Array

Plural marriage and the law: Difference between revisions

m (content consolidation project)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FairMormon}}
{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation prophets and Church leaders}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}{{blankline}}


{{Epigraph|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.<br>
:::::&mdash; M. Scott Bradshaw<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|402}}}}
{{parabreak}}


{{Header}}
=Was polygamy illegal?=
=Contrary to popular belief, the plural marriages in Illinois were ''not'' illegal under the adultery statutes of the day=


==Question: Is it possible that President Monson doesn't bear witness of foundational doctrines?==
* Prior to the first anti-polygamy statute for the U.S. Territories (the Morril Act of 1862), no law forbade polygamy in the Great Basin region.
* Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade (i.e., from 1862 onward). The Saints refused to comply with the law during that period because they believed:
::a) that the law was unconstitutional and violated their right of religious worship; and
::b) that God had commanded them to practice plural marriage despite the potential legal penalties.


It has been claimed that President Thomas S. Monson does not bear testimony of such foundational concepts as the truth of the Book of Mormon, the reality of Joseph Smith's First Vision, and so forth. Some have wondered if this means that he intends to downplay such doctrines, or if he does not believe strongly in them. One anonymous ex-Mormon posted the following claim on an anti-Mormon website:
=The Church believes in honoring and sustaining the law, but it does not believe that members must surrender their religious beliefs or conscience to the state=


<blockquote>
Not surprisingly, the question comes down to whether Joseph was a Prophet and whether God commanded his actions.
Since [being sustained as President of the Church, in February 2008], he has given 51 talks in 12 Semiannual General Conferences and during the two years prior, he gave 10 talks in 4 such Conferences. In many of these 61 talks over the last eight years, he has borne witness of his beliefs, in keeping with LDS custom and doctrine. Interestingly, however, in  none of them has he testified of the church’s unique foundational claims, including the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the divine calling of Joseph Smith, the restoration of the priesthood, or the status of the church’s top leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators. <ref> TruthIsReason [pseudonymn], "Monson's Refusal to Testify," [original posted 7 January 2012, published at www.mormoncannon.com on 11 April 2012, most recent update 20 October 2013]</ref>
</blockquote>
This claim is easily demonstrated to be incorrect. A review of President Monson's writings and talks demonstrates that he does bear such testimony. The implication, then, that he does not believe such things or is trying to down play them is thus shown to be false.


A single quote from October 2011 general conference contains all the elements which some claim do not exist in President Monson's addresses:
Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault?  The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.


<blockquote>
=The practice of polygamy during periods when it was illegal is a clear case of civil disobedience=
In order for us to be strong and to withstand all the forces pulling us in the wrong direction or all the voices encouraging us to take the wrong path, we must have our own testimony. Whether you are 12 or 112—or anywhere in between—you can know for yourself that '''the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Read the Book of Mormon'''. Ponder its teachings. Ask Heavenly Father if it is true. We have the promise that “if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”9


When we know the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that '''Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet''' and that he saw God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. It also follows that the gospel was restored in these latter days through Joseph Smith—'''including the restoration of both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods'''. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Dare to Stand Alone|date=November 2011|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/dare-to-stand-alone?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>
This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy during periods when it was illegal is a clear case of civil disobedience.


There are many other examples, both from general conference and elsewhere.
<blockquote>
The decision to defy the [anti-polygamy laws] was a painful exception to an otherwise firm commitment to the rule of law and order. Significantly, however, in choosing to defy the law, the Latter-day Saints were actually following in an American tradition of civil disobedience. On various previous occasions, including the years before the Revolutionary War, Americans had found certain laws offensive to their fundamental values and had decided openly to violate them.…Even though declared constitutional, the law was still repugnant to all [the Saints’] values, and they were willing to face harassment, exile, or imprisonment rather than bow to its demands. <ref>{{StoryOfLDS1|start=401}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


As an aid to reading, we have tagged citations below to label which of these claims they demonstrate to be false:
Elder James E. Talmage taught that members should obey the law, unless God commanded an exception:
# Book of Mormon historicity: {{MonsonBoM}}
# Joseph Smith's divine calling: {{MonsonJS}}
# Priesthood restoration{{MonsonPriesthood}}
# Testifies of present-day prophets, seers, and revelators: {{MonsonProphets}}
# Given in general conference: {{MonsonGC}}
# Spoken at temple dedication: {{MonsonTD}}
# Spoken at devotional: {{MonsonDEV}}


These citations are reported from latest to earliest. Emphasis has been added by the editors in all cases. Audio of President Monson's conference talks is available at each of the ''Ensign'' links provided.
<blockquote>
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. <ref>{{AoF|start=382|end=383}}</ref>
</blockquote>


===Quotations from President Monson's tenure as President of the Church===
{{Critical sources box:Plural marriage and the law/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}


====2013====
=Did Joseph Smith violate marriage laws in Ohio by performing marriages?=
=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=


* "It has been just over 183 years since the Church was organized by the '''Prophet Joseph Smith, under the direction of the Lord'''." - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Welcome to Conference|date=November 2013|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/welcome-to-conference?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/welcome-to-conference?lang=eng}}
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.
* "The history of the Church in this, '''the dispensation of the fulness of times,''' is replete with the experiences of those who have struggled and yet who have remained steadfast and of good cheer. The reason? They have made the gospel of Jesus Christ the center of their lives." - {{Ensign|article='I Will Not Fail Thee, nor Forsake Thee'|author=Thomas S. Monson|date=November 2013|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/i-will-not-fail-thee-nor-forsake-thee?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/i-will-not-fail-thee-nor-forsake-thee?lang=eng}}


* "My brothers and sisters, I want you to know how grateful I am for the gospel of Jesus Christ, '''restored in these latter days through the Prophet Joseph Smith'''. It is the key to our happiness." - {{Ensign|article=Until We Meet Again|author=Thomas S. Monson|date=May 2013|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/until-we-meet-again?lang=eng}}  {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/until-we-meet-again?lang=eng}}
Plural marriage would eventually involve a complex collision of religious belief, secular law, and personal conscience.  Many historians have presumed that Joseph Smith always had a cavalier attitude toward civil laws which conflicted with his marital concepts. 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.


* Mr. Pollard invited the missionaries into his home. They presented to him their message. He did not catch the spirit. In due time he asked that they leave and not return. His last words to the elders as they departed his front porch were spoken in derision: “You can’t tell me you actually believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God!”....
As John Brooke put it:
:The door was shut. The elders walked down the path. Our country boy spoke to his companion: “Elder, we didn’t respond to Mr. Pollard. He said we didn’t believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Let’s return and bear our testimonies to him.” At first the more experienced missionary hesitated but finally agreed to accompany his companion. Fear struck their hearts as they approached the door from which they had just been ejected. They knocked, confronted Mr. Pollard, spent an agonizing moment, and then with power borne of the Spirit, our inexperienced missionary spoke: “Mr. Pollard, you said we didn’t really believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. '''I testify to you that Joseph was a prophet. He did translate the Book of Mormon. He saw God the Father and Jesus the Son. I know it.'''”


