Did Joseph Lie about Polygamy?

[inquirringmind]

I read this paper months ago, and I'd like to know what you all think of it.

Did Joseph Smith Deny Polygamy?

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Critics will sometimes contend that Joseph Smith in the History of the Church denied Polygamy. Is this an accurate assessment of his words though? I honestly, after reading through the entire entry, instead of the mere paragraph critics will quote, don’t see how Joseph Smith is denying Polygamy. The quote from Joseph Smith goes like this:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith (History of The Church 6:410-411)

Critics contend that:

(1) This is a denial of involvement in any type of plural marriage.

In reading JS History Vol. 6: pp. 408-411, it is a fascinating account of how so many were bearing false witness against the Prophet, and with affidavits.

If I am understanding this correctly, the Prophet says "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, Before it was reported I had 7 wives." (p. 410). I am wondering if he is referring to his marriage to Emma, way back earlier in his life... The the Prophet says William Law swore that Joseph himself said he himself was committing adultery! But notice what the Prophet said next: "Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this."

Law vacillated between claiming he would lay his life down for Joseph Smith, which he DIDN'T do, and then claiming Smith admitted to committing adultery. Law was unstable so far as an honest man goes. He was not honest, as he turned against Joseph Smith, instead of sticking with him and giving his life for the Prophet as he had apparently bragged he would do if necessary. In other words, if Law lied about that, he very well could be lying about Jospeh Smith committing adultery.

I understand all this to mean rumors were spreading all over, and Joseph was being talked about wrongly. That is the entire context of this part of his history. On p. 411 the Prophet is showing how witnesses are contradicting each other all over the place. Law claims Smith told him that he (Smith) was committing adultery. Another witness, Jonathan Durham, swore the opposite case. The Prophet declares he is innocent of these charges (the adultery).

When he says he is the same man he was fourteen years ago, and innocent, his innocence is that of not committing adultery. He didn't commit it fourteen years ago, and he wasn't committing it then at his accusation trial (if that is what it was, I haven't read much more than the few pages you mentioned).

All in all, his accusations of him committing adultery is what he is denying. I honestly don't see this as his denying polygamy at all.

The provenance of this entry and others is also interesting and important to note as well. Dean Jessee, the author of the finest book on what Joseph Smith said The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, as well as author of numerous articles on the Prophet noted that many of Joseph’s sermons and sayings in the History of the Church were recorded after Joseph was dead, by scribes, such as Thomas Bullock, which this account apparently comes from. Some of his materials have been supervised by a committee, and Joseph Smith comes across differently from their vantage point than he would have originally. Scribes editing the History only could do the best that they remembered in some cases. See Dean C. Jessee, "Priceless Words And Fallible Memories: Joseph Smith As Seen In The Effort To Preserve His Discourses," BYU Studies, 31 (Spring 1991), pp. 19-40.

Interestingly, Cook and Ehat in their book The Words of Joseph Smith noted that some of the material by the scribes are either lost or misplaced. Cook and Ehat, _The Words Of Joseph Smith_, p. 406, note 1 under date 26 May 1844. Their entry under the same page at 26 May, 1844 note 5 reports that many scribes and clerks were employed in keeping Smith’s diaries, letterbooks, and accounts, such as Willard Richards, James Mullholland and William Clayton and Robert B. Thompson. This accords well with what Joseph Smith said in the above account, that he had kept many men busy for the last three years recording what he had been saying and doing, so no court of law could hang him. He had many witnesses, hence the false affidavits were shown to be such.

Robert L. Millet, in his article "Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants," in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture: Doctrine and Covenants, Vol. 1, Randall Book Co., 1984: 135, records that D&C 47:1 commands Joseph to keep a diary and regular history and he was to have assistants in helping him transcribe the happenings to the church and himself. This pattern of having scribes help Joseph was involved with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Joseph Smith Translation, the Book of Abraham papyri, and the History of the Church.

In my personal opinion, the critics just want to have something…anything against Joseph Smith to keep them from searing their conscience for not looking into Mormonism honestly. It’s that simple.

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/polygamy.htm

[oneClimbs]

Joseph Smith never publicly taught plural marriage. It wasn't until 1852 in Salt Lake City where the practice was officially unveiled and those who survived told the story of Joseph's alleged polygamy.

Here are some quotes for you that I pulled from the book "Joseph Fought Polygamy" which is controversial for obvious reasons. However, it is the documentation in the book that I find the most interesting. Joseph not only didn't ever publicly teach polygamy, he strongly taught AGAINST IT! Were these lies to protect a divine commandment that the public was not ready for, or did the lies come after Joseph's death by well-intentioned leaders? Either way, there were lies, you can't get around it.

It doesn't make sense to me that Joseph would lie though. He didn't seem afraid of anything and though we know that he held back doctrines because the people 'were not ready for them', it doesn't make sense that he'd go out of the way to swear in court and publish documents and give speeches strongly against the practice so that it could be 'revealed' later on and say 'just kidding about all that stuff I said before!'.

My personal opinion based on what I've researched up to this point is that Joseph and Hyrum were not polygamists. I believe that it was introduced into the church through the Cochranites and other influences at the time and then secretly promulgated within the church hierarchy by scoundrels and well-intentioned brethren.

I believe that Brigham Young was one of these who whole-hearedly believed the 'principle' along with many others. After Joseph's death, I believe a story was concocted to make it seem like the practice was revealed through Joseph when he was, in fact, against it. If polygamy was for multiplying and replenishing then where are all the children from Joseph's polygamous marriages? Why have DNA tests come back negative?

