Scott Woodward:
Hi, this is Scott from Church History Matters. As we near the end of this series, we want to hear your questions about Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage. And who doesn’t have questions about plural marriage, right? In two weeks, on our final episode of this series, we will be honored to have Dr. Brian Hales with us as a special guest to help us respond to your questions. He’s an author and scholar on all things related to Joseph Smith’s polygamy, and we’ve drawn heavily from Dr. Hales’ research throughout this series. Let me just say that he is a deep well of knowledge on this topic, so please do yourself and other listeners a favor by submitting your thoughtful questions. You can submit them anytime up to June 22nd, 2023, to podcasts@scripturecentral.org. Let us know your name, where you’re from, and try to keep each question as concise as possible when you email them in. That helps out a lot. OK, now on to the episode. In June and July of 1843, tensions ran high in the marriage of Joseph and Emma Smith after she had tried but failed to embrace the principle of plural marriage earlier that May and after Hyrum Smith had tried, but failed to convince her of the rightness of plural marriage, even with a copy of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in hand. Records indicate that Emma became for a time rebellious, bitter, resentful, and angry. In fact, from July through September of 1843, Emma even became confrontational to Joseph’s other wives, trying, sometimes successfully, to drive them away from him. In today’s episode of Church History Matters, we dive into the details of this challenging time as well as the reconciliatory place Joseph and Emma ultimately seem to come to on this. We’ll also dig into how Joseph’s practice of plural marriage was a major factor behind the conspiracy which ultimately led to his martyrdom. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today we dive into our fourth episode in this series dealing with plural marriage. Now, let’s get into it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Welcome back, everybody. I’m Casey Griffiths. With me, Scott Woodward. Say hi, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Hello.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And we’re continuing our investigation of a challenging subject that’s plural marriage and its origins in the church. So let’s recap here really fast. And Scott, we can bounce off each other just to hit the main points.

