Revision as of 13:40, 7 December 2014

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 7: Woe In Ohio"

Quick Navigation

• [[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Index/Chapter 7#Response to claim: 127 epigraph, 527n1 (PB) - David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"|Response to claim: 127 epigraph, 527n1 (PB) - David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"]]
• Response to claim: 127-8, 528n5 (PB) - Did Joseph say that "Fifty-six years should wind up the scene" before the second coming of Jesus Christ?
• Response to claim: 128-9, 528n10 (PB) - Were the revelations published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants "amended, added to, excised, and in some cases assigned different historical settings"?
• Response to claim: 129, 529n14-15, n17 (PB) - Did Joseph Smith break Ohio law by performing marriages?
• Response to claim: 129, 529n16 (PB) - Was Kirtland, as Fawn Brodie claimed, "full of converts who had left behind them spouses who could not be persuaded to join the church"?
• Response to claim: 529n16 (PB) - "LDS leaders/counselors commonly encourage divorce when the spouse of a faithful Mormon forsakes the faith"
• Response to claim: 130, 530n22 (PB) - Did Levi Lewis claim that Joseph tried to seduce Eliza Winters in 1830?
• Response to claim: 131, 530n23-24 (PB) - Were Latter-day Saint men encouraged to take plural wives "of the Lamanites and Nephites" in order to make them "white, delightsome and just"?
• Response to claim: 132 (PB) - "Although Smith never took any Lamanites as wives, he did begin establishing what would gradually become a fairly large harem of young girls and women"
• Response to claim: 132, 530-531n29-36 (PB) - Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger
• Response to claim: 133, 531n37-40 (PB) - Did William McLellin report that Joseph and Fanny were found "in the barn together alone...?
• Response to claim: 133, n42 (PB) - Was the inclusion of the statement on marriage in the 1835 D&C was "an attempt to cover-up the Smith-Alger affair" as the author claims?
• [[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Index/Chapter 7#Response to claim: 135, 531n45 (PB) - Did land specuation in Kirtland "consume" the "thoughts of nearly every Saint, including [Joseph] Smith"?|Response to claim: 135, 531n45 (PB) - Did land specuation in Kirtland "consume" the "thoughts of nearly every Saint, including [Joseph] Smith"?]]
• Response to claim: 135, 531n46-48 (PB) - Joseph is claimed to have owned one hundred and forty acres of land near the Kirtland temple lot in addition to four acres of business property
• Response to claim: 531n48 (PB) - Was Isaac McWithy brought before the church's High Council on charges of "insolence" after refusing to sell his land to Joseph Smith for $3000?
• Response to claim: 135 (PB) - "Smith decided to solve his economic dilemma by establishing a bank for the purpose of land speculation"
• Response to claim: 136, 532n51 (PB) - Did Joseph Smith claim that "God told him" to establish the bank in Kirtland?
• Response to claim: 136, 532n54 (PB) - Was the Kirtland anti-bank backed only by boxes "filled with 'sand,lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles" as claimed by Fawn Brodie?
• Response to claim: 136, 532n56 (PB) - Is it true that "everyone's pockets bulged with bills" in Kirtland after the bank was established as asserted by Fawn Brodie?

Response to claim: 127 epigraph, 527n1 (PB) - David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"

Author's sources:

• David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 31.
• DC 46꞉7

FAIR's Response

Question: How does David Whitmer's account of the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright compare to those of the eyewitnesses?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #556: Why Did Joseph Smith Attempt to Secure the Book of Mormon Copyright in Canada? (Video)

Whitmer's account is at variance in several ways with Hiram Page’s account

Whitmer's account is at variance in several ways with Hiram Page’s account. Whitmer gets the destination city in Canada wrong (he says Toronto, the other accounts, and the revelation itself, say Kingston) and he did not correctly identify all of the participants (he identified Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery, while Page noted Joseph Knight and Josiah Stowell). Note that the text of the revelation itself finally clears up the issue of exactly who the revelation was directed to,

...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Pagee & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing...

