Please consider supporting this podcast:
Links
Fifteen Years Among the Mormons
Ruth Vose Sayers Affidavits: Here | Here
“But one wife” examples: Here | Here
Transcript
[00:00:00] Happy Easter, and welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon polygamy, for the second part in our ongoing series on listening to women’s voices, particularly Emma Smith. I hope everybody has a beautiful holiday today. I have to say that when I decided to postpone this second part on the importance of listening to Emma’s voice and release it today, it hadn’t even occurred to me that it would be Easter. But when I did realize it, I I actually felt like it was perfect, because to me, one of the most meaningful, meaningful, and too often ignored elements of Easter is the way Jesus intentionally centered and prioritized the voices and testimonies of women by intentionally choosing women to be the first special witnesses of His resurrection. I see amazing parallels between Mary Magdalene, who, in my opinion, was very possibly married to Jesus and who was the matriarch of the gospel that Jesus established. I see parallels between her and Emma Smith, and also Eve and Noah’s wife, Sarah, Soraya, and on and on. It appears It appears to me that God sets a pattern of establishing a covenant through a covenant couple, husband and wife, mother and father, patriarch and matriarch. Um, I, I want to draw, I know everybody will hear these verses today. I hope they will, but I want to start with them here. That on Easter, it was Mary. Who came to the tomb, found it empty, and was the first to behold the risen Lord. John 10, starting at 15, says, Jesus sayeth unto her, woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She opposing him to be the gardener said unto him, Sir, if thou hast born him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. I’ve been, um, reading and looking so much into Emma’s life that as I’m reading this about Mary, I can’t help but, um, see the similarities and the heartache and the sorrow and grief at losing your loved one. Jesus sayeth unto her, Mary. She turned herself and saith unto him, Roboni, which is to say, master. Jesus eth unto her, touch me not, as I assume she um went to embrace him, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say unto them, I just realized something. Mary was the first stop, even before Jesus ascended to the Father. Jesus came to Mary. That’s really beautiful. And then he told her, he gave her a mission, right? A message to take to the disciples. He said, Go and say unto, um, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and to your Father, and to my God and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these. Things unto her. I love, I think it is exquisitely beautiful and crucially important to recognize that God chose a woman to be the first, the primary witness of the risen Lord. It is so profound.
[00:03:35] The other account included additional women that were also the first testators of the resurrection. After receiving the testimony of the resurrection from divine messengers, it says, Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary, the mother of James and the other women that were with them, told these things unto the apostles, and their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. That’s from Luke 24. How profoundly important is that verse to listen to? How the men responded to the voices and the testimonies of the women that were sent by the Lord. I think we need to pay attention to that. Jesus’s rebuke was clear, O fools and slow of heart to believe all the prophet, all that the prophets have spoken. That is how Jesus responded to those who refused to believe the testimonies of the messengers Jesus sent, who happened to be women. These women whom God had sent with the angelic message of the resurrection were among the prophets Jesus spoke of, telling the men they were fools and slow of heart in their refusal to believe them. These women’s message was consistent with all of scripture, which is what Jesus was telling them. That is true of Emma. Her message, her testimony is also consistent with all of Scripture. We need to be extremely. Cautious about throwing out the testimonies of women sent or ordained by God as these messengers were and as Emma Smith was, simply assuming that she was lying for whatever reason people want to come up with and writing off her many testimonies as idle tales and refusing to believe her is a similar rejection of a female witness called and ordained and sent by the Lord as a special witness of the truth. Mary was the primary witness chosen and sent by God to testify of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Emma Smith was the primary witness chosen and sent by God to testify of the divine calling and faithfulness and integrity of Joseph Smith. In addition, just as Jesus set the example of elevating and empowering women’s voices by choosing women to be the first witnesses of his resurrection, Joseph also set the example of elevating and empowering women’s voices repeatedly throughout his ministry, not only in his ordination of Emma, but also in his complete partnership with her, often establishing her as the mouthpiece to share his messages that he wrote to the church in Letters. He also empowered her and the other women to name their own organization, despite the pushback from some of the men initially, including him. And even at the end of his life, encouraging Emma to write her own blessing, instead of simply speaking it for her, thus empowering her to have the the knowledge and confidence to know that she and her own voice had the ability to speak to God and to call down blessings from heaven. This is the example that both Joseph, Joseph Smith and Jesus set in regard to the voices of women, specifically the women standing by their side. I want to strongly suggest that perhaps those who believe in the resurrection and the restoration should take Emma’s witness and testimony more seriously than we have. As I have continued to think about Emma’s calling in ordination to expound scripture and exhort the church, I have gained more insight into the immensity of this problem and the weight of our obligation. I have come to understand that every branch of the Restoration who adheres at all to Joseph Smith, as a, as the founding prophet and the scriptures and the revelations he brought forth, all of us are under the same obligation to seek out and he. The words and testimonies of Emma Smith as well as the scriptures that she helped Joseph bring forth from the earliest days after the succession crisis, Emma has been a problem for the LDS Church led initially by Brigham Young. Her refusal to come west was an awkward embarrassment for the early church. According to Robert Launius’s um biography of Joseph Smith the Third, which we’ll cover in part three in this series. Young Joseph believed that the extremely harsh financial terms the church leaders imposed on Emma were an intentional strategy to try to force Emma to accept Brigham Young’s authority. If that was their strategy, it failed because Emma was not one to wield to what she considered to be immorality and unrighteous dominion. But her firmness and integrity caused her to face immense persecution and hardship, and to be erased and minimized and eventually vilified by the leaders of the Utah Church. By contrast, the long-standing legacy of the RLDS Church started by J. Jason Briggs and Zena Gurley Senior
[00:08:45] in the early 1850s had been to center Emma’s voice and testimony. Joseph’s and Emma’s sons, along with several other apostles and church leaders led out in preaching and publishing about the many huge problems with the supposed polygamy revelation and the Utah Church’s narrative that it had come from Joseph Smith. The Utah Church needed to claim that polygamy had come from Joseph Smith in order to just Justify their own practice of it. The leaders of the RLDS Church also went to great lengths to publish the contemporary evidence from Navu, including the the many statements and publications of Joseph and Hiram and Emma Smith and Emma’s multiple testimonies after the death of the prophet. This debate went on for decades with the RLDS Church actually seen as having the much stronger claim by most of the country. I had intended the second episode about Emma Smith’s voice to focus on the teachings of the scriptures that she helped bring forth and always testify to the truthfulness of. But I realized that since it is so easy for so many people to simply write her off, I thought I first needed to share some additional testimonies that have also been neglected and ignored that might hopefully lend credence to hers. And then I, um, thought it would be. Worthwhile to do some historiography, looking at how we got where we are on the origin of polygamy on this topic, and how Emma and her voice have been treated by the historians who have gotten us here. So I will apparently need to do a 3, maybe even a 4th part in this series on Emma’s voice, which honestly is just fine with me. This is one topic that I don’t mind expanding out into multiple, um, multiple episodes. So I want to start here to talk to anybody who might be inclined to disbelieve Emma’s testimonies. I want to start by pointing out that she was far from the only important person who knew that her husband did not originate polygamy. So let me add this to the screen, and you can see this is Skyler Koufax, and he was an important American figure. He was a journalist and one of the founders and early leaders of the Republic. Party. He was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and then went on to become vice president of the United States, winning in a landslide with President Ulysses S. Grant. In 1865, while serving as Speaker of the House, he visited Utah, and on June 18th of that year, 1865, he met with Brigham Young. This is a portion of what he recorded in his journal that night. It says, Yesterday morning we call on Brigham Young