FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Was the practice of polygamy against the law in Illinois in the 1840s?"
(m) |
m |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{Conclusion label}} | {{Conclusion label}} | ||
| − | Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and | + | Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and many have presumed that it would have been illegal under Illinois law in the 1840s. |
| − | + | However, recent legal analysis demonstrates that this is not the case—Joseph Smith and his plural spouses had multiple grounds upon which they could expect to be acquitted of the charge of adultery. | |
| − | + | == == | |
| + | {{Response label}} | ||
| − | = | + | Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery. This occurred soon before his death, when William Law (Joseph's former counselor in the First Presidency) and Law's brother Wilson charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|403}} Joseph took an aggressive stance in the defense of himself and Maria, which would be surprising if Illinois law was as detrimental to his case as many have assumed. |
| − | {{ | + | |
| − | | | + | For example, as soon as Joseph was charged, two days later he and his supporters "rode to Carthage, intent on having" the charge "'investigated.'"<ref name="defining"></ref>{{Rp|404}} |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | It is vital to understand, however, that: | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | <blockquote>Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.<ref name="defining"></ref>{{Rp|402}} | |
| − | + | ||
| + | The same author emphasized: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.<ref name="defining"></ref>{{Rp|402}}</blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Secrecy and plural marriage== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating these realities. As long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example, there is Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844. Significantly, this address was given the day after the Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.) Said Joseph: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.<ref>Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to [Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett's]] pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.</ref>.... | ||
| − | + | A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document,<ref>That is, the Relief Society document condemning adultery, which Foster had engaged in under the tutelage of [Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]].</ref> and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,<ref>Again, Joseph is denying the spiritual wifism of Bennett, which he calls "wickedness" and was quick to oppose via Church discipline.</ref> they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet. | |
| − | + | [Joseph H.] Jackson<ref>Jackson was another witness against Joseph Smith, and would go on to write an anti-Mormon tract: {{CriticalWork:Jackson:Narrative}}</ref> has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life. | |
| − | + | There is another Law, not the prophet [i.e., Wilson], who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.<ref>{{HoC|vol=6|pages=410-411}}</ref></blockquote> | |
| + | Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally ''could'' prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before. | ||
| − | + | Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes: | |
| + | <blockquote>A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.<ref name="defining"></ref>{{Rp|413}}</blockquote> | ||
== == | == == | ||
{{Endnotes label}} | {{Endnotes label}} | ||
Revision as of 21:43, 21 June 2014
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Contents
Was the practice of polygamy against the law?
Important introductory material on plural marriage available here
| Answers portal |
| Plural marriage |
|
 RESOURCES
|
|---|
|
Joseph Smith era:
Post-Joseph Smith:
Post-Manifesto–present |
 PERSPECTIVES
|
 MEDIA
|
| OTHER PORTALS
|
A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey?…Pending the overruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty, it is the duty of the saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country.
James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981[1899]),382–383.
Questions
- Was the practice of polygamy against the law?
- Does the Church teach or claim that polygamy was not against the law?
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
Answer
Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and many have presumed that it would have been illegal under Illinois law in the 1840s.
However, recent legal analysis demonstrates that this is not the case—Joseph Smith and his plural spouses had multiple grounds upon which they could expect to be acquitted of the charge of adultery.
Detailed Analysis
Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery. This occurred soon before his death, when William Law (Joseph's former counselor in the First Presidency) and Law's brother Wilson charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence.[1]:403 Joseph took an aggressive stance in the defense of himself and Maria, which would be surprising if Illinois law was as detrimental to his case as many have assumed.
For example, as soon as Joseph was charged, two days later he and his supporters "rode to Carthage, intent on having" the charge "'investigated.'"[1]:404
It is vital to understand, however, that:
Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.[1]:402The same author emphasized:
The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.[1]:402Secrecy and plural marriage
Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating these realities. As long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him.
For example, there is Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844. Significantly, this address was given the day after the Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.) Said Joseph:
I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.[2]....
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.
Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document,[3] and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,[4] they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.
[Joseph H.] Jackson[5] has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.
There is another Law, not the prophet [i.e., Wilson], who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.[6]Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before.
Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes:
A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.[1]:413
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 401–426.
- ↑ Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to [Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett's]] pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.
- ↑ That is, the Relief Society document condemning adultery, which Foster had engaged in under the tutelage of [Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]].
- ↑ Again, Joseph is denying the spiritual wifism of Bennett, which he calls "wickedness" and was quick to oppose via Church discipline.
- ↑ Jackson was another witness against Joseph Smith, and would go on to write an anti-Mormon tract: Joseph H. Jackson, The Adventures and Experiences of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo, (Printed for the Publisher: Warsaw, Illinois, 1846).
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 6:410-411. Volume 6 link