Page, an eyewitness, makes no mention at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there any mention of a "false prophecy"

Page also makes no mention or even a hint at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there an accusation that the trip was based upon a "false prophecy," so naturally no subsequent "revelation" is noted by Page explaining the mission’s failure.

In Whitmer’s 1887 account we learn for the first time of the supposed post-mission revelation where Joseph Smith is told that some revelations are from God, some from devils, some from men. This account is in all likelihood a fabrication. Unlike his consistent, life-long statements concerning the witness of the Gold Plates, this account, which is probably a second-hand retelling of events 57 years after their occurrence, suddenly appears and is wrong on several of the documentable facts, as well as being inconsistent with the first-hand testimony of Hiram Page, given 40 years earlier than Whitmer and by comparison much closer to the actual event.

Question: How did Latter-day Saint scholars respond to the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright prior to Page's letter coming to light?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #556: Why Did Joseph Smith Attempt to Secure the Book of Mormon Copyright in Canada? (Video)

B.H. Roberts expressed doubt as to the accuracy of the story, and suggested that David Whitmer may not have recalled all of the details correctly

The letter from 1848 by Hiram Page was not publically available until the 20th Century. As a result, various LDS responses to the accounts by Whitmer and McLellin of necessity must explain why the apparent anomalous revelation does not make Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. Such was the case when B.H. Roberts expressed doubt as to the accuracy of the story, and suggested that David Whitmer may not have recalled all of the details correctly, yet went on to address the claim anyway. Roberts concluded:

Does that circumstance vitiate his claim as a prophet? No; the fact remains that despite this circumstance there exists a long list of events to be dealt with which will establish the fact of divine inspiration operating upon the mind of this man Joseph Smith. The wisdom frequently displayed, the knowledge revealed, the predicted events and the fulfilment thereof, are explicable upon no other theory than of divine inspiration giving guidance to him. ^[1]

As it happens, the passage of time and the uncovering of additional information has vindicated that confidence.

Response to claim: 127-8, 528n5 (PB) - Did Joseph say that "Fifty-six years should wind up the scene" before the second coming of Jesus Christ?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Joseph say that "Fifty-six years should wind up the scene" before the second coming of Jesus Christ?

Author's sources:

• History of the Church, 2:182. Volume 2 link
• History of the Church, 5:336. Volume 5 link

FAIR's Response

1. REDIRECTAlleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith#Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Jesus Christ would return in 1890?

Response to claim: 128-9, 528n10 (PB) - Were the revelations published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants "amended, added to, excised, and in some cases assigned different historical settings"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Were the revelations published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants "amended, added to, excised, and in some cases assigned different historical settings"?

Author's sources: H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, xv.

FAIR's Response

Question: Who made the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants?

The First Presidency of the Church made the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants

The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.

If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.

Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote:

First Presidency members were assigned to compile "the items of the doctrine" of the Church from the standard works, including "the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date or shall be, until such arrangement is made" (Kirtland High Council Minute Book, 24 September 1834; also cited in History of the Church, 2:165. Volume 2 link). This resolution might suggest the correction of former wording through revelation. [The revised D&C was] issued in August 1835 with a 17 February 1835 preface signed by the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, the revision committee. ^[2]

Thus, the First Presidency of the time supervised the revisions.

Question: What changes were made to the Doctrine and Covenants?

Changes made to the Doctrine and Covenants were 1) Grammar and spelling. 2) Added material or expansion. 3) Text removed or reworked. 4) Expressions altered

Grammar and spelling changes

Many changes involved matters of grammar, spelling, and the like. (These examples all taken from one article in the Ensign. Those interested in further examples can see the Further Reading section below. ^[3]

We have found the following errors in the commandments, as printed: fortieth chapter, tenth verse, third line, instead of ‘corruptible,’ put ‘corrupted.’ Fourteenth verse of the same chapter, fifth line, instead of ‘respector to persons,’ put ‘respector of persons.’ Twenty-first verse, second line of the same chapter, instead of ‘respector to,’ put ‘respector of.’ Fourty-four chapter, twelfth verse, last line, instead of ‘hands’ put ‘heads.’ ^[4]

Added material or expansions

Some other changes added material which had been gleaned from advancements in Church organization or later revelations, or expanded upon ideas within the original text:

Text removed or reworked

A few revelations removed text, or altered the expression of an idea with a new phrasing or approach:

Expression altered

Main article: Working with the rod in D&C

Question: What are the reasons for the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants?