I don't this makes Brigham a 'bad' person since I believe he was doing what he thought was right and don't think it nullifies any of the good he did. Much like how Jesus quoted from Psalms which was written by David, a polygamist who had a man killed so he could have his wife. Then there's Proverbs which was written by another polygamist that build a shine to the child-sacrificing cult of Molech. They did bad stuff but God worked through them.

Remember, at the time, everyone was a convert to the church. They came from various backgrounds and were accepting a WHOLE host of new things being revealed continually around them. Brigham Young had a very interesting perspective on truth and I share the same beliefs: http://oneclimbs.com/2010/10/10/brigham-young-on-truth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So he believed in any thing he perceived to be true no matter what the source. He was one of the first missionaries to the polygamous Cochranite group. I think he and other church leaders believed that "restoring" this practice was a common sense way to build Zion, especially when they moved out west and he was gung ho about colonizing. He wanted to build the Kingdom of God out there and populate that kingdom.

I think the church suffered until it rid itself of those whoredoms and abominations and finally rejected the ban on the priesthood. Us losing Joseph and being sent to wander in the mountain wilderness isn't what God was wanting to happen. He wanted a Zion built and we failed so we had to go to time out for a while, just like the ancient Israelites.

We're coming back around now but right into another test that will result in splitting the church and sifting the wheat from the tares. I could be wrong about the Joseph Smith and polygamy thing but it makes sense to me.

If my opinion is true, it doesn't change the fact that this is the work of the Lord. All it does is illustrate just another way fallible man has failed to build a Zion but continues to be an instrument in God's hands despite his imperfections. Yes, church presidents can make big mistakes, but it doesn't seem like any of these mistakes have put the brakes on God's works. Just par for the course.

And deep down, I do believe that for the most part, each of these church presidents has done their best to do what they thought was right. Overall, we administer the ordinances of the gospel, publish all known scripture and point the way to salvation through Christ. Yeah, it's a bumpy road at times, but the closer you get to Christ, you can see with a little more forgiving eye and look at the larger picture.

Or you could rip out every book of the Bible or Book of Mormon that features one of God's servants making mistakes. That would be an interesting exercise. I wonder how much scripture we'd have left?

Know assuredly Dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus, that we are in bonds and in prison....

Was it for committing adultery? We are aware that false and slanderous reports have gone abroad, which have reached our ears, respecting this thing, which have been started by renagades, and spread by the dissenters, who are extremely active in spreading foul and libilous reports concerning us; thinking thereby to gain the fellowship of the world.... Some have reported that we not only dedicated our property, but likewise our families to the Lord, and Satan taking advantage of this has transfigured it into lasciviousness, a community of wives [polygamy], which things are an abomination in the sight of God.

When we consecrate our property to the Lord, it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy according to the laws of God, and when a man consecrates or dedecates his wife and children to the Lord, he does not give them to his brother or to his neighbor; which is contrary to the law of God, which says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife." "He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart."Now for a man to consecrate his property, his wife and children to the Lord is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the widows and fatherless, the sick and afflicted; and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for himself and his house to serve the Lord. In order to do this he and all his house must be virtuous and shun every appearance of evil. Now if any person, has represented any thing otherwise than what we now write they have willfully misrepresented us. (Times and Seasons 1 [April 1840]: 82–85)

ADDRESS FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Nauvoo.

To our well beloved brother, Parley P. Pratt, and to the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England, and scattered abroad throughout all Europe, and to the Saints,Greeting:

Whereas, in times past persons have been permitted to gather with the Saints at Nauvoo, in North America—such as husbands leaving their wives and children behind; also, such as wives leaving their husbands and children behind; and such as women leaving their husbands, and such as husbands leaving their wives who have no children, and some because their companions are unbelievers. All this kind of proceeding we consider to be erroneous and for want of proper information. And the same should be taught to all the Saints, and not suffer families to be broken up on any account whatever if it be possible to avoid it. Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor any woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. These things are an evil and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church, or they will come under condemnation; for the gathering is not in haste nor by flight, but to prepare all things before you, and you know not but the unbeliever may be converted and the Lord heal him; but let the believers exercise faith in God, and the unbelieving husband shall be sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, and families are preserved and saved from a great evil which we have seen verified before our eyes.

Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever: and greater is the danger for the woman that leaves her husband. The evils resulting from such proceedings are of such a nature as to oblige us to cut them off from the church.

There is another evil which exists. There are poor men who come here and leave their families behind in a destitute situation, and beg for assistance to send back after their families. Every man should tarry with his family until providence provides for the whole, for there is no means here to be obtained to send back. Money is scarce and hard to be obtained. The people that gather to this place are generally poor, the gathering being attended with a great sacrifice; and money cannot be obtained by labour, but all kinds of produce is plentiful and can be obtained by labour; therefore the poor man that leaves his family in England, cannot get means, which must be silver and gold, to send for his family; but must remain under the painful sensation, that his family must be cast upon the mercy of the people, and separated and put into the poorhouse. Therefore, to remedy the evil, we forbid a man to leave his family behind because he has no means to bring them. If the church is not able to bring them, and the parish will not send them, let the man tarry with his family—live with them—and die with them, and not leave them until providence shall open a way for them to come all together. And we also forbid that a woman leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. We also forbid that a man shall leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. If he be a bad man (i. e. the unbeliever) there is a law to remedy that evil. And if she be a bad woman, there is law to remedy that evil. And if the law divorce them, then they are at liberty; otherwise they are bound as long as they two shall live, and it is not our prerogative to go beyond this; if we do it, it will be at the expense of our reputation.

