Please consider supporting this podcast:
Links
Catherine Phillips Affidavits: Affidavit 1 | Affidavit 2
Catherine Phillips Death Certificate
Mercy Thompson’s Autobiography
Transcript
[00:00:00] Welcome to 132 problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy. I’m so glad you’re here for this episode. I think this is an important one that I hope you will pay attention to and share. This is I believe one of the most important and most neglected aspects of our polygamy narrative. This story of Hyrum’s involvement with polygamy. I want to again as always so sincerely, thank those who donate to this podcast and ask that anyone who thinks that is a possibility to please consider it. It is extremely helpful and welcome as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of Hyrum’s polygamy, right from the beginning, I want to thank those who have done work on this topic that has made my research way easier. It’s so nice to have a body of work to begin from and to be able to go on from there. So I want to first thank Whitney Horning who has come on the podcast previously to discuss Hyrum. That episode will be linked below as well as the paper that she wrote for um that episode about Hyrum’s polygamy. I will, I wasn’t able to share it before but now that I have the website, I can put it on the blog and I’ll link that below for anyone that would like to look at the many resources that she has compiled that have been extremely helpful to me. A huge Thank you Whitney and also the prices, Richard and Pamela Price, their incredible work that has helped all of us as we have tried to, you know, add on, add on to what they are doing. It has been enormously helpful. So now let’s get into Hyrum’s polygamy. It is such a critical topic to look into and it’s sad that it hasn’t been done more because it helps us determine the truth of the entire polygamy narrative. The early polygamist as one of my historian friends said to me, they forgot poor Hyrum when they were crafting their narrative and creating their evidence. And we seem to still be forgetting poor Hyrum today. So that’s what we are going to do. We’re going to do our best to trace Hyrum’s timeline with polygamy first, his fight against polygamy, then his supposed conversion to polygamy, then in his marriages and wives. And we’re going to look at evidence for both of those I believe, looking more closely at Hyrum’s polygamy sheds light on the validity of the Utah polygamy evidence. It really helps us understand that in a better focus and better context and looking at how modern historians determine Hyrum’s wives, I think gives us important insights into how we should determine Joseph’s wives. It’s something that we should compare at the very least I will say from the beginning. This is the episode on Hyrum and the High Council. That episode is still coming. So I will just kind of sum up some of that information really quickly. This is the information that I think is too often left out from that conversation about the High Council. So I will come back and bring in all of that information. This is just looking at Hyrum’s story with polygamy, separate from the High Council which I will come back to. So um to start, we know that Hyrum massively opposed polygamy that is not contested at all. I’ll just give a few examples with the whole John Bennett scenario. Hyrum was at the forefront at the fight against um polygamy and spiritual wifey. From the very beginning, he headed the investigation and prosecution against John Bennett. He was the one who gathered affidavits, he confronted Bennett. He expressed his outrage at the testimonies of what had been done to the women and on and on, let me add this first slide. This is from his July 23rd, 1842 affidavit. It was published in the Times and Seasons. August 1st and after spelling out the details of the troubling reports they had received from various women um that Bennett had quote endeavored to seduce. It goes on to say on becoming acquainted with these facts. I was determined to prosecute him and bring him to justice. Some persons knowing my determination, having informed him of it. So some people went and told Bennett, we have to wonder who did that. He he sent to me, William Law and Brigham Young to request an interview with me and to see if there could not be a reconciliation made. I told them, I thought there could not be, his crimes were too heinous interesting right that they were arguing for a reconciliation. Hyrum did agree to see Bennett who quote, wept much and he begged Hyrum not to prosecute him, quote, but I was determined to bring him to justice and declined to listen to his entreaties. There is a lot more from this pages long affidavit, I only included two small columns. I just want to at the outset establish the role that Hyrum took upon himself early in the polygamy. Fight to fight against any form of i immorality, which he considered all of that to be spiritual, wiery, polygamy, no matter what name it was called. So here is our next thing. We’re going to look at June 12th, 1842 Hyrum and Joseph sent a long letter to Parley P. Pratt who was serving a mission in England with instructions for members gathering to navoo quote. So for no man, I’m, I’m going into this because um the polygamists were always teaching that
[00:05:17] only their marriages were valid and that you could leave a husband without a divorce for various. It really looked a lot like wife swapping and it just minimized the importance of the marriage vows for life. And this is what Hyrum had to say about that. So for no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor no woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. These things are an evil and we and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church. There are several instances where women have left their husbands and come to this place and in a few weeks or months, they have found themselves new husbands and they are living in adultery and we are obliged to cut them off from the church. There are men also that are guilty of the same crime as we are credibly informed. We are knowing to their having taken wives here and are credibly informed that they have wives in England. And we also forbid that a woman shall leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. We also for forbid that a man shall leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. If he is a bad man, ie the unbeliever, there is a lot to re to remedy that evil. And if she is a bad woman, there is a lot to remedy that evil. And if the law will divorce them, then they are at liberty. Otherwise they are bound as long as they too shall live and it is not our prerogative to go beyond this Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith. So there are some snippets of what they were seriously being taught that taught that should help us understand how seriously they took marriage, right? And so their efforts continued. Let’s go on the next year. This is May 14th, 1842 Levi Richards recorded a sermon that Hyrum gave. This one is very important. I’m going to let you read it with me. Here is what he said. May 14th attended meeting at the temple in the morning. Hyrum Smith addressed the people subjects from the book of Mormon second chapter of Jacob remarked that the book of Mormon was written as a mirror, a key to the Bible. He spoke of persecutions as being one of the ways of salvation. When persecution ceased, people were apt to forget. The first commandment said that there many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things such as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines. But it’s an abomination in the sight of God. Just as the book of Mormon teaches. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine, you would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of blackness around his head. Isn’t it interesting that we get the story of the angel commanding Joseph Smith and Hyrum right here is saying, no, that cannot happen. You would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of blackness around his head. Throw though his garments might shine as white as snow. A man may have one wife, concubines. He should have none. He observed that this, that the idea was that this was given to Jacob for a perpetual principle. So right there, the idea that this was just for the nephites. Hyrum blows that out of the water and in case I need to remind us all, Hyrum was the co prophet with Joseph at this time, right? They were both prophets and they were both presidents of the church. So here we go on next, Hyrum’s efforts to root out and expose immorality and polygamy did not stop. When John Bennett left Nauvoo, he didn’t stop trying to expose this and get rid of it. William Clayton recorded in his journal on May 23rd, 1843 Tuesday conversed with HCK. That’s Hebrew C. Kimball concerning a plot that is being laid to entrap the brethren of the secret priesthood by brother H and others. That’s brother Hyrum and others. I will have some more evidence in a little while that fully corroborates what Clayton wrote here. So this quote was interesting when I really was thinking about it. It made me wonder who the others were because it says brother Hyrum and others. And I want to know what happened to them, the others that were assisting Hyrum and rooting out the secret polygamy when Hyrum suddenly just within a day or two, just days later, had his sudden conversion to polygamy. That that is what our narrative is suddenly after giving this sermon, Hyrum had a complete change of heart. And I want to look at how we know that took place and what evidence there is for it. So we are going to go ahead and look at Saints try to understand the rest of this story. So we’ll go right here back to Saints chapter 40 that we’ve looked at before and let me scroll down to where it starts talking about Hyrum’s conversion. Here it is. Ok. So I hopefully you’re with me and you can see this on May 14th while Joseph was away at another conference. Hyrum preached in the temple against men having more than one wife. That’s what we just read, right? Um Referring to Jake condemnation of unauthorized plural marriage in the book of Mormon Hyrum called it the pla the practice of abomination. Hyrum called the practice and abomination before God. And we’ll look at the foot notes. You can see they go to le um to Levi Richards journal that we just looked at and to the book of Mormon. Now that quote is well sourced right after the sermon, Hyrum began to question his own certainty about what he taught. Ok. So he gave this intense sermon and then we build into it as soon as he preached it, he started to have second thoughts.
[00:10:34] Although it had been his consistent story the entire way through. You’ll know that is not sourced at all. Right. Discussions about plural marriage swirled around navoo and rumors that Joseph had several, several wives were also common. Ok. Of course, they were because of John Bennett and other enemies that were spreading these rumors. It’s, it’s surprising to me that the saints gives it so much credibility and we’ll look here at what they use again. Um Levi Richards, but then they go to the Temple Lot transcript. So I want to share what they’re talking about there because I honestly am again, very surprised that they would use this. This is actually what they are using. Let me get it on the screen is Emily Partridge’s Temple Lot testimony. This testimony requires its own entire episode because it, I’m sorry, it is just ridiculous. The footnote sites um One of the more coherent parts and that’s what I’ve put on the screen is just with the footnote sites, but I do find it astounding that Saints relies on this testimony. I, when I write, read through it, I feel like embarrassed for her. It’s so bad. And remember the judge in the temple lot um case Judge Phillips did not at all believe these testimonies, they just are not, are not good to rely on in this way. So I’ll go ahead and read um the exact part that Saints um that Saint cites to question 532 I know it looks like an eight on there, but that’s the three. So I’ll start here with question 532. Well, in the meantime, you had heard the subject discussed. Well, I had heard the reports that were out and I thought that what he had to say to me might be something related to that you had heard outside by, you had heard outside by talking to women that the subject of Celestial Marri marriage was being quietly discussed. Yes, sir, I heard of it. You heard and found out that it was being quietly talked over. Well, now, I don’t know whether my information was gained from talking with women or from reading the paper or books or something of that kind had anything been published about it. No, sir, not publicly, but some people must have known about it because I heard it whispered around there in Nauvoo before he told me what, before he told me what it was and that is what made me suspect what it was at that at the time. He spoke about writing the letter to me. So that’s what they cite. I’m going to include what they don’t cite. This is earlier in Emily’s same testimony. Um This is just a few questions before, this is 234 right before that. Did you ever hear the doctrine of plural marriage taught publicly before you were married to him? No, sir. Had you ever heard it being taught or having been taught in the church prior to the time that you were married to him? No, sir, I never heard anything. Only what he told me. Well, you had, um, well, had you ever heard any officer in the church teach it outside what Joseph Smith told you up to that time? Yes, ma’am. No, sir. I never heard anything. Only what he had told me up to that time. You had heard anything. Only what he had told you. I had never heard anything definite about it at all. From anyone up to that time that he married me. Only what he told me himself. Now, did you ever at any time, either before or after he married, you teach it to the members of the church, either publicly or privately? No, sir. I never did not to say publicly. I said whether privately or publicly. Well sir, I never did neither before or after that time. No, sir. So you can see why this is only one of the many huge contradictions in her testimony. There are other far more important contradictions, but that’s why I, you know, I’m surprised that Saints uses just that one portion to give val validity to this difficult narrative they’re trying to paint. So now let’s go back to Saints and I hope I’m scrolling up adequately. Ok. Let see. So Hyrum started to have second thoughts. Right. Hyrum wanted to believe this was not the case, but he wondered if Joseph was not telling him something, there had been times after all, when Joseph had alluded to the practice, perhaps testing Hyrum to see how he would react. I guess I can close this. You can see it better. And Hyrum, since there was, there were some things that Joseph told the 12 that he was, that he had not taught him one soon after the sermon. Hyrum saw Brigham near his home and asked if they could talk. Now before I go on, I just have to pause and say that it is hard for me to make sense of this based on anything we know about these men’s lives. I would like someone to show me the evidence and the sources that Hyrum relied on Brigham and looked to him as a confidant and someone that could teach him about what Joseph was thinking, saying or doing right like II, I have problems with this from the very beginning, but we’ll go on to talk about it more. So he saw Brigham near his home and asked if they could talk. Hyrum said,