The Doctrine and Covenants was changed in order to correct errors or mistakes due to the human process of writing down revelations, as well as integrate new revelatory material

Wrote Elder Marlin K. Jensen in 2009:

One of Joseph Smith’s tasks in reviewing the manuscripts prior to their publication was to “correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit.” Joseph knew from experience that the human process of writing down revelations, copying them into manuscript books, and then passing them through various hands in preparation for publication inevitably introduced unintentional errors. Sometimes changes were required to clarify wording. Occasionally, later revelations would supersede or update previously received revelations, necessitating the editing of documents to alter previous versions. Various other changes were also made from time to time. Most of these, such as dividing the text into verses or clarifying meaning, did not involve substantive corrections.

Joseph seemed to regard the manuscript revelations as his best efforts to capture the voice of the Lord condescending to communicate in what Joseph called the “crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language” of men." The revealed preface to the published revelations also seems to express this principle: “I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language” (D&C 1꞉24).

Joseph and his associates were appointed by the actions of Church conferences to prepare the revelations for publication by correcting the texts. Recent analysis of both manuscript revelation books reveals how and when many of the changes were made. For example, some changes were made before selected items were published in Missouri, while others were made in Ohio before the 1835 publication of the Doctrine and Covenants.

One common example involves changes made by Sidney Rigdon. He often changed the language in the revelations from the biblical “thee,” “thy,” and “thine” to the modern “you,” “your,” and “yours.” Many of these changes were later reversed. He also corrected grammar and changed some of the language to clarify and modify words and meaning.

In a few cases, more substantive changes were made as revelations were updated for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. For example, section 20 was originally received in 1830, before much of the leadership structure of the Church as we know it today was revealed to Joseph Smith. By 1835 Joseph had organized many offices and quorums by revelation. To include this newly revealed ecclesiastical order, several text changes and additions were incorporated into section 20. Our current verses 65–67 on ordaining men to priesthood offices, for instance, had been revealed after the 1833 publication and were subsequently added to the 1835 publication.

Joseph Smith reviewed many of his associates’ editorial changes and made slight alterations in his own hand before A Book of Commandments was published in 1833. He made additional changes, including adding surnames to individuals mentioned in the revelations, just before the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835.

Sometime around 1834–35 in Kirtland, Ohio, Revelation Book 2 was used for the preparation of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and all but eight items in the manuscript book were published in that 1835 volume. In contrast, just three of the revelations copied into the book were published in A Book of Commandments in 1833. Two of the manuscript book’s revelations were first published in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.

Subsequent editing changes through the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants involved occasional word changes, but the major substantive changes occurred under the Prophet Joseph’s guidance for the 1835 edition.^[5]

Response to claim: 129, 529n14-15, n17 (PB) - Did Joseph Smith break Ohio law by performing marriages?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

• Did Joseph break Ohio law by marrying Newel Knight to "undivorced Lydia G. Baily," despite having no license to perform marriages in Ohio?
• Did Joseph perform marriages for people who had not obtained marriage licenses from the State of Ohio?
• Does History of the Church claim that instead, they were only married "according to the rules and regulations of the Church of the Latter-day Saints?"

  Author's sources: *History of the Church, 2:377–378. Volume 2 link

• D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 88..

FAIR's Response

•  Misrepresentation of source: Joseph gave couples marriage certificates?
•  The author's claim is false: Ohio marriages illegal?

