167: Whitney & Jeremy on Claims About Four Supposed Wives

Please consider supporting this podcast:

Transcript

[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy. This is another fun episode where I get to get together with two of the people I love working with on this topic, Jeremy Hoop and Whitney Horning. I am so thankful that they came to share some more of their evidence and research and some of mine. We just got together to talk about 4 of the supposed wives of Joseph Smith. I think you’ll like this one. Thanks for joining us. Um, first of all, welcome both of you. Is there anything you want you want to say before we get going and dive in?

[00:44] Jeremy Hoop: Uh, I wanna say I absolutely love talking with the both of you. I, um, for, for the audience, if you’re not familiar with either, if you’re new to this, uh, to Michelle’s podcast, you’re not familiar with Whitney or Michelle. There’s no two smarter women on the planet, especially related to this subject. Um, I’m, I’m, I’m always in awe of what they know and, and the research they’ve done, and it’s, um, and it’s just, it’s a real privilege to talk to people who know this stuff inside and out and, and can give a real in-depth analysis of the source document. So it’s uh I, I just love being here.

[01:21] Michelle: Well thank you right back at you, Jeremy, and one thing I love is when we team up and we each take different turns putting together the documents and the presentation and so we’re planning to handle specifically the claims about Josephine Lyon and Sylvia Lyon as a wife, right, with Pollyandry, and then Nancy Rigdon in the happiness letter we’ll go over that. We’re just gonna touch briefly briefly on Melissa Lott, and then we. Go in depth again on Emily Partridge. So that’s the outline for this, for this conversation. So, for this first document that we’re, I mean, source that we’re digging into right now, it is the claim that Sylvia Lyon had sex with Joseph Smith because of the claims about, um, what her daughter said. And so I’m, again, we’re not going to play the clips from, um, the. to the quote, but I’m hoping that this information will be valuable. If anybody wants to go back and watch their episode to see what they say about it, they can go ahead and do that. But I will say that they focus only on this one affidavit that I’m going to go go ahead and show you. And this is the affidavit from Josephine Rosetta Fisher, Josephine Lion Fisher. Rosetta. is her middle name. But, um, um, um, and, and, and then it’s Sylvia’s daughter, Josephine Lion, right? This is her affidavit. The first thing that I want to point out is I want to go down and show you the date of the affidavit filled out right here on the bottom line. This is in Bountiful, Utah, February 24, 1915. is when we get this affidavit. Does any of you happen to recall the year that Sylvia Lyon passed away, who this affidavit is about?

[03:09] Whitney Horning: 1882.

[03:11] Michelle: OK, so this is how many years? I haven’t even done the math yet.

[03:14] Whitney Horning: 12, 3, 33

[03:17] Michelle: years after Sylvia’s passed away, her daughter, Josephine is giving this affidavit. And this is the central, the, the, the one piece of documentation that they use on that episode. So I’ll go up and read right here. I’m just starting right here. Just prior to our mother’s death to my mother’s death in 1882, she Called me to her bedside and told me that her, um, that her days on Earth were about numbered. And before she passed away from mortality, she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others, but which she now desired to communicate to me. Sorry, I’m a little slow reading the old timey handwriting sometimes. This is Andrew Jensen’s handwriting, I believe, and it’s a little bit difficult to make out. Um, She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith. OK. Remember that. So her mother had not told her this her entire life until she’s on her deathbed. And all of a sudden she is finding out that her father is not who she thought it was, her entire life. This is quite a massive revelation, right? It’s very clear. I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Then it goes on to explain why she having been sealed to the prophet at the time, her husband, Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the church. So after, um, according to Josephine’s recollection of. What she’s saying, Sylvia told her when her father, well, non-father now, when, um, um, oh my gosh, I’m too tired to think of his name. Windsor. When Windsor Lion was disfellowshipped or excommunicated from the church, her mother had been sealed to Joseph Smith and had conceived Julia, is the story that we’re getting. She also told Me, she was sealed to the prophet about the same time that Za D. Huntington and Eliza Snow were thus sealed. In conclusion, Mother told me not to make her statement to me too public, as it might cause trouble and arouse unpleasant, pleasant curiosity. So it was a secret, right? So they didn’t want known. I have followed her advice and I’m the facts today practically for the first time responding to the request or desire of the assistant church historians. OK, Josephine Fisher is being chased down by the church historians. We don’t know why they know this story is true if Josephine said she hasn’t told anybody, right? And she said

[06:02] Whitney Horning: practically anyone. Oh, OK, you know a secret’s only a secret if you don’t tell anyone. So she told just one person and

[06:11] Michelle: it got spread to the church historian’s office. They come and track her down and collect this affidavit in 1915, and this is the source that they. are using so I want to talk about several things with this source and with this claim. First of all, we know right away that there are some big problems with this source, right? The first thing we’ll know, the smaller revelation that I’ll give away, um. Sylvia would not have been sealed to Joseph Smith after Windsor was out of fellowship with the church, because that had not happened yet, when this was supposed to have happened. So in this telling, Joseph, I, I, I want to first clarify, this is a secondhand source, right? This is Josephine saying in 1915, what she said, Sylvia said to her, um, on her deathbed. So maybe Sylvia did say that she was on her deathbed, or maybe Josephine said, No, I don’t have a way to know. Do you guys have any guess on that? I, I, I As

[07:21] Jeremy Hoop: whether Sylvia actually said it.

[07:23] Michelle: Yes, yeah,

[07:24] Jeremy Hoop: I guess there’s no way to verify the story. This is, this is the same scenario as Mosiah Hancock putting words in his father’s mouth 14 years after that. Now she’s doing it 33 years after. There, there, there’s, there’s a lot of fanciful imagination in our, in, in the history of Mormonism that we have to reconcile. How do you possibly verify that conversation? The answer is you can’t.

[07:48] Whitney Horning: Right. And and wasn’t the historian that said sign in the presence of was that Andrew Jensen on that affidavit?

[07:55] Michelle: It’s taking the affidavit. Yes, yes.

[07:58] Whitney Horning: So he’s the historian who started creating the list of wives, and there’s other. There are instances where, like, for instance, Elvira Holmes, her daughters, he wrote to her daughters and said, I want, I want the information. They said, We’re sorry. Like, we really don’t know anything about this. We know our mom lived with the Prophet Joseph and his family for a short time, but we really, and then, and then you can see he goes through their letter, and he crosses it out and changes the whole letter, and then that’s what’s printed. So, Jensen to me is a little bit of a shady character, and so I find that fascinating that she’s 71 years old, signing this affidavit, writing this affidavit in his presence when he’s actively, to me, like the Holmes daughters, they kind of write that they feel a little pressure on him to remember things and tell him things they don’t know.

[08:55] Michelle: Right

[08:55] Whitney Horning: so, you know, you’ve got this elderly woman and You know, and then

[09:01] Michelle: they show up at her home. They show up in her home in Bountiful, right? We have another letter that says, supposedly there’s a child from Joseph’s living in Bountiful, I believe Mrs. Fisher is her name, right? So this rumor comes around somehow, and they go to her home and take this affidavit. And so that’s interesting to know about Andrew Jensen and the Homestanders. I didn’t know that source, Whitney. Thanks for sharing that. So, um, yeah, so that’s the story of this document, but as I said already, there are several problems because Windsor Lion was not excommunicated until the 7th of November 1852, well after Sylvia would have had to have been sealed. So that’s the number one problem. Does anyone want to tell me, I should say that’s the smaller the smaller problems. They don’t want to tell me the bigger problem that we know about this affidavit now.

[09:51] Jeremy Hoop: It’s got some problems with, I think.

[09:53] Michelle: Yes, is Josephine Lion the daughter of Joseph Smith?

[09:59] Jeremy Hoop: No,

[10:00] Michelle: we now know with certainty Hugo Perego, right, did the DNA testing, and it’s actually kind of a fun story because Brian Hailes was on pins and needles waiting for the exciting news that we had found Joseph, that we have proven that Josephine is Joseph’s daughter. And he had to actually completely redo his parts of his narrative when it came out that she unequivocally is the daughter of Windsor Lion, her father, that, that apparently according to this story on her deathbed, her mother is telling. is not actually her father. Turns out he is actually her father, right? And um it’s interesting what’s happened as a result of this because Brian Hailes was so certain that Josephine was the daughter of Joseph Smith, but now he’s twisted it to mean Well it’s fun to see how the different people twist this, right, based on the DNA evidence we now have. Brian Hailes twisted to say it just meant spiritual father. Father eternally. Sylvia was only sealed to Joseph eternally for eternity, not for time. Oh, and guess what? Now, according to Brian, all of the Polyandrous wives were only sealed for eternity because having sex with Joseph would be adultery if Joseph Smith had sex with these married women. So all of a sudden Brian is very concerned about adultery with with married women, whereas before when he thought that this was Joseph’s daughter, it didn’t seem to be a concern for him. So that’s one of the fun fallouts that’s happened when we have found out without question that Josephine is not the daughter of Joseph. This was the last big piece of DNA evidence. Every other claim had already been disproven because they were mostly sons, right? They were mostly male descendants of Joseph Smith, so those were easier to disprove it. It took Hugo Prego, who really is an expert in the field, to find out how to test to find a female line, to find out about a Daughter, right? If, if there’s DNA evidence that Josephine Lion, and so he was able to do that and came out. And this was the last best hope of a child of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. And, and because of Josephine and the test that Hugo Prego did, that is why we can unequivocally say that Joseph did not have a single child with any, any woman but Emma. And anyone who keeps holding out the hope, saying, Well, maybe we You might find one, I mean, honestly, you might find a unicorn in your backyard one day. It could be hiding back there, right? Is it likely to happen? Right. If anyone finds a unicorn in their backyard, let me know. But I’m going to guess it’s not going to happen. We have, uh, every single best claim of a child from Joseph Smith has been tested and rejected. So holding out this vague hope that perhaps maybe there’s another one somewhere. It, it’s anti-science, is what it is. It’s downright anti-science.

[12:58] Whitney Horning: Well, and there became a kind of a, kind of a weird teaching that crept in right after Joseph and Hiram died. And that’s when, like, um, Jeremy mentioned in the first episode where he talked about that these women were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death in the Nabu Temple. So Sylvia actually ends up marrying Hebrewy. Kimball in September of 1844. She becomes a plural wife to Hebrewy Kimball, and then divorces him and marries a guy named Ezekiel Clark in 1850. So she most likely, when she was sealed to Hebrew, one of the things Here and Brigham would teach women, and Jeremy pointed this out on his excellent podcast on his podcast show Still Mormon. When you talk about the Augusta Cobbs letters, that Augusta’s finding, like, women would come to her and be like, Hey, I want to be sealed to Joseph. And she’d say, Well, you, well, to be sealed to Joseph Smith, the dead Joseph Smith, you’ve got to be sealed to Brigham Young as a living wife. And then she’d write, Brigham, Hey, I got you another one. She’s, you know, coming. And so they have this interesting belief at the time. And so it very well could have been. That she was still to Joseph

[14:11] Michelle: through his death,

[14:12] Whitney Horning: after his death, then to the living Hebrewy Kimball, and then what the teaching was is that any children you have are now through you, sealed to the prophet Joseph and are your children. So if there is any truth in this story, it, it isn’t, you know, like, as you pointed out, DNA, it’s not a biological child, but it could have been something with this idea of ceilings that they kind of started. Creating after Joseph and Hiram’s death. And so, but then also like Jeremy pointed out, there’s no way to know, like, like um Josephine’s the only person claiming to have had this conversation with her mother.

[14:52] Michelle: Yeah, we know that siblings are substantiating it. There’s right,

[14:56] Whitney Horning: right,

[14:59] Jeremy Hoop: and so it’s amazing.

[15:01] Michelle: Andrew Jensen wanted it to be a literal child, right? That’s why he trades stuff to Bountiful to get it. This was not used to say a spiritual child. This was used to say a literal physical biological child.

[15:14] Whitney Horning: And that was important because it shows that even then that everyone knew there were no biological children of Joseph and Hiram.

[15:24] Jeremy Hoop: Like Joseph and they couldn’t find any.

[15:26] Whitney Horning: Right, right. And so you could see where they are desperate to, and, and I think people sometimes, you know, they want to be important or whatever, and I could see it being like, Oh, well, my mom was S to Joseph’s and I’m his child, and then the story just grows wings and soon, and, you know, 40 years later, she’s got the church historian at her door signing an affidavit. She’s like, Sure, I’ll sign that affidavit. I mean, you just have no idea.