:Some time later, Mr. Pollard, now Brother Pollard, stood in a priesthood meeting and declared, “That night I could not sleep. '''Resounding in my ears I heard the words ‘Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I know it. I know it. I know it.’''' The next day I telephoned the missionaries and asked them to return. Their message, coupled with their testimonies, changed my life and the lives of my family.” - {{Ensign|date=May 2013|article=Come All Ye Sons of God|author=Thomas S. Monson|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/come-all-ye-sons-of-god?lang=eng}}  {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/come-all-ye-sons-of-god?lang=eng}}
<blockquote>
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.<ref>John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire : The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 212.</ref>
</blockquote>


====2012====
Brooke claims Joseph was forbidden to perform marriages, that he performed a bigamous marriage, and that he repeatedly disobeyed state marriage laws.
* "From a small beginning 182 years ago, our presence is now felt throughout the world. This great cause in which we are engaged will continue to go forth, changing and blessing lives as it does so. No cause, no force in the entire world '''can stop the work of God'''. Despite what comes, '''this great cause will go forward'''. You recall the '''prophetic words of the Prophet Joseph Smith''': “No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”" - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=As We Gather Once Again|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/as-we-gather-once-again?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/as-we-gather-once-again?lang=eng}}


* From the words of President Wilford Woodruff, we learn: “The Holy Priesthood is the channel through which God communicates and deals with man upon the earth; and the heavenly messengers that have visited the earth to communicate with man are men who held and honored the priesthood while in the flesh; and everything that God has caused to be done for the salvation of man, from the coming of man upon the earth to the redemption of the world, has been and will be by virtue of the everlasting priesthood.” - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Willing and Worthy to Serve|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}}
Michael Quinn makes the same type of claim when he opines that


* President Joseph F. Smith further clarified: “The priesthood … is … the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and act legitimately; not assuming that authority, nor borrowing it from generations that are dead and gone, but '''authority that has been given in this day in which we live by ministering angels and spirits from above, ''direct from the presence of Almighty God'''''.” - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Willing and Worthy to Serve|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
<blockquote>
in November 1835 [Joseph] announced a doctrine I call "theocratic ethics."  He used this theology of justify his violation of Ohio’s marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaite without legal authority to do so…Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.<ref>{{Critical Work:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy 1|pages=88}}</ref>
</blockquote>


* "How blessed we are to be here in these last days, when '''the priesthood of God is upon the earth. How privileged we are to bear that priesthood.'''" - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Willing and Worthy to Serve|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}}
Quinn's introduction of the expression "theocratic ethics" is an excellent example of his regrettable tendency to coin an expression, and then proceed as if his act of definition proves that the phenomenon he has labeled actually exists.<ref>For a critique of Quinn's concept of "theocratic ethics," see Dean C. Jessee, "Review of D. Michael Quinn's the Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 22/2 (Fall 1996): 163–165. Jessee also treats the matter of Joseph Smith performing marriages in Ohio on pp. 166–167.</ref>  In another context, one non-LDS reviewer of Quinn regretted this use of "rather artificial categories that acquire an aura of scholarly respectability through the magic of 'Quinnspeak.'"<ref>{{FR-10-1-5}} </ref>


* "The call of duty came to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to Samuel, to David. '''It came to the Prophet Joseph Smith''' and to each of his successors. The call of duty came to the boy Nephi when he was instructed by the Lord, through his father Lehi, to return to Jerusalem with his brothers to obtain the brass plates from Laban. Nephi’s brothers murmured, saying it was a hard thing which had been asked of them. What was Nephi’s response? Said he, “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”" - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Willing and Worthy to Serve|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}}
Quinn's vocabulary implies that Joseph was using a different sort of ethical standard as most people—and, the term "theocratic" is loaded, since it generally has negative associations. Quinn also makes the entirely unwarranted conclusion "by extension" that Joseph's supposed irregular actions meant that a "regular Mormon" would be likewise justified in following a novel ethical scheme.


* "And the one boy bowed his head over the other and said, ‘I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ and by '''the power of the priesthood,''' to remain alive until I can get medical help.’” The correspondent concluded his article: “The three of us [the two marines and I] are here in the hospital. The doctors don’t know [how they made it alive], but I know.”" - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=Willing and Worthy to Serve|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng}}
Despite such confident claims, the historical record regarding Ohio marriages disagrees with this portrait in almost every particular.<ref>Unless otherwise indicated, the facts in this chapter are drawn from {{BYUS1|author=M. Scott Bradshaw|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7111 Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio]|vol=39|num=4|date=2000|start=7&ndash;22}} See also {{BYUS1|author=William G. Hartley|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7110 Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding]|vol=39|num=4|date=2000|start=22&ndash;69}}</ref> 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.


* My brothers and sisters, we know that death is not the end. This truth has been taught by living prophets throughout the ages. It is also found in our holy scriptures. In the '''Book of Mormon''' we read specific and comforting words:
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,"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=7}} </ref>  Joseph Smith stepped forward and announced that he would perform the marriage.


::“Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
=The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities=


::“And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.” - {{Ensign|author=Thomas S. Monson|article=The Race of Life|date=May 2012|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-race-of-life?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-race-of-life?lang=eng}}
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."<ref>Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," 43, 45.</ref>  The court's refusal to grant Rigdon a license to marry as a Mormon minister likely stemmed from religious prejudice.


* "We thank Thee for the '''Restoration of the gospel through Thy Prophet, Joseph Smith,''' bringing to the world the true knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62331/Kansas-City-Missouri-Temple-Beacon-of-divine-light---An-offering-of-hands-and-hearts.html Dedication of Kansas City Missouri temple], 12 May 2012. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
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.


* "Our hearts are filled with thanksgiving unto Thee for the light of Thy everlasting gospel, restored to earth in this, '''the dispensation of the fulness of times, through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith.''' We are grateful that ''Thou didst restore, by heavenly messengers, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods'' and subsequently all of the keys of the priesthood ever held by Thy prophets from the days of Adam through Abraham and Moses to Malachi." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62923/Calgary-Alberta-Temple-A-spirit-of-peace.html Dedication of Calgary Alberta temple], 28 October 2012. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
=A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to perform marriages was correct=


* "We thank Thee for the '''Prophet Joseph Smith and that Thou did appear to him in person to open the heavens''' and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes. We thank Thee that '''Thou did reveal Thy priesthood, even the sacred sealing power'''...." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62997/Boise-Idaho-Temple-Again-hallowed.html Dedication of Boise Idaho temple], 18 November 2012. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
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.’"<ref>Ohio's "Act Regulating Marriages," (1824); cited in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.</ref>


====2011====
The "rules and regulations" regarding marriage for the Church had been established since the publication of what was then D&C 101 in September 1835.<ref>See Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI.  .  (In 1876, this section was eventually removed, and replaced with the plural marriage revelation as {{s||D&C|132|}}.)  We must remember that at this point in Church history, the concept of a "temple sealing" or "eternal" marriage was certainly not being taught, and may well not have even been known to Joseph Smith.  All Church marriages at the time were what modern members would call "civil marriages," such as those performed by an LDS bishop today.</ref>  The Knight-Bailey wedding did not occur until 24 November 1835, and Joseph Smith surely had the authority to perform weddings in the Church if anyone did, especially since D&C 101 declared that marriage "should be performed by a presiding high priest, bishop, elder, or priest."<ref>Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI [{{s||D&C|101|1}}].</ref>
* Brothers and sisters,''' have you read the Book of Mormon'''? Have you put to the test the promise found in Moroni 10:4, asking your Heavenly Father “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ” whether or not that which is found in that book is truth? - "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004 Be A Light to the World]," BYU Devotional Address, 1 November 2011. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonDEV}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004}}


* When Brother Christensen finished his schooling at Brigham Young University, he received a scholarship to go to Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar. When he arrived at Oxford, he realized that it would be somewhat challenging to be an active member of the Church in Oxford....He realized, as he thought through how involved in the Church he could be, that he didn’t even know for certain if the Book of Mormon was true. He realized that he had read the Book of Mormon seven times up to that point, and that after each of those seven times he had knelt in prayer and had asked God to tell him if it was true. He had received no answer. As he thought through why he hadn’t received an answer, he realized that each time he had read the Book of Mormon it was because of an assignment—either from his parents or a BYU instructor or his mission president or a seminary teacher—and his chief objective had been to finish the book. But now, as he was about to commence his studies at Oxford, he realized that he desperately needed to know if the Book of Mormon was true. He recognized as well that he had sustained himself on a belief in many of the doctrines of the Church and in his parents because he knew they knew it was true, and he trusted his parents. Here he was, however, desperately needing to know for himself if it was true....
When applying to the county clerk for marriage certificates of other marriages which he performed, Joseph specifically noted that they were solemnized "agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Church…on matrimony," a clear reference to the 1824 Ohio statute.


