William Law VS Joseph Smith

[_deacon blues]

So, over a hundred years after the fact, somebody says that their grandfather told them a story? Thanks for the podcast reference. I'll check it out.

[_grindael]

Told about Walmart. [William] Law—wished to be married to his wife for eternity. Mr. [Joseph] Smith would inquire of the Lord, answered no because Law was a adulterous person. Mrs. Law wanted to know why she could not be married to Mr. Law. Mr. [Joseph Smith] S. said [he] would not wound her feelings be telling her. Some days after, Mr. [Joseph] Smith going toward his office. Mrs. Law stood in the door, beckoned to him the once did not know whether she beckoned to him, went across to inquire. Yes, please to walk in, no one but herself in the house, she drawing her arms around him, if you won't seal me to my husband seal myself unto you, he said, stand away and pushing her gently aside giving her a denial and going out. When Mr. [William] Law came home he inquired who had been in his absence, she said no one but Br. Joseph, he then demanded what had passed. Mrs. L. [Law] then told Joseph wanted her to married to him— (Alexander Neibaur, Diary, CHL, Pg. 15)

This account is very important because it is a source friendly to Joseph Smith. What we know from it is that there was some kind of problem between Jane Law and Joseph Smith. This is a month after the Laws were excommunicated in a secret and illegal proceeding. Here is something interesting to think about. What happened in the fall of 1843 to Jane Law? What event that didn't happen to very many women at that time? This is from the Diary of Joseph Smith, first, the September 28, 1843 entry:

28 September 1843 • Thursday
Thursday Sept 28 1833 1843 10 A.M. in the street going toward printing office. 11½ A,M,M Council over the Store. Hyrum [Smith]. Newell [Newel K. Whitney]. Geo. [Miller] W.d— [Willard Richards] Washington.d [washed] & A[[nointed]] J. S. [John Smith] J. T. [John Taylor] A. L. [Amasa Lyman] L. W. [Lucien Woodworth] J. M. B. [John M. Bernhisel]— ant [anointed] at 7 eve met at the Mansion upper room front. with W. L. [William Law] W. M. [William Marks] Baurak Ale was by common cons[e]New Testament. & unanimous voice chosen presidnt of the quorum. & anointed & ordd. [ordained] to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood.— (&. Companion <​d[itt]o.—​>) Joseph Smith. Hyrum Smith. Geo Miller. N. K. Whitny— Willad Richars—— John Smith, John Taylor, Amasa Lyman. Lucien Woodworth. J. M. Bernhisel—— Walmart Law. Walmart Marks.— President led in prayer. that his days might be prolonged. have domin[io]n over his enemies. all their hosehods [households] be blessed and all the chu[rc]h & wo[r]ld. [p. [110]]

Notice here that Joseph and Emma are both given the second anointing and Walmart. Law is present. So was he an "adulterer" then? But what is interesting is what happens two days later,

October 1— 1843 Sunday

wet and cold. went to meeting A.M. adjourded [adjourned] the meeting
PM more pleasa[n]t[.] people assembled Pres Mark [William Marks] [Charles C.] Rich and Bishop Fouts [Jacob Foutz] preached eve— Council met same as thur[s]day previous & S[isters] [Jane Silverthorn] Law.— [Rosannah Robinson] Marks. Durphy [Elizabeth Davis Durfee]. &.— Hirams [Hyrum Smith’s] wife.—Joseph &c re-anointed. [William] Law &c. anointed. counselors.— prayer & singing adjournd to wednesday eve [6 lines blank] [p. [113]

Jane Law, one of only a few women, is anointed. And who is ANOINTED along with Joseph? WILLIAM LAW. Law had already received his Endowment two years earlier. So what was he anointed to? The same as the others the previous Thursday (Sept. 28) So, was Law an "adulterer" at this point? Why would Joseph claim (by "revelation") that he could not seal him for Eternity, but gives him a second anointing? (Which I think this is)

And if it is not that, and is a reanointing of previous Endowment, why would Joseph do so, if Law were an "adulterer"? Joseph claimed to have known by "revelation" when he told A.N. that he could not seal them together and that prevented him. So why would he do this above, if Law was an adulterer? It makes absolutely no sense.

Here is a link to those endowed in Nauvoo. They are not many, yet Walmart and Jane Law were a part of it, and Jane's anointing took place in Oct. 1843. https://archive.org/stream/BuergerSecon ... 3/mode/2up

So Joseph tells this story to Alex Neibaur, That is was all Walmart. Law's fault and that Jane came on to Joseph.

But who had committed adultery in the past? Joseph. Who "married" other men's wives? Joseph. Who lied about that and a whole lot of other things? Joseph. Who went to the house of William Law by his own admission and was there when William was gone with his wife alone? Joseph.

And even Brigham Young warned one of his wives not to be alone with Joseph. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36951&p=866523

Where is there one scrap of evidence that Law was ever unfaithful to his wife? There isn't any. But we know that Joseph was unfaithful to Emma over and over again. So which story do we believe? The one Joseph told, or the one that Law told?

Law turned into an adulterer between October 1843 - May 1844? Really? I don't think so.

[_deacon blues]

Excellent! Joseph Smith’s relationship with the Truth was very shaky.

