. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.  For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost, and to call sinners to repentance; but these little ones have no need of repentance, and I will save them.
2. "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
3. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.  For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Deuteronomy 14:21

1. Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
2. Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
3. Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt not give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest not sell it unto an alien; for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

1 Kings 3:14

1. And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.
2. And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes, and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father David.
3. And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk , then I will lengthen thy days.

1 Kings 11:4–6

1. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.  For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.
2. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.  For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
3. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.  He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.  So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

1 Kings 14:8

1. And rent the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it thee, because he kept not my commandments. But thou hast not been as my servant David, when he followed me with all his heart only to do right in mine eyes.
2. I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes.
3. And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes;

1 John 3:9

1. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
2. Whosoever is born of God doth not continue in sin; for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot continue in sin, because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise.
3. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin , because he is born of God.

Psalms 119:109

1. My soul is continually in thy hand; and I do not forget thy law.
2. Though I constantly take my life in my hands, I will not forget your law.
3. My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law.

Psalms 119:126

1. It is time for you to act, O LORD; your law is being broken.
2. And the time, O Lord, for me to work; for they have made void thy law.
3. It is time for thee, LORD, to work : for they have made void thy law.

Psalms 141:5

1. Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.
2. Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it. Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers;
3. When the righteous smite me with the word of the Lord it is a kindness; and when they reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, and shall not destroy my faith; for yet my prayer also shall be for them. I delight not in their calamities.

Isaiah 2:9

1. So man will be brought low and mankind humbled—do not forgive them.
2. And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.
3. And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not; therefore forgive them not.

James 2:1–4

1. My brethren, ye cannot have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and yet have respect to persons.  Now if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; Are ye not then in yourselves partial judges, and become evil in your thoughts?
2. My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism.  Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.  If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
3. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.  For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

NIV, KJV, IV Scripture Comparisons Key

• Matthew 6:13 (IV 6:14) — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV
• 1 John 2:1 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Ezekiel 14:9 — 1. KJV, 2. IV, 3. NIV
• Hebrews 6:1–2 — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 2. IV
• Luke 23:35 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Matthew 8:10–12 — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Matthew 7: 22–23 (IV 7:32–33) — 1. KJV, 2. IV, 3. NIV
• Matthew 26:26 (IV 26:22) — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV
• Exodus 32:14 — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV
• 1 Samuel 15:11 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Romans 6:7 — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV
• Luke 2:46–47 — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV
• Mark 1:8 (IV 1:6 )— 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Exodus 4:21 — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV
• Exodus 7:1–2 — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV
• 1 Samuel 16:23 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• John 2:1–4 — 1. KJN, 2. NIV, 3. IV
• Matthew 7:1 (IV 7:2) — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Exodus 23:3 — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV
• Matthew 16:24 (IV 16:25–26) — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV
• Luke 10:21 (IV 10:22) — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Leviticus 22:9 — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV
• John 4:1–2 (IV 4:1–3) — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Matthew 18:10–11 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Deuteronomy 14:21 — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV
• 1 Kings 3:14 — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• 1 Kings 11:4–6 — 1. IV, 2. KJV, 3. NIV
• 1 Kings 14:8 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• 1 John 3:9 — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Psalms 119:109 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV
• Psalms 119:126 — 1. NIV, 2. IV, 3. KJV
• Psalms 141:5 — 1. KJV, 2. NIV, 3. IV
• Isaiah 2:9 — 1. NIV, 2. KJV, 3. IV
• James 2:1–4 — 1. IV, 2. NIV, 3. KJV

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).