Monogamy vs. Polygamy – Source Quotes

Quorums of Seventies (1837 May) – contemporary | 1st hand
“that we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder belonging to the quorums of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or any offence of the kind, and who does not in all things conform to the laws of the church” (Quorum of the Seventies “Resolution #1”, Messenger & Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 8 Kirtland, Ohio, May, 1837, p.511)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1838 Jul) – contemporary | 1st hand | 96% verbatim written
“Joseph Smith wrote and published 20 questions which are daily and hourly asked by all classes of people whilst we are traveling. One question was, ‘Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?’” (Elders’ Journal 1 [November 1837]: 28) “Joseph answered, ‘No, not at the same time. But they believe, that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. But we disapprove of the custom, which has gained in the world, and has been practised among us, to our great mortification, of marrying in five or six week it is, or even in two or three months, after the death of a companion. We believe that due respect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children.’” (Elders’ Journal 2 [July 1838]: 43, Note: Joseph Smith was the sole editor of the Elders’ Journal at this time, so this statement came directly from him in 1838, even though it was published in the third-person voice.)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1839 Dec 16) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Know assuredly Dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus, that we are in bonds and in prison…. Was it for committing adultery? We are aware that false and slanderous reports have gone abroad, which have reached our ears, respecting this thing, which have been started by renagadoes, and spread by the dissenters, who are extremely active in spreading foul and libilous reports concerning us; thinking thereby to gain the fellowship of the world…. Some have reported that we not only dedicated our property, but likewise our families to the Lord, and Satan taking advantage it of this has transfigured it into lasciviousness, a community of wives, which things are an abomination in the sight of God. When we consecrate our property to the Lord, it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy according to the laws of God, and when a man consecrates or dedecates his wife and children to the Lord, he does not give them to his brother or to his neighbor; which is contrary to the law of God, which says, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.’ ‘He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart.’ Now for a man to consecrate his property, his wife and children to the Lord is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the widows and fatherless, the sick and afflicted; and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for himself and his house to serve the Lord. In order to do this he and all his house must be virtuous and shun every appearance of evil. Now if any person, has represented any thing otherwise than what we now write they have willfully misrepresented us.” (Joseph Smith, personal letter “To the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Caldwell county” written while at Liberty Jail, Dec 16, 1839, pubished in Times and Seasons 1 [April 1840]: 82–85)

Quorum of the Twelve (1841, Oct 15) – contemporary | 2nd hand
“When Br. Joseph stated to the general conference the amount and situation of the property of the church, of which he is trustee in trust by the united voice of the church, he also stated the amount of his own possessions on earth; and what do you think it was? we will tell you; his old Charley horse, given him in Kirtland; two pet deer; two old turkeys, and four young ones; the old cow given him by a brother in Missouri, his old Major, dog; his wife, children, and a little household furniture, and this is the amount of the great possessions of that man whom God has called to lead his people in these last days; this the sum total” (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “An Epistle of the Twelve”, Times and Seasons vol. 2 no. 24, October 15, 1841: 569)

John Taylor’s “Friend” (1841, Oct 15) – contemporary | 2nd hand
“An intelligent friend, who called upon us this morning, has just returned from a visit to Nauvoo and the Mormons…. He believes—just as we do—that they have been grossly misunderstood and shamefully libeled…. it is a faith which they say encourages no vice, nor immorality, nor departure from established laws and usages; neither polygamy, nor promiscuous intercourse, nor community of property.” (John Taylor, editor, attributed as “An Epistle from the Twelve”, Brigham Young as President of the Twelve, Times and Seasons vol. 2, October 15, 1841, p.580)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Mar 1) – contemporary | 1st hand
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Joseph Smith Jr., letter written March 1, 1842 to “Long” John Wentworth, editor and owner of the Chicago Democrat, known as the “Wentworth Letter;” [Editor’s note: Bigamy was illegal while the saints were living in Illinois, as of Feb 12, 1833, when the revised law was enacted reading “Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within the State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offended shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years.” (Revised Laws of Illinois, Vandalia: Greiner & Sherman, 1833, pg. 198-199)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Mar 31) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Can the ‘Female Releif Society of Nauvoo’ be Trusted with some important matters that ought actually to belong to them to see to which men have been under the necessity of seeing to to their chagrin & Mortification in order to prevent iniquitous characters from carrying their iniquity into effect such as, for instance a man who may be aspiring after power & authority and yet without principle; regardles[s] of god, man or the Devil or the interest or welfare of men, or the virtue or innocence of women? Shall the credulity, good faith, & steadfast feelings of our Sisters for the cause of God or truth be imposed upon by believing such men because they say they have authority from Joseph or the first Presidency or any other Presidency of the church and thus with a lie in their mouth deceive & debauch the innocent under the assumption that they are authorized from these sources! May God forbid! A knowledge of some such thing having come to our ears we imp[r]ove this favorable opportunity wherein so goodly number of you may be informed that no such authority ever has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man & if any man has been guilty of any such thing let him be treated with utter contempt & let the curse of God fall on his head, & let him be turned out of Society as unworthy of a place among men, & renounced denounced as the blackest & the most unprincipled wretch & finally let him be damned. We have been informed that some unprincipled men whose names we will not mention at present have been guilty of such crimes: we do not mention their names, not knowing but what there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skilled in Masonry as to keep a secret, therefore suffice it to say there are those & we therefore warn you & forewarn you in the name of the Lord to check and destroy any faith that any innocent person may have in any such character for we don’t want any body to believe any thing as coming from us contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws regulating the habits customs & conduct of Society unless it be by message del[iv]ered to you by our own mouth, by actual revelation & commandment. and all persons pretending to be authorized by us or having any permit or sanction from us are & will be liars & base imposters & you are authorized on the very first intimation of the kind to denounce them as such & fly from shun​ them as the fiery flying serpents, whether they are prophets, seers, or Revelators, patriarchs, Twelve apostles, Elders, Priests. or what not, Mayors, Generals, or what not, city council alderman, Marshall, Police, Lord Mayor or the Devil, are alike culpable. & shall be damned for such evil practices; & if you yourself yourselves hear adhere to any thing of the kind you, also shall be damned. Now beloved Sisters do not believe for a moment that we wish to impose upon you, we actualy do know that such things have existed in the church & are​ sorry that we are obliged to make mention of any such thing & we want a stop put to them, & we want you to do your part & we will do ours part for we wish to to keep the commandments of God in all things ​as given ​directly from heaven​ to us from heaven, living by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.— May God add his blessings upon your head & lead you in all the paths of virtue piety and peace that you may be an ornament unto those to whom you belong & arise up and crown them with power & by so doing you shall be crowned with honor in heaven & shall sit upon throne jud[g]ing them whom you are placed in authority of over in the world and shall be judged of God for all the responsbilitys that are conferred upon you At a more convenient & appropriate season we will give you further information upon this subject. We are your humble servants in the bonds of the new & Everlasting covenant” (Joseph Smith Jr., Letter to Emma Smith & the Relief Society, Nauvoo, IL, March 31, 1842; handwriting of Willard Richards; JS Collection, CHL. Note: On the dating of this letter, see JS, Journal, 31 March 1842.)

Hyrum Smith (1842, April 6-7) – contemporary | 1st hand
“He [Hyrum Smith] then spoke in contradiction of a report in circulation about Elder [Heber C.] Kimball, B. [Brigham] Young, himself, and others of the Twelve, alledging that a sister [Martha Brotherton] had been shut in a room for several days, and that they had endeavored to induce her to believe in having two wives.” (Hyrum Smith, Conference address, April 6-7, 1842, reported in Times and Seasons vol.3 [April 15, 1842]: p.763)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842, April 6-7) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Pres’t. J. Smith spoke upon the subject of the stories respecting Elder [Heber] Kimball and others, showing the folly and inconsistency of spending any time in conversing about such stories or hearkening to them, for there is no person that is acquainted with our principles would believe such lies, except [Thomas] Sharp the editor of the ‘Warsaw Signal.’” (Joseph Smith Jr., Conference address, April 6-7, 1842, reported in Times and Seasons vol.3 [April 15, 1842]: p.763)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842 Apr 10) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I preached in the grove and pronounced a curse upon all adulterers and fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs” (Joseph Smith, History of Joseph Smith, Grove Sermon, Sunday, Apr. 10, 1842)

Nauvoo High Council disciplinary hearings (1842, May 17-25)
[Editor’s Note: The following accounts are from the disciplinary hearings held before the Nauvoo High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, State of Illinois, County of Hancock, City of Nauvoo against men (John C. Bennett, Elias Higbee, Chauncey Higbee) who seduced women into immorality based on the alleged teachings and approval of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. All accounts were written and signed before multiple witnesses.]

