Dale's Thoughts on Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[_Dale]

"The interview had convinced me that the statement made in an affidavit of this Melissa Lott Willis, published by Joseph F. Smith along with others of similar import to the effect that she had been married to Joseph Smith, was not true, provided the word married be construed as conveying the right of living together as man and wife, a relation she had unequivocally denied in my presence. I was convinced that wherever the word married, or sealed occurred in such testimonials regarding my father it meant nothing more than possibly those women had gone through some ceremony or covenant which they intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come, and could by no means have any reference whatever to marital rights in the flesh." (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith 111, pg.246)

Some of the claims are specifically sexual. But the polyandrous cases, the Helen Mar Kimball, and Patty Sessions case can be clearly read as Joseph Smith 3rd saw it. I happen to agree with Richard and Pamela Price "The fact that Joseph and Hyrum had no children born of the alleged wives, and that the testimony of the alleged wives can be proven false, is only a vast amount which indicates that Joseph was innocent." (Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Preface)

They also publish the above Memoirs of Joseph Smith 111. JSFP is online at http://www.restorationbookstore.org. So are aware of the sealings.

[_Brackite]

I have a lot of personal research I feel backs up my position. I have read In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton many times. I feel D.&C. 132 and William Claytons Nauvoo Journal are fakes. The copy of the polygamy revelation William Law saw was two or three pages foolscap. The Joseph Kingsbury copy that reputed to be that copy the LDS have is 7-8 pages now. Two other witnesses saw the shorter July 12,1843 revelation. Claytons journal said the original was 10 pages which is untrue if the copy was that short. So its easy for me to side with Richard and Pamela Price on their research on Eliza Snow. http://www.restorationbookstore.org JSFP section. Angus Cannon said she said their was sex, but I doubt her claim did more than complement their hoax.

I am a Reorganized latter day Saint not LDS. I was LDS. I got baptized Community of Christ in 2005. My denominations official stance on Joseph Smith and plural marriage may be found at our church website. http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp?pr=yes

Dale, our newest member to the board, posted this as part of Traschcanman's thread in the Telestial Forum. I would love to hear more about Dale's research regarding this.

Dale, when you have a moment, would you be kind enough to indulge us?

;)

And I also think D.&C. 132 and William Claytons Nauvoo Journal could be fakes.

Hello There Dale,

What evidence do you have for your belief that the William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entries are fakes??? There is basically and virtually no evidence that the William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entries are fakes. The Following is a Post from a FAIR Blog Entry there:

Richard and Pamela Price do not themselve’s address certain documents. William Clayton’s Nauvoo Journal associate’s Joseph Smith with Celestial marriage. I do not see how this one case help’s the Saint’s discern Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Officially the leader’s of my denomination do not dispute the authenticity of his journal.

I cannot fault our past historian’s for not commenting on document’s they did not know about. But Community of Christ historian’s of today feel Joseph Smith was involved based on certain document’s. Unless they had document expert’s to say certain document’s are fake’s they need to honestly treat them as authentic.

I realize i don’t have any information about this case. I only know what they said in their book on it. But the case document’s does not help their case. The LDS Church not treating the case in it’s official history does not hurt it’s official position that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

It’s not enough to throw out a bunch of document’s supporting Joseph Smith’s innocence. One has to make persuasive comment’s on all the tough source’s, and quote’s that end up in book’s like In Sacred Lonliness. Until they can do that the church should not re-establish our old official Joseph Smith was innocent position.


( http://www.fairblog.org/2008/02/05/plur ... -l-higbee/ , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

And also, The Tanners (Jerald and Sandra) offer a good piece of evidence that the William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entries are indeed authentic. This good piece of evidence is in their Booklet they put out a while ago Titled, 'Clayton's Secret Writings Uncovered', which is in the beginning of this booklet. This Booklet has all of available William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entries in it.
Here is the link to that Booklet at utlm:
http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/cla ... _ub038.htm


Edited to add: I don't have this booklet copy of mine with me now. My copy of this booklet is at a house of a relative of mine. I do however, remember reading in there, that the Tanners pointing out that very good piece of evidence that the William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entries are indeed authentic.

[_Dale]

William Clayton in his journal said he wrote a 10 page polygamy revelation. I have his journal and can dig out the page number if you need it. The LDS have i heard from another guy to 7-8 page copies of the revelation. One is in the handwriting of Joseph Kingsbury, and one is a copy Bishop Whitney made. This certainly fits the LDS Side. But i noticed a problem that made me feel his claim of a 10 page revelation hinted his journal dated after they had altered D.&C. 132. William Law and two others reported the copy Hyrum Smith had was not 7-8 pages even. but rather was about two or three pages foolscap or smaller.

I certainly see the the questions about the smaller revelation and how it turned into a 7-8 page revelation enough for me. There is just no way they needed 7-8 pages if the copy was that small. If the copy was that small the revelation that Emma Smith was said to have burned could not be 10 pages. It looks like an interlopation by William Clayton as he was revising his Nauvoo journal at some point. I have the Signature Books edition, and i saw no room for interlopations. So my guess is he re-copied them by hand at some point. The Nauvoo journal is only three small notebooks. He was prolific enough to edit his journal.

[_Dale]

I was the one who made the blog entry. I disagree with Richard and Pamela Price some. Their material has some value, but i comment on much more stuff than they do. I was reading out of Mormon Enigma today. I have four new polygamy books on order. Two of them i have on order from UTLM. One is on Sarah And Whitney's marriages, and Wylheim Wyl's Mormon Portraits. The other is the Mormon Experience, and something about sexuality among the Shakers and Mormons.

I probably have every major book on Joseph Smith and polygamy. One i have been studying is Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage. Joseph F. Smith and our R.C. Evans are the authors. R.C. Evans later on left the church and wrote an Anti-RLDS book.

Do you think i should by the booklet you mentioned? I have his Nauvoo journal. Next month i thought about buying Wife No. 19. Maybe i will get a copy of the booklet. The content of William Claytons Nauvoo Journal is material i have pondered for years.

[_Brackite]

Hello Dale,

Yeap, if you do have quite a few extra bucks on hand, I do recommend you get that booklet that the Tanners put out about the Writings of William Clayton. I got my copy of that booklet a few years ago, however, I don't have that copy of that booklet now with me. My copy of that booklet is at a relative's house.

[_Dale]

I ordered a copy. I am quite aware of the content of the journals. I bought a used copy of the George D. Smith edition from Signature Books. I found the polygamy subject addictive when i got into it. I got my other UTLM stuff the other day. My views are not inerrant i just try to raise issues nobody else notices.

I see three approaches to dealing with the plural wives in my tradition. All three views have weaknesses and strenghts.

1.They were only sealed to him for eternity, but were not to live with him as wives. Emma Smith and Joseph Smith 3rd held this view.
2.That the testimony of the wives can be proven false. Richard and Pamela Price's online, and printed editions of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy presents that view. http://www.restorationbookstore.org Emma Smith and Joseph Smith 3rd also held some of this view.
3.That the testimony of the wives can be taken at face value.

[_Dale]

I got my copy today. I quickly looked it over. I just see the polygamy parts in the journal as part of their plot to discredit Emma Smith. I think he edited it in a copy and added stuff to make Joseph Smith look guilty of earthly polygamy and discredit Emma Smith. I see his saying the revelation he wrote was 10 pages possibly gave his forgery away. If William Law, James Whitehead and Mercy Rachel Thompson was wrong about the size then the journal is authentic.

I alone noticed however that there was a conflict about the reported size of the copy.