OK, I'm fully up to speed now. Here is a footnote from PT. III of "Irrational World", (Not up yet), but this is our response to Bradshaw's foolishness:
[145] Revised Law of Illinois, 1833, op. cited, Online here, Accessed November 5, 2014. In a new book titled, Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, M. Scott Bradshaw writes,
Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.
The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition. (M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 401–426).
Of course they are looking at this issue retrospectively and therefore this is simply speculation on their part. Adam Delderfield, an Assistant State’s Attorney at Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Illinois writes:
If you are reading this, then you likely have some notion of what “sexual intercourse” involves. However, the phrase “open and notorious” is not so clear. To begin with, it is important to stress that the behaviour must be both “open” and “notorious”. Courts have interpreted the “open” to refer to the actions of the offender, and the “notorious” to refer to the subsequent public knowledge. Importantly, that means it is not sufficient that the public merely know about the illicit relationship; rather, it must be shown that the offender flaunted the relationship (open), thus creating public knowledge (notorious).
In terms of applying the law to specific fact patterns, one can imagine countless ways in which an offender might carry out an open and notorious relationship. The Illinois Appellate Court has published a handful of opinions on the matter, but it will suffice for this article to examine the 1975 case of People v. Cessna. This case is instructive because it was decided under a statute closely resembling the current version, and it specifically involved the definition of “open and notorious”.
In Cessna, the defendant was charged with adultery, fornication, and contributing to the sexual delinquency of a child. The fornication charge was apparently dismissed short of trial, but defendant was convicted of the remaining two crimes. On appeal, defendant challenged in part whether the People had proven that his illicit relationship was “open and notorious”; the facts are as follows.
Defendant was a married 23 year old who separated from his wife. Defendant moved in with his mother in Illinois. During the month of October, 1974, a 17 year old woman met defendant, and on several occasions spent the night at his house. The 17 year old was between homes, variously living at her sister’s house, her aunt’s house, and a foster home. Defendant and the woman had sexual intercourse on several occasions, and the woman’s family saw the two of them in each other’s company. Defendant gave the woman an engagement ring, and the woman’s father heard from an attorney that defendant had discussed divorcing his wife and marrying the woman. The woman was apparently also pregnant.
According to the defendant and his family, the woman only slept over twice. Furthermore, they indicated that the defendant slept in a separate bedroom from the woman. The defendant denied having sexual intercourse with her. The court, however, found the woman’s testimony regarding the sexual intercourse to be “clear and convincing”.
The Illinois Appellate Court found that the above behavior was not open and notorious, because there was no showing that defendant’s behavior had created a public scandal. The evidence did not show that people outside of the two families knew about the relationship. While it was indeed a “situation of serious family concern”, the court stated that without the community being “debased or demoralized” there could be no conviction.
In rendering its decision, the court held that “[t]he prohibition of open and notorious adultery is meant to protect the public from conduct which disturbs the peace, tends to promote breaches of the peace, and openly flouts accepted standards of morality in the community. What is of marked interest is the scandalous effect of the behavior and its affront to public decency and the marital institution.” Had there been evidence of people outside the family circle being aware of this behaviour, the result may well have been different. (“Adultery and Fornication Laws in Illinois,” Adam Delderfield, Assistant State's Attorney at Cook County State's Attorney's Office, online here, Accessed January 5, 2015, added emphasis).
Unlike the example above, in Joseph Smith’s case his polygamy was known and published by many newspapers during 1843 and 1844 therefore creating a public scandal. Many people outside of Smith’s family knew of his behavior. This was one reason why Joseph wanted the Expositor destroyed, he knew the ramifications of the paper publishing details of his spiritual wifeism.