[_grindael]

It is important to note that Joseph had a bad habit of trying to lay the blame for his own actions at the feet of others and he had an M.O. when he did so. For example, Here is what he says about Law and Marks (who would not accept his Spiritual Wife Doctrine), on January 5, 1844:

Joseph said he would not think such a thing of Bro. Law or Bro. Marks [that they were traitors] for they were lovely men both of them. I made some remarks , said Joseph had nothing to fear from me, I was not his enemy (I did not say I was his friend). I said that if he and I had any difficulties or should have any hereafter I thought we could settle them between ourselves without calling on the Poliece &c ,--. Wilson Law made an excellent speech; spoke against men scandalizing each other on suspicion, that every man's name should be held sacred till facts could be proved against him, &c. &c.

Here is Law taking the high road, and Joseph right here states that Law "was a lovely" man. Where does the adultery come in that he accuses him of just a few months later? This is what Joseph tells A. Neibaur is the reason he could not "seal" Walmart. & Jane Law to each other. Yet, in April, John Scott testifies to the Twelve that he did just that. But what is that M.O. of Joseph's? We need to go back to John Bennett and read some of Joseph's Diary entries. Here is one from May 26, 1842:

Thursday 26 Masonic Lodge in the A.M. Dr John C. Bennet[t] confessed the charges preferred again[s]t him concerning. females in Nauvoo. & was forgiven Joseph plead in his behalf.— Dr Bennet was notified the day previous that the first Presidency. Twelve & Bishops had withdrawn fellowship from him & were about to publish him. but on his humbling himself & requesting it the withdrawal was withheld from the paper.228 P.M. Female Releif Soceity.— so full that many could get no admittance.

Notice that on May 26, 1842 Bennett is FORGIVEN and Joseph "plead in his behalf". This is astounding considering that Joseph said he had sent people back east and found out that Bennett had another wife and was what? AN ADULTERER! Yet this is what he does, forgives Bennett and doesn't bring up any of that supposed evidence. But then, what does Joseph do, after Bennett does not go along with Joseph? 15th of July, 1842:

...a meeting was called at the Grove where Joseph stated before the public a general outline of J[ohn] C. Bennetts conduct and especially with regard to Sis P [Sarah Bates Pratt] Met again in the P.M. when Hyrum [Smith] & H[eber] C. Kimball spake on the same subject after which Joseph arose and said that he would state to those present some things which he had heard respecting Edward & D[avid] Kilbourn being conspiring with J. C. Bennett in endeavoring to bring [p. 127] a Mob upon us, and as Mr E. Kilbourn was then present he would have the privilege of either admitting or denying it. Question by E. Kilbourn “Who did Bennett tell that I and my brother were conspiring to bring a mob upon you” Answer by Joseph “He told me and he told [blank] Allred and Orson Pratts wife & others”. Q by E Kilboun “Where did he say we were going to bring a mob from”. Ans. by Joseph. “From Galena”. Mr. Kilbourn then arose and said, “I was conversing with my brother this morning and he said he had never seen Bennett since he had us before him last year for conspiracy.284 I have only seen him twice since last fall, I saw <​him​> once then. I was going to Galena about 2 weeks ago. The Boat I was on stopped at the upper Landing place and I came ashore a little while. The first person I saw was Bennett; we entered into conversation, but there was no mention made of mobs. I have not seen him since. I always regarded Bennett the same as I regard you (Joseph) and thought you were pretty well matched. If any one says that I have conspired to bring a Mob upon you it is false”.

Kilbourn denies that he is involved or any such thing happened, but Joseph continues to claim that Bennett's objective was to bring the Missouri Mobs down upon the people of Nauvoo. This is what Joseph would claim against his supposed enemies time and time again. And does he repeat it with Walmart. Law? Of course he does and learning from the Bennett scandal, he produces witnesses that WILL corroborate his story. But the Kilbourne's were guilty of trying to have Joseph arrested, but they were not linked to Bennett in any way or MOBS. And Mormon Historians repeat this charge with no evidence to back it up...

At the same time Bennett’s true colors were making themselves publicly known, events of a far more sinister aspect were coming to a head. On the evening of May 6, 1842, an unknown assailant shot Lilburn W. Boggs, former governor of Missouri, as he sat in his home in Independence, Missouri.[19] Eight days later, on May 14, news of the event reached Nauvoo, apparently with the erroneous report that Boggs had been killed in the attack.[20] Joseph Smith’s enemies in the area were quick to connect him with the attack. The same day Joseph heard about it, for example, David Kilbourn—a presbyterian merchant, land speculator, and lawyer with ties to John C. Bennett—wrote to Missouri governor Thomas Reynolds accusing Joseph of complicity in the assassination attempt and calling for his arrest.[21] One week later, on May 21, Sylvester M. Bartlett, editor of the Quincy Whig, addressed the issue in the pages of his paper: “There are several rumors in circulation in regard to the horrid affair,” wrote Bartlett. “One of which throws the crime upon the Mormons—from the fact, we suppose, that Mr. Boggs was governor at the time, and no small degree instrumental in driving them from the state.—Smith too, the Mormon Prophet, as we understand, prophesied a year or so ago, his death by violent means. Hence, there is plenty of foundation for rumor.”[22] Joseph was quick to deny the charge, complaining by letter to the Whig’s editor the following day of the “manifest injustice” he had done him. “He died not through my instrumentality,” wrote Joseph, pointing out that Boggs might simply have been the victim of political intrigue. “I am tired of the misrepresentation, calumny and detraction heaped upon me by wicked men,” Joseph added, “and desire and claim only those privileges guaranteed to all men by the Constitution and Laws of the United States and Illinois.” https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smi ... tempt-1842