[15:53] Michelle: No idea. It could have been that her mother told her this because she’s her mother could have been saying, you’re sealed to Joseph Smith, right? Because I’m sealed to Joseph Smith. And Josephine could have either misunderstood or in all the ensuing years, who knows what came up, or she could have heard this, and Andrew’s really prompting her, prodding her to say that this is what it meant, right? We don’t know because we can’t substantiate it, but what we can say is that these claims have been proven to be untrue. So I want to talk about a couple of, couple more things with this source because I talked about how Brian Hayes pivoted when he expected this to be a little liberal to

[16:32] Jeremy Hoop: that one that you brought up so rightly. They married under what they called the law of proxy. Yes, they called it this. It was an actual doctrine taught to the women. In fact, decades later in the Temple Lot case, the, the attorneys would ask the, the three women who testified, Lucy Walker, Melissa Lott and Emily Partridge, did you marry under the law of proxy? Yes, sir. And then it was the expectation you would raise up children by Brigham Young or by Hubert Kimball, and that they would be Joseph Smiths in the eternities. Yes, sir. OK. This was the teaching to these women, OK? It’s really important to understand there were many women who were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death that never met him. That never knew him And women like Augusta Cobb would recruit women to be sealed to Joseph Smith posthumously. And just like a nun believes she’s married in certain, you know, certain, uh, strains of Catholicism, a nun believes she’s married to Jesus Christ by virtue of her covenant. These women believe they’re married to Joseph Smith, and they would call themselves the widows of Joseph Smith. This is really important to understand. This is what Eliza Snow said in 1883. They practiced something called the law of adoption. This is not something we understand today because it, it, it, it, it morphed and changed over time. It was practiced after Joseph Smith, said to be taught by Joseph Smith, that we don’t have anything from Joseph Smith, except very vaguely on the subject. Where they would form these families, OK, who were eventually connected to Joseph Smith. And this is what she said. This is Eliza Snow in 1883. When persons are adopted to Joseph Smith, they are initiated into his family and become his heirs, a wife or someone to represent a wife as proxy must be present, but who is to be the mother is not designated. So, what she’s saying is, hey, you get to be part of Joseph’s family too. You just gotta be adopted. And so, under that auspices, uh, Josephine. Or Sylvia could have told her, yeah, you’re Josie’s daughter. You were, you were adopted into the family, OK? So we have to understand that that when we’re talking about these, these, these, these terms called ceiling, there’s no evidence during Joseph’s life that any of that ever occurred, period. Anyone who says there is does not know what they’re talking about. But there’s tons of evidence that people after Joseph was died, after Joseph died were sealed to Joseph posthumously.

[19:15] Michelle: This, thank you for pointing that out because that is really important to understand because I think we should err on the side of giving Josephine the benefit of the doubt, right? That she’s not coming up with the story in 1915, that her mother did say something to her and, and it seems clear to me that she’s quite uncomfortable with this affidavit being shoved in her face. She’s like, Because the historians are requesting it, I’ve hardly ever talked about this. My mother told me not to talk about it, but I guess I am now because I’m basically being forced to, right? And if I do,

[19:46] Whitney Horning: I have to say I love in her affidavit that she carries the story so well that her father is now mister. Yes, Mr. Lyon.

[19:55] Michelle: And she calls him her mother’s husband, right? And it is also funny that it tries to make it OK. Like somehow, if you are out of favor with the church, you can be divorced and your wife can have sex with somebody with the prophet, right? Like, like that, that’s supposed to make it OK. But it see, it shows that, uh, that Josephine was, I don’t know, maybe. Interpreting it this way or interpreting this way for. She’s trying to make it OK, because it’s a troubling story. I would, I would imagine, you know? And how tragic if she, if she lived her whole life believing that Windsor was not her father when he was, right? So, so it’s a complicated story. But I, I talked about the shift that Brian Hailes did on this. I also want to Talk about the shift that like historians like Dan Vogel have done as a result, because now the claim that I hear all the time by, well, Dan Vogel has said this quite aggressively on my in comments on my channel, that she was having sex with both men. That is now the claim of how this is interpreted. And I, I, I, I have so many problems with that. So first of all, again, if we look at the affidavit, it is not to say that Sylvia said, you might be the, you know, um, Joseph Smith may be your father or could be your father, or there’s any doubt of who your father would be, right? It says that she, that the prophet, she is the daughter. Of the prophet Joseph Smith, you can absolutely interpret that in the way that you are both talking about as in an in an eternal sense, or you can interpret it as it sounds like Josephine did, or at least as she is, um, um, putting forward in this affidavit in a physical sense. But you cannot interpret it as Josephine, as Sylvia was having. Sex with both men. I, what do you guys think of that interpretation of it?

[21:49] Jeremy Hoop: Well, she’s saying that that that that her mom wasn’t wasn’t with her dad.

[21:53] Michelle: Right. She’s saying that her dad was out of the church and she’s making, she’s justifying why her mother was with somebody other than her father.

[22:03] Jeremy Hoop: Let alone, Dan, your, your desire to, to hang on to a source that’s a 19 freaking 1533 years after the supposed conversation.

[22:13] Michelle: Secondhand

[22:14] Jeremy Hoop: yes. Dan, that is historical malpractice. That’s what we talk about because that completely just abrogates your responsibility to abide by the historical method to actually look at that document for when it was created and whether it’s credible or not. That’s ridiculous.

[22:31] Michelle: OK, OK. So I think we can safely throw that out for a number of reasons, but that is what is being, and, and I do want to point out, it’s a pivot. It’s another pivot. It’s, oh no, the DNA evidence, DNA evidence has gotten in the way of this claim I want. So I’m going to pivot and now with no evidence that I can see, say that Sylvia was having sex with both men. I can guarantee this. I can guarantee that when Sylvia said this to Josephine on her deathbed, the story she did not want Josephine to believe is that she was having sex with both men at the same time. I can guarantee when Josephine filled out this affidavit, the story that she wanted told was not that her mother was having sex with two men and her paternity was uncertain. So this is a completely out of and I mean just it’s, I, I, I think it’s amusing to see the desperation to hold on to these claims. So I do wanna show also this um document that I have referred to quite often. And this is used, this is listed on Brian Hill’s website as an evidence of Sylvia’s marriage to Joseph Smith. This is Sylvia Lyon’s affidavit that I’ve talked about before. Be it remembered that on this blank day of blank 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary of public. Now this is in Joseph F. Smith’s handwriting, as are almost all of these affidavits, not in James Jack’s. Writing in and forsa County, Sylvia spelled with a C, Sylvia Lyon, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the 8th day of February, AD 1842, you’ll recall that Windsor was not out of the church until November of 1842 in the city of Navvo, County of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was married or sealed to President Joseph Smith by blank in presence of blank. Blake, never dated, never signed. Nothing from Sylvia making this claim. And this is one of the best affidavits to show the problems with all of these affidavits. People like to claim, believe the women. OK, do you want to claim that this is Sylvia’s voice in any way, and when you go through it know that all of these 1869 affidavits are made this exact way. They follow this exact. Um, wrote form letter written by Joseph F. Smith and the women’s names and the dates are filled in, and they signed them except in cases like this with Sylvia. So that’s an important thing for people to recognize as well. We have this affidavit from Sylvia, and then how many years later we get this affidavit from her daughter and Windsor’s daughter, Josephine, um, Explaining that what her mother told her that is being used by these are women being used by Joseph F. Smith and then Andrew Jensen to promote this narrative that they are promoting. This is not Sylvia’s voice that we are hearing, and Sylvia never claimed she was having sex with both men. So, and I, I, I have one other thing I want to point out, but I, if you guys have anything you want to add, please go ahead. Another thing that gets a lot of play with this affidavit is the fact that it was her deathbed confession. And deathbed confessions are a really big deal, right? Deathbed confessions are to be believed. And there’s actually some truth to that, right? And so, in that vein, I would like to bring up. The deathbed confession of Emma Smith that was taken on her deathbed by Joseph Smith III, right, in view of the death of Sister Emma having occurred so soon after she made them these statements, thus giving them the character of a last testimony. And so I think we I should pay attention to the fact that deathbed confessions matter. I can go through, um, some of these. Let me see if I can go through some of what Emma says in this confession. Joseph III asked, What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery? Let me see if I can make this work for me. My slides are not wanting to go forward. OK. And I’m just showing that we have the original notes because Brian Hale like to claimed that Joseph III made this up and we don’t have any notes. And this was from an episode I did showing that that is absolutely not true. But here’s what she says. There was no revelation on either polygamy or spiritual wives. No such thing as polygamy or spiritual wifery was taught publicly or privately before my husband’s death that I have now. Or ever have had any knowledge of. He goes on to say, did he have any other wives than yourself? He had no other wife than me, nor did he, to my knowledge ever have. And then it goes on to say that, um, that there was no such doctrine and never should be in with his knowledge or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise. Now, I’m going to agree with them that a deathbed confession is important, especially in this day and age when they believed that, like Eliza Snow’s response when she heard this about Emma is to say she died with libel on her lips, which would have been the worst thing that that someone could do, is to die in a lie, right? They really believed that. However, Emma had not taken an oath that whatever she said, any sin was So was just fine as long as she didn’t commit murder, right? Eliza had taken that oath. That wasn’t Eliza’s deathbed testimony. This was Emma Smith’s deathbed testimony. If we’re going to pay attention to deathbed testimonies, let’s pay attention to this one, not the that was, that was taken in the moment we have the original notes and that was published just a few months later, right? That was

[29:01] Jeremy Hoop: 33 years after the fact.

[29:04] Michelle: Yes, so I do want to pay attention to the fact that yes, deathbed testimonies are important and yes, we absolutely should listen to the voices of women. And here we have the actual voice of the woman most central to all of this whose consistent testimony throughout her life never wavered, right? And the evidence on the ground proves that we have the letters between Joseph and Emma, we have Joseph’s. Jon while he was in hiding. We have so many documents. We have the children to prove that Joseph and Emma were married and to prove that Joseph didn’t have relationships with anybody else. And if we want to claim and the DNA evidence proves that in this case with Josephine Lion, this is really a big deal how the deathbed testimonies come together and the evidence of children is big in this source. We should pay attention to it.

[30:00] Whitney Horning: Well, and I want to point out that this, the, um, I think they’re making a bigger deal of the deathbed part of it, because it doesn’t actually say on her deathbed. It just says my mom was getting older and, and prior to her death.

[30:16] Michelle: Yes.

[30:17] Whitney Horning: You know, just because, like, a woman’s bedridden maybe, and like my grandmother was bedridden for several years and If I would have sat by her bedside talking with her a few months before her death, that doesn’t make that, it doesn’t make anything because you’re laying in a bed.

[30:38] Michelle: Yeah, right, just prior to her death.

[30:40] Whitney Horning: Yeah, I just look at that and I think it could have it just says prior to it in 1882. Well, did she tell her this in 1881? Did she tell her this in 1880? I mean she doesn’t liter Josephine doesn’t use the word my mother gave me a deathbed confession that has been attributed by historians and so I feel like that’s a little bit of an overreach. That’s just my thought on that.

[31:04] Michelle: I think that’s good. However, Joseph the Third does tell us that Emma’s testimony is her last.

[31:12] Whitney Horning: I guess that was to me that stands out.

[31:14] Michelle: That’s an important distinction.

[31:16] Jeremy Hoop: One of the important things with all of these as well when you look at Benjamin Johnson or you look at uh the Temple Lot testimonies, these testimonies in in the 1880s, 190s, the early 1900s, these are old people. These are people not only who um might have some compromised memory, they might have. Just no memory at all. They might have they’ve completely concocted in their minds. How many times do we have, do you have any old relatives? I do. And, and so, you know, the stories get a little taller with the telling at each time and You know, can you rely on the testimonies of 8080 year olds and 90-year-olds at the very end of their lives when they’re reminiscing on the good old days?

[31:59] Michelle: Well, yes, and sometimes you can, you can, right? But if they’re

[32:03] Jeremy Hoop: backed up by data. Yes,

[32:05] Michelle: and we have, we can show Josephine Lyon may very well, I mean, Josephine Fisher may very well be telling the truth of what her mother told her, but again, misunderstandings decades past, and we now have the evidence to show she was incorrect. Her father being out of the church, which she must have come up with that to try to make it OK that her mother, you know, was with someone other than her legal husband. Maybe Josephine came up with that as an explanation. She was incorrect about it. And then she was incorrect about the assumption that Joseph Smith was her father. So anyway, I think we need to be very careful before putting too much into the source and the fact that it is being used to claim that Sylvia was having sex with both men is just I, I mean, that shows how desperate people are to cling to this narrative, because you would need to show better evidence than this affidavit, which we’ve just explained in many ways. You would need better evidence than this to claim that Sylvia was having sex with both men.

[33:11] Jeremy Hoop: And by the way, there, there, there are historians, and I, I’ve had conversations with one that, that don’t see the evidence as really strong, if, if any evidence whatsoever that that there’s sex going on. And so we’re not out, we’re not up in the night, just, uh just saying there’s no evidence. We’re going through this piece by piece and showing you why some credible historians actually don’t think it’s very credible to say that Joseph had sex with the wives.

[33:38] Michelle: I think you’re up in the night to insist unequivocally that Sylvia was having sex with both men, and the evidence they use for that is, she thought that Joseph was Josephine’s father without any, without giving any consideration to the far, far better explanations.