Hyrum Smith (1842, May 17) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“On the seventeenth day of may, 1842, having been made acquainted with some of the conduct of John C. Bennett, which was given in testimony under oath before Alderman G. W. Harris, by several females, who testified that John C. Bennett endeavored to seduce them and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in the faith to bear such mysteries-that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that their [there] was such revelations and such commandments, and that it was of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if their was any; and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant. One of these witnesses, a married woman that he attended upon in his professional capacity, whilst she was sick, stated that he made proposals to her of a similar nature; he [John C. Bennett] told her that he wished her husband was dead, and that if he was dead he would marry her and clear out with her; he also begged her permission to give him medicine to that effect; he did try to give him medicine, but he would not take it– on interogating her what she thought of such teaching, she replied, she was sick at the time, and had to be lifted in and out of her bed like a child. Many other acts as criminal were reported to me at the time. On becoming acquainted with these facts, I was determined to prosecute him, and bring him to justice.– Some person knowing my determintion [determination], having informed him of it, he sent to me Wm. [William] Law and Brigham Young, to request an interview with me and to see if their [there] could not be a reconciliation made. I told them I thought there could not be, his crimes were so henious; but told them I was willing to see him; he immediately came to see me; he begged on me to forgive him, this once, and not prosecute him and expose him, he said he was guilty, and did acknowledge the crimes that were alleged against him; he seemed to be sorry that he had committed such acts, and wept much, and desired that it might not be made public, for it would ruin him forever; he wished me to wait; but I was determined to bring him to justice, and declined listening to his entreaties; he then wished me to wait until he could have an interview with the masonic fraternity; he also wanted an interview with Br. Joseph; he wished to know of me, if I would forgive him, and desist from my intentions, if he could obtain their forgiveness; and requested the privilege of an interview immediately. I granted him that privilege as I was acting as master pro. tem. at that time; he also wished an interview first with Br. Joseph; at that time Brother Joseph was crossing the yard from the house to the store and met Dr. Bennett on the way; he reached out his hand to Br. Joseph and said, will you forgive me, weeping at the time; he said Br. Joseph, I am guilty, I acknowledge it, and I beg of you not to expose me, for it will ruin me; Joseph replied, Doctor! why are you using my name to carry on your hellish wickedness? Have I ever taught you that fornication and adultery was right, or poligamy [polygamy] or any such practices? He said you never did. Did I ever teach you any thing that was not virtuous-that was iniquitous, either in public or private? He said you never did. Did you ever know anything unvirtuous or unrighteous in my conduct or actions at any time, either in public or in private? he said, I did not; are you willing to make oath to this before an Alderman of the city? he said I am willing to do so. Joseph said Dr. go into my office, and write what you can in conscience subscribe your name to, and I will be satisfied- I will, he said, and went into the office, and I went with him and he requested pen ink and paper of Mr. Clayton, who was acting clerk in that office, and was also secretary pro. tem. for the Nauvoo Lodge U. D. Wm. Clayton gave him paper, pen and ink, and he stood at the desk and wrote the following article which was published in the 11th No. of the Wasp; sworn to and subscribed before Daniel H. Wells, Alderman, 17th day of May, A. D. 1842; he called in Br. Joseph, and read it to him and asked him if that would do, he said it would, he then swore to it as before mentioned; the article was as follows:” (Daniel H. Wells, Alderman, sworn testimony of Hyrum Smith, May 17, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]: 870)

↪ John C. Bennett (1842, May 17) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“STATE OF ILLINOIS, CITY OF NAUVOO. Personally appeared before me, Daniel H. Wells, an Alderman of said city of Nauvoo, John C. Bennett, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith: that he never was taught any thing in the least cantrary [contrary] to the strictest principles of the Gospel, or of virtue, or of the laws of God, or man, under any occasion either directly or indirectly, in word or deed, by Joseph Smith; and that he never knew the said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in public or private; and that he never did teach to me in private that an illegal illicit intercourse with females was, under any circumstances, justifiable, and that I never knew him so to teach others. [signed] JOHN C. BENNETT. Sworn to, and subscribed, before me, this 17th day of May, 1842.” (Daniel H. Wells, Alderman, sworn testimony of John C. Bennett, May 17, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]: p.870)

Chauncey L. Higbee (1842, May 17) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Personally appeared before me Daniel H. Wells, an alderman of said city, C. L. Higbee, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that he never was taught anything in the least contrary to the strictest principles of the gospel or of virtue, of the laws of God or of man, under any circumstances or upon any occasion, either directly or indirectly, in word or deed by Joseph Smith, and that he never knew said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in public or in private, and that he never did teach me in private or public that an illicit intercourse with females was under any circumstances justifiable and that he never knew him so to teach others. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of May 1842.” (Daniel H. Wells, Alderman, sworn affidavit of Chanuncey L. Higbee, May 17, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]: 870)

John C. Bennett (1842, May 19) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit | 14 witnesses | 77% verbatim verbal
“The following conversation took place in the City Council, and was elicited in consequence of its being reported that the Doctor had stated that I [Joseph] had acted in an indecorous manner, and given countenance to vices practised by the Doctor, and others: Dr. John C. Bennett, ex-Mayor, was then called upon by the Mayor [Joseph Smith] to state if he knew aught against him; when Mr. Bennett replied: ‘I know what I am about, and the heads of the Church know what they are about. I expect I have no difficulty with the heads of the church. I publicly avow that any one who has said that I have stated that General Joseph Smith has given me authority to hold illicit intercourse with women is a liar in the face of God, those who have said it are damned liars; they are infernal liars. He never, either in public or private, gave me any such authority or license, and any person who states it is a scoundrel and a liar. I have heard it said that I should become a second Avard by withdrawing from the church, and that I was at variance with the heads and should use an influence against them because I resigned the office of Mayor; this is false. I have no difficulty with the heads of the church, and I intend to continue with you, and hope the time may come when I may be restored to full confidence, and fellowship, and my former standing in the church; and that my conduct may be such as to warrant my restoration—and should the time ever come that I may have the opportunity to test my faith it will then be known whether I am a traitor or a true man.’ Joseph Smith then asked: ‘Will you please state definitely whether you know any thing against my character either in public or private?’ Gen. Bennett answered: ‘I do not; in all my intercourse with Gen. [Joseph] Smith, in public and in private, he has been strictly virtuous.’ Aldermen. GEO. A. SMITH, N. K. WHITNEY, WILSON LAW, HIRAM KIMBALL, B. YOUNG, ORSON SPENCER, JOHN TAYLOR, GUST. HILLS, H. C. KIMBALL, G. W. HARRIS, W. WOODRUFF, Counsellors. JOHN P. GREEN, WILLARD RICHARDS, JAMES SLOAN, City Recorder. May 19th 1842.” (Nauvoo City Council meeting minutes, May 19, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [ July 1, 1842]: 841)

Margaret J. Nyman (1842, May 21) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Some time during the month of March last, Chauncey L. Higbee, came to my mother’s house, early one evening, and proposed a walk to a spelling school. My sister Matilda, and myself accompanied him; but, changing our design on the way, we stopped at Mrs. [Catharine] Fullers: During the evening’s interview, he, (as I have since learned,) with wicked lies proposed that I should yield to his desires, and indulge in sexual intercourse with him, stating that such intercourse might be freely indulged in, and was no sin: That any respectable female might indulge in sexual intercourse, and there was no sin in it, providing the person so indulging, keep the same to herself; for there could be no sin, where there was no accussor;—and most clendestinely, with wicked lies, persuaded me to yield by using the name of Joseph Smith: and, as I have since learned, totally false and unauthorised; and in consequence of those arguments, I was influenced to yield to my Seducer, Chauncey L. Higbee. I further state that I have no personal acquaintance with Joseph Smith, and never heard him teach such doctrines, as stated by Chauncey L. Higbee, either directly or indirectly. I heartily repent before God, asking the forgiveness of my brethren.” (Margaret J. Nyman vs Chauncey L. Higbee, sworn affidavit before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, State of Illinois, County of Hancock, City of Nauvoo, May 21, 1842)

Matilda J. Nyman (1842, May 21) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“During this spring Chauncy L. Higbee, kept company with me from time to time, and, as I have since learned, wickedly deceitfully, and with lies in his mouth, urged me vehemently to yield to his desires; that there could be no wrong in having sexual intercourse with any female that could keep the same to herself;—most villianously and lyingly stating that he had been so instructed by Joseph Smith, and that there was no sin where there was no accuser:—Also vowing he would marry me. Not succeeding, he, on one occasion, brought one, who affirmed that such intercourse was tolerated by the heads of the Church. I have since found him also to be a lying conspirator against female virtue and chastity, having never received such teachings from the heads of the church; but I was at the time partially influenced to believe in consequence of the source from whom I received it. I yielded and become subject to the will of my seducer, Chauncey L. Higbee: and having since found out to my satisfaction, that a number of wicked men have conspired to use the name of Joseph Smith, or the heads of the Church, falsely and wickedly to enable them to gratify their lusts, thereby destroying female innocence and virtue, I repent before God and my brethren and ask forgiveness. I further testify that I never had any personal acquaintance with Joseph Smith and never heard him teach such doctrines as Higbee, stated either directly or indirectly.” (Matilda J. Nyman vs Chauncey L. Higbee, before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, State of Illinois, County of Hancock, City of Nauvoo, May 21, 1842)

Sarah Miller (1842, May 24) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Some two or three weeks since, in consequence of brother Joseph Smith’s teachings to the singers, I began to be alarmed concerning myself, and certain teachings which I had received from Chauncey L. Higbee, and questioned him (Higbee) about his teaching, for I was pretty well persuaded from Joseph’s public teachings that Chauncey had been telling falsehoods; but Chauncey said that Joseph now taught as he did through necessity, on account of the prejudice of the people, and his own family particularly [Emma], as they had not become believers in the doctrine. I then become satisfied that all of Chauncey’s teaching had been false, and that he had never been authorized by any one in authority to make any such communication to me. Chauncey L. Higbee’s teaching and conduct were as follows. When he first came to my house soon after the special conference this spring, Chauncey commenced joking me about my getting married, and wanted to know how long it had been since my husband died, and soon removed his seat near me; and began his seducing insinuations by saying it was no harm to have sexual intercourse with women if they would keep it to themselves, and continued to urge me to yield to his desires, and urged me vehemently, and said he and Joseph were good friends, and he [Joseph] teaches me this doctrine, and allows me such privileges, and there is no harm in it and Joseph Smith says so. I told him I did not believe it, and had heard no such teaching from Joseph, nor from the stand [the place where preaching services were held at Nauvoo], but that it was wicked to commit adultery, &c. Chauncey said that did not mean single women, but married women; and continued to press his instructions and arguments until after dark, and until I was inclined to believe, for he called God to witness of the truth, and was so solemn and confident, I yielded to his temptations, having received the strongest assurance from him that Joseph approved it and would uphold me in it. He also told me that many others were following the same course of conduct. As I still had some doubts, near the close of our interview, I again suggested my fears that I had done wrong, and should loose the confidence of the brethren, when he assured me that it was right, and he would bring a witness to confirm what he had taught. When he come again, I still had doubts, I told him I understood he (Higbee), had recently been baptized, and that Joseph, when he confirmed him, told him to quit all his iniquitous practices,—Chauncey said it was not for such things that he was baptized for, [he said] do you think I would be baptized for such a thing and then go into it so soon again? Chauncey Higbee, said it would never be known, I told him it might be told in bringing forth [a child]. Chauncey said there was no danger, and that Dr. Bennet understood it, and would come and take it away, if there was any thing.” (Sarah Miller vs Chauncey L. Higbee, sworn affidavit before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, State of Illinois, County of Hancock, City of Nauvoo, May 24, 1842)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842, May 24) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Before me, Ebenezer Robinson, one of the Justices of the Peace for said county personally came Joseph Smith, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that at sundry times, in the City of Nauvoo, county aforesaid, one Chancy L. Higbee has slandered and defamed the character of the said Joseph Smith, and also the character of Emma Smith, his wife, in using their names, the more readily to accomplish his purpose in seducing certain females, and further this deponont saith not. Sworn to, and subscribed before me, in the county aforesaid, this 24th day of May A.D. 1842. E. Robinson J. P.” (Joseph Smith, Jr., sworn affidavit notarized by Ebenezer Robinson, May 24, 1842. Found in Hancock County Courthouse, Office of County Clerk and Recorder of the Circuit Court, File box 18, Case 40; Richard & Pamela Price, “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” vol. 1, ch.13)