:He told God how desperate he was to find out if this was a true book, and he told Him that if He would reveal to him that it was true, then he intended to dedicate his life to building this kingdom. And he told God that if it wasn’t true, he needed to know that for certain, too, because then he would dedicate his life to finding out what was true. Then Brother Christensen would sit in the chair and read. He began by reading the first page of the Book of Mormon, and when he got down to the bottom of the page, he stopped, and he thought about what he had read on that page, and he asked himself, “Could this have been written by a charlatan who was trying to deceive people, or was this really written by a prophet of God?” And he asked himself what did it mean for Clayton Christensen in his life? And then he put the book down and knelt in prayer and verbally asked God again, “Please tell me if this is a true book.” Then he would sit in the chair and pick up the book and turn the page and read another page, pause at the bottom, and do the same thing....
=When Joseph Smith performed the marriage of Newel Knight and Lydia Bailey, were they guilty of bigamy since Lydia had not been formally divorced from her previous husband?=
=Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel=


:By the time Brother Christensen got to the chapters at the end of 2 Nephi, one evening when he said his prayer and sat in his chair and opened the book, all of a sudden there came into that room a beautiful, warm, loving spirit that just surrounded him and permeated his soul and enveloped him in a feeling of love that he had not imagined he could feel. He began to cry, and he didn’t want to stop crying because as he looked through his tears at the words in the Book of Mormon, he could see truth in those words that he never imagined he could comprehend before. He could see the glories of eternity and what God had in store for him as one of His sons. That spirit stayed with him for the whole hour, and then every evening as he prayed and sat with the Book of Mormon by the little heater in his room, that same spirit returned, and it changed his heart and his life forever. - "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004 Be A Light to the World]," BYU Devotional Address, 1 November 2011. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonDEV}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004}}
Joseph's decision to solemnize marriages was in accord with Ohio state law. Because Lydia Bailey was not divorced, however, the critics have also charged Joseph with permitting a bigamous marriage, and thus flaunting the law.


* Brother Christensen has indicated that he loves to return to Oxford. Most of the people there are either students or tourists who have come to look at a beautiful university. But he loves to return there because it’s a sacred place to him, and he can look at the windows of that room where he lived, and he recognizes it as the place where he learned that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration for the true church. - "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004 Be A Light to the World]," BYU Devotional Address, 1 November 2011. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonDEV}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004}}
Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel:


* Brothers and sisters, many of you probably came to Brigham Young University already knowing that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet, and that this is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Some of you, however, may still be living on the testimony of others—your parents, your friends, your Church leaders. May I suggest that, as Brother Christensen did, you set aside time every day to find out for yourself if the Book of Mormon is a true book, for it will change your heart and change your life. If you seek this knowledge “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ,”8 I promise that you will receive an answer. And once you know that the Book of Mormon is true, then it will follow that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. You will have that burning testimony and knowledge that this church is true.
<blockquote>
Broth[er] Joseph after p[ray]or & reflecting a little or in other words enquiring [of the] Lord Said it is all right, She is his & the sooner they [are] married the better.  Tell them no law shall hurt [them]. They need not fear either the law of God or man for [it] shall not touch them; & the Lord bless them. This [is the] will of the Lord concerning the matter.<Ref>Newel Knight, Autobiography and Journal, Church Archives, folder one, [45] in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.</ref>
</blockquote>


: Such knowledge, such a personal testimony, is essential if we are to safely navigate the sometimes treacherous paths through life with the adversary attempting to deceive us at every turn. As you keep the flame of testimony burning brightly, you will become a beacon of righteousness—even a light—for all to see. - "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004 Be A Light to the World]," BYU Devotional Address, 1 November 2011. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonDEV}}|{{MonsonJS}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2004}}
=Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years=


* I bear my testimony to you that this work is true, that our Savior lives, and that He guides and directs His Church here upon the earth. - {{Ensign|article=Until We Meet Again|date=November 2011|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/until-we-meet-again?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/until-we-meet-again?lang=eng}}
Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years.  This described Lydia's case, and Newel tried to so persuade her before speaking with Joseph.  Lydia's concern about remarriage seems to have been motivated mainly by spiritual worries that it was wrong in the sight of God to remarry, even if the law might allow it.<ref>Lydia's history says that Newel "endeavour[ed] to show her that according to the law she was a free woman, having been deserted for three years with nothing provided for her support." – See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 15; citing Susa Young Gates [as "Homespun"], Lydia Knight's History: The First Book of the Noble Women's Lives Series (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 28.</ref>


* What will protect you from the sin and evil around you? I maintain that a strong testimony of our Savior and of His gospel will help see you through to safety. If you have not read the Book of Mormon, read it. I will not ask for a show of hands. If you do so prayerfully and with a sincere desire to know the truth, the Holy Ghost will manifest its truth to you. If it is true—and it is—then Joseph Smith was a prophet who saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. The Church is true. If you do not already have a testimony of these things, do that which is necessary to obtain one. It is essential for you to have your own testimony, for the testimonies of others will carry you only so far. Once obtained, a testimony needs to be kept vital and alive through obedience to the commandments of God and through regular prayer and scripture study. - {{Ensign|article=Priesthood Power|date=May 2011|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng}}
It was doubtless because of abandonment that Newel obtained the marriage license.<ref>See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," page {{NC}} </ref>  He was likely unaware—as, perhaps, were those who granted the license—that the law had recently changed the abandonment period to ''five'' years, and so the marriage might have been illegal on those grounds.


* The gift of the priesthood is priceless. It carries with it the authority to act as God’s servants, to administer to the sick, to bless our families, and to bless others as well. Its authority can reach beyond the veil of death, on into the eternities. There is nothing else to compare with it in all this world. Safeguard it, treasure it, live worthy of it.
=The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore=


:My beloved brethren, may righteousness guide our every step as we journey through life. Today and always, may we be worthy recipients of the divine power of the priesthood we bear. - {{Ensign|article=Priesthood Power|date=May 2011|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng}}
The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore. Communication in this period was difficult, travel was slow, and record keeping requirements varied widely across the United States.  As a result, technical "bigamy" was a common state of affairs for all social classes at this period in American history.<ref>See Hendrik Harlog, ''Man & Wife in America: A History'' (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87; cited in Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2006 FAIR Conference).</ref>  This made the prosecution of bigamy rare, and in cases of abandonment some spouses had to simply remarry since obtaining a formal divorce was difficult or impossible:


====2010====
<blockquote>
* We thank Thee for '''the Prophet Joseph Smith and that Thou did appear to him in person''' to open the heavens and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes.
Since bigamy was only prosecuted on the complaint of a spouse (one whose honor had been offended or for whom the loss of support was irremediable) and when the offending spouse could be found by summons, most bigamists were probably never arrested...From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.<ref>Beverly J. Schwartzberg, ''Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America'' (Santa Barbara, California: University of California at Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation, 2001), 51–52; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."</ref>
</blockquote>


:We thank Thee that Thou did reveal unto '''Thy priesthood''' even the sacred sealing power. - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/60169/Laie-Hawaii-Temple-Full-hearts-and-grateful-spirits.html Dedication of Laie Hawaii temple], 27 November 2010, cited in {{Periodical:Church News|date=27 November 2010|pages=6}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
Ohio law also required that persons seeking a divorce apply to the state supreme court, and be state residents for two years—so, on these terms Lydia would have been in violation of the law. But, it is not clear that she, Newel, or those who granted the marriage license were aware of this technicality.