In the article above, they then correctly show that Bennett kept the problems with Boggs and the Missourians alive in the press, but this was not until JULY of 1842, after Bennett was expelled from Nauvoo and Joseph learned about his published reports. Whenever Joseph was accused personally, it was a ploy (so he says) to bring MOBS upon the "saints".

Ahead to Jan. 1844, here is Joseph again, with Higbee:

Joseph made another speech, and in it said that F. C. Higbee had better be careful or a train of facts would be disclosed concerning him that he would not like; gave us to understand that he was conniving with Missouri ...

All is good with Law until he refuses to condone some of Joseph's more controversial teachings. Then the vilifying begins. Three months later, Joseph is accusing Law of conspiring with the Missourians, and has two witnesses testify that he is involved in a conspiracy with Joseph Jackson to murder him. Joseph even goes so far as to say that Law, who defended Joseph in 1842 and who Joseph praised (Both Walmart. and his brother) was in league with the Missourians back then! June 11, 1844, Joseph says,

…at the time Gov[ernor] [Thomas] Carlin was pursuing him with his writs (summer/fall 1842)— W[illia]m Law come to my house with a band of Missourians for the purpose of betraying me ...

These kinds of desperate lies were the stock and trade of Joseph Smith during his last months. He also repeated this scenario with Sidney Rigdon when he wanted to get the Post Office away from Rigdon.

[_grindael]

One thing you have to ask is since we see that Joseph would simply make things up and blatantly lie about people like William Law -- lies that I've documented above, how can one claim that Joseph didn't lie about polygamy, or that he would care to make his lies so nuanced that they weren't actually lies?

[_Goldenbrass]

Grindael,

I'm very interested in reading it all when you do finish it and I'm confident that you will. From your posts I've read it's going to provide a lot of needed context to the world that Joseph Smith inhabited. I'm sorry to hear about your cancer scare and happy that you survived it, I don't think anyone could blame you for needing a hiatus from your project. Summer is always my favorite time of year and you've given me an extra reason to look forward to it this year, not that I need more reasons. I enjoyed Jeremy's CES Letter and so it's awesome that you've collaborated and worked on this together, I have no doubts it will be incredible and I'll have to check out your blog. I'm also interested in reading your book when you publish it.

I'm a big fan of extensive footnotes, they help me to review the sources for myself and I like following them to insights that I might not have considered otherwise. With a project like the one you're describing I completely understand why a lot of the work would be in ensuring they are correct, but also reviewing them to see what they are saying. I think there are many things that historians understandably take for granted, even when your own research shows that the assumption is wrong.

I'm very curious about the timeline of Emma Smith's involvement in Joseph Smith's polygamy from the Fanny Alger affair all the way to Nauvoo and her charge as Relief Society President to rout out iniquities which backfired spectacularly as you discussed. Using the Relief Society for public relations purposes is arguably one of the biggest miscalculations that Joseph Smith made. The biggest seems to be his treatment of William Law leading to the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. In both cases it was the cover up of his polygamous activities which ultimately lead to his downfall.

It's amazing to read the actual histories of the people involved and how foreign they are to the versions presented in Mormon histories. Bennett was a good scapegoat for a time because he was a controversial man, but William Law wasn't and so the lies are much more transparent when you look at everything that happened. The Church appears to have had "standing witnesses" from its inception. I wish you the best of health and thank you for all the work you've put into providing this information in an entertaining and comprehensible form, it's a joy to read.

[_grindael]

GB,

I will say this, everyone has gotten the Emma timeline wrong. I sincerely believe that, based on my research. Too much confidence has been given to in many cases anonymous third hand stories from many, many years later crafted for the specific purpose of turning Emma to their own purposes.

I don't see Joseph as a complicated person, but I do see Emma that way. She had hitched her star to a black hole, and the gravitational forces drew her in and she was never able to free herself from his orbit, and I don't think she really wanted to. She was loyal to a fault, even to those who had wronged her many times. (Which happened in both of her marriages).

Emma lived through the "girl business" as Joseph called it, and it wasn't some weird form of polygamy or Spiritual Wifeism. We know this because Brigham Young (who was at the High Council Trial where Joseph explained "the girl business") said that he didn't learn about Joseph's Spiritual Wife System (his words that he called it), until he was in England years after the Alger affair. Young claimed to have this information by "revelation", so he didn't know anything about any kind of polygamy being practiced before that time. So what Joseph "explained" at the High Council Trial, had nothing to do with any kind of polygamy. Oliver Cowdery knew what it was, and Young even later denigrated him for not keeping his mouth shut when Joseph confessed to him about the affair.