Catharine Fuller Warren (1842, May 25) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“I have had unlawful connexion with Chauncey L. Higbee. Chauncey Higbee, taught the same doctrine as was taught by J. C. Bennet [John C. Bennett], and that Joseph Smith, taught and practiced those things, but he [Chauncey] stated that he did not have it from Joseph, but he had his information from Dr. John C. Bennet. He, Chauncey L. Higbee, has gained his object about five or six times, Chauncey L. Higbee, also made propositions to keep me with food if I would submit to his desires.” (Catharine Fuller Warren vs Chauncey L. Higbee, sworn affidavit before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, State of Illinois, County of Hancock, City of Nauvoo, May 25, 1842, published in Nauvoo Neighbor, May 29, 1844; Millennial Star 23:657-­658)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842, Jul 1) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“It becomes my duty to lay before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the public generally, some important facts relative to the conduct and character of DR. JOHN C. BENNETT, who has lately been expelled from the aforesaid church; that the honorable part of [the] community may be aware of his proceedings, and be ready to treat him and regard him as he ought to be regarded, viz: as an imposter and base adulterer. It is a matter of notoriety that said Dr. J. C. Bennett, became favorable to the doctrines taught by the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and located himself in the city of Nauvoo, about the month of August 1840, and soon after joined the church…. He had not been long in Nauvoo before he began to keep company with a young lady, one of our citizens; and she being ignorant of his having a wife living, gave way to his addresses, and became confident, from his behavior towards her, that he intended to marry her; and this he gave her to understand he would do. I, seeing the folly of such an acquaintance, persuaded him to desist; and, on account of his continuing his course, finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist. This, to outward appearance, had the desired effect, and the acquaintance between them was broken off. But, like one of the most abominable and depraved beings which could possibly exist, he only broke off his publicly wicked actions, to sink deeper into iniquity and hypocrisy [by continuing to date her secretly]. When he saw that I would not submit to any such conduct, he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house [with Emma, Joseph’s wife]. He was well aware of the consequence of such wilful and base falsehoods, if they should come to my knowledge; and consequently endeavored to persuade his dupes to keep it a matter of secrecy, persuading them there would be no harm if they should not make it known. This proceeding on his part, answered the desired end; he accomplished his wicked purposes; he seduced an innocent female by his lying, and subjected her character to public disgrace, should it ever be known. But his depraved heart would not suffer him to stop here. Not being contented with having disgraced fone female, he made an attempt upon others; and, by the same plausible tale, overcame them also; evidently not caring whose character was ruined, so that his wicked, lustful appetites might be gratified. Sometime about the early part of July 1841, I received a letter from Elder H. [Hyrum] Smith and Wm. Law [a member of the First Presidency], who were then at Pittsburgh, Penn. This letter was dated June 15th, and contained the particulars of a conversation betwixt them and a respectable gentleman from the neighborhood where Bennett’s wife and children resided. He stated to them that it was a fact that Bennett had a wife and children living, and that she had left him because of his ill-treatment towards her. This letter was read to Bennett, which he did not attempt to deny; but candidly acknowledged the fact. Soon after this information reached our ears, Dr. Bennett made an attempt at suicide, by taking poison; but he being discovered before it had taken effect, and the proper antidotes being administered, he again recovered; but he very much resisted when an attempt was made to save him. The public impression was, that he was so much ashamed of his base and wicked conduct, that he had recourse to the above deed to escape the censures of an indignant community. It might have been supposed that these circumstances transpiring in the manner they did, would have produced a thorough reformation in his conduct; but, alas! like a being totally destitute of common decency, and without any government over his passions, he was soon busily engaged in the same wicked career, and continued until a knowledge of the same reached my ears. I immediately charged him with it, and he admitted that it was true; but in order to put a stop to all such proceedings for the future, I publicly proclaimed against it, and had those females notified to appear before the proper [Church] officers that the whole subject might be investigated and thoroughly exposed. During the course of investigation, the foregoing facts were proved by credible witnesses, and were sworn and subscribed to before an alderman of the city, on the 15th ult. The documents containing the evidence are now in my possession.” (Times and Seasons 3 [July 1, 1842]: 839–840; RLDS History of the Church 2:585–587)

Lorenzo D. Wasson (1842, Jul 30) – contemporary + 1 year recollection | 1st hand
“Uncle,… If I can be of any service in this Bennett affair I am ready. I was reading in your [Joseph Smith’s] chamber last summer [1841]—yourself and Bennett came into the lower room, and I heard you give J. C. Bennett a tremendous flagellation for practicing iniquity under the base pretence of authority from the heads of the church—if you recollect I came down just before you were through talking. There are many things I can inform you of, if necessary, in relation to Bennett and his prostitutes.” (Lorenzo D. Wasson, Nephew of Emma Smith, letter to Joseph Smith July 30, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [August 15, 1842]: 892)

Parley P. Pratt (1842, Aug 1) – contemporary + 11 mo recollection | 1st hand
“Apostacy.—The spirit of apostacy has been quite prevalent of late, principally among those who have emigrated from England to America…. Among the most conspicuous of these apostates, we would notice a young female who emigrated from Manchester in September last [1841], and who, after conducting herself in a manner unworthy the character of one professing godliness, at length conceived the plan of gaining friendship and extraordinary notoriety with the world, or rather with the enemies of truth, by striking a blow at the character of some of its worthiest champions. She well knew that this would be received as a sweet morsel by her old friends, the Methodists, and other enemies of the Saints. She [Martha Brotherton] accordingly selected president J. Smith, and elder B. Young for her victims, and wrote to England that these men had been trying to seduce her, by making her believe that God had given a revelation that men might have two wives; by these disreputable means she thought to overthrow the Saints here, or at least to bring a storm of persecution on them, and prevent others from joining them; but in this thing she was completely deceived by Satan….But for the information of those who may be assailed by those foolish tales about the two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will: This is well known to all who are acquainted with our books and actions, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants: and also all our periodicals are very strict and explicit on that subject, indeed far more so than the bible.” (Parley P. Pratt, writer and editor, Millennial Star, Aug 1, 1842, 3:73-74)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842, Aug 26) – contemporary | 1st hand | diary
“At home all day. In the evening, in council with some of the Twelve and others. I gave some important instructions upon the situation of the church, showing that it was necessary that the officers that could should go abroad through the States, and, inasmuch as a great excitement had been raised through the community at large by the falsehoods put in circulation by John C. Bennett and others, it was wisdom in God that the elders should go forth and deluge the States with a flood of truth, setting forth the mean, contemptible, persecuting conduct of ex-Governor Boggs, of Missouri, and those connected with him in his mean and corrupt proceedings, in plain terms, so that the world might understand the abusive conduct of our enemies, and stamp it with indignation. I advised the Twelve to call a special conference on Monday next, to give instructions to the elders, and call upon them to go forth upon this important mission; meantime, that all the affidavits concerning Bennett’s conduct be taken and printed, so that each elder could be properly furnished with correct and weighty testimony to lay before the public.” (Joseph Smith, RLDS History of the Church 2:613; LDS History of the Church 5:131–132; see also Dean C, Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 2 [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1992]: 443–444)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (1842, Aug 31) – contemporary | 1st hand
[Editor’s note: Printed thousands of copies of a 2-sided broadside leaflet for distribution by the Elders abroad titled “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” in Nauvoo, containing the following sworn affidavits:] “The whole of these affidavits are given by gentlemen of the first respectability, of unquestionable character, and of known reputation and veracity, and can of course be relied upon; and what light do they represent Bennett in, but that of a perjured wretch, a graceless vagabond, and a mean, vascillating, unprincipled villian, and a disgrace to human society; and if their testimonies, and the testimony of the City Council, cannot be relied upon, then indeed are we in a poor case;—corrupt, fallen, and dishonored,—But John C. Bennett is not the man to prove us so; we must have different testimony to his, and that of his partners in crime, to convict us of evil. As John C. Bennett and the Sangamo Journal have called upon several persons, in this city, to come out and make disclosures, relative to the things about which they have been writing; they have responded to the call, and publish the following:— (Joseph Smith Jr., Affidavits and Certificates Disproving the Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters, Nauvoo, Illinois, August 31,1842)