Scott Woodward:
OK.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
A person we spent a lot of time talking about last time was John C. Bennett and his links, or lack of links, to plural marriage. Tell us a little bit about him. Recap for us a little bit.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. John C. Bennett, he comes to Nauvoo with an adulterous past. We didn’t know about that yet, until he starts—I think he was engaged with a young woman or something like that, or at least he was courting a young woman when it was found out that he actually had a wife who had left him because of his adultery. Kind of serial adultery. He had broken up several marriages.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Joseph confronted him about that. He pledged that he would do better and be better, and that he was a changed man. Joseph liked John C. Bennett, and many in Nauvoo did. He was a talented force for good in Nauvoo, helped with the Nauvoo charter. He was elected mayor at the beginning of 1842. But then his past sins came back with a vengeance, and he begins to not just engage in adultery, but in what he’s going to call “spiritual wifery.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And we talked about what that was. This idea that illicit sexual relationships are OK, provided that nobody tells anybody about it, right? As long as there’s no accuser, it’s not a sin, he taught the women.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so when Joseph Smith found out about this, it’s going to lead to his [Bennett’s] excommunication and he’s going to leave Nauvoo angry. He’ll publish a bunch of filth against Joseph and the saints. He’ll write a book just trying to discredit the saints. He said that Joseph had “awakened the wrong passenger” in excommunicating him, and so that he was going to make sure the Saints suffered and paid for their humiliation of him.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So he starts to work outside Nauvoo, stirring up problems, making accusations.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Meanwhile, in Nauvoo, there’s two people that Joseph Smith is very close to that have varied reactions to plural marriage. We’ve got Hyrum Smith, who learns about plural marriage from Brigham Young. And then Hyrum kind of has to work through his issues, but it seems like Hyrum is accepting of it. He eventually practices plural marriage himself. And he, it seems like in the context of section 132, he’s trying to help Joseph and Emma find a meeting of the minds a way that they can resolve their differences over the issue.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. After his conversion to the principle, Hyrum becomes, like, Joseph’s biggest supporter, and he’s going to be the one that performs a lot of the plural sealings between Joseph and his later wives. Once he’s in, Hyrum is in on that principle for sure.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. You’ve got a quote here from Brian Hales. He said, “Hyrum became Joseph’s primary promoter and supporter, performing many of the plural sealings between Joseph and his later wives.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So Hyrum gets on board, and next we’ve got to talk about Emma. And Emma has genuine struggles. We don’t have a lot of information from her directly. But we know that Section 132 is received to try and help Emma understand the principles of plural marriage. Hyrum acts as an intermediary. Where does Emma eventually end up with all this, Scott?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Well, it seems like, from the existing records that we have, that May 1843, right? That was the big month, that was the happiest month, perhaps, in Joseph Smith’s life. Maybe that’s overstating it, but certainly in Nauvoo during this challenging time, because Hyrum comes on board, and Emma comes on board to plural marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
She does. She gives her best. She makes a sincere attempt to participate in plural marriage. We don’t know exactly what led her to try, but we do know that in May 1843, she’s going to give Joseph Smith four wives, the Lawrence Sisters and the Partridge Sisters, Emily and Eliza Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
One of his wives, Lucy Walker, says that Emma was well aware that he associated with them as wives within the meaning of all that word implies. And that is where it becomes super difficult for Emma. We discussed this, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
As she started to actually share her husband physically, even after the very first night Joseph spent with Emily Partridge, Emily says that “after that Emma turned against us.” she would never allow us to live with him. She was always kind of paranoid when they were alone together. It just crushed on Emma’s tender soul, this idea of sharing Joseph. She tried so hard, but it didn’t work. In fact, one observer said during this time that the face of Sister Emma was not a happy one, and her treatment of these plural wives was that of an unhappy, soured, and jealous woman. You can understand the difficulty of sharing your husband, right? This is just so hard.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So, yeah, her acceptance of this was short-lived. So in May—May was good, but in June it starts to wane, right? On June 23 Joseph told William Clayton that Emma had treated him coldly and badly, and that he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for something. She thought that if he would indulge himself, she would, too. That’s caused some interesting speculation. What, what does that mean? That she was going to indulge herself since Joseph was indulging himself. And I tend to agree with Brian Hales on this, where he argues that Emma wasn’t threatening to somehow go live her own version of plural marriage, right? Or anything like that, but that she’s threatening to divorce Joseph and perhaps remarry. Or to publicly expose him. Joseph F. Smith said something like that, that Emma said that if he wouldn’t give up his plural wives, she would bring him up before the law. So maybe that’s what she meant by, “I’ll indulge myself, too.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Suffice it to say there’s some serious tension that’s being built up just a month after she had accepted the principle. There’s tension building in the marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, and this is the context where, in July 1843, Hyrum’s trying to intercede. He’s trying to help Joseph and Emma come together.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
That’s why he asked for the revelation that becomes section 132. And all of these reminiscences, too, we should state, are colored by the fact that many of these people that share them—William Clayton, Emily and Eliza Partridge—are still angry and upset with Emma Smith over her reaction to this.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So the story is always told that Hyrum goes to Joseph and says, “If you’ll give me the revelation, I can convince any reasonable person of its truth and purity.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And Joseph says, “You don’t know Emma as well as I do.” William Clayton says Hyrum took the revelation to Emma. Hyrum came back and said she was very upset, at which point Joseph said, ”I told you you didn’t know Emma as well as I do.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s this point that it seems like they have a serious discussion and figure out how to stay together and move forward. Tell us a little bit about Emma’s conditions that she sets down there.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. You know, Clayton said that after section 132, I mean, that backfired big time, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
He—the words he used were that she “appeared very rebellious.” He said she was “bitter, full of resentment and anger.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So within hours of that episode, we’re not talking days here, we’re talking hours, they [Joseph and Emma] sit down and have serious talk that William Clayton recorded.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
To negotiate some kind of agreement. And I think last episode we talked about the first part of that agreement, but not the second. So let’s talk about that. So the first part, just to recap, was that they seem to agree that Joseph needs to obtain Emma’s permission going forward before marrying any new plural wives, right? “If this marriage is going to work, you need to tell me, Joseph, and we need to get permission before marrying any new wives.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
You’ll remember that section 132 instructed Emma to forgive Joseph his transgressions, which, you know, among other things probably included Joseph hurting Emma’s feelings by not telling her about some of the plural marriages.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
I know that was complex. It’s emotionally complex. It’s theologically complex. Joseph is—in some ways is waiting for Emma to have a soft heart about this so he can tell her everything, but now, you know, after that kind of spot of sunshine in May, things are getting cloudy again, but it seems to all come out right here. They’re really sitting down and saying, “Are we going to make this work?”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. They just sit down and have it out with each other and kind of hash it out together.