[00:15:24] I know there is something or other which I do not understand that is revealed to the 12. He said, is that? So the men sat down on a pile of uh on a pile of fence rails. Brigham said, I do not know anything about what you know. Brigham answered cautiously, but I know what I know I have mistrusted for a long time that Joseph had received a revelation that a man should have more than one wife. Hyrum said, I will tell you about this. Brigham said, if you will swear with an uplifted hand before God, that you will never say another word against Joseph and his doings and the doctrine he is preaching. So that’s another huge problem. We don’t have, we have Hyrum on the record everywhere fighting against polygamy. We don’t have him ever saying something negative against Joseph, right? He never said a word against Joseph. But in any case, Hyrum stood up, I will do it with all my heart. He said, I want to know the truth as Brigham taught him about the Lord’s revelation to Joseph on plural marriage. Hyrum Wept convinced that Joseph acted under commandment. All right. So here we go. The source for this is Brigham Young’s October 8th 1866 discs. Course you can see it’s listed up here and down there, we can look at two different versions of it. Now, I do not have time to go into this entire um sermon here, but I will do another episode or at least a bonus episode on it in the very near future because this entire sermon needs to be read and analyzed. It is so important to give us valuable insights into Brigham Young’s methods and his tactics and his priorities, the way that he deals with um information that he doesn’t like. I wish I could include it here. But I will just say that he had very little use for actual historical sources or evidence for like just one example I can point to, he doesn’t bring this up in the sermon but destroying Lucy Mack Smith’s books, right? And being so angry when he had completely destroyed them and that they were reprinted, he seemed to strongly believe that he could proclaim the truth despite any evidence to the contrary, if there is historical evidence that he didn’t like, he would just erase it. And what he said was the historical truth and everyone should just believe and accept his words. So in this, in my opinion, this talk is one of many that really hurts Brigham Young’s credibility. So needless to say, I don’t think it is good historical practice to simply believe Brigham in these kinds of discourses. The only reason those who promote the polygamy came from God or the narrative that polygamy came from Joseph Smith, the only reason they rely so heavily on this is because it is absolutely essential to their narrative. So maybe that should tell us something I do want to point out there is one other source that is um that is cited here and it is William Clayton’s journal. You can see right there. May 26th, 1843. So we’ll go ahead and look at that as well again. Um You can, people can look at this as corroboration of brig young, which I’m sure they do. I think it is very important for us to be able to close examine William Clayton’s journals to see how they were made and when they were made and for what purpose they were made. But you can see right here that it does seem to corroborate because on this May 26th, 1843 entry, he says Hyrum received the doctrine of priesthood. So that gives us the exact date. So it is, we have um I’m gonna go back to this May 23rd Hyrum is vociferously vehemently preaching against polygamy. It is an eternal doctrine that we, I mean that, that Jacob sermon is perpetual and eternal, that God will never ordain or command polygamy. And just three short days later, we all of a sudden have this change of heart. So that gives us the exact timeline that this would have happened if we believe that these sources are valid. So um then we can go back to saints. Let’s see. And the next chapter, I’m working a lot of different screens. So here we go. Let’s see if I can do it. The next chapter chapter 41 it goes into the story of Hyrum begging Joseph to write the revelation. That that’s the story again, that William Clayton’s 1874 affidavit is the only source for I’m doing work on that, that I’m really excited, excited about that will be coming forth. But um in the not too terribly distant future. But again, according to this narrative, based on these two sources, let me take this off the screen because I’m not going to look, we’re not going to read chapter 41. We’ve done that before. But um based on these, this um these sources, William Clayton and Brigham Young are the only sources for this huge change of mind that Hyrum had. But it gives no act, actual logical explanation of what changed Hyrum’s mind. Hyrum mind. Hyrum was a smart guy, right? Like what, what did he understand that he hadn’t, hadn’t understood before. That made him see the logic and the value of thorough Wy. How did it all of a sudden click that he was like, oh, I get it. Oh I that makes sense, right? There’s no information about that. It’s just that Brigham Young called him to repentance and he tearfully repented. So, but all of a sudden still Hyrum immediately became polygamy’s greatest champion as Brian Hales
[00:20:52] puts it in his chapter in his second book called Hyrum Smith Champions the cause. This is quoting Brian Hales of all of eternal marriage and restored polygamy after Joseph himself. None was more open and enthusiastic than Joseph’s brother Hyrum after he accepted it as a true principle. So that’s the story we get right overnight. Hyrum went from fighting vehemently against polygamy to assuring Joseph. He could convince Emma and everyone else of its clear worth. Then despite being completely rejected. When he approached Emma with this revelation, he still was taking it all around the city to individuals throughout the city con continually and even reading it to the High Council and in various other meetings and public locations based on the testimonies showing it all around town. Right? So I will, as I said, do a future episode going into both the claims of the High Council and all of the other claims of Hyrum showing and promoting this revelation throughout Nauvoo. For now, I’ll just say, I think it is strange that we uncritically accept, accept and believe all the late and problematic claims that Hyrum was teaching polygamy everywhere when the substantial amount of documented history from the time tells a very different story and shows how seriously he was still trying to fight it. So that’s what we’re going to go into. Now, all of the sources we are now going to cover come after Hyrum’s supposed overnight revelatory, trans repentance and transformation and a wholehearted conversion to polygamy, right? That was his fighting it before. This is all fighting it after. Oh and also this is all of these sources are also after Hyrum supposedly read it to the High Council, right? And practically everywhere else so that this is these are sources that need to be taken into account when we’re talking about these things. So let me go ahead and add this back to the stage. I want you to see This is February 1st 1844. So again, it comes after August 1843 after May and then August 1843 which is the only sources we have of Hyrum supporting polygamy. So you’ll see that he publishes a notice in the Times and seasons as we have lately been credibly informed that an elder of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by the name of Hyrum 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 in the special conference on the sixth of April. Next to make answer to these charges, sign Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, presidents of the church. All of that information is very important to um take into consideration. Then we’ll go on this. This one is February 26th, 1844. This is Hyrum when he brings charges against Oremus F. Bostwick for slander for claiming he had spiritual wives. And um let’s see. Um this is from Joseph Smith’s journal and um it says in the aft in the evening, afternoon or evening, held court at the mansion city of Nauvoo versus Orsamus F. Bostwick on complaint of Hyrum Smith for slanderous language concerning Hyrum and certain females of Nauvoo. Oh N Nauvoo fined Boswick $50 and costs. It goes on to say that um, Francis M mh is his attorney and gave notice that he should appeal to the municipal court that’s in Carthage, I believe. And then the Circuit Court, I told him what I thought of him for trying to carry such a suit to Carthage. It was to stir up the mob and bring them upon us. So that’s where we see that beginning to happen with Higby. You’ll remember he was one of the conspirators in the novo expositor. So let’s go on from there. The deposition that was taken for the trial on this same day, John Scott testified that Bostwick quote said he was at the prophets last week and the prophet asked him if he thought he had any spiritual wives. Bos Bostwick told no, did not know that he had any. But I know by God that your brother Hyrum has. John Scott asked Bostwick quote, do you believe that Hyrum has got any of those spiritual wives? Bostwick said yes by God. I believe he has and can sleep with three or four every night. Scott insisted to know who they were as he could not fellowship such work. Boss Bostwick answered that they are all over the city by God. Witness said he did not believe it. Defendant said he could take half a bushel of meal and get what accommodation he wanted with almost any woman in the city. Witness insisted to have to um insisted to have him tell him where the women lived and said he would too soon tell him whether they were in good standing in the church or not. Defendant refused to tell the names of the women and it goes on from there. Um Bostwick, I believe is the first time that Hyrum is ever individually specifically charged with polygamy. The rumors. I mean, the accusations had been going on against Joseph since um since William, I mean, since John John Bennett the year before that or two years before that in 42. But I believe this is the first time that Hyrum was accused of polygamy. Orsamus Bostwick as I was thinking about this. I it occurred to me that Orsamus Bostwick is to Hyrum, what John Bennett was to Joseph Smith, right.
[00:26:18] So I think that’s interesting and I have to wonder if we, if Bos Brick had given any names or even just initials, if we would claim that they were all legitimate wives of Hyrum like we do with Joseph and John Bennett, I think with little to support either of those claims. So Bostwick Boswick slanderous claims against Hyrum quote and almost all the women of the city led immediately to the voice of innocents from Nauvoo and I was going to go into that in depth here, but I’ll save that for its own episode, maybe trying to decide if I’ll do an episode just on the voice of innocence or a broader one on Emma Smith. Um, Emma Smith’s fight against polygamy like we’re doing with Bright, um, with like we’re doing about Hyrum here. But, um other than to say that both Joseph, all I’ll say about the voice of innocence is that Joseph and Hyrum presided and spoke at the meeting at, at a meeting of between 6 to 8000 as reported by Wilfred Woodruff where the voice of innocence was presented and vigorously accepted. So both Joseph and Hyrum were on board with that right alongside Emma, who as we know, held her many meetings about it and so suffice it to say Emma did everything in her power to come to the defense of Hyrum Smith and the women of the city who Bostwick had accused. And if as Clayton claimed over 30 years later, Hyrum had read the revelation to Emma threatening her with destruction if she didn’t get on board. How do we explain her so fervently at coming to Hyrum’s defense, I don’t know that anybody has adequately explained that yet. Also, as we know she named her unborn child after Hyrum after his death, I think those are important things to consider. And I also, I remind us that for anyone who hasn’t watched some of the past episodes, we’ll remind those who have frustrated the Joseph Smith paper papers narrative and seemingly Saints, they seem to side with Bostwick while Joseph and Hyrum and Emma fought so vehemently about Bostwick and considered him to be an absolute liar. Um The, the Joseph Smith papers when they’re talking about him says, well, these rumors came because had married these two plural wives, apparently, which I find astounding is Bo does Bostwick know about Hyrum’s plural wives? Is Bostwick talking about Hyrum’s plural wives, even if we believe that he has them. It’s really frustrating to me that we give Bostwick more credibility than we give Joseph Emma and Hyrum just like we do with John Bennett. I think that’s something that we should consider. So now let’s go on to the next thing we are now looking at this that was published March 15th, 1844. This was the day before Emma’s last voice of innocence meeting that Hyrum published this letter in the Times and Seasons. It’s called to the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints living on China Creek and we can read what he says, greetings. Whereas Brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today to know my views concerned some doctrine that, 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, I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine. For there is no such doctrine taught here. Neither is there any such thing practiced here? And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly, any such doctrine is culpable and stand a chance to be brought before the High Council and lose his license and membership also. Therefore, he had better watch what he is about. So when somebody comes to Hyrum and says, hey, I’m hearing this, Hyrum immediately publishes this in the newspaper, right? He goes on a um in this, in this letter, he goes on to a different subject from there. But he makes his point about the idea of polygamy extremely clear. There is no, no such doctrine taught here. Neither is there any such thing practiced here? And it’s, he’s not specifying in this spiritual wifey. He’s talking about the idea that any men with certain priesthood can have more than one wife. So we can’t use the lame worn out excuse that polygamists love to use that. No, he’s just a crying. John Bennett, spiritual wifey, celestial plural marriage was ok. That is ridiculous. And as a desperate attempt to try to ignore this clear evidence, that’s right before us. So um this is not on the Joseph Smith papers because it’s Hyrum instead of Joseph, but just like the March 1842 letter to the Relief Society that I was going to talk about with the voice of innocence. And I, I didn’t talk about, but I didn’t take it out of my notes here. When we go into it, you will see the letter that Joseph and Hyrum wrote to the Relief Society in 1842 also completely decrying polygamy. And it was also cut from history. That letter to the Relief Society, they tried to edit it, but they still cut it out of history.