These things we have written in plainness, and we desire that they should be publicly known, and request this to be published in the [Millennial] STAR.

May the Lord bestow his blessing upon all the Saints richly, and hasten the gathering, and bring about the fulness of the everlasting covenant are the prayers of your brethren.

Written by Hyrum Smith, patriarch, by the order of Joseph Smith, president over the whole church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. HYRUM SMITH. (Millennial Star 3 [November 1842]: 115; RLDS History of the Church 2:640–641)

It becomes my duty to lay before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the public generally, some important facts relative to the conduct and character of DR. JOHN C. BENNETT, who has lately been expelled from the aforesaid church; that the honorable part of [the] community may be aware of his proceedings, and be ready to treat him and regard him as he ought to be regarded, viz: as an imposter and base adulterer.

It is a matter of notoriety that said Dr. J. C. Bennett, became favorable to the doctrines taught by the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and located himself in the city of Nauvoo, about the month of August 1840, and soon after joined the church.... He had not been long in Nauvoo before he began to keep company with a young lady, one of our citizens; and she being ignorant of his having a wife living, gave way to his addresses, and became confident, from his behavior towards her, that he intended to marry her; and this he gave her to understand he would do. I, seeing the folly of such an acquaintance, persuaded him to desist; and, on account of his continuing his course, finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist. This, to outward appearance, had the desired effect, and the acquaintance between them was broken off.

But, like one of the most abominable and depraved beings which could possibly exist, he only broke off his publicly wicked actions, to sink deeper into iniquity and hypocrisy [by continuing to date her secretly]. When he saw that I would not submit to any such conduct, he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house [with Joseph's wife, Emma]. He was well aware of the consequence of such wilful and base falsehoods, if they should come to my knowledge; and consequently endeavored to persuade his dupes to keep it a matter of secrecy, persuading them there would be no harm if they should not make it known. This proceeding on his part, answered the desired end; he accomplished his wicked purposes; he seduced an innocent female by his lying, and subjected her character to public disgrace, should it ever be known.

But his depraved heart would not suffer him to stop here. Not being contented with having disgraced one female, he made an attempt upon others; and, by the same plausible tale, overcame them also; evidently not caring whose character was ruined, so that his wicked, lustful appetites might be gratified.

Sometime about the early part of July 1841, I received a letter from Elder H. [Hyrum] Smith and Wm. Law [a member of the First Presidency], who were then at Pittsburgh, Penn. This letter was dated June 15th, and contained the particulars of a conversation betwixt them and a respectable gentleman from the neighborhood where Bennett's wife and children resided. He stated to them that it was a fact that Bennett had a wife and children living, and that she had left him because of his ill-treatment towards her. This letter was read to Bennett, which he did not attempt to deny; but candidly acknowledged the fact.

Soon after this information reached our ears, Dr. Bennett made an attempt at suicide, by taking poison; but he being discovered before it had taken effect, and the proper antidotes being administered, he again recovered; but he very much resisted when an attempt was made to save him. The public impression was, that he was so much ashamed of his base and wicked conduct, that he had recourse to the above deed to escape the censures of an indignant community.

It might have been supposed that these circumstances transpiring in the manner they did, would have produced a thorough reformation in his conduct; but, alas! like a being totally destitute of common decency, and without any government over his passions, he was soon busily engaged in the same wicked career, and continued until a knowledge of the same reached my ears. I immediately charged him with it, and he admitted that it was true; but in order to put a stop to all such proceedings for the future, I publicly proclaimed against it, and had those females notified to appear before the proper [Church] officers that the whole subject might be investigated and thoroughly exposed.

During the course of investigation [by Church officials], the foregoing facts were proved by credible witnesses, and were sworn and subscribed to before an alderman of the city, on the 15th ult. The documents containing the evidence are now in my possession. (Times and Seasons 3 [July 1, 1842]: 839–840; RLDS History of the Church 2:585–587; italics added)

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.... We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church.(Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939; italics added)

From the Book of Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

ON MARRIAGE.

According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.—We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives." And when they have answered, "Yes," he shall pronounce them "husband and wife" in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: "may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen."

The clerk of every church [branch] should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch.

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again
....
We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor [who lectured with Bennett], are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despised. (Times and Seasons 3:939; italics added)

Another indictment has been got up against me [the polygamy indictment]. It appears a holy prophet [William Law] has arisen up, and he has testified against me [causing the polygamy indictment to be brought forth].... God knows, then, that the charges against me are false.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.... William Law ... swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they [the alleged wives] are—whether it will be a curse or blessing to me....

A man asked me whether the commandment [revelation] was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery.... Wilson Law [William's brother] also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery.... I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago [when charged with polygamy shortly after his marriage to Emma Hale]; and I can prove them all perjurers. (LDS History of the Church 6:410–411; italics added)

NOTICE.

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.

JOSEPH SMITH,
HYRUM SMITH,
Presidents of said Church.

(Times and Seasons 5 [February 1, 1844]: 423)

Nauvoo, March 15,1844.

To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:—Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here [at Nauvoo]: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.... And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that kingdom that obey the gospel, and continue in faith in the Lord unto the end of his days....

I am

Your obedient servant,

HYRUM SMITH.

(Times and Seasons 5 [March 15, 1844]: 474)

[log]

Here are some quotes for you that I pulled from the book "Joseph Fought Polygamy" which is controversial for obvious reasons. However, it is the documentation in the book that I find the most interesting. Joseph not only didn't ever publicly teach polygamy, he strongly taught AGAINST IT! Were these lies to protect a divine commandment that the public was not ready for, or did the lies come after Joseph's death by well-intentioned leaders? Either way, there were lies, you can't get around it.