Scott Woodward:
Right. And yet, you feel for both of them, right? And what’s interesting, historically, is after this agreement that Joseph needs to obtain Emma’s permission before marrying anyone else, he only marries two more women total: Melissa Lot, later on in September of that year, and then Fanny Young in November of that year. And that’s it. And during the last eight months of Joseph’s life, he is not going to marry any additional wives.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Brian Hales suggests that they kind of settle into a kind of monogamy. They—at least they live monogamously together and have, you know, semblance of a monogamous marriage even though there are these other wives, right? Which, I think in another way helps answer the question, “Why didn’t Joseph have children with these other wives?” I think the strain that’s being placed on their marriage here—like, Joseph is just OK to keep the principle the best he can without endangering the marriage with him and Emma. And I think they settle on what appears to be kind of a monogamous way of living, even though there are other women that he’s sealed to. And that’s really interesting, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Well, and another wrinkle to that would be he does have one more child. But it’s with Emma.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Emma is pregnant when Joseph goes to Carthage Jail.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And Emma’s reaction to Joseph Smith’s death is just devastating. You know, someone comes to her and says, “Your suffering will be your crown,” after Joseph is killed. She turns to them and says, “My husband was my crown.” So the fact that they’re having another baby together, little David Hyrum is born after Joseph is killed.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And that she’s so devastated when Joseph is finally martyred, suggests that they do reach a point of reconciliation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
They might not have ever agreed on plural marriage, but their marriage was in a good place when Joseph goes to Carthage.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I think that’s fair.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But Emma’s concerns weren’t just sharing her husband. Her second term of negotiation had to do with her own wellbeing. And this frames a lot of concern over Emma’s financial status. “How’s she going to provide for herself? How’s she going to provide for her kid?” not only is a factor here, but in her later dealings with Brigham Young and the Twelve, when they take over leadership of the church, so.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Tell us a little bit about the second demand here.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so the second demand or agreement that they reach is that—to financially provide for Emma and to assure that if anything ever happened to Joseph or to their marriage, that Emma would be able to provide for herself and children, you know? So if Joseph has many wives, with every wife that he takes, each of those wives could have legal claim upon Joseph’s estate in the event of his death, right? Which would leave Emma with little or nothing.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And so only hours after Emma had rejected D&C 132, William Clayton recorded that “Joseph told me to deed all the unencumbered lots to Emma and the children.” “He appears much troubled about Emma,” William says. And then the next day, Clayton recorded that “Joseph called me up into his private room with Emma and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. They both stated their feelings on many subjects and wept considerable.” Then Clayton writes, “Oh, may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide by His holy law.” So two days after this, it’s official. Clayton recorded that he made a deed for half the steamboat, called the Maid of Iowa, from Joseph to Emma, and he also deeded to Emma over 60 city lots. So now Emma is going to have some financial security, no matter what happens to Joseph and no matter what happens to their marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so Joseph is giving some—he is yielding to this part of the agreement to try to keep this marriage together, right? Whatever it would take.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And so, number one, Joseph’s got to ask permission before he marries any other wife. Emma’s got to approve. And number two, that Emma needs to have some self-sufficiency in the case of Joseph’s death or the dissolution of their marriage so that she could be financially taken care of and take care of the children.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And again, that thread is picked up after Joseph’s death. It seems like a lot of the break between Emma and Brigham Young and the Twelve is over property that could belong to the church, but belonged to Joseph.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Like the Joseph Smith translation end up with Community of Christ, with the RLDS church and not our church because Emma refuses to hand them over.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
There’s just a real concern of hers, especially after his death, that, “Am I going to be financially OK? Am I going to be able to take care of myself and my family?” I don’t think she’s being selfish here. This is a totally understandable thing,

Scott Woodward:
For sure.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But it’s part of the story of what’s going on in this marriage.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right. We should mention our source here is William Clayton, who was Joseph Smith’s personal secretary at the time. He’s very close to the situation. He draws up some of the papers, and we trust him here. Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
There’s also other people that talk about Emma’s opposition, like Eliza R. Snow, who’s very close to Emma.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But is also married to Joseph Smith. You know, in most of her writing later on in her life, she signs her name “Eliza R. Snow Smith.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
What happens between Emma and Eliza?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so if Emma’s kind of rebellious and infuriated and angry in July of 1843, when they come to this agreement, after Hyrum, bless his heart, tried to be peacemaker, then what happens at the end of that month and then in August and then in September, is that Emma now starts to—still angry, but now she’s going to start getting confrontational with Joseph’s other wives. We have a count of at least three instances. So the first is Eliza R. Snow in July, yeah. She’s going to confront Eliza R. Snow, and we know that after their confrontation, Eliza’s going to abruptly leave Nauvoo for a while to go live with her sister about 25 miles outside of Nauvoo.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Can I interject something there, too, Scott?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The William McLellin letter where they talk about Fanny Alger also makes the accusation that Eliza was pregnant with Joseph’s child, and Emma pushed her down the stairs.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Now, that is patently false. Brian Hales and Lach[lan] MacKay went to the house they were living in, which is still there, and actually, like, took photographs, measured the stairs, and it was physically impossible for that to have occurred. That did not happen, and I don’t want that slur to be on Emma Smith’s name.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Or on Eliza R. Snow. Eliza leaves the city. She goes and lives with her sister. But neither Eliza nor Emma ever bring that up. It’s from this thirdhand account that William McLellin, who wasn’t even there—