[00:31:14] And this um letter from Hyrum Smith was also cut out from church history and then continuing on. Just two months later, Hyrum publishes yet another letter in the Times and Seasons on behalf of him and Joseph, this is called to the elders abroad. I’ll quote from it. We’ve very frequently received letters from elders and individuals abroad inquiring about inquiring of us whether certain statements that they hear and have written to them are true. Some pertaining to John C. Bennett’s spiritual wife system, others in regard to immoral conduct practiced by individuals and sanctioned by the church. Remember what Joseph and Hyrum had always said about marriage, especially Hyrum write that letter that he sent to partly be prepped. You cannot leave your gosh, you cannot marry another spouse. We have to say he now doesn’t believe any of that anymore because he is anyway, I I think when he still, when he talks about immoral practice, he is talking about all of those ideas. They are not sanctioned by the church. He goes on to say, and it is impossible for us to answer all of them. We take this opportunity of answering them once for all. And I’ll come back to this letter. But I first want to show you this because apparently even with this publication, the letters did not stop. And Hyrum just um a month later, I think June 1st or two months later published this um Hyrum published this notice asking people who had questions to pay their own postage quote for I am not able to, to pay the enormous sums of sums of postage that I have here for. Paid to answer foolish foolish interrogations. I looked it up and before 1847 the recipient generally paid postage. Uh that was changed in 1847. So just after Hyrum’s death, I think that that’s interesting. Let’s go back to this initial sermon and to this April 1st letter, I’ll keep reading from it. Um We cannot but express our surprise that any elder or priest who has been in navoo and has had the opportunity of hearing the principles of truth advanced should for one moment give credit to the idea that anything like iniquity is practiced much less taught or sanctioned by the authorities of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. We are the more surprised since every species of iniquity is spoken against and exposed publicly at the stand and every means made use, made use of that possibly can be to suppress vice continuing on and every species of iniquity that has frequently been exposed in the times and seasons and its practicer and advocates held up to the world as corrupt men that ought to be avoided. We are, we are however, living in the last days, I love that. He says this in regard to being deceived with polygamy. He says we are living in the last days at time when it is declared. If it is possible, the very elect should be deceived. So many people love to use that against us. Now who are arguing that polygamy was never of God. Hyrum and Joseph used it. Speaking of those who were deceived into believing that polygamy was of God, um He goes on in very strong language. There are men who are corrupt and sensual and who teach corrupt principles for the of gratifying their sensual appetites at the expense of ruin and virtue and innocence. Such men ought to be avoided as pests to society and be frowned down upon with contempt by every virtuous man and woman. He says that they are reprobate concerning the faith. This part is important to listen to. When you apply it to the polygamists, what they did when they came to Utah, they are high and lift up and would trample upon the humble and the meek and unassuming and are not afraid to teach for the commandments of God, their own corrupt and devilish doctrines and principles. Let no man therefore be deceived by them. Don’t be partakers of their evil deeds. If any man writes to you or preaches to you doctrines, contrary to the Bible, the book of Mormon or the book of Doctrine. Doctrine and covenants, remember in the Doctrine and covenants at this time was section 101, the statement on marriage that loudly proclaimed that one man could have one wife and one woman could have one husband. It says set him down as an apo and as an impostor, if he teaches anything different from what we have published in our scriptures, dis fellowship them, cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches. OK. This is, this is pretty um extensive, right? I’m pretty clear, I’ll share just one quote from Brigham Young’s October 1866 talk where he corrects the historical record that George A Smith, the church historian had apparently just been sharing that I’m talking about polygamy. And um this is the talk where he talks about Hyrum’s conversion that I was just talking about. He says, quote, I would not be willing to say that Joseph ever denied any doctrine he published. He never did to my knowledge. So I want you to hear that quote after what we have just read, which again is only a partial list. These are just the ones where Hyrum took the lead. There is so much more that both Joseph and Hyrum together did. So let’s go on just a week later. Many of you will remember this sermon.
[00:36:37] Just a week later. Hyrum delivered the April 8, 1844 scathing sermon that many of you will remember that was also edited, cut from history again, just like they did with so many other things they tried to edit it, tried to change it, but in the end they still cut it out. Oh, I should have said, I think, I believe they also did not include Hyrum’s letter to um that, that last letter that we just read, that was also omitted from history. So it, it, the, the saints in Utah did not have access to these sources, only those few who could remember them. And if you made the mistake of remembering or talking about them, you would get in trouble as George A Smith did, for example, and others might get in more trouble. So we, they really did our early church leaders in Utah really did rewrite our history and I think we need to pay attention to that. So I’m going to share, I’ve, I’ve spoken quite a bit about this. April 8, 1844 sermon. This is the one that was so frustrating when it was removed from um the Joseph Smith papers because they claimed that that um Joseph Smith wasn’t there that day when the church history library says that he was, it’s, it’s rather challenging. So I have cited this sermon numerous times from the Thomas Bullock Notes. The notes that we generally use are the Thomas Bullock Notes. So this time, I’m instead going to, instead of starting with the Thomas version, I want to start with some reports of this talk from other sources. And so we will start first with Elder Levi Graybill. He testified that he heard President Hyrum Smith Smith speak against polygamy at the April 1844 church conference. Elder Graybill wrote, I was present at the April conference in Nauvoo 1844 I was well acquainted with Joseph and Hyrum Smith and most all of the early leaders of the church at the conference of April 1844 Hyrum Smith said from the stand that some had been teaching spiritual wifey, which meant polygamy and addressing the sisters. He said, if any man makes such a proposition to you, if you will put a dagger to his heart, I will plead your cause on the day of judgment, right? That’s, that is from in the R LDS history. And I will say these sources are R LDS. But what’s interesting is that I think that as Utah Mormons, we some not, not just Utah Mormons, members of the LDS church, we sometimes tend to be quite arrogant and think that we have the only voices that matter. We have the true history. And it’s looked to me like these sources from the R LDS church have been ignored and then not believed they’ve just been disbelieved because they don’t come from the right sources where now that we have the Joe Smith papers and we have Thomas Well, we had, but at least instead of the church library. We have the um, Thomas Bullock Notes and we can see that it was cut from history. We know that this sermon absolutely did occur and we should give more weight to the R LDS sources because they have been proven out to be correct while our sources were not correct. So, um then, let’s see, Joseph Smith, the third quotes. This is another source quotes Thomas Lynn saying quote before the tragedy at Carthage, he had attended a meeting in seventies Hall ostensibly for high priests and elders. At this meeting, Uncle Hyrum was a principal speaker and they strongly denounced the theory of polygamy or plural marriage and its practice stating specifically and emphatically that such a doctrine was no part or parcel of the message. They had been called to preach to the world and he earnestly warned them against it. So this source is later and second hand, it comes from Joseph Smith the third decades later. But it I so I always like to be careful of sources, but this one is strongly corroborated by contemporary sources. That’s what we need to do with late sources. And second hand sources is corroborate them to strong firsthand and contemporary evidence. We can do that with this source. So Joseph Smith the third also shared the testimony of a brother John Taylor. This is not President John Taylor, this is elder John Taylor, a different man by the same name, Brother Taylor’s recollection tally. Exactly this is quoting Joseph Smith the third tally exactly with that of Thomas Li as to the time when the meeting was held, the reason for it being held and the denial and denunciation of the dogma of plural marriage they made by Uncle Hyrum. And so he um he cites um Tom um brother Taylor. I’m not going to read everything he says about Brother Taylor. But what I thought would be useful actually is to go to the Temple Lot trial where the same John Taylor testified and his testimony is important because it corroborates several things about Hyrum’s fight against polygamy and his efforts to root out the secret polygamous as um as Clayton reported in his journal, um let’s see what he’s we’re going to, this is John Taylor’s Temple Lot testimony starting with question 62. Well, what, well, what were your duties in case you found anybody with more than one wife to report them, report them to who to report them to the president of the teachers quorum? How many was there in that quorum? There were 24 in that forum.
[00:41:56] It was an organized quorum and our instructions were if we found any case of that kind to report them to the president of the teachers quorum and the president was to report them to Brother Hyrum Smith. And that was the instructions brother Hyrum gave in the quorum. So brother Hyrum went specifically to this teacher’s quorum. Brother Taylor, elder. Um I John Taylor, who became an elder must have been a teacher at this time. And he’s telling what Hyrum Smith told them this testimony fully corroborates the fact that Hyrum was trying to root out and trap the secret polygamist. Right? And then I’m going to read a little bit more from this testimony. It doesn’t relate directly to what we’re talking about, but it relates to the, to the topic of polygamy, of course, and I think it’s worth reading because it is always ignored. So I’m going now to question 158. Now, I will ask you if after John C Bennett was cut off from the church, did you hear anything there in NAVOO about this secret wife system or polygamy being practiced there by anyone? You’ll note that everybody knows that spiritual wifey, polygamy, celestial plural marriage, they are all the same thing. In fact, remember Brigham Young and many of the early wives talked about spiritual wives. That’s what they called themselves, spiritual wives and spiritual Children. It goes on for a long time, even in much of this temple lot testimony, many of the supposed wives of Joseph Smith described themselves as spiritual wives. This was what it was the same thing. We can’t keep making these silly excuses that have absolutely nothing to support them. So um ok, so that question about, did he hear anything about polygamy after John C Bennett left? No, sir. There was no polygamy. There was no talk of polygamy, talked of there at any time that is by the the authorities. You understand me? That is what I say. No talk of any kind about that by the authorities. None at all. Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith never taught polygamy and there was no revelation on polygamy that I ever saw. No law or revelation on polygamy or celestial marriage or anything of the kind. And the church was governed entirely a monogamy church from 32. At the time I embraced the up to the time of Joseph’s death. It was a purely monogamous church that entire time. Um Question 160. Well, now please pay attention to my question. He went a little beyond the question. My question is not with reference to Joseph um Joseph Hyrum Smith or what they taught. But my question is, was there any talk by anyone about the doctrine of plural marriage or polygamy as it is commonly called? Oh, yes, sir was um there was a yes sir, by whom a man by the name of Brown taught that doctrine, what was done with as he was not? Um And he was notified and cut off from the church. You know that to be the fact. Yes sir. That man by the name of Brown, we just looked at this again. All of John Taylor’s testimony checks out with contemporary evidence. The man by the name of Brown taught that he was cut off from the um um taught that he was cut off from the church and there was another man by the name of Durphy, went out to Leart and told the people there that he thought the time would come, that they would practice polygamy or the same doctrine in reference to plural wives that David and Solomon did. That is what this man named Durphy taught. And there was a man by the name of Hewitt heard it and he came right straight to Navoo and he went to see Hyrum Hyrum about it. And he told Hyrum what this man was teaching or preaching. And Hyrum sat right down on the Well curb and wrote a notice to him that such a doctrine wouldn’t, wouldn’t do to be taught in the church. And he wrote to him, I know that for, I saw the letter after he wrote it, Mr Hewitt read it to me. You saw that letter, you say, yes, sir, I saw the letter and it was a severe rebuke, a severe rebuke. He goes on to testify that he didn’t know that if it had been printed in the paper, but he read the actual letter itself, unlike the testimonies from the polygamist, as I already said, John Taylor’s testimony is consistent and solidly backed up by the contemporary evidence and documents and it is completely ignored. We should give him and others like him who give consistent testimony that is backed up and corroborated by the nau sources, we should give them credibility over the problematic inconsistent testimonies that contradict him and contradict the evidence. Those are the testimonies of the Utah polygamists. So um Bullock’s notes, I’ll, I’ll continue on with this April 8th sermon that was a little sidetracked looking at John Taylor. But Bullock’s notes which are familiar by now, I will read snippets from them about this, this sermon that Hyrum gave. One reason I speak to the elders is in consequence of the 10,000 reports from abroad. Almost every man runs to him and to inquire if things are true. How many spiritual wives a man may have? I know nothing about it. What he might call spirit, a spiritual life. I know nothing about it in about a half an hour after that man was gone, another would begin, the elders tell such things all over the country, all over the country. So hopefully now you can see why Hyrum is getting so frustrated with this. He is doing everything he can to say. We don’t do this and these reports keep coming in. You’re telling me that this is just because he has been married to mercy, right?