If a sealing rite alone creates a husband - wife relationship, then yes, there were lies. Otherwise, you can get around it; D&C 132 can be of God, even.

I mean, the level of arrogance and mendacity necessarily attributed to Brigham is breathtaking on the contrary view. It seems that not only would he not be well-meaning but mistaken, but he had to be a devil, a character on par with King Noah in the cartoonish evil which must be imputed.

[inquirringmind]

Thank you both.

[iamse7en]

Keep researching then. The Price book is a joke to any sensible historian. I've read just about every book on Nauvoo polygamy and the evidence, both contemporary and independent/consistent recollections, is way too overwhelming. Your beloved prophet was a polygamist like the patriarchs of old. Get over it.

[log]

I'm not sure Joseph would have characterized himself as a polygamist, is my point. We're extremely short on evidence he was sleeping with anyone other than Emma - the primary evidence of such that one would expect, children, is entirely lacking.

Anyways, a good resource on the issue: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, on polyandry: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... do-we-find" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[inquirringmind]

I'm not sure Joseph would have characterized himself as a polygamist, is my point. We're extremely short on evidence he was sleeping with anyone other than Emma - the primary evidence of such that one would expect, children, is entirely lacking.

Anyways, a good resource on the issue: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, on polyandry: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... do-we-find" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I remember, D&C 132 seems a little problematic from the point of view that the extra women Joseph was sealed to weren't suppose to be additional wives here in mortality.

Isn't it?

[Hyrcanus]

Richard Price's book is genuinely terrible. He cherry picks quotes, quotes out of context, etc. There really isn't any viable historical position that denies Joseph's polygamous sealings.

I also agree there isn't a lot of information that deals with Joseph consummating any of the polygamist sealings. There are certainly claims made, but none of them verifiable. Several of the women he was sealed to certainly considered themselves his wives, Eliza R. Snow is the best example that comes to mind in her rebuke of Emma's polygamy denials.

In any case, I don't think it makes sense to go through too many mental gymnastics to try and protect Joseph from an apparent lie. It appears from scripture that in a limited number of situations it may be acceptable to be deceptive. I don't think that gives anyone carte blanche to lie about anything they please, but faced with the situation of being under command from the Lord not to discuss plural marriage and then faced with direct questions about it, Joseph didn't have many options.

[log]

I'm not sure Joseph would have characterized himself as a polygamist, is my point. We're extremely short on evidence he was sleeping with anyone other than Emma - the primary evidence of such that one would expect, children, is entirely lacking.

Anyways, a good resource on the issue: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, on polyandry: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... do-we-find" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I remember, D&C 132 seems a little problematic from the point of view that the extra women Joseph was sealed to weren't suppose to be additional wives here in mortality.

Isn't it?

Why should it be?

[oneClimbs]

I only mentioned the Price book to reference where I got the quotes.

Are the quotes not accurate? What about the history concerning the Cochranites? Is it not a fact that many members of the early church were converts from an openly polygamous sect?

log, the reason that I'm not willing to go so far as calling Brigham a "devil" is that in the context of a revelatory environment that was rapidly expanding and with the premature loss of Joseph and subsequent exile, Brigham Young did the best he could. As a self-proclaimed "Yankee guesser" he followed his gut on many things and there's no doubt he was an incredible leader and colonizer.

But doctrinally, he was wrong on many things. He implemented the priesthood ban, based on what he though the scriptures taught about it and what the generally accepted cultural ideas about the subject seemed to indicate (e.g., If Canaan's seed was cursed to be a servant and to be 'put from the priesthood' and Canaan's seed are still in servitude, then the priesthood restriction must still be valid).

This is why McKay said: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it." (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright)

The Church's new "Race and the Priesthood" page says the following, "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy". They made an assumption about the situation based on what they thought was correct and it's hard to fault them for that. If you really try to put yourself in the mindset of the mid 1800s and the very different world it was, it isn't to hard to see why that conclusion would be reasonable. However as the environment changed, the policy seemed to make less sense and in fear of disobeying God by catering to "the world" they didn't feel like they should do anything until the Lord told them to. Again, this seems very reasonable in my mind.

After the revelation to end the ban, McConkie stated "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation." This must have been very humbling to have to admit when he was known for being so staunch and absolutist on issues.

Other teachings like Adam-God were Church leaders own beliefs perpetuated as doctrine. Polygamy, Priesthood ban and Adam-God have all been done away. If Adam-God teachings were "false doctrine" as Spencer W. Kimball declared, then this opens the door for the possibility of other teachings having their origins in the minds of men rather than in revelations from God.

Gordon B. Hinckley stated on live TV concerning polygamy: "As far as we're concerned, it's behind us, a long ways...I condemn it as a practice because I think it's not doctrinal." This is very profound. Elder Bednar in his book "Increase in Learning" states very clearly that doctrines are eternal in nature and they do not change. If polygamy is referred to as just 'a practice' by Hinckley and he condemns it and states that he believes that it isn't "doctrinal" then the implications are huge. I don't believe that he misspoke.

Even though animal sacrifice is no longer practiced, we speak about it with understanding and often ponder on the symbolism. However, polygamy is spoken of differently. If it is such a divine thing, then why speak about it like it's a bad addiction, i.e., "It's behind us". Why do we distance ourselves so much with it? Why in all the church videos do we see scenes depicting animal sacrifice but never of Joseph Smith's other wives? Why do we never hear their stories of sacrifice and their contributions? Why is Joseph Smith depicted in the modern church as a monogamist?