to return his visit and found him in his office. Several of his leading apostles and counselors came in a few minutes afterward. He is a heavyset man with sandy whiskers round his chin, 64 years old, quite hale and hearty, and not fluent or very easy in conversation. His lips, when he closes them on his chin, show great will and determination. That is the secret of his controlling 100,000 people here. After an hour’s general conversation on the extent, settlements and resources of Utah and of farming, etc. he asked me plumply the question what we intended to do about polygamy. I replied very frankly that I thought it about time to have another revelation abolishing it. All present smiled, and he said, He would be glad if he, if it could be so, that it had been a great trial for him to submit to it. I will add here, Brigham was perfectly willing to voice these sentiments when it suited him. He went on to say that the revelations, revelations of the doctrine and covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded to him as A few others and permitted and advised to the rest of the church, but he said it was often abused. There are several bombshells in this statement that Brigham You made to Skyler Collat facts and that Colfax recorded in his journal that very night. Brigham said the revelations of the doctrine and covenants declared for monogamy. This is referring to the fact that the 1835 and 1844 doctrine and covenants, both compiled and arranged by Joseph Smith, the only two versions created during his lifetime, both contained the section on marriage, which says, We declare that we believe that one man should have one wife and one woman, but one husband. In addition to that, there are several other teachings
[00:13:28] in the doctrine and Covenant, some of which we will cover in this episode, and Others in future episodes that teach the same lesson that monogamy is the law of God and the only law, it’s the only form of marriage accepted in the church. The doctrine and covenants was so extremely clear that even Brigham Young couldn’t deny that the canonized scriptures of the church brought forth by Joseph Smith allowed only monogamy. Brigham Young continued, but that polygamy was a later revelation. The most honest and accurate reading of this statement acknowledges that Brigham Young admitted to Skyler Colfax and his party that what is now Section 132 was given later than the doctrine and Covenants. That means it came about after Joseph’s death, since the 1844 edition, which Joseph Smith prepared before his death, was not actually. Printed until after his death. So Brigham Young admitting that the revelation came about after the doctrine and covenants, means he was admitting that it was written after Joseph’s death. And there’s more. Skyler Koufax’s contemporaneously recorded journal says that Brigham told him polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him. This is a huge. Brigham Young admitted to Skyler Koufax that the revelation came from him, not Joseph Smith. This is an extremely important record. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who would go on to become the vice president of the United States, visited Utah in 1865 and recorded in his own journal The Night of the Conversation with Brigham Young. That Brigham Young told him that the church’s canonized scriptures opposed polygamy, that the revelation on polygamy was given after the doctrine and covenants was published, so after Joseph Smith’s death and was from him, not Joseph. Koufax concluded his record of this meeting saying the conversation impressed me with the belief that their systems that they see that their system cannot stand and that they have contemplated the possibility of of some time or other stopping this practice by a new revelation. There are but few contented and happy with Mormon wives where there is plurality. This part of Colfax’s record is substantiated by many of Brigham’s and the other Utah leaders’ own words, as well as by the many reports, mainly from both LDS and non-LDS women who experienced or witnessed the deprivations and abuses of polygamy. Skyler’s journal was um was published in 1888 in the first volume of the Western Galaxy. That’s the source I’m using. It came in the book after, um, chapters on the minds of Utah and the Flora of Utah by Professor Marcus E. Jones. So it’s obviously trying to help easterners understand this new Western territory, but accounts of this meeting. Between Young and Cofax were published the month after it occurred in at least two Eastern newspapers. That that means it was published pretty much as soon as word could get there. So there can be little doubt of the accuracy of the contemporaneous journal. The New York Times published their report on July 18th, and the Boston Herald published theirs on July 19th. I’ll read from page 4 of The New York Times. Under the title Polygamy, it said, it will be remembered that that the Republican Chicago Platform of 1856 spoke of slavery and polygamy as the twin relics of barbarism. Speaker Colfax and a number of other prominent gentlemen have recently passed through Utah, and while at Salt Lake City had a conference with the Prophet Brigham Young, in the course of which Mr. Colfax remonstrated earnest. Against the barbarous institution of polygamy, the prophet said in reply that it was no essential part of Mormonism, that it did not exist in the early days of the Mormon Church, that it was not enjoined in the Book of Mormon, and that if the Lord were to give him a revelation that it should be stopped, he would cheerfully enforce the divine injunction. It goes on to say, we hardly know he how he will dispose of his 30 and 10 wives. Colfax’s account is additionally supported by Brigham Young in his own words at a conference the following year when he taught, If we continue to be faithful to our God, He will defend us in doing what is right. If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the church. This There is an instance when Brigham Young was remarkably prophetic. He said that God would defend the church in doing what is right. God did not defend the church in the continued practice of polygamy, but let the church be brought to the brink of destruction, just as the Book of Mormon warned.
[00:18:29] Brigham said if polygamy was wrong, the Lord would reveal it by and by and put it away, that it would not be part of the church. That also happened. Wil Wilfred Woodruff repeatedly testified that the Lord revealed to him that they must stop practicing polygamy or the church would be utterly destroyed. And within a few decades of that beginning, there was no polygamy in the church. In fact, even toying with polygamy became the fastest way to ensure excommunication. And multiple church. Leaders spent decades trying to get the entire world to understand that polygamy has no place in the LDS Church, including President Hinckley declaring on Larry King Live that polygamy is not doctrinal and that he condemns it completely. These are important sources that provide strong evidence that polygamy was never a god and did not originate with Joseph Smith. Another crucial source to consider came out, came out the following year. This is Catherine Van Valkenburg Waite. She was an incredible woman whose story I really hope to be able to do an entire episode on. She was brilliant. She was accomplished, courageous, and pretty much unstoppable. I can’t begin to do her justice in just a short introduction. But among many other things, she was a teacher. Teacher, writer, lecturer, leader in the suffragist movement, journalist, businesswoman, publisher, and one of the first female lawyers in Illinois. Her practice was actually all pro bono, dedicated to helping women who couldn’t afford legal representation. When she was a young mother, her husband Charles was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as the Associate Supreme Court Justice in the Utah Territory in 1862. The family moved to Utah. When they had 3 young children crossing the plains by wagon train, just like all of the other pioneers. She was reportedly the only non-Mormon woman in Salt Lake City at the time. And due to the harassment and threats, she actually bought and learned how to use a six shooter. Her biography reports that while she was in Utah, many wives of polygamist men visited Catherine secretly and described the cruelties they and their families endured. Weight Defied Brigham Young by helping this, these women. Katherine wrote to her sister-in-law, Brigham, Brigham is now my bitter enemy and says he would rather have 40 gentile men among his people than one gentile woman. I can’t help but wonder if her time in Utah, seeing these, um, helpless women so in need of assistance was part of what motivated her to later become a lawyer and help women who were desperately in need of her help. After almost 5 years in Utah due to open hostility and increasing threats of violence, along with the inability to enforce any laws or legal decisions, and I wonder if also in part, possibly due to um Catherine’s 4th pregnancy, Charles resigned and they fled to Idaho, where she gave birth to her 4th child in 1865. Her book, The Mormon Prophet and His Harem was based. Her own personal experiences in Salt Lake City and the extensive study she clearly engaged in while there. It was published in 1866, less than two years after she and Charles left, and less than a year after having her fourth child. After outlining several of what she accurately describes as Brigham Young’s doctrines added to the church after Joseph’s death, including Adam God doctrine, um, the structured hierarchy. Where women look to their husband as their god and men look to their leaders as their God, and also blood atonement, she writes, but the greatest change of all in the Mormon religion made by Brigham Young was the introduction and establishment of polygamy. This was no part of the Mormon system of religion as originally established. On the contrary, it was expressly repudiated by all the Mormon writers and speakers previous to 1852. And In Europe for some years afterward. Another huge statement we should pay attention to. She goes on to very accurately describe the scriptures and theology of the gospel. Even as a non-member, her treatment of polygamy in the LDS
