[toc]In part 1 of this response we examined a submission by LDS researcher and author Brian Hales in response to a challenge for someone to find a “vicious lie” contained in the Nauvoo Expositor. See the full post for details.

While in Part 1 addressed the actual statement in the Expositor, Hales’ main argument is not about what the Expositor actually said, but an extrapolation from it. In his submission he states:

There are many problems with claims made in the Nauvoo Expositor, but since you only ask for one, consider this statement: “She is thunder- struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.”

Joseph Smith’s offers of plural marriage were apparently turned down by several women. The historical record indicates that his preferred response to these rebuffs was to quietly let the matter rest. No evidence of retaliatory excommunications or other vengeful reactions have been found, although twice he sought to counteract allegations he considered untrue.

His basic premise is that the Expositor meant that if a woman rejected Joseph’s proposal, then she was “damned” by having Joseph retaliate against her by ruining her reputation, allowing others to impugn her good name or through other negative consequences (see Indecent Proposals for examples of this). Hales claims that since there are several examples of women who refused Joseph’s proposals without consequence then the Expositor is caught in a lie.

Women who safely said Nope!

Hales goes on to provide documentation for 5 such women. Let’s examine what Hales describes in each case and see if approaching the Expositor from this perspective reveals a “vicious lie”.

Esther Johnson

The first example is that of Esther M Johnson, Hales writes:

“Benjamin F. Johnson wrote of one rejection, relating that the Prophet “asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M. I told him she was promised in marriage to my wife’s brother. He said, ‘Well, let them marry, for it will all come right.” Johnson further quoted the Prophet: “If your Sister is engaged, it is all right” and then added “in the presence of my family he talked to her on the Subject, but as I had Suspected, She was promised to be married. The counsel Joseph Smith gave to Esther in the setting is not mentioned, but it appears that there the matter ended. Esther and her future husband were married by Almon Babbit in Nauvoo on April 4, 1844.”

I recently wrote about the public availability of the Joseph F Smith Affidavit books and the beauty of this is that you as the reader now have access to the full documentary record so you can examine quotes like this in their full context. This account of Esther M comes in the affidavit given by Benjamin Franklin Johnson. His affidavit can be viewed here and a typescript of it can be viewed here. He also gave an account of this in his autobiography which can be viewed here and a brief allusion to it in a letter to George F. Gibbs here.

It is helpful to have an idea of the ages of the individuals involved during these events and their recollection. Benjamin F Johnson was 25 years old at the time((Benjamin gave this account in an affidavit in 1870 when he was 52 years old.)). Esther was born in 1828((See Esther Johnson family record here.)), making her 15 years old at the time Joseph, age 38, desired her for a wife.

It is worth noting that Benjamin’s affidavit begins with his recollection of Joseph first introducing him to the doctrine of plural marriage and asking Benjamin to teach it to his 30 year old sister Almera with the intent of having her become a plural wife (by this time Joseph had already married another of Benjamin’s older sisters, Delcena sometime in 1842((Benjamin acknowledges that the marriage was tacitly admitted upon his return to Nauvoo July 1842. See his letter to George F Gibbs, archive.org))). Benjamin at first recoiled in horror at Joseph’s instruction and proposal, but consented to follow the Prophet’s directives. Almera was not entirely convinced at first, but after learning that Hyrum Smith himself initially doubted and had come around to accepting the principle, she consented to the union.((This account is found in the affidavit of Almera W Johnson, archive.org)). They were  married for time and eternity in April of 1843 and it is accepted that their union was consummated.

Some time later that year, then, Joseph asked Benjamin for his youngest sister, Esther. She, being 15 years old, was a minor. It is tempting at this point to raise the objection that since she was a minor, both Illinois and Nauvoo ordinances required that consent of her parents be obtained. An ordinance on marriage was passed by the Nauvoo City Council under then Mayor John C Bennett on 17 February 1842 stating:

“All male persons over the age of seventeen years, and females over the age of fourteen years, may contract and be joined in marriage, provided, in all cases where either party is a minor, the consent of parents or guardians be first had.”
(“An Ordinance on Marriage” 17 Feb 2842, MS 16800, CHL or archive.org)

As such, Joseph would have to obtain consent from Esther’s mother or father – not her older brother Benjamin. It may be that since Esther’s parents were separated at the time Joseph considered Benjamin her guardian. Guidance for this consent issue is provided in Illinois law on obtaining consent for license of marriage, section 5, states:

“No such license shall be granted for the marriage of any male under twenty-one years of age, or female under the age of eighteen years, without the consent of his or her father, or if he be dead or incapable, of his or her mother or guardian, to be noted in such license.”
(Revised Law of Illinois, 1833, pg. 198 archive.org)

Esther’s father, Ezekiel Johnson Jr, was alive and lived within 3 miles in nearby Mentor. He was still in regular contact with his children and was even capable enough to be called upon to donate money to the church at times.((That Joseph was aware of Father Johnson’s whereabouts is seen in this thesis as well as a story of Lorenzo Snow collecting a donation from him told in a biographical sketch here))

As described, it is tempting to dig into the legal question of who could have or should have been asked for consent for marriage, but none of that matters. Marriage to another person, regardless of age, was already illegal under the state’s anti-bigamy laws. Section 121 of the criminal code in effect at the time stated:

“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 Law of Illinois, 1833, pg. 198 archive.org)

So we have established that Mayor/Prophet/President/Lt General Joseph approached the 25 year old brother of a 15 year old minor to ask for an illegal marriage. Benjamin replied that she was already engaged to another man (he would write in a letter to George Gibbs that she was only “partially promised“) and rather than stop there, Joseph wanted that question investigated. Hales correctly points out that the content of the discussion that was had in front of the whole family is not known. It is very likely that Josephs conversation only addressed the question of her existing engagement. That would not be a controversial topic in front of the whole family. A key point, which will be important later, is that there is no record that this intended proposal was ever made public beyond a private conversation between Joseph and Benjamin during the Prophet’s lifetime.

The final observation is that there is no documentation that Joseph ever actually asked Esther herself to enter into marriage with him. As such, this example cannot be used as an argument to defend Joseph on this question.

Lydia Moon

Brian Hales, in his claim submission, next goes on to the case of Lydia Moon:

“In another case, on September 15, 1843, William Clayton recorded an incident regarding Lydia Moon: “He [Joseph Smith] finally asked if I would not give Lydia Moon to him I said I would so far as I had any thing to do in it. He requested me to talk to her.” Two days later, Clayton wrote: “I had some talk with Lydia. She seems to receive it kindly but says she has promised her mother not to marry while her mother lives and she thinks she won’t.” Lydia was not sealed to Joseph.”

This account is recorded in the Journal of William Clayton. You can read the entries in full here.

The context of the example is interesting. Lydia Moon was a 17 year old young woman((See Lydia Moon genealogy record here)) who was the youngest of 3 sisters. She was William Clayton’s sister-in-law as he had married the oldest Moon sister Ruth 7 years earlier in 1836 in his native Lancashire England. He had emigrated along with the Moon family to join the Saints in 1840 and in time became personal secretary to Joseph Smith. Clayton was one of Joseph closest confidants on the doctrine and practice of plural marriage. Since March of 1843 Joseph had been instructing Clayton in its practice ((see journal entry from 9 March 1843, archive.org)) and Clayton had entered into plural marriage with the second Moon sister, Margaret (age 23) promptly in April of 1843.((See documentation for the marriages of William Clayton, here)).

Joseph had initially instructed Clayton that “It is your privilege to have all the wives you want”((see journal entry from 9 March 1843, archive.org)) and again later that in regards to plural wives it was his right to “get all you can”((See William Clayton journal entry of 11 Aug 1843, archive.org)). And it was likely with this in mind that Clayton himself set his sights on the youngest of the Moon sisters, Lydia. Clayton informed Joseph of his intentions at it was at this point that Joseph intervened. The full journal entry, which Hales excerpted, is as follows:

“[September 15, 1843. Friday.] A.M. at President Joseph’s afterwards at the Temple Office all day. Evening President Joseph met me and I returned with him to O[rson] Spencers to borrow $1400. to clear his farm from an incumbrance laying on it which fact Esq. Skinner has ascertained on searching the Records. President Joseph told me he had lately had a new item of law revealed to him in relation to myself. He said the Lord had revealed to him that a man could only take 2 of a family except by express revelation and as I had said I intended to take Lydia he made this known for my benefit. To have more than two in a family was apt to cause wrangles and trouble. He finally asked if I would not give L[ydia] to him. I said I would so far as I had anything to do in it. He requested me to talk to her.”
(William Clayton journal, 15 Sept, 1843, archive.org)

Were it not for the fact that the revelation came from The Lord, it may have struck Clayton as odd that Joseph should stop him from pursuing a third sister after being given such encouragement to get all the wives he wanted or could – especially after Joseph had just attempted his own “triple sister” hat-trick with Esther M Johnson a few months prior as described in the prior section. In a religious system that gets revelation line upon line and precept upon precept, however, such alterations may be expected. Clayton clearly sustained his Prophet and offered no protest.

It was fortunate that because of this new revelation, Lydia was once again fair game for Joseph. It might rouse your interest as a reader that Joseph was asking his secretary to “give” a young minor girl, his sister-in-law, to him. This young girl still lived with her mother, who was very capable of being asked for consent as we previously saw the law would ultimately require.

If you will allow me a brief diversion: I play a card game with my kids called Yu-Gi-Oh. When you build a deck for battle you can only have a maximum of 3 of any one type of card in the deck. When my daughter tried to put 4 Dark Magician Girl cards in her deck, I informed her that this was an illegal move. Then I asked her if she would give me her extra Dark Magician Girl card (because it is an awesome card that I wanted for my own deck). Cards are objects. Possessions. They can be traded and treated as such. Talking about young women in such a way reveals a mindset and attitude towards women which is embarrassing. It may be that to judge Joseph in this way is a form of “presentism” but treating women with respect and dignity and not as objects is a very low bar that a Prophet of God in the final dispensation should reasonably be held to.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Joseph would have eventually obtained consent from Mother Moon if required. In the mean time, 2 days later William Clayton records that he approached Lydia about the proposal and she refused. He also notes that subsequently on 21 September Joseph himself spoke with Lydia on the matter and she did not consent, preferring to “tarry with her sisters”((See William Clayton Journal entry for 21 Sept, archive.org)).

This case, then, is an example of Mayor/Prophet/President/Lt General Joseph receiving a revelation tweaking the instructions on plural marriage just in time to prevent his secretary from proposing to a young woman whom Joseph himself desired as a plural wife. She rejected him with no apparent consequences.  As such, this is an example that Brian Hales can reasonably cite in making his case. Again, it will be important later – there is no record of Lydia, Clayton or any of the family making a public disclosure about this rejected proposal during the life of the Prophet.

Sarah Kimball

The next case study is that of Sarah Granger Kimball. Hales describes the circumstances of the rejected proposal:

“Another unsuccessful proposal occurred with Sarah Granger Kimball, who was legally married to non-Mormon Hiram Kimball: “Early in 1842, Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. I asked him to teach it to some one else. He looked at me reprovingly and said, ‘Will you tell me who to teach it to? God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving.’ He said, ‘I will not cease to pray for you, and if you will seek unto God in prayer, you will not be led into temptation.’” After this described snub, Sarah Kimball sent Joseph Smith on his way. His response was to encourage her and to pray for her.”

Sarah’s account is found in Jenson’s Historical Record ((“Historical Record” Jenson, Volume 6, pg. 232 archive.org)). In 1842 she was a 24 year old woman who had already married 2 years previously. It is notable that when you consider the warning that is included in Section 132:4, then Joseph’s statement that “God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving.” is not encouragement – it is a tacit spiritual threat.

Early 1842 was a tumultuous time in Nauvoo specifically around the issue of plural marriages. A description of the events would eventually be published in the Times and Seasons of 1 July 1842.((See the Times and Seasons Vol. 3 pg. 839. archive.org)) In that publication it was recounted that John C Bennett, close confidant of Joseph Smith and Mayor of Nauvoo had been caught engaging in a practice of “spiritual wifery” and had implicated Joseph in his activities by stating that Joseph had taught and was practicing the same. After several calls to repentance for his activities, Bennett’s activities did not cease and Bennett went so far as to recruit other men into his practice on his word that Joseph endorsed it. Given Bennett’s high position in both the church and city government, such events were subject to much rumor and discussion. In view of Bennett’s activities and recalcitrance Bennett was formally excommunicated  on 18 June 1842((See H Michael Marquardt’s comments on the date of Bennett’s excommunication here)).

On 19 May the Nauvoo City Council had met and the disgraced Bennett resigned from his position as Mayor. During the same meeting Bennett was questioned by Joseph and Bennett declared that at no time had Joseph given him authority or license to engage in “illicit intercourse” and when pressed to comment specifically on Joseph’s character Bennett attested that “In all my intercourse with Gen. Smith, in public and in private, he has been strictly virtuous”((This exchange was also published in the Times and Seasons, archive.org))

Curiously, it was also in this very meeting that a revelation was received by Joseph Smith, first hand from The Lord. It came during the vote to elect the new Mayor. Joseph wrote it upon a piece of paper and tossed it across the room toward City Councillor Hiram Kimball – the husband of Sarah Kimball. The revelation read as follows:

“Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, by the voice of my Spirit, Hiram Kimball has been insinuating evil, and forming evil opinions against you, with others; and if he continue in them, he and they shall be accursed, for I am the Lord thy God, and will stand by thee and bless thee. Amen.”
(Revelation given to Joseph Smith, 19 May 1842. Journal, December 1841–December 1842, JosephSmithPapers.org)

But what were these evil insinuations and opinions? The historians at the Joseph Smith Papers project have provided some helpful context. A footnote to the revelation reads as follows:

“The “evil opinions” mentioned in this revelation may refer to the growing friction between JS and various Nauvoo businessmen, like Hiram Kimball, over the latter’s promoting their own projects ahead of those of the church. Alternatively, or in addition, they may have had something to do with the principle of plural marriage, which JS reportedly taught to Kimball’s wife, Sarah Granger, about this time and which she rejected. In spite of their differences, JS and Hiram Kimball remained cordial, and Kimball joined the church the following year.”
(Footnote 204, Revelation given to Joseph Smith, 19 May 1842. Journal, December 1841–December 1842, JosephSmithPapers.org)

Those historians are very specific with their wording. Note that Joseph taught her the principle of Plural Marriage and she rejected the principle. Neither Sarah Kimball’s testimony nor the footnote here state that he specifically proposed to her. Since a proposal usually followed instruction in the doctrine, we assume that there was a proposal of marriage which she rejected – but she does not specifically state that in her testimony. It is entirely possible that she was so immediately incensed at the doctrine and vocally opposed to it that the Prophet never got the chance to “pop the question.” Sarah was not a shrinking violet. Hales is famous for adamantly refusing to accept a sexual relationship between Joseph and a plural wife unless there is very specific and unambiguous language from a reliable witness declaring it to be so. Applying that same standard to the question at hand would allow it to be a reasonable assertion that we cannot prove that Joseph in fact proposed to Sarah Kimball.

Whether there was a proposal or not, Sarah Kimball now knew that Joseph himself was secretly teaching a doctrine of plural marriage in 1842. While she herself kept the Prophet’s secret from the public, it is justifiably assumed that she informed her husband Hiram of the matter. Certainly Joseph would have been wary of that likelihood. Now, just a few months later in May 1842 Hiram is sitting as an Alderman in a city council meeting where the disgraced Mayor John C Bennett has been caught teaching a form of spiritual wifery that Hiram has no way of knowing is any different from Joseph’s Celestial Marriage because Joseph had not publicly given a sermon on the details of the matter and was publicly denying any form of marriage other than that of monogamy as found in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 101.((See False Witnesses and Lost Credibility)) To any outside observer at the time, Hiram included, there could be no way to know a difference. Hiram could only view Joseph’s actions as the basest form of hypocrisy – condemning and ousting a man for teaching and doing the very thing he believed Joseph to have attempted upon his own wife.

It should not be surprising for Hiram to have communicated this perceived hypocrisy to others in his circle. It is reasonable to consider that the Prophet heard of it and the resulting revelation was in reference to that rumor. This revelation received right in the middle of a city council meeting had The Lord addressing Hiram Kimball by name and giving a warning under threat of being “accursed.” Hiram was not a member of the church at that time and may not have had a high opinion of Joseph’s prophetic claims, but such a statement from a man in Joseph’s position is actually more ominous if you don’t hold him to be a man of God. I do not believe that Hiram took the revelation lightly.

The subsequent vote for the new Mayor to replace Bennett came in with 18 votes in favor of Joseph and a single vote opposed – opting for William Marks instead. The vote was by ballot and so we will never know who cast the dissenting vote, but if I were a betting man my money would be on Hiram.

So in this case we have Prophet/President/Lt General Joseph teaching the principle of plural marriage to an already devotedly married woman who immediately and forcefully rejects it. We have no proof of an actual proposal.   Importantly Sarah Kimball herself never made any public disclosure of the matter and she personally saw no repercussions, however there is compelling circumstantial evidence that her husband may have spread insinuations of Joseph’s principle – only to have the Prophet declare that the Almighty Creator Himself was ready to interrupt a city council meeting and curse him if he continued in that purpose. As such, this is not a case that can reasonably be used to support Hales’ claim.

Cordelia Morley

Next up is the account of Cordelia Morley. Hales submits the following:

“Cordelia C. Morley recounted a similar situation: “In the spring of forty-four, plural marriage was introduced to me by my parents from Joseph Smith, asking their consent and a request to me to be his wife. Imagine if you can my feelings, to be a plural wife, something I never thought I ever could. I knew nothing of such religion and could not accept it. Neither did I.” However, Cordelia had second thoughts and was sealed to the Prophet after his death.”

The record of Cordelia’s testimony is found in her autobiography. A typescript excerpt is available here. Confirmation of her intimate knowledge of Joseph’s polygamy can be found in a biographical sketch from the 1913 Woman’s Exponent here and further context is found in recollections collected by the Cox Family here.

In 1844 Cordelia was the 21 year old daughter((See genealogical record of Cordelia Morely here)) of Isaac and Lucy Morely. In 1831 Joseph and his family stayed with the Morley family until the Smith home could be built. Her father had owned a large farm in Kirtland which he had been commanded by the Lord in D&C Section 64 to sell for the benefit of the Church. That he did so was testament to his devotion to Joseph. He subsequently served a mission, was appointed Bishop, ordained a patriarch, and appointed as Stake President((See Biographical profile of Isaac Morley at JosephSmithPapers.org)). There is a whole seminary lesson dedicated to his example of sacrifice and obedience. ((See the seminary Teacher Manual lesson 70 lds.org)) As such it is not surprising for Joseph to have taught the principle to Isaac and his wife. Isaac had previously had the experience of being rebuked by name in a revelation from the Lord found in D&C 64:15-16:

“Behold, I, the Lord, was angry with him who was my servant Ezra Booth, and also my servant Isaac Morley, for they kept not the law, neither the commandment; They sought evil in their hearts, and I, the Lord,withheld my Spirit. They condemned for evil that thing in which there was no evil; nevertheless I have forgiven my servant Isaac Morley.”
(D&C 64:15-16, lds.org)

As such, he would have great incentive for trusting and believing a new doctrine from the Prophet – even if the thing he teaches might appear to be evil at first impression.  As we saw with Hiram Kimball, The Lord was not afraid to rebuke men who crossed Joseph’s purposes.

Though Cordelia was groomed to accept the doctrine and proposal by hearing it first from her beloved parents, that did not prevent her from rejecting the offer.((The pattern of how Joseph introduced the principle to Cordelia was a familiar one – a system of triangulation. Joseph would teach the principle to someone who was a close relation to his intended bride and he would recruit them to first introduce the doctrinal concept to the target. Joseph would then follow-up more boldly once the initial introduction was accepted. The third party that is initially used is more likely to be amenable to the doctrine because they are not the ones who will have to accept a proposal. The intended bride is more likely to accept the doctrine because it is first introduced to them by someone they already have familial love and trust for.)) The account of the proposal collected by the Cox Family includes her reply to the prophet:

“I told Joseph I had a sweetheart; his name was Whiting, and I expected to marry him. He, however, was left by the wayside. He could not endure the persecutions and hardships. I told the Prophet I thought him a wonderful man and leader, but I wanted to marry my sweetheart.”
(Cordelia Cox Autobiography, archive.org)

So in this instance, despite grooming a young woman to receive his proposal by having her parents introduce the doctrine beforehand – Mayor/Prophet/President/Lt General Joseph is still rebuffed and no negative consequences follow the refusal. As such, it is reasonable for Hales to include this example in making his case. Again it is important to note that Cordelia and her family kept the proposal and their knowledge of Joseph’s doctrine and practice of plural marriage a secret from the public until the date she penned her autobiography in 1909, a full 65 years later.

Rachel Ivins

The final example of a proposal refused without retribution or consequence that Hales provides is that of Rachel Ivins:

“Another rejection was chronicled by Rachel Ivins’ biographer: “When Joseph sought an interview with her [Rachel], she believed he wished to ask for her hand in plural marriage. Her personal turmoil over this prospect must have been excruciating.” Despite Rachel Ivins initial response, she was also sealed to Joseph Smith by proxy in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City, on November 29, 1855.”

21 year old Rachel Ivins had been orphaned at a young age and had grown up among her relatives in the New Jersey area. Her cousins Charles and James Ivins were successful merchants who Joined the church and Rachel joined them when they relocated to Nauvoo in the spring of 1842.((See “Rachel R. Grant: The Continuing Legacy of the Feminine Ideal”, Ronald W. Walker, byu.edu)) Living in relative style and comfort with her cousin James and his family, Rachel became close friends with Sarah Granger Kimball, the young strong-will feminist who rejected Joseph’s teaching of Plural Marriage. The Ivins’ had heard rumors of Joseph’s polygamy and when Rachel learned of Joseph’s desire for an interview with her, it is possible that Sarah warned Rachel that Joseph’s intentions were that of a plural marriage proposal.((See Emma Smith:Mormon Enigma, p. 100 books.google.com))

Rachel’s son Heber J Grant would later become Prophet and in 1936 we wrote of his mother’s experience in a letter now found in the restricted church archives:

“I want to tell you a little of my mother’s life. She was in Nauvoo, and she admired and loved the Prophet Joseph Smith, as all of the people did almost beyond their power of expression. Hearing that he was teaching plural marriage and that he undoubtedly was going to propose marriage to her, in order to avoid it she went back to Tom’s River, New Jersey, with the classical expression that she “would sooner go to hell as a virtuous woman than to heaven as whore.” It was \the only/ expression of the kind that I have ever heard quoted as coming from her. But in the providences of the Lord she became converted beyond a doubt that plural marriage, properly practiced, was all right and that the Lord had really given the revelation to Joseph Smith to introduce plural marriage among the faithful saints.”((Grant, Heber, J. Letter to Ray O. Wyland, December 12, 1936, pp. 3-4. MS 1233. Restricted, LDS Church History Library. Typescript. archive.org & mormonpolygamydocuments.org))

While avoiding an interview with Joseph, she did not leave Nauvoo until late 1844 where she would remain apart from the saints until almost 10 years later when she journeyed to Utah in 1853.((“How I Became and Mormon” Rachel Grant, archive.org)) She ultimately accepted the principle of plural marriage and became the seventh wife of Jedediah M Grant.

Even though there is no documentation that Joseph ever met with Rachel for a proposal, there is evidence that Joseph had already “called dibs” on her eternal companionship. In a 1942 General Conference address, her son President Heber J Grant recalled:

“I had always understood and known that my mother was sealed to the Prophet, and that Brigham Young had told my father that he would not marry my mother to him for eternity, because he had instructions from the Prophet that if anything happened to him before he was married to Rachel Ivins she must be sealed to him for eternity, that she belonged to him.”
(“My Call to the Apostleship” 1842 General Conference, Improvement Era, Nov. 1942. archive.org)

I have called “dibs” on things before – the seat right under the air conditioning vent, the PB&J sandwich with the most raspberry jam and being the character of the Wizard in a Gauntlet video game. In none of those instances did I have to consult the object of my “dibs” because they were objects; possessions. They didn’t get a say in the matter because they could have no say.  It would appear that Joseph treated the eternal existence of women he desired in much the same way. Joseph had called “dibs” on Rachel’s eternal life. Indeed, Rachel was only sealed to her earthly Husband Jedediah for time and it was to the Prophet Joseph that she was sealed for eternity.((Eternal sealing to Joseph and temporal marriage to Jedediah took place on 29 November 1855 byu.edu)). This means that all of Rachel’s children were also sealed to Joseph in the eternities rather than their earthly father as well. This may have been for the best, however, because if you recall, Jedediah was a very fiery and vocal proponent of Blood Atonement and I don’t know that one would want to be in such company for the eternities.

So in this instance Mayor/Prophet/President/Lt General Joseph claimed the eternal companionship of a young woman without consulting her and she was so offended by the idea that the Prophet would propose such a thing that she avoided meeting with him to give him the chance. As such there was no proposal and Hales cannot reasonably use this example to support his argument.

Hales’ Summary

Hales next goes on to summarize his point on these rejections:

All five of these rejections came and went, unbeknown to most Nauvooans. According to available records, these women suffered no consequences at Joseph Smith’s hand, directly or indirectly, for spurning him. Had the woman not personally recounted the events afterwards, knowledge of the proposals may have been lost to later generations.

This is where paying attention to what we can actually confidently say happened, based on the documentation as well as looking at what was publicly known at the time of the Expositor is essential.

Response – Part 2

Proposal documented?

First, it should be pointed out that of the 5 examples that Hales provides, only 2 cases actually have documentation that supports an actual proposal being made. The other cases are ambiguous or contradict the occurrence of a proposal.

[table]

Woman, Documented Proposal

Esther Johnson, No

Lydia Moon, Yes

Sarah Granger Kimball, No

Cordelia C. Morley, Yes

Rachel Ivins, No

[/table]

This observation is not the only one, however.

Known to the Expositor?

Hales himself acknowledges that these accounts did not come out until years after the death of Joseph Smith. They were “unbeknown to most Nauvooans.” The publishers of the Expositor had no way of knowing about these possible proposals. They only knew about those proposals that had been made public. As such, the statements of the Expositor and the honesty of the men who authored can only be assessed based on what they could have known. This is not a new concept. Remember the good faith exception from the article “False Witnesses and Lost Credibility” where several men and women signed a certificate declaring that there was no polygamy in the church, only to find out later that Joseph had been practicing the principle. Before calling such men dishonest, you have to consider what one of them said about the matter:

“In October, 1842, a statement was written out and signed by a large number of the brethren and sisters, including myself and wife, setting forth the fact that we knew of no other form of marriage ceremony in the church except the one published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which statement was true at that time, as we had no knowledge of such a ceremony, or that “spiritual wifery;” or “polygamy,” was taught by the heads of the church, as they had not up to that time taught it to us.
(Ebenezer Robinson, “Items of Personal History of the Editor,” The Return Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 28, Davis City, Iowa, February 1891)

The authors of the Expositor could only describe and make conclusions based on the cases that had been publicly disclosed. As I wrote about in the Indecent Proposals articles, each of these case that Joseph knew about had significant negative consequences for making their rejected proposals public. It was reasonable and in good faith that the Expositor described the consequences of the rejected proposals as such.

Since these proposals were not publicly known to the Expositor during Joseph’s lifetime the authors could not have been accused of publishing a vicious lie if they had made the case that Joseph retaliated against any woman who rejected a marriage proposal (which they didn’t). At most they would have published an accusation which was made in error in good faith. This occasionally happens in printed media. For example, Joseph had a handbill of “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” printed to counter Bennett’s accusations. One of the affidavits Joseph included was from Stephan Markham which accused Nancy Rigdon of illicit behavior with Bennett((See the Nancy Rigdon section in the post on Indecent Proposals for background information))

The affidavit read:

“Personally came before me, Ebenezer Robinson, a Justice of the Peace in and for said county, Stephen Markham, who being duly sworn according to law deposeth and saith, that on the __ day of __ A. D. 1842, he was at the house of Sidney Rigdon in the city of Nauvoo, where he saw Miss Nancy Rigdon laying on a bed, and John C. Bennett was sitting by the side of the bed, near the foot, in close conversation with her: deponant also saw many vulgar, unbecoming and indecent sayings and motions pass between them, which satisfied deponant that they were guilty of unlawful and illicit intercourse, with each other.
Stephen Markham.”
(“Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters”, archive.org)

It appears that this accusation may have been in error. Joseph subsequently instructed a retraction be published which was found in The Wasp:

“We are authorized to say, by Gen. Joseph Smith, that the affidavit of Stephen Markham, relative to Miss Nancy Rigdon, as published in the handbill of affidavits, was unauthorized by him; the certificate of Elder Rigdon relative to the letter, being satisfactory.”
(The Wasp, 3 Sept 1842, archive.org)

The entire sequence of this exchange and the precise wording used by the parties involved is actually very interesting, but beyond the scope of this discussion. It is sufficient to observe that statements made in error, but in good faith are not “vicious lies” and have been made even by the church and its supporters.

Conclusion – Part 2

To be clear, we have already determined that the specific statement of the Expositor is not a vicious lie in that it is a reference to the warning given in the revelation on polygamy, as demonstrated in part 1 of this response to Brian Hales’ submission. Setting that aside, if we look closely at the case that Hales makes about these five women who he suggests refused Josephs advances without consequences we see that his argument much weaker than he paints it to be with only 2 of the 5 cases actually showing a documented proposal.

Close examination of the circumstances around the proposals unfortunately reveals a number of embarrassing things. It shows that Joseph referred to these women in terms that appears to dehumanize and objectify them – treating them as possessions. It also shows that he may have been inclined to skirt established laws and customs in obtaining consent (which is not surprising given the unconventional and illegal nature of the unions he was proposing).  It shows that Joseph received convenient revelations such as one blocking his secretary from pursuing a woman Joseph was interested in and another threatening the husband of one of his failed attempts during a key election. If Hales intends to uses these women to help restore doubting members confidence in Joseph as an honorable man he may run into problems. Exposing investigators to these embarrassing facts will only raise more questions which will require even deeper rationales and explanations, which I am not certain Hales is prepared to provide since he appears to have narrowly confined his assessment of Joseph to the issue of celestial marriages and sealings.

Furthermore, even if the Expositor made the case that Hales is asserting (which it did not), since the statements were made without the knowledge of rejections that went unretaliated, they could at most be considered false accusations made in good faith – not “vicious lies”. If the statements were false, then Joseph could have issued a correction allowing for a retraction to be published in the next issue of the Expositor – Joseph himself had previously had to do that. Such a sequence was not possible, however, because Joseph immediately orchestrated the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor Press after its publication.

All of these observations serve to weaken the case that Hales is making to defend Joseph, but they are not the central problem with Hales’ position. In Part 3, the final installment of my response to Hales, I will examine the underlying problem which completely nullifies the case that Hales is making regarding Joseph and the Women who said Nope!

Part 3 – Picking the Nits