Notice what Smith claims are the reasons for the destruction of the Expositor:
In the investigation it appeared evident to the council that the proprietors were a set of unprincipled men, lawless, debouchees, counterfeiters, Bogus Makers, gamblers, peace disturbers, and that the grand object of said proprietors was to destroy our constitutional rights and chartered privileges; to overthrow all good and wholesome regulations in society; to strengthen themselves against the municipality; to fortify themselves against the church of which I am a member, and destroy all our religious rights and privileges, by libels, slanders, falsehoods, perjury & sticking at no corruption to accomplish their hellish purposes. and that said paper of itself was libelous of the deepest dye, and very injurious as a vehicle of defamation,—tending to corrupt the morals, and disturb the peace, tranquillity and happiness of the whole community, and especially that of Nauvoo. (Letter from Joseph Smith to Thomas Ford (14 June 1844, added emphasis).
In that issue were the accusations that Joseph Smith was committing adultery.
Smith’s adultery was linked to his practice of polygamy, which clearly would have been an “affront to public decency and the marital institution”. Also, Smith’s practice of polygamy was rather well known in Nauvoo by then (1844), with accusations being made against Smith since 1842 by John C. Bennett and others. Smith’s polygamy by that time (June 1844) had become a “public scandal”. And there were many in the community who claimed they were “debased and demoralized” by Smith’s actions. Smith was also guilty of the crime of bigamy under Illinois law:
"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." (Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, 198-99).
Melissa Lott, the Lawrence sisters and others “co-habited” with Smith in the Nauvoo House. It was also known that Smith had some of his wives secreted in the Times and Seasons offices.
Nothing about Smith’s adultery could be considered normal as he was practicing a form of “spiritual wifeism” that would not have gone over well in the courts. (It did not for Jacob Cochran in the earlier part of the century who was also guilty of practicing spiritual wifery).
D. Michael Quinn writes,
23 May. William Law files a formal complaint with the Hancock County circuit court charging Smith was living "in an open state of adultery" with Maria Lawrence, Smith's foster daughter and polygamous wife. (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 645).
According to George D. Smith,
Maria Lawrence was a teenaged orphan who was living in the Smith household. In fact, Smith had secretly married both Maria, age 19 and her sister Sarah, age 17 on 11 May 1843 and was serving as executor of their $8,000 estate. William Law apparently hoped that disclosing Smith's relationship with the young girls might lead him to abandon polygamy, but Smith immediately excommunicated Law, had himself appointed the girls' legal guardian, and rejected the charge in front of a church congregation on 26 May 1844, denying that he had more than one wife.
Another indictment has been got up against me. . . I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives . . . This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage [county courthouse] and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery . . . 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 following month Law and other Mormon dissidents published the inaugural issue of the Nauvoo Expositor to reveal Smith's "Mormon seraglio, or Nauvoo harem; and his unparalled and unheard of attempts at seduction." Declaring the Expositor a public nuisance, the Nauvoo City Council, led by Mayor Joseph Smith, ordered all copies of the paper to be burned and its printing press destroyed. These actions created an uproar throughout the state, where Smith's growing political power--as well as his alleged immorality--were both feared and resented. When Governor Thomas Ford ordered Smith arrested, Joseph and his brother Hyrum were jailed at Carthage. On June 27, a large mob overpowered the guards and shot the brothers to death. (George D. Smith, Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, op. cited, 7).
Smith himself made the case notorious with his own public denials. The worth of the Lawrence Estate has been contested as being substantially less than $8,000. Still, Smith was on record for having denied that he was practicing polygamy. If no one was accusing him, why would he have to deny it? Smith gave gifts to his spiritual wives, like gold watches. Whether Law could have had the Lawrence sisters or any of his other “wives” subpoenaed is a matter of speculation, but was in the realm of possibility. Also, the “revelation” on polygamy, dictated by Joseph in 1843 had been shown to the Nauvoo High Council, and some of them, like Austin Cowles had rejected it. They also, would probably have been called as witnesses. We are also troubled by the May 11th “marriage” date for the Lawrence sisters, since there is absolutely no credible evidence to show that this happened then or that Emma was involved.