* "I am certain I speak for all members everywhere when I express deep appreciation for the truths we have been taught. We could echo the words, found in the Book of Mormon, of those who heard the sermon of the great King Benjamin and “cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent.”" - {{Ensign|article=Till We Meet Again|date=November 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/till-we-meet-again?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/till-we-meet-again?lang=eng}}
=Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy since her previous husband had died=


* "I have read—and I believe—the testimonies of those who experienced the grief of Christ’s Crucifixion and the joy of His Resurrection. '''I have read—and I believe—the testimonies of those in the New World''' who were visited by the same risen Lord." {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}}}
Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy.  Shortly after the Knights' marriage, she learned that her wastrel husband had died. The Knights viewed this as vindication of Joseph's prophetic gifts, since he had promised them that there was no moral or legal impediment to their marriage—and, he was right.<ref>Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.</ref>


:"I believe the testimony of one who, in this dispensation, spoke with the Father and the Son in a grove now called sacred and who gave his life, sealing that testimony with his blood." - {{Ensign|article=He Is Risen|date=May 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/he-is-risen?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/he-is-risen?lang=eng}}
=M. Scott Bradshaw: "Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844"=
M. Scott Bradshaw:
<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">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|402}}
</blockquote>


* "First, to young men of the Aaronic Priesthood and to you young men who are becoming elders: '''I repeat what prophets have long taught'''—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission." - {{Ensign|article=As We Meet Together Again|date=May 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/as-we-meet-together-again?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/as-we-meet-together-again?lang=eng}}
=Was Joseph Smith ever charged with adultery under Illinois law?=
=William and Wilson Law charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence=


* We thank Thee for '''the Restoration of the gospel through Thy Prophet, Joseph Smith''', bringing back to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes.
Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery under Illinois Law. This occurred shortly before his death, when Robert Foster, 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|403,414}} 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.


:We thank Thee for the sacred sealing power.... - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59815/Kyiv-Ukraine-Temple-dedicatory-prayer-We-seek-to-pattern-our-lives-after-the-life-of-Thy-Son.html Dedication of Kyiv Ukraine temple], 20 August 2010. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
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">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|404}}


* Our hearts are filled with thanksgiving unto Thee for the light of Thy everlasting gospel, restored to earth in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times, through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We are grateful that Thou didst restore, by heavenly messengers, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods and subsequently all of the keys of the priesthood ever held by Thy prophets from the days of Adam through Abraham and Moses to Malachi....We thank Thee for the promise found in the Book of Mormon that in the latter days Thou wouldst remember Thy children on the isles of the sea. We are in a nation of many islands, whose people love truth and whose hearts are responsive to the message of the eternal gospel.  - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59496/Cebu-City-Philippines-Temple-We-are-in-a-nation-0-whose-people-love-truth.html Dedication Cibu City temple], 13 June 2010. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonBoM}}}}
=Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open"=
It is vital to understand, however, that:


* "We express our profound thanks for the Prophet Joseph Smith, to whom Thou didst reveal Thy will and Thine authority." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59408/The-Gila-Valley-Arizona-Temple-Wilt-Thou-hallow-this-house.html Dedication of Gila Valley Arizona temple], 23 May 2010. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}  
<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}}</blockquote>


* "Bless Thy servants whom Thou hast called to stand as leaders in Thy Church in these last days. Grant unto them strength and vitality. Speak through them according to Thy divine will, and uphold them before the people." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59315/Vancouver-British-Columbia-Temple-Beacon-of-divine-light.html Dedication of Vancouver British Columbia temple], 8 May 2010. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}}}
=Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition=
The same author emphasized:


* I have read—and I believe—the testimonies of those who experienced the grief of Christ’s Crucifixion and the joy of His Resurrection. I have read—and I believe—the testimonies of those in the New World who were visited by the same risen Lord.
<blockquote>The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day<ref>Bradshaw cites Criminal Code, section 123, ''Revised Laws of Illinois'': "Any man or woman who shall live together in '''an open state''' of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted...." (Bradshaw, 407, emphasis added).</ref>] 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">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|408}}</blockquote>
=Were there any similar cases under Illinois adultery statute which demonstrate that Joseph was not breaking the law?=
=Two cases decided after Joseph's death demonstrate that there was nothing which would have permitted conviction=


:I believe the testimony of one who, in this dispensation, spoke with the Father and the Son in a grove now called sacred and who gave his life, sealing that testimony with his blood. - {{Ensign|article='He Is Risen!'|date=May 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/he-is-risen?lang=eng&query=}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/he-is-risen?lang=eng&query=}}
Two cases decided after Joseph's death but under the same legal regime likewise demonstrate that there was nothing about Maria and Joseph's relationship (regardless of whether or not they had sexual relations) which would have permitted conviction under the Illinois adultery statute. Additionally, Stephen R. Douglas (the famed Illinois judge and later candidate for the presidency of the United States) and Thomas Ford (the governor of Illinois at the time of Joseph's murder) prosecuted adultery cases during their legal careers and both were definitive that an "open" and "notorious" aspect to the cohabitation had to be proven under the statute.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|408-411}}


* "How grateful we are for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and for all the good it brings into our lives. The Lord has poured out His blessings upon us as a people. I bear my testimony to you that this work is true, that our Savior lives, and that He guides and directs His Church here upon the earth." - {{Ensign|article=A Word at Closing|date=May 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/a-word-at-closing?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/a-word-at-closing?lang=eng}}
=If Joseph been charged by his wife Emma with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce under Illinois law=


* "How grateful we are for the Prophet Joseph Smith, who sought for the truth, who found it, and who, under the direction of the Lord, restored the gospel and organized the Church." - {{Ensign|article=Welcome to Conference|date=May 2010|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/preparation-brings-blessings?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}} {{audiolink|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/preparation-brings-blessings?lang=eng}}
By contrast, had Joseph been charged by his wife ''Emma'' with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce, and did not require the stringent requirements of being "open" or "notorious."<ref>"Compare [the strict criteria for statutory adultery] to Illinois divorce law which allowed adultery as a grounds for divorce; however, the cases that involved divorce petitions on this basis do not seemed [sic] to have followed any clear standard defining what constituted adultery, focusing rather on proving individual acts of adultery. Divorce law did not require that the conduct be "open" or "notorious." - {{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Short|pages=407&ndash;408n21}}</ref>


====2009====
=It was later realized that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, so they changed the wording of the law=


* "How grateful we are that the heavens are indeed open, that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored, and that the Church is founded on the rock of revelation. We are a blessed people, with apostles and prophets upon the earth today....I bear my testimony to you that this work is true, that our Savior lives, and that He guides and directs His Church here upon the earth." - {{Ensign|article=Closing Remarks|date=November 2009|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/closing-remarks?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
Even Joseph's near-contemporaries would later realize that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, perhaps even if done so openly.