Polygamy was once taught as being a principle necessary for exaltation but now we have a modern church president condemning it as a practice and proclaiming it to be not doctrinal. Who is wrong? Hinckley is in line with Jacob in the Book of Mormon. The only things that seem out of line are the second half of D&C 132 which "revelation" appeared in 1852 and was only known to a small group of people. 2 of which were dead (Joseph and Hyrum) and one of which (Emma) who denied the whole thing even happened.

The Church fought with Emma over lands back in Nauvoo [source]. According to my understanding, the reason that the RLDS sect won the lands was because they were able to convince the courts that they were Joseph's church because, among other things, they didn't practice polygamy and that Brigham's group were not legitimately tied to Joseph's teachings.

So in order to retain these lands, convincing the people that Joseph Smith WAS a polygamist (whether it was true or not doesn't matter because he never taught the principle publicly, so either way, it was important to establish) and that the doctrine came from him would have been critical. So the appearance of D&C 132 in 1852 was interesting timing.

The battle between Brigham and Emma was pretty bitter. In the October session of General Conference 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:

..."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. [Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48, Winter 1980, 82]

So this paints a different picture of the monogamous and loving Joseph and Emma paintings and movies that we see produced by the Church. If we are to believe Brigham (and Joseph by extension), then Emma was a child of hell and the most wicked woman on the earth. If this is the case, why don't we hear more about Emma trying to kill Joseph Smith and see that tension reflected in the information published about them? He didn't just mention this in his journal, he proclaimed it over the pulpit in a general conference!

For those of you who may be more educated on the subject, I would appreciate a clarification of this allegation as well.

Here's another point of interest. In the History of the Church, there is a quote that clearly implies that Joseph Smith is teaching about plural marriage.

"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise."(LDS History of the Church 6:46)

However, this section of the History of the Church is very different than the alleged actual journal which records the event this way:

"Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 417)

This journal entry is from October 5, 1843. Since the journals contained in the Joseph Smith papers stop at July 1843, we cannot see the actual entry quite yet unless it is published elsewhere where I am not aware of. The documents section of the Joseph Smith papers also stops in 1841. I have not been able to determine whether this claim is accurate or not.

If this is true then the Church officially changed Joseph's words to reflect something different than what he actually said. There are at least two possibilities for this if it is true:

1. This was part of the 'massaging' of history by Brigham to solidify the practice of plural marriage and perhaps assist in making their case to secure lands in Nauvoo by establishing Joseph as a polygamist.

2. Joseph was preaching against polygamy publicly because it was still secret and his journals were changed to be accordance with what his "real" beliefs were.

There are just so many little things like this that conflict with the official narrative. I do see the problems with the theory that Joseph wasn't a polygamist, it requires a lot of people to be liars. But if Joseph was a polygamist, then it required a bunch of people to be liars as well to keep it hidden for so long. Here is a good example of Emma and Eliza R. Snow publishing an statement certifying that they "know of no system" of marriage other than monogamy:

We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants....

Emma Smith, President...
Eliza R. Snow, Secretary.
(Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)

If the official narrative was correct then they flat out lied. This would make Hyrum a liar as well:

Nauvoo, March 15,1844.

To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:—Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here [at Nauvoo]: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.... And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that kingdom that obey the gospel, and continue in faith in the Lord unto the end of his days....

I am
Your obedient servant,
HYRUM SMITH.
(Times and Seasons 5 [March 15, 1844]: 474)

Whether Joseph was or was not a polygamist does not change the fact that what was once a doctrine pertaining to exaltation, is now an excommunicatable offense. It's actually worse than if baptisms were suddenly banned as non-doctrinal. However, the story now is that plural marriage is NOT necessary for exaltation.

Perhaps it was important for that principle to be revealed to try the Saints. However, I'm not sure about that. Remember, we were kicked out of the land of Zion. Remember, people were excommunicated for practicing plural marriage in Nauvoo. It was known that those kinds of things were going on, so why keep it a secret? Why not address it and teach the "correct principles" concerning it and allow people to "govern themselves" as was done later in Salt Lake.

"For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practice before me, saith the Lord." (D&C 124:48)

These cursings, wrath, indignation and judgments did fall upon the Church. And it is a fact that we were "moved out of our place":

"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place." (D&C 124:48)

So what constituted the "abominations" spoken of in vs. 48?

Jacob 2:24 - "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Jacob 2:28 - "For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."

Mosiah 29:18 - "Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people."

Mosiah 11:2 - "And [King Noah] had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. "

Perhaps is was referring to plural marriage that was trying to be introduced into the church or perhaps it was people not focusing on the temple or living consecration or maybe some other things.

Today polygamy is frowned upon. We say it was divinely instituted but we don't study it to see what we can learn from it. We do study the animal sacrifices of the past and relate the symbolism to the sacrament today. We even publicly state the polygamy was discontinued in 1890 when it truthfully wasn't until 1904, 14 years later:

Earlier polygamous families continued to exist well into the twentieth century, causing further political problems for the Church, and new plural marriages did not entirely cease in 1890. After having lived the principle at some sacrifice for half a century, many devout Latter-day Saints found ending plural marriage a challenge almost as complex as was its beginning in the 1840s. Some new plural marriages were contracted in the 1890s in LDS settlements in Canada and northern Mexico, and a few elsewhere. With national attention again focused on the practice in the early 1900s during the House hearings on Representative-elect B. H. Roberts and Senate hearings on Senator-elect Reed Smoot (see Smoot Hearings), President Joseph F. Smith issued his "Second Manifesto" in 1904. Since that time, it has been uniform Church policy to excommunicate any member either practicing or openly advocating the practice of polygamy. Those who do so today, principally members of fundamentalist groups, do so outside the Church. Source

Who has ever read the second manifesto? See, we're still not entirely truthful with the matter and this is why there is so much confusion. We're not really getting the whole story from anyone, you have to dig and dig and dig.