[33:56] Jeremy Hoop: What do they accuse us of motivated and cherry

[34:00] Whitney Horning: picking. I love it. Well, I do think that it shows a dedication to their narrative. Because they they have this dedication, this narrative, 1915 to when the DNA evidence came out, right? You know, like what was, was the DNA evidence in the 90s, 1990s. So you’ve got like 75ish

[34:18] Michelle: years, more recent, it was in the 2000s, the 200.

[34:22] Whitney Horning: So you got, so you have to admit you’ve got. You know, 90, around 90 years of a narrative that DNA evidence just blows out of the water, right? And so, but then you’ve got these historians, right? They’re so married to this narrative that now they’ve got to know, um, OK, well then, hmm. So if their mom thought she was, oh, and her name’s Josephine. Oh, another proof, right? And so to me it’s just I don’t know, it’s really, um, disrespectful to assume this woman is sleeping with two men at the same time that she can’t tell whose baby she’s carrying. Right. You know, I, I don’t know. I, and I feel like you can’t have it both ways. On one hand, they want everyone to everyone after Joseph was following this high and holy calling to be polygamists. Joseph was a scoundrel who was lying. And then when we point out, you know Joseph was telling the truth and Emma and Hiram and these other people had mixed up false ideas that they were following, I mean, it’s just, I don’t know, it’s just they’re all over the place.

[35:31] Jeremy Hoop: Well there’s a, there’s a reason why. People want to, they, they want to read into that because they, they lay on top of Joseph, the behaviors and motivations of other people who did those things. Like for example, Theodore Turley. Theodore Turley comes off of his mission from England. He’s caught. Sleeping with two women on the on the voyage over, he’s caught by 1 in 40s,

[35:53] Whitney Horning: wasn’t he?

[35:54] Jeremy Hoop: 39 years old with 9 children, and, and he was caught by 11 witnesses. This is not, this, this was contemporaneous stuff where people saw him kissing and romping with women and sleeping with two females all the way along the voyage, not one time, all the way along they saw him. Well. He goes on in 1842 marries Mary Clift. Well, Mary Clift was a Manchester woman who, who, who, who rode over on the boat ride with him. We don’t know if she was one of the women he was sleeping with. However, she goes on, has sex with Gustavus Hills, gets uh called in on a Navavo High council trial, and she’s pregnant. Now, we don’t know who the baby was. The name of the baby is Jason Turley. So, Theodore claims him under his name. The family thinks, well, it’s just so he saves her the embarrassment. But my goodness, they didn’t acknowledge themselves as being married at that time. This is a real problem. So Jason, so, so who’s the baby there? Is it Gustave’s Hills or is it Theodore Turley’s? Then we’ve got Hebrew Kimball, who does the same thing with Sarah and Whitney. Sarah and Whitney’s living with and married to Joseph Kingsbury in 1845, and Hebrew Kimball starts sleeping with her while she’s married to and living with Joseph Kingsbury, and uh has a after March March 27th, 1845. She washes his feet and then she gets pregnant within a couple of months. So whose baby is that? Is that Joseph King or his baby or is that Hebrew Kimball’s baby? This is the problem. It happened. This kind of stuff happened with the Nabu polygamists, but they, but they want to say, well, of course, then it happened with Joseph Smith because he taught them how to do it. And William Clayton said he was doing all that nonsense and blah blah blah. You don’t have proof of it. You are. Using motivated reasoning and cherry-picking sources without evidence. And we’re showing you how, how the paucity of evidence related to Joseph Smith, there is none. You are overlaying on top of him the behaviors of other people that are bona fide, and you have a pick, you have a bone to pick with those people, but not with Joseph

[38:02] Michelle: Smith. Yes, I think we have, I think we have presented a far better explanation that according to um the explanations that you both gave of ceilings and what that meant and how that was interpreted. That like my, my, my, um, assessment of this source at this point would be that it is most likely that Sylvia was letting Josephine know that she was sealed to that Joseph was her father in this way, right? Josephine interpreted this way, tried to make sense of it by saying, well, it must have been while my father. Who I thought was my father was out of the church. Maybe that’s how I can make sense of it. Then we get this interpretation, and that is how this can be interpreted very well, rather than that Sylvia was having sex with both men, right? And the other thing that I think is important to consider is that Brigham Young and Hebrew Kimball will, uh, uh, that any of them never went searching for Joseph’s children. Right? Other people did that. If they were wanting to show that Joseph was a polygamist, they could have had brought, brought forward all of Joseph’s wives, brought forward Joseph’s children. But even when Joseph F. Smith started filling out the affidavits, no, nobody made an effort. Brigham Young did not make an effort to say, Oh, these are Joseph’s children. I think because he knew there weren’t any. Because they knew that Joseph was not a polygamist, correct? And then we have Joseph Smith III came to Utah. He was the one who really tried hard in earnest to find any other children of his father. He was looking for his long lost brothers and sisters, the long lost branches of his family tree. And and as I, I won’t go into it much right now, but when he went to meet with Melissa Lott. Melissa Lott’s sisters came over to the house and told him that there are that they have searched far and wide legitimately looking for children of Joseph Smith, and there aren’t any, and they said that emphatically, and Joseph III recorded it in his contemporaneous journal that day after his visit, that that’s what he was told by those women who had made an active. Looking for children and there were none.

[40:22] Jeremy Hoop: That was in 1885.

[40:24] Michelle: Yes, yes. So for us to claim that this 1915 source is evident somehow that Joseph was fathering children or could have been is highly irresponsible to without all the rest of these sources. So yes, I think that these are, I think we can put this source away and hopefully people Will not continue to use this 1915 affidavit with known inaccuracies, right? We can see why Joseph Josephine would have thought these things, but we know they’re not true. So we can’t keep using. I, I don’t think we can in good conscience keep using this affidavit as evidence of marriage and sexuality between Joseph and Sylvia. OK, should we move on to the next claim? So I think we’ve done that one well. So now, Whitney, do you want to talk to us about Nancy Rigton and the happiness letter?

[41:18] Whitney Horning: I would love to. OK, so on the Joseph Smith papers and in, and it’s also included in um the teachings of Joseph Smith, there is a letter that the church calls the happiness letter. This letter, um, was published in the Sangamo Journal, August 19, 1842, and the Sangamo Journal was a weekly newspaper that was printed in Springfield, Illinois, um, between the years of 1831 and 1847. And that, um, the letter was embedded within a larger letter from John C. Bennett. So John C. Bennett was going on the attack. Um, he had become a bitter enemy to Joseph Smith. He had been um moved out of Navvo. He had been, um, lost his place as mayor, and then also been, um. Um, lost his fellowship with the church over his, um, sexual indiscretions and improprieties. So John C. Bennett writes this letter, and in that letter he includes a portion called the happiness letter, and claimed in that letter, the larger letter, John C. Bennett made the claim that Joseph Smith had written this letter to Nancy Rigdon, the daughter of Sydney Rigdon. Nancy, I believe, was 18 or 19 years old at the time. And Bennet’s claim was that this letter was Joseph’s attempt to court Nancy, um, to become one of his polygamist wives. So what’s upsetting to me about this um letter and that it made it into the teaching of Joseph Smith, is that Joseph Smith actually denied being the author of the letter. Um, the letter is not extant anymore, so the whatever letter John C. Bennett got this from to then print in the paper, the all that is remaining is what is printed in the paper. There is no actual letter. Um, but it was claimed by Bennett that it was in the handwriting of Willard Richards, so he was claiming

[43:21] Michelle: says William Richards. He even gets his name wrong.

[43:24] Whitney Horning: Does he get the name wrong? Well, maybe there was a willing. We should. But it’s been the happiness letter gets quoted actually a lot, and it gets quoted a lot. In general conference. And it’s interesting because actually, just as a teaching, if you, if you can remove the polygamy lens off of it and remove what John C. Bennett claims it was, it’s actually got a lot of nice teachings in it and doesn’t actually say anything about polygamy. It’s just that, um, There’s a section in there that basically kind of makes it sound like sometimes you have to, to break commandments to keep a higher commandment kind of idea. Um, and so that’s what people claim is the part that is about polygamy that, you know, that was Joseph’s code for saying, you know, maybe, you know, monogamy is what the Christian world believes, but you, you’ve got to break that law to keep God’s higher law kind of idea. Um. Rob Fotheringham has an excellent video presentation that on YouTube that is named Defending the Prophet Joseph Martha Brotherton affidavit and the happiness Letter. And in that presentation, Rob cites an excellent article written by Garrett Dirkmott, titled Searching for Happiness, Joseph Smith’s alleged Authorship of the 1842 Letter to Nancy Rigdon. And that article was printed in the Journal of Mormon History in July of 2016. In that article, Dirkmat cites the following. He says, quote, Joseph Smith’s journal recorded of the incident, so the incident of that claiming that this letter was his attempt to court Nancy and that he wrote it. President Joseph, in company with Bishop Miller, visited Elder Rigdon and his family and had much conversation about JC Bennett and others. Much unpleasant feeling was manifested by Elder Rigdon’s family, who were confounded and put to silence by the truth from President Joseph. So he, Dirkmot is basically in his article, he’s saying that. That really you have to take all of the um proofs that Joseph denounced writing it, that he denounced sending it to Nancy, and then Sydney himself. And so then he actually records that in his journal, and then Joseph says, um, in May of 1842, dictated a letter to President Sydney Rigdon concerning certain difficulties or sur surmises which existed. The next day received answer from Sydney Rigdon after a variety of current business, having been in his garden with his family much of the day, walked in the evening to the post office with the recorder and had a private interview with President Rigdon with much apparent satisfaction to all parties concerning certain evil reports put in circulation by Francis M. Higbee about President Rigdon’s family and others. And then he goes on and says some sources suggest the bad feelings between Joseph and Sydney were due to Sydney finding out in the Sangamo Journal that Joseph was trying to propose to Nancy. Um, Dirkmot also makes the observation. That the only original text for the happening of this letter is found in the Sangamo Journal, and even if Smith’s authorship is assumed, Bennett’s claim placing it in the context of a failed proposal to Nancy cannot be demonstrated with certainty, as there are competing accounts of the interactions between the two of them. So then Rob goes on in his presentation to list 9 issues with the attribution. Um, the letter originated with John C. Bennett, a known liar and enemy to Joseph. There is no physical copy of the original letter. The letter was not dated. The contents of the letter were not addressed to anyone. Neither Joseph’s name or signature were included anywhere on the letter. The letter was basically anonymous. John C. Bennett claimed the letter was in the handwriting of Willard Richards. Sydney Rigdon publicly claimed the letter had not come from Joseph. Nancy Rigdon, through her father publicly denied the letter came from Joseph, and William Smith, Joseph’s brother, printed a notice that Joseph was not the author in his newspaper, The Wasp. So you can actually go find. I love that the internet has so many old sources. So here’s a clipping from the WASP. And this is actually from Sydney Rigdon, so William Smith printed a denial from Joseph, and then later, um, this is from Sydney. To the editor of the WASP, dear Sir, I am fully authorized by my daughter Nancy to say to the public through the medium of your paper that the letter which has appeared in the Sangamo Journal making part of General Bennett’s letters to said paper purporting to have been written by Mister Joseph Smith to her, his daughter, was unauthorized by her and that she never said to General Bennett or any other person. The said letter was written by, said Mister Smith, nor in his handwriting, but by another person and in another person’s handwriting. She further wishes me to say that she never at any time authorized General Bennett to use her name. In the public papers as he has done, which has been greatly to the wounding of her feelings, and she considers the obtruding of her name before the public in the manner in which it has been done, to say the least of it, is a flagrant violation of the rules of gallantry, and cannot avoid to insult her feelings which she wishes the public to know. I would further state that Mister Smith denied to me the authorship of that letter. Sidney Rigdon, PS I wish the Sangamo Journal and all papers that have copied Bennett’s letters to copy this also as an act of justice to Miss Rigdon. So I find that interesting that in his desire to kind of, you know, vindicate his daughter and try to restore her feelings, he also vindicates Joseph Smith. And then also Joseph Smith then later, about about that same time, creates the affidavits and certificates, um, denying the plural marriage and John C. Bennett. And that also is included in there. And so again, the happiness

[50:10] Michelle: is not included on the Joseph Smith papers. Isn’t that interesting, the affidavits and certificates? Yeah,

[50:16] Whitney Horning: yeah, it’s not,

[50:17] Michelle: it’s fascinating.

[50:21] Whitney Horning: Yeah, and 400, about 400 elders went out and served missions. They did a short little couple week mission where they took these affidavits and certificates that were, um, proving John C. Bennett was the adulterer and philanderer and not Joseph Smith. And they went on missions and took these affidavits everywhere. And it is. You can find them on the Internet archive, but you cannot find it on Joseph Smith papers. Yep, there it is.

[50:51] Michelle: And it is, it’s a collection of affidavits disclaiming all of, I’m disproving all of John C. Bennett’s claims. And that, yes, it is fascinating that this isn’t on the Joseph Smith papers. I’ve actually messaged them wondering why it’s not, and I haven’t yet heard a satisfactory reason. I, I find that to be very strange.