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—brings up. And so we need to take that story and just kind of stomp it out, because it makes Emma look bad. It makes Eliza look bad, and it’s frankly just not true.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s physically impossible, based on the home that they were living in at the time.

Scott Woodward:
Well said.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Sorry, I just wanted to add that in.

Scott Woodward:
No, that’s good. Yeah. Let’s stomp out rumors as much as we can as we go through this.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
There’s also an account that in August, so the next month, Emma confronts another one of Joseph’s wives, named Flora Woodworth.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And Emma demands that Flora give her back the gold watch that Joseph had given to her after they were sealed earlier in the spring of that year. According to one account, she does give it back, and then Emma stomps on it and breaks it. Flora’s then going to marry another man, like the next day. And we’re not sure if that’s because Emma told her to do something like that, or if somehow she was angry or rebellious, but it’s a non-member guy. She just marries him like the next day after Emma confronts her. We’re not sure what to make of that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And that same month of August, William Clayton recorded that Emma had resisted the principle of plural marriage in toto, like totally resisting now, and that Joseph worried that she would obtain a divorce and leave him. You mentioned, flash forward, things are going to end OK. Things are going to end well between Joseph and Emma at his death. They’re going to be pregnant, and she is completely devastated by that loss.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
But before, there’s a season, right? Things haven’t gotten better yet. We’re going to get there. But in August, things are maybe at their fever pitch. September it continues in this way. Emma is going to expel the Partridge sisters from their home. Emily said that Emma wanted them to leave the city, which they didn’t do. Emily also said that “Emma wanted us to immediately divorce, and she seemed to think that all she had to do was say the word and it would be done, but we thought different,” Emily said. “We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred.” But Emily goes on to say that Emma confronted Joseph so hard about this when Emily’s in the room that Joseph said, “Fine.” And he shook Emily’s hand, and Emily understood that to be, you know, kind of the end of their marriage. At least that’s what she says in one account.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So Emma’s now confronting the wives and trying to get them to move out of town and get out of the way. And she even, there was a young man that she told Eliza Partridge that she should let him take her on a—on a little buggy ride, right? She’s trying to play matchmaker with some of Joseph’s wives. So July, August, September, that’s when it’s at its worst. But in October, things start to turn better. Things calm down. William Clayton records that on October 19 Joseph “began to tell me that Emma was turned quite friendly and kind.” We’re not sure what happened, but by October, she’s calmed down as she actually begins working by Joseph’s side, helping to administer temple ordinances, like washings and anointings to the sisters of the church, and things seem to be on the up and up with them.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
There’s only kind of one last thing that persists and that is that as President of the Relief Society, Emma Smith continues to use her position to advocate against plural marriage, both privately and publicly. One instance I think is worth mentioning as far as publicly goes. There had been some efforts in February of 1844 to really slander a lot of the men and women of Nauvoo. Some people were accusing Joseph and other church leaders and some of the women in Nauvoo, of being involved together in some sort of prostitution ring or something like that, or being involved in Bennett’s spiritual wife system.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Hyrum Smith had been accused by a guy named Orsamus Bostwick, and he had been fined 50 bucks for slandering Hyrum Smith and other women in the city. And this really provoked Emma, and she went to W. W. Phelps. It seems that it was Emma that did it, but W. W. Phelps is approached by somebody, and it appears to be Emma—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
—to draft an epistle or, like, a resolution, which was edited by Emma after he drafted it. And after that, this epistle, which they’re going to call “The Voice of Innocence,” she goes and holds four meetings of the Relief Society, two Saturdays in a row, on the 9th and 16th of March 1844. They read “The Voice of Innocence” and then ask the Relief Society sisters to adopt it to try to stop the slandering that was going on in Nauvoo. Well, here’s just an excerpt from the preamble. Can I read this? Is this OK? This is pretty intense.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Here’s what the preamble says. So, written by W. W. Phelps, edited by Emma Smith, “Curse the man that preys upon female virtue. Curse the man that slanders a woman. Let the righteous indignation of insulted innocence and virtue spur him from society. Let the dignity of the mothers of Israel kick the bloodthirsty pimp from the pale of social communion. Let the timid daughters of Nauvoo dread such kink or worms more than the pestilence that walketh in darkness, and shun them as the serpent on the land and the shark in the sea. My God, is there not female virtue and valor enough in this city to let such mean men die of the rot? That the sexton,” that’s a grave digger, ”may carry their putrid bodies beyond the limits of this city for food, for vultures and eagles?”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Whoa.