The public scandal was already in place by the time Law brought charges against Smith. To claim that “he would have had good reason to expect acquittal” is simply ignoring the evidence and what constituted “open and notorious”.
Another apologist argument that we ran across recently was this strange attempt by FAIRMORMON to try and claim that because Joseph carefully chose the words of his polygamy denials, he was actually innocent of committing adultery and that it could not be proven by William Law. They write,
The Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery and perjury
This statement refers to Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844 in his "Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo". Significantly, this address was given the day after the Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.)
Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating the realities of the dangers involved. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Since Joseph was sealed to his plural wives for either eternity, or for time and eternity, he did not view these relationships as constituting adultery or fornication. Therefore, under Illinois law, as long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him: he was not committing adultery or fornication.
Joseph was refuting the charge of adultery, not the fact that he had "seven wives"
History of The Church Vol. 6, 410-411:
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. [This paragraph omitted by FAIRMORMON]
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.
[Joseph H.] 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.
I then sent Mr. Backenstos, when they declared that they were my enemies. I told Mr. Backenstos that he might tell the Laws, if they had any cause against me I would go before the Church, and confess it to the world. He [Walmart. Law] was summoned time and again, but refused to come. Dr. Bernhisel and Elder Rigdon know that I speak the truth. I cite you to Captain Dunham, Esquires Johnson and Wells, Brother Hatfield and others, for the truth of what I have said. I have said this to let my friends know that I am right. [This paragraph omitted by FAIRMORMON], History of the Church, 6:410-12, May 26, 1844, Color emphasis by FAIRMORMON]
FAIRMORMON continues,
Note the rejection of the term "spiritual wifeism". Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to John C. Bennett's pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.
Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point
In light of the circumstances under which they were spoken, Joseph's words were carefully chosen. Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before.
Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes:
A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute. (FAIRMORMON, “Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Illegal/Illegal in Nauvoo”, Online here, Accessed January 5, 2015).
Joseph Smith claimed that his life was in danger, over polygamy. If Smith could have gotten off, (as FAIRMORMON claims) then why was he worried about danger? Either he was committing adultery and was afraid, or he was not and was innocent and could prove it. FAIRMORMON wants to have it both ways here (as we shall see below).
Smith here, claims that he sent J. Backenstos to visit Law, but that is not what happened. He sent Hyrum Smith, Sidney Ridgon and Almon Babbit to visit Law and sue for “peace”. William Law did reject these offers, only because he was told that Joseph would not own up to his “revelation” on polygamy (in public) and denounce the practice. Joseph never offered Law the chance to “go before the Church”. He was not summoned at all, he was asked to drop all hostilities against Joseph (Law’s opposition to Joseph’s spiritual wifeism), but Law refused to do so because Joseph would not admit they did have cause against him for practicing polygamy in secret. Joseph never confessed it “to the world”. So right here, we have Joseph lying and if he did so in court would have perjured himself or sworn a false affidavit. Hyrum himself admitted on the stand a month before this that there would be no “investigation before Conference”. They did not even inform Law of his excommunication trial which would have been the perfect opportunity to “summon him”. (See Note #212)
Joseph also claims that William Law was “satisfied” with Smith. Yes, he was satisfied at the time that Smith hadn’t been referring to Law when he told the police force of Nauvoo in December of 1843 that there were two traitors. (Dough Heads as Smith called them). The Police accused William Law and William Marks of being those traitors. Law did not tell Joseph at that time that he was satisfied with Smith’s adulterous actions. So Smith is again twisting the truth. (See Note #212)
There was absolutely no evidence that Joseph could prove that Joseph H. Jackson was a murderer or that he had committed robbery or perjury. Joseph never produced any witnesses to that effect. All he had to go on were second hand reports by questionable sources.
Foster himself refuted that he ever spoke to Dr. Goforth, so it is his word against Foster’s and of course Joseph believed Goforth. This is not credible evidence of anything.