[51:13] Whitney Horning: And it is upsetting to me that the church ended up putting it in the teachings of Joseph Smith, when, you know, as if it’s really is his when he himself said he never authored it, and then he’s got Sydney saying he didn’t, he proves in his journal that he went and met with Sydney, and they worked it out and was able to prove to him that it never originated from him. And so it’s just actually really tragic that we not only have to In the work we’re doing to look at these documents and to, you know, find if they’re valid and whatnot. But then we also, I feel like we have to fight so much of what the church has um taken as assumptions and, and created in a sense another narrative that we have to also try to, to analyze and to dig into that um. and I feel like it’s still going on today, like I’m, I was on the Joseph Smith papers looking for stuff for this podcast, and there’s just all kinds of new assumptions are adding all the time, creating new narratives that I just, I’m like stop, like we’ve got the narratives from 200 years ago we’re trying to untangle. We don’t need you today adding new spins to things and new narratives.

[52:34] Jeremy Hoop: Well, and there’s pieces of it that they never, for example, Um, this story starts in July 1st of 1841. When John Bennett called Joseph in to his home or office to to to attend to Francis Higbee, who had syphilis, Francis Higbee was basically on almost on his deathbed, and John Bennett, being a quasi-doctor, was trying to minister to him and said, I can’t help him, help him. And Joseph said he stunk really bad. We get this from Joseph’s from a trial Joseph went through defending himself against Francis Higbee’s allegations against him in 1844. OK. If you’re following that, Francis Higbee. One of the infamous Higbee’s Laws and Fosters, OK,

[53:21] Michelle: they were the ones who did thenovo expositors

[53:24] Jeremy Hoop: who were in part named in as the part of the conspirators to Joseph Martin. Francis Higbee, um, sues Joseph Smith for slander and libel in in 1844 because Joseph had said things that Francis was doing. Well, when did that start? That started in July 1st, 1841 because Francis had smallpox had not smallpox, had uh had syphilis, had the pox syphilis because he had been having sex with the French girl, a prostitute up on the hill, OK? And we know this because he confessed to it. He confessed to it in front of about 60 men. He and John Bennett both confessed to those sins. That’s where this all starts. Joseph had been investigating John Bennett for um the better part of 6 months or so, and it came back that John Bennett had left Ohio, had left a wife and children there, and it said he was a single man, and they found out that no, he wasn’t a single man and his wife. was saying, hey, I, you know, he’s not doing his, his, his husbandly or fatherly responsibility,

[54:27] Michelle: providing for us.

[54:27] Jeremy Hoop: He’s a scoundrel, and they found this out. Joseph in 1844 said, I never should have trusted those people. I tried to work with them, tried to help them reform, and I never will do that again because they turned on him. John Bennett and Francis Higbee were hauled before the Navvo Lodge, and this is interesting. He didn’t take them before the Navo High Council and have them booted out at that point. He took them before the lodge. Why? Because they would keep a secret. So he had to confess to the lodgeman, and John Bennett begged him and begged him and begged him not to expel him from the church or the especially the the lodge. But Francis was tied into it. Now why is this important? Francis Sibe appears that he was dating Nancy Rigdon. Mhm. OK, that they were an item. And for whatever reason, whatever they told Nancy, we don’t know because we don’t know what Nancy says, other than the fact that it caused a major stir in the Rigdon family. A huge rift and Nancy’s brother-in-law thought Joseph was guilty and, and his brother-in-law went on a diatribe against Joseph, became, uh, and, and went into cahoots with John Bennett. It caused a massive scandal all through 1842. And it was after the, after the conversations with the Rigdon family cause there were rumors about, you know, with Martha Brotherton and Nancy Rigdon. There were rumors and with Sarah Pratt, OK. Sarah Pratt was witnessed by 4 different people who signed affidavits that she was having sex with John Bennett, or rather caught in, in compromising positions with John Bennett on top of her with his hand in her dress. OK. This is the kind of stuff that they don’t tell you, that all of this stuff was witnessed and, and adjudicated at the time and made very public. And Joseph defended himself vociferously, and he signed an affidavit and handed it to Sidney Rigdon at the time to say, I didn’t do this. And he brought Francis the conversation about this is Francis. I caught him last year, he had syphilis, and I brought him before the lodge. That’s the stuff that he went to Sydney about. Sydney was really distraught, because apparently his daughter wasn’t fessing up to what was happening. Interestingly, Sydney’s daughter, his, his youngest daughter died. And someone, I believe Joseph Smith brought her back to life. He said she died 3 times, I believe, during the night. She died and was dead. The doctor pronounced her dead, was brought back to life. Died, brought back to life, died, and she, on the, I believe the 3rd time, she looked at Nancy and said, basically, you’re sinning. You’re sinning, you need to stop. Sydney gets up and he gives a speech before all of the saints. And he says, Jose Joseph Smith’s faithful, the restoration is good, everything’s good because of the testimony of his daughter who was brought back to life. That’s the story, that’s the history. That’s what’s in the contemporaneous record. And Sydney goes on to then defend Joseph Smith in the trial. He’s his lawyer against Francis Higbe. It is only until after Joseph dies with all the stories that are being whispered about that Sydney changes his mind. By the way, Sydney’s not quite right in the head ever since he fell off a horse, OK?

[57:41] Michelle: Right. Sydney, like so many others, including Whitehead, and, um, I mean, um, oh, who is it that I just did the episode on? It was Whitehead and others came to believe the stories that had been told about Joseph Smith during his lifetime. That happened to many people. That’s what happened to all of us, right? We believe the later accounts after Joseph Smith’s death and everyone who’s believed this and the happiness letter, it is so important to recognize this is cherry picked information. You’re being given little tiny snippets here and there from people who want to push this narrative and are not being at all comprehensive or conclusive or even fair with the documentation and the sources. These other sources matter immensely and are part of the story.

[58:25] Whitney Horning: Well, and again, John C. Bennett was an enemy to Joseph, and I know there are historians who say, well, that makes it, you know, more true kind of thing, and, and I think, you know, it goes back to the scripture where, you know, your enemies will believe these things of you, you know, but the pure in heart will see the truth and so. I guess I just, I, it just can’t handle it when they use John C. Bennett as a source. I mean, the guy who just lied constantly about everything in his own life, let alone when he started going after Joseph.

[58:59] Michelle: But it, one important thing that we do need to recognize is the fact that the Utah polygamist historians were using John Bennett as a source. Right, they take this letter that we only, the only source, as Whitney pointed out that we have from it is the Sangamo Journal published by John C. Bennett, like this letter submitted by John C. Bennett. That’s the only source, and they put it in Joseph Smith’s own words in the history that they’re compiling while at the same time erasing so many things from Hiram Smith, right? They delete Hiram’s. From the history. They change so many sources, but this source from um from John Bennett that Joseph denied, that Sydney denied it, they include and put it in Joseph’s own words, where it’s there to unfortunately be quoted in general conference meant like a century later, right? Or a century and a half later. And so I, I hope that people recognize that as how this This happened really the church leaders are victims of this as well of what of what was done so many years ago by the polygamist Utah historians. And so people shouldn’t point out the fact that the happiness letter has been quoted in general conference to validate it or even to be too critical of the church leaders who are just looking at the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and find it there because this is how it was handed down to them.

[1:00:23] Jeremy Hoop: I would challenge anyone watching this to go watch there’s a couple of videos that have been done by some other people that people think are really great. Go watch those. On the happiness letter and what and and then come back to this and ask yourself which one has treated the data more fairly.

[1:00:37] Michelle: Which one included more sources, more of the sources, right. Mhm. So, OK, anything else on the happiness letter?

[1:00:44] Whitney Horning: No, I think that’s good.

[1:00:46] Michelle: OK, so we have 2 more to talk about, but actually one of them is Melissa Lott. But I actually don’t think I will take time to talk about her right now because I talked about her in depth in this recent episode I did, this episode right here, and I go into depth into the Lot family Bible. And I know that Julia, after, um, well, when John Dehlin sent me a big long list. Of questions in in preparation for our episode. One of them was from Julia about the Lot family Bible, and they all they do with Willissa Lott in this episode is read through a portion of the Temple Lot testimony. I think it’s a huge mistake to only read a portion of those testimonies of the three wives because you can find a portion that says what you want it to say. But you have to read much more than that to understand what it actually says. And I will remind everybody that Judge Phillips did not find the women to be credible. And all you have to do is read through the testimony yourself to understand why. So I’m not gonna go in depth more in Melissa Melissa Lot other than to say, Joseph Smith the 3rd absolutely did not believe that she was a wife. Judge Phillip. Did not believe that she was a wife, and I think people who look honestly at the testimony will find it relatively hard to believe that she’s a wife. That’s my opinion anyway. I think that the evidence becomes quite clear, and I will point out also that family Bible. I hope people will watch the episode. It was not recorded contemporaneously when Hirum sealed Premilia and Cornelius. It was recorded in Utah. It is highly suspect. It was recorded in 1848 when other several other documents were beginning to be recorded on this topic, trying to start to establish this narrative. So we’ll just skip over, Melissa lot with that if that’s good enough, and we’ll go straight on. I think Jeremy is going to talk about Emily Partridge.

[1:02:47] Jeremy Hoop: Absolutely. So Emily Partridge, this is, to me, this is the big kahuna. This is the one. That um is the most problematic because she’s the only woman ever to be asked directly, did you have sex with Joseph, and she answers yes. And we’ll get to that. We’ll get to where she does that. Excuse me, I’m sucking on a los and stuff because my voice is hammered. So, uh, let’s see, can you bring the slides up? Thank you. So, Emily Partridge, um, she married Brigham Young in 1884, 1844. Shortly after Joseph died, she had 7 children with Brigham Young. And the question is, is there any real evidence of sexuality with Joseph Smith? And she’s the one that presents the most. So let’s see if that’s actually the case. What we need to do first of all, is understand. What she said prior to saying she had sex with Joseph Smith. So we understand what her narrative is that she published to the world. She’s one of the most published of what I call the storyteller wives. She has so much stuff that you can go through, and we’re gonna go through the substantial parts of it that she published that have to do with her marriage to Joseph Smith. We’re gonna go through all of it. OK, so hold on to your seats because we’re gonna, uh, we’re gonna give you all of the relevant details. First of all, She’s one of the women who signed an affidavit in 1869. She signed two of them. One of them had to do with the fir, this is a really curious case because she claims she was married to Joseph twice. She claims that she and her sister were married to Joseph twice. First, that she was quote married or sealed to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843. And then again on the 11th of May 1843, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Judge James Adams, a high priest, and In the presence of Emma Smith and Eliza Maria Partridge, her sister. Her sister also signed two almost identical affidavits, except that her first marriage date was the 8th of March, so 4 days after Emily is is supposedly first married to Joseph, and then she also says, I was also married on the 11th day of May 1843, on the second time. In the presence of by James Adams in the presence of Emma, OK. That’s really critical to understand that these women, both over and over, told this story and the date of their marriage is May 11th, 1843 by Judge James Adams in the presence of Emma Smith. OK, that’s the predicate. Mhm. Now Emily’s stories. Here’s a critical background to understand her Temple Lot case testimony.

[1:05:36] Michelle: I’ll read this in really quickly just they both signed two affidavits, but there is no explanation given at the affidavits. They just sign identical affidavits with different dates. It’s not until they. that we get the reason

[1:05:50] Jeremy Hoop: behind what was actually supposedly

[1:05:53] Michelle: explanation of why, right? But at the time we just have those two affidavits. Again, the, um, the, like I showed with Sylvia Lyon, the boilerplate affidavits filled out by Joseph F. Smith.

[1:06:07] Jeremy Hoop: Now, Emily tells this story in a number of different occasions over time, and she adds different pieces to the story, but there’s a lot of consistency in what she tells. And in 1884. In an autobiography, she pens called What I Remember. You can find all this church history library, by the way. She says the first animation I had from Brother Joseph. That there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage was in the spring of 1842. Let me give you some background. She and her sister had apparently moved in with the Smiths, according to their telling. It’s hard to know contemporaneously we don’t actually have real data as to who was living with the Smiths. This is a subject that needs to be discussed much more at length because a lot of women claim they were living with the Smiths, but there’s a physical impossibility about that that we’ll discuss. However, she claimed she was living at the Smiths that after her father, Edward Partridge died in 1839, they moved in with the Smiths sometime around 1840-ish, and they stayed there for about 3 years. That home that they lived in was called the Homestead. This was a small home and we’ll talk about that. But this is where she is. She’s living with Joseph Smith and and as she will say, basically teaching the kids and performing some household duties and, and helping around the house, and she, by her own words, loved Emma, loved the children, loved Joseph. They were treated like gold by both Emma and Joseph, OK. So, in the spring of 1842, But I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May 1843 again by elder James Adams, Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always up to this time been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph Smith with Emma’s consent, but ever after she was our enemy. Pardon me, she used every means in her power to injure us in the eyes of her husband. And before strangers, and in consequence of her abuse, we were obliged to leave the city to gratify her, but things were overruled otherwise and we remained in Navo. My sister Eliza found a home with the family of brother Joseph Coolidge, and I went to live with Sister Sylvia Lyons. We’ve just talked about her. She was a good, she was a good woman, and one of the Lord’s chosen few. Emma, about this time gave her husband two other wives, Maria and Sarah Lawrence. So, again, from this story, again, married May 11th, 1843, James Adams did it. Emma’s full and free consent. That’s a very important phrase, she will repeat this. Afterwards, Emma was their enemy, then. Michelle, will you read April 1st, 1844?