[00:22:57] scriptures is extremely insightful and accurate. It’s actually much better than anything I have ever read in any church manual on the topic. I think it is worth, worth reading, um, a A few pages. So I hope that you’ll be OK to follow along as I read from this book. Um, right here, it says, The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith and his co-adjutors, and the principles and doctrines of the religion were in the first instance, instance, such as they established. The Book of Mormon, she goes on to do her best to explain the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants as she sees them in the context that makes sense to her as the Old and New Testament Testament. Of Mormonism. It may be safely asserted, therefore, that previous to the innovations of young, the Mormon religion was embodied in these two volumes, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Their authority in the church is is universal and unquestioned. Let us examine these volumes and see whether they teach or countenance polygamy. The Book of Mormon. Nowhere contains a word in favor of it. On the contrary, all of its principal characters were monogamists, such as Lehi, the patriarch of Mormon history. Such also were Ishmael and Nephi, that the people of Zarahemla were monogamist is evident from what is said concerning them on page 146. She’s talking about that initial publication of the Book of Mormon. But we are not left to inference as to the testimony of this volume concerning this practice. On page 119, we have the following. Behold, the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursings which have come upon their skins, are more righteous than you, for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers, that they should have, save it were one wife and concubines. They should have none, and that there should not be whoredoms committed among them. And now this commandment they observed to keep. Wherefore, because of this observance and keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them. And one day they shall become a blessed people. Again, and it came to pass that replicke did not do that, which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. And to lay upon men’s shoulders that which was grievous to be born. Yeah, he did tax them with heavy taxes and with the taxes, he did build many spacious buildings. And again, and he, Noah, did not walk in the ways of his father, Zenith. For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart, and he did have, and he had many wives and concubines, and he did cause his people. To commit sin and do that, which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yeah, they did that. Um, yeah, they did commit whoredoms in all manner of wickedness. And he laid a tax of 1/5 part of all they possessed. And this he did take to support himself and his wives and his concubines, and also his priests and their wives and their concubines. And thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom, so relevant to what we are talking about. And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines, and so did his priests spend their time with harlots. As if to place this matter beyond any question, we have the following still more explicit testimony on pages, on pages 115 and 118, she continues. And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi,
[00:26:26] under the reign of the second king began to grow hard in their hearts and indulge themselves somewhat. wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. The word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes, for behold, thus sayeth the Lord, this people began to wax in iniquity. They understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon, his sons. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable. For me sayeth the Lord. Wherefore, thus sayeth the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem by the power of my arm that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord, Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me and hearken unto the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have, save it be one wife and concubines, he shall have none. For I, the Lord God, delighted in the chastity of women, and whoredoms are an abo abomination before me, um, thus sayeth the Lord of hosts. She does such an amazing job as a non-member, pulling out all of these scriptures. And she continues, Here it is stated as coming from God Himself that the polygamy and concubinage of David and Solomon were abominable before the Lord. And yet we every day hear David and Solomon, as well as Abraham. and others cited by those practicing polygamy as their illustrious prototypes, whose example is worthy of all imitation. Orson Pratt, the ablest writer of Mormon theology, is compelled to admit that the Book of Mormon is opposed to polygamy. She then goes on to, um, quote extensively from Orson Pratt this year, published in 1853 and 1854, which was the first place Emma Smith ever heard of the supposed revelation. Um, and she Points out, Katherine points out how ridiculous Pratt’s excuses are of why the Book of Mormon prohibitions didn’t apply to the Mormons. Um, I, I’ll save that for another time. I’ll, anyone who’s interested, I will have this book linked below so you can go read her examination of it. But this is how she continues. Let us now turn to the book of doctrine and Covenants and see if we can find in that volume any authority for polygamy. The following passages will determine the question. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy Heart and shall cleave unto her and none else. And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith and shall not have the spirit. And if he repents not, he shall be cast out. And then she also quotes from the statement on marriage, Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with a crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death where when either is at liberty to marry again. And then she says, this can and um let me see if I can get to it. Can anything be more explicit than this? Polygamy is not only expressly repudiated by the church, but it’s classified by the side of fornication as a crime. Thus we find that polygamy is contrary to both books of the Mormon Bible, that it that it is in fact strongly condemned in those volumes. It is therefore no part of the Mormon religion as given to the world by Joseph Smith. This was the independent conclusion of a non-Mormon Utah resident who took the time to make a serious study herself of the doctrines, scriptures, and history of the church. Her testimony is far more credible than many accounts
[00:30:20] that have been given far more weight by historians. This is difficult to justify. And we have to add one more example, the brilliant, witty, and always entertaining Mark Twain. Mark, in 1861, before Samuel Clemens took the pen name Mark Twain, he traveled through Utah with his older brother, where he made many observations and met with Brigham Young. He wrote about his adventures in his book Roughing It, published in 1872. Here are a few small excerpts. Polygamy is a recent feature in the Mormon religion and was added by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death. Before that, it was regarded as an abomination. He then quotes the same verses of Jacob 2, and in his witty style, points out that something had clearly gone wrong in the church, that God said, I will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. But in contrast, To God, Brigham suffers it. I’ll read one, more excerpt that is in his brief sketch of Mormon history that he included in the appendix. Um, I’m starting right down here at the highlighted spot. If you, if it’s big enough that you can follow along. The Mormons were badgered and harried again by their neighbors. All the proclamations Joseph Smith could issue denouncing polygamy and reputing it as utter Anti-Mormon were of no avail. The people of the neighborhood on both sides of the Mississippi claimed that polygamy was practiced by the Mormons, and not only polygamy, but a little of everything that was bad. There, Mark Twain is pointing out how extreme the charges were and the fact that just because the neighbors were saying that Joseph was practicing polygamy, we can’t just listen to that because they were all kinds of rumors were going crazy. Brigham returned from a mission to England where he had established a Mormon newspaper, and he brought back with him several 100 converts to his preaching. His influence among the brethren augmented with every move he made. Finally, Nava was invaded by the Missouri and Illinois Gentiles, and Joseph Smith killed. A Mormon name named Rigdon assumed the presidency of the Mormon Church and government in Smith’s place and even tried his Handed a prophecy or two, but a greater than he was at hand. Brigham seized the advantage of the hour, and without other authority than superior brain and nerve and will, hurled Rigdon from his high place and occupied it himself. He did more. He launched an elaborate curse at Rigdon and his disciples, and he pronounced Rigdon’s prophecy emanations from the devil, and ended by handling the false. By handing the false prophet over to the buffetings of Satan for 1000 years, probably the longest term ever inflicted in Illinois, the people recognized their master. They straightway elected Brigham Young president by a prodigious majority and have never faltered in their devotion to him from that day to this. I’ll pick back up down here again at the highlighted spot, Great Salt Lake City. He goes on to. Briefly describe the exodus and some of and the migration and some of the suffering, and then he he continues, Great Salt Lake throve finely, and so did Utah. One of the best things which Brigham Young had done before leaving Iowa was to appear in the pulpit dressed to personate the worshiped and lamented prophetsmith and confer the prophetic succession with all its dignities, emoluments, and authorities upon President Brigham Young. The people accepted the pious fraud with the maddest enthusiasm, and Brigham’s power was sealed and secured for all time. OK, I have to pause here and point out a huge irony in this passage. Twain sarcastically refers to Brigham Young as the pious fraud. That really got my attention because over 100 30 years later, Dan Vogel applied that exact same title to Joseph Smith. Twain used it sarcastically to imply that Brigham sought sought to appear pious while, um, fraudulently trying to pose as Joseph Smith, while Vogel uses it more literally, giving Joseph the benefit of, of actually being pious,