We were driven from Missouri after Joseph went up there, and we came to Nauvoo, and the Twelve went to England. While we were in England, I think, the Lord manifested to me by visions and his Spirit, things that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any person concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo. Joseph had never mentioned this, there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I knew anything about at that time. But I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself, and when I returned home and Joseph revealed these things to me, I then understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this was not until after I had told him what I understood. I saw that he was after something by his conversation, leading my mind along, and others, to see how we could bear this. This was in 1841; the revelation was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this; and when I told Joseph what I understood, which was right in front of my house in the street, as he was shaking hands and leaving me, he turned round and looked me in the eyes, and says he—“Brother Brigham, are you speaking what you understand—are you in earnest?” Says

I—“I speak just as the Spirit manifests to me.” Says he—“God bless you, the Lord has opened your mind,” and he turned and went off. (Journal of Discourses 18:241, 1874)

Yet we have historians claiming that Joseph explained to the High Council that his "affair" was a polygamous marriage to Fanny Alger. That's simply not true. Young claimed that the doctrine was revealed to Cowdery and that he (Cowdery) acted in secret on it, and that was why Cowdery fell! This is just far fetched. He started telling that tale in 1857, that Joseph Smith learned about polygamy in 1831 and that it was a secret he only told Cowdery under the promise that Cowdery would not reveal it or act upon it and that Cowdery secretly married another wife. (See Woodruff's Journal for Aug. 26, 1857).

This is actually the story of Fanny Alger put on Cowdery! But Young never says that Joseph admitted anything about practicing any kind of polygamy in Kirtland. Now, Cowdery was engaged to marry a woman a few years earlier and did not stay true to that engagement, and it was reported by Ezra Booth that Cowdery was some kind of scoundrel for courting another while engaged to a different woman. Cowdery actually cleared all that up and confessed to it. But some who didn't know the whole story, made it into something it is not.

Emma wrote some letters to Joseph after the Alger affair, and closed them with a reminder for him to remain "pure". She looked at his Spiritual Wifeism in the same way, that it made him and anyone else who practiced it, impure. Emma never went along with it. What she did do, since she was very independently minded, was to use it against Joseph... that if he could do it, why couldn't she also? This drove Joseph nuts, as she knew it would. Joseph made a bargain with her to give her what she wanted (A Spiritual Husband), but then had the "revelation" which reneged on it. Emma did not agree to participate in any of Joseph's "sealings".

[_Goldenbrass]

GB,

I will say this, everyone has gotten the Emma timeline wrong. I sincerely believe that, based on my research. Too much confidence has been given to in many cases anonymous third hand stories from many, many years later crafted for the specific purpose of turning Emma to their own purposes.

I don't see Joseph as a complicated person, but I do see Emma that way. She had hitched her star to a black hole, and the gravitational forces drew her in and she was never able to free herself from his orbit, and I don't think she really wanted to. She was loyal to a fault, even to those who had wronged her many times. (Which happened in both of her marriages).

Emma lived through the "girl business" as Joseph called it, and it wasn't some weird form of polygamy or Spiritual Wifeism. We know this because Brigham Young (who was at the High Council Trial where Joseph explained "the girl business") said that he didn't learn about Joseph's Spiritual Wife System (his words that he called it), until he was in England years after the Alger affair. Young claimed to have this information by "revelation", so he didn't know anything about any kind of polygamy being practiced before that time. So what Joseph "explained" at the High Council Trial, had nothing to do with any kind of polygamy. Oliver Cowdery knew what it was, and Young even later denigrated him for not keeping his mouth shut when Joseph confessed to him about the affair.

We were driven from Missouri after Joseph went up there, and we came to Nauvoo, and the Twelve went to England. While we were in England, I think, the Lord manifested to me by visions and his Spirit, things that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any person concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo. Joseph had never mentioned this, there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I knew anything about at that time. But I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself, and when I returned home and Joseph revealed these things to me, I then understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this was not until after I had told him what I understood. I saw that he was after something by his conversation, leading my mind along, and others, to see how we could bear this. This was in 1841; the revelation was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this; and when I told Joseph what I understood, which was right in front of my house in the street, as he was shaking hands and leaving me, he turned round and looked me in the eyes, and says he—“Brother Brigham, are you speaking what you understand—are you in earnest?” Says

I—“I speak just as the Spirit manifests to me.” Says he—“God bless you, the Lord has opened your mind,” and he turned and went off. (Journal of Discourses 18:241, 1874)

Yet we have historians claiming that Joseph explained to the High Council that his "affair" was a polygamous marriage to Fanny Alger. That's simply not true. Young claimed that the doctrine was revealed to Cowdery and that he (Cowdery) acted in secret on it, and that was why Cowdery fell! This is just far fetched. He started telling that tale in 1857, that Joseph Smith learned about polygamy in 1831 and that it was a secret he only told Cowdery under the promise that Cowdery would not reveal it or act upon it and that Cowdery secretly married another wife. (See Woodruff's Journal for Aug. 26, 1857).

This is actually the story of Fanny Alger put on Cowdery! But Young never says that Joseph admitted anything about practicing any kind of polygamy in Kirtland. Now, Cowdery was engaged to marry a woman a few years earlier and did not stay true to that engagement, and it was reported by Ezra Booth that Cowdery was some kind of scoundrel for courting another while engaged to a different woman. Cowdery actually cleared all that up and confessed to it. But some who didn't know the whole story, made it into something it is not.