[1:08:49] Michelle: Yes, Emma was a witness of Joseph taking plural wives, and on one occasion at least, and if she denied it on her deathbed, which is very hard to believe, even 40 times over, it does not destroy the facts. Emma seemed to feel well until the ceremony was over, when almost before she could draw a second breath she turned and was more bitter in her feelings than ever before, if possible. She had, as it were, bound bound us to the ship and carried us to the mid ocean. Then threw us overboard to sink or swim as the case might be. She often made things very unpleasant, but I have nothing in my heart towards her but pity. I know it was hard for Emma and any woman to enter into plural marriage in those days, and I do not know as anybody would have done any better than Emma did under the circumstances.

[1:09:42] Jeremy Hoop: So this is consistent with the other one. Right after she’s married, and Emma was their bitter enemy. Then in 1886, Andrew Jensen publishes another autobiography. Whitney, would you read this one?

[1:09:55] Whitney Horning: So on 11th of May 1843, we were married to Joseph Smith, the second time in Emma’s presence, she giving her free and full consent. From that very hour, she was our bitter enemy. We remained in the family several months after this, but things got or went from bad to worse, and until we were obliged to leave the house and find another home. Emma desired us to leave the city, but after considering the matter over, we decided to remain with our friends.

[1:10:26] Jeremy Hoop: OK, again, she repeats the date, May 11th, 1843, from that very hour of their marriage, she was, they were bitter, she was our bitter enemy. Also one additional bit of data, we remained in the house for several months. And then they were out. That would put them out by middle of August at the very latest, earliest, the early part of September 1843. OK. Remember that, that’s very important. Then, from incidents in the life of a Mormon Girl, this is an undated document, she writes. It was about this time that the principles of celestial marriage were being taught to a few. I and my sister Eliza received it and were married to brother Joseph about that time the same time. But neither of us knew about the other, and at the time, everything was so secret. This was in March 1843. Joseph had tried to make these things known to me several months before. Let me pause there for a second. She will say in another account, she actually learned the principles of plural marriage before Joseph supposedly ever said a word, and she says, I received a testimony of what Joseph would have said to me had he spoken to me. That’s really important to understand. Emily, by her own words, learned about this without Joseph. Just keep that in mind, OK. I think in the spring, spring or summer of 42, but I had shut him up so quick. That he said no more until the 28th of February 1843. It’s the only time she adds this bit of detail, my 19th birthday, and I was married the 4th of March following. OK. Uh, continuing after a month or two, Emma had consented to give Joseph two wives. This would again put this right about me, OK? If he would let her choose them for him, and as she chose Eliza and myself, the ceremony was done over again in her presence on the 11th of 1843. I do not know why she gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better than some others outside of the house. She wanted us immediately divorced, and She seemed to think that she only had to say a word and it was done, but we thought different. We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred. She afterwards gave Sarah and Maria Lawrence to him, and they lived in the house as his wives. I knew this, but my sister and I were cast off again. One of them immediately divorced, married on 11th of May 1843. She says that Sarah and Maria Lawrence were married. By the way, everybody puts those marriages of Sarah Maria Lawrence in May of 1843 as well. They put them in that same time period just so everyone is aware, OK. The, the historians who believe that he was married to those two women as well in that same time.

[1:13:05] Michelle: We have Sarah coming to Utah saying stop saying that my sister and I stop saying I was Joseph’s wife. I was never Joseph’s wife, so

[1:13:12] Jeremy Hoop: that’s right. So Sarah, Sarah and Maria are part of what I call the rumor wives, meaning they never made a claim. Other people claimed they were, and Sarah is the one who denied that she ever had anything to do with that.

[1:13:24] Michelle: So, so for people were saying, believe the women, right? Let’s believe. Sarah, Maria was dead. Sarah traveled to Utah to say, stop saying this. That’s, that we know it.

[1:13:36] Jeremy Hoop: She told it to Lucy Walker, one of the biggest proponents of polygamy, and Lucy Walker rightly reported it and said, Well, Sarah said she wasn’t, so OK. Right. Then again, we have another one called Incidents, but this one’s incidents in the Early life of Emily Dow Partridge. This is 1876 and 1977. Michelle, will you read this one? This one is my favorite.

[1:13:57] Michelle: My mind was now prepared and would received the principles. I do not think if I had not gone through the ordeal I did, I could ever have gone off that night to meet him. But that was the only way that that could be done then. Well, I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way, and I’m going my way alone. A strange way of getting married, wasn’t it? Brother Kimball married us for March 1843. Things remained as they were for a few months when sometime in the first part of May, Emma told Joseph she would give, um, Emma told Joseph she would give him 2. Wives, if he would let her choose them for him. She chose my sister and I and helped explain the principles to us. We did not make much trouble, but we, but we are sealed in her presence in her full and free consent. It was 11 May, but before the day was over, she turned around, repented of what she had done, and kept Joseph up till very late at night talking to him. OK,

[1:15:01] Jeremy Hoop: let’s pause for a second. We’re going to keep going with this one, but let’s pause. We got some more information in this account. So, in the very first marriage, which there’s more to this story, but this is the this is the crux of it. She’s married to Joseph at Hebrew Kimball’s home. And we’re gonna, we’re gonna learn more about this in the Temple Lot case, but she’s married in Hebrew Kimball’s home. Oddly, they go home alone, their separate ways, and she says things remained as they were for a few months until the 11th of May. Let’s come, put a pin in that because that’s an important phrase. Things remained as they were. But before the day was over, and again, the bitter enemy comment, she repented of what meaning she changed her mind of what she had done and kept Joseph up till very late in the night talking to him. OK, that’s really important. We’ll remember that phrase. Going on, she kept close watch of us. If we were missing for a few minutes and Joseph was not at home, the house was searched from top to bottom, from one end to the other, and if we were not found in the neighborhood was searched until we were found. Emma could not rest till she got us out of the house, and then she was not satisfied. She wanted us to leave the city. She offered to give us money to pay our expenses and go. We consulted Joseph and he said we might make a visit to some of our relatives. We were living up the river $20,200 or 300 miles, so we agreed to go and she gave us $10. Joseph said it was insufficient for us not to go, so we gave it up and returned the money to Emma. I do not remember seeing Joseph but once to speak after I left the mansion house. Pause on that. Notice she says the man does, and that was just before he started to Carthage. He, his looks spoke the sorrow of his heart, although his words were guarded. So notice from that phrase. She only saw him one time after that to speak, OK? Nothing more than speak, and she lived in the mansion house. Remember those two things. So, summary, key details from these stories. First, She was married to Joseph Smith, according to her own words, by Hebrew Kimball on March 4th, 1843, secretly. OK. On that date, They went home separately after this alleged wedding. Strange way to get married, she says. They went home alone separately, and things remained as they were until May. Meaning they were not living as husband and wife, meaning she continued to be the teacher of the kids and doing the things and blah blah blah. Things remained as they were. That is a critical thing to understand. We need to remember that. In the early part of May 1843, Emma then chose her and Eliza. To be the wives Of her free and full consent. Emma helped teach the principles. Which is odd because apparently Emma’s really pissed to just a little while later and and Hiram’s got to go and then convince her of the principles according to William Clayton for people who know that story. But Emma helped teach them the principles in May of 1843, the principles of what? Plurality of wives or spiritual wives, as they call them in that day. And Emily and Eliza were married to Joseph Smith, May 11, 1843 by Judge James Adams in the presence of Emma. She says this six times. From that very hour, immediately wanted us divorced before the day was over, turned around, repented of what she had done, kept Joseph up till late into the night talking to him, and forever after was our enemy. And then she used every means in her power to injure us in the eyes of her husband, before strangers, and in consequence of her abuse, we were obliged to leave the city to gratify her. She kept close watch of us. We were missing for a few minutes. Joseph was not at home. She searched top, high and low everywhere until they were found. We remained in the family for several months. And after this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obliged to leave the house. That would have been around August to early part of September when they were out of the house.

[1:19:13] Michelle: 3,

[1:19:14] Jeremy Hoop: 1843. And she said, I don’t remember seeing Joseph, but one time to speak after I left the mansion house at the time we started for Carthage. OK, does everybody, everybody clear that’s her story told over the course of more than a decade. OK, actually, from 1869. To about 1886, OK. There’s also um uh a bit more information for context. She writes a letter in 1899 to W. Collins, Esquire, who’s asking her, Hey, is this whole thing about polygamy real? She goes, I also knew when Joseph Smith had the revelation of plural marriage written and knew the circumstances that caused it to be written at that time. The Josephites, that’s the people in the RLDS Church, also denied that the prophet Joseph ever gave endowments. Now I know that he did give endowments to a few of the brethren and their wives in one of the upper rooms of the mansion house. I was not one of the favored ones, but I witnessed the preparation for the same and saw the making of the cloths. I also knew of his having prayer meetings there afterwards, was living there at the time, was an inmate of his house for about 3 years. Now this is my testimony. To you all seekers of the truth. Did Emily live in the mansion house?

[1:20:31] Michelle: Nope, she did not.

[1:20:33] Jeremy Hoop: She did not live in the mansion house. The mansion house was not occupied by the Smiths until sometime they were moving in in September but really were settled in October of 1843. At which time it becomes a, a bona fide hotel and Joseph starts leasing things out, at which time he starts, he makes a lease with Ebenezer Robinson, and Ebenezer Robinson leases out the entire thing except for 3 rooms, which shows 3 rooms. Which Joseph reserves for himself and his family. OK?

[1:21:02] Michelle: Right. I, I just barely did this work. They moved in sometime between August 31st and September. They hung the sign September 15th, and they opened their first official act on October, on October 5th, was a big banquet they had that said, OK, the mansion house is now open, we are moved in. That Was their timeline. So if she moved out before September of 1843, she never lived in the mansion house because Joseph and Emma did not live in the mansion house before.

[1:21:32] Jeremy Hoop: The reason this is so important is because William Law makes this an issue in 1844, saying Joseph’s got all these women living in the mansion house. And he named Maria and Sarah Lawrence, OK. And Joseph ended up proposing a lawsuit against William Law for slander against Maria Lawrence. He wasn’t able to execute that lawsuit. He proposed it. It’s in his journal. He proposed issuing the lawsuit. He wasn’t able to execute it because he was martyred just shortly thereafter. But he was going to sue William Law for that accusation. Um, against Maria Lawrence saying that he was committing adultery and spiritual wifery with Maria Lawrence in the mansion house. But that’s where that narrative comes from. It comes from William Law making that accusation. So then decades later, we’ve got all these women saying, I was living in the mansion house. No, you weren’t. No, you weren’t, because the time frame, like you, Eliza Snow, are you, Lucy Walker, are you Elmira Johnson or you Emily Partridge, that was long before the Smiths moved into the mansion house. The only place you could have been, and I don’t believe you were living there, I believe you I believe you came there from time to time to help out. was what was called the homestead. The homestead is a very, very different place. It’s a very small place. It’s tiny. It was basically two bedrooms on top of a kitchen area and a living room with a little log cabin, um, that John Bennett actually rented for 9 months. That Eliza Snow apparently stayed in for a short period of time that his own mother stayed in for a period of time.

[1:23:07] Michelle: Those also were all built on piecemeal. It was, it was very small, and then they would build on one other little room. They built one room on top, they built another room on top. They built, right, so it was very, very small and gradually expanded gradually and then all of the claims of people living there, they’re not possible.