* We express our gratitude for the ushering in of a new dispensation, even the dispensation of the fulness of times, by '''Thine own appearance and the appearance of Thy Beloved Son to the boy Joseph Smith''', to open the heavens and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57829/Oquirrh-Mountain-Utah-Temple-Magnificent-edifice.html Dedicatory prayer for Oquirrh Mountain Utah temple], 21-23 August 2009, cited in {{Periodical:Church News|date=29 August 2009|pages=4}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
<blockquote>
Recognizing the breadth of [the] state constitutional provision [for religious freedom] as it stood in 1844, Illinois adopted a new constitution in 1869 that introduced a number of changes in the clause governing religious liberty, including wording specifically intended to give the state authority to prohibit Mormon polygamy or other religiously-based practices that might be deemed offensive. Comments by certain delegates to the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention show taht there was a concern that the Mormon practice of plural marriage could be protected under the state constitution....


* "We thank Thee for the Prophet Joseph Smith and for the Restoration, and that '''Thou did appear to him in person to open the heavens and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes'''
Several delegates expressed support for changes in the wording of the Illinois constitution in order to protect the state from what they viewed as extreme forms of worship, including Mormon polygamy. These delegates feared that the more liberal wording of the earlier constitution (in force in Joseph's day) might actually protected practices such as polygamy. One such delegate was Thomas J. Turner...[who] stated:"...Mormonism is a form of religion 'grant it, a false religion' nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion...[d]o we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?"<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|416, 416n45}}
</blockquote>


:We thank Thee that Thou did reveal unto Thy priesthood even the sacred sealing power, by the hand of Elijah the prophet" - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/56831/Draper-Utah-Temple-This-Thy-Holy-House.html Dedicatory prayer for Draper Utah temple], 28 March 2009, cited in {{Periodical:Church News|date=28 March 2009|pages=6}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
{{PerspectivesBar
|link=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/polygamy-prophets-and-prevarication
|author=Gregory L. Smith, M.D.
|authorlink=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/smith-gregory
|title=Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
|publication=FairMormon Papers
|date=2005
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith and his successors made repeated public statements in which they hid or frankly denied the practice of polygamy, despite knowledge to the contrary. It is argued that this dishonesty is morally dubious and inconsistent with the Church’s purported principles.
<br>
The concept of "civil disobedience" is essential to understanding those occasions in which Joseph Smith or other Church members were not forthright about the practice of polygamy.
<br>
Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.
<br>
But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.
}}
{{HalesItem
|subject=1840—Plural Marriage Secretly Introduced
|link=http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/first-nauvoo-sealing/
|summary=Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.}}


* "Regarding a desire to find truth during an uncertain period of life, President Monson spoke of the answer to Joseph Smith's prayer: '''He saw the Father and the Son, and the Father commanded Joseph to hear the Son''' (see Joseph Smith 1. 10-13). 'Joseph listened, Joseph learned. His question had been answered,' President Monson testified." - {{Periodical:Church News|date=17 January 2009|pages=3}} [Reference to CES satellite broadcast to college-age adults, 11 January 2009.] {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}}}
{{NeedCriticalSources}}


* "In 1958 Elder Harold B. Lee, who later served as the 11th President of the Church, described the priesthood as “the Lord’s … troops against the forces of evil.”
=Was there ever a consummation of the sealing between Maria Lawrence and Joseph Smith?=


:President John Taylor stated that “the power manifested by the priesthood is simply the power of God.”
==Although under law, Joseph Smith and [[Maria Lawrence]] were not guilty of adultery, this does not mean that they had not consummated their plural marriage==


:These stirring declarations from prophets of God help us to understand that each man and each boy who holds the priesthood of God must be worthy of that great privilege and responsibility." - {{Ensign|article=Be Your Best Self|date=May 2009|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/be-your-best-self?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
A side issue raised by some relates to what the legal strategy can tell us about the status of Joseph and Maria's sealing. Under law, Joseph and Maria were clearly not guilty of adultery. This does not mean, however, that they had not consummated their plural marriage.


==2008==
Most authors have concluded that their marriage was one which was consummated. This is due to relatively late, second-hand testimony, which Brian Hales has explored in detail.<ref>See link to Hales' materials at the bottom of this essay. The material about sexuality in the Maria Lawrence relationship is [http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/maria-lawrence-evidences-of-sexuality/ here].</ref>
* "Brothers and sisters, how blessed we are that the heavens are indeed open, that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is upon the earth today, and that the Church is founded upon the rock of revelation. We know that continuous revelation is the very lifeblood of the gospel of Jesus Christ." - {{Ensign|article=Until We Meet Again|date=May 2008|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/until-we-meet-again?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}


* "We are thankful that Thou sent Thine Only Begotten Son to this earth to be its Savior, and '''the Prophet Joseph Smith to bring about the restoration''', and that Thou did appear to the prophet in person to open the heavens and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/53770/Twin-Falls-Idaho-Magnificent-edifice.html Dedication of Twin Falls Idaho temple], 24 August 2008. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
Bradshaw suggests:


* "We are thankful that Thou sent Thine Only Begotten Son to this earth to be its Savior, and '''the Prophet Joseph Smith to bring about the Restoration''', and that Thou did appear to the Prophet in person to open the heavens and to restore to the world the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son and Thy holy purposes." - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/52079/Curitiba-Brazil-Long-awaited-day-of-dedication.html Dedication of Curitiba Brazil temple], 7 July 2008. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}  
<blockquote>Joseph instructed John Taylor on June 4, [1844] to initiate legal action against the Laws and Foster for perjury and slander against Maria [for charging her and Joseph with adultery]. No such suit is known to have been filed, since Joseph was killed three weeks later; however, the mere fact that Joseph planned to bring such a suit suggests that, in Joseph's mind, there was nothing to hide in his relationship with Maria. If there had been a sexual dimension to this particular plural marriage, it is almost unimaginable that Joseph would have wanted to file a lawsuit, knowing that Maria might be put on the witness stand&mdash;or even subjected to a gynecological examination [to determine whether or not she was a virgin]. The possibility that Joseph's relationship with Maria Lawrence did not involve intimacy is also plausible given his comments regarding the publication of the ''Expositor'': "They make it a criminality for a man to have one wife on earth while he has one wife in heaven."<ref>{{HC|vol=6|num=441}}</ref> Since the only specific allegation of "criminality" (the adultery indictment) with respect to Joseph's plural marriages concerned Maria Lawrence, this statement by Joseph could be understood as a reference to his spiritual connection, or sealing, with Maria, but perhaps no more.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|414}}
</blockquote>


* "You’ve seen a witness tonight of the strength of the two counselors in this First Presidency. I stand before you and declare this First Presidency is united as one under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ....I leave with you my testimony that this work in which we are engaged is true. The Lord is at the helm." {{Ensign|article=To Learn, To Do, To Be|date=May 2008|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/to-learn-to-do-to-be?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
In the same vein, Madsen argues:


* "I cannot adequately express my gratitude for the '''Restoration of the gospel in these latter days''' and for what that has meant in my life. Each of us has been influenced and shaped as we have followed the Savior and have adhered to the principles of His gospel....My dear brothers and sisters, I love you, and I pray for you. Please pray for me. And together we will reap the blessings our Heavenly Father has in store for each one of us. This is my prayer, my plea as I add my testimony. This work is true. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen." - {{Ensign|article=Abundantly Blessed|date=May 2008|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/abundantly-blessed}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
<blockquote>The consequences of such an indictment [for adultery with Maria] were both legally and socially scandalous. Maria Lawrence's reputation would have been publicly damaged, independent of what the reputational consequences might have been to Joseph. She and her sister had been sealed to Joseph on May 11, 1843...with Emma's initial consent but later repudiation. Even if this celestial marriage could have been made [publicly] known, it would not have alleviated the scandal&mdash;it would have just turned it to another, even more flamboyant, direction....<br><br>


* "I know without question, my brothers and sisters, that God lives. I testify to you that this is His work. I testify as well that our Savior Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church, which bears His name. I know that the sweetest experience in all this life is to feel His promptings as He directs us in the furtherance of His work....I felt them again as a mission president in Toronto, Canada, working with wonderful missionaries '''who were a living witness and testimony to the world that this work is divine and that we are led by a prophet'''. I have felt them throughout my service in the Twelve and in the First Presidency and now as President of the Church....
This plan to counter-sue against the Laws and others has some interesting legal aspects. William Law had supplied testimony under oath that led to Joseph's indictment. If the adultery case had gone to trial and the jury had found Joseph not guilty, then Law would have been liable to a criminal charge of perjury and civil liability for slander. Possibly Joseph planned to prove his innocence, not only by his and Maria's denial of sexual intercourse but also by the testimony of a reputable physician who had conducted a physical examination and found that Maria was still a virgin. It would have been both foolhardy and fruitless for Joseph to have even imagined countersuing without something of such weight to present at trial.<ref>{{Article:Madsen:Serving as Guardian/Full|pages=348-350}}</ref></blockquote>


:I am keenly aware of the 15 men who preceded me as President of the Church. Many of them I have known personally. I have had the blessing and privilege of serving as a counselor to three of them. I am grateful for the abiding legacy left by each one of those 15 men. '''I have the sure knowledge, as I am confident they had, that God directs His prophet.''' My earnest prayer is that I might continue to be a worthy instrument in His hands to carry on this great work and to fulfill the tremendous responsibilities which come with the office of President." - {{Ensign|article=Looking Back and Moving Forward|date=May 2008|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/looking-back-and-moving-forward?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
Hales, however, feels that the scenario offered by Madsen and Bradshaw is less likely:


* "I feel to express thanks to my Heavenly Father for His countless blessings to me. I can say, as did Nephi of old, that I was born of goodly parents...." (President Monson would be unlikely to refer to Nephi as an ancient prophet unless he believed the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be.) - {{Ensign|article=Looking Back and Moving Forward|date=May 2008|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/looking-back-and-moving-forward?lang=eng}} {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonBoM}}|{{MonsonGC}}}}
<blockquote>
 
This speculation is problematic because, since Maria was sealed to Joseph in a "time and eternity" sealing, then sexual relations would be permitted. In addition, virginity cannot always be proven by physical exam even if the woman has never experienced intercourse.<ref>Brian C. Hales, "[http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/maria-lawrence-evidences-of-sexuality/ Maria Lawrence–Evidences of Sexuality]," ''josephsmithspolygamy.org'' website (accessed 21 June 2014).</ref>
*  We are grateful for the '''restoration of Thy Holy Priesthood through Thy prophet, Joseph Smith''', which will be exercised in this, Thy house. We thank Thee that the prophet Elijah was sent to restore the keys of salvation and exaltation for both the living and the dead. We are grateful that there was a restitution of all the authority pertaining to Thy work in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times.
</blockquote>


:We thank Thee that '''since the restoration Thou hast never left Thy Church alone. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Thou hast chosen and appointed a prophet to this people who has held and exercised all the keys of the everlasting priesthood for Thy children in the earth'''. We are grateful to Thee that the magnificent promise made in the dedication of the Kirtland Temple has been fulfilled in our time that Thy Church has come out of obscurity and shines before the world, 'fair as the moon, and clear as the sun.'" - [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/51635/Rexburg-Idaho-We-come-humbly.html Dedication of Rexburg Idaho temple], 16 February 2008. {{Monson Testimony Claims|{{MonsonJS}}|{{MonsonPriesthood}}|{{MonsonProphets}}|{{MonsonTD}}}}
{{PerspectivesBar
|link=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/polygamy-prophets-and-prevarication
|author=Gregory L. Smith, M.D.
|authorlink=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/smith-gregory
|title=Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
|publication=FairMormon Papers
|date=2005
|summary=Critics charge that the Church and its members participated in polygamy in violation of both state and federal laws. It is therefore argued that the Church abandoned its commitment to “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Critics, however, make such arguments without a full understanding of the legal considerations of the day and without understanding how civil disobedience plays into the picture.
}}


{{endnotes sources}}
{{Endnotes sources}}


<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
[[Category:Becoming Gods]]
[[Category:Difficult Questions for Mormons]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:No Man Knows My History]]
[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]
[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]
[[de:Frage: War der Bruach der Vielehe gegen das Gesetz?]]
[[de:Joseph Smith/Polygamie/Die Wahrheit über die Vielehe verstecken]]
[[es:Fuente:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery:José Smith no podría haber sido condenado adecuadamente de adulterio bajo la ley de Illinois en 1844]]
[[es:José Smith/Poligamia/Cómo ocultar la verdad acerca de la poligamia]]
[[es:Pregunta: Cuando Joseph Smith realizó el matrimonio de Newel Knight y Lydia Bailey, ¿eran culpables de bigamia desde que Lydia no había sido formalmente divorciada de su marido anterior?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Alguna vez hubo una consumación del sellado entre Maria Lawrence y Joseph Smith?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Estaba José Smith nunca acusado de adulterio en virtud de la ley de Illinois?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hubo casos similares bajo Illinois estatuto adulterio que demuestran que José no estaba violando la ley?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Smith nunca intente públicamente para enseñar la doctrina del matrimonio plural?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Smith violó las leyes matrimoniales en Ohio al realizar matrimonios?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿La poligamia era ilegal?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué José Smith dice "Yo no había estado casado apenas cinco horas ... antes de que se informó que tenía siete esposas"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué José a mantener la doctrina del matrimonio plural privado?]]
[[fi:Joseph Smith/Moniavioisuus/Totuus moniavioisuuden salaamisesta]]
[[fi:Kysymys: Moniavioisuus lailla kiellettyä?]]
[[pt:Joseph Smith/Poligamia/Escondendo a verdade]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Foi Joseph Smith em qualquer época condenado por adultério segundo a lei de Illinois?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Houve qualquer caso similar no estatuto de Illinois que demonstram que Joseph não estava quebrando a lei?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Joseph Smith tentou ensinar publicamente a doutrina do casamento plural?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que Joseph Smith disse "Eu mal me casei or 5 minutos... e já estava registrado que eu possuía 7 esposas"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que Joseph manteve reservada a doutrina do casamento plural?]]
[[de:Joseph Smith und Polygamie/illegal]]
[[es:José Smith/Poligamia/Ilegal en Nauvoo]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[fi:Joseph Smith/Moniavioisuus/Laillisuus]]
[[de:Joseph Smith/Polygamie/Illegal]]
[[es:José Smith/Poligamia/Ilegal]]

Latest revision as of 07:59, 19 May 2024
Articles about Plural marriage
Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
Introduction of plural marriage
Plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage

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.
— M. Scott Bradshaw[1]:402
∗       ∗       ∗

Was polygamy illegal?