Nauvoo City Council (1842, Jul 20) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“We the undersigned, members of the city council of the City of Nauvoo, testify that John C. Bennett was not under duress at the time that he testified before the city council May 19th 1842 concerning Joseph Smith’s innocence, virtue, and pure teaching—his statements that he has lately made concerning this matter are false… Joseph Smith asked him if he knew any thing bad concerning his public, or private character; he then delivered those statements contained in the testimony voluntarily, and of his own free will, and went of his own accord as free as any member of the council. We do further testify that there is no such thing as a Danite Society in this city nor any combination, other than the Masonic Lodge, of which we have any knowledge. [signed]
– Wilson Law
– Geo. A. Smith
– John Taylor
– Geo. W. Harris
– W. Woodruff
– N. K. Whitney
– Vinson Knight
– Brigham Young
– H. C. Kimball
– Charles C. Rich
– John P. Green
– Orson Spencer
– William Marks
Subscribed, and sworn to, by the persons whose names appear to the foregoing affidavit, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1842; except N. K. Whitney, who subscribed and affirmed to the foregoing this day, before me. DANIEL H. WELLS, Justice of the Peace, within and for Hancock County, Illinois. Daniel H. Wells, Esq. is an old resident in this place, and is not a Mormon.” (Nauvoo City Council members, affidavit sworn to and witnessed before Daniel H. Wells [Hancock County Justice of the Peace] on July 20, 1842; published in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” August 31, 1842, Nauvoo, IL)

William Law (1842, Jul 20) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“As. John C. Bennett has become our open enemy, and is engaged in circulating falsehoods of the blackest character, I deem it duty to make the following statement of facts: John C. Bennett states in the Sangamo Journal that the withdrawal of the hand of fellowship by the first Presidency, and the Twelve, was after he had withdrawn from the church. I presume the notice of our withdrawal was not published till after he withdrew, but that does not prove his statement true, for I hereby testify that I signed the article in question several days before he withdrew. I believe it was on the evening of the 11th day of May, some four or five days afterwards I had some conversation with J. C. Bennett and intimated to him that such a thing was concluded upon, which intimation I presume led him to withdraw immediately. I told him we could not bear with his conduct any longer-that there were many witnesses against him, and that they stated that he gave Joseph Smith as authority for his illicit intercourse with females. J. C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told any one that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that any one who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith’s name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct. These statements he made to me of his own free will, in a private conversation which we had on the subject; there was no compulsion or threats used on my part; we had always been on good terms, and I regretted exceedingly that he had taken such a course. He plead with me to intercede for him, assuring me that he would turn from his iniquity, and never would be guilty of such crimes again.-He said that if he were exposed it would break his mother’s heart-that she was old, and if such things reached her ears it would bring her down with sorrow to the grave. I accordingly went to Joseph Smith and plead with him to spare Bennett from public exposure, on account of his mother. On many occasions I heard him acknowledge his guilt, and beg not to be destroyed in the eyes of the public, and that he would never act so again, “So help him God.” From such promises, and oaths, I was induced to bear with him longer than I should have done. On one occasion I heard him state before the city Council that Joseph Smith had never taught him any unrighteous principles, of any kind, and that if any one says that he ever said that Joseph taught such things they are base liars, or words to that effect. This statement he made voluntarily; he came into the council room about an hour after the council opened, and made the statement, not under duress, but of his own free will, as many witnesses can testify. On a former eccasion he came to me and told me that a friend of his was about to be tried by the High Council, for the crime of adultery, and that he feared his name would be brought into question.-He entreated me to go to the council and prevent his name from being brought forward, as, said he, ‘I am not on trial, and I do not want my mother to hear of these things, for she is a good woman.’ I would further state that I do know from the amount of evidence which stands against J. C. Bennett, and from his own acknowledgements, that he is a most corrupt, base, and vile man; and that he has published many base falsehoods since we withdrew the hand of fellowship from him. About the time that John C. Bennett was brought before the Masonic Lodge he came to me and desired that I would go in company with B. Young, to Hyrum Smith, and entreat of him to spare him-that he wished not to be exposed-that he wanted to live as a private citizen, and would cease from all his folly, &c. I advised him to go to Texas, and when he returned, if he would behave well we would reinstate him. He said he had no means to take him to Texas, and still insisted on B. Young and myself to intercede for him.” WM. LAW. Sworn to, and subscribed before me a Justice of the Peace, within and for the county of Hancock, State of Illinois, July 20th 1842. DANIEL H. WELLS. STATE OF ILLINOIS (William Law, sworn affidavid regarding John C. Bennett, given July 20, 1842, published in Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]: 873)

Elias Higbee (1842, Jul 22) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Mr. Editor — Sir: From a perusal of the St. Louis papers,I find from an article signed J. C. Bennett, stating that all who are friends to Mr. Joseph Smith he considers his enemies. As a matter of course then, I must be one, for I am and have been for a long time the personal friend of Joseph Smith; and I will here say that I have never yet seen or— known any thing against him that I should change my mind. It is true many reports have been and are put in circulation by his enemies for political or religious effect, that upon investigation are like the dew before the morning sun, vanish away, because there is no real substance in them. Could Dr. Bennett expect any man acquainted with all the circumstances, and matters of fact which were developed both here and from abroad, respecting his conduct and character, previous to his leaving this place, for one moment to believe him — I answer NO! he could not. And all his affidavits, that came from any person entitled to credit, (I say entitled to credit, because some there are who are not entitled to credit, as Dr. Bennett very well knows) are in amount nothing at all, when summed up, and render no person worthy of death or bonds. F. M. Higbee’s knowledge concerning the murder of a prisoner in Missouri, I am authorized to say, by F. M. Higbee that he knows of no such thing — that no prisoner was ever killed in Missouri, to the best of his knowledge. And I also bear the same testimony, that there never was any prisoner killed there, neither were we ever charged with any such thing, according to the best of my recollection. [signed] ELIAS HIGBEE. July 22 1842. This is to certify that I do not know of the murder of any prisoner in Missouri, as above alluded to. [signed] F. M. HIGBEE. July, 22, 1842.” (Elias Higbee and Francis M. Higbee, certificates from a letter written July 22, 1842)

Stephen Goddard (1842, Jul 23) – contemporary + 21 mo recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“Mr. Orson Pratt, Sir:—Considering a duty upon me I now communicate to you some things relative to Dr. Bennett and your wife [Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt], that came under the observation of myself and wife, which I think would be satisfactory to the mind of a man could he but realize the conduct [of] those two individuals while under my [ ce]. I would have been glad to have [ ] forever in silence if it could have been so and been just. I took your wife into my house because she was destitute of a house, Oct. 6,1840, and from the first night, until the last, with the exception of one night, it being nearly a month, the Dr. was there as sure as the night came, and generally two or three times a day—on the first three nights he left about 9 o’clock—after that he remained later, sometimes till after midnight; what their conversation was I could not tell, as they sat close together, he leaning on her … whispering continually or talking very low—we generally went to bed and had one or two naps before he left. After being at my house nearly a month she was furnished with a house by Dr. Foster, which she lived in until sometime about the first of June, when she was turned out of the house and came to my house again, and the Dr. came as before. One night they took their chairs out of doors and remained there as we supposed until 12 o’clock or after; at another time they went over to the house where you now live and come back after dark, or about that time. We went over several times late in the evening while she lived in the house of Dr. Foster, and were most sure to find Dr. Bennett and your wife together, as it were, man and wife. Two or three times we found little Orson lying on the floor and the bed apparently reserved for the Dr. and herself—she observing that since a certain [ ] he had rather sleep on the floor than with her. I am surprised to hear of her crying because Bro. Joseph attempted to kiss her as she stated, even if he did do it; for she would let a certain man smack upon her mouth and face half a dozen times or more in my house without making up the first wry face. I will not mention his name at present. There are many more things which she has stated herself to my wife, which could go to show more strongly the feelings, connexion, and the conduct of the two individuals. As to the lamb which Dr. Bennett speaks of, I killed it, and kept a hind quarter of it for my own use, and saw the Dr. and Mrs. Pratt eat of the balance; The (Dr.) told me he would like to have me save enough blood to make a French pudding, which I believe Mrs. Pratt spoke of afterwards and said it looked so that she could not eat it. I had not instructions to save the entrails [to be sacrificed], and the Dr. was not present to [sacrifice] them himself, consequently his statements that he burned them on twelve stones is a falsehood, for the hogs eat them. Your friend [signed] Stephen H. Goddard. I certify that the above statement of my husband is true according to the best of my knowledge. [signed] Zeruiah N. Goddard. Sworn to before me July 23d 1842. Geo. W. Harris, Alderman of the City of Nauvoo.” (Stephen H. Goddard, letter to Orson Pratt, 23 July 1842; published in “The Wasp” Extra, August 31, 1842; Affidavits and Certificates, August 31, 1842)

Brigham Young (1842, Aug 25) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“I do hereby testify that the affidavit of Miss Martha Brotherton that is going the rounds in the politics and religious papers, is a base falsehood, with regard to any private intercourse or unlawful conduct or conversation with me. [signed] Brigham Young” (Brigham Young, sworn before Ebineazer Robinson [Hancock County Justice of the Peace] on August 25, 1842; published in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” August 31, 1842, Nauvoo, IL)

Heber C. Kimball (1842, Aug 25) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Heber C. Kimball, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith that the affidavit of Miss Martha Brotherton, which has been published in sundry newspapers is false and without foundation in truth, and further this deponant saith not. [signed] Heber C. Kimball” (Heber C. Kimbnall, sworn before Ebineazer Robinson [Hancock County Justice of the Peace] on August 25, 1842; published in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” August 31, 1842, Nauvoo, IL)

Vilate Kimball (1842, Aug 25) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“Personally came before me, Ebenezer Robinson, a Justice of the Peace, in and for the county aforesaid, Mrs. Vilate Kimball, wife of Heber C. Kimball who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith that the conversation said to have taken place between her and her husband in presence of Martha Brotherton is false: that nothing of the kind as stated in the affidavit of the 13th July 1842, made by the said Martha Brotherton at St. Louis, ever occurred, but is a base fabrication, and further this deponant saith not. [Signed] Vilate Kimball” (Vilate Kimbnall, sworn before Ebineazer Robinson [Hancock County Justice of the Peace] on August 25, 1842; published in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” August 31, 1842, Nauvoo, IL)