[00:34:48] but while claiming that he was actually a fraud. Vogel. He wrote in his 2004 biography of Joseph Smith, The Making of a profit, quote, Smith was a well-intentioned, pious deceiver, or perhaps otherwise worded a sincere fraud, someone who prevaricated for good reason. Admittedly, the terms are not entirely satisfying. Nevertheless, pious connotes genuine religious conviction while I apply fraud or deceiver only to describe some of Smith’s activities. Vogel has actually become quite well known for his pious fraud theory. Let me play this clip to demonstrate. So, um, I see him as a pious fraud is one a term where there’s, he’s he’s trying, he’s using. Deception To Produce a greater good. This is why it amazed and amused me to see the brilliant and insightful Mark Twain refer to Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, as the pious fraud in his analysis of Mormonism. But the most important part of Twain’s assessment comes next. So, um, going back a little, the people accepted the pious fraud with the maddest enthusiasm. And Brigham’s power was sealed and secured for all time. Within 5 years afterward, he openly added polygamy to the tenets of the church by authority by authority of a revelation which he pretended had been received 9 years before by Joseph Smith, albeit Joseph is amply on record as denouncing polygamy to the day of his death. There we have it. Um, Twain has already made this clear in his book, and now he’s making it even more clear and explicit in the appendix. This is yet another clear, unmistakable testimony showing what the most informed and intelligent people understood the reality of the origin of polygamy to be at the time that the people were still alive and involved in able to discuss it. There are other examples, but I think Skyler Colfax, Katherine Wade, and Mark Twain are a pretty good sampling of the caliber of people whose well-considered conclusions support Emma’s entirely consistent firsthand testimonies. These three people were all highly intelligent and highly educated. Catherine’s resume is almost unbelievable. But among many other things, she was one of the first women to graduate from law school and be admitted to the bar and she even started and published a law journal. Koufax was a journalist, congressman, and vice president of the United States, and Mark Twain is considered to be the father of American literature and the greatest humorist the United States has produced. He had a Remarkable ability as a social critic, with incredible insight to cut through the BS and get right to the heart of the matter. All three of these people studied the sources, um, looked into the history, plus did something that none of us can do. They met and conversed with Brigham Young himself, and they all came to the same conclusion of who actually originated polygamy. Those who are inclined to ignore or disbelieve Emma’s multiple statements thinking the evidence is just too strong on the other side, which in reality it isn’t, should consider these testimonies as well and see if that helps them balance the scale scale a little bit. In addition, as the last supporting piece of evidence I’ll cite, we have the Temple Lot case. I’ve discussed this several times, so I will just briefly sum up the fact that the question of whether or not Joseph Smith originated polygamy has been tried in an American court of law, while several of the people actually involved were still alive to testify and to be cross-examined, which is very important. And is missing from the from the rest of their testimonies. The trial was not specifically about polygamy, but since it was about deciding which church was the rightful successor to the church Joseph Smith restored, polygamy became a central issue. The trial lasted several years, and after hearing extensive testimony from both sides, including from several of the supposed plural wives of Joseph and Hiram. The judge found solidly in favor of the RLDS Church, agreeing that the evidence supported the conclusion that Joseph Smith did not teach or practice polygamy. Those who so easily write off Emma need to recognize that the fact that Emma,
[00:39:38] um, those who so easily write off Emma need to recognize the fact that Emma, the nearest and best witness of all of these events. And the one whose testimony best agrees with the full body of evidence from Mau does not stand alone in her testimony. Before throwing out her words, you need to deal honestly and critically with the many other solid witnesses, including now United States District Court Judge John F. Phillips. All of these other witnesses who independently came to conclusions that support Emma’s testimony. As I have been looking over the history of this debate, I have yet again been struck by how strange it is that something that was so well understood by so many highly respected, intelligent, accomplished people for so many decades that polygamy did not originate with Joseph. Smith would a century later come to be cemented in the exact opposite way to where we now conclude that there is no question that polygamy originated with Joseph Smith and anybody who claims otherwise is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. If there had been advances that had moved our knowledge forward in important ways, that would be one thing. But there really haven’t. The witnesses I’ve already referenced, Katherine Waite, Skyler Colfax, Mark Twain, and especially Judge Phillip Phillips, were able to make their own firsthand investigations, even speaking themselves. With the main players and living witnesses, the three earlier writers wrote their accounts before the body of affidavits had been created and collected by Joseph F. Smith, but Judge Phillips rendered his decision several years afterward. And again, while several of the wives were still living to tell their story. They had very good information. The 20th century historians who presented the alternate conclusion that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy did not have any better sources or information available to them than did Emma Smith, Skyler Colfax, Catherine Waite, Mark Twain, Judge Phillips, and so many more. And in many cases, it appears to me that their information was actually far less reliable and far less credible. There are several examples to discuss, but in this episode, I will just cover the first historian to present the idea that Joseph Smith was a polygamist in anything like a scholarly way. So here is the book I’m going to be talking about, Fonn Brody, and her book is called No Man Knows My History. It was released in 1945 and caused quite a stir. Brody’s book was important and groundbreaking in many ways, and she did do a lot of very good work digging up sources. But it also has some major shortcomings. While it has been considered by many to be a a good scholarly treatment of Joseph Smith’s life, if you actually read it, you quickly realize that it has a lot of very big problems. It seems to seek out and include sources that are critical of Joseph Smith and tell the story she wants to tell, while ignoring and omitting far better sources that might tell a different history. For example, she makes no mention whatsoever of Skyler Ko Koufax, Katherine Waite, or Judge Phillips, and she only mentions Mark Twain in his two most cutting criticisms of the Book of Mormon, but includes nothing of what he said about polygamy. That that is important to recognize because she does this with other sources as well. She gives evidence that she had read the sources and was familiar with them, but she very carefully and knowingly chose what to include and what to exclude. It feels very much like cherry picking. In general, both her method and sources tend to be quite lacking. Here is an example. I’ll give I’ll give several examples. That’s what we’ll finish this episode doing is looking into this one book. Um, this is from page 297, where she begins her discussion of polygamy. She says monogamy seemed to him as it had seemed to many men, this is speaking of Joseph Smith, um, as it seemed to many men who have not ceased to love their wives, but who have grown weary of of connubial exclusiveness