Contrary to popular belief, the plural marriages in Illinois were not illegal under the adultery statutes of the day

  • Prior to the first anti-polygamy statute for the U.S. Territories (the Morril Act of 1862), no law forbade polygamy in the Great Basin region.
  • Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade (i.e., from 1862 onward). The Saints refused to comply with the law during that period because they believed:
a) that the law was unconstitutional and violated their right of religious worship; and
b) that God had commanded them to practice plural marriage despite the potential legal penalties.

The Church believes in honoring and sustaining the law, but it does not believe that members must surrender their religious beliefs or conscience to the state

Not surprisingly, the question comes down to whether Joseph was a Prophet and whether God commanded his actions.

Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.

The practice of polygamy during periods when it was illegal is a clear case of civil disobedience

This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy during periods when it was illegal is a clear case of civil disobedience.

The decision to defy the [anti-polygamy laws] was a painful exception to an otherwise firm commitment to the rule of law and order. Significantly, however, in choosing to defy the law, the Latter-day Saints were actually following in an American tradition of civil disobedience. On various previous occasions, including the years before the Revolutionary War, Americans had found certain laws offensive to their fundamental values and had decided openly to violate them.…Even though declared constitutional, the law was still repugnant to all [the Saints’] values, and they were willing to face harassment, exile, or imprisonment rather than bow to its demands. [2]

Elder James E. Talmage taught that members should obey the law, unless God commanded an exception:

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. [3]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Did Joseph Smith violate marriage laws in Ohio by performing marriages?

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

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.

Plural marriage would eventually involve a complex collision of religious belief, secular law, and personal conscience. Many historians have presumed that Joseph Smith always had a cavalier attitude toward civil laws which conflicted with his marital concepts. 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.[4]

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

Michael Quinn makes the same type of claim when he opines that

in November 1835 [Joseph] announced a doctrine I call "theocratic ethics." He used this theology of justify his violation of Ohio’s marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaite without legal authority to do so…Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.[5]

Quinn's introduction of the expression "theocratic ethics" is an excellent example of his regrettable tendency to coin an expression, and then proceed as if his act of definition proves that the phenomenon he has labeled actually exists.[6] In another context, one non-LDS reviewer of Quinn regretted this use of "rather artificial categories that acquire an aura of scholarly respectability through the magic of 'Quinnspeak.'"[7]

Quinn's vocabulary implies that Joseph was using a different sort of ethical standard as most people—and, the term "theocratic" is loaded, since it generally has negative associations. Quinn also makes the entirely unwarranted conclusion "by extension" that Joseph's supposed irregular actions meant that a "regular Mormon" would be likewise justified in following a novel ethical scheme.

Despite such confident claims, the historical record regarding Ohio marriages disagrees with this portrait in almost every particular.[8] 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,"[9] Joseph Smith stepped forward and announced that he would perform the marriage.

The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities

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."[10] 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.

A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to perform marriages was correct

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.’"[11]

The "rules and regulations" regarding marriage for the Church had been established since the publication of what was then D&C 101 in September 1835.[12] The Knight-Bailey wedding did not occur until 24 November 1835, and Joseph Smith surely had the authority to perform weddings in the Church if anyone did, especially since D&C 101 declared that marriage "should be performed by a presiding high priest, bishop, elder, or priest."[13]

When applying to the county clerk for marriage certificates of other marriages which he performed, Joseph specifically noted that they were solemnized "agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Church…on matrimony," a clear reference to the 1824 Ohio statute.

When Joseph Smith performed the marriage of Newel Knight and Lydia Bailey, were they guilty of bigamy since Lydia had not been formally divorced from her previous husband?

Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel

Joseph's decision to solemnize marriages was in accord with Ohio state law. Because Lydia Bailey was not divorced, however, the critics have also charged Joseph with permitting a bigamous marriage, and thus flaunting the law.

Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel:

Broth[er] Joseph after p[ray]or & reflecting a little or in other words enquiring [of the] Lord Said it is all right, She is his & the sooner they [are] married the better. Tell them no law shall hurt [them]. They need not fear either the law of God or man for [it] shall not touch them; & the Lord bless them. This [is the] will of the Lord concerning the matter.[14]

Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years

Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years. This described Lydia's case, and Newel tried to so persuade her before speaking with Joseph. Lydia's concern about remarriage seems to have been motivated mainly by spiritual worries that it was wrong in the sight of God to remarry, even if the law might allow it.[15]

It was doubtless because of abandonment that Newel obtained the marriage license.[16] He was likely unaware—as, perhaps, were those who granted the license—that the law had recently changed the abandonment period to five years, and so the marriage might have been illegal on those grounds.

The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore

The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore. Communication in this period was difficult, travel was slow, and record keeping requirements varied widely across the United States. As a result, technical "bigamy" was a common state of affairs for all social classes at this period in American history.[17] This made the prosecution of bigamy rare, and in cases of abandonment some spouses had to simply remarry since obtaining a formal divorce was difficult or impossible:

Since bigamy was only prosecuted on the complaint of a spouse (one whose honor had been offended or for whom the loss of support was irremediable) and when the offending spouse could be found by summons, most bigamists were probably never arrested...From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.[18]

Ohio law also required that persons seeking a divorce apply to the state supreme court, and be state residents for two years—so, on these terms Lydia would have been in violation of the law. But, it is not clear that she, Newel, or those who granted the marriage license were aware of this technicality.

Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy since her previous husband had died

Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy. Shortly after the Knights' marriage, she learned that her wastrel husband had died. The Knights viewed this as vindication of Joseph's prophetic gifts, since he had promised them that there was no moral or legal impediment to their marriage—and, he was right.[19]

M. Scott Bradshaw: "Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844"

M. Scott Bradshaw:

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]:402

Was Joseph Smith ever charged with adultery under Illinois law?

William and Wilson Law charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence

Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery under Illinois Law. This occurred shortly before his death, when Robert Foster, 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]:403,414 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

Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open"

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]:402

Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition

The same author emphasized:

The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day[20]] 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]:408

Were there any similar cases under Illinois adultery statute which demonstrate that Joseph was not breaking the law?

Two cases decided after Joseph's death demonstrate that there was nothing which would have permitted conviction

Two cases decided after Joseph's death but under the same legal regime likewise demonstrate that there was nothing about Maria and Joseph's relationship (regardless of whether or not they had sexual relations) which would have permitted conviction under the Illinois adultery statute. Additionally, Stephen R. Douglas (the famed Illinois judge and later candidate for the presidency of the United States) and Thomas Ford (the governor of Illinois at the time of Joseph's murder) prosecuted adultery cases during their legal careers and both were definitive that an "open" and "notorious" aspect to the cohabitation had to be proven under the statute.[1]:408-411

If Joseph been charged by his wife Emma with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce under Illinois law

By contrast, had Joseph been charged by his wife Emma with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce, and did not require the stringent requirements of being "open" or "notorious."[21]

It was later realized that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, so they changed the wording of the law

Even Joseph's near-contemporaries would later realize that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, perhaps even if done so openly.

Recognizing the breadth of [the] state constitutional provision [for religious freedom] as it stood in 1844, Illinois adopted a new constitution in 1869 that introduced a number of changes in the clause governing religious liberty, including wording specifically intended to give the state authority to prohibit Mormon polygamy or other religiously-based practices that might be deemed offensive. Comments by certain delegates to the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention show taht there was a concern that the Mormon practice of plural marriage could be protected under the state constitution....