Emma wrote some letters to Joseph after the Alger affair, and closed them with a reminder for him to remain "pure". She looked at his Spiritual Wifeism in the same way, that it made him and anyone else who practiced it, impure. Emma never went along with it. What she did do, since she was very independently minded, was to use it against Joseph... that if he could do it, why couldn't she also? This drove Joseph nuts, as she knew it would. Joseph made a bargain with her to give her what she wanted (A Spiritual Husband), but then had the "revelation" which reneged on it. Emma did not agree to participate in any of Joseph's "sealings".

Interesting. I remember reading in D&C 132:51-56 when I was in the Church and finding the wording to Emma curious so I looked it up in the Student manual and found the following.

D&C 132:51–56. What Was Emma Commanded Not to Partake of?
No indication is given here or elsewhere of what the Lord had commanded the Prophet Joseph to offer to his wife, but the context seems to suggest that it was a special test of faith similar to the test of Abraham’s faith when the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. Beyond that, it is useless to speculate. However, Emma was given additional counsel from the Lord, including commandments to “receive all those that have been given to her husband” (D&C 132:52) to obey the voice of the Lord (see v. 53), to “abide and cleave unto” the Prophet (v. 54), and to forgive him of his trespasses (see v. 56). The Lord also gave her warnings against rejecting these commandments and promises for keeping them.

So according to this manual there was no indication anywhere of what it could be and there was no point in speculating, but it must have been something really bad like the Abrahamic test of God asking Abraham to perform human sacrifice. The manual did point out that Joseph Smith gave her commandments from God to swallow everything he was doing or she would be damned though, how wonderful. It wasn't until I left the Church that I learned that we do have evidence of what was offered to Emma by the Lord and that it was that she could sleep with another man and that the man she chose was William Law. The FairMormon article attempting to spin doctor the evidence is actually a lot more incriminating than it is apologetic, probably due to incompetence. The Fair article provides four sources that all corroborate the idea that Joseph made this offer to Emma or attempted to seduce Jane Law.

This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came…and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too.

FairMormon tries to paint the above quotes as talking about Emma getting a divorce, but it is quite obvious these quotes are about Emma indulging in the same sexual promiscuity that Joseph is indulging in. The things that Emma is seeking revenge for are Joseph's extra-marital affairs, and if Joseph would "indulge" in them then Emma would too, it is obviously saying that she told Joseph she planned to have extra-marital affairs. It's also obvious that Joseph Smith viewed this as a way to trap him, maybe Emma suggested it because she thought it might make Joseph stop? You would have to really stretch to try to claim that is about divorce.

"get Mrs. William Law for a spiritual wife…for the purpose of affecting his object [Joseph] got up a revelation that Law was to be sealed up to Emma, and that Law's wife was to be his; in other words there was to be a spiritual swop [sic]…[Joseph] had never before suffered his passion for any woman to carry him so far as to be willing to sacrifice Emma for its gratification."

Then you have Joseph H. Jackson's account which specifically says that Joseph told him that he intended to marry Jane Law and that Emma would marry William Law, the FairMormon authors try to make out that Jackson is unreliable, but his claim is corroborated by William Clayton's diary entry at least on the idea of Emma seeking that kind of revenge by indulging herself. It's also confirmed from William Law's Diary.

[Joseph][ha[s] lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and[ha[s] found her a virtuous woman.

William Law's diary confirms that Joseph Smith attempted to seduce Jane Law which again corroborates Jackson's claim.

Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably opposed to polygamy in any and every form…[but Law did believe] that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute, for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in the house.

William Law does distance himself from the whole affair later on particularly when it comes to being asked about Joseph Smith suggesting it to them, but that could have been because he was concerned about anyone questioning the honor of his wife. Maybe Joseph hadn't actually asked Law about a swap, but had discussed it with Emma? Law does go on to describe how he believes that Joseph Smith was willing to offer Emma a "substitute" to get her off his back as long as when it came to his plural wives she let him "keep some of them in the house". FairMormon tries to paint that as Joseph Smith offering Emma a divorce, but it makes no sense that Emma was agreeing to "keep some of them in the house" if he was talking about divorce, because she wouldn't be in the house with him if they were divorced and the "substitute" was her marrying someone else. The substitute William Law is talking about is obviously a male equivalent of Joseph Smith's spiritual wives.

Grindael, I'd be curious to hear your take on the whole Laws wife swapping incident because I'm sure you have a lot of insights that have been missed by a lot of historians covering the issue in the past. Do you think it happened? I think there is a case that later Mormons attempting to understand the passages in D&C 132 claimed it referred to a divorce and they quote Ann Eliza who confirms that. What Ann Eliza doesn't confirm because she wasn't really even around at the time is that Ann Eliza knew anything about what actually happened with the Laws and I find it odd that they reject Jackson's account in favor of the claims of a woman who wasn't involved in it at all.

Funnily, the student manualconcludes with a quote by Wilford Woodruff claiming he can call on his standing witnesses to testify about Emma Smith's involvement in polygamy with her husband, how convenient.