[00:43:59] and intolerably circumscribed way of life. Then it quotes him as saying, Whenever I see a pretty woman, he once said to a friend, I have to pray for grace. Brodie presents this as a valid quote from Joseph Smith, with no question that he actually said it. Her source for this is Doctor Weil’s sensationally and highly unreliable 1886 anti-Mormon book, Mormon Portraits. The book that included claims that even William Law refuted, specifically that Joseph had propositioned his wife. If We actually go to the page cited in Dr. Wilde’s book, Doctor Will, Dr. Wilde, I’m not sure how to say it. It is even worse. Um, it claims to quote, Mr. JWC, whoever that may be, and it quotes him as saying, Joseph knew himself well. He said to one of his intimate friends, If the Lord had not taken me in hand, I would Have become the greatest blank of the world. And then, um, it goes on to say, and to another friend, he said, Whenever I see a pretty woman, I have to pray for grace. This is a thirdhand report from a supposed interview with an unnamed witness reporting what other unnamed witnesses supposedly said. This is a terrible source, and it directly contradicts much better sources, including Joseph Smith’s own description of himself where he said, where he wrote, No one needs supposed me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. He lists his temptations or sins as being guilty of levity and sometimes associating with jovial company. Brody doesn’t Include Joseph Smith’s own statement of him about himself anywhere in the book. There is nothing scholarly or factual about this source that Brodie includes. It is purely and only sensational and would not be included in a book that was actually truly academic or scholarly. And that is only one example. But at least in that, in, in, in that quote, she does include her source, however spurious it may be. In several other places, she makes claims that that seem to have no source at all. For example, on page 298, she writes, there was plenty of precedent for plural marriage in the Old Testament, beginning with Father Abraham. But it was Jacob’s polygamous marriages that particularly interested Joseph Smith. And he frequently referenced to, and he frequently referred to the new marriage principle as the blessing of Jacob. Again, no citation given. I went hunting and found that Bennett’s book claims to quote Joseph referring to the blessings of Jacob. So I assume that’s what she’s relying on. But the claims Bennett makes are not reliable and definitely not supported. There is not a single case in all of the Joseph Smith’s words and writings found on the Joseph Smith papers of him ever talking or writing about the blessings of Jacob. If she had written the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that would be different. Joseph is definitely on the record saying that phrase repeatedly. But apparently both Bennett and Brody caught the problem of trying to apply that phrase, which includes Isaac to polygamy. It’s interesting to me that whoever wrote verse one of the supposed polygamy revelation did not catch the problem and did include Isaac. But being more astute in their fictions, Bennett and Brody just went with Jacob. Interesting. The next claim is even less supported. He was fond of pointing to the commandment in Exodus. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. I will just say,
[00:47:50] I have not been able to find anything. To support this. Even Bennett doesn’t make this claim or cite this scripture anywhere in his books or letters, but Brody states it as a matter of fact that Joseph often said this with no citation or support. She goes on to describe Joseph’s perspective. The sin of adultery lay not in the act itself, but in the subsequent desertion. It was the abandonment of the humbled maid that led to the unspeakable evils of prostitution and infanticide. Again, no citation and no evidence I have been able to find that Joseph ever said or believed anything of the kind. My best guess at this point, I guess I haven’t looked through all of the Utah sources. So maybe somebody put these words in Joseph’s mouth. Someone can check for that. Maybe I missed it. I would be interested to know. My best guess at this point is that Brodie most, most likely came up with this herself. But it’s actually a terrible argument because she is making the case that Joseph relied on the Old Testament to Justify polygamy and said that abandoning the wife is what made it a sin. But we know that Abraham abandoned his one only wife or concubine, his only polygamist wife, Hagar. And also, according to the current narrative, if, if it were true, then it meant that Joseph abandoned many of his supposed plural wives, including Fannie Alger, as well as the Partridge Sisters and More. But as usual, nothing in the polygamy narrative seems to need to make sense. Um, I do love that Brodie put so much focus on Emma. Her book mentions Emma nearly 200 times. And even though that is less than 1/10 of the over 2000 times she mentions Joseph, since it is a biography about Joseph, that’s actually not too bad, especially considering she was writing in the 40s. However, her focus on Emma loses a lot of its shine when you realize how little credence she gives Emma’s own words and testimony and how badly she misinterprets and misrepresents Emma and the sources about her. So here’s an example that I’ll share. I don’t have a slide, so I’ll just have to read this one to you. Um, she is quoting from Joseph’s entry, um, from his 18 August 1842 journal. What he records are his feelings after the meeting on the small island while he was in hiding. You’ll recognize this source because I’ve read it several times before. Von Brody includes it with what unspeakable delight and what and what transports of joy swelled my bosom when I took by the hand on that. My beloved Emma, she that was my wife, even the wife of my youth and the choice of my heart. Many were the reverberations of my mind when I contemplated for a moment the many scenes we had been called to pass through, the fatigues and the toils, the sorrows and sufferings, and the joys and consolations from time to time that had strewed our paths and crowned our board. Oh, what a commingling of thought filled my mind for the moment. Again, she is here, even in the 7th trouble, undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma. Then I love that every time I read it, even when it’s in Fon Brody’s book. Then she offers this interpretation of that document. Emma was always first with Joseph, a steady monumental presence against which all the other wives were but lights and shops. He accorded her what he believed to be all the rights of her position, complete domination of the children and the home, and even trusted her to transact considerable business for him. Occasionally, he deferred to her in matters of decorum and propriety, but his affection was now largely nostalgic. It was the wife of his youth to whom he paid his own special kind of devotion. Oh, I, this is remarkable.
[00:51:49] From this amazing journal entry, the only point Brody takes is that Joseph referred to Emma as the wife of my youth. And she interprets that to mean that his affection for her was worn out and was only nostalgic. I just can’t. First of all, Brodie reveals her biblical illiteracy. That is a serious weakness when attempting to write, to when attempting to understand and write a book about Joseph Smith, whose mastery of the of the Bible was vast. As I have pointed out before, Joseph was citing a biblical phrase with deep significance when he called Emma the wife of my youth. The term wife of thy youth is from both Proverbs 5 and Malachi 2, and both times is centered in strong discourses of fidelity to your one wife, the wife of your youth. I’ve read it before, but I’m going to read it. Again, hopefully we have new people tuning in that will need to hear this. This is what it says in Proverbs verse, chapter 5, starting with verse 3. The lips of a strange woman drop as in honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil. So it’s talking about a strange woman in contrast to the wife of your youth, the wife of thy youth. But her end is bitter as wood, wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her Feet go down to the death. Her steps take hold on hell. Hear me now, therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth. Remove thy way far from her and come not nigh the door of her house, skipping to 18. Let thy fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant row. Let her Breast sat satisfy thee all at all times, um, and be thou ravished always with her love. And wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman and embrace the bosom of a stranger, for the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he ponddereth all his goings. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sin. He shall die without instruction, and in greatness of his folly, he shall go astray. That’s what it has to say about anyone who betrays the wife of his youth, who messes around with anyone other than the wife of his youth. God is warning clearly that being unfaithful to the wife of thy youth will be. Bring trouble and unhappiness. I can’t help but wonder if we might be seeing evidence that Brigham Young and Hebrew C. Kimball were at least in part suffering these consequences that this verse, these verses are warning about that they failed to heed. Maybe we are hearing the repercussions of this in statements like Brigham’s tortured. September 1856 statements where he said, There is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this territory. If you stay with me, you shall comply with the law of God. And that, too, without any murmuring and whining. He’s saying, if you stay with me, as opposed to going out all alone in the wilderness, uh, 2000 miles from any civilization with winter coming on in a few months. He goes on to say, if you stay with me, you must bow down to it and submit yourselves to the celestial law. And, and then continues to say, Remember that I will not hear any more of this whining. It seems that Brigham had brought trouble to his own house, as the Bible warned he would. And we seem to hear the same thing in Hebrew, um, C. Kimball’s February 1852. Revelation he recorded for himself, where he wrote the word of the Lord to me, HCK, Hebrews C. Kimball. The Spirit said,