Several delegates expressed support for changes in the wording of the Illinois constitution in order to protect the state from what they viewed as extreme forms of worship, including Mormon polygamy. These delegates feared that the more liberal wording of the earlier constitution (in force in Joseph's day) might actually protected practices such as polygamy. One such delegate was Thomas J. Turner...[who] stated:"...Mormonism is a form of religion 'grant it, a false religion' nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion...[d]o we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?"[1]:416, 416n45

Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Gregory L. Smith, M.D.,  FairMormon Papers, (2005)

Critics charge that Joseph Smith and his successors made repeated public statements in which they hid or frankly denied the practice of polygamy, despite knowledge to the contrary. It is argued that this dishonesty is morally dubious and inconsistent with the Church’s purported principles.


The concept of "civil disobedience" is essential to understanding those occasions in which Joseph Smith or other Church members were not forthright about the practice of polygamy.
Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

Click here to view the complete article

Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "1840—Plural Marriage Secretly Introduced", by Brian C. Hales

Summary: Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.

(Click here for full article)


Was there ever a consummation of the sealing between Maria Lawrence and Joseph Smith?

Although under law, Joseph Smith and Maria Lawrence were not guilty of adultery, this does not mean that they had not consummated their plural marriage

A side issue raised by some relates to what the legal strategy can tell us about the status of Joseph and Maria's sealing. Under law, Joseph and Maria were clearly not guilty of adultery. This does not mean, however, that they had not consummated their plural marriage.

Most authors have concluded that their marriage was one which was consummated. This is due to relatively late, second-hand testimony, which Brian Hales has explored in detail.[22]

Bradshaw suggests:

Joseph instructed John Taylor on June 4, [1844] to initiate legal action against the Laws and Foster for perjury and slander against Maria [for charging her and Joseph with adultery]. No such suit is known to have been filed, since Joseph was killed three weeks later; however, the mere fact that Joseph planned to bring such a suit suggests that, in Joseph's mind, there was nothing to hide in his relationship with Maria. If there had been a sexual dimension to this particular plural marriage, it is almost unimaginable that Joseph would have wanted to file a lawsuit, knowing that Maria might be put on the witness stand—or even subjected to a gynecological examination [to determine whether or not she was a virgin]. The possibility that Joseph's relationship with Maria Lawrence did not involve intimacy is also plausible given his comments regarding the publication of the Expositor: "They make it a criminality for a man to have one wife on earth while he has one wife in heaven."[23] Since the only specific allegation of "criminality" (the adultery indictment) with respect to Joseph's plural marriages concerned Maria Lawrence, this statement by Joseph could be understood as a reference to his spiritual connection, or sealing, with Maria, but perhaps no more.[1]:414

In the same vein, Madsen argues:

The consequences of such an indictment [for adultery with Maria] were both legally and socially scandalous. Maria Lawrence's reputation would have been publicly damaged, independent of what the reputational consequences might have been to Joseph. She and her sister had been sealed to Joseph on May 11, 1843...with Emma's initial consent but later repudiation. Even if this celestial marriage could have been made [publicly] known, it would not have alleviated the scandal—it would have just turned it to another, even more flamboyant, direction....

This plan to counter-sue against the Laws and others has some interesting legal aspects. William Law had supplied testimony under oath that led to Joseph's indictment. If the adultery case had gone to trial and the jury had found Joseph not guilty, then Law would have been liable to a criminal charge of perjury and civil liability for slander. Possibly Joseph planned to prove his innocence, not only by his and Maria's denial of sexual intercourse but also by the testimony of a reputable physician who had conducted a physical examination and found that Maria was still a virgin. It would have been both foolhardy and fruitless for Joseph to have even imagined countersuing without something of such weight to present at trial.[24]

Hales, however, feels that the scenario offered by Madsen and Bradshaw is less likely:

This speculation is problematic because, since Maria was sealed to Joseph in a "time and eternity" sealing, then sexual relations would be permitted. In addition, virginity cannot always be proven by physical exam even if the woman has never experienced intercourse.[25]

Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Gregory L. Smith, M.D.,  FairMormon Papers, (2005)

Critics charge that the Church and its members participated in polygamy in violation of both state and federal laws. It is therefore argued that the Church abandoned its commitment to “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Critics, however, make such arguments without a full understanding of the legal considerations of the day and without understanding how civil disobedience plays into the picture.

Click here to view the complete article


Notes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 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.
  2. ↑ James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd edition revised and enlarged, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992[1976]), 401. ISBN 087579565X. GospeLink
  3. ↑ James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981[1899]),382–383.
  4. ↑ John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire : The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 212.
  5. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 88.
  6. ↑ For a critique of Quinn's concept of "theocratic ethics," see Dean C. Jessee, "Review of D. Michael Quinn's the Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," Journal of Mormon History 22/2 (Fall 1996): 163–165. Jessee also treats the matter of Joseph Smith performing marriages in Ohio on pp. 166–167.
  7. ↑ Klaus J. Hansen, "Quinnspeak (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 132–140. off-site
  8. ↑ Unless otherwise indicated, the facts in this chapter are drawn from M. Scott Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," Brigham Young University Studies 39 no. 4 (2000), 7–22. See also William G. Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," Brigham Young University Studies 39 no. 4 (2000), 22–69.
  9. ↑ Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 7.
  10. ↑ Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," 43, 45.
  11. ↑ Ohio's "Act Regulating Marriages," (1824); cited in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
  12. ↑ See Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI. . (In 1876, this section was eventually removed, and replaced with the plural marriage revelation as D&C 132.) We must remember that at this point in Church history, the concept of a "temple sealing" or "eternal" marriage was certainly not being taught, and may well not have even been known to Joseph Smith. All Church marriages at the time were what modern members would call "civil marriages," such as those performed by an LDS bishop today.
  13. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI [D&C 101꞉1].
  14. ↑ Newel Knight, Autobiography and Journal, Church Archives, folder one, [45] in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
  15. ↑ Lydia's history says that Newel "endeavour[ed] to show her that according to the law she was a free woman, having been deserted for three years with nothing provided for her support." – See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 15; citing Susa Young Gates [as "Homespun"], Lydia Knight's History: The First Book of the Noble Women's Lives Series (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 28.
  16. ↑ See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," page [citation needed]
  17. ↑ See Hendrik Harlog, Man & Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87; cited in Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2006 FAIR Conference).
  18. ↑ Beverly J. Schwartzberg, Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America (Santa Barbara, California: University of California at Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation, 2001), 51–52; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
  19. ↑ Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
  20. ↑ Bradshaw cites Criminal Code, section 123, Revised Laws of Illinois: "Any man or woman who shall live together in an open state of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted...." (Bradshaw, 407, emphasis added).
  21. ↑ "Compare [the strict criteria for statutory adultery] to Illinois divorce law which allowed adultery as a grounds for divorce; however, the cases that involved divorce petitions on this basis do not seemed [sic] to have followed any clear standard defining what constituted adultery, focusing rather on proving individual acts of adultery. Divorce law did not require that the conduct be "open" or "notorious." - Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery," 407–408n21.
  22. ↑ See link to Hales' materials at the bottom of this essay. The material about sexuality in the Maria Lawrence relationship is here.
  23. ↑ History of the Church. Volume 6 link
  24. ↑ Gordon A. Madsen, "Serving as Guardian under the Lawrence Estate, 1842–1844," 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), 329–356(p. 348-350).
  25. ↑ Brian C. Hales, "Maria Lawrence–Evidences of Sexuality," josephsmithspolygamy.org website (accessed 21 June 2014).
Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Plural_marriage_and_the_law&oldid=259648"