Scott Woodward:
That’s just one quote from there. It’s intense.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
That’s intense language.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So Orsamus Bostwick is kind of the one that seems to have spurred this on, but it seems that John C. Bennett and his copycats are out there still, really just causing trouble—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—in Nauvoo still. And one of the resolutions, though—catch this language: “Wherefore, while the marriage bed undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, and let all the saints say ‘amen.’”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Whoa.

Scott Woodward:
So after reading that, the women then took a vote on who would be willing to receive the principles of virtue and keep the commandments of God and uphold Emma Smith specifically in putting down iniquity. And the meeting minutes say it was received unanimously. And then Emma Smith said that her determination was to do her duty effectually in putting down transgression.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So yeah, this is more broadly against sexual immorality and all the various perversions that are possible, but I think it’s just interesting that on the list she made sure to include polygamy, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so that’s a kind of a public example. There’s some private examples. John Taylor says that the Emma came to his wife, Leonora, and tried to talk her out of getting involved in plural marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm. Let me emphasize here, too, that the women that are entering into plural marriage don’t see it as adultery or as shameful.

Scott Woodward:
No.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
For instance, Emily Partridge, after Emma told them that she wanted them to divorce Joseph, said, “We thought differently.” She writes, “We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred.” And so—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
There’s definitely not only a big difference between Emma and Joseph, but between Emma and the other women, who didn’t see themselves as committing sin. They saw themselves as living a covenant commandment from God.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Lots of tension going on here.

Scott Woodward:
Lots of tension, yeah. We can wrap up this part of today’s episode with maybe a summary from Brian Hales I thought was nice.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
We can’t plug his books enough, can we? They’re so good. This is from volume two, page 138. He summarizes kind of this whole period this way. He said, “In the fall of 1843, Emma experienced a short-lived change of heart regarding plural marriage that, with compromises on both sides, evolved into an outwardly stable monogamous lifestyle for the couple in the months after their explosive confrontation in July 1843 over the revelation on celestial marriage.” He continues, “It appears that Emma’s challenges in relation to plural marriage were unique among all of the polygamous wives in Nauvoo,” and I love his point here. He says, “Because the revelation came through her husband, she was distinctively positioned to second-guess some, if not all, of the motives behind it. Accordingly, her proximity to the revelation-giver demanded greater faith than that required of any other wife in a plural marriage. The historical record indicates she continually strove to accept plural marriage despite her vacillations. Unquestioned is Emma’s devotion to Joseph and his return devotion to her, despite the surrounding marital whirlwind to which they were exposed.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s move to a different thread, which is how plural marriage is involved in the death of Joseph Smith. Now, this is one of several factors. In fact, the one thing I would point out is the people that pull the trigger and actually kill Joseph Smith are motivated primarily by political reasons. You know, they’re worried about the growing influence of the saints in the region, and there’s not a lot of mysteries as to who the trigger men are. But the factors that lead up to Joseph Smith’s death… John C. Bennett plays a role, but probably the person inside Nauvoo who’s most singly responsible for Joseph Smith’s martyrdom is William Law.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And William Law’s disaffection is also linked in some ways to plural marriage and some other stuff that was going on in William Law’s life a little bit. So introduce us to William Law. Tell us a little bit about him and where he’s coming from.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so William Law is Joseph’s second counselor in the first presidency. And he’s mentioned in section 124, only very positively. There’s a lot of blessings that are promised to William Law, if—there’s a lot of if statements in those blessings—if he stays faithful.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And he was just one of the biggest supporters and advocates of Joseph Smith as a prophet. But it seems the thing that starts to turn him is when Joseph tacitly starts to introduce the principle of plural marriage. Joseph wouldn’t always say it overtly, but as he tacitly starts to kind of fill William Law out on this, William instantly just tries to stamp this down. He’s reported as saying, quote, “If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, I would kill him.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Whoa.