Question: Was it illegal for Joseph Smith to perform marriages in Ohio?

The secular powers honored Joseph's marriages, and provided documentation to ratify his acts

Joseph did not knowingly violate marriage laws in Ohio, and seems to have used his prophetic gifts to spare victims of the nineteenth-century's legal and bureaucratic immaturity unnecessary suffering. The secular powers honored Joseph's marriages, and provided documentation to ratify his acts. As happens so often, critics condemn Joseph Smith and the early Saints without providing the proper context for their legal choices or moral actions. As we consider the wider implementation of plural marriage in Nauvoo, such context will become increasingly important.

Even before the broad implementation of plural marriage, critics point to marriages performed by Joseph in Ohio as evidence that he would readily violate secular laws.

As John Brooke put it:

Specifically prohibited from performing the marriage ceremony by the local county court, Smith brushed aside a state-licensed church elder to perform the rites of marriage between Newel [Knight] and Lydia [Bailey] himself. She was not divorced from her non-Mormon husband, so this technically bigamous marriage also challenged a broader moral code…Over the next two months Joseph Smith performed five more illegal marriages.^[6]

Brooke claims Joseph was forbidden to perform marriages, that he performed a bigamous marriage, and that he repeatedly disobeyed state marriage laws.

Despite such confident claims, the historical record regarding Ohio marriages disagrees with this portrait in almost every particular.^[7] Newel Knight, a young widower, wished to marry Lydia Bailey. Lydia was married to an abusive drunkard, who had abandoned her years before. Sidney Rigdon had been refused a license to marry as a Mormon minister, and so many concluded that Mormon elders would not receive state sanction to perform marriages.

Because Seymour Brunson had been a preacher prior to being a Mormon, he held a license to solemnize marriages. Brunson was thus about to perform the Knight-Bailey wedding. In what Van Wagoner calls "a bold display of civil disobedience,"^[8] Joseph Smith stepped forward and announced that he would perform the marriage.

The court's refusal to grant Sidney Rigdon a license to marry as a Mormon minister likely stemmed from religious prejudice rather than being contrary to the law

On the surface, it appears that the critics are justified in arguing that Joseph had no right to perform marriages, and chose to do so anyway. Scott Bradshaw's research, however, found that refusing Rigdon permission to marry was "not justifiable from a legal point of view." Such a legal decision in Ohio "was rare in the 1830s, perhaps even unheard of."^[9] The court's refusal to grant Rigdon a license to marry as a Mormon minister likely stemmed from religious prejudice.

The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities. The state of Ohio did not contest Joseph's performance of the marriage, since it then issued a marriage certificate for the Knights' marriage. Joseph later performed other marriages in Ohio, and these couples likewise received marriage certificates after Joseph submitted the necessary paperwork.

Ohio's 1824 marriage law stated that "a religious society...could perform marriages without a license"

A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to marry—and his prophesy that he had the right to marry, and that his enemies would never prosecute him for marrying—was correct. Ohio's 1824 marriage law stated that "a religious society…could perform marriages without a license so long as the ceremony was done ‘agreeable to the rules and regulations of their respective churches.’"^[10]

Response to claim: 129, 529n16 (PB) - Was Kirtland, as Fawn Brodie claimed, "full of converts who had left behind them spouses who could not be persuaded to join the church"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Was Kirtland, as Fawn Brodie claimed, "full of converts who had left behind them spouses who could not be persuaded to join the church?"

Author's sources: Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 183. ( Index of claims )

FAIR's Response

The author includes a direct, attributed quote from Brodie's book, however, this upon examining the source one finds that this is only Brodie's own opinion—She does not provide a source to back up this claim.

Response to claim: 529n16 (PB) - "LDS leaders/counselors commonly encourage divorce when the spouse of a faithful Mormon forsakes the faith"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

•  Author's quote: Disruptions of the family unit and marriage break-ups are often seen among religious groups termed "cults."
•  Author's quote: [E]x-Mormons have reported that LDS leaders/counselors commonly encourage divorce when the spouse of a faithful Mormon forsakes the faith."

