JSJr gave a sermon about one month before his murder. It was a Sunday sermon aboard the Mississippi steam boat, the Maid of Iowa. The sermon is summarized by Thomas Bullock, ‘scribe of steamer’. In that sermon, JSJr addressed the accusations of polygamy and said “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” The summary can be found here and by searching for “Sunday, 26.--At 10”.
A bit of background, however, is in order. In late December 1843, word in Nauvoo, allegedly from Hyrum Smith, was that JSJr had the Nauvoo police surveilling William Marks and William Law for possible disloyalty to JSJr. William Law asked the Nauvoo police for special protection in light of this news. Upon hearing this JSJr convened official inquiries as the Nauvoo mayor. The hearings were conducted on December 29, 1843 and January 3 and 5, 1844. JSJr mused during these hearings that there was a ‘Brutus’ in his midst. At the end of the hearing on January 5, 1844, JSJr questioned the allegiance and loyalty of Wilson Law, brother to William. Wilson held the rank of Major-general in the Nauvoo Legion. It is recorded in History of the Church, Vol. 6 that
Note, I have not been able to find any historical reference to William Law having made the statement that he would lay down his life for JSJr (but would welcome anyone pointing such out). Only Wilson’s January 5, 1844 statement.Alderman Orson Spencer spoke, approving the conduct of the police. General Wilson Law said. "I am Joseph's friend' he has no better friend in the world. I am ready to lay down my life for him;" and upon that the mayor and General Wilson Law shook hands.
Much transpired between January 5 and May 26, 1844, when JSJr gave the Sunday sermon on the Maid of Iowa. JSJr had both William Law and Wilson Law excommunicated because they dissented over JSJr’s ‘polygamy’, were organizing a Mormon splinter group, and blowing the lid on that ‘polygamy’ and the existence of the theocratic Council of Fifty. JSJr used the occasion of the May 26 Sunday sermon aboard the Maid of Iowa to address the allegations swirling around Nauvoo (underlining added):
Now, before you read further, pause and consider this summary of JSJr’s sermon, as written by his scribe Thomas Bullock and included in the History of the Church. Ask yourself and answer this question for yourself: Did JSJr in the sermon deny engaging in ‘polygamy’?Recording JSJr’s sermon, Thomas Bullock wrote:Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me; the reason is he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still.
Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man's ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet God knows, then, that the charges against me are false.
I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.
William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are--whether it will be a course or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me.
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.
Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness, they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.
Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said--"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.
There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.
When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross--I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.--Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.
Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.
Kerry Shirts says ‘no’ and has kicked his mopologetics into high gear.
Kerry A Shirts wrote:Critics will sometimes contend that Joseph Smith in the History of the Church denied Polygamy. Is this an accurate assessment of his words though? I honestly, after reading through the entire entry, instead of the mere paragraph critics will quote, don’t see how Joseph Smith is denying Polygamy.[1]
The quote from Joseph Smith goes like this:
"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives[1a]....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.[1b] I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith[1c] (History of The Church 6:410-411)
Critics contend that:
(1) This is a denial of involvement in any type of plural marriage.
In reading Joseph Smith History Vol. 6: pp. 408-411, it is a fascinating account of how so many were bearing false witness against the Prophet, and with affidavits.[2]
If I am understanding this correctly, the Prophet says "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, Before it was reported I had 7 wives." (p. 410). I am wondering[3] if he is referring to his marriage to Emma, way back earlier in his life... The the Prophet says William Law swore that Joseph himself said he himself was committing adultery! But notice what the Prophet said next: "Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this."
Law vacillated between claiming he would lay his life down for Joseph Smith[4], which he DIDN'T do, and then claiming Smith admitted to committing adultery. Law was unstable so far as an honest man goes[5]. He was not honest, as he turned against Joseph Smith, instead of sticking with him and giving his life for the Prophet as he had apparently bragged he would do if necessary. In other words, if Law lied about that, he very well could be lying about Jospeh Smith committing adultery.[6]
I understand all this to mean rumors were spreading all over, and Joseph was being talked about wrongly. That is the entire context of this part of his history.[7] On p. 411 the Prophet is showing how witnesses are contradicting each other all over the place. Law claims Smith told him that he (Smith) was committing adultery. Another witness, Jonathan Durham, swore the opposite case. The Prophet declares he is innocent of these charges (the adultery).
When he says he is the same man he was fourteen years ago, and innocent, his innocence is that of not committing adultery.[8] He didn't commit it fourteen years ago, and he wasn't committing it then at his accusation trial (if that is what it was, I haven't read much more than the few pages you mentioned).
All in all, his accusations of him committing adultery is what he is denying. I honestly don't see this as his denying polygamy at all.[9]
[10]The provenance of this entry and others is also interesting and important to note as well. Dean Jessee, the author of the finest book on what Joseph Smith said The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, as well as author of numerous articles on the Prophet noted that many of Joseph’s sermons and sayings in the History of the Church were recorded after Joseph was dead, by scribes, such as Thomas Bullock, which this account apparently comes from. Some of his materials have been supervised by a committee, and Joseph Smith comes across differently from their vantage point than he would have originally. Scribes editing the History only could do the best that they remembered in some cases. See Dean C. Jessee, "Priceless Words And Fallible Memories: Joseph Smith As Seen In The Effort To Preserve His Discourses," BYU Studies, 31 (Spring 1991), pp. 19-40.