[00:47:15] Like we’ll get into all of that as well that we can’t believe what Hyrum is saying. I think that people are going to have a difficult time actually adequately dealing with this body of evidence. Brigham knew that he couldn’t deal with it, which is why he cut it out from history. We have it now. It needs to be taken seriously. So, um he continues on, I am authorized to tell you from henceforth that any man who comes in and tells such fooled such damn full doctrine to um to come in and take away his license. None but a fool teaches such stuff. The devil himself is not such a fool. Every elder who teaches such stuff ought to have his nose rung. His name will be published and if found guilty, his license shall be taken. I wish the elders of Israel to understand it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more. And God has not commanded anyone to have more. Again, you can’t just explain this away as carefully worded denials or only applying to spiritual wifey, blah, blah, blah. No, he says specifically God has not commanded anyone to have more. And if you dare to presume to do any such thing, it will spoil your fun for you for you will never preach the gospel. I despise a man who teaches a pack of stuff that will disgrace himself. So for a man to go into the world and talk of this spiritual life system, a man is an, is, is as empty as an open settlement. If the coat suits anyone, let him put it on, I would call the devil, my brother before such a man, he then goes on to teach and explain marrying for eternity. That’s what he calls it, marrying for eternity, which is the truth that had, that he had been teaching as always acknow and he, that he always acknowledged he had been teaching. And he forcefully differentiates it, this idea of eternal marriage or marrying for eternity. He forcefully differentiates it from polygamy, which he insists, quote never originated with me. Then he goes on and says, get the wife that God and your country let you have. If any brother hears any person preach such stuff, ring his nose, I get the sisters leave to wring his nose who teach such stuff. And I think that this ring his nose here. We ought to maybe listen to what the R LDS source said that he said stab a dagger to their heart because what continues, makes a little more sense in that context. Maybe Thomas Buck was cleaning it up a little bit. I don’t know. But anyway, we have both of those reports. He says I give the sisters leave to wring his nose who teach that stuff. I’ll bear you out in it. Give him justice if I, because he talks about having to get them out of trouble with the law. I don’t know that you’d get in trouble with the law for winging their nose. He says if I can’t get you clear. WW Phelps and the constitutional Congress can. Every man that knows me knows that I have taught these principles from the beginning. It is just heartbreaking this part that we’re going on to, to realize that the claims about polygamy that were spreading about the church likely tended to make people who would be interested in that sort of thing, become interested in the church and come to NAVOO. Like what seems to have happened with John Bennett, that was not what Hyrum wanted. He went on to explain that they needed good people to um to what they were trying to create into Zion, right? And um so he says that in order to gather the truly good people, it requires elders to have purity and be virtuous. We are in a different dispensation. It is the honest and pure in heart that will hearken to the everlasting covenant. They are those that are noble and good. We want the honest in heart, the virtuous, the noble. We want the good seed gathered here, let all men repent and the gather out the good seed and bring it to NAVOO. We want you to understand that if you preach anything wrong like polygamy, you will be published. We don’t want bogus makers counter counterfeiters or preachers of the spiritual life system, which meant polygamy, preach principles that will stand the test of ages, teach them good principles and save souls. So clearly, there was no ambiguity in Hyrum sermon. There are reasons that the polygamous again tried to erase this from history. They tried to erase this entire pages long sermon from history. They knew that it couldn’t work. And so now we have it, we need to pay attention because we all know the truth. So finally, that’s, there’s just one more source. We will go over in Hyrum’s dealings with polygamy and those are his statements from the in response to the novo expositor. I won’t go into them here. I’m going to save that for my expositor um episode, right? They, they will be that, that that will be its own episode. But I will just say that in the June 8th and June 10th, 1844 city council meetings, both Joseph and Hyrum soundly rejected and denied the idea that there was any revelation about polygamy. They both stated unequivocally that the only revelation was about eternal marriage, not polygamy and anything had to do with any kind of marriage, anything was about former times because that is what the revelation was given in reference to was the sad just asking about the woman with seven husbands talking about Leverett marriage, which only had to do with former times.
[00:52:46] Isn’t it interesting that the polygamists continually brought up Leverett marriage? And still today, historians try to apply Leverett marriage to polygamy even though it’s never a good fit, it doesn’t work at all. They completely have to make turn le marriage into anything that erase any definite actual definition from it so that they can use it to apply it when Hyrum explicitly said that was about former times not having anything to do with today. So I think that we have shown that Hyrum has a consistent pattern of speaking out strongly against polygamy in any form by any name. The only evidence of him changing his mind is Brigham Young’s 1866 sermon which is filled with false claims and which seems clearly to have opposed the available evidence that George A Smith, the church historian would have had access to and likely had been referring to in his talk when Brigham Young gave him a Smackdown. Well, we’ll get to that in another episode yet with only that one very suspect source, we are supposed to believe that everything he did before May 26th, 1843. Uh according to William Clayton is all legitimate and valid and sincere and everything after that date is completely disingenuous, just and just dishonest and deceptive, putting on a public show to hide what he was really doing in private. I, I don’t know how to explain this. We would have to show that this is who Hyrum was right. It doesn’t look to me like this is who he was from everything else we know about him. And I don’t know how we could claim to tell the difference in the sources. If I gave anyone including most historians who weren’t familiar enough with these, these sources to know exactly when they came. If I were to give anyone, these quote without dates attached and asked them to determine from the quote itself whether Hyrum was being truthful or whether he was issuing a carefully worded denial. I think they would have a very difficult time discerning, which was, which right you couldn’t say, oh, these were genuine. He was genuinely fighting against polygamy and in these, he was just pretending to fight against polygamy publicly while practicing it privately. I don’t think you could tell the difference because there is no difference. They are all the same 100% sincere. I I would like to see people argue differently and I’ll respond to that to me. I think we will have a difficult time making that case. But according to the narrative, at the same time, the imm was issuing all these public pronouncement vehemently denying and condemning anything other than the law of marriage canonized in their own scriptures. He was also supposedly going all around town reading or quoting by, by um perfect memory, the revelation on quote, the doctrine and practice of having many wives and concubines to pretty much everybody remember that is what it’s called. It’s not called celestial plural marriage because that’s not what God called it. If the revelation in section 132 is genuine, it is called the doctrine and practice of having many wives and concubines. And we need to be honest about that. And we need to say that after May 26th, 1843. Hyrum was teaching all of these publicly while going around town promoting this doctrine in secret. I don’t buy it. We need to do a better job of accounting for these sources. So again, I won’t go into all of the affidavits here of people claiming that he was teaching it to them. But I am very much looking forward to getting to that in a future episode and I think you will find it worth the wait. I’m not gonna talk about the specific um affidavits here, but I’ll just give a few really quick highlights. There are multiple affidavits that mistakenly claim that Hyrum was on board February or March or April of 1843 before the day. He was magically converted by Brigham Young, right? The people putting those affidavits together didn’t have the advantage of seeing the sources about Hyrum’s efforts against polygamy up until May 1843 partly because they were erased from history, right? Even Levi Richards journal was not included that sermon that he gave. And um William Clayton’s record that he was trying to entrap the man of the secret p priesthood wasn’t included. So they didn’t know what they had, what evidence they had to make their stories fit with. So that’s just one snippet, I’ll give you, there are so many more you are going to enjoy that episode. So despite the huge problem with these late and unsupported sources, I’m talking about the affidavits claiming that Hyrum was secretly teaching now and not secretly teaching it in huge groups everywhere. And the fact that they completely contradict the substantial evidence published at the time in Navoo, we are supposed to believe that Hyrum had an overnight change of heart and promoted polygamy with all his heart while seeming well, um while seeming to speak against it for all he was worth, if we were to accept that narrative, which I find deeply problematic, we might expect someone so eager to promote the doctrine of polygamy to at least somewhat eagerly put it in practice and live up to his privileges. So now that’s what we are going to look into and see if that’s what we find. See if Hyrum’s um practice of polygamy matches his promotion of polygamy to examine Hyrum Smith’s practice of polygamy.
[00:58:23] Let’s first go to his family um search page and see what we can find out. They’ll go to the details page and scroll down to Hyrum Smith’s wives and see how many wives we claim that Hyrum Smith had. So let me scroll down here. Hopefully you can see this. I’ll see if I can again, blow it up a little bit bigger for you. Um OK, so you can see here over on the left hand side, we have Hyrum with his first wife Jerusha who passed away and then his second wife, Mary, fielding who he was married to at the time of his death. And then we give him Katherine Phillips. You’ll see that the marriage date is listed August 1st, 1843. And then we give him mercy fielding marriage date, August 11th, 1843. And that’s it. Those are the only wives that we say that, um, he Smith had. Now, this marriage date of August 1st is extremely important. I wasn’t able to find what they rely on to back this marriage date up. And often, um family search isn’t necessarily the most accurate because anybody can just add information to it. But you’ll notice that Hyrum Smith because he’s an important figure. His page is locked and it’s read only meaning not anybody can add sources to it. Only the church’s official. Um People can add sources to it. So this is the church’s official narrative of Hyrum Smith. It looks like to me and it has him married to two plural wives, Katherine Phillips on August 1st and mercy Rachel fielding. Well, mercy fielding Thompson is what we should call her on. Um August 11th, 1843. Let’s also go ahead and look at the um church’s topics um pages. This is on the church’s official website, their page about Hyrum Smith and we’ll scroll down to the one sentence that we’re talking about. It says, despite some reluctance, Hyrum embraced the doctrine of plural marriage and in 1843 married Katherine Phillips and his second wife’s widowed sister C Rachel Fielding Thompson. So it looks like we’ve established pretty well that the church’s official narrative on Hyrum Smith is that he had two plural wives. He had his deceased wife, his current, his deceased wife, Jerusha, his current wife Mary. And then he married Katherine Phillips and Mercy in that order according to the church. So let’s go ahead and think about this and look into it and see what we find out. First of all, I want to point out that it seems to be a relatively common pattern in polygamous groups for the number one guy to have the most wives followed closely by the, you know, the generals surrounding him. The number two guy and maybe the number the the guys just below him, wives seem to be be somewhat equivalent to hi to rank in the hierarchy, right? Number of wives, it really is a symbol of your power and prestige in the society. And so that we find this example followed with Brigham Young and his 57 wives followed by him, Hebrews C Kimball and his 43 wives, right? That pattern follows. And then the other apostles also had tended to have more wives than then than just the average Joe on the street. The bottom of the heap of course, are the last boys who aren’t able to find any women because the older powerful men are marrying all the young girls. So they just have to leave the society or be kicked out or sent to war or turned into eunuchs or however different societies have handled it over time. This is like I said, this is a common. We, we find this commonly in history. Um Genghis Khan, a well known polygamist in a polygamist war um warring society. He had at least 14 very high ranking wives and then hundreds of lower ranking wives and concubines while his generals and his son, successor, oga, I think is his name. They had dozens instead of hundreds. Mohammed had 12 wives and his top advisor Abu Bakr had about almost half as many. That seems to be a pattern that we see. So it seems like we might expect to see this to some extent with Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the president and core and patriarch of the church, right? And his brother that, that um seems to be what we might expect is one of my historian friends said they forgot about poor Hyrum. Thank you, John Hak. That’s made me laugh every time I think about it. So it’s partly what inspired this episode. So even though we, I guess we could say, well, Hyrum was a late adopter, right? That Joseph had longer to marry women than Hyrum did. But even based on that, when we look at Joseph’s rate of his supposed marriages, there was plenty of time for Hyrum to accumulate a reason of at least a reasonable harm, especially when we think how eager he became. He’d want to make up for lost time, you think? Right. And, and Joseph would be so excited to have him on board. He, you would expect that he might be just throwing at him. But um Joseph, apparently according to the narrative had taken close to 20 wives in just a year or so before and
[01:03:28] he managed to take around 13 additional wives from the time Hyrum came on board until his death, apparently based on the sources that I was looking at. So we would think that Hyrum could get a few more than just this paltry two and only one for eternity, right? So, so I think we have a problem with it narrative, right? From the start. It’s true that um like John Hajek recently commented that made me smile again. He said it’s, it’s like everyone claims to be um that that they had an affair with Elvis, but no one remembers to claim that they had an affair with Elvis’s best friend, right? I think that’s what we tend to see happening here when they’re creating the story. And so I want to go ahead and look at the evidence for these wives to see how well supported they are. And we’ll start with Katherine Phillips since family search lists her as first with the, with the marriage date of August 1st and she’s also the easiest. Um there is a lot more sourcing for mercy than there is for Catherine, but we’re going to take quite a deep dive into looking at Catherine. We seem to know almost nothing about Catherine, Catherine Phillips. Other than that, she came to Salt Lake after the spring of 1860 because she was not included in the 1860 census. But there are records of her being baptized and confirmed in 1861. The only other sources we have of her are the 1880 1900 C census records where she is known as Catherine P Smith and her death certificate from 1905. Other than that she seems to be invisible. We know that she was in Utah because she got, we have records of her in Utah in 1861. So that we know we know that she was here when affidavits were being gathered in earnest beginning 1869. And we have to wonder why she didn’t fill an aid out an affidavit at that time. That seems very strange. And we, so all we have for her are three extremely late sources that claim Katherine Phillips was married to Hyrum the first that we’ll go into when we’re talking about mercy. The first is mercy. Thompson’s Tal Temple lot testimony that we’ll talk about in a little while. Then we have Catherine’s very strange affidavits 1902 and 1902 or 1903. These were made when she was 83 or 84 years old and she would die two years later. We’ll go ahead and start with this first affidavit. This one is dated November 7th 1902 and it was notarized by James James Jack. Just a quick overview. You can zoom in and read it if you want to. It gives her parents and birth date followed by shorthand. I was curious about this. So I messaged the amazing Lege Carruth, the expert on shorthand to ask if she could decipher it. And I was so happy that she responded very quickly and told me that it is Pitman shorthand and told me what it says. It says, quote, my present residence is East Mill Creek, Salt Lake City, Utah. That’s very helpful because it helps us know that this one was indeed the first affidavit because the next affidavit incorporates that part that was only written in shorthand in this one. So, um despite the dating problems, we know that this affidavit was written first. Well, when we get the others, you’ll see what I’m talking about. It goes on to say I was married to Hyrum Smith, brother of the prophet Joseph Smith as his plural wife and lived with him as his wife. It says Joseph performed the ceiling, August 43. It doesn’t give an exact date in the red brick store. It claims that brother and sister Stone were living there at the time and that Catherine’s mother along with Sister Stone and her daughter, he were the witnesses to the ceiling. Then it makes this strange claim, quote, in consequence of the strong feeling manifested at the time against plural marriage and those suspected of having entered into it. I with my mother moved to Saint Louis near the close of the year. And that would have been just a few months after the supposed plural marriage where I was living when the prophet Joseph and my husband were massacred. The purpose of this affidavit is that my testimony to the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage may live after I shall have passed away. And it is, and in this spirit, I commend it to all to whom it may come. This is very strange that she would give this fervent testimony recommending plural marriage when she apparently never lived it, she claims to have immediately moved away after marrying Hyrum. And so she didn’t live in plural marriage with Hyrum and his other wife or wives. And then she seems to have never married again. Surely there would have been plenty men willing to marry the widow of Hyrum. Especially considering we claim that that was one of the central reasons polygamy was necessary right to care for the widows every time I hear that so frustrating, you do not need to marry widows in order to care for them. And as if widows were actually provided for and cared for in early Utah. And as if the polygamous men were only ma marrying or even wanting to marry widows at all, ok, So, anyway, I guess, I guess in order to care for widows you either had to marry them or have them claim that they had been married to your church’s founders. That’s what it looks like. So, anyway, it is also strange that she would claim she and her mother had to be