I'm honestly not trying to point this out to be antagonistic or unjustly critical. I'm attempting to reconcile the facts and discover the actual narrative. I can understand how some people just throw their hands in the air and say, "I'm done with all this", but you cannot run away from human error as long as you live around humans and are a human yourself.

I've had some incredible experiences concerning the living reality of Jesus Christ and his perfect love, that I cherish, along with many of the doctrines and principles of truth. On several occasions, without my asking for or expecting the experience, the truth concerning Joseph's experience in the grove was revealed to me. I can bear witness that this event happened, although I don't know all the particulars. I do know that God and Joseph saw eye to eye that day and that a conversation happened. I also am a witness of the reality of the priesthood. The information I have been given from heavenly sources concerning the truthfulness of this work is clear to me.

That said, I don't know the meaning of all things. God does not answer all of my requests immediately, many take time and this subject, while interesting is not the highest on my priority list. I rarely think about it. Lately, the words of Isaiah and preparing for what is coming down the pipe next and what I can do to prepare now consumes my attention.

However, these subjects are interesting to study from time to time. If any one can correct my views if they are in error or provide greater insight, I would appreciate it.

[log]

But doctrinally, he was wrong on many things. He implemented the priesthood ban, based on what he though the scriptures taught about it and what the generally accepted cultural ideas about the subject seemed to indicate (e.g., If Canaan's seed was cursed to be a servant and to be 'put from the priesthood' and Canaan's seed are still in servitude, then the priesthood restriction must still be valid).

Brigham did not implement the ban - Joseph apparently put some kind of unspecified race-based priesthood restriction in place. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31338#p436213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brigham appears to have generalized it to all blacks, and given a statement of doctrinal justification for it.

So in order to retain these lands, convincing the people that Joseph Smith WAS a polygamist (whether it was true or not doesn't matter because he never taught the principle publicly, so either way, it was important to establish) and that the doctrine came from him would have been critical. So the appearance of D&C 132 in 1852 was interesting timing.

William Clayton establishes D&C 132 came from Joseph: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31376&p=437489#p437469" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Clayton diary constitutes a contemporary first-hand account confirming that D&C 132 originated with Joseph. Any thesis which fails therefore to account for that fact fails, just as any theory about the Book of Abraham which posits we have the papyrus from which it was translated fails.

I have no dog in either fight, but either we start off founded upon truth or we start off founded upon error. I am not a fan of error, and I view it very dimly when people refuse correction or deny evidence.

[Hyrcanus]

However, these subjects are interesting to study from time to time. If any one can correct my views if they are in error or provide greater insight, I would appreciate it.

5tev3,
I'll share a couple insights that I have time for now and I'll get you a list of sources to look into tonight.

1. You've correctly observed that this issue is complicated. Every issue I've looked at in Church history (or anything for that matter) is usually more complicated than it is on the surface. However you reconcile this, you'll have to end up accepting a messy, ugly, exceptionally human version of events. The typical Sunday School black and white answers don't cut it.

2. The list of people confirming the practice of polygamy is far longer than the list of people denying it, particularly when you factor in that many of the members retracted their denials when they left the church or after Joseph's death. Brigham would have had to have orchestrated a massive conspiracy among both people that loved and cherish Joseph and people that despised and hated him and got them all to stick to one story.

3. Joseph and Emma's relationship was complicated. The somewhat infamous Whitney letter being probably the best first hand sourcing of this I can think of. I don't know that I'd take everything Brigham said of Emma at face value. He made no secret of the animosity he felt towards her after the schism that occurred after Joseph's death. I've looked into the poisoning story and I have no idea if it is true or not. Others confirmed the meeting Brigham talked about took place and that there was some sort of falling out between Joseph and Emma however. There are other rumors about Emma being vindictive, but they are all unsubstantiated. The only thing I'll add here is that personally I'm willing to extend Emma quite a bit of grace, she was under enormous pressure on an almost constant basis and I don't know that I would fare any better in the sort of analysis directed at Emma.

[Lilli]

I believe the best thing we can do is liken Church History to ourselves and put ourselves back in the days of Nauvoo. Based on the public teachings and scriptures by Joseph Smith, who would you have believed, Joseph or Brigham? That was the test the Saints faced after Joseph died. Would you have followed Brigham with his new doctrines and ideas that differed to Joseph's public teachings? Or would you have believed some of the other Apostles, like Joseph's own Apostle brothers, who believe in Joseph's teachings and not in Brigham Young.

Remember, there was no D&C 132, no women yet claiming they were married to Joseph, no published journals entries true or false, no sealings, only public weddings as Joseph had commanded in the D&C, etc. Only Joseph's strong repeated warnings and teachings against following anyone, even prophets, who might come preaching or practicing polygamy or anything like it or anything contrary to the Book of Mormon and Christ's and Joseph's teachings.

Why would Joseph set up the members 'against' following even prophets, or even himself, who might later preach polygamy, if he thought it was going to have to be accepted someday?