Actually, Joseph had all kinds of “fuss” with these men before
A Voice of Innocence was published by the Relief Society. The record speaks for itself. (See Note #212)
FAIRMORMON then makes this fantastic claim, quoting Mormon Apologist M. Scott Bradshaw:
Although under law, Joseph Smith and Maria Lawrence were not guilty of adultery, this does not mean that they had not consummated their plural marriage
A side issue raised by some relates to what the legal strategy can tell us about the status of Joseph and Maria's sealing. Under law, Joseph and Maria were clearly not guilty of adultery. This does not mean, however, that they had not consummated their plural marriage.
Most authors have concluded that their marriage was one which was consummated. This is due to relatively late, second-hand testimony, which Brian Hales has explored in detail.
Bradshaw suggests:
Joseph instructed John Taylor on June 4, [1844] to initiate legal action against the Laws and Foster for perjury and slander against Maria [for charging her and Joseph with adultery]. No such suit is known to have been filed, since Joseph was killed three weeks later; however, the mere fact that Joseph planned to bring such a suit suggests that, in Joseph's mind, there was nothing to hide in his relationship with Maria. If there had been a sexual dimension to this particular plural marriage, it is almost unimaginable that Joseph would have wanted to file a lawsuit, knowing that Maria might be put on the witness stand—or even subjected to a gynecological examination [to determine whether or not she was a virgin]. The possibility that Joseph's relationship with Maria Lawrence did not involve intimacy is also plausible given his comments regarding the publication of the Expositor: "They make it a criminality for a man to have one wife on earth while he has one wife in heaven." Since the only specific allegation of "criminality" (the adultery indictment) with respect to Joseph's plural marriages concerned Maria Lawrence, this statement by Joseph could be understood as a reference to his spiritual connection, or sealing, with Maria, but perhaps no more.
In the same vein, Madsen argues:
The consequences of such an indictment [for adultery with Maria] were both legally and socially scandalous. Maria Lawrence's reputation would have been publicly damaged, independent of what the reputational consequences might have been to Joseph. She and her sister had been sealed to Joseph on May 11, 1843...with Emma's initial consent but later repudiation. Even if this celestial marriage could have been made [publicly] known, it would not have alleviated the scandal—it would have just turned it to another, even more flamboyant, direction....
This plan to counter-sue against the Laws and others has some interesting legal aspects. William Law had supplied testimony under oath that led to Joseph's indictment. If the adultery case had gone to trial and the jury had found Joseph not guilty, then Law would have been liable to a criminal charge of perjury and civil liability for slander. Possibly Joseph planned to prove his innocence, not only by his and Maria's denial of sexual intercourse but also by the testimony of a reputable physician who had conducted a physical examination and found that Maria was still a virgin. It would have been both foolhardy and fruitless for Joseph to have even imagined countersuing without something of such weight to present at trial.
Hales, however, feels that the scenario offered by Madsen and Bradshaw is less likely:
This speculation is problematic because, since Maria was sealed to Joseph in a “time and eternity” sealing, then sexual relations would be permitted. In addition, virginity cannot always be proven by physical exam even if the woman has never experienced intercourse. (Brian Hales, “Maria Lawrence—Evidence of Sexuality,” Online here, Accessed December 5, 2014).
First of all, Madsen is simply making things up. (Hales rightly calls it speculating). He does not know when the Lawrence Sisters were sealed to Joseph, no one does. Notice that Hales also, without any evidence whatsoever, claims it is a “time and eternity” sealing. (They were all that, so Hales own speculation here is simply amusing).
If this is a lawyerly approach, then they desperately need another one. There is only the testimony of three people that claim that the Lawrence Sisters were married to Joseph with Emma’s consent, and these are all from 1869 affidavits that are full of problems. And even those affidavits do not give any date for the Lawrence sealings. (See Note #53) These are the kinds of weak arguments we have been witnessing for far too long in relation to the information provided by those suspect affidavits. This information is provided by Madsen apparently without equivocation, (if one trusts the FAIRMORMON quote which has multiple ellipses).