President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)

[_grindael]

Hi GB,

I've put a lot of time into researching this connection with Emma and William Law and I do believe that some "bargain" was struck by Joseph and Emma concerning her having a "Spiritual Husband". The rumors got back to Law, but he didn't agree to any of it. He says so. Clayton gives us the background, that Emma was "disposed to be revenged on him for some things," and told Joseph that if he could "indulge" himself, then she should be able to also. I think that Emma knew Joseph well enough that it wasn't going to happen and she was right, it didn't. But here is the key to understanding the whole Partridge matter. Joseph suggested that he gets to keep the Partridges, which Emma found out about and she could have her Spiritual Husband. But then Joseph writes the "revelation" and reneges on the deal. So Emma did too. What happened, I think, is that Emma found out about the Partridges when Jackson was staying with the Smiths. Again, Clayton, who says that when they came back from a jaunt to their farm on May 23, Joseph went to speak to Eliza Partridge alone and Emma went upstairs after him and Joseph held the door on her. Joseph was worried about Jackson being in the house alone with his Spiritual Wives. Clayton says he called Jackson "rotten hearted", but that didn't last since Joseph tried to get him to join the church and made him a Lieutenant Colonel in the Nauvoo Legion (Aide-de-Camp) on January 5, 1844.

It was only five days after this, on May 28, 1844 that Joseph is "sealed" to Emma. Hyrum accepted polygamy also during this time, (May 26). What had happened is that Emma found out about Clayton's marriage to Margaret Moon on April 27. She was close to the Farr family and Margaret had been engaged to Aaron Farr, who had to be informed that she was "marrying" Clayton. The May 23 date has gotten a lot of notoriety because of the stuff with Eliza and Joseph Jackson, but there is something else in there also, this line,

Conversed with H[eber] C. K[imball] concerning a plot that is being laid to entrap the brethren of the secret priesthood by Brother H[yrum] and others.

Emma and Law were also involved in this scheming to bring this all to light. Why does Joseph all of a sudden get sealed to Emma on May 28th? Everyone thinks that it is because she accepted polygamy and gave him the Partridge sisters herself. Nope. It was all about Hyrum. How did Joseph sell Hyrum on Spiritual Wifeism? Well, you have to go to Hyrum to find out. Fortunately, he gave a speech in April of 1844 and here is what he said,

I married me a wife, and I am the only one who had any right to her. We had five children, the covenant was made four our lives. She fell into the grave before God showed us his order. God has shown me that the covenant is dead, and had no force, neither could I have her in the resurrection, but we should be as the angels--it troubled me. President Joseph said you can have her sealed to you upon the same principles as you can be baptized for the dead. I enquired what can I do for any second wife? You can also make a covenant with her for eternity and have her sealed to you by the authority of the priesthood.
I named the subject to my present wife, and she said, “I will act as proxy for your wife that is dead, and I will be sealed to you for eternity myself for I never had any other husband. I love you and I do not want to be separate from you nor be forever alone in the world to come.” If there is any man that has no more sense, and will make a base story of such a fact, his name shall be published. What honest man or woman can find fault with such a doctrine as this? None. It is a doctrine not to be preached to the world; but to the Saints who have obeyed the gospel and gathered to Zion. It is glad tiding of great joy.
The Lord has given Joseph the power to seal on earth and in heaven [for] those who are found worthy; having the Spirit of Elijah and Elias, he has power to seal with a seal that shall never be broken, and it shall be in force in the morn of the resurrection. Talk about spiritual wives! One that is dead and gone is spiritual. We will come up in the morn of the resurrection; and every soul that is saved will receive an eternal increase of glory. Will you believe this, (loud shouts of aye).
Every great and good principle should be taught to the Saints, but some must not be taught to the world; until they are prepared to receive them; it would be like casting pearls before swine. No man must attempt to preach them.
I believe every good man should have one wife in this life, and I know if I had two I should not know what to do with them; they might quarrel about me, and I might get a whipping. One is enough, and I warn all of you not to attempt it; if a man should begin to find out, you would get into some cell in Alton. ...

The idea of marrying for eternity is the seal of the covenant, and is easily understood; and as to speaking of it, I could make all the world believe it, for it is noble and grand; it is necessary in consequence of the broken covenants in the world. I never saw any scripture but what was written by Prophet to instruct and prepare mankind for eternity. I read that what God joins together, let no man put asunder. I see magistrates and Priests in the world, but not one who is empowered to join together by the authority of God. Nor yet have I seen any priest that dare say that he has the authority of God; there is not a sectarian Priest in Christendom that dare say he has the authority by direct revelation from God. When I look at the seal of the new Covenant and reflect that all the covenants made by the authority of man are only made to be in force during the natural life and end there, I rejoice that what is the consideration of the Almighty God, everything rightfully and lawfully belongs to man if he fulfills the stipulated conditions; and if a thing belongs to me legally, it cannot belong to any one else. (Order of speech re-arranged by me)

Here is how Joseph converted Hyrum. Hyrum's first wife was dead, but Joseph told them he could have them both based on the same principle as Baptism for the Dead, the "sealing" power. (This is powerful evidence that Baptism for the Dead came first, then the principle was applied to "Eternal Marriage".)