[00:55:42] I should devote my time to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I should not be under the law of lawless women. So that is a great revelation. You can read much more about the lawless women revelation in Claire Barris’s paper just released in the Journal of Mormon. Me, I, of course, will have the link to that paper below. Um, so now let’s go on to the other reference that Joseph is referring to when he uses the term, the wife of my youth. This is Malachi 2, and it is even stronger than than the, um, one in Proverbs. Both use God’s commandment of fidelity and marriage in the marriage covenant as a parallel to God’s commandment of fidelity to all gospel covenants. And these verses. that I’m going to read. Also, I have important parallels to Jacob’s anti-polygamy discourse to the Nephites. As I said last time I covered this, I recommend reading this entire chapter along with Jacob, chapters 1 through 3, but I will just give some highlights. So this is Malachi 2 starting on verse 11. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. Remember what we’ve talked about, why God had To lead Lehi out of Jerusalem because of the abomination that was being committed there. For Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved and hath married the daughter of strange gods, which is going to be compared to, um, Section 132’s Strange God of the doctrine of many wives and concubines. And this have you done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying. out the weeping of the women in talked about in Jacob too, right? Insomuch that he regardeth not the offering anymore or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet you say, wherefore? That means, how? Why, why, how have we done this? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously. Yet is she thy companion and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one, did not God establish you two as one? And wherefore one, why are you one, that he might seek a godly seed. Just as talks about in Jacob 2, God wants to raise up seed, right? That he might seek a godly seed. These verses are so important. Joseph is making such an inspired statement here. That we need to pay attention to. Therefore, take heed to your spirit and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. These are actually extremely important scriptures to be aware of. But Brodie completely missed the true meaning of Joseph’s words. This next paragraph demonstrates Brodie’s unfortunate and, in my opinion, remarkably misogynistic view of Emma. She goes on to say exactly what happened between them, Joseph and Emma, when Bennett’s letters first appeared, one cannot know, but it is clear that Emma set herself determinedly against any intimation of her husband’s disloyalty. She demanded denials and got them. To these she clung with a desperate tenacity, for Emma was ridden with the helpless jealousy that comes to a woman growing unlovely with illness and childbearing, while her husband remains maddeningly young. Where in the world did she get this? I have no idea what sources she is relying on other than her own imagination. My best guess is that it is actually most likely projection since Fonn Brody’s husband was not faithful to their marriage. In any case, I’ll just point out that the vast majority of people who met with Emma, even late in her life,
[00:59:40] described. Her as attractive and appearing younger than her age, not to mention the fact that Emma, the only woman who ever had children with Joseph, conceived yet again after this point and was pregnant with Joseph’s 9th child at the time of his death. Brodie’s assumptions and representations are not based in evidence. And beyond that, they are incredibly offensive and insulting to all women who, I guess, past the age of 35 and Brodie’s imagination have grown unlovely with illness and childbearing. I just find this to be Difficult to read. I’m offended on Emma’s behalf, and I’m also offended on my own behalf. So, anyway, there are so many profound inaccuracies in this book. It is hard to choose which ones to cover. The way she talks about the entire episode when Joseph was in hiding. In 1842, where this last one came from, is extremely frustrating. Brody actually didn’t know about the Whitney Letter when this book was first published. And of course, that’s not a problem at all that I would criticize her about. Sources come, come, you know, come about when they come about. She didn’t have that source when she wrote the book. Uh, however, she did describe it in, um, the, at the end of later editions, and that I will critique her way of describing it without actually ever seeing it or reading it herself. She said it was quote, a request in Joseph’s own handwriting to Noel K. Whitney to bring his daughter Sarah Anne to the cornfield to spend the night with him. That’s not even close to accurate. And then, um, I hope people have watched or will watch episode 135 where I discussed this letter in depth and explain why I do not believe that it is all at all related to polygamy and why it shouldn’t be read that way. So, um, that will be an important thing to clear up anything that we are talking about here. I’ll go on to talk about another important claim Brody makes about Joseph’s time in hiding. She writes, she, meaning Emma could not know that during the weeks he stayed in hiding at the farm of Edward Sayers, he persuaded Mrs. Sayers to join his circle of wives. Again, this is just one of so many pieces I could pull out, but I decided to grab this one because, um, I think it’s a good sample of of many other things we see. Joseph was in hiding at the Sayers for 1 week, not several weeks, and Emma, who at 37, Brodie claimed was now too old to be attracted to. repeatedly went to great lengths to visit him. Ruth Sayers was 34, just a few years younger than Emma. But more important, the citation Brody gives for this claim is Ruth Bo Sayers’ 1869 affidavit, the one that Joseph F. Smith created for her in his boilerplate affidavits. And it says that she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith on the blank day of February 1843, 6 months after Joseph had been in hiding in the Sayers’ home, Brodie completely ignored this huge problem, which should have spelled spelled the end of her theory that Joseph married Ruth Sayers while in hiding there. Brodie does correctly point out that Andrew Jensen was mistaken in his claim that Ruth didn’t marry Edward Sayers until after the death of the prophet, which I assume he did. Similarly, ignoring the affidavit and also the available marriage records to try to fix the overlapping marriage dates that were a problem with several of these affidavits. But Brodie needed to correct that because Jensen’s claim would mean Ruth wasn’t even at the home where Joseph was in hiding with Edward Sayers. Yet she, while she corrected Andrew Jensen’s error,
[01:03:39] she herself mistakenly claimed that Joseph lived for several weeks at the Home of Edward Sayers outside Naavu. And it seems probable that he married Mrs. Sayers at this time. Needless to say, this is not good historical practice. I looked for quotations from Emma, particularly any of her multiple testimonies that she was Joseph’s only one, only wife, and that she never saw the supposed revelation on polygamy until she read it in Orson Pratt’s this year. But the only one I found was a very truncated version of Emma’s final. Testimony that was only included in the book’s epilogue. And you can again hear the huge assumptions Brodie constantly makes, claiming to know what the people she wrote about were thinking and feeling and what they would have done in any circumstance. So we’ll read this from the epilogue. Emma did not follow Brigham Young West, but she would have followed her husband. Oh, really? She just knows that that happens a lot. The next, um, we’ll skip down to the next pair. and where we actually hear the first of Emma’s words in the book, but again, in a very twisted way. Polygamy, she always denied. There was no, um, she quotes Emma saying, there was no revelation on either polygamy or spiritual wives, she said stubbornly. He had no other wife but me. He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge. And this was her revenge and solace for all her heartache and humiliation. This was her slap at all the sly young girls in the mansion house who had looked first so worshipfully and then so knowingly at Joseph. She had, she had given them the lie. Whatever formal ceremony he might have gone through, Joseph had never acknowledged one of them before the world. This was her great triumph, and she made the most of it. Oh, my word. Brody is a good writer, but, um, a good writer of dramatic fiction, a good soap opera writer. Not, I’m sorry, just not a good writer of, of reliable history. Despite all of Emma’s testimonies, this is the only reference Brody made to any of them, and the only use she makes of any of Emma’s own words. And this is what she did with Emma’s own words, not only reject any possibility that there might be truth in them, but contort them into evidence of what she imagines out of nowhere to be Emma’s vengeful nature, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Brodie did not know of Emma’s later life and her almost inconceivably graceful and magnanimous response to Louis Berman’s infidelity. But we can look at the fact that Emma took the child in and raised him as her own, and even brought Nancy, the other woman, into her home so that she could be near him. And then, on her deathbed, requested that Louis marry Nancy to give the little boy a proper family. We have, we can look at that and, and Judge Brody’s estimation of, of Emma with a much more comprehensive view of Emma’s entire life. We also have multiple statements from a wide array of people speaking to Emma’s integrity and generosity. Brodie’s portrayal of Emma as vengeful and duplicitous could not be further from the truth, and she just doesn’t have any evidence to back it up, and it seems she could have found evidence to refute it if she had been willing to look for it and include it. Brodie also does not make any mention of the voice of innocence or any of Emma’s other testimonies and statements. She just used this one that she could find a way to twist inside out and backward. She did, however, include a small portion of the statement on marriage. However, I was highly amused to find that she, like Brian Hailes, utilized Joseph F.