We simply do not know that Emma “facilitated those marriages” and there is good evidence that she did not which we discuss above. Benjamin Johnson’s recollection about Emma giving her consent was made in the 1880’s, long after these affidavits had been in circulation and he has been shown by us to have embellished his own history.
So Joseph was going to have women’s vagina’s examined by Doctors? This kind of speculation seems to be born out of desperation to vindicate Joseph at any cost. Madsen claims that it would have been “foolhardy and fruitless” for Joseph to countersue Law, but then this would not be the first time Joseph had done something foolhardy and fruitless. (Zion’s Camp and attacking State Militia comes to mind here, among other things, along with his suit against Francis Higbee in 1842 which he subsequently dropped). Was Smith being foolhardy and foolish to think that he would have been given authority to raise up 100,000 men and arm them by the U.S. Government? Win the Presidential election of 1844 as a polygamist? We think so. Also, in the same month Joseph “prophecied the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years.” (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, 129, April 13, 1844) In 1843 he proclaimed:
I prophecy in the name of the Lord God [that] anguish and wrath and trembulity [trembling] and tribulation and the withdrawing of the spirit of God await this generation until they are visited with utter destruction. This generation is as corrupt as the generation of the Jews that crucified Christ and if he were here to day and should preach the same doctrine he did then, why they would crucify him. I defy all the world and I prophecy they will never overthrow me till I get ready. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 421, October 15, 1843).
Two more foolish prophecies. Unless Joseph Smith was just going through the motions in 1844 of being elected President of the United States and filing lawsuits he wasn’t going to win because he was going to be “overthrown” in June of 1844. Also, if he was “ready” in June, 1844, why did he try to flee to the west, shortly before being talked into surrendering himself to the authorities?
FAIRMORMON makes one other fantastical claim via M. Scott Bradshaw:
Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open"
It is vital to understand, however, that:
Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.[1]:402
Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition
The same author emphasized:
The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.[1]:408
On the contrary, we think his relationships were “open and notorious”, which we have already discussed. By June, many were talking about this and writing letters to relatives living in the Eastern States. For example Sarah and Isaac Scott wrote on June 16, 1844:
But because of the things that are and have been taught in the Church of Latter Day Saints for two years past which now assume a portentous aspect, I say because of these things we are in trouble. And were it not that we wish to give you a fair unbiased statement of facts as they really exist, we perhaps would not have written you so soon. But we feel it to be our duty to let you know how things are going on in this land of boasted liberty, this Sanctum-Sanctorum of all the Earth, the City of Nauvoo. The elders will likely tell you a different tale from what I shall as they are positively instructed to deny these things abroad. But it matters not to us what they say; our object is to state to you the truth, for we do not want to be guilty of deceiving any one. We will now give you a correct statement of the doctrines that are taught and practised in the Church according to our own knowledge. We will mention three in particular.
A plurality of Gods. A plurality of living wives. And unconditional sealing up to eternal life against all sins save the shedding of innocent blood or consenting thereunto. These with many other things are taught by Joseph, which we consider are odious and doctrines of devils. Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this universe as far as he is above us, and if He should transgress the laws given to Him by those above Him, He would be hurled from his Throne to hell, as was Lucifer and all his creations with him. But God says there is no other God but himself. Moses says he is the Almighty God, and there is none other. David says he knows of no other God. The Apostles and Prophets almost all testify the same thing.
Joseph had a revelation last summer purporting to be from the Lord, allowing the saints the privilege of having ten living wives at one time, I mean certain conspicuous characters among them. They do not content themselves with young women, but have seduced married women. I believe hundreds have been deceived. Now should I yield up your daughter to such wretches?
Mr. Haven [Scott’s brother-in-law] knows these statements are correct, for they have been taught in the quorum to which he belongs by the highest authority in the Church. He has told me that he does not believe in these teachings but he does not come out and oppose them; he thinks that it will all come out right. But we think God never has nor never will sanction such proceedings, for we believe he has not changed; he says “I am God I change not.” These things we can not believe, and it is by Sarah’s repeated request thatI write this letter.
Those who can not swallow down these things and came out and opposed the doctrine publicly, have been cut off from the Church without any lawful process whatever. They were not notified to trial neither were they allowed the privilege of being present to defend themselves; neither was any one permitted to speak on their behalf. They did not know who was their judge or jury until it was all over and they delivered over to all the buffetings of Satan; although they lived only a few rods from the council room. These are some of their names: William Law, one of the first Presidency; Wilson Law, brigadier general; Austin Coles, president of the High Council; and Elder Blakesly, who has been the means of bringing upwards of one thousand members into the Church. He has been through nearly all the states in the Union, the Canadas, and England preaching the Gospel. Now look at the great sins they have committed, the Laws’ un-Christian-like conduct—Blakesly and others, Apostasy. If it is apostasy to oppose such doctrines and proceedings as I have just mentioned (which are only a few of the enormities taught and practised here), then we hope and pray that all the Church may apostatize.
After they had been thus shamefully treated and published to the world they went and bought a printing press determined to defend themselves against such unhallowed abuse. It cost them six hundred dollars. [They] commenced their paper, but Joseph and his clan could not bear the truth to come out; so after the first number came out Joseph called his Sanhedrin together; tried the press; condemned it as a nuisance and ordered the city marshal to take three hundred armed men and go and burn the press, and if any offered resistance, to rip them from the guts to the gizzard. These are his own words. They went and burnt the press, papers, and household furniture. The Laws, Fosters, Coles, Hickbies [Higbees], and others have had to leave the place to save their lives. Those who have been thus unlawfully cut off have called a conference; protested against these things; and reorganized the Church. William Law is chosen President; Charles Ivans [Ivins], bishop, with the other necessary officers. The Reformed Church believed that Joseph has transgressed in his priestly capacity and has given himself over to serve the devil, and his own lusts.
We will endeavor to send you a paper and you can then judge for yourselves. They had only commenced publishing the dark deeds of Nauvoo. A hundredth part has not been told yet. The people of the state will not suffer such things any longer. But I am sorry that the innocent must suffer with the guilty. I believe there are hundreds of honest hearted souls in Nauvoo, but none of them I think have forgotten what they were once taught: that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man. It would offend some of them more to speak irreverently of Joseph, than it would've God himself. Joseph says that he is a God to this generation, and I suppose they believe it. Any one needs a throat like an open sepulchre to swallow down all that is taught here. There was an elder once wrote in confidence to a friend in England; told him the state of the Church here, and they showed it to some of the elders there, and they wrote back to the heads of the Church, and it caused him a great deal of trouble. I think if you would once come here, you would not put so much confidence in all who go by the name of Mormons. ( Letter of Sarah and Isaac Scott to Sarah’s parents Jacob and Sarah Warnock, June 16, 1844, quoted in The Jacob and Sarah Warnock Scott Family, 1779-1910, by James Wesley Scott, June 2002, 59-60, Online here, Accessed January 15, 2015, emphasis ours).
FAIRMORMON also claims, via Madsen:
It was later realized that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, so they changed the wording of the law
Even Joseph's near-contemporaries would later realize that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, perhaps even if done so openly.
Recognizing the breadth of [the] state constitutional provision [for religious freedom] as it stood in 1844, Illinois adopted a new constitution in 1869 that introduced a number of changes in the clause governing religious liberty, including wording specifically intended to give the state authority to prohibit Mormon polygamy or other religiously-based practices that might be deemed offensive. Comments by certain delegates to the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention show that [sic] there was a concern that the Mormon practice of plural marriage could be protected under the state constitution....
Severeal [sic] delegates expressed support for changes in the wording of the Illinois constitution in order to protect the state from what they viewed as extreme forms of worship, including Mormon polygamy. These delegates feared that the more liberal wording of the earlier constitution (in force in Joseph's day) might actually protected practices such as polygamy. One such delegate was Thomas J. Turner...[who] stated:"...Mormonism is a form of religion 'grant it, a false religion' nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion...[d]o we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?" (FAIRMORMON, op. cited).
We find this claim very disingenuous. Turner’s complete testimony reads,
Mr. TURNER. Mr. President: This section secures the people of the State, in the free exercise of their religious professions and worship, without discrimination. It also provides that liberty of conscience shall not excuse acts of licentiousness or practices inconsistent with the peace, safety and morality of the State. The Pagan world is full of religion. There is the religion of Buddha, for instance, and there are various other forms of religion in the world, besides Christianity, which is the religion of the people of the United States. Mormonism is a form of religion—grant it, a false religion—nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion.
Religion, true or false, has existed in the world ever since the dawn of history. And, sir, the Mormon sect is today a religious sect. A Christian sect we do not believe it to be, but a religious sect. Do we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?
It is but a short time since a fanatical sect sprung up in New Jersey, claiming that they were sanctified—that men and women had become purified to such an extent that they could walk the streets naked, in open day. They claimed to be so pure, that to them all things were pure. Would we permit such exhibitions as these in the name of religion? And yet this was a religion, and claimed to be the true Christian religion.
e committee has incorporated into this article this clause. Men assume all kinds of belief, and adopt all kinds of practices, in the name of religion, and we should, by all means, provide in this Constitution that men and women shall not, in the name of religion, rush into licentiousness, which will deprave and corrupt the morale of the community.
Our institutions and Constitutions are based upon and grow out of the pure principles of the Christian religion, and it is our duty to protect the purity and stability of our Christian liberty against Pagan idolatry and irreligious licentionsness. (Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Illinois, Convened at the City of Springfield, Tuesday, December 13, 1869, Vol. II, Springfield, E. L. Merritt & Brothers, 1870, 1560, Online here, Accessed November 20, 2014).
Professor Michael P. Seng writes,
Supporters of the limitation on freedom of conscience argued that groups like the Mormons should not be permitted to come to Illinois to practice polygamy and other licentiousness. Delegates debated at length whether religion meant only the "Christian" religion and whether non-Christian religions were to be included and, if so, how the term "religion" was to be defined. The convention defeated a proposal to protect all opinion, not merely "religious" opinion. (Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly, and Freedom of Religion Under the Illinois Constitution, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 21, Issue 1, Fall 1989, 100).
The statutes read,
1818: Article VIII:3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. (Online here, Accessed November 20, 2014).
1870: Article I:3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination shall for-ever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.(Online here, Accessed November 20, 2014).
Notice that they did not put the word “polygamy” after the word “licentiousness” as Mr. Mcdowell wanted done. They also did not strike the word “religious” before the word “opinion”. Even Turner voted not to do this. Though Mormon polygamy was used as an example, it does not mean that anyone could have gotten away with practicing it prior to the 1870 constitution. If an objection was made by Smith on the grounds of conscience, it would have gone to the Supreme Court of Illinois and Smith would have been charged under the Bigamy Laws as in the Reynolds case which the New York Times observed in 1879 “merely extended over the Territories the common law in relation to bigamy which exists in every State of the Union”. (New York Times, January 8, 1879, 4).
It eventually went to the Supreme Court and polygamy was banned by the Federal Government. Not one other State (except Utah for a time) allowed the practice of polygamy or bigamy under Constitutions similar to the one from 1818 Illinois. Though polygamy was used as an example by Turner, so were other religious practices that were deemed outlandish or licentious. To claim that Illinois would have “probably” supported the practice of polygamy under the 1818 Illinois Constitution is simply wishful thinking, not to mention foolish and fruitless.
That's the note on Bradshaw's ridiculous defense of Joseph. I'll be getting PT. III up soon... after I finish up "Ghosts & Angels"...
I found this on a review he did of Hales' polygamy books,