  Author's sources: No sources provided for this claim.

FAIR's Response

•  The author's claim is false: Church leaders do not advise divorce under these circumstances.
• Note that the author takes the opportunity to classify the Church as a "cult" based upon this supposition.
• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 130, 530n22 (PB) - Did Levi Lewis claim that Joseph tried to seduce Eliza Winters in 1830?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Levi Lewis claim that Joseph tried to seduce Eliza Winters in 1830?

Author's sources: Levi Lewis, Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834 reprinted in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 268.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Levi Lewis claim that Joseph tried to seduce Eliza Winters in 1830?

We have no evidence of Levi and Hiel Lewis making the charge until the affidavits were gathered five years later

One affidavit was provided by Levi Lewis, Emma Hale Smith's cousin and son of the Reverend Nathaniel Lewis, a well-known Methodist minister in Harmony. Van Wagoner uses this affidavit to argue that:

[Joseph’s] abrupt 1830 departure with his wife, Emma, from Harmony, Pennsylvania, may have been precipitated in part by Levi and Hiel Lewis's accusations that Smith had acted improperly towards a local girl. Five years later Levi Lewis, Emma's cousin, repeated stories that Smith attempted to "seduce Eliza Winters &c.," and that both Smith and his friend Martin Harris had claimed "adultery was no crime."

Van Wagoner argues that this "may" have been why Joseph left. But, we have no evidence of Levi and Hiel Lewis making the charge until the affidavits were gathered five years later. (Hiel Lewis' inclusion adds nothing; he gave no affidavit in 1833, and in 1879 simply repeated third hand stories of how Joseph had attempted to "seduce" Eliza. At best, he is repeating Levi's early tale.)

Levi Lewis made a number of other unlikely claims about Joseph

A look at Lewis' complete affidavit is instructive. He claimed, among other things, that:

• he heard Joseph admit "God had deceived him" about the plates, and so did not show them to anyone.
• he saw Joseph drunk three times while writing the Book of Mormon
• he heard Joseph say "he...was as good as Jesus Christ...it was as bad to injure him as it was to injure Jesus Christ."
• he heard Martin Harris and Joseph Smith claim "adultery was no crime."
• he heard Martin say that Joseph attempted to "seduce Eliza Winters," and that he didn't blame him.

There are serious problems with these claims. It seems extraordinarily implausible that Joseph "admitted" that God had deceived him, and thus was not able to show the plates to anyone. Joseph insisted that he had shown the plates to people, and the Three and Eight Witnesses all published testimony to that effect. Despite apostasy and alienation from Joseph Smith, none denied that witness.

The claim to have seen Joseph drunk during the translation is entertaining. If Joseph were drunk, this only makes the production of the Book of Mormon more impressive. But, this sounds like little more than idle gossip, designed to bias readers against Joseph as a "drunkard."

A study of Joseph's letters and life from this period make it difficult to believe that Joseph would insist he was "as good as Jesus Christ"

Joseph's private letters reveal him to be devout, sincere, and almost painfully aware of his dependence on God.

Three of the charges that are unmentioned by Van Wagoner are extraordinarily implausible and are clearly efforts to simply paint Joseph in a bad light

Thus, three of the charges that are unmentioned by Van Wagoner are extraordinarily implausible. They are clearly efforts to simply paint Joseph in a bad light: make him into a pretend prophet who thinks he's better than Jesus, who admits to being deceived, and who gets drunk. Such a portrayal would be welcome to skeptical ears. This Joseph is ridiculous, not to be taken seriously.

Martin Harris, who risked and defended a libel suit for reproving Eliza for fornication, would be highly unlikely to state that adultery is "no crime"

We can now consider the claim that Martin and Joseph claimed that adultery was no crime, and that Joseph attempted the seduction of Eliza Winters. Recent work has also uncovered Eliza Winters' identity. She was a young woman at a meeting on 1 November 1832 in Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. While on a preaching mission with his brother Emer, Martin Harris announced that Eliza "has had a bastard child."