John McIlwrick (1842, Aug 27) – contemporary | 1st hand | affidavit
“I do know that the sister of my wife, Martha Brotherton, is a deliberate liar, and also a wilful inventor of lies; and that she has also to my certain knowledge at sundry times, circulated lies of a base kind, concerning those whom she knew to be innocent of what she alleged against them. She has also stooped to many actions which would be degrading to persons of common decency….And I further state that I am acquainted with Gen. Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young, and Elder Heber C. Kimball, having had the privilege of being intimate with the latter gentleman for several months in England. And I believe them to be men who lead holy and virtuous lives, and men who exhibit a philanthropic spirit to all the human family without respect of persons: and I also know for a truth that the forenamed Martha Brotherton has wickedly endeavored to injure the character of these gentlemen; and besides myself can testify that the statements which she has reported in different places are quite contrary to those she related here. [Signed] John Mcllwrick. We Elizabeth Brotherton, and Mary Mcllwrick, sisters of the said Martha Brotherton, concur in the above sentiments. [Signed] Elizabeth Brotherton. Mary [Brotherton] Mcllwrick. Sworn to, and subscribed, before me, this 27th day of August S. F. 1842. E. Robinson, Justice of Peace, for Hancock Co. 111.” (John McIllwrick, Mary [Brotherton] McIllwrick, Elizabeth Brotherton, sworn before Ebineazer Robinson [Hancock County Justice of the Peace] on August 27, 1842; published in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” August 31, 1842, Nauvoo, IL)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Sep 1) – contemporary | 1st hand | 55% verbatim written
“Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the fallacy of Dr. Bennett’s letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the church. ‘All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.’” (Joseph Smith, Jr., Editor, Times and Seasons, 3 [September 1, 1842], p.909; quoting Doctrine & Covenants 101:1-4 [1835-1876 Editions] and RLDS Doctrine & Covenants 111:4a–b)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Oct 1) – contemporary | 1st hand | 32 witnesses
“We have given the above rule of marriage [‘Article on Marriage’] as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s ‘secret wife system’ is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates: We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.
– S. [Samuel] Bennett
– N. [Newel] K. Whitney
– George Miller
– Albert Pettey
– Alpheus Cutler
– Elias Higbee
– Reynolds Cahoon
– John Taylor
– Wilson Law
– E. [Ebenezer] Robinson
– W. [Wilford] Woodruff
– Aaron Johnson

We the undersigned members of the ladies’ relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J.C. Bennett’s ‘secret wife system’ is a disclosure of his own make.
– Emma Smith, President [wife of President Joseph Smith, Jr.]
– Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counselor [wife of bishop Newell K. Whitney]
– Sarah M. Cleveland, Counselor [wife of Judge Cleveland, non-member]
– Eliza R. Snow, Secretary
– Mary C. Miller [wife of bishop George Miller]
– Louis Cutler [wife of Alpheus Cutler]
– Thirza Cahoon [wife of Reynolds Cahoon]
– Ann Hunter [wife of bishop Edward Hunter)
– Jane Law [wife of President William Law)
– Sophia R. Marks [daughter of Nauvoo Stake President William Marks)
– Polly Z. Johnson [wife of Aaron Johnson]
– Abigail Works [mother of Angeline Robinson (wife of Ebenezer Robinson) and mother of Miriam Works (Brigham Young’s first wife)]
– Catharine Pettey [wife of Albert Pettey]
– Sarah Higbee [wife of Elias Higbee]
– Phebe Woodruff [wife of apostle Wilford Woodruff]
– Leonora Taylor [wife of apostle John Taylor]
– Sarah Hillman [wife of Mayhew Hillman]
– Rosannah Marks [wife of stake president William Marks]
– Angeline Robinson [wife of Ebenezer Robinson]
(Joseph Smith, Jr., Editor, Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, 3:940)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Dec 1) – contemporary | 1st hand
“There was a book printed at my office, a short time since, written by Udney H. Jacobs, on marriage, without my knowledge; and had I been apprised of it, I should not have printed it; not that I am opposed to any man enjoying his privileges; but I do not wish to have my name associated with the authors, in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsence, folly, and trash.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Editor, December 1, 1842, Times and Seasons 4:2, pg.32; Editor’s note: The book referred to above is titled “The Peace Maker” and Joseph Smith was listed as the printer on the cover page of the book. The book (sometimes referred to as a pamphlet) contained arguments and passages of scripture that supported the idea of God sanctioning polygamy.)

↪ Udney H. Jacobs (1840, Mar 19) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I hold in my hands a manuscript, which if it was published seasonably, and sufficiently circulated, would I humbly conceive be the certain means of insuring your Election. Of this I have no doubt. I am thorily acquainted with the religious principals and minds, of every sect, and denomination of men in this land. And I now offer to place this almighty power for the time being at your disposal: merely, by a publication of the book alluded to…. These Mormons know but very little of me; but Sir, I know them—and I know them to be a deluded and dangerous set of fanatics, dangerous I say, as far as their influence goes…. [Joseph] Smith has returned home [from Washington, D.C.], and I am informed is determined to throw his weight with all his deluded followers into the scale against you. They are at this time in the United States a large body rapidly increasing. J. Smith and Rigdon hold their [the Saints’] consciences. Now Sir, a system of religious, as well as political truth. Supported by irresistible and admitted Testimony, calculated to cut it’s own way to the very center of any rational mind… would produce a tremendious effect. This my dear Sir can be done, even by your humble Servant. Observe, I do not pretend to say that every vote in the Union shall be thus influenced. But, I say this. That by the means which I hold in my power [my manuscript] if assisted reasonably by your aid. It [the book titled “The Peace Maker”] shall throw such a weight into the right scale as shall bring the other infallibly to kick the beam [tip the scales].” (Udney H. Jacob, letter to Martin Van Buren, president of the United States, March 19, 1840, Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield, Illinois; Editor’s note: The manuscript referenced above by Udney Jacobs is the manuscript for the full book entitled “The Peace Maker” which was intended to be intentionally and maliciously published in secret with Joseph Smith as the author for the purpose of destroying Joseph Smith’s credibility and character and infuencing the upcoming election. Jacobs sought financial aid from President Van Buren, but was unsuccessful in fundraising. In fall 1842, Jacobs succeeded in printing a portion of the book as a pamphlet at the Times and Seasons press, independently owned by the Quorum of the Twelve (see note below), while Joseph was in exile, unaware of the publication being prepared. Members of the 1842 Quorum of the Twelve assisted in the publication and put Joseph Smith’s name on it, as the printer. The pamphlet cover contains the text: “An Extract. From a Manuscript entitled The Peace Maker, or the Doctrines of the Millennium: Being a treatise on religion and jurisprudence. Or a new system of religion and politicks. For God, my Country, and my Rights. By Udney Hay Jacob. An Israelite, and a Shepherd of Israel. Nauvoo, 111. J. Smith, Printer. 1842.”)

↪ Ebenezer Robinson (1842, Mar 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“On the 6th of Feb. I gave possession of the [printing] establishment, to Willard Richards the purchaser on the behalf of the Twelve; at which time my responsibility ceased as editor… the boy [unnamed boy who worked at the print shop], together with other journeymen, had been discharged by the purchasers.” (Ebenezer Robinson, Times and Seasons 3 [March 15, 1842]: p.729)

↪ Udney H. Jacobs (1851, Mar) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I cannot imagine why you suspected me unless it was that I wrote a pamphlet some years since entitled the Peace Maker—you have certainly a wrong idea of that matter. I was not then a member of this Church, and that pamphlet was not written for this people [the Latter Day Saints] but for the citizens of the United States who professed to believe the Bible.” (Udney Jacob, letter to Brigham Young, March 1851, BYU Studies 9 [Autumn 1968]: p.52–53)

↪ John D. Lee (1877) – 35 year recollection | 2nd hand
“During the winter, Joseph, the Prophet, set a man by the name of Sidney [Udney] Hay Jacobs, to select from the Old Bible such scriptures as pertained to polygamy, or celestial marriage, and to write it in pamphlet form, and to advocate that doctrine. This he did as a feeler among the people, to pave the way for celestial marriage. This like all other notions, met with opposition, while a few favored it. The excitement among the people became so great that the subject was laid before the Prophet. No one was more opposed to it [The Peace Maker] than was his brother Hyrum, who denounced it as from beneath. Joseph saw that it would break up the Church, should he sanction it, so he denounced the pamphlet through the Wasp [the Times and Seasons], a newspaper published at Nauvoo, by E. Robinson, as a bundle of nonsense and trash. He said if he had known its contents he would never have permitted it to be published, while at the same time other confidential men were advocating it on their own responsibility.” (John D. Lee, “Mormonism Unveiled; or the Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop,” John D. Lee, 1877, p.146)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1843, Aug 5) – contemporary | 1st hand | dictated to scribe | altered 11+ months later after Joseph’s death
[Editor’s note: This excerpt comes from “an untitled journal of 278 manuscript pages” in the handwriting of Willard Richards, dated August 5, 1843 in Nauvoo.]

Original “Journal” version – view original
“Walked up and down the street with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.” [Editor’s note: the rest of page 117 is left blank after the exact quote above.] (“Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 3, 15 July 1843–29 February 1844,” p. [117], The Joseph Smith Papers.)

“History Draft” version – view draft
[Editor’s note: This “history draft” contains markup and notes on the page, including the phrase “to be revised” in the left margin, several blank lines in the middle of the paragraph, and an abnormal amount of space at the end of the entry, which were filled in with additional details, written in a different handwriting.] “Walked up and down the street with Scribe and gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” (“History Draft [1 March–31 December 1843],” p.72, The Joseph Smith Papers.)