[01:08:46] secreted away to Saint Louis when nobody was aware of their secret plural marriage. And as we’ll see another supposed wife claimed to actually move in with hi and live there as his wife with his actual wife. Right. So, um, so it’s, it’s very strange to try to make sense of this, but apparently this affidavit for whatever reason was not sufficient. Maybe it was just that it didn’t include where she lives now. I don’t know. But for whatever reason, two additional affidavits were made either a year before or a few months later. I’m going to argue a few months later based on mainly that Pittman short and half. And these are dated January 28th and then it says 1902, which as I said, would make them first, but it is changed in pen to 1903. So unless there was some desire to backdate these, um, like they wanted to backdate them and then change their mind. My best guess on this dating, um, anomaly is that maybe since it, it was January, it was the end of January, but maybe it was one of those beginning of the year brain cramps when you just typed the old year and then didn’t redo it, which you would think you would do on an official legal document. So I’m not, that is a little bit strange, but we do know that these came later. These affidavits are very similar, almost identical to the first one. It adds her current residence that, that Pitman shorthand and it adds the names Robert and Julia Stone, but not typed in. It’s written in after the fact in pen, it looks at your same pen that is also used to change the date and that the notary public used for his signature. It also changes out the word massacred for martyred and it is signed by a different notary public. It’s John Mettle instead of James Jack. So this is very interesting and I have to agree with what Whitney Horning said in the paper that she wrote that I’m going to attach, I’m going to quote her here. She said I do not know what to make of two affidavits type written on two D on two different dates and witnessed by two different judges. But with the same wording, it does not make sense to me. And I think that is very well said, it does not make sense to me either. Um And, and also this, this question of two affidavits being made, maybe that’s another reason that it had to be redone because it seems like they always made two affidavits, two identical affidavits or two identical copies when they were talking about polygamy. And I haven’t figured that out yet. I find it to be very strange and very interesting. So, um I was curious, it’s about the witnesses, Julia Robert and Hetty Stone. Maybe because I have a daughter named Julia Stone. No, it’s not really. I just thought that that was funny but the most insightful information I could find about Robert Stone comes from the council of 50 minutes. March 1st 1845 the minutes say quote, council adjourned five minutes during which time a collection was taken to purchase Father Stone’s family, some provisions as they are in want. And the footnote that says probably Robert Stone, a 67 year old barber and high priest living in Nauvoo. And that’s clearly the same Robert Stone. I couldn’t find any evidence of them ever living in the red brick store. I didn’t know that that was used as a residence, but that’s what Catherine said. So and, and they were in want. So I guess it’s possible. Um Julia Stone, the wife, I found that she was admitted to the Relief Society April 14th, 1842. So whoever added these names and they were, they did seem to be genuine people that was about all that I could find until I noticed this. And let me go ahead and again, share my screen. This is Robert Stone’s family search record and we’ll go down here and you can see that he actually had had two previous wives. He had married Sarah Cartwright and she passed away in 1819. Then he married Mary Maria Smith and she passed away in 1821. And Julia Stone was actually his third wife. He married her in 1826 and they had five Children. That was really interesting to me because Robert Stone was a twice widowed man. Julia was his third wife. If they had been present for Joseph’s sealing Hyrum to Catherine, they would have certainly been polygamy insiders and having two deceased wives would make Robert Stone a prime candidate for proxy ceiling at eternal polygamy, which is what people are claiming that that Hyrum was saying and doing right yet, Ju so Julia Stone and Hetty Stone apparently were present for this marriage and they were polygamy insiders yet, Robert was not sealed to his two deceased wives and his one living wife until two years later, when Brigham was doing ordinances in the Navoo temple after Joseph and Hyrum were dead. It seems very difficult to explain why Joseph and Hyrum would have made the Stone family polygamy insiders and had them stand as witnesses to Hyrum’s plural marriage without also sealing them. I find that to be very interesting. It is even more strange that Hetty is listed as a witness. Her name was actually Heta Stone. She was a nine year old little girl at the time. So again, this super secret polygamy where even Joseph Smith the third, who would have been 10, nearly 11 at this time and was nearly 12 at the time of his father’s death, he was kept out of the loop and only the most trust it could be brought into the secret. Yet this little girl, most likely a schoolmate of the, of Joseph’s Children was made a polygamy insider and was used as a witness to this ordinance. She would have been a schoolmate with both Joseph’s and
[01:14:36] Hyrum’s Children. They both had Children the same age, right? Explain that to me how that’s going to work. It would be hard to get more strange than that, but it does because he was the youngest child, Robert who was 25 years older than his third wife. Julia had 4 to 5 living Children from his first wife. We don’t know because some of the death records were not clear on, but he had either four or five living Children from his first wife, one or two living Children with his second wife and Julia. And he had three living Children at this time. They had five total, one had passed away and one hadn’t been born yet. They, their 15 year old daughter, Julia named for her mother was living there and was 15 and then 13 year old Francis who died two years later. So she was not known in Utah and their youngest nine year old Heda, we have to wonder if they needed to use one of the Children as a witness. Why it wouldn’t have been at the very least 15 year old Julia. We also have to wonder why, you know, she wouldn’t have been given as a plural wife to one of these, uh, to Hyrum or Joseph because that’s what the story say that they were doing. Uh, the most likely reason that they used Hena instead of Julia. The most likely reason that I can see seems to be that Julia was still alive and well and living in Utah at the time that Catherine filled out this affidavit or the time that this affidavit was created while Heda had died just a few years earlier. So she couldn’t be sought out for verification, which is what the R LDS were doing. They were looking to verify these documents and try to um back up and, and figure this all out and see if the evidence was well supported. And so if someone has a better explanation of why the affidavit says Heda was the witness rather than Julia. If we really believe that, that’s what um Joseph and Hyrum did. We can discuss that to me. That seems to be a very good explanation of why they claim a nine year old little girl was witnessed to a, a super secret polygamy um marriage. So, let’s see. OK, now we’ll go to another source. That’s everything from the affidavits she is also however discussed in Joseph Fielding Smith’s um 1905 pamphlet, Blood atonement and the origin of plural marriage, which I also will be doing an episode on because it’s fascinating. This was just two or three years after her affidavit. So they were immediately made. Oh, it was just years because that was 1903. So, and this was 1905. So this was, that I was immediately made use of because he, he um quotes the affidavit in this book. But um I’ll just quote a little bit of the back and forth about Catherine that. So what this book is is it starts out with, um it’s publishing letters supposedly back and forth from some of the R LDS members and some of the leaders of the church, particularly Joseph F Smith. So I’ll quote, this is a quote from a letter that Joseph F Smith wrote to R LDS Apostle RC Evans concerning his visit to Utah. He says you met Catherine Phillips Smith who told you she was married in August 1843 in Nauvoo to the patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph, the prophet officiating in that ceremony. Um Richard C Evans response. It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father’s parlor as she came slowly and for prayers. Your father said this is Katherine Phillips Smith. She was married to my father Hyrum Smith and she has never married since I am sure that the old lady heard, I am, I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It is certain that she did not testify to me, but it was your father who made the statement and at once called us all to prayer. Thus preventing me from speaking to the old lady. So you can decide who you want to believe, right? If it goes on, this is published again by Joseph Fielding Smith. So it’s definitely leaning in the favor of the LDS claims, but it goes on back and forth with a, he said, she said, and just leaves you deciding who to believe about Catherine Phillip Smith. As I said, Joseph Fielding Smith copied Catherine’s affidavit that second version into his book. But he footnoted it with this play. This is written as a footnote under Catherine’s aff sometime during the month of September 4 members of the reorganized church called on Catherine Phillips Smith in her home in East Jordan with the object in view of having her deny her testimony regarding her marriage to the patriarch Hyrum Smith, which she resolutely refused to do. Then it goes on to quote her with this, it says in a statement given on September 24th, 2 days before her death, she said, speaking of Catherine, they tried to get me to tell a lie and deny that I was married to the patriarch Hyrum Smith, but I would not do it. I never have lied and will not. Now my affidavit is true. They asked me if my mother knew of my marriage. And I told them that, that the patriarch asked my mother if she was willing for him to marry her daughter. And she said he could ask the daughter and she could do as she pleased. I told them that the prophet Joseph sealed me to the patriarch Hyrum Smith as his wife for time and for all eternity. And they tried to get me to deny it and I would not do it for it is true. I told them the truth. They annoyed me very much and I finally told them to leave my house and never enter it again. So um I want and I shouldn’t smile, but I, I did look into this. Um There’s no information about who they claim went to see her two days before her death to take this statement. There’s no record of it anywhere else but more troubling. I want to share this
[01:20:15] her death certificate. I looked up, I hope you can see it. It lists peritonitis as the cause of death. Peritonitis. I I had to put my MD hat and do some deep medical research, but I was shocked by what I found. Peritonitis is infection of the stomach lining. This is not simply dying from old age. This is an incredibly painful way to die. The symptoms include swelling and severe pain in the abdominal cavity fever. Chills, nausea, vomiting and think about that with severe abdominal pain that is excruciatingly painful. It says especially with any touching of the abdomen or any movement. Can you imagine vomiting while being in that much pain, extreme fatigue, extreme thirst with hydration with dehydration because all of the liquid in your body is all um going into your abdomen. It’s built, it’s, that’s what’s causing the swelling in the abdomen. Um Then it leads to hepatic encephalopathy. I hope I’m saying that right? Hepatic encephalopathy, that’s when your brain stops working because of the build up of toxins um caused by your liver ceasing to function. It causes trouble thinking or focusing disorientation, loss of general awareness, loss of memory, severe confusion, confusion and unconsciousness. Then finally, when you’re dealing with peritonitis that is not treated on the last day or two sepsis sets in, you go into shock and then organ failure and then death. That is what it’s like to, to um die from peritonitis. Thankfully, it can usually be treated now, but it’s important to get early treatment. I found out even even today, this is a very serious condition. I find it is interesting that the footnote I just read implies that the R LDS missionaries in sensitively harassed Catherine as an old woman when they claim to have gone to her bedside to take a statement from her when she would have been in absolute agony in the acute stages of peritonitis. And likely by that point, hepatic encephalopathy, possibly she would not even have been coherent enough to make any reliable statement. Certainly she would have been in absolute agony. But, and yet they go, they claim that they went to her bedside to take a statement on thoral marriage with her in this condition. I think that’s ridiculous. I think I would need to see better verification for that if, if there are any medical doctors who can correct anything. I’ve said this is just based on Doctor Google. I did research it a lot and I did read several um studies and good sources from very reputable websites, but I am open to hearing something different if there’s something that I’m not understanding. So, um anyway, I, I think that that is pretty good evidence that we should look at at, at what these people were doing, right? Of course, there is no evidence of any kind of any marriage between her and Hyrum. There are no Children, no records, no letters, no journals, no notes and no witnesses alive that can support the claim, right? The the claim wasn’t made until all of the witnesses for it were dead. Kind of defeats the purpose of witnesses. All of this should be more than enough reason to consider the claim that Katherine Phillips Smith was a plural wife of Hyrum Smith to be extremely suspect, to put it mildly. So that’s looking at the one eternal wife. We claim that Hyrum said, we’ll also go on to look at one more source that I think invalidates that claim when we get to it in just a few minutes. So that’s, that’s the first wife and the only eternal wife, Catherine Phillip Smith. Now we’ll move on to Mary Mercy fielding the only other wife we claim was married to Hyrum polygamous. So we have many more statements for mercy than we do from Catherine. So let’s see. I’ll go ahead and show. First of all, we also have the two copies of her affidavit which she did fill out in 1869. This is series one and series two. They always need to, she was 63 at the time that this affidavit was created. It’s the same boilerplate language 11th day of August 1843 in the city of Navoo. She was married or sealed to Hyrum Smith four time by Joseph Smith in the presence of Mary Smith. Um It’s the only affidavit I remember seeing that specifies a ceiling for time. And that’s really important to, to think about if anyone else, if, if I’m forgetting an affidavit, another affidavit for time, please let me know. But it’s really important to realize this is the only affidavit of anyone claiming to be married to Hyrum polygamous and it’s only for time. So what is the point of Hyrum’s polygamous polygamy anyway, because it really was about ceilings for the next life, right? In fact, many people argue that these ceilings were only for eternity. That that’s, that’s what the women were doing. I completely disagree with that. There is no better evidence to claim that they were sealed than there is to claim that they were married. And it still doesn’t account for the women like mercy and Catherine and several of Joseph’s wives who testified that they lived actually as a wife that they were, were intimate with their polygamist husbands, right? So, so I don’t buy that.