Do you believe true prophets can lie to their wife and the whole church for years? Would you believe in a prophet who did so? What if that happened today? Would you have believed a man was righteous if he did the things Joseph is accused of? Could you do those kinds of things to your wife and still think you could be righteous? Would she want you to? Does it pass the Golden Rule Test, which is the basis of all the laws and the prophets? Would you want done to you what some say Joseph did to Emma or what Brigham did to his wives in polygamy?

Likening things to ourselves is one of the best ways to get to the truth. Prove all things and only hold fast and believe that which you can prove to be true and right and good and praiseworthy and kind.

[SkyBird]

Keep researching then. The Price book is a joke to any sensible historian. I've read just about every book on Nauvoo polygamy and the evidence, both contemporary and independent/consistent recollections, is way too overwhelming. Your beloved prophet was a polygamist like the patriarchs of old. Get over it.

I agree! And in my opinion I believe polygamy as lived by the ancients we have records of and as latter day Israel lived it "wrongly," as carnal men and will have to "repent" before they will ever be "Gods" in a Celestial Kingdom. If you would like an example of "how" polygamy is to be lived "righteously" ... ponder the way in which Mary and Elisabeth became pregnant and you will have a glimpse of how the law of polygamy is lived in a righteous way. (No physical contact in planting the seed, but spiritual). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).

"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible."

(New Testament | Luke 1:34 - 37)

To reach Godhood it must be done in God's way, not mans feeble attempt to attain Exaltation by outward ordinances and ceremonies, which are a "type and showdown" of the spiritual.

[log]

Remember, there was no D&C 132, no women yet claiming they were married to Joseph, no published journals entries true or false, no sealings, only public weddings as Joseph had commanded in the D&C, etc. Only Joseph's strong repeated warnings and teachings against following anyone, even prophets, who might come preaching or practicing polygamy or anything like it or anything contrary to the Book of Mormon and Christ's and Joseph's teachings.

D&C 101 (1835) did not come from Joseph. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... s_polygamy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clayton's journal proves that D&C 132 was given by Joseph in 1843. Emma rejected it, too. viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31376&p=437489#p437469" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Merely being sealed does not create a "husband" and "wife" relationship. Joseph, IMO, did not consummate any relationship other than his marriage with Emma; at least, we have no proof (children) that he did. And he was fertile, too.

Now, people are entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199

[iamse7en]

Climb with me. We have only 54 of 250 sermons by JS that have adequate notes, not to mention all the private meetings with the 12. You want to limit yourself to only those few public records we have? We're talking about a guy who started 3 secret societies and continually spoke of things he could not reveal because people would reject and even kill him for those secrets. Did he not reveal many important things regarding the Kingdom to his trusted insiders? Throw the meat all out because it wasn't the public milk? Is there no precedent for telling falsehoods to some for a greater good? All lying is bad? Was Abraham a sinner when lying about his wife? If you closely examine Joseph's statements of polygamy-denying, you can see a little bit of wiggle room between the lines. Regardless of that, even if you limit yourself to the very tiny box of public statements from Joseph, records show he actually did openly teach polygamy in Nauvoo on two occasions. They backfired of course. 4 independent recollections (Joseph E. Robinson, George A. Smith, Horace Cummings, and Helen Mar Kimball Whitney) describe an 1841 sermon in which he said polygamists would eventually be part of the Church and there was no crime in it. It created such a stir that he later unpreached or at least consoled them saying he would explain more in the future. The other occasion of a discourse on polygamy was in July 1843. This is corroborated by Eveline Rollins, N. T. Silcock, James Leithead, and Thomas Charlesworth. These are all late recollections, but the details are significantly consistent with each other. The four of them really had no incentive to conspire together and lie about this sermon, as it was in the early 1900s when the Church had already stopped practicing PM and no RLDS campaign or lawsuit sparked these late recollections.

Don't be fooled by the anti-polygamist lies of Rock Waterman and the Prices. They ignore the mountain of evidence, both contemporary and not, that disprove their entire silly conspiracy theory.

My personal opinion based on what I've researched up to this point is that Joseph and Hyrum were not polygamists. I believe that it was introduced into the church through the Cochranites and other influences at the time and then secretly promulgated within the church hierarchy by scoundrels and well-intentioned brethren.

I challenge you to read all of the source material found in George Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy, Brian Hales' Joseph Smith's Polygamy, and maybe Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. Your "personal opinion" will quickly come crashing down.

[log]

Don't be fooled by the anti-polygamist lies of Rock Waterman and the Prices.

I have to believe Waterman wasn't aware of the Clayton journal, having just been published in 2010 (as cited in PTHG). His blog post was done on June 26, 2010.

Waterman strikes me as being something of a stickler for honesty, even if he waxes acerbic towards the Brethren.

[iamse7en]

Joseph, IMO, did not consummate any relationship other than his marriage with Emma; at least, we have no proof (children) that he did. And he was fertile, too.