Eliza sued Martin for slander, asking for $1000 for the damage done to her "good name, fame, behavior and character" because his words "render her infamous and scandalous among her neighbors." Martin won the suit; Eliza could not prove libel, likely because she had no good character to sully.

This new information calls the Lewis affidavit into even greater question. We are to believe that Martin, who risked and defended a libel suit for reproving Eliza for fornication, thinks that adultery is "no crime"? Eliza clearly has no reason to like Joseph and the Mormons—why did she not provide Hurlbut with an affidavit regarding Joseph's scandalous behavior? Around 1879, Eliza gave information to Frederick Mather for a book about early Mormonism. Why did she not provide testimony of Joseph's attempt to seduce her?

It seems far more likely that Eliza was known for her low morals, and her name became associated with the Mormons in popular memory, since she had been publicly rebuked by a Mormon preacher and lost her court suit against him. When Levi Lewis was approached by Philastus Hurlbut for material critical of Joseph Smith, he likely drew on this association.

Response to claim: 131, 530n23-24 (PB) - Were Latter-day Saint men encouraged to take plural wives "of the Lamanites and Nephites" in order to make them "white, delightsome and just"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Were Latter-day Saint men encouraged to take plural wives "of the Lamanites and Nephites" in order to make them "white, delightsome and just?"

Author's sources:

• Marquardt, 375.
• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 210.( Index of claims )

FAIR's Response

Question: Did the Church suppress a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831 which encouraged the implementation of polygamy by intermarriage with the Indians in order to make them a “white and delightsome” people?

The only evidence for this revelation is a letter written by W. W. Phelps in 1861 in which he recounts from memory some of Joseph's comments in Independence, Missouri, on 17 July 1831

It is claimed that the church "suppressed" a 1831 revelation in which the Church was commanded to make the Indians a “white and delightsome” people through polygamous intermarriage. The basis for this claim is a letter written by W. W. Phelps in 1861 (30 years after the revelation was said to have been given) in which he recounts from memory some of Joseph's comments in Independence, Missouri, on 17 July 1831. At present, the only evidence that an 1831 revelation was given is the 1861 document written by Phelps.

According to critics, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was Church historian at the time, stated that the principle of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith in a revelation given in July 1831.^[11] Critic Fawn Brodie claims that Joseph Fielding Smith told her about the revelation but would not allow her to see it.^[12] Critics conclude that the “real reason” that the revelation was not released was because it commanded Church members to marry the Indians in order to make them a “white and delightsome” people.

The text of W. W. Phelps' 1861 recollection of the revelation

In 1861, 30 years after it was said to have been given, W. W. Phelps wrote from memory his recollection of what he claimed was the revelation given in 1831 by the Prophet:

Part of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jr. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson, and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.

Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:

Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the Zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed. …

[I]t is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; …

Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

Phelp's wrote his note 30 years after the revelation was said to have been given, after polygamy had been openly practiced for a number of years

A note written by W. W. Phelps in the 1861 document implies that marriage with the Indians coincided with Joseph Smith's planned intent to institute polygamy.

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives of the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation."

It is important to note that Phelps wrote his note 30 years after the revelation was said to have been given, after polygamy had been openly practiced for a number of years.

Response to claim: 132 (PB) - "Although Smith never took any Lamanites as wives, he did begin establishing what would gradually become a fairly large harem of young girls and women"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Although Smith never took any Lamanites as wives, he did begin establishing what would gradually become a fairly large harem of young girls and women taken from his flock of 'white and delightsome' disciples."

Author's sources: No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Joseph Smith never had a "harem" of wives.

• Age of wives
• Sarcasm
• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 132, 530-531n29-36 (PB) - Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger.

Author's sources:

• Andrew Jenson, 233.
• Benjamin F. Johnson, letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903.
• Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 6-7.
• Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 31-34. ( Index of claims )

FAIR's Response