[01:25:42] But in any case, this one creates a whole other problem for that scenario. So this is really interesting. We claim that Heber married that both Brigham and Heber married Joseph’s many widows, quote four time in service to Joseph Smith to raise up seed for him. That’s, that’s what the story is about them marrying all of Joseph’s widows, right? But that sentiment certainly doesn’t come through their sermons when they’re talking about building up their own kingdoms and how they viewed polygamy. It doesn’t sound to me like they are claiming that they’re building up Joseph Smith’s kingdom. At least, not very often. That’s not the impression that you get, they seem to be very proud of their own numerous posterity. But um in any case with this, it would seem that we are putting Hyrum in the same sort of inferior position to Robert that, that Heber and Brigham were claiming that they were into Joseph Smith by marrying their widows to raise a seed to to right. Hyrum is raising up seed to Robert. That’s really interesting to consider. But in any case, this, as I said, leaves Hyrum with one eternal plural wife Katherine Phillips with her dubious and unsupported claims. But in addition to this early affidavit, we have four additional sources of mercy’s claims which follow the same pattern we see in other stories like the angel with the flaming sword, they seem to become more and more exaggerated over time. So we’ll go ahead with this one. It, in 1880 at 74 years old, she wrote this autobiographical sketch. This I didn’t include all 12 of the pages. It takes a lot of time to make these slides. So this is only three of the 12 pages on this slide. But this autobiography makes it clear how much she loved and admired her husband Robert Thompson and claims she was um and then it also claims that she was a plural wife to hire him. That’s what much of what is in his autobiography. It only, that only covers a little bit of she talks much more about other things like starting the Penny Fund for the Relief Society and claiming to um have been recording some of, of Hyrum’s patriarchal blessings. So it’s an interesting source to read, but I’m just going to quote this part, this part, August 27th, 1841 I was then left a widow with my little girl who was very feeble. Speaking about um about her husband Robert Thompson’s death. To me, it was a lonesome life deprived of the society of my husband whose light could rarely be found. I believe all who knew him would agree with me in saying that in meekness, humility and integrity, he could not easily, he could not be easily excelled. If equaled, being deprived of the society of such a husband caused me to mourn so deeply that my health was much impaired. On the 11th of August 1843 I was called by direct revelation from heaven through brother Joseph, the prophet to enter into a state of plural marriage with Hyrum Smith, the patriarch. Soon after marriage, I became an inmate with my sister in the house of Hyrum Smith, where I remained until his death, sharing with my sister the care of his numerous family. So that the only portion I read is where she claims to have been married to Hyrum Smith and become his literal wife and move in with him. So again, there are some problems with this that I want to just look at first polygamy was super secret. So it would be strange for her to move in to live as a plural wife, expecting to have Children as she claims in that affidavit. And another source will look into also to the time of her death. She never took any last name other than Thompson, right? So we have Katherine Phillips Smith claiming to have been Hyrum’s wife. But then we have mercy Thompson claiming to have married Hyrum just for time and moved in with him and Mary Anne lived as a wife. Um But more to the point, we can go to the diary of her brother Joseph Fielding who kept extensive journals throughout most of his life. It looks like, but certainly throughout this time. And I think that helps us dispense with these claims. I have to say about these, these Joseph Fielding journals reading through them has been fascinating and I am desperate to write a paper on them. If there’s anybody who’s looking for topic for the Journal of Mormon Polygamy or, or just a historical topic to cover, digging into the journals of Joseph Fielding, I think would be a fantastic exploration. It’s, it’s so fascinating. I’m really excited about it and intrigued by it. So I’ll just put that out there. If someone wants to get to it before I’m able to, I would love to um read what somebody does on those on those journals because I don’t think they’ve been written on, which seems to be a shame that surprised me. So anyway, let’s go on and talk about Joseph fielding what he wrote. He refers repeatedly to his sisters. He has a lot to say about them and about his life and about things that are happening. So he wrote about learning of Robert Thompson’s death and refers to quote my sister now widow Thompson.
[01:30:36] He writes much about Hyrum and plenty about both of his sisters. Mercy and Mary, but he never says anything that could even remotely imply that Mercy married or even moved in with Hyrum and married during Hyrum’s life. And no, he doesn’t say mercy. Never married Hyrum because he wouldn’t need to. Right. There’s not an actual denial but you can read through these journals and see that there’s no mention of any of this happening and that many, none of it ever happened. He wrote about himself living on Hyrum. Hyrum was his brother-in-law, right? He writes about living on his land and um and he writes extensively about the plot by the expositor gang, then about the martyrdom and much else. But again, nothing about mercy marrying Hyrum or moving in with them or mourning his death. Nothing about any of that that you could ever believe that mercy was his wife, right? He does write of her when he’s writing about the Nabu Temple. He says, quote my sister, mercy R. Thompson is regular employ. I regularly employed there washing et cetera. He had referred to as widow Thompson, right? Mercy R Thompson is widow Thompson writing um writing of of a time later in 1846 or 1847. He says my two sisters Smith and Thompson and myself with our families had just gotten over the Mississippi river with all our good. So as I said, he writes a lot about. Mercy calls her either widow Thompson or Mrs Thompson or Sister Thompson throughout. And it, he, it’s really interesting because he refers to her as a widow. And then only after Hyrum’s death, does he say my two widowed sisters? That doesn’t mean that they are both Hyrum’s widows. It means that now both of his sisters have been widowed because Mercy was widowed earlier and then Mary was widowed later. Anyway, I think that this is a really interesting source that helps us see, we always say we have no journals from this time. Well, we found one of the brother of the supposed plural wife of Mercy who see to be intimately involved with their lives and know much he lived on Hyrum’s property when Mercy would have been living in the home and says nothing about it. One other thing I find interesting in this journal, what, what I find most interesting about it. You can read his journey through polygamy he seems to have believed known about and believed in polygamy quite early on and he had no objection to it, right? So you also can’t say that he was kept out of the loop that because he, he became a polygamist quite early on. So we’ll go back now to Mercy’s autobiography. She shares this testimony at the end which again, I think we should pay attention to. I know I have not followed cunningly devised fables. I know too that if I had not embraced the gospel, as revealed to Joseph Smith, the prophet in these last days and endeavored to live up to its, to the requirements of the law of God. I could never be permitted to dwell in the presence of God in his celestial kingdom. Now, that’s really interesting. I agree with her about the gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith. But when she talks about the requirements of the law of God that are required to dwell in his presence, that’s talking about polygamy, right? That’s like we’ve talked about Section 132 always talks about the law and that’s what they mean by that. This is a very interesting testimony since again, mercy never seems to have actually supported polygamy and doesn’t seem to have actually lived it. Um I I will point out just on the fly also remember that when we claim that Hyrum married both of these two sisters, while the polygamist tried to point to the Old Testament to justify polygamy. There is an absolute prohibition even in polygamy against marrying sisters. So you can’t have it both ways. Polygamist, you can’t have it both ways. You’ve got to decide you use the Old Testament or are you not? Because this doesn’t work. But back to this topic, it is very interesting that Mercy would claim to give her testimony of the principle of plural marriage and being so glad that she lived up to it and believing it was required to be in the presence of God because she actually wouldn’t qualify for the blessings of polygamy as, as they were understood at the time. First of all, she was only sealed to her husband Robert Thompson, who wasn’t sealed to any other women. Right? So, so her eternal polygamy at this point is not happening. Well, at any point, unless someone starts giving him lives at some point, but she wasn’t an eternal polygamist. Also, it’s interesting to look at her actual lived experience with polygamy. So she was sealed for time to John Taylor in 1846 in the temple. But she almost immediately divorced him and then monogamous. She married a man named Jam James Lawson in 1847. Interestingly, while she was very happy to talk about her marriage to um Hyrum Smith and, and living with him literally as a wife and all of those things. She was very happy to talk about that when they started to ask about her other marriages and divorces, she clammed up and did not want to talk about it at all, which I find really interesting, but it appears that not only did she not stay with um John Taylor, she did not stay with James Lawson. Um she, he ended up taking plural wives and she was not one of them in the 1850 census. She is still listed as mercy Thompson. She never took another last name and she is listed with her daughter Mary next to her brother Joseph Fielding. So she seems to be living either near or with him in Iron County,
[01:36:01] which is not where James Lawson was living. Her daughter, a man named David Taylor, no relation to John Taylor, the president, her ex-husband. Now he married, she married David Taylor in 1859. And beginning with the 1860 census, mercy is recorded as living with them with her um daughter and son in law. David died in 1871. And mercy continued to live with her daughter Mary until her death in 1893 the year after she testified in the temple lot case. So she was apparently never actually willing to live in polygamy. And in addition, in her letters to her sister Mary, she seems to disapprove and think that her brother Joseph Fielding’s polygamy is distasteful. She refers to his wives, not as his wives, but as his women. Right? So, so again, mercy is a complicated figure. She’s not an eternal poma, she’s not an eternal wife with Hyrum Smith. And these are the two wives that the church gives to Hyrum. But let’s look at the rest of mercy sources. We’ll go over those quickly. Next. Um We have a copy of a letter that she purportedly wrote to Joseph Smith the third where her claims get more specific and exaggerated. And I did want to um get evidence of whether this was actually sent I’ve sent a message to, um, the R LDS historian to see if this is in of Smith, the third’s files because that’s who she sent it to. But I sent it too late on the weekend and she hasn’t been able to respond yet. So I will get you this information when I’m able to, maybe I’ll add it down in the notes if she has a copy of this letter. I think that that would be very interesting. I actually did hear back from the fantastic community of Christ archivist Rachel Kil Brew. She got back to me in time for me to release this and she says that they actually do not have any reference to mercy fielding Thompson in their catalog. So this doesn’t prove that the letter wasn’t sent, but it is interesting that all we have of it is a copy and we don’t have any original and we have no evidence that Joseph Smith the third ever received it. So that makes this source just a little bit more questionable in my opinion. But again, this is the letter that mercy sent. Well, this is a copy of a letter she apparently wrote to Joseph Smith the third talking about her plural marriage. And I’ll just again wrote quote the pertinent parts, nearly two years after Robert Thompson, her husband died. Um She says nearly two years after his death, your father, that would be Joseph Smith told me that my husband had appeared to him several times telling him that he did not wish me to live such a lonely life and him to request your Uncle Hyrum to have me sealed to him for time. So now the story is that Robert Thompson, her dead husband came to Joseph Smith several times. Um a little later, the letter says he told me that the last time my husband appeared to him, he came with such power that it made him tremble. So this is where her story sounds very close to the angel with the sword. That right, the last time he had a drawn or flaming sword. So his visits came with increasing intensity to along the slow to obey prophet. That’s the story we now have from mercy as well regarding her husband giving divine commands to Joseph Smith. Hyrum communicated this to his wife, my sister who by request, opened the subject to me. So Joseph told Hyrum about Robert Thompson’s angelic visits. Hyrum told Mary and Mary told mercy and then I’m quoting again, your father sealed me up. Your father sealed me to your Uncle Hyrum for time in my sister’s room with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resurrection to Robert Blasco Thompson with whatever offspring should be the result of that union. So again, he’s Hyrum is going to deliver up um Mary to her and mercy to her proper. Um I guess I was going to say owner but I guess we could say partner. Right. So that’s how it makes it sound. I, again, just want to point out how strange this ceiling For Time by Joseph Smith is. This claim is very strange. There is nothing sealing for time in section 132. Right. Well, I mean, not to mention the fact that all of the plural wives are supposed to be virgins. That was a really important part or they would be destroyed, right? But as usual, apparently none of the stories need to make sense. There doesn’t need to be any consistency when it comes to the polygamy narrative. So we’ll continue on with the story at the same time, counseling your uncle to build a room for me and move me over as soon as convenient, which he did. And I remained there as a wife, the same as my sister to the day of his death. So in this version, she moved in at the time of her ceiling for time to Hyrum and only lived there until the time of his death or lived there until the time of his death. So finally and most amusing of all, we have Mercy’s 8 90 1892 Temple Lot testimony. This again was just a year before she died. And uh this one is hard to read the I I read the entire testimony spent way too much time on this. But it’s really interesting again, so filled with contradictions. So um she first of all claims at early in her testimony that polygamy was taught openly and generally known N