“History of the Church” version – view final draft
[Editor’s note: This final draft keeps the edits and revisions that were added after Joseph Smith’s death and under Brigham Young’s leadership, which were never recorded by the original scribe on the date of August 5, 1843. The official History of the Church volume records it as official church history with no mention of the edits.] “Walked up and down the street with Scribe and gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” (“History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1746, The Joseph Smith Papers; LDS History of the Church 6:46)

↪ Richard S. Van Wagoner (1994, Dec) – contemporary | 1st hand
“When incorporating Smith’s journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young’s direction, deleted ten key words from this significant passage and added forty-nine others.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, LDS Church Historian, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess”, p.303, note 17)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1843, Nov 25) – contemporary | 1st hand
“In the evening the High Council sat on the case of Harrison Sagers, charged with seduction, and having stated that I had taught it was right. Charge not sustained. I was present with several of the Twelve, and gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord; told them that the Church had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action; but my every word and action has been to the contrary. If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom. I did think that the many examples that have been made manifest, such as John C. Bennett’s and others, were sufficient to show the fallacy of such a course of conduct. I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present against committing such evils; for it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Journal entry, Saturday, November 25, 1843. History of the Church 6:4, p.81)

Joseph Smith Jr. & Hyrum Smith (1844, Feb 1) – contemporary | 1st hand
“City of Nauvoo, Thursday, Feb. 1, 1844. — Notice: As we have lately been credibly informed that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, State of Michigan : This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he is cut off from the Church, for his iniquity ; and he is farther notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges. [signed] Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of said, Church.” (Joseph Smith Jr. & Hyrum Smith, “Times and Seasons,” Feb 1, 1844, vol. 5, p. 423)

Hyrum Smith (1844, Mar 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“To the Brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, living on China Creek in Hancock County, Greeting: -Whereas Brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.” (Hyrum Smith, Times and Seasons, April 1, 1844, vol. 5, no.7 p. 490)

↪ Richard Hewitt (1849 Jun 14) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I want to know what your [J. J. Strang’s] mind is about men having the priesthood having more wives than one. The principle is taught amongst all that I have been with. Some have from two to ten, or twenty, and some have none. If it is consistent I want you to let me know when you write to me, and I want you to write as soon as you get this, so Brother Miller [Bishop George Miller] and myself may know what to do. You must excuse me for asking so much, but you must bear with me, as I confess I am ignorant. Bro. Miller says their whoring will send them all to hell. You can see Bro. Hyrum’s epistle to me on that subject, in the Times and Seasons, 15th March, 1844, if I don’t mistake. I don’t find such things in the Book of Covenants, nor in the Book of Mormon, nor in the writings of the apostles: and I don’t want to be deceived, nor flattered any more, etc.” (Richard Hewitt of Bastrop, Texas, private letter to J. J. Strang, June 14, 1849)

Hyrum Smith (1844, Mar 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“We very frequently receive letters from elders and individuals abroad, inquiring of us whether certain statements that they hear, and have written to them, are true: some pertaining to John C. Bennet’s spiritual wife system; others in regard to immoral conduct, practiced by individuals, and sanctioned by the church; and as it is impossible for us to answer all of them, we take this opportunity of answering them all, once for all. In the first place, we cannot but express our surprise that any elder or priest who has been in Nauvoo, and has had an opportunity of hearing the principles of truth advanced, should for one moment give credence to the idea that anything like iniquity is practiced, much less taught or sanctioned, by the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are the more surprised, since every species of iniquity is spoken against, and exposed publicly at the stand, and every means made use of that possibly can be, to suppress vice, both religious and civil; not only so, but every species of iniquity has frequently been exposed in the Times and Seasons, and its practicers and advocates held up to the world as corrupt men that ought to be avoided. We are however living in the ‘last days;’ a time when the scriptures say ‘men shall wax worse, and worse; deceiving, and being deceived;’ in a time when it is declared, ‘if it is possible the very elect should be deceived.’ We have in our midst corrupt men, (and let no man be astonished at this for ‘the net shall gather in of every kind, good and bad;’) these corrupt men circulate corrupt principles, for a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit; these spread their pernicious influence abroad, ‘they hatch cockatrices eggs, and weave the spider’s web; he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper; their words eat as doth a canker; the poison of asps is under their tongue, and the way of peace they have not known.’ Such men not unfrequently go abroad and prey upon the creduly of the people, probably have clandestinely obtained an ordination, and go forth as elders, the more effectually to impose upon the public. Some have got horses, and others money, under specious pretences, from the unwary and unsuspecting, among the newly formed branches who have not had all the sagacity to detect them. There are other men who are corrupt and sensual, and who teach corrupt principles for the sake of gratifying their sensual appetites, at the expense and ruin of virtue and innocence. Such men ought to be avoided as pests to society, and be frowned down upon with contempt by every virtuous man and woman. All of the above, of whatever name or nature, are ‘reprobate concerning the faith;’ if the [they] write, they write corruptly; if they speak, they speak corruptly. They are such as the apostle speaks of, they speak ‘great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration.’- They are high and lifted up, and would trample upon the humble, and the meek, and the unassuming, and are not afraid to teach for the commandment of God, their own corrupt, and devilish doctrines, and principles; let no man therefore, be deceived by them, let no man harbor them, nor bid them God speed; dont be partakers of their evil deeds. If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants set him down as an impostor. You need not write to us to know what you are to do with such men; you have the authority with you. Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches, and if they are belonging to any of the quorums in the church, report them to the president of the quorum to which they belong; and if you cannot find that out, if they are members of an official standing, belonging to Nauvoo, report them to us. Follow after purity, virtue, holiness, integrity, godliness, and everything that has a tendency to exalt and ennoble the human mind; and shun every man who teaches any other principles.” (Hyrum Smith, Times and Seasons, March 15, 1844, vol. 6, pp. 490-491)

Hyrum Smith (1844, Apr 8) – contemporary | 1st hand | altered by historian
“Every great and good principle should be taught to the Saints, but some must not be taught to the world; until they are prepared to receive them; it would be like casting pearls before swine. [two lines erased and replaced with “​No man must attempt​”] to preach them. I believe every good man should have one wife in this life, and I know if I had two I should not know what to do with them; they might quarrel about me, and I might get a whipping. One is enough, and I warn all of you not to attempt it; if a man should begin to find you out, you would get into some cell in Alton.” (Hyrum Smith, Conference address, “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1988, The Joseph Smith Papers; link, see document)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1844, May 8) – contemporary | 1st hand
“The only sin I ever committed was in exercising sympathy and covering up their [John C. Bennett, Chauncey Higbee, Francis Higbee and others] iniquities, on their solemn promise to reform, and of this I am ashamed, and will never do so again.” (Joseph Smith Jr., May 8, 1844, History of the Church, 6:360)

Josiah Quincy (1844, May 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Smith then began to talk about himself and his people, as, of course, we encouraged him to do. He addressed his words to Mr. Adams oftener than to me, evidently thinking that this gentleman had or was likely to have political influence, which it was desirable to conciliate. Whether by subtle tact or happy accident, he introduced us to Mormonism as a secular institution before stating its monstrous claims as a religious system. Polygamy, it must be remembered, formed no part of the alleged revelations upon which the social life at Nauvoo was based; indeed, the recorded precepts of its prophet were utterly opposed to such a practice, and it is, at least, doubtful whether this barbarism was in any way sanctioned by Smith. Let a man who has so much to answer for be allowed the full benefit of the doubt; and Mormonism, minus the spiritual wife system, had, as it has today, much that was interesting in its secular aspects.” (Josiah Quincy, “Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old Journals” May 15, 1844, p.382-383, published 1888; Editor’s note: Joseiah Quincy was a famous professor and political figure. In this account he’s traveling to the western US and describing from his journal entries his visit to Nauvoo. He is accompanied by ex=president of the United States John Quincy Adams, who is referred to as “Mr. Adam’s” in the quote above.)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1844, May 26) – contemporary | 1st hand | 3,000+ witnesses
“Another indictment has been got up against me [the polygamy indictment involving Maria Lawrence]. It appears a holy prophet [William Law] has arisen up, and he has testified against me; the reason is, he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still. Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man’s ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet God knows, then, that the charges against me are false. I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this. William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the “Brutus.” There was a cogitation who was the “Brutus.” I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are—whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me. A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses. Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws’ clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness, they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet. Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—”By God, he is innocent,” and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life. There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth’s sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves. When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross—I can lay down my life; but don’t forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.—Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall. Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors….For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, May 26, 1844, 6:409-411)

John Taylor (1844, May 29) – contemporary | 1st hand
“We have abundance of like testimony on hand, which may be forth coming if we are compelled, at present the foregoing may suffice. Why have you not published this before?—We answer, on account of the humility and entreaties of [Chauncey] Higbee, at the time,—and on account of the feelings of his parents, who are highly respectable,—we have forborne until now. The character of C. L. Higbee, is so infamous, and his exertions such as to destroy every principle of righteousness, that fo[r]bearance is no longer a virtue. After all that this Chauncey L. Higbee has done, in wickedly and maliciously using the name of Joseph Smith, to persuade innocent females to submit to gratify his hellish lusts: and then blast the characters of the most chaste, pure virtuous, and philanthropic man on earth [Joseph Smith], he, to screen himself from the law of the land, and the just indignation of insulted people, and save himself from the Penitentiary, or whatever punishment his unparralled crimes merit; has entered into a conspiracy with the Laws [William and Wilson], and others against the like of those, who are knowing to his abandoned conduct; thus hoping to save himself from the disgrace which must follow an exposure, and wreak his vengeance and gratify his revenge for his awful disappointments.” (John Taylor, Editorial note, Nauvoo Neighbor, May 29, 1844; Millennial Star 23:657-­658)

Hyrum Smith (1844, Jun 8) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Councillor, H. [Hyrum] Smith… referred to the revelation, read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about a multiplicity of wives; that said revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time.” (Hyrum Smith, City Council, Regular Session, June 8, 1844; published in “EXTRA,” Nauvoo Neighbor, Vol. 2 No. 8, June 17, 1844; John Dinger “The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes“. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011, p.241)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1844, Jun 8) – contemporary | 1st hand
“They make a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth, while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the holy Priesthood; and [Joseph] then read a statement of William Law’s from the Expositor, where the truth of God was transformed into a lie concerning this thing…. [Joseph] preached on the stand from the Bible, showing the order in ancient days, having nothing to do with the present times.” (Joseph Smith Jr., City Council, Regular Session, June 8, 1844; quoted by Hyrum Smith, published in “EXTRA,” Nauvoo Neighbor, Vol. 2 No. 8, June 17, 1844; John Dinger, “The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes“. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011, p.241)