[01:07:42] Smith’s own painfully weak, but one argument to try to undermine. The the the meaning of that, of the statement. She included the statement briefly, rather dishonestly, describing it merely as a resolution adopted at a church conference when Joseph was out of town, when in reality it was included as canonized scripture from the very first publication of the Doctrine and Covenants until just one year before Brigham Young’s death. She wrote, It may be observed that the wording of the re the resolution resolution, not. Scripture was such that it did not strictly forbid a man’s having more wives than one. The construction, one woman, but one husband was not paralleled in one man should have one wife. I’m still just dying at this ridiculous argument, but it is apparently the best anyone can come up with. Joseph F. Smith first came up with it, and now I see that Brodie repeated it, and Brian Hailes is still pushing it today. I, I, it’s so silly, but let’s just, let’s just look at it one more time. First, they all argue that Oliver Cowdrey wrote the article on marriage. Apparently in opposition to Joseph’s wishes, even though Joseph was over the, um, committee putting together the doctrine and covenants, and we can show that they had already prepared the index, which included it. And we show that Joseph included it in the next version of the Doctrine and Covenant and also published it multiple times. Anyway, they start with that. But they claim that Oliver Cowdrey wrote it, and then also argue that it has this embedded secret loophole. So I guess we need to give Oliver credit for building in that loophole. Is that what they’re trying to say? And let’s yet again, put this ridiculous argument completely to rest. Saying you can have one means the same thing as saying you can have but one. Right? As someone brilliantly said, if I tell my child, you can have one cookie, that does not mean you can have at At least one cookie, right? This was obvious to Joseph Smith, who actually used either wording interchangeably. This was just one of the many times that Joseph and the church published the statement on marriage, um, in, in the newspapers to make it extremely clear what he And the church believed about marriage. And here you can see that it very clearly says, we believe that one man should have but one wife. And Joseph used that exact same wording, no man shall have but one wife in his own preaching, which he had recorded in his journal. So I, I think seeing that this argument is made just shows the bias of everybody making it. Clearly, Joseph F. Smith had immense bias. Clearly, Brian Hills has quite a bit of bias, and this should help make it even more apparent how much bias Fon Brody had in her book as well. Again and again, while reading Brodie’s book, it becomes apparent that she started with the certainty that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. And then set out to find and include whatever sources she needed to, to prove that, excluding any sources that refuted it, um, or at least excluding many of the sources that refuted it and including only the ones that were well enough that she needed to,
[01:11:20] is how it seems to me, and that she could twist in order to work them into her theory. The last point I’ll address as I’m beating this dead horse is how Brodie handles the question of children. She at least acknowledged. that if Joseph were married to all of these women, there should be children and acknowledgement, I very much appreciate. Joseph Smith the Third’s extensive, yet fruitless search for any siblings had been published in his memoirs decades earlier. Um, so Brodie could have and should have, in my opinion, had access to that and included it. She, we know, she did have access to it because she actually cites his memoirs several times in her book, but she ignored. And omitted anything he had to say on the topic of polygamy. Here is her acknowledgement that the lack of children is surprising. She writes, Considering that of the 50 or more women Joseph married, the number keeps getting bigger. All except 4 or 5 were young enough to bear children, and at least 18 were in their teens or 20s, many of whom later bore large families. It is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light. I think She makes a good point there. Um, but this is what she writes in the appendix. Evidence of children born to Joseph Smith by women other than Emma is extremely scant, except in the case of Prescinthia Huntington Bull. This is Presinthia and her son Oliver, who Brodie claims is one of Joseph Smith’s sons. Um, since Brodie presents this as her strongest case, this is the one we will go into. She says, Precinia once stated to Mrs. Eddie V. Smith that, quote, she did not know whether Mr. Bull or the Prophet was the father of her son. This statement I regarded with due reserve until I discovered a photograph of the son, Oliver Buell, which which showed an unmistakable likeness to other sons of Joseph born by Emma Smith. So, this is the photograph of Oliver Buell that convinced that convinced Brody that this claim had merit, because in her mind, Oliver looked like he could be half siblings with Joseph and Emma’s sons. I hope we can all agree that looking for family resemblance of half-siblings and old photographs is probably not the most sound way to reach historical conclusions. But since that was about the best Brodie had access to, we can probably give her a pass. But thankfully, now we have much better information. Before going into that, however, I want to look at the account that Brodie relies on for the claim that that Precinia said she didn’t know who her son’s father was. So that you can each judge for yourself how reliable this source may be in case anyone wants to argue that Prasinia, um, expressing and Certainty about the father of her child proves that she was having sex with both men. The same argument we constantly hear about Patty Sessions, the argument that drives me crazy. So this is the book. It’s 15 years Among the Mormons. It is a secondhand account written by Nelson Green, who interviewed a woman who left Utah after living there for 5 years. He calls her Mary Eddie V. Smith, which is the name that Fon Brody. Uses. But apparently, her name was actually Marietta Cory. And according to Family Search, so take that with a grain of salt because Family Search is not always accurate, and I didn’t do, um, backup work to make sure of any of this. I’m just including it for your information. Um, according to Family Search,
[01:15:07] she was married monogamously in Naavu in 1844, and between 1845 and 1851, gave birth to 5 sons who all died in infancy or very early childhood. Her husband took a second wife in 1850, and she apparently left him, and in 1851, became the second wife of Nathaniel Jones. The following year, she had left him and became the second wife of Ruben Smith. She is not listed as having any children other than her her first five that passed away with her first husband. I haven’t read the full book, but if this, if this is her her and If these um facts on family search are accurate, her story seems truly tragic. But one challenge with the book is that it is hard to know what information she had access to. The reports in this book are clearly mainly based in Utah-era gossip and often sound like an an extensive game of telephone. Another huge challenge with the book is that Mary Etta didn’t write it. It is very clear that much of it is not in Mary’s voice, but is the voice of Nelson Green, the author. I want to very quickly take a minute to compare this book, which Vonn Brody did include and use. As a reference with Katherine Waite’s book, the, the book I talked about a little earlier. Both of these women lived in Utah for around 5 years. Katherine was a little under 55 years, but Katherine Waite wrote her own book, while Mary Etta Cory did not. It is also clear that Mary Eta Cory did not make anything like the careful study of the history and scriptures that Catherine Waite did. For a historian looking for sources to say to cite, Waite’s book should be considered far superior, but it never even gets a mention by Brody, who apparently prefers this other source. So, um, I want to read a bit of the book, the Marietta Cory book that, um, Brodie does include, so you can get a sense of why I object to prioritizing this. Book over, over other sources. I want to start a just a little bit before polygamy, so that you can get a sense of the general accuracy and voice of the book. It says that the revelation on polygamy, I’m quoting now, was written out at length at the time, and the original writing is now kept in state at Salt Lake and in the personal custody of a member of the Grand presidency, Heber C. Kimball. This remarkable document, which was Which has so boldly attempted to rob civilization of her highest achievement, i.e., the right of woman to one and undivided husband, um, to one whole and undivided husband, is said to contain many other radical changes, things which even among Mormons, it is yet unlawful to whisper. But when the sword of the prophet shall be the law of the of the world, a day which some Mormons now living hope. To see these mysterious revelations shall be unloosed to bless the Mormon world. The prophet appears to have encountered an unrelenting opponent in his first unlawful wife, Emma, who discovered by accident this document, and finding it contained new doctrines which threatened to interfere with her domestic rights, attempted to destroy it. But the Mormons claimed she was miraculously prevented and the oracle still is preserved. Emma attempted as a last resort to poison the prophet, and though she failed in that, she soon found sympathy and support among the disaffected within the church. The prophet had sent some time before this 3 men, Law Foster, and Jacobs on missions, and they had just returned and found their wives blushing under the prospective honors of. Spiritual wifeism. And another woman, Mrs. Bell, had left her husband, a Gentile, to grace the prophet’s retinue on horseback when he reviewed the novel Legion.