An impossible claim to make. Depends what you mean by "proof." Just read Quinn's Evidence of Sexual Polygamy paper. There is so much evidence of sexual relations with his plural wives, including eye witnesses and the women themselves. Even the "apologist" Hales demonstrates it was with a bunch of his wives. They just disagree on scale and prevalence. Good evidence supports at least 2 known children (Josephine and Olive's baby). Hales' summary:

(1) Several accounts record that Emma Smith, and possibly Warren Parrish and Oliver Cowdery, witnessed Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger together26 and one source asserts that Fanny became pregnant.27 (2) Providing a deposition in the Temple Lot Case, Joseph Bates Noble was asked: “Where did they [Joseph Smith and plural wife Louisa Beaman] sleep together?” His response: “Right straight across the river at my house they slept together.”28 (3) When under oath in a deposition in the Temple Lot Case, Emily Partridge was asked, “Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?” to which she answered, “Yes sir.”29 (4) Concerning Emily’s sister Eliza, Benjamin F. Johnson wrote in 1903: “The first plural wife brought to my house with whom the Prophet stayed, was Eliza Partridge.”30 (5) Lucy Walker’s niece, Theodocia Frances Walker Davis, reported to Joseph Smith III in 1876, “Lucy Walker told her that she lived with Joseph Smith as a wife.”31 (6) Benjamin Johnson also affirmed that his sister Almera Johnson experienced sexual relations with the Prophet: “He [Joseph Smith] was at my house… where he occupied my sister Almera’s room and bed.”32 (7) In a 1915 statement, Josephine Lyon declared that her mother, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, told her in 1882 that she (Josephine) was Joseph Smith daughter.33 (8) On May 23, 1844, William Law who had apostatized months earlier over plural marriage, charged Joseph Smith in a Carthage court with living “in an open state of adultery” with Maria Lawrence.34 (9) Several other statements document that her sister, Sarah Lawrence also lived with the Prophet as a plural wife. For example, Lucy Walker attested in 1902: “I know that [Emma] gave her consent to the marriage of at least four women [Emily and Eliza Partridge, and Mariah and Sarah Lawrence] to her husband as plural wives, and she was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives.”35 (10) In an 1893 interview with RLDS Church President Joseph Smith III, Malissa Lott, asked if she was the Prophet’s “wife in very deed?”, answered, “Yes.”36 (11) Two sources state that Olive Frost gave birth to a baby by Joseph Smith.37 Both Olive and her child died before the Saints left Nauvoo. (12) Mary Heron, who is discussed in Chapter 16.

I have to believe Waterman wasn't aware of the Clayton journal, having just been published in 2010 (as cited in PTHG). His blog post was done on June 26, 2010.

Clayton's journal was available for the masses by at least 1991, when George Smith published "An Intimate Chronicle." Rock's conclusion on polygamy is so baffling and it completely ruins his credibility IMO. And Clayton's journal isn't the only contemporary evidence. Here's the full list:

- Oliver Cowdery letter to Warren Cowdery, 21 January 1838
- John C. Bennett, History of the Saints (1842)
- William Clayton Nauvoo diaries
- William Law Nauvoo diary
- D&C 132
- [Francis Higbee], "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," Warsaw Message (7 February 1844): 1
- Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)
- Oliver Olney 1842 and 1843 writings

[log]

Oddly, for a fertile man, we're missing the most damning evidence of all - children (confirmed by DNA). And I am aware of at least one deponent changing her sworn testimony many years after the fact, denying marital relations with Joseph where before she claimed them (Melissa Lott, whom you have cited contrary: http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/01/ ... fe-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So these late recollections, sans confirmed children of Joseph, are, to me, suspect. There's still a lot of lying going on at that stage in Mormonism: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/ ... -fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, I'm not altogether sure the evidence bears the weight you wish to place on it.

And I'm still hoping Waterman was simply ignorant. I guess I should ask him.

Being blunt, I would rather find that Joseph had not lied about it, but whatever the truth is... is the truth.

[iamse7en]

DNA technology is not good enough to confirm females. It's only been good to confirm boys were not his children. The best one (Josephine, a female) can simply not be proved or disproved by today's technology. Then Olive's baby died. See Ugo Perego's articles. Even still, the mountain of evidence by honest and faithful participants is too overwhelming. No matter how late they are. A girl remembers her sexual experiences with the prophet. Your only conclusion is that all of the women lied, the eyewitnesses lied, they conspired together, got their stories straight about when and where Joseph slept with them, etc... putting yourself on the same type of conspiracy claims as those who say Joseph wasn't a polygamist in the first place.

[log]

There are reasons to not trust their word, associated with the need to shore up the justification for polygamy by tying it irrevocably to Joseph.

And lying was rampant at that point in LDS history, specifically with regards to polygamy, so that's not a farfetched notion.

Don't try to sway by appeal to the negative connotations attached to the "conspiracy" label. That's bad form.

[inquirringmind]

DNA technology is not good enough to confirm females. It's only been good to confirm boys were not his children. The best one (Josephine, a female) can simply not be proved or disproved by today's technology. Then Olive's baby died. See Ugo Perego's articles. Even still, the mountain of evidence by honest and faithful participants is too overwhelming. No matter how late they are. A girl remembers her sexual experiences with the prophet. Your only conclusion is that all of the women lied, the eyewitnesses lied, they conspired together, got their stories straight about when and where Joseph slept with them, etc... putting yourself on the same type of conspiracy claims as those who say Joseph wasn't a polygamist in the first place.

What do you make of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No one but your father and myself."

"Was my mother there?"

"No, sir."

"Was there no witness there?"

"No, sir."

"Where did it occur?"

"At the house on the farm."

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

"No, sir."

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

"No, sir."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2009/01/ ... fe-of.html

[log]

Anyways, I just dropped a comment on Waterman's blog, and will await his response.

[inquirringmind]

And lying was rampant at that point in LDS history...

Is there any proof of that?

[log]

And lying was rampant at that point in LDS history...

Is there any proof of that?

LOL. Yes.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/ ... -fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - short, sweet, and to the point.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/03/c ... derground/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - read through all 9 parts.