Hyrum Smith (1844, Jun 10) – contemporary | 2nd hand
“C. H. Smith.—— spoke to show the falsehoods of Austin Cowles in relation to the revelation referred to.— that it referred to former days— not the present time as stated by Cowles. Mayor [Joseph Smith] said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public— had not taught it to the annointed in the church in private which many confirmed.— On enquiry the passage in the resurrection they neither mary & I recived for answer, Men in this life must be married in view of eternity, was the amount of the revelation, otherwise they must remain as angels — in heaven, and spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle and was willing for one to subscribe his name to declare the ‘Expositor’ and whole establishment a nuisance.” (Hyrum Smith, Nauvoo City City Council, June 10, 1844; published in “EXTRA,” Nauvoo Neighbor 2:8, published June 19, 1844;)

Sidney Rigdon (1844, Oct 12) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Resolved, that in consequence of the most flagrant violation of the original, or true principles and order of the church, by the Twelve and their abettors, by rejecting Elder Rigdon, and practicing the doctrine of polygamy, despoiling female virtue and chastity by seducing them, and tyranizing over those who will not sanction their works of darkness, and many other like things, for which we regard them as apostates, and men fallen from the true order of the church, into a state of wickedness and corruption; therefore, we hold no fellowship with them” (Sidney Rigdon, “Messenger and Advocate” vol.1 [October 15, 1844]: p.6)

Sidney Rigdon (1844, Oct 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“It is a fact, so well known, that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business in secret, that I hardly need mention it here, and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths, to keep it from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them to effect these corrupt practices from the view of the world. I could bring facts which can be established in any court of justice, in relation to these vile abominations practiced under the garb of religion that would make humanity blush. No falsehood too great, and no perjury too daring, in order to conceal these heaven-daring abuses of mankind…. How often have these men and their accomplices stood up before the congregation, and called God and all the holy Angels to witness, that there was no such doctrine taught in the church; and it has now come to light, by testimony which cannot be gainsaid, that at the time they thus dared heaven and insulted the world, they were living in the practice of these enormities; and there were multitudes of their followers in the congregation at the time who knew it…. SIDNEY RIGDON.” (Sidney Rigdon, “Messenger and Advocate” vol.1 [October 15, 1844]: p.14; Editor’s note: One month earlier on September 8, 1844, the Twelve held a public trial in the Grove at Nauvoo to excommunicate Sidney Rigdon, to which they succeeded [assuming they had the authority to do so]. During that meeting, Sidney tried to expose some of the works of darkness amont the Twelve, which were publicly denied. In this publication, he is very likely referring to that event, although not expressly stated.)

↪ John Taylor (1844, Nov 15) – contemporary | 1st hand
“The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and incomings of so many apostates that nothing but truth has any effect upon them. In the present instance, after the sham quotations of Sidney and his clique, from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, to skulk off, under the ‘dreadful splendor‘ of ‘spiritual wifery,’ which is brought into the account as graciously as if the law of the land allowed a man a plurality of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of Sidney’s revelation, just because he wanted ‘to go to Pittsburg and live.‘ Wo to the man or men who will thus wilfully lie to injure an innocent people! The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man’s wife die, he has a right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the living and the dead! there is no law of God or man against it! This is all the spiritual wife system that was ever tolerated in the church, and they know it.” (John Taylor, Times and Seasons 5 [November 15, 1844]: p.715)

Oliver Cowdery (1846, Jul 24) – contemporary | 1st hand | photocopy verified
”TIFFIN, Seneca County, Ohio, July 24,1846. Brother Daniel [Jackson] and Sister Phoebe [Cowdery Jackson (Oliver’s sister)]: Phoebe’s letter mailed at Montrose [Iowa] on the 2nd of this month was received…. Now, Brother Daniel and Sister Phoebe, what will you do? Has Sister Phoebe written us the truth? and if so, will you venture with your little ones, into the toil and fatigue of a long journey [to the West], and that for the sake of finding a resting place when you know of miseries of such magnitude as have, as will, and as must rend asunder the tenderest and holiest ties of domestic life? I can hardly think it possible, that you have written us the truth [about polygamy], that though there may be individuals who are guilty of the iniquities spoken of,—yet no such practice can be preached or adhered to, as a public doctrine. Such may do for the followers of Mahomet; it may have done some thousands of years ago; but no people, professing to be governed by the pure and holy principles of the Lord Jesus, can hold up their heads before the world at this distance of time, and be guilty of such folly—such wrong—such abomination. It will blast, like a mildew, their fairest prospects, and lay the axe at the root of the tree of their future happiness. You would like to know whether we are calculating to come on and emigrate to California. On this subject everything depends upon circumstances…. We do not feel to say or do anything to discourage you from going, if you think it best to do so. We know, in part, how you are situated. Out of the church, you have few, or no friends, and very little, or no society—in it you have both, … though the journey is frequently attended with toil, yet a bright future has been seen in the distance, if right counsels were given, and a departure in no way from the original faith, in no instance, countenanced. Of what that doctrine and faith is, and was, I ought to know, and further it does not become me now to speak…. May the Lord have mercy on you, and protect and spare you. Truly your brother and friend, Oliver Cowdery.” (Oliver Cowdery, personal letter to Daniel and Phoebe Jackson [Oliver’s sister and brother-in-law], July 24, 1846; published in The Saints’ Herald 55 [January 15, 1908]: 56–57)

↪️ William W. Blair (1879, May) – contemporary | 1st hand
“His [Oliver Cowdery’s] two sisters, Lucy and Phebe, the wives of Phineas H., (brother to Brigham Young) and Daniel Jackson, remained for a season with the Utah Mormons. It appears that Oliver had heard that polygamy was secretly taught and practiced at Nauvoo, and he wrote his sister Lucy [Young] inqu[i]ring as to the truth of the reports. [Phineas] Young would not allow his wife to answer him [Oliver], but Mrs. Jackson wrote him giving a full report of the strange and vile system, and the following letter [above] is in answer to hers. Brigham Young is said to have stated that Oliver was the first to practice polygamy in the Church. This letter informs us as to what Oliver, speaking for himself, thought of it, as late as 1846.” (William W. Blair, The Saints’ Advocate 1 [May 1879]: 112)

↪ Richard Ferris (1904, Aug 5) – contemporary | 1st hand | photocopy verified
“OAKLAND, California, August 5,1904. Bro. Elbert Smith; Dear Sir: I forward you photos of the Cowdery letter, which you will find on analysis to totally refute the story of the Brighamites that polygamy was a part of the doctrines of the church during the Martyr’s time. You see that Daniel and Phoebe Jackson, and Phineas [and Lucy] Young lived in Montrose, Iowa, in 1846. They were sisters of Cowdery (that is Phoebe Jackson and Phineas Young’s wife). Phineas Young’s wife got a letter from Cowdery asking if it was true that some were practicing polygamy in Nauvoo. She would not answer, but turned the letter over to her sister, who did answer it. The photos are of the reply from Cowdery. I knew Phoebe Jackson in Sacramento, when I lived there, twenty-five years ago [1879]. On visiting there, Mrs. Quigley, her daughter, loaned me the letter. Bro. Kelly [of the RLDS Church] has it now. Mrs. Jackson showed me the letter when she was living and told me its history as I gave it to you. I did not know its value then, as I had but lately come into the church, and she told me it had been published. Your brother in the gospel, RICHARD FERRIS. 630 Chestnut Street,” (Richard Ferris, letter to Elbert Smith explaining story of how he acquired the Oliver Cowdery letter in 1879; published in The Saints’ Herald 55 [January 15, 1908]:56)

↪ Editor, The Saints’ Herald (1908, Jan 15) – contemporary (letter published 62 years later) | 2nd hand witness of 1st hand account | photocopy verified
“[Editor’s Note.—Herewith appears a letter from Elder Richard Ferris, followed by a verified copy of the Cowdery letter, which he referred to, taken from the photos which he forwarded to us. We have delayed the publication of this letter, hoping to reproduce the photos in question, but have found it impossible (owing to their size, and the fact that they are blue prints) to secure a legible reproduction. However, the photos are on file with the Editors, and may be seen by those who choose.—ASSOCIATE EDITOR.]” (Editor, The Saints’ Herald 55 [January 15, 1908]:56)