[01:19:10] I heard that latter woman say afterwards in Utah that she did not know whether Mr. Bell or the prophet was the father of her son. OK, I won’t take time here to spell out the constant errors in just this one excerpt, but those who are familiar with the sources on this topic will certainly recognize the many, many problems with what we just read. Every page I have read dealing with the history is filled with similar constant errors and false claims. Yet this is the source Brody chose to prioritize over other far superior sources, and this is what she relies on for her belief that Joseph Smith fathered Oliver Buell. Looking at the specific claim that Precinia didn’t know who Oliver’s father was, it is at best a thirdhand account, assuming Mary did actually hear Prescinia say this herself and hadn’t heard it from some other source, which is entirely possible. Yet, based on this error-ridden book’s dubious claim that Prescinia supposedly said, admitted to many people that she didn’t know who the father of her son was, and the pictures she she saw that she thought bore a resemblance, Brodie declared that Oliver Bull was the one child of Joseph Smith’s polygamy that there was evidence for. I still have to again point out that Brad Brody had access to much better evidence to the contrary. As I just said, Joseph Smith III’s memoir had been published, and it provides extensive evidence that there were no children. As just one example, it includes the interaction with Melissa Lot’s sisters when they reported to Joseph Smith III, as he recorded in his journal that very day, that they had made an extensive Search, tracking down every claim of a supposed child, and declared with certainty that Joseph Smith had no children in polygamy, that he had no children with anyone other than Emma. Brodie’s work would have been far more scholarly and accurate if she had been more even-handed with her sources. But her bias caused her to reach several incorrect conclusions and make many faulty claims that really do undermine her work. According to the best documentation, Oliver Bull was born January 31, 1840. The date listed for Presinia’s marriage or sealing to Joseph Smith on her prepared affidavit is December 11, 1841. Oliver was already nearly two years old when Prescinia was supposedly married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Brodie at least noted the problem, but still chose to ignore it and worked around it, suggesting that the records of Oliver’s birth could have been erroneous or that Joseph could have been his father anyway. And she went on to make additional claims to try to strengthen her case. It should have been clear to her that Joseph was not Oliver’s father, and that if Precinia did actually Ever publicly claim, admit that she didn’t know who the father of her child was, which would have been scandalous. But I guess it is possible, since in Utah, it gave women great renown to claim to be Joseph’s wives, and especially to be the potential mother of his child. So it is possible, but still, if we ever do see any, um, admission or any recognition of the problem of these overlapping things. Which are now accepted to be Joseph Smith’s polyandry, they are handled with a great deal of embarrassment. They are seen as a problem, not as something to brag about. So I tend to think that this is not a very reliable claim. But in any case, Brodie’s book would have been more scholarly and academic, and reliable and accurate if she had not included this source, and had not twisted all Of the other available documents to try to support this claim, right? She would have actually been more accurate if she had given more credence to the firsthand testimonies of Emma Smith and the firsthand testimony and extensive research of her sons, especially Joseph III, rather than prioritizing other far less reliable sources that just happened to tell the story she wanted to tell. But today we can do even better than just being more honest with the sources. We can know for certain whether Oliver Buell was Joseph Smith’s son, because in 2008, Hugo Carrego proved definitively through DNA evidence that Oliver Buell was not the son of Joseph Smith. End of story. Brodie’s claim,
[01:24:03] we now know as a matter of fact, was wrong. As Has been every other claim of a child from Joseph Smith from anyone but Emma. Clearly, sources based on gossip combined with perceived family resemblance in old photographs are not good methods for discovering truth. So I will again say that Brodie’s book was important, and she did bring out sources that have contributed to our understanding of Joseph Smith. But I, I don’t know if I would say that the good outweighs the bad. We need to do a lot better. The narrative she brought forward needs to be honestly and comprehensively critiqued. At the very least, we need a much more balanced narrative based on a less biased approach that avoids the bad sources she included and includes the important sources that she excluded. Brody’s book was the first major step in the process of replacing the previous general understanding that polygamy originated with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, replaced that idea, that understanding with the idea that Joseph Smith was the originator of polygamy. In part three, I planned to go into the sources that followed, um, that came after Brodie’s book and further cemented her perspective on Joseph’s polygamy. For both the RLDS and the LDS churches. But the last thing I want to do in this episode is point out the huge irony that initially it was Brigham Young and the Utah-based LDS Church who had been determined to claim that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. It was LDS apostle Joseph F. Smith, who created and Collected almost the entire body of evidence that is still relied on to make that same claim that polygamy originated with Joseph Smith. But by 1945, the LDS Church was several decades into their effort to completely distance themselves from polygamy, fulfilling Brigham Young’s accurate prophecy. For several decades prior to Brodie’s book coming out, the LDS leaders had done all they could to make sure there was no association between the LDS Church and polygamy. So by 1945, Brodie’s claims that Joseph Smith had 48 wives and deceived Emma was seen as apostate. And despite being David O McKay’s niece, Brodie was excommunicated. The irony is profound. And there is an additional very amusing piece of this story that we have to look at. And that is how Hugh Nibley tried to navigate the sticky polygamy problem. Nibley was tasked with refuting Brody’s book, No Man Knows My History, which he did in the very cleverly, but also incredibly sexistly titled and written pamphlet, No man, That’s not History. That, um, Sexist title was bad enough in in 1946, but at least it was clever. Incredibly, as I have pointed out before, RFM revived the sexist and not at all clever title, almost eight decades later to go after me. It was not any kind of a fun play on words at that point. It was not original. There was nothing clever about it. It was just purely sexist. Which should be much less acceptable in the 2020s than it was in the 1940s. So that was interesting. But I do want to read part of what Hugh Nibley wrote in his response to Brodie’s claims of Joseph having 48 wives, or as we just read, possibly over 50 wives. I want to ask if anybody can understand what he is saying here. This is what he writes. Next comes the problem. Of polygamy. To explain the loyalty of sensible women to the institution, Brody can think of no better line than her old chestnut. The doctrine somehow had great magnetism. In her treatment of the subject, her sources are extremely weak. In any city in the United States, almost any day of the year,
[01:28:23] young women may be found making vivid, false, circumstantial, and sincere accusations against attackers. That are found upon investigation to be nothing more than the objects of their own overwrought desires and imaginings. That is hard to read. Holy cow. He goes on to say, this does not mean that such accusations are necessarily false, but it does mean that they call for corroboration. And what better corroboration than the words of John C. Bennett? Whom Brodie willingly condemns as untrustworthy, but only after his words have sunk in. In the matter of Joseph Smith’s wives, Mrs. Brodie feels free to pick and choose at will. Some of the marriages were entirely spiritual, she freely admits, not all, but some, and by pure inference she can tell us just which were and which were not. She never explains why, with his passionate desire for progeny, he had so few children. That’s pretty much all we get. That is what Hugh Nibley has to say in his refutation to find Brodie’s book on the topic of polygamy. It is honestly hard for me to get a sense of what Nili’s actual argument is here, other than his attempt to to paint Brody and apparently all women as overwrought imaginative liars, fulfilling their deep desires with their accusations of attacks. I, I, uh, that was really Hard. And it’s interesting how these claims go back and forth, right? Believe the testimonies of women, or, I mean, this whole thing is so fraught and messy, but I did not like how Hugh Nily tried to refute this claim by calling Fon Brodie and all women liars. And I, again, am left asking, is he agreeing or disagreeing with Brodie on claiming that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy? I, I can’t get a sense of what it is. What seems To be happening is that he is sneakily and confusingly prevaricating, trying to avoid the question, because in 1946, it was not tenable for the LDS Church for to either admit nor deny Joseph’s polygamy. This is the crazy space, this doctrine, this quote doctrine has put the church in. And, and we still are struggling in this space, right? One of the more reliable parts of 130. 2 says that God’s is not a house of confusion. I have to say, polygamy disagrees. Polygamy is a doctrine of confusion, and the longer we hold on to it and keep claiming it, the more confusion it continues to create. So I hope I didn’t spend too much time on Brody’s book. I, I did think it was important to help people realize that the polygamy narrative is not based on a solid foundation, but has been the result of decades of bi. historical work. In the close of this episode, I just want to harken back to where we started talking about the critical importance of listening to the testimonies of women and how both the Savior and Joseph Smith set that precedent and example. This obviously does not mean that we automatically and indefinitely believe everything that every woman says. Fawn Brody was a woman. And while I think that was actually important to her work, for example, she focused on much more than previous writers had. And she was actually the first to compile biographies of Joseph’s supposed wives, which she included in her appendix, and which Todd Compton went on to expand out into his book, um, um,
[01:32:12] in Sacred Loneliness, 50 years later. I very much appreciate that she did those things. Still, I have spent the last hour showing why I think we should not simply believe what Fon Brody wrote. The saviors and Joseph Smith’s example of the importance of believing women does not just mean believe everything every woman says. What it does mean is that we need to take women’s voices much more seriously. We definitely should not address them the way Hugh Nibley does, right? But above all, we need to seek out. And listen to, we might say heed and hearken to the testimonies of the specific women called and ordained by God to deliver a divine message. The women chosen by God to be special witnesses to testify either of the literal resurrection of the Lord Himself, as Mary Magdalene was chosen to do. Or to the honor, integrity, fidelity, faithfulness, and divine mantle of the prophet of the restoration, as Emma Smith was called, chosen, and ordained to do. Jesus reprimanded his disciples, who refused to believe the testimony of Mary, saying, O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. I believe the Lord is saying exactly the same thing to those who refuse to believe the testimony of Emma Smith. That’s the end for this week again. Happy Easter, and I will see you next time.
Chet Dahl
Hi Michelle
I’m sorry for the recent disaster, but glad to find these podcasts are still available here.
I’m trying to find the episode where you tell the story about Joseph’s letter to Emma in which he calls her “the wife of my youth.” Then you explain the meaning behind that phrase.
Thanks so much for your work.
Chet Dahl