So Hyrum is "sealed" to his living wife, and then his FIRST WIFE. Why in the world was Joseph not "sealed" to HIS First Wife? Joseph had to do it then. It made the whole thing palatable to Hyrum. Joseph was holding out the "sealing" on Emma to get her to accept his Spiritual Wives, but could no longer do so. Since Hyrum would have two wives in Eternity, how easy it was to get him to accept the principle on earth. And he did, though he denied it was being practiced, just like Joseph did. Can you imagine Hyrum's reaction when he finds out that Joseph is NOT "sealed" to Emma? And then Joseph pens the "revelation" and Hyrum thinks he can persuade her as Joseph did him. Nope. He was dead wrong. Joseph had tried and come up empty. But he lets Hyrum try, and Emma says she doesn't believe a word of it. She then burns the "revelation" or has Joseph do it.

But then the cat is out of the bag, Joseph has admitted to Emma that yes, he has other Spiritual Wives and she is livid. So what does she do? Clayton tells us,

[June 23, 1843. Friday.] This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came…and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too. He cautioned me very kindly for which I felt thankful. He said [Robert] Thompson professed great friendship for him but he gave away to temptation and he had to die. Also Brother [Newel] Knight he gave him one but he went to loose conduct and he could not save him. Also B[righam] Y[oung] had transgressed his covenant and he pled with the Lord to spare him this end and he did so, otherwise he would have died. B[righam] denied having transgressed. He said if I would do right by him and abide his council he would save my life while he lived. I feel desirous to do right and would rather die than loose my interest in the celestial kingdom…

Emma wanted to "lay a snare" for whom? CLAYTON. Why? Because of Margaret Moon. Emma now knows for sure that this is an EARTHLY ordinance, not just a "spiritual" order. Margaret is pregnant. And this all is just heating up. Here is what Erastus Snow claimed later,

Emma used her womanly nature to teas[e] and annoy Joseph and went so far as to threaten Joseph that she would leave Hi[m] and cohabit with another man and the Lord forbade her in the Revelation.

William H. Walker was married to Olive Farr, the sister of Aaron Farr. (William had a brother named Lorin who married Joseph F. Smith's sister, and their sister Lucy was one of Joseph secret Spiritual Wives) Two years later, Clayton would marry Diantha Farr, Olive and Aaron’s sister. William was also living in the Smith home at the time. William M. Thompson gave this account about something that happened on July 9th at the Smith Homestead:

I went down to Joseph’s house at intermission on Sunday 9th July 1843, I had some business with him, he and his family were eating dinner Sister Emma William Walker Mother Smith & Young Joseph was presant he invited me to Eat dinner & some others that I did not know ^ Bro Joseph Envited me to Eat dinner Bro Joseph & Emma was talking about the Mornings Sermon. Emma said that he had made some statements that the Brethern & sisters thought applied to her that was not very complimentary she said she wanted him to apologise or explain in the afternoon after some talk backwards & Forwards Between Joseph Emma & others at the table, Bro Joseph Looked at me where I was sitting In the south part of the house he said Looking at me at the same time pointing his finger at Emma & said that there woman was the greatest Enimy I ever had in my Life. yes said he again that there woman was the greates Enimy I ever had in ^all my Life & My Bro Hyrum was always my best friend. William M. Thompson, Wednesday, Aug. 23rd, 1854.

Notice Walker's name is scratched out, but he was living there. There is no record of that morning sermon, but in the afternoon Joseph “remarked that all was well between him and the heavens and that he had no enmity against any one.” (Smith Diary) Hyrum is now Joseph's best friend, not Emma.

Again, in private he is all over Emma but to the public, he gives a picture that all is rosy. It was not. We then have the two entries by Clayton about the "revelation",

July 12, 1843. Wednesday.] This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c.42 After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. Joseph told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E[mma] and the children. He appears much troubled about E[mma].
[July 13, 1843. Thursday.] This A.M. Joseph sent for me and when I arrived he called me up into his private room with E[mma] and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. They both stated their feelings on many subjects and wept considerable. O may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide by his Holy Law… (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, p.110)

Read them carefully. What agreement? Not polygamy, because Clayton writes "O may the Lord SOFTEN HER HEART THAT SHE MAY BE WILLING TO KEEP AND ABIDE BY HIS HOLY LAW." Be WILLING to. She wasn't then. So the agreement? The next day:

[July 15, 1843. Saturday.] Made Deed for 1/2 S[team] B[oat] Maid of Iowa from Joseph to Emma. Also a Deed to E[mma] for over 60 city lots…

Emma gets all the property and half the Maid of Iowa. She is now holding a lot of cards here. What do the Spiritual Wives have? Nothing except a lot here and there that Joseph gave to them. And was Emma "willing to keep and abide by his holy law"? No. It only got worse. She DID NOT participate in ANY of those "sealings" to other women. Then, Clayton writes,

[July 22, 1843. Saturday.]…M[argaret] and A[aron Farr] had a long conversation together. She. has stood true to her covenant with W[illiam] C[layton]. I also had some talk with him and although the shock is severe he endures it patiently.43 And I pray the Great Eloheem to make up the loss to him an hundred fold and enable him to rejoice in all things. My heart aches with grief on his and M[argaret]'s account and could almost say O that I had never known h[er].