[01:41:19] VU. And then a little, just almost immediately she asks the privilege of having Joseph F Smith, her nephew correct anything she gets wrong. It becomes very apparent that Joseph F Smith is sitting there along with her daughter Mary and she’s getting signals from them and looking to them for information, they have things that they add to her testimony. So it’s helpful to read it with that understanding. I just wanted to point out a little more clearly why this is so important. The reason that mercy is on the witness stand is because she is the one who supposedly witnessed these events who was there and present for them and experienced them. So that’s why she can bear witness to them. Joseph F Smith was a very little boy, three or four years old Mary was an infant. So the fact that mercy is relying on Joseph F Smith and her daughter Mary who do not have firsthand information about these events. The fact that she’s relying on them to make sure she gets her story straight should be very telling her eyewitness memories are not what any of them are relying on for her testimony. So we’ll start on question 30. I’ll just read a couple of questions 3740. Then we’ll skip up to 94 and then go to the to 580. So I’m just taking snippets throughout to give you a little bit of a taste. So can you state the names of any witnesses that were present at her marriage? And she answers, they are all dead. This again goes to um their choices of witnesses, right? So when she’s asked to name that any witnesses, she says they are all dead, who was present. Well, my sister of course, was present but she is dead now and there was no one alive at all. Now that was present for they are all dead. So again, how are they choosing their witnesses to attach to these marriages? So, and that was on um, that was the direct examination. This is now the cross examination that was with the friend, the attorney. This is um the cross examination that I’ll start reading. This is question 94. Yes. With whom did you live or reside after the death of your husband? So this is when she became a widow. I lived with my sister after her husband was martyred. So in this one, she claims that she moved in with Mary after Hyrum’s death. But now we’ll go ahead and go forward to question 580 because this is where it gets really interesting. So I’ll read quite a bit from here on out. Did Hyrum Smith have any other wife at the time that you were his wife? Not at the time you married him while you while you were married him at any time, while you were married him? And did I not tell you my sister was his wife. Well, any others. No, sir. I don’t think he had, I don’t know, but I don’t think he had, did Hyrum Smith have any wife other than you yourself at the time that you were his wife? Well, he had my sister, I have told you that a dozen times. Did he have anyone else as his wife at that time? Besides yourself and your sister? None that I know of but you and your s none but you and your sister. No, sir. Then Hyrum Smith never had any wives but you and your sister accepting the one that died before you married him to your knowledge. I mean, I don’t know if other than that, that he had, those were all you have ever, those were all you ever had any knowledge of? Yes, sir. That is all. Well, sir. Well, now I wish to explain Byron Smith and, and I, this is me, you know, but you have to imagine when she has this big of a change that maybe someone gave her a signal from the audience, a clear throat or something else, who knows why she suddenly, um, did this little turnaround that we’ll see here. That is all. Well, sir. Well, now I wish to explain Hyrum Smith after I was married to him, took other wives. Well, why did you not state that at the time I asked you the question. Well, at the time you asked me the question, I understood that you reference that you referred to the time that I was married to him and whether he had any other wives at that time beside myself and my sister, and I told you that he had not. Well, then he married the other wives after you were married to him. Yes, sir. So now this is interesting to, again, if you’ll recall family search lists, Catherine Phillips of having as having been married to Hyrum Smith first. So Mercy’s testimony is problematic either way because first she claims that she was the only plural wife, which would mean that Hyrum had no eternal wives. But then she says, oh, he, he might have had other wives but after I was married to him, so she’s getting tied up in knots a little bit. Um Let’s see. Well, then he married other wives after you were married to him. Yes, sir. How many did he have? Well, I don’t know, I don’t know how many he had for. I never asked him but he had several. Can you tell me any of them? I don’t know, I mean any of them that he married after he married you, he married one by the name of Miss Perry. Now again, there is no account of a Miss Perry anywhere. And I have to believe that if this were John Bennett or someone else. We would all have Miss Perry as one of Hyrum wives and we’d all be looking for who she might be. Right. There was one by the name of Miss Perry, but I can’t who they were for. I don’t remember them all. And then we go on, um, when did he marry her? Well, there was Catherine Phillips also. He, he, he married her too. Um, the name and then this is actually written in the record. The name of Catherine Phillips was suggested to her by her daughter. So again, we see the help that she is getting with her testimony. So when she said Catherine Phillips, that’s why I, I imagine that’s why she ignored the question that he asked. She didn’t, she, he said, when did he marry Miss? And she says, well, there was Catherine Phillips also.
[01:46:33] And in the very record it says that Catherine Phillips was suggested to her by her daughter. When did he marry her? It was in a year or thereabouts after he married me? Well, he was dead in less than a year after he married you. Well, it was not a year, but it was pretty soon afterwards. You have concluded that it was not a year after he married you that he married Katherine Phillips. Yes, sir. It could not be a year. And I remember that it was pretty soon after he married me that he married her. When did he marry Miss Perry. I can’t tell you that for, I don’t remember. Well, was it after he married you? Yes, sir. Did Miss Perry live in the house where, um, live in the house there with you? Yes, sir. Did you ask me if she lived in the house with me? So, uh, maybe there was another clear throat there. Who knows? Yes, sir or ma’am. I mean the lawyer said, um, no, sir. She did not. She was living with her mother and still continued to live there and she still continued to live there together. Were you present at the wedding? No, sir. You were not present at the wedding and consequently did not see them married and yet you were say they, you say they were married. Yes, sir. Well, how do you know they were married? He told me who told you Hyrum Smith? Well, that don’t make it a matter of your own personal knowledge that they were married. Well, he told me so and I believed him for, I don’t think he would tell me anything about it, but what was the truth? I don’t think he would lie about it at all. Now, remember this is right after her testimony saying there were no other wives, none that I knew of. He never had any other wives. Now, she knows for certain that he married Miss Perry, right? Do you know anything about it? Except from what he and somebody else told you? Yes, sir. I know it for. She told me so herself and she came to the house there where I was and stayed with me quite a little while and told me all about herself. How long did she stay there? Well, she just called there for, she did not live there at all, but she called and told me all about it. Did you ever have any talk with her? Except, except that one time. Yes, sir. I did when I can’t tell you, but on the n number of occasions I did for, I was quite sociable with her. Well, do you know anything about his marriage to her? Except what she told you that is aside from what she told you. Yes, sir. Well, what it was that what he told me for, he told me that he had married her and that was enough. He lived with her as his wife too. Well, I, I know that he married her and that she was his wife and that ought to be enough. Now, there was another lady besides Miss Perry that he married. Yes, sir. Who was the other lady? Catherine Phillips? When did he marry her? I don’t know. Was it after he married you? Yes, sir. How long after he married you? I don’t know. Well, about how long was it after he married you before he married Katherine Phillips? Approximately approximately I need for, I’m not asking you to tell to the day or an hour. Well, I can’t say, I don’t know, but it could not have been very long. It must have been shortly afterwards. So again, like Catherine’s testimony and her half David only says that it was sometime in August family search puts her as a August 1st at August 1st mercy first said there were no wives. Then when she came up with Catherine Phillips, she said it was a year after, when the lawyer pointed out Hyrum was dead by that point. She said it was at some point after a while after that, it was shortly after. So this is, this is what we have, right? We’re still with shortly after. Well, did he live with her as his wife? I can’t say anything about that. Were you present at the wedding? No, sir. Now you do not. Now you, now how do you know he was married to her by his word and her word? Did she go by the name of S Smith after he married her? Because remember this is Catherine Smith, right? Did she go by the name of Smith? I guess so. Well, did she, I have frequently heard her calls Mrs Smith where at Nauvoo? When by different persons when you lived in Nauvoo and when Hyrum was living there where she called Mrs Smith, I don’t know anything about it. There is no use asking these questions over and over again for I am telling you the truth. The very best. I know how and there is no use in repeating over and over again these questions. She’s getting flustered. That’s what happens when you get caught trapped in this dishonesty, right? Um I will ask if you ever went by the name of Smith while you were there. No, sir. What did you go by? I went by the name of Thompson. You were never called Mrs Smith. No, sir. And your sister was called by the name of Mrs Smith. Yes, sir. She was, yes, sir. She was always called Mrs Smith because she was his first wife. In other words, his only wife, right? Well, were there other ladies that you say he married called Smith that you know of, I don’t know anything about that. Now, I will ask you this question, Mrs Thompson. Were these all the women including yourself that Hyrum Smith had as wives up to the time of his death? I don’t know. I can’t say, well, is that all you know anything about? No sir? For there are several whose names I cannot recollect. There was a lady that lived a little ways west from our