John Taylor (1850) – contemporary | 1st hand + 2nd hand + 3rd hand
“The Rev. C. W. Cleeve then said,… The first question of discussion is, Was Joseph Smith an imposter?… The Rev. gentleman then proceeded to read general extracts from a work by the Rev. Henry Caswell, General [John C.] Bennett, and others, and an article from the English Review, charging Joseph Smith and the Mormonites with a number of crimes and immoralities… I was intimately acquainted with the late Joseph Smith, and know that the statements made by Mr. Cleeve are untrue. I have been with Mr. Smith for years; I have travelled with him; I have been with him in public and in private, at home and abroad; I was with him living, and when he died—when he was murdered in Carthage gaol, and I can testify that he was a virtuous, moral, high-minded man—a Christian and a philanthropist… In relation to the characters who made those statements, I happen to be acquainted with them, and know of the circumstances under which some of them were written, Concerning Mr. Caswell, I was at Nauvoo during the time of his visit. He came for the purpose of looking for evil. He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers…. Respecting John C. Bennett; I was well acquainted with him. At one time he was a good man, but fell into adultery, and was cut off from the church for his iniquity; and so bad was his conduct, that he was also expelled [from] the Municipal Court, of which he was a member. He then went lecturing through the country, and commenced writing pamphlets for the sake of making money, charging so much for admittance to his lectures, and selling his slanders. His remarks, however, were so bad, and his statements so obscene and disgraceful, that respectable people were disgusted. These infamous lies and obscene stories, however, have been found very palatable to a certain class of society, and in times of our persecutions multitudes were pleased with them. Hence, not only did it suit the inclination of these gentlemen above alluded to, but preying upon the cupidity of the uninformed, they made a very lucrative business of their disgusting traffic, and sold it to the world garnished with the names of Doctor Bennett, the Rev. Mr. Turner, the Rev. Mr. Caswell, and numbers of other reverends, associates of blacklegs and murderers… I say now, as I said before, that reports have nothing to do with truth; and I will say, moreover, that public opinion has very little to do with it… He and his friends had quoted against the testimony of General Bennett and Professor Caswell, and of works published in America, in 1848. These works had testified that Joseph Smith kept up a seraglio of ‘Sisters of the White Veil,’ and ‘Sisters of the Green Veil;’ and that Sidney Rigdon, who had at one time been almost as great a man among the Mormonites as Joe Smith, had quarrelled with Joe for the Batter’s attempt to introduce his, Rigdon’s daughter, into the sisterhood…. Now he (Mr. Robertson) demanded distinctly of Mr. Taylor what was the nature of the sisterhood of the White and Green Veil—what was the nature of the dispute between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith… It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that he also attaches very great importance to the statements of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of course, for want of better testimony. I have already referred to their characters, I have already stated that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent people, will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the same object…. We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the ‘White Veil,’ the ‘Black Veil, and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330… Is it difficult for such men to write books, such as we have heard, to cover their infamy and deeds of darkness? Who but depraved men could write such books? These statements are too flimsy for intelligence to be blended with. We hear Joseph Smith’s crimes, he was tried thirty-nine times before the tribunals of his country, and nothing proven against him. Why do not these gentlemen bring some legal authenticated testimony from those courts? Why did not the authors of these books do this? because they could not. When Joseph Smith was among his enemies, on the ground where they have proven these things, why did they not do it? I ask these gentlemen for some legal proof. It will go further with me than the statements, opinions and reports of their Rev. authors, and might shew from whence springs that bitter, acrimonious spirit, which has been manifested by my opponents?… I know nothing of Mr. Smith but what is good; he [Mr. Robertson| ought to prove his assertions, or not make them…. I stated concerning Gen. Bennett, that at one time he was a good man; but that he fell into iniquity, and was cut off from the church for adultery, and then commenced his persecutions. If I had my books here [the Times and Seasons] I could have shown an affidavit made before the city council, about the time he was cut off, stating that he knew nothing evil or bad of Joseph Smith. An affidavit that I heard him make myself…. Concerning Joseph Smith, as there has been a good deal said about him, I am now going to introduce testimony about his character, that no one will be able to gainsay. It is not the report of this man, that, or the other, but positive living testimony; such as would be received by any court, and it is all I shall say on that subject. In the first place, I give my own, as I did before. I testify that I was acquainted with Joseph Smith for years. I have travelled with him; I have been with him in private and in public. I have associated with him in councils of all kinds; I have listened hundreds of times to his public teachings, and his advice to his friends and associates of a more private nature. I have been at his house and seen his deportment in his family. I have seen him arraigned before the tribunals of his country, and seen him honourable acquitted, and delivered from the pernicious breath of slander, and the machinations and falsehoods of wicked and corrupt men. I was with him living, and with him when he died, when he was murdered in Carthage gaol by a ruthless mob, headed by a Methodist minister, named Williams, with their faces painted. I was there and was myself wounded. I at that time received four balls in my body. I have seen him, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honourable, virtuous man—that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome—that his precepts were such as became a man of God—that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony; if it is disputed, bring me a person authorized to receive an affidavit, and I will make one to this effect. I therefore testify of things which I know and of things which I have seen” (John Taylor, Three Nights’ Public Discussion Between The Revds. C W. Cleeve, James Robertson, and Philip Cater, and Elder John Taylor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, At Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France [Liverpool, Great Britain, 1850], 4)

William Marks (1859, Oct 23) – 15 year recollection | 1st hand
“I feel desirous to communicate through your periodical a few suggestions made manifest to me by the Spirit of God, in relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. About the first of June, 1844, (situated as I was at that time, being Presiding Elder of the Stake at Nauvoo, and by appointment the presiding officer of the High Council,) I had a very good opportunity to know the affairs of the church; and my convictions at that time were, that the church in a great measure had departed from the pure principles and doctrines of Jesus Christ. I felt much troubled in mind about the condition of the church. I prayed earnestly to my heavenly Father to show me something in regard to it, when I was wrapped in vision, and it was shown me by the Spirit that the top or branches had overcome the root, in sin and wickedness, and the only way to cleanse and purify it was to disorganize it and in due time the Lord would reorganize it again. There were many other things suggested to my mind, but the lapse of time has erased them from my memory. A few days after this occurrence I met with Brother Joseph. He said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it. After the Prophet’s death, I made mention of this conversation to several, hoping and believing that it would have a good effect; but to my great disappointment, it was soon rumored about that Brother Marks was about to apostatize, and that all that he said about the conversation with the Prophet was a tissue of lies.” (William Marks, Saints’ Herald, vol. 1, Oct. 23, 1859, Shabbona, DeKalb County, Illinois, pp.22-23; RLDS History of the Church 2:733)

Edmund Briggs (1860, Jan 30) – 16 year recollection | 1st hand | 6% verbatim written | 46% verbatim verbal
“Gallands Grove, Iowa, January 30, 1860. I arrived at Bro. J. A. McIntosh’s after a tedious ride in the cold. Found him in the best of spirits and hope in the reorganization of the church. And to my surprise here is the first number of the TRUE LATTER DAY SAINTS’ HERALD. Have read it with much interest, though disappointed and sorry to find the letter of Elder I. Sheen of October 9, 1852, taken from the Cincinnati Commercial. He [Sheen] says … [“]The Salt Lake apostles also excuse themselves by saying that Joseph Smith taught the spiritual wife doctrine [polygamy]…. Joseph Smith repented of his connection with this doctrine and said it was of the Devil. He caused the revelation on this subject to be burned.[“] Every public utterance and printed statement of Joseph, and Hyrum, his brother, before their cruel martyrdom, attests the fact that they never favored it in the least degree. But Bro. Sheen’s letter in this first number of the HERALD will be used by our enemies against the true position of the Reorganization in relation to Joseph being responsible for that accursed doctrine. Bro. Sheen must have given credence to Young’s lie, when he said, ‘Emma burned it.’ Emma told me she never saw such a revelation until it was published by [Orson] Pratt in the Seer [January 1853]. Young says she burned it; and now Elder Sheen says Joseph had it burned. That is a new statement and the first I had heard of it. I have met thousands of the old members of the church who were well acquainted with Joseph, and yet I never saw a man who heard Joseph teach polygamy; but they said that they had heard him denounce it as a corrupt doctrine. In the Times and Seasons for two years we had been warned against that abomination [polygamy] by Joseph and Hyrum Smith; and they took great pains to denounce it as a corrupt and wicked practice. And it is evident from Elder Marks’ letter in this same HERALD that Joseph never had any affiliation with it; and proposed immediately to make a thorough investigation and find out who were in any way favoring it, and cut them off from the church. Bro. Marks said this to me personally, referring to his talk with President Smith upon this conversation set out in this HERALD. He has not given it in full as he did to me. I said to him, ‘Did you, when you had that conversation with Bro. Joseph, think he had been in any way mixed up in polygamy, or had favored it?’ He replied, ‘No. I had more confidence in him at that time than I ever had in all my life before, and was satisfied that he was pure from that gross crime. I had been troubled over the condition of the church for some time, and been fearful that Joseph did not bring the pressure against some men in the church that he should have done. You see from John C. Bennett’s time there had been so many rumors going the rounds, I was fearful that there might be something in the stories afloat that might implicate Joseph. But Joseph was so free and positive in his denunciation of polygamy in every form, that I took courage; and I could see Joseph was in earnest and felt just as I did about it. But before the Sunday following our conversation, Joseph was having his suit [the lawsuit], and he was killed before he had a chance to commence his investigation against those whom he had suspicioned of teaching it privily. But I thought he had been deceived in some of the men and elders of the church, and had too much confidence in some of them. But I guess it was to be so to fulfill the Scriptures in relation to the latter-day apostasy.’ I then said, ‘Bro. Marks, did you ever see the revelation on polygamy before it was published in 1852 [in the Seer] by Mr. Pratt?’ Marks emphatically replied, ‘No, never.’ ‘You were president of the stake at Nauvoo, and if Joseph had such a revelation, would you not have been privileged, according to custom, to have seen it, or heard of it?’ He replied, ‘Yes, without a doubt. There was no such revelation in existence during Joseph’s life. Brigham Young and his clique got that up after Joseph’s death; for if there had been any such revelation in existence when I lived in Nauvoo, just after Joseph’s death, Brigham Young would have showed it to me when I opposed his measures. But he never pretended to any such thing to me, that there was such a revelation on the subject from Joseph.’” (Edmund Briggs, January 30, 1860 journal entry, published in Saints’ Herald 50, April 22, 1903, p.363–364)

Emma Smith Bidamon / Jason W. Briggs (1867, Apr) – 23 year recollection | 1st hand | 48% verbatim written
“It [section 132] purports to have been given through Joseph Smith; which, if true, our conclusions respecting its character, would make him either the victim or the instrument of deception and fraud. It must be remembered that its appearance, other than in some dark corner, if indeed there, was not until August, 1852, over eight years after the death of Joseph Smith. And when introduced, certain statements are made, which, if true, would seem to establish the claim that it came through him. This statement of facts is, that when the revelation was given, Emma Smith got possession of it in its original and ‘burnt it‘. Upon this point we subjoin the following questions and answers from a memorandum of an interview with the Sister Emma Smith referred to (now Mrs. Bidamon), at Nauvoo, in April, 1867:

J.W. Briggs – ‘Mrs. Bidamon, have you seen the revelation on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt, in the Seer, in 1852?’
Mrs. B. – ‘I have.’
J.W.B. – ‘Have you read it?’
Mrs. B. – ‘I have read it, and heard it read.’
J.W.B. – ‘Did you ever see that document in manuscript, previous to its publication, by Pratt?’
Mrs. B. – ‘I never did.’
J.W.B. – ‘Did you ever see any document of that kind, purporting to be a revelation, to authorize polygamy?’
Mrