[toc]When I was growing up, my moral education included many lessons on honesty. My parents, church leaders, school teachers all contributed to the concept and importance of honesty that shaped my worldview. One lesson in particular that left its impact on me was the fact that if we are dishonest, we lose credibility and people are less willing to trust us or believe us in the future.

The classic story that makes this point is that of the boy who cried wolf. The story goes that a young man charged with watching a flock of sheep gets bored and so he cries out saying that there is a wolf attacking the flock and pleads for help. The villagers run to his aid, only to find him amused that they believed his deception. The villagers are, understandably miffed at the lie and after the young man repeats this farce a couple more times, they eventually stop responding to him because they know him to be a liar. Later, when a wolf actually does attack nobody responds to his calls for help because they know him to be a liar. He lost credibility because of his prior lies.

Thinking back about that story, a key observation is that if you are going to lie – don’t admit it or acknowledge it. Imagine if the young man had not laughed at the response of the villagers and confessed the lie, but instead kept the deception up by explaining that every time the villagers came to his aid – the wolves were scared away. He would likely have maintained his credibility because the villagers did not know he was deceiving them each time. Then when the wolf actually did come, they would have still come to his aid and perhaps saved him.

This brings me to the true topic of this post – the credibility of witness testimony and the implications of discovering a deception.

The Bennett Affair

I have written previously about some of the controversy that surrounded Joseph when one of his close confidants, John C. Bennett, broke away from the church. Bennett was discovered to be practicing a form of “spiritual wifery” which he claimed to be based on a revelation regarding plural marriage that Joseph had received. After a tumultuous disciplinary process he resigned rather than be excommunicated from the church and left the company of the saints only to publish a series of letters which were then combined into a book as an expose of the activities of Joseph Smith. Among the accusations in his book was that Joseph Smith had been marrying and having relations with multiple women other than his first wife in a system of polygamy which was said to be justified by a revelation from God.

Joseph’s Denial

Joseph, who was the editor of the church periodical of the day Times and Seasons, responded by publishing this statement in the 1 Sept issue:

“Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the fallacy of Dr. Bennett’s letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the church.

“All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (Times and Seasons 3 [September 1, 1842]: 909 archive.org)

This statement was authored and published by Joseph Smith on 1 September 1842 in a paper to the members and citizens of Nauvoo. He is quoting the section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants which held the Church Policy on marriage to be strictly monogamous (see scanned copy of 1835 D&C at JosephSmithPapers.org). The revelation on polygamy was not yet recorded or public, however Joseph had already began the practice of plural marriage. The recent Gospel Topics Essay on LDS.org “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” states the following:

“The first plural marriage in Nauvoo took place when Louisa Beaman and Joseph Smith were sealed in April 1841. Joseph married many additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage.”
(“Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo”, LDS.org)

The readers of the Times and Seasons were not aware of the reality of Joseph’ own polygamy, so they had no reason to doubt him. His lie could not be discovered at the time that it was told. It is only now that we have documented proof of Joseph’s activities that his deception is made clear.

Joseph lied about his own polygamy in the official publication of the church as its editor.  (A detailed chronology of the deception is outlined in “Honesty and Polygamy“)  This revelation may be shocking to you if it is the first time you have seen it, but this post is not about Joseph. Any deceiver can fabricate his own lies to cover up his illicit doings. It takes a man of great persuasion and charisma to convince others to lie for him and count it for righteousness.

Joseph was such a man.

The October 1842 Declaration – Men

Not content to rest on his own personal denial of polygamy, Joseph knew that having respected and well known men and women in the community add their names to his defense would be a powerful statement of innocence. In the next month’s issue of the Times and Seasons, 1 October 1842, Joseph published two such declarations affirming his previous denial.

The first was from 12 prominent men in the community:

“We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.”
(Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939–940; archive.org)

You can see the names of the men in the scan of the document presented here. Among them are 2 bishops, high councilmen, a judge and even two apostles. At the time, there was no reason to imagine that any of these men could have lied in defense of Joseph. We have the benefit of all that has been uncovered and disclosed through the passage of time, however, and there are 3 men on this list in particular who we now know were deceptive in attaching their names to this declaration:

N. K. Whitney

Newell K Whitney was a bishop in Nauvoo and a close friend of the Prophet. This was a known fact and gave people reason to respect and trust his declaration in defense of Joseph. What was not widely known at the time was that Bishop N K Whitney had already consented to and officiated in the secret plural marriage between Joseph and his daughter Sarah which took place 3 months earlier in July 1842. Church historian Andrew Jenson described the marriage:

“The friendship and intimacy existing between the Prophet and Bishop Whitney was strengthened and intensified by the giving in marriage to the former of the latter’s eldest daughter, Sarah, in obedience to a revelation from God. This girl was but seventeen years of age, but she had implicit faith. She was the first woman, in this dispensation, given in plural marriage by and with the consent of both parents. Her father himself officiated in the ceremony. The revelation commanding and consecrating this union is in existence, though it has never been published. It bears the date July 27, 1842, and was given through the Prophet to the writer’s grandfather, Newel K. Whitney. whose daughter Sarah became the wife of Joseph Smith for time and all eternity.”
(“Latter-day Saint biographical encyclopedia” Andrew Jenson, pg. 226; archive.org)

Both Bishop Whitney and his wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitney,  consented to the marriage and witnessed the ceremony. Later his wife would write of the secrecy of the marriage:

“Our hearts were comforted, and our faith made so perfect that we were willing to give our eldest daughter, then seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the order of plural marriage. Laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage, we gave her with our mutual consent. She was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents. Of course these things had to be kept an inviolate secret; and as some were false to their vows and pledges of secresy, persecution arose, and caused grievous sorrow to those who had obeyed, in all purity and sincerity, the requirements of this celestial order of marriage.”
(Edward W. Tullidge, “The Women of Mormondom” (New York, 1877), p. 369; archive.org)

Aside from the treatment of a 17 year old young woman like an object to be traded away, this admission reveals that Joseph bound those to whom he introduced polygamy with vows and pledges of secrecy. It is clear from reading Sister Whitney’s account that she considered it the highest form of righteousness (purity and sincerity) to maintain this secrecy. By signing the October 1842 declaration, this meant lying about polygamy and the fact of Joseph’s teaching and involvement in it.

John Taylor

John Taylor was an Apostle in the quorum of the Twelve at the time of signing this declaration. Over a year before, he had arrived back from a mission to England in July of 1841.

In a discourse delivered on the tenth anniversary of the martyrdom, Apostle John Taylor recalled those early days when the Prophet introduced the principle to them:

“there was a time that was particularly trying to the people—new doctrine of what is called what used to be called then “spiritual wifery” (and the doctrine was first introduced of men having more wives than one). It was a thing new to the whole of us. Yet it was a thing that was substantiated by scripture and made manifest also by revelation, and it only needed men to have the spirit of God or women to know and to understand the principles that Joseph communicated unto them. I remember being with President Young and Kimball and I think one or two others with Brother Joseph soon after we had returned from England. He talked with us on these principles and laid them before us. It tried our minds and feelings. We saw it was something going to be heavy upon us. it was not that very nice pleasing thing some people thought about it. It is something that harried up our feelings. Did we believe it? Yes we did. I did.”
(John Taylor, “Sermon in Honor of the Martyrdom,” June 27, 1854; archive.org; mormonpolygamydocuments.org)

As Taylor was introduced to Polygamy as a revelation backed by scriptural authority in 1841, he also blatantly lied by signing the October 1842 declaration. One might consider this a surprising thing for an Apostle to do, but it must be remembered that the keeping of secrets, necessitating lying, was counted as righteousness and proved men and women to be trustworthy to Joseph.

Wilford Woodruff

Woodruff was also an Apostle in 1842. Like Taylor he had returned from a mission to England in 1841 and had been instructed in plural marriage by Joseph, as had the rest of the Apostles. Woodruff testified to this fact in a deposition years later during the Temple Lot Case trial:

“Joseph Smith of course taught that principle [of plural marriage] while in Nauvoo, and he not only taught it, but practiced it too…I said in my direct examination that the patriarchal order of marriage was taught by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. There was no rule or law of the church at that time that referred to the patriarchal system of marriage or plural marriage as it is now called. I undoubtedly knew of its being taught to certain individuals at Nauvoo in 1841 and 1842, but I cannot say as to the time from memory. I know that Joseph Smith taught it to certain individuals, but he did not teach it openly to the church.”
(“Temple Lot Case”, Wilford Woodruff deposition, pg. 291, 302 archive.org)

Again, we have an example of an Apostle who knew of plural marriage over a year prior to signing a statement denying the existence of such a doctrine. These are lies counted as righteousness for the building up of the kingdom of God, but in actuality they are committed to protect Joseph.

The October 1842 Declaration – Women

Lest we focus only only men who perjured themselves, let us examine the declaration also published in the Times and Seasons to which many prominent women attached their names. Keep in mind that the Relief Society had only been formally organized for a few months (March 24,1842):

“We the undersigned members of the ladies’ relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a disclosure of his own make.”
(Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940; archive.org)

You  can see that a number of women signed the statement – including the entire presidency of the Relief Society.

In what was among the more ridiculous and outrageous sounding aspects of his expose, Bennett had described the Relief Society as a seraglio – a harem of sorts, which would serve as a source of new brides for Joseph and his trusted circle. Bennett described 3 levels within the relief society – the highest of which included women who were actively participating in polygamous unions. The women of the presidency of the Relief Society were trusted and respected at the time they signed this declaration denying the practice of polygamy and refuting Bennett’s charges. History revealed an altogether different reality which was closer to Bennett’s description than would be expected. This is made clear by examining what we now know about the women of the Relief Society Presidency

Emma Smith

Emma Smith is unique in the Presidency in that she was part of a polygamous family, but wasn’t fully aware of it at the time she signed the October 1842 declaration. The reality of plural marriage would eventually come squarely before her, but that would not take place until the spring of 1843. Her signature on the statement was done in earnest and in good faith.

Elizabeth Ann Whitney

Elizabeth Whitney was the wife of Newel K Whitney who, as we described above, was party to the first plural marriage to be consented to by both parents of the bride (a legal necessity since their daughter was a minor). Recall that this secret marriage took place several months prior to October in July of 1842. As such, Emma’s First Counselor was deeply implicated in the business of plural wifery at the time she signed the declaration and that statement constituted a bold faced lie – though done under the auspices of righteousness and fulfilling one’s “vows and pledges of secrecy.”

Sarah M Cleveland

Sarah Cleveland was married to a non-LDS man, however she joined the church and was listed by Church Historian Andrew Jenson among the wives of Joseph Smith (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 1887, vol. 6, pp. 233-234; archive.org). As such, Sarah was not only one of Joseph’s plural wives, but also a participant in Joseph’s polyandry. The fact of her position as a polygamy insider at the time of the October 1842 declaration is confirmed by her attendance in the plural marriage of her fellow Relief Society Councilor Eliza R Snow to Joseph 3 months prior on 29 June 1842.

“Be it remembered that on this Seventh day of June A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for Said county Eliza Roxcy Snow Smith who was by me Sworn in due form of law and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-ninth day of June A.D. 1842, at the City of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Brigham Young, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of Said Church, according to the laws of the Same regulating marriage, in the presence of Sarah M. Cleaveland”
(Joseph F Smith Affidavit Books, 1:25, not available online)

By affixing her name to the declaration denying plural wifery in the Times and Seasons Sarah proved that she was willing to keep Joseph secrets even by using her own name in a bold lie.

 Eliza R Snow

Eliza Snow was an educated 38 year old school teacher who was living in the Smith homestead in October 1842. She had been called to be the first Secretary of the new Relief Society. As described in the affidavit quoted above, she had also been secretly married to Joseph on 29 July 1842. In keeping with the secrecy that was part of plural marriage with Joseph, at the time that she added her name to the declaration even Emma was not aware that her house guest was a sister wife.

Emma’s Unbelievable Position

So with these facts now acknowledged by history, Emma had the unbelievable and embarrassing position of having populated her presidency with 2 counsellors and a secretary, all of whom were in the thick of her husbands secret polygamous activities. This while she devoted no small part of her efforts in attempting to investigate and eradicate the plague of “spiritual wifery” that Joseph blamed squarely on John C Bennett.

That her closest friends and counsellors were willing to lie to her in addition to publish false statements denying Joseph’s polygamy is a strong expression of just how powerfully Joseph was able to work on the minds and hearts of those who were devoted to him.

False Witness?

Stepping back to evaluate what is actually happening here, it is interesting to consider that what these men and women are doing is bearing false witness. They are standing as witnesses to the truthfulness of something that is false.

This case is different than the usual connotation of “bearing false witness.” That phrase is usually employed to describe a lie which is used against someone else. A fabrication which does someone else harm. In this case, the false witness is used to protect Joseph from the consequences of his actions. If they had told the truth that Joseph had been privately teaching a doctrine of plural wives and had already married and consummated multiple plural wives it would have:

• vindicated John C Bennett exposing Joseph himself to be a liar
• subjected Joseph to legal proceedings on adultery/bigamy
• caused great turmoil in Joseph’s marriage to Emma
• no doubt caused many people to separate from the church.

All of these things would have damaged Joseph’s standing as a religious and community leader. By bearing false witness, these men and women were protecting Joseph and the Church. This may explain why they were so willing to do it.

Good Faith Exception

The point of this essay is not to assert that everyone testifying in Joseph’s defense is lying. Most of the men and women who signed these declarations knew nothing about the reality of Joseph’s polygamy and so were acting in good faith. They had been kept in the dark about the truth. This was made clear in later statements from Ebenezer Robinson, one of the men who signed the document:

“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)

I felt great sympathy for this. For 38 years, I myself was eager and willing to bear testimony of Joseph Smith, but that was only before I had a knowledge of all of the things that Joseph had actually done in the early years of church history. Once I learned more, I was able to make choice from a position of informed consent rather than orchestrated ignorance.

Joseph’s Influence

How could Joseph persuade so many separate people violate their own integrity in a culture that appeared to revere honesty as a prime virtue? The Book of Mormon taught “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Nephi 9:34, lds.org). The Book of Moses taught that Satan was the “father of all lies” (Moses 4:4, lds.org). Joseph was heard to preach that “No one can ever enter the Celestial Kingdom unless he is strictly honest.”(Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet, p.104, unavailable online). What could Joseph possibly have said to convince these respected men and women to lie?

The answer may be suggested by the content of a letter that Joseph wrote to Nancy Rigdon, the 19 year old daughter of Sydney Rigdon. Joseph had made a proposal of polygamy to Nancy which she immediately and fiercely rejected in abhorrence of what he proposed (See Indecent Proposals, Pt. 1). In reply Joseph composed a letter containing a rationalization for why his proposal could contradict all that she knew of chastity and morality:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time. He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”
(Letter from Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol 5, pg. 134-6, archive.org)

Here Joseph points out that at times God may command men to go so far as to kill another and have it count for righteousness. If that is true of taking one’s life then it certainly can be true of telling a lie or bearing false witness for the purpose of protecting the Prophet and the Kingdom of God. The key factor is that it is God who is giving the command.

To the men and women who took sacred vows of secrecy regarding a divine pattern of matrimony – Joseph’s instructions to them were as good as God’s commands. By signing the declaration denying the reality of polygamy, they were being faithful to what they believe are God’s commands through Joseph. In lying to keep the secret they saw themselves as trustworthy and righteous even while perpetrating a deception.

The Real Damage – Lost Credibility

The fact that these men and women were so willing to lie in Joseph’s defense carries much more far reaching implications than this single deceptive declaration. In seeing how easily and brazen the lies are put forth, it is impossible to escape asking a very important question:

The difficulty with learning that Joseph was so capable of getting people to lie for him is that we can no longer trust any other witness or testimony in his defense. The 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the witnesses to the restoration of the priesthood, the numerous affidavits supporting his character, the accusations levied against the publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor, etc – all of these are now tainted by the knowledge that Joseph was adept at convincing people to lie for him and consider themselves righteous and justified in doing so.

Conclusion

The boy who cried wolf lost personal credibility because he lied. Joseph demonstrated that he could get people around him to lie with sincerity and self righteousness. He could surround himself with “boys who cry wolf” in his defense.

The real cost of the false testimony of the men and women who lied about polygamy in the October 1842 declaration was not their own integrity. The real cost is that the integrity of anyone else who ever testified for Joseph or testified against his enemies can and should be called into question.

PS

I want to thank Jim Whitefield for first pointing out the far reaching consequences of testimonial mendacity in his book “Mormon Delusion, Vol 1“. In addition, Brian Hales was extremely helpful in locating documentary support confirming that the Apostles Taylor and Woodruff were previously apprised of Joseph’s polygamy.