Scott Woodward:
That’s—that’s how he felt about that. But ironically, in the fall of 1843 while meeting regularly with the endowed saints—in fact, the book Saints is super good about this, and let me quote from the book Saints a little bit. Hopefully listeners will forgive all my quoting today. This is in volume one. It says, “While meeting regularly with the endowed saints, William Law hid from Joseph and Hyrum the fact that he was guilty of adultery. And in committing this sin, William felt that he had transgressed against his own soul. Around this time, Hyrum gave him a copy of the revelation on marriage, D&C 132. ‘Take it home and read it,’ Hyrum instructed. ‘Then be careful with it and bring it back again.’ William studied the revelation and showed it to his wife, Jane. He doubted its authenticity, but she was sure it was real. William took the revelation to Joseph, who confirmed that it was genuine. Then William begged him to renounce its teachings. But Joseph testified that the Lord had commanded him to teach plural marriage to the saints and that he would stand condemned if he disobeyed.” So there’s some interesting ironies happening right here, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So he’s adamant against plural marriage, yet at the same time, he’s got a—the sin of adultery, which he has not yet confessed, which he’s about to confess. He’s going to confess that on his deathbed. He thought he was very sick, and he will confess to Hyrum Smith his adultery later that same year. So this is 1843 in the fall. He admits to Hyrum that he “did not feel worthy to live or to die,” he said. Now I’m quoting again from Saints, “Yet he wanted to be sealed for eternity to Jane, and he asked Joseph if that were possible. Joseph took the question to the Lord, and the Lord revealed that William could not receive the ordinance because he was adulterous. At this point, William’s heart began to burn with anger against Joseph. So in late December, he and Jane stopped meeting with the endowed saints. Jane advises that they just sell their property and quietly leave Nauvoo. But William wanted to crush Joseph, so he began plotting secretly with others who opposed the prophet, and not long after he lost his place in the first presidency.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And it’s fair to say that William Law is not the trigger man.

Scott Woodward:
Nope.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You know, he’s not in the mob that attacks the jail.

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But he’s probably more responsible for Joseph Smith’s death than any other person.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
He just takes this, and it eats him up.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You pulled this quote. Joseph McMurrin heard it from William’s son Richard. So 1843, “William Law with his arms around the neck of the prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, Mormonism would in 50 or 100 years dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with tears streaming from his eyes. The prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.” Ugh. Difficult stuff.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Unfortunately, William Law takes it to an extreme, so much so that it’s fairly clear, you know, his end game is that Joseph be not just removed from his position, but killed.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So how does he go from being angry about plural marriage and not being able to be sealed to his wife because of his own adulterous past to actually leading to the death of Joseph? Do you want to connect any of those dots for us?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Oh, there’s the obvious ones. He’s eventually excommunicated in the spring of 1844.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And when Joseph gives things like the King Follett sermon, and he’s making reference to apostates from the church, this is probably a reference to William Law and his brother, who’s also complicit in this and participating. William and Wilson Law, the Law brothers, right?

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
At this time they start the wheels in motion to try and figure it out, and I don’t want to get too conspiratorial here, but it seems like there’s a genuine conspiracy.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
They wait until most of the Twelve Apostles are gone on missions.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Joseph Smith announces he’s running for president of the United States in January of 1844. And the apostles who are some of Joseph Smith’s most loyal supporters are all called on missions. Brigham Young later on said, “If I’d been in Nauvoo, I never would’ve let Joseph go to Carthage.”

Scott Woodward:
Hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
William is clearly, like, working with other people, like Chauncey Higbee and Robert Foster, to corner Joseph into a place where they can basically get him to a spot where they know that he’ll be murdered.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Some accounts actually place William Law in Carthage when Joseph Smith arrives there, claiming that Joseph Smith is never going to leave Carthage Jail alive. So this is where the Expositor comes into play, right?

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor are William and Wilson Law, and the Expositor, which is published in the beginning of June 1844, makes two primary accusations against Joseph Smith. One is that he’s teaching the plurality of Gods and that this is blasphemous. And the other is that Joseph Smith is practicing plural marriage. So they make this public accusation, and Joseph and the city council feel like they have to make a response to it. Tell us a little bit about how one thing leads to another, leads to the death of Joseph Smith, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, the Nauvoo Expositor seems to be a deliberate play. It had to be so inflammatory as to require some action by Joseph as mayor and the city council, and, you know, with the accusations of false doctrine, “damnable doctrines,” they call it, and “abominable whoredoms,” as they talk about—and it’s very incendiary. The way they talk about plural marriage in the Nauvoo Expositor, I don’t recommend it as, like, pleasant reading, but if you ever want to check out what they said, it’s just—it’s really bad.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s pretty extreme.