Interestingly, Cook and Ehat in their book The Words of Joseph Smith noted that some of the material by the scribes are either lost or misplaced. Cook and Ehat, _The Words Of Joseph Smith_, p. 406, note 1 under date 26 May 1844. Their entry under the same page at 26 May, 1844 note 5 reports that many scribes and clerks were employed in keeping Smith’s diaries, letterbooks, and accounts, such as Willard Richards, James Mullholland and William Clayton and Robert B. Thompson. This accords well with what Joseph Smith said in the above account, that he had kept many men busy for the last three years recording what he had been saying and doing, so no court of law could hang him. He had many witnesses, hence the false affidavits were shown to be such.
Robert L. Millet, in his article "Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants," in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture: Doctrine and Covenants, Vol. 1, Randall Book Co., 1984: 135, records that D&C 47:1 commands Joseph to keep a diary and regular history and he was to have assistants in helping him transcribe the happenings to the church and himself. This pattern of having scribes help Joseph was involved with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Joseph Smith Translation, the Book of Abraham papyri, and the History of the Church.
In my personal opinion, the critics just want to have something…anything against Joseph Smith to keep them from searing their conscience for not looking into Mormonism honestly.[11] It’s that simple.
Let’s now examine the mopologetic techniques used by Shirts.
[1]-The mopologist first states that he “honestly” doesn’t see the critic’s point at all. Not a mere denial, mind you, but one that claims that the mopologist has ‘honestly’ considered the criticism, and simply does not see it. Shirts sandwiches the damning comment by JSJr [1b] between a pair of canard statements, [1a] and [1b].
[2]-Next, Shirts throws a little red meat to the ravenous troops of FAIR/NAMIRS and their admirers by raising the specter of the persecution-complex boogeyman as the context of the times: “so many were bearing false witness against the Prophet, and with affidavits”
[3]-Shirts turns his focus on the [1a] statement that within 5 minutes of JSJr’s wedding, and having then only once proclaimed the gospel, JSJr claimed he was accused of having 7 wives. This is a pushover strawman argument. JSJr’s hyperbole aside, this is not the statement that damns JSJr in this regard. Shirts the mopologist uses this technique to earn some cred with the reader, who will be nodding in agreement with Shirts as he knocks down this strawman.
[4]-JSJr conflated William Law with his brother, Wilson Law. JSJr misattributed Wilson’s January 5, 1844 statement of loyalty (‘lay down my life’ for JSJr) to William. William did make the accusations in May 1844 by William Law to a grand jury that JSJr admitted to William Law that he, JSJr, was guilty of adultery. Shirts repeats the conflation of Wilson Law with William Law that JSJr started, in order to seize on a contradiction that JSJr apparently fabricated.
[5]-Shirts then claims that William Law is unstable when it comes to honesty, before then [6] declaring that William Law to be a liar, and ask rhetorically ‘so what else did he lie about?’
[7]-Having made a flimsy, unsupported accusation about William Law’s honesty, the mopologist retreats to the safe confines of reiterating the boogeyman—“rumors were spreading all over, and Joseph was being talked about wrongly. That is the entire context of this part of his history.” Not quite the entire context, but if you’ve kept nodding your head in agreement with Shirts as you read through his piece, you perhaps did not notice that Shirts was taking you far out on the limb, farther than the limb can support.
[8]-This is perhaps the most tactical maneuver that Shirts deploys. With the [1b] statement—on the other side of the real problem statement by JSJr—Shirts, exhibiting the hubris of a mopologist on a roll, begins the absurd. He’s ‘swinging for the fences’ so to speak. He claims that JSJr was merely denying being an adulterer, because he was not one 14 years earlier, he is not one now. He’s the ‘same man’.
[9]-Having skirted the damning, [1b] comment about finding only one wife, having answered only for JSJr’s statements before [1a] and after [1c], Shirts repeats the conclusion he began with--Shirts ‘honestly’ doesn’t see the criticism
[10]-But just in case anyone might have notice that he did not address the damning statement itself about JSJr being able to find only one wife, Shirts goes on to attack the reliability of the entries in the History of the Church—of course, the reason for 3 or 4 scribes was to give JSJr an alibi against the possibility of false accusations and affidavits. JSJr trusted his alibi to these scribes, but the mopologist impugns the reliability of what those scribes wrote, at least when as with this issue the HoC entry doesn’t sync with the correlated, whitewashed version of Church history.
[11]-After diverting the readers attention and never addressing the damning comment by JSJr that he could only find one wife, Shirts closes ironically by claiming that it is the critics who won’t look at Mormonism honestly.
Kerry, honestly?