[01:51:17] house that he married and I can’t think of their names. Well, you, you can refresh your recollection by asking your daughter. I know he had quite a number of wives, but as to knowing so that I can state all their names, I can’t do it. That is all there is to it if I had to suffer for it, I can’t tell their names and I ought to remember them too. So, that is her very interesting testimony about Hyrum and his wives. Right. I hope that, I don’t know. I’d like to hear if people perceive this differently than I do. I think it’s somewhat amusing and rather clear where the truth lies and where the truth doesn’t lie. So, um, ok, I think that’s it for the evidence of the two wives that Hyrum, I mean that the church counts for Hyrum Smith. I think that that’s everything we have. I’ve tried to be completely comprehensive even at the expense of taking extra time. But what makes the story of Hyrum wives that the church acknowledges even more odd is the evidence that is missing the two women, the church claims as Hyrum floral wives were the only two possible wives that were not sealed to him in the Navoo temple. Is it that interesting? This is very difficult to explain. So it, and, and we can look at the reasons that it might be and the reasons that it’s not one possibility that I considered, but then had to realize it’s not the reason. It’s that Catherine for some reason, just wasn’t there to go through the temple. Maybe she was still in Saint Louis or maybe for some other reason, she didn’t get back to Nauvoo in order to go through the temple, but just came straight to Utah. But, but that is not the case because Catherine is listed as having received her endowment on February 3rd. So she isn’t absent from the records of the Navoo temple ordinances despite saying she moved to Saint Louis with her mother. If it’s, if it’s the same woman, she apparently moved back to Navoo and was able to go through the temple, but she was um she received her endowment. But as a wife of Hyrum wasn’t sealed by proxy to Hyrum and sealed to anybody else. That’s really interesting, right? In fact, if you look at her um family search record, you can look at her ordinances. Her ceiling to Hyrum was not done until 1995 in the Jordan River temple. So somebody must have dug out that affidavit or something else and thought, oh look, Hyrum had a wife that was never sealed to him. So her work was done in 1995. That’s really interesting. So um that was while I was at BYU that her work was being done. Mercy was also not sealed to Hyrum as a wife. We can presume that’s because she was sealed to him only for time. But strangely, she was adopted to him as a daughter and her husband Robert Thompson with John Taylor standing proxy was adopted to him as a son. That was really interesting and blew my mind that mercy was not sealed as a wife but was adopted as a daughter by proxy in the Navoo temple. So, it made me laugh. I thought it’s too bad that, uh, mercy and Hyrum didn’t have any Children because Hyrum could have been sealed as his own children’s grandfather. Right? If that’s how that worked. But anyway, um, that seems very strange that a plural wife and her first deceased husband would be adopted as a son and daughter to her second to her second husband. So, um, it is possible that someone might want to argue that this is a way to still be attached to the family despite not being married. But that would be very difficult to explain because why were they just, why weren’t they just adopted into the family while he was alive? Right. Hyrum was Mercy’s brother-in-law. So they could have been adopted at any time. They wouldn’t have waited, waited to be adopted to him after he died. And why not just be adopted rather than sealed for time if we’re talking about anything having to do with covenants or ordinances or eternity, which is what polygamy is supposed to be completely about. In addition, um Mercy and by proxy to um Robert Thompson were only two of 13 people other than Hyrum and Jerusha, five Children that were adopted by proxy to Hyrum and Jerusha in the Navoo Temple. That’s really interesting, especially because only one person seems to have been sealed by proxy to Joseph Smith, John Bernheisel, the missing husband of Melissa lot that we talked about right. But um so none of these people were sealed to Hyrum as spouses. None of these adopted things had anything to do with any kind of plural marriage. So it makes way more sense to just see mercy as Hyrum Smith’s sister-in-law, who wanted to be sealed to her sister’s family, her sister Mary’s family. And so decided to along with her deceased husband to be adopted to Hyrum Smith’s fam to Hyrum Smith and his wife, just like all of these other people were. I think that is a much more logical explanation of what we see in the temple records. It is very strange to see a supposed wife of Hyrum Smith being sealed as his adopted daughter. In any case. It would be very interesting to have somebody do work on these temple records to try to figure this out because I find it to be fascinating. But the last thing that we’ll look at at these episodes now that we’ve looked at the evidence for the women that we claim were Hyrum’s plural wives, although they’re completely missing from any ceilings in the temple,
[01:56:46] that would make any kind of sense for a plural wife. The last thing that we will cover are the women who were sealed to Hyrum as wives by proxy in the Navoo temple. But for some reason that I don’t understand they are not included as his wives by the church historians. I find this to be fascinating. There were several women sealed to Hyrum as wives. Um So let me share this slide here. You can see all of the women that are claimed to be Hyrum’s wives and you can see the women that w sealed to him by proxy and the N temple. The first one is Mary fielding. His actual wife was sealed to him by proxy by Brigham Young. And then we have Louisa Sanger, Susan Ivers Polly Miller Lydia Dibble and then again, Mercy and Catherine. You can see that. So that box that I highlighted in red. That’s the date that their ceiling was done in the temple. These were done in um in December of 45 through February of 46. So whatever that date gives, I’ll tell you the, the the column headings because they’re a little bit confusing. So first DB is date of birth ph is priesthood office for men. E is date of endowment in the nut temple sm. And you can see there that Catherine was endowed but not sealed. Sm is date of sealing in marriage in Navoo temple followed by the offic the initiator of the, of the initial of the officiator, a sc date of adoption or sealing of child in the Navoo temple. And essay is date of second anointing in the Navoo temple. So this is the record we have and you can see the women who were sealed in the temple by proxy to Hyrum and the date. They were sealed and who was the officiator? It seems all of Hyrum’s supposed plural wives that were sealed to him like this were widows and none of them were young. So we’ll go through them really quickly. Louisa Sanger. She was the one woman in the list who is at least younger than younger than Hyrum. She was 33 at the time. She was sealed to for it sealed to Hyrum for eternity. And to Ruben Lyme Miller, who was not her deceased husband for a time. She was one of three wives sealed to Ruben G Miller along with Rhoda. And lets um well, his, it was his actual wife and then his one eternal plural wife, Orris Burnham because again, he was sealed to Louisa only for. So we do see that these ceilings for time were happening that’s in the in in the um temple. So she was sealed to Hyrum for eternity and to this guy for time. I’m not sure why she’s not counted as Hyrum’s plural wife. Um in Nauvoo Mar um Lyndon Cook compiled a list in his book that’s called NAVOO marriages proxy ceilings that lists all of them marriages and ceilings that were happening in Navoo. And he lists her as having been sealed to Hyrum in 1843. I don’t think he gives a date and I have no idea what evidence there is to support that. But yet he’s included in, she’s included as Hyrum’s wife in his book. Yet, the church historians don’t count her. I find that really interesting. Then we’ll go to the next wife. That’s Louisa. Louisa didn’t come west. Her husband, well, her husband, four time Ruben Miller and his other wives and Children came to Utah when they eventually did, they first followed, I think, stray and then eventually came to Utah and where he took several more wives. But that shouldn’t be a reason that she’s not included because women not coming to Utah never has made them not be counted as Joseph’s plural wives, right? So, um it seems to me that we count several of Joseph Smith’s plural wives with far less evidence to support them. Then, then we have for Louisa Saner being Hyrum plural wife. So it makes me curious what the, what the requirement is, what the criteria is to determine a plural wife. But next on our list, we have 56 year old Susan Iver. She was 56 at the time. She was sealed to Edward Tuttle for time and Hyrum Smith for eternity. So, um Edward was only sealed to his actual wife, Catherine for eternity. And Susan for time in the NAU temple, Susan also didn’t come west but went to live with her daughter in Saint Louis. And there is no record anywhere of her actually being married to Hyrum, but she was sealed in the temple by proxy. Then next on our list is 54 year old Polly Miller. I wondered if this could maybe be, um, Mercy’s Miss Perry that she talked about. Although that doesn’t make any sense because she was actually 16 years older than Mercy and she was a widow, not a miss. So it seems very strange that that would be it. I, I bet, you know, that was my best guess. But again, she is universally, it is universally agreed that she was never sealed to Hyrum during his lifetime. So we have to wonder what mercy might have been talking about or where she might have even gotten that information if she was trying to say Miss Polly for Miss Perry. And she was a missus. Anyway, I have no idea, but I’ll go to her um ceiling for time in the temple. She was one of 10 women sealed to Samuel Bent while in the Navoo temple. Um He died very soon after in August of that year, but she apparently still came to Utah in 1849 and died soon after and she is sealed to Hyrum, but not included as a plural wife.
[02:02:29] And then finally, last on our list, we have um Lydia Del Granger. She was a 55 year old widow of Oliver Granger. And we need to talk about this a little bit because Oliver Granger had served very faithfully in many large responsibilities in the church, including serving multiple missions of being a high priest and a member of the High Council in Kirtland, repeatedly serving as Joseph Smith’s trusted financial representative to settle his affairs. And finally, he was appointed to preside over the entire church in Kirtland until his death in August 1841. So we have to wonder why his widow and their eight Children wouldn’t be sealed to him. Why she would instead be sealed to Hyrum. Um Cook also lists her as being sealed as a plural wife to Hyrum in 1843. Again, I have no idea what evidence there is for that to claim that Hyrum was marrying these um you know, widows in their fifties that he was doing that in Navoo. But that’s what the claim is. Um And she was, let me see if I can get to that side. She was one of at least 16 women sealed by proxy to John Taylor in um in the Navoo temple, but she was the only one sealed just for time. There are more than, than are on this slide. This is just all that I could fit on this slide. She came to Utah in 1851 and she actually served as the first relief society president of the Salt Lake 15th ward and died in 1861. So I will point out that some sources in church in the church have counted Lydia as a wife. You can see that right down there that in her um biography in the church historians press, they say that she was sealed to Hyrum, but that isn’t on the more recent, um, that isn’t in the more recent versions. And so she is now not, she, I guess she’s been divorced from Hyrum or at least excluded as his wife. And again, I’m not sure why. And the reason I wanted to go into this, it is a bit hard to why these aren’t considered Hyrum’s wives when they seem to be every bit as well supported as the wives we accept for Joseph, looking at Hyrum’s wives and the evidence that either is not or is accepted gives I think important insight into the entire polygamy narrative and how we determine Joseph’s wives. So I want to be clear, I am not at all advocating that we should attribute more wives to hire him. I am advocating that we should have a high standards and more clear standards for the wives that we attribute to Joseph Smith. We should have some more consistent standard of the criteria. We, we require to consider a woman to have been a plural wife. What I am saying is that just as we write off Orsamus Bostwick’s claims about Hyrum and almost every woman in the city of Nauvoo, we should also write off Joseph Jackson’s and John C. Bennett’s equally unsupported claims about Joseph Smith just as we don’t accept every hint of evidence for Hyrum. We shouldn’t do that for Joseph either for me after digging into this evidence, I think there is a strong case to be made that Hyrum Smith never accepted polygamy, but as the evidence strongly shows he fought it consistently until his death. I do not think we could put so much stock in Brigham Young’s dubious 1866 claim of converting Hyrum and accepting his tearful repentant apology and covenant, as I said, I will definitely cover that sermon in depth very soon. I do not think there is good evidence to claim that Hyrum ever accepted polygamy or ever had any plural wives, including Catherine and mercy. Topic of Hyrum’s polygamy is far too big to include all in one episode. So this the claims about Hyrum showing the revelation all around town and it to the High Council. I will absolutely get to in a future episode that I think you will find also extremely compelling. And in closing, I will strongly argue that anybody relying on the stories about the High Council to assert that the evidence of Hyrum’s involvement in polygamy is clear, needs to also be aware of and to include and account for all of this evidence just presented. I think all of this evidence is very important for what it tells us about Hyrum and also what it tells us about the entire polygamy narrative. So thank you again, I hope you found this information useful and helpful. I hope it will spread far and wide and I will see you next time