Scott Woodward:
Very extreme, yeah. “Luring young women from across the ocean to Nauvoo so that they can pounce and gratify their lust upon them.” It’s so provocative and so incendiary that the city council’s got to do something about this. So they meet multiple times. “What should we do about this press?” They’re going to consult legal texts and conclude from that—so the Nauvoo charter, which ironically John C. Bennett helped to establish, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
—had a clause that public nuisances could be removed legally. And then they look at some legal texts, which say that a libelous press, which the Nauvoo Expositor was, can be considered a public nuisance. So if you put two and two together, the libelous press could legally be destroyed as a public nuisance.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
They talked about if they don’t do this, if they don’t destroy the press, then the Missouri days are going to come back, right? This is so inflammatory, this kind of stuff, it’s going to whip up everyone that’s not LDS in the surrounding areas into such a frenzy as to bring them upon Nauvoo, and blood would certainly be shed. So they’re trying to avoid that, but in agreeing to destroy the press, that’s going to give legal recourse to William Law.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And those that were with him, to charge him with riot. They get charged with riot, and both Joseph and the entire city council is required to go and respond to these charges at Carthage. They had to go to Carthage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And so that seems to be all part of the trap, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. We’ll probably do a series just on the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, and—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We can dive into this deeper, but I want to point out a couple things.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The city council meets together to make the decision to destroy the Expositor press, right? They publish the minutes of that meeting later on. They’re there for everybody to read. There are people arguing in favor of the destruction of the press, including Joseph Smith. John Taylor’s probably the one that argues most forcefully for it. But the question of “Were their actions legal?” A young law professor named Dallin H. Oaks actually wrote an article in the 1960s where he looked at the laws of the time and the precedent of the time, and his conclusion was that the destruction of the Expositor was legal.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You know, like you said, they consult law texts, they have discussions back and forth. And ultimately somebody in the meeting speaks about Haun’s Mill and says, “You know what? If this newspaper is allowed to print, it’s printing stuff that is just going to stir up problems. There’s going to be another Haun’s Mill that happens here. So the destruction of the Expositor press is not a riot. It’s not a mob. They go and serve a warrant, and then a posse organized by the sheriff systematically destroys the press.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And the other thing is is Joseph Smith is willing to go to trial over the legality of this action. He actually appears before two judges in Nauvoo, one’s a Latter-day Saint, one isn’t, and is exonerated both times.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But at this point the laws and the—who are in Nauvoo and the people outside Nauvoo, like Tom Sharp, that really want Joseph dead, just have their excuse—

Scott Woodward:
Yes.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
–to yell and scream and holler until they can get Joseph out of Nauvoo and into a place where he’s vulnerable, which is Carthage Jail.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so I guess in summary, then, we would say that if it wasn’t for William Law, we wouldn’t have the Nauvoo Expositor. And if it wasn’t for the Nauvoo Expositor, we wouldn’t have the means to get Joseph arrested. We wouldn’t have the means to get him to Carthage, wouldn’t have something to accuse him about.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And so it does seem like those dominoes connect, right? William Law’s reaction to plural marriage, his anger toward Joseph, his now association with those who are conspirators against Joseph’s life, their plot with the Nauvoo Expositor leading to his arrest, leading to his death.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It reminds me, Joseph said, according to Brigham Young, speaking of plural marriage, he said, “I will die for it.” “I will die for it.” Joseph had a sense that if he stuck to this principle, that it would lead to his death.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And in that he turned out to be prophetic.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, and like I said, we’re simplifying for the sake of our subject here.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
There’s a number of reasons why that militia unit attacks Carthage Jail.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I don’t think plural marriage was the first in the minds of the men that attacked the jail, to be honest with you. But—

Scott Woodward:
No.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
For the men inside Nauvoo, and it’s really an inside job and an outside job that comes together,

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It seems like that was at the forefront of their reasoning. Let’s try and process here for a minute, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Going away from all this, what are some takeaways that you would have now that we’ve kind of explored Joseph Smith’s plural marriage practice from beginning to end?