[1:23:25] Jeremy Hoop: I agree. Well, the picture that you see on your screen, the wood part, that old kind of old portion, that’s the original home they moved into. The additional wing was added apparently by Joseph the 3rd much later. There’s a small little kind of um dining area that they added during Joseph’s life, but that was not a living area. There’s a small little log cabin that you can see in the back here. That’s a, that is likely where Lucy Mac stayed, um, and, and likely where John Bennett stayed and perhaps where Eliza Snow stayed for a very short period of time and maybe where the, where the Partridge Sisters were staying. But keep in mind, Joseph had Um, himself and Emma and their, uh, I believe 4

[1:24:04] Michelle: children

[1:24:05] Jeremy Hoop: at the time and then they would have people come in. When, when the malaria outbreak happened, they slept in the kitchen or the, the, the main area and their house into a little hospital. They, they ran the church out of that place for a while. It was an incredibly busy place and there, there was no room. To have 6 to 1 dozen women living there. So, let’s dispense with the notion that any of these women who are saying we live in the mansion house is actually true because it’s actually factually impossible. OK. Now, now we get to the fun stuff, the Temple Lot testimony. And so what I’d like to do is alternate between the two of you, and I’ll read the lawyer and Michelle, let’s start with you and you read Emily’s part. So, from page 357, now, I recommend anyone who wants a fantastic read to read this entire thing. And ask yourself after you read this, compare this to James Whitehead’s testimony and ask yourself, do you buy what she’s saying? I defy you. To buy what she’s saying. Unfortunately, some people do like Todd, Todd Compton thinks she’s perfectly credible. Well, we’re gonna find out. Brian Hale

[1:25:14] Michelle: says, I believe Emily, right? That’s, yeah. So I think, I think that people should read all three of the wives’ testimonies, the supposed wives, right? They’re, it’s, it’s, it’s very interesting. And then compare them to James Whitehead, compare them to Joseph Smith the 3rd, the clarity and. Consistency and just straightforwardness compared to how these testimonies go. They’re all quite similar in in those ways where you just feel very sorry for these old women being put in this terrible situation. And

[1:25:46] Jeremy Hoop: it is a terrible situation for them, and you’re going to see why, because I don’t believe Emily ever thought she would have to answer the questions that were put to her. I’ll read the lawyer, and Michelle, you read Emily’s part and we’ll see if we find what Emily has to say credible. On page 357, the attorney who has been asking her questions about how she first was married to Joseph Smith, he starts to ask her some, some questions on background to find out kind of what was the state of things at that time, he says, he, or he asks. Well now. What was his manner at that time on both of these occasions when he spoke to you, the first and the 2nd time? What was his manner?

[1:26:25] Michelle: Well, I don’t know what you want me to

[1:26:26] Jeremy Hoop: say. Well, did he lay his hand on your shoulder?

[1:26:29] Michelle: No, sir.

[1:26:30] Jeremy Hoop: Did he have his arm around you?

[1:26:33] Michelle: No, sir.

[1:26:34] Jeremy Hoop: He did not put his arm around you.

[1:26:37] Michelle: No, sir, nothing of the kind. He just said what he had to say and did not touch me, for he was getting ready to go out someplace.

[1:26:46] Jeremy Hoop: Was he in the habit of putting his arm around you?

[1:26:48] Michelle: No, sir.

[1:26:50] Jeremy Hoop: He was not in the habit of doing that.

[1:26:52] Michelle: No, sir, never. He was a gentleman.

[1:26:54] Jeremy Hoop: He did never put his arm around you.

[1:26:58] Michelle: No, sir, he never did, for he was not that kind of man. He was a gentleman in every way, and he did not indulge in liberties like that.

[1:27:07] Jeremy Hoop: You never saw anything unbecoming in

[1:27:09] Michelle: him, never in my life.

[1:27:11] Jeremy Hoop: So now to page 358. Uh, the attorney asks Emily about her first marriage to Joseph Smith, and he asks, well, I would like you to be as positive as you can about that.

[1:27:23] Whitney Horning: Well, I’m pretty sure it was in 1843.

[1:27:27] Jeremy Hoop: What time in 1843 was it?

[1:27:29] Whitney Horning: In March sometime? In

[1:27:31] Jeremy Hoop: March sometime. What time in March?

[1:27:34] Whitney Horning: Between the 1st and the 4th, I think. And

[1:27:37] Jeremy Hoop: you’re pretty certain that was March 1843.

[1:27:40] Whitney Horning: Yes, sir.

[1:27:41] Jeremy Hoop: Did he offer to take your hand then?

[1:27:44] Whitney Horning: No, sir,

[1:27:45] Jeremy Hoop: or put his hand around you.

[1:27:47] Whitney Horning: No, sir.

[1:27:48] Jeremy Hoop: He never did any such thing as that.

[1:27:51] Whitney Horning: No,

[1:27:51] Jeremy Hoop: sir. At any time or place.

[1:27:53] Whitney Horning: No, sir, not before we were married.

[1:27:57] Jeremy Hoop: OK, so this is critical to understand. So opposing counselor Kelly has established that before March 4, 1843 Joseph was a gentleman by her own testimony, a gentleman in every way did not indulge in liberties like that, as she says. She testified that even on the first marriage, he, the first marriage, he just said, uh, what he had to say and did not touch me. Remember that, for he was getting ready to go out someplace. 1876 incidents. Remember this, she said that after the first marriage, Joseph went home his way, and I’m going my way alone. Strange way of getting married. Things remained as they were until the second marriage, May 11th, 1843. Are we clear? OK. They didn’t live as a wife, husband and wife, or anything other than ceremonially between March 4th, 1843, May 11th, 1843. That’s very important to understand. Now, continuing, Michelle, read with me from pages 33 364, uh, attorney Kelly asks about the second wedding night.ue, who roomed with Joseph Smith that night? That day? Who roomed with Joseph Smith at night, the night of the day of 11 May 1843, when you say you and your sister were married to Joseph Smith?

[1:29:16] Michelle: Well, I don’t want to answer that question.

[1:29:20] Jeremy Hoop: So pause for a second in all of Emily’s years. Did she ever think she would be asked this question? Apparently not, because she doesn’t want to answer it. Continuing from pages 363 364, Kelly asks, well, well, uh, well, answer if you can, if you know.

[1:29:39] Michelle: Well, it was myself.

[1:29:43] Jeremy Hoop: Now you’ve answered it, and that will do. You roomed with Joseph Smith that night.

[1:29:47] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:29:49] Jeremy Hoop: Well, did you occupy the same room with him at night after that?

[1:29:53] Michelle: No, no, sir. Never after that. She turned against us after that.

[1:29:58] Jeremy Hoop: Did you have any children with Joseph Smith?

[1:30:01] Michelle: No,

[1:30:01] Jeremy Hoop: sir. OK, so, she claimed that she roomed with Joseph Smith on the 2nd wedding night, May 11th, 1843, but never after that.

[1:30:14] Michelle: OK, on that already claimed she had already claimed that Emma had freaked out before that and kept him up all night talking to him.

[1:30:20] Jeremy Hoop: You caught it, you caught it. OK, let’s keep going. Now let’s, now we get to the juicy stuff. The, the attorney then hands her the millennial star from May 11th, 1843. She said, and he says, this is the millennial star which the witness has identified. Thursday, May 11th, 1843 is as follows. the 11th 1843, 6 a.m. baptized Louisa Beaman, Sarah Alley, and others. At 8 a.m., went to see a new carriage made by Thomas Moore, which was ready for travel. Emma went to Quincy in a new carriage. I rode out for as far as Prairie. Now that is, this is Kelly speaking. Now that is the private journal of Joseph Smith’s for 11 May 1843, the day you say you were married to him. What do you say to that?

[1:31:11] Michelle: Well, it is, it is possible that I have made a mistake in the and the dates, but I haven’t made any mistake in the facts. I know that.

[1:31:20] Jeremy Hoop: OK. So Emma wasn’t there on the day that she and her sister have agreed upon for decades and have told that story over and over and over again, both of them in multiple accounts, May 11th, 1843. So she wasn’t there. Uh, OK, but insists that she didn’t get the facts wrong. All right, well, let’s keep going. So Whitney, will you help me here? On page 367, the attorney says, well, now, was it before or after this date?

[1:31:52] Whitney Horning: That we were married to Joseph

[1:31:54] Jeremy Hoop: Smith. Yes, ma’am.

[1:31:56] Whitney Horning: Well, it must have been before that.

[1:31:58] Jeremy Hoop: It must have been before that.

[1:32:00] Whitney Horning: Yes, sir. If I had made a mistake in the date, it must have been before that.

[1:32:05] Jeremy Hoop: But you’ve been claiming ever since 1843, that it was 11 May that you were married to him the last time.

[1:32:12] Whitney Horning: It has been in my mind ever since that that was the date.

[1:32:17] Jeremy Hoop: Have you got a marriage certificate?

[1:32:19] Whitney Horning: No, sir.

[1:32:20] Jeremy Hoop: Did you ever have one?

[1:32:22] Whitney Horning: No, sir.

[1:32:23] Jeremy Hoop: Why did you not get one?

[1:32:25] Whitney Horning: Well, it was not thought necessary in those days.

[1:32:30] Jeremy Hoop: Now did you pass as Emily DP Smith in Nabu?

[1:32:35] Whitney Horning: No, sir, I did not.

[1:32:37] Jeremy Hoop: Were you ever introduced by Joseph Smith as his wife?

[1:32:41] Whitney Horning: I don’t remember that I ever was.

[1:32:44] Jeremy Hoop: You did not go by that name while you were living in Navvo.

[1:32:48] Whitney Horning: No, sir.

[1:32:49] Jeremy Hoop: That is during the lifetime of Joseph Smith.

[1:32:52] Whitney Horning: No, sir, I did not pass as his wife.

[1:32:55] Jeremy Hoop: OK. So, key points. She says the marriage must have been before May 11th, 1843, but she’s got no way to prove the marriage date and but insists it had to have happened before that. However, the lawyer didn’t know to bring up the following. James Adams, who she also said was there, wasn’t even in town until the 21st of May 1843. We’ve got letters from between James Adams and Joseph Smith and Joseph’s Journal documents that he’s in town on the 21st of May 1843. So it’s possible that the marriage could have happened after May 11, 1843, but not before. But maybe she misremembered. Judge James Adams lived in Springfield. He did not arrive at Navo till the 21st of May 1843, and it could not have been before May 21st. Adams was in Navvo from the 21st to about the 29th. How do we know that? Because he traveled home to Springfield, and he wrote a letter from Springfield to Joseph Smith on June 8th. So he’s back home, so he’s only there for a short window. Uh, and, and then he comes back to Navo on June 23rd, but the problem with that is Jose Emma is out of town from the 23rd to the 27th. She’s also out of town from the 6th to the 12th of August. Joseph was arrested on the 23rd, released and not in Navu until the 30th. Uh, there’s a trial on July 1st and discharged. He’s dealing with legal matters through July 4th. Also, James Adams is like in and out of Navu all the time. He’s going on legal matters to Warsaw and to other places. Joseph preaches on the 9th in Nabu. It’s possible there’s a day in there, but all this is really quite unlikely. James Adams appears to be back in Springfield by July 13th, likely left by at least the 11th of June, but here’s another problem of July, sorry. Another problem is that Emma or that Emily will say that she was married to Joseph before the revelation was given. That’s July 12th, so it had to be before July 12th. OK, you following me? There’s only one window of time. It’s between the 21st and 29th of May. That’s the only time. So it couldn’t have been before May 11th, had to be after, but only really between the 21st and 29th. That’s the only window of time when Judge Adams is even there for both Emma and Judge Adams to be in town. However, We got a problem with little Willie Clayton. And Willie writes on the 16th of August 1843, the 16th of August 1843. This is in his. What they want to call a journal.

[1:35:32] Michelle: His

[1:35:32] Jeremy Hoop: recopied, which has plenty of problems, but this is what he writes. This is a contemporary uh closer to a contemporaneous record, OK? We argue, all the three of us argue it’s not very contemporaneous, but he says we returned, this is 16 August 1843. We returned and met President Jay, that’s Joseph, and some of the family going to the funeral. Of Judge Adams. Yeah. There’s a little problem with this story. This a Jay told me that since he, people interpret this is Emma, came back from Saint Louis, she resisted the P, they think that means principle, the principle of plurality of wives in toto, and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would give him E and EP. This is interpreted as Emily and Eliza Partridge. But he knew if he took them, she would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him. This is where they get this whole idea of, you know, I’m so upset that she’s gonna divorce him and the whole thing about, you know, signing over the deeds to him, blah blah blah. Come from a century right here. OK. He, however, told me he should not relinquish anything. Oh God, deliver thy servant from iniquity and bondage. OK. Setting aside the many, many, many legion of problems that William Clayton has, which will be demonstrated. Forthwith, OK. This is absolutely incompatible with Emily’s story. OK, it’s possible. That one of them could be true, possible. But both of them cannot be true. However, both of them can be false. Yes. It cannot be true. Sorry people who like to claim one of these, you gotta choose. You have to choose. You don’t get both of them.

[1:37:32] Michelle: And also, this is why it’s so important to not just accept claims. Emily had made these claims consistently from 1869 when she when the affidavit was filled out on her behalf, and she signed it, right? She said the same date, never questioned it. It wasn’t until cross-examined on the stand. that she had to go, oh, shoot, there’s a problem. Clayton was never cross-examined on any of his claims, right? Right. And so this shows look what happens to the three women when they do have to face cross-examination in claims that have been made being made for decades, right? And then they just completely fall apart. This is why, this is why accusations are not facts, and any of these accusations that were tried that had to stand up to any scrutiny just dissolved. It is a shame that Clayton never was subjected to any kind of cross-examination. It would have been fun to see.