This absolutely gets back to Emma. Clayton even wants to have the "sealing" revoked, but Joseph says no. (Though he does so with the Partridge sisters just a few months later at Emma's insistence.)

[July 27, 1843. Thursday.] I went to see President Joseph in our conversation about M[argaret] and A[aron] he said if A[aron] went to making me any trouble he would defend me to the uttermost and stand by me through all, for which I feel thankful…

[August 3, 1843. Thursday.] A.M. at President Joseph's…Conversed about W[illiam] Law, Emma &c…

Here is where the Emma/Law problem begins to be a big problem. Emma then revolts...

August 11, 1843 Joseph told me to day that [William] "Walker" had been speaking to him concerning my having taken M[argaret] away from A[aron] and intimated that I had done wrong. I told him to be quiet and say no more about it. He also told me Emma was considerably displeased with it but says he she will soon get over it. In the agony of mind which I have endured on this subject I said I was sorry I had done it, at which Joseph told me not to say so. I finally asked him if I had done wrong in what I had done. He answered no you have a right to get all you can.

Emma did not "get over it". Here is what happened,

[August 16, 1843. Wednesday.]…We returned and met President Joseph and some of the family going to the funeral of Judge Adams. P.M. I went with A[lpheus] Young to look at a lot and called at Sister Booths who is in trouble. Robert [Booth] is gone away to work, Sarah Ann [Booth] is gone to Keokuk, and Elesabeth [] and husband is going to Chicago this evening. This A.M. Joseph told me that since E[mma] came back from St. Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would [have] given him E[liza] and E[mily] P[artridge], but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him. He however told me he should not relinquish anything. O God deliver thy servant from iniquity and bondage.

Emma has now "resisted the Priesthood in toto", and Joseph had to promise to "relinquish all for her sake". And then Joseph tells Clayton that at one time Emma WOULD HAVE given him the Partridges, but that Joseph knew that IF HE TOOK THEM, she would divorce him, so he never did. Later, in Utah, they use this entry to say that Emma had actually chosen the girls and took part in a second "mock sealing" to them. But I have evidence that Emily Partridge changed her story about Emma, which I will reveal at a later time.

Then, Emma goes about trying to separate Joseph from his Spiritual Wives. She goes and harasses Flora Woodworth, who then elopes with Carlos Gove. She confronts Eliza Snow. She boots out all of the women she suspects being Spiritual Wives. Lucy Walker leaves the house, as do the Partridges. We have no information on the Lawrence sisters, but they are gone too. The only one that remained was Malissa Lott, but Emma did not know about her. In the fall of 1843, Emma tells Bathsheba Smith,

I was anointed in Sister Emma Smith’s house [in the fall of 1843], she (Emma Smith) said in my presence, to me and to others who were also present upon that occasion: “Your husbands are going to take more wives, and if you don’t consent to it, you must put your foot down and keep it there.” Much more was said in regard to plural marriage at that time by Sister Emma Smith, who seemed opposed to the principle.

In October, Joseph goes up and down the street in front of the Mansion and shouts out that men can only have one wife and the he "forbids" anything else. (Smith Diary)

But Joseph didn't seem to learn his lesson and has Fanny Young "sealed" to himself on November 2. A few days later Joseph is violently ill at the table and blames Emma for spiking his coffee with some kind of poison. After this, Joseph does not take another Spiritual Wife.

This is the timeline based on the EVIDENCE. Emma does have some conversations with Law over the summer, but things finally cool down for her and as Walmart continues to put the heat on Joseph in Dec, Jan and until the assassination in June. Emma did get what she wanted, though if Joseph had lived, who knows what he would have done? But he gave up many of his Spiritual Wives for her sake, even though he did not want to. He continued to allow others to practice Spiritual Wifeism in secret. Marks claimed that Joseph admitted it was a mistake, but that could have been posturing by Joseph for his and Emma's sake. I think it was, I think Joseph didn't want to give it up. Before Joseph went to Carthage, Emma wanted a blessing and Joseph told her to write one and she did. In it she wrote,

I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side, and I ask my Heavenly Father that through humility, I may be enabled to overcome that curse which was pronounced upon the daughters of Eve.

The "curse of Eve" wasn't just childbearing, it was,

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This is what Emma wanted to overcome, her being "ruled over". She wanted them "acting in unison" with her "by his side", not as a Spiritual Wife flunky that could be dismissed with a handshake as were the Partridges.

[_grindael]

Just so you know, the line about Joseph trying to seduce Walmart. Law's wife was scratched out of his diary. I don't know why Law would have done this, but I suspect it was because it was out of place in that entry. In his diary, Law wrote on May 13th 1844 that he told Sidney Rigdon (who Joseph had sent to William Law to offer him restoration of his place in the Church),

…that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That [if] Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practiced the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to these things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world. (William Law Diary, May 13, 1844)

As one can see from above, the part about Joseph seducing William’s wife has been crossed out. I believe that this was done not because it didn’t happen (we have Scott’s testimony from the 18th of April to support this as well as Edward Bonney & Joseph Jackson) but because Law changed his mind and did not want to include this in his demands to Rigdon. He may have mentioned it to Rigdon, but did not want to demand Smith to acknowledge it publicly if he would admit to and denounce his practice of polygamy.