Scott Woodward:
It’s just a hard topic. It’s just a hard topic to study. You empathize with Joseph. He’s between a rock and a hard place in terms of introducing a principle that comes from God, an angel urging him, multiple times, sometimes threatening him, to get this started. I’ve said this in previous episodes. My reading of it is he’s a reluctant polygamist who is willing to obey God at all costs. It is going to lead to some serious strain in his own relationships with Oliver Cowdery to some degree, with his wife Emma, as we’ve explored.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And with his own second counselor in the First Presidency. Many of the insiders in Nauvoo who turn against Joseph had been former members of the church, and they cite primarily plural marriage as the thing that kind of did it for them, the thing that pushed them over the edge, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
The members of the high council, like Austin Cowles and others that maybe we’ll explore later when we talk about the martyrdom, but it’s kind of a, it’s a group of folks that are so dissatisfied with Joseph introducing this, that they’re willing to call him a fallen prophet. They’re willing to start their own church. They set William Law up as its head. This causes such conflict for Joseph that I can’t see it other than Joseph doggedly determined to fulfill God’s will.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
You know, from one perspective, if Joseph Smith just wanted to have an outlet to fulfill his lustful desires, as some people accuse him of. Like, there’s a lot easier ways he could have gone about that, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So the sincerity of his actions and the stuff he was willing to go through tell me and indicate to me that he’s authentically acting on what he fully understands to be a revelation. So my assessment, just looking at all the evidence, is that he was a disciple of Jesus Christ seeking to do his will, and that’s going to lead to a premature death.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
What about you?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I’ve been thinking of this statement Eliza R․ Snow makes. As you know, Eliza R․ Snow is one of Joseph’s plural wives, and I think in our discussions we’ve tried really hard to involve the voice of women.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So this isn’t just men talking about plural marriage. We’re talking about women who, like Eliza, ran the risk of being accused of being adulterous.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
She writes this, she said, “He,” this is Joseph, “He knew the voice of God. He knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward, to set the example and establish celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and prepossessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world stared him in the face. But God, who is above all, had given the commandment and he must be obeyed. Yet the prophet hesitated and deferred from time to time until an angel of God stood by him with a drawn sword and told him that unless he moved forward, and established plural marriage, his priesthood would be taken from him, and he would be destroyed. This testimony he not only bore to my brother,” that’s Lorenzo Snow, “but also to others, a testimony that cannot be gainsaid.” So on the one hand, was he perfect? We’ve kind of documented that it was difficult for him to implement, and he wasn’t always sure what he was doing.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And obviously he made mistakes along the way.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“Was he sincere?” is the big question—

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—that exists in my mind. And from his testimony, from the testimony of people like Eliza R․ Snow and Lucy Walker and William Clayton, and the list goes on and on, it appears that he was sincerely acting on what he saw as a revelation from God. I can’t think of very many people that have had a more difficult burden laid on them, but that he stayed true to, even at the cost of his own life.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I think the average Latter-day Saint will spend their whole life wrestling with this stuff, but that is OK, you know? It’s worth the wrestle to ask yourself, “Discipleship: What does it mean?”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And what does it mean when Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things can never produce the kind of faith necessary unto life and salvation?” It might not just be sacrificing our money or our time. It could be sacrificing, like, our social perceptions or our comfort in larger society. This was a huge sacrifice, and I’m grateful that they made it. First of all grateful because my wife is a descendant of some of these people that practiced plural marriage.

Scott Woodward:
It’s pretty personal, yes.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s pretty personal. But then I also, from reading the historical record, think that this demonstrates absolute sincerity in Joseph Smith’s belief that he was acting on the commandments of God, acting on revelations he was given.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Amen.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Amen. Thank you for joining us. Scott, anything else you want to add to our discussion here?

Scott Woodward:
No. If you guys have made it this far with us, thank you so much for listening. This is sometimes heavy stuff, but we find it’s both interesting and important, so thank you for joining us.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, and check in at Doctrine and Covenants Central for more resources on this subject. We publish things all the time, and we’re more than happy to help you with questions, too. Thanks for joining us, everybody.

Scott Woodward:
Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. Next week we continue this series by exploring the history of the spread of plural marriage in the church after Joseph Smith’s death, as well as the detailed history of how it came to an end under the crushing pressure of the United States government. We’ll talk about the George Reynolds trial, the manifesto, the Reed Smoot trials and the second manifesto, the resignation of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve over this, the beginning of the FLDS Church, and more. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Nick Galieti and Scott Woodward, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint Scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.