[1:38:32] Jeremy Hoop: It’s also a shame that the lawyer didn’t have at his disposal the information about Judge Adams at the time and Clayton’s journal at the time to be able to fact check it, even though Joseph F. Smith used that journal as one of the affidavits in his affidavit’s collection. He uses that entry as proof. So they can’t even internally get all their facts straight. They can’t get the stories to be cohesive. Well, as we can see, Adams is dead by August 11th. He contracted cholera. His funeral is on the 16th, so He the only window is that May 21st to 29th period. So, let’s say, Let’s say that uh Clayton’s journal is wrong, OK. Let’s say that his is wrong and Emily’s is right. Well, she still could have slept with Joseph on their second wedding night, right? Well, what did you point out? Yeah. You pointed out, um, and let’s actually, I want people to hear her words and how we arrive at this solid testimony that Brian Hayes extracts out to get the juicy details and make it sound like it’s so credible. So, uh, who was the last time that this is, is it back to you, Michelle? OK. So he asks, can you recall and had you roomed with him prior to that time that you say you roomed with him at his house on the night after you were married to him the last time?

[1:39:51] Michelle: No, sir, not roomed with him.

[1:39:54] Jeremy Hoop: Well, had you slept with him?

[1:39:56] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:39:58] Jeremy Hoop: Slept with him prior to that time you were married to him?

[1:40:04] Michelle: What is that?

[1:40:05] Jeremy Hoop: I mean, prior to the time you were married to him, as you say, on 11 May.

[1:40:09] Michelle: Yes, sir. I had prior to

[1:40:11] Jeremy Hoop: that. Had you before 4 March 1843.

[1:40:15] Michelle: No,

[1:40:15] Jeremy Hoop: sir. You have no recollection of her, Emma ever addressing you as his wife.

[1:40:22] Michelle: No, sir.

[1:40:23] Jeremy Hoop: Did she ever recognize you as his wife?

[1:40:26] Michelle: After we were married, she did not.

[1:40:31] Jeremy Hoop: Did you ever live with Joseph Smith

[1:40:33] Michelle: as his wife before we were married. OK.

[1:40:38] Jeremy Hoop: Did you ever live with Joseph Smith after you were married to him after that first night that you roomed together?

[1:40:44] Michelle: No, sir. Emma knew that we were married to him, but she never allowed us to live with him.

[1:40:50] Jeremy Hoop: Now you make that statement in the face of the declaration that Emma Smith made in 1875, in which she said she never gave her consent for anybody to marry Joseph?

[1:41:01] Michelle: Yes, sir, I do.

[1:41:03] Jeremy Hoop: And you also make the declaration that you roomed with him on the night of the 11th of May 1843.

[1:41:10] Michelle: No, sir. I said it was in my mind that that was the day that I was married to him the 2nd time. But when you read his diary, I see that I was mistaken, and I don’t say that was the date now, although it always run in my mind that that was the time.

[1:41:25] Jeremy Hoop: Well, do you make the declaration now that you ever roomed with him at any time?

[1:41:30] Michelle: Yes, sir. Do

[1:41:31] Jeremy Hoop: you make the declaration you ever slept with him in the same bed?

[1:41:35] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:41:36] Jeremy Hoop: How many nights?

[1:41:38] Michelle: One.

[1:41:39] Jeremy Hoop: Only one night.

[1:41:41] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:41:42] Jeremy Hoop: Then you only slept with him in the same bed one night.

[1:41:44] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:41:46] Jeremy Hoop: Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?

[1:41:50] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:41:51] Jeremy Hoop: How many nights?

[1:41:53] Michelle: I could not tell you.

[1:41:54] Jeremy Hoop: Do you make the declaration you never slept with him but one night?

[1:41:58] Michelle: Yes, sir.

[1:41:59] Jeremy Hoop: And that was the only time and place you were ever in bed with him.

[1:42:03] Michelle: No, sir.

[1:42:04] Jeremy Hoop: Were you in bed with him at any time before that time?

[1:42:09] Michelle: For what

[1:42:09] Jeremy Hoop: time? Before you were married?

[1:42:12] Michelle: No, sir, not before I was married to him. I never was.

[1:42:15] Jeremy Hoop: Do you mean you were in bed with him after 4 March 1843?

[1:42:20] Michelle: Yes, sir, but that was after I was first married to him.

[1:42:24] Jeremy Hoop: And that was before this revelation of plural marriage was given, wasn’t it?

[1:42:28] Michelle: I suppose it was.

[1:42:31] Jeremy Hoop: OK. Kelly didn’t have the information we have today. He did not have access to what we’re to show you and wrap up and conclude. So she is adamant. She’s had, and the only time she’s been asked, and the only time any woman’s been asked that I can find, Colonel Intercourse on their 2nd wedding night. And before, but not before March 4, 1843. Now, remember, remember, she wrote in 1876, she said that after the first marriage, Joseph went his way, and I’m going my way alone, strange way of getting married and things remained as they were until the second marriage, 11th of May 1843. And as they were between March 4th, 1843 and May 11th. No mention anywhere of being husband and wife in any other way other than ceremonially. And she’s under pressure in this testimony defending her religion, so what does she say? OK. So, as we’ve gone through all of this, we, we’re putting this together. She has this first marriage, this second marriage, they’re not living together during that period of time. And then on the second marriage, Emma is immediately their enemy, as you pointed out, Michelle, what happens on their wedding day and the 2nd wedding day, when Emma gives her full and free consent, teaches the principals, Judge Adam’s there, Emma’s there, can’t be on the 11th, has to be before. But as we’ve learned, it can’t be before because it has to be after, only the 21st of the 29th. What does Emma do immediately afterward?

[1:44:00] Michelle: She immediately regrets it, and she keeps Joseph up all night berating him for daring to marry these two women. And may I point out also that Emily points out that Emma watched them like a hawk and wouldn’t let them be alone, but we know Emma went out of town extensively at this time as well, right? So all of these stories don’t add up.

[1:44:21] Jeremy Hoop: So, here’s some questions for those people who want to believe Emily. If Joseph never touched her by her own testimony, not even on their first wedding day, not even on the day they were married on their second day until apparently hopping into bed together late at night. If they went home separately on March 4th, 1843, if they didn’t live. Together. After that as husband and wife, and we’re not husband and wife in any other way other than ceremonially. If he didn’t even touch her on the 2nd wedding day, and if Emma immediately changed her mind, demanded a divorce, kept Joseph up late in the night, and watched Emily and Eliza like a hawk until they were gone. Remember, she also said in this testimony she lived in the mansion house, she never lived in the mansion house, but she repeatedly said that she did. The question I have for all of those of you who want to believe Emily, when did the sex occur? When is it absolutely, possibly even plausible that it occurred? And Do you believe her? Well, as you pointed out, Michelle, the judge didn’t. There’s a reason the judge didn’t believe her, because of this testimony. And the judge didn’t have all of the things that we’ve laid before, um, because the judge actually conceded the following. He says that perhaps would be uncharitable. He’s speaking of three women, Lucy Walker, Melissa Lott, and Emily Partridge. Perhaps it would be uncharitable to say that these women, that they’ve borne false testimony as to their connection, meaning knowing him. Their connection with Joseph Smith. But in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, the sex. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in nest hiding. Nest hiding is likely a reference to an affair. OK. So he’s saying, look, at the very best I can conclude, the very most we can say is they weren’t wives, but maybe, maybe, maybe at most there was an affair. So he did not believe her testimony as to the intercourse or to being a wife and and said I have to make room for maybe she’s telling the truth that she slept with him, but he didn’t find her testimony credible. Also, it’s really important to understand this goes to her state of mind. In her own journal, she writes about what happens before and after. On March 11th, 1892, right before the testimony, she writes, visited Carly afterwards I went to president’s office. Found that they were wanting me on business pertaining to the Temple lot in Jackson County. Now, so many people have said, oh, they weren’t coerced or didn’t collude with the church. It’s right here. I must have been led by inspiration, for I knew nothing of their wanting me at the time. When we were speaking of Brother Joseph and Brother Young, both have passed away at this point. Brother Woodruff said, he’s the president at the time. They are praying for you up there, and when you go, you will find a warm welcome and a good home prepared for you. I asked him about my children’s names, as there is a difference of opinion on that subject. He and brother Joseph F. Smith said that my children’s names were Young Smith and should be so called while working in the temple. And if anyone in the temple objected, I was to say that they both said so. This is really important. She obtained a favor, and in her mind a very big one. For what she was about to do. She got the church to officially acknowledge her children’s last names as Joseph Smith’s children, which people didn’t want to do. She had people objecting to it. That’s a thing that I’ve never heard anyone acknowledge. She obtained a favor for her Temple Lot testimony. Then on Saturday, the 12th of March, she mentions the Josephite lawyers called to notify me that I must appear as a witness in their lawsuit. Also one of the opposite party called on the 14th of March. Well, She gives a first testimony, then a 2nd 1. This is after the 1st 1. Well, I’ve been up to give my testimony concerning the Temple lot in Independence. On the Josephite side, they paid her some money. On the 15th, she says, I’m notified to appear again. No problem so far then. On the 19th she writes, Mr. Hall came down with a buggy for me to go up to an office in the Templeton to take the witness stand. Mr. Hall was her attorney. I was there for several hours and underwent a rigid examination. I felt sometimes as though the top of my head might move off. I was very weary and sometimes quite indignant, but had to pocket my pride and indignation and answer all the important questions the lawyers chose to ask. Truly we are turning backward, and a very strange thing it is when after all these many years Joseph the prophet is being tried in court for teaching and practicing plural marriage, and some of his wives are brought forward to testify either for or against him, receive money for her testimony then. Four days later she’s still, she’s still racked by this. She says, I have not hardly got over the there’s a blank there. I went on the witness stand. It has been on me. It has been on me night and day ever since. I can now think of a great many things that seemingly might have been better answers, and I’ve been asked, why did you not say this and why did you say that? Apparently she’s been talking to people about the fiasco that was her testimony. March 24th, the lawyers have got through taking testimony. Kelly became rather insolent before he got through and insulted the witnesses several times. He was the Josephite lawyer and Hall was president of the Hereite or Christ Church of Christ, as they style themselves. So in her second testimony, Where she’s grilled and ask questions she never thought she’d have to answer, and she gives answers that revealed that her previous statements and her other stories about things are just not actually true. These things that really shook her. I have a question. Why if she told the truth. Why is she so upset? If you simply told the truth, what would be racking your mind with such torment? Also, something else to consider in terms, one of the things in source criticism is to understand the motivations and potential biases of people’s, especially their later stories. Understand the following. July 29, 1881. Today I’ve been thinking, thinking, thinking. My mind goes back to days gone by. My life has been like a panorama of disagreeable pictures. I have been heart hungry all my life. I am, as they would call it a spiritual wife of early days when public opinion was like an avalanche bearing all such beneath its oppressive weight. Some will understand what it is to be a woman, mother, or unloved spiritual wife. On August 1st she writes, Yesterday I was in a dark mood. Today I’m looking for the bright spots. Although they may be few and far between, they should not be overlooked. And amongst the greatest blessings I class the fates that I am a mother and was a spiritual wife. Emily was known as one of the leading women of Zion. She was very prominent because of her many written accounts, her published statements, and the things that she did in the cause to claim that she was one of Joseph Smith’s wives. This was an in if we’re talking about bias, this must be factored in. That she was deriving no pleasure from her her life. She was a miserable present spiritual wife, but the thing that she held on to is that she believed in her heart that she was a spiritual wife of Joseph. Now this is also really critical to understand. We’ve alluded to this. But we need to really. Have people recognize Augusta Cobb, for example, apparently never met Joseph Smith. There’s no evidence she ever met him, and from her letters it indicates she did not meet him. Augusta Cobb called herself Joseph’s wife and widow in letters to her own husband, Brigham Young. On March 17, 1852. She is courting a woman who she is bringing to Brigham to seal that woman to Joseph Smith as his wife. OK, this woman’s not met Joseph Smith either. But she is trying to add wives to Joseph Smith. She’s a recruiter for the dead man. She says I have counseled her, this woman, according to the best of my ability, and what do you think it is? Surely nothing more nor less than to go straight away to Brother Joseph, my deceased husband. She then says February 4th, 1862, and as I have said before, if there is a man to be found in Israel that will honor me as Brother Joseph’s wife or widow, that man will I choose and be sealed it with the consent of the priesthood. Augusta Cobb never met him and yet considered herself Joseph’s wife. Emily was sealed to Joseph Smith, but after his death. In either 1845 or 1846. She was a posthumously sealed wife to Joseph Smith, and Augusta thought she was married to Joseph and Emily thought she was married to Joseph. Also consider the following. Catherine

[1:53:55] Michelle: Sylvia Lion apparently thought she was married to Joseph.

[1:53:59] Jeremy Hoop: Catherine Lewis, who knew Augusta Cobb and gave us one of the best near contemporaneous accounts, near, cause it’s in 1848. She’s writing of times when Augusta tried to recruit Catherine to be one of Hebrew Kimball or Brigham Young’s wives. Augusta, like Violet Kimball, was a recruiter of wives for those apostles. This is what Katherine writes, and for those people who want to consider the case against Joseph Smith, you must take into consideration Catherine Lewis’s statements because she gives incredibly compelling, uh uh an incredibly compelling account of her experience with not only Augusta but Hebrew Kimball and Brigham Young. She says, After considerable conversation with Augusta on this subject, the subject of plurality of wives. Which is useless to mention, she said that she then said, Augusta said to Catherine, if you tell anyone that I’ve told you these things, I will deny it and throw the lie on you. This I thought was a jest at first, but I soon learned they were commanded to lie if they were exposed and they seek an opportunity when no other person is present to teach this doctrine which if divulged they must deny. Now, for those who come from John Dehlin’s audience, for example, and you have heard the phrase that Mormons were guilty of lying for the Lord. That’s true. In Utah, they practiced that principle of lying for the Lord to protect the principle of plural marriage. There’s no evidence Joseph did that. There’s no evidence Joseph did that. He was consistent till the day he died. There’s no evidence Emma did that. By the way, what we’ve just witnessed with Emily Partridge’s testimony, where do you think we get these notions that Emma was this warped? Vindictive, almost vicious woman from William Clayton, Brigham Young and Emily Partridge and others, but primarily those three people. Unfortunately, Emily put herself in that position to paint Emma that way. I have great sympathy for Emily because she went through a tremendous amount and she found herself in an impossible position. But understand these women were taught to lie about the principle. I’m not gonna read this, but if you guys want to read a great article by Cheryl Bruno, um. Our mutual friend and an incredible historian who has also done excellent work on Emily Partridge. She acknowledges all of the things um that we’ve just mentioned, that Emma’s not there. Judge Adams isn’t there, and her conclusion is the stories that Emma was involved are not based on actually good evidence. And so, please understand that there’s a bona fide historian who also, at least on Emily’s credibility. Has also questioned that narrative. She may not agree with us on whether Emily was a wife, but she definitely uh questions Emily’s overall credibility when it comes to Emma participating.

[1:57:10] Michelle: As anybody must, who does the work that Cheryl did. So it’s not just Cheryl’s opinion, she has she has shown all of the problems as you have just done.

[1:57:20] Jeremy Hoop: So we’ve examined every bit of the relevant testimony related to Emily Partridge, her affidavits, her various accounts, and especially her Temple Lot testimony. She has proven herself to not be telling the truth about the mansion house. She proved herself to not be telling the truth about May 11, 1843 and about Judge Adams being there. She boxed herself into a corner to where it’s, there’s, where is the possibility of her having this. marital relationship with Joseph Smith. So the question that you have to ask yourself, is Emily’s testimony credible and you get to decide.

[1:57:57] Michelle: Excellent. Excellent. This is so, I, I can’t help but think that the Temple Lot testimonies are fun. I always enjoy going through them because it is like people are so certain about their claims of believe the women. We have 3 women who testified at the Temple Lot, old, old women trapped in this polygamous system for decades. So you have 3, like, really think of it, 3 FLDS women, right? Fundamentalists. I don’t know if you have to imagine them in their prairie dresses to get the full impact, but that is what these women were. They were products of Isolated in this community for decades and then being used by the patriarchy put in these positions to defend this story that they thought was an existential threat to an existential need to defend and it was indefensible.

[1:58:53] Jeremy Hoop: There were 9 women living at the time alleged to be Joseph’s wives. Only 3 of them testify Zaina Huntington, Elmira Johnson, Helen Mar Kimball. Three of the big ones and those ones wouldn’t testify or didn’t,

[1:59:08] Michelle: we

[1:59:08] Jeremy Hoop: don’t know

[1:59:09] Michelle: if they wouldn’t or they didn’t. They just didn’t testify.

[1:59:11] Jeremy Hoop: They didn’t put them on the stand for some reason. And the ones they put on the stand, the judge didn’t believe.

[1:59:17] Michelle: Yep. So in any case, these were the three most credible or the 3 chosen, whichever it was. And if you read through their testimonies, it is not hard to understand why the judge didn’t believe them. So I can’t recommend highly enough. You have to read the Temple Lot testimonies and and the way that Julia on John Dehlin’s program just chose those little snippets, and it’s like if the women. they were having sex, then they were having sex. That isn’t that just it’s not sufficient. You have to go much deeper, as we’ve just done, to show women made claims that don’t hold up to scrutiny, just like many men made claims that don’t hold up to scrutiny. So

[1:59:57] Jeremy Hoop: the only two women, there’s only two that ever made a claim themselves. And one of them made an insinuation. Of a claim by saying I’m a wife in very deed.

[2:00:07] Michelle: I read through extensively. I go through extensively through the um Melissa Lat test me. I, I was mistaken. It’s actually Melissa Brian Hales says, I believe Melissa because she and Joseph Smith III give competing testimony contradictory testimony. I don’t believe Melissa. Judge Phillips don’t didn’t believe Melissa, right? We all So it’s not that we are choosing not to believe them, it’s that they’re not believable. We can show that their claims are not accurate. So you guys, this has been amazing. What an amazing marathon on these most core claims of Joseph’s polygamy. Do you have any final words before we wrap it up?

[2:00:49] Jeremy Hoop: I would say to people that Be more curious. Be more critical. really dive into what we’re saying. Go to the original sources yourself, don’t trust us. Read the original sources and ask yourself, do they actually uh line up with the traditional consensus narrative? I can guarantee you that I can say this with confidence because I’ve done the work. I know Michelle has, and I know Whitney has. When you look at the sources, they don’t line up. But don’t trust me, go do it yourself. And understand that there’s so much more to know about this than reading in sacred Loneliness or reading Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The two primary, you know, master works on the subject that are frankly way out of date, um, written with a motivated, uh, uh, a paradigm to start before they even began. And that exclude a mountain of evidence that is already been done, but it’s coming forward and coming out um as we speak, and Michelle is doing this. Whitney has, has done such incredible work already. And so please, please keep an open mind because there’s a lot more to come.

[2:02:04] Michelle: Excellent.

[2:02:06] Whitney Horning: I would just like to say I had an experience this week where somebody had posted a link to or had posted like a, a thought that somebody had created that, you know, did Joseph Smith really say this? And whoever had made it for the church had cut, literally cut out the beginning of a sentence and ended it before the end of the thought to create a new thought. And it was interesting because a lot of the people’s comments were, isn’t it great we’re getting to know what Joseph really sounds like we know this isn’t him. Well, it was him. But what was interesting is if, you know, go, I encourage people go actually read the letter. In its entirety, it’s a beautiful letter. And it actually does say exactly opposite of what that little snippet was trying to say. And so one of the things I’m coming to learn is that when you can remove the, you know, Michelle, one of her earlier episodes of this great episode on the polygamy goggles, you know, remove those, those goggles off of you. If you can remove that off of what Joseph taught. The teachings are just profound and beautiful, and they Um, they lift you, like Joseph lifted people to a higher level of being and had more hope for us as better people than maybe we actually are. But his sights were always to lift us higher, and his teachings are just beautiful. And so I just encourage anyone who maybe, I know there are people who listen to Michelle who have maybe lost their faith in the restoration, maybe. They, um, have lost their faith in who Joseph Smith was because they cannot accept that somebody who they consider to be an adulterer could have brought forth good fruits. And so I just encourage you to go back and read the Book of Mormon, go back and read. Um, the inspired translation of the Bible and take off those polygamy lenses and read what Joseph really taught, and it’s just beautiful and profound and will bring you to a closer relationship with the savior, which is what he was trying to do. He wasn’t trying to point to himself. He wasn’t a megalomaniac. He wasn’t a dictator. He was a man who had found a relationship, a personal profound relationship with the Lord and was trying to teach other people how to have that same relationship for themselves.

[2:04:47] Jeremy Hoop: I think that’s where this, this has to, the focus has to be. Michelle, I, I watched your interview with John Dehlin, which was fantastic. And one of the questions he asked you was, well, the polygamy issue aside, you know, do you, do you have any issues with Joseph’s credibility on various things, whether it’s Sear stones or Book of Mormon translation, Book of Abraham, blah blah blah, all the other stuff. The biggest issue on credibility comes from the polygamy issue. What happens is people start with that. They start with Joseph lied to his wife, he slept with teenage girls. He married other men’s wives, and he, and he completely bamboozled the whole world about it. And we only found out because basically he got caught by some, you know, insiders and then by the people who later were his followers. When you understand. If that is not an issue. If Joseph didn’t lie to his wife. If he was consistent for his whole life, he was a man of integrity in that regard, at least. You can’t have that to hang over him. If you don’t have that, then the other issues, when you look at those, you can’t look at it the same way. It doesn’t stack up in the same way when you can’t add the weight of him being a liar to his own wife and to the church. Then what you can do is you can say on the Book of Mon translation of the Searstones, you can evaluate the evidence for what it actually is, which actually frankly, suffers from a lot of the same problems that the polygamy area. Later stories. Laid on top of the contemporaneous narrative with not good evidence to back it up, despite what some historians will claim, OK. But it starts by understanding with this issue with polygamy, there is not good evidence that Joseph was a liar, a deceiver, a manipulator, an adulterer, a polygamist.

[2:06:42] Michelle: Excellent. And I just want to wrap up really fast. I, I just want to say that Jeremy Whitney and I, to all, to all of the audience coming from the, um, ex-Mormon perspective, or many of the others, we agree with you on the nature of the crime. We just think that you’ve got the wrong guy. And that actually matters, right? Like, like, I think it’s so you. Useful to separate out the fact. I don’t think any of us are saying that the problems with the church aren’t real. The problems that many people have had with the church, that they’re not real, that the experiences that many people have had with the church, being so disillusioned, learning that things were so different than you believed. That’s all true, right? But, and, and so, well, I, I, I, I just want to say I validate that experience. However, This matters for its own sake. The experiences that you’ve had with the church have been with Brigham Young’s church, right? Have been with this polygamous church, which I argue the evidence shows is not the church that Joseph Smith tried to establish and is not the gospel that Joseph Smith restored. It was changed. And so I think, I think it’s important to get the right guy, right? I think it’s a shi. that I’m, I’m sorry, some people in my church may not like this, but I think it’s a shame that Brigham Young gets such a free pass that everything that Brigham Young did, they say, oh well, he was only doing what Joseph taught him to do, right? Somehow everything that happened in Utah is Joseph Smith’s fault, even though what we’re showing you is, is that that does not hold like the fact I said this, I did say this to John, the fact that Um, the ex-Mormons and and so many others disbelie like believed that the church was lying about everything except Joseph Smith’s polygamy, in which case they told the unadulterated truth all the time, right? Please consider that. Please consider that the Joseph Smith you see is the Joseph that Brigham Young is presenting in so many ways. We have so many quotes from Joseph Smith that are these tales. That Brigham or others told decades later with nobody there to keep them honest, and we see what happens in the Temple Lot case when there is a lawyer there to keep people honest. The claims fall apart and they are drowning in regret. We have, is it, um, I think it’s Melissa. Is it Melissa where Joseph F. Smith and her daughter are sitting there in the in the courtroom trying to help her with answers,

[2:09:22] Whitney Horning: right?

[2:09:22] Michelle: Like,

[2:09:22] Whitney Horning: Oh mercy. Mercy mercy.

[2:09:25] Michelle: It’s that mercy, yes. And it becomes, it becomes laughable where she’s like, and they, they have these little phrases, they say you can just see these poor old women being used in this way by this terrible, um, patriarchal system that is just, that is, that just steamrolls all of the women in its wake, and many of the men as well, but certainly all of the women. So that’s what I want to ask. Like, this doesn’t have to change. You, you don’t need to worry about the implications from it. You just need to worry about if you have good information. And so many of the historians, I know Dan Vogel is very highly respected, but he’s not going into the sources and the documents like this. We are, and I have repeatedly invited him. To come and talk. And instead, he just keeps making more little snippet videos with the most recent video that Dan made. Um, he borrows Brian Hale’s already really embarrassingly bad explanation about the October 5th journal entry, and he says the same thing. It’s not better with Dan saying it. Anyway, I just, I, I don’t want have any disrespect. I just wanna say, please consider this. It’s actually kind of fun. It’s kind of interesting. And if you really do, you know, if, if you have reasons that you distrust or dislike the church, oh my gosh, here’s a bunch more stuff you can see that, that the history was changed, that things weren’t truthfully told, right? I don’t. I, I, I think that people ought to be interested in this, and I hope they will be. So thank you so much. Huge shout out to Jeremy and Whitney for all of the work that they have done for coming and spending so much time with us. I thought this was awesome, and thank you to each of you for sticking around, for joining. Please dig into this. It is worth considering. We’ll see you next time. Another huge thank you to Whitney and Jeremy. Thank you so much for all that you do and all you have done on this topic, and for coming and talking to us again. This was really fun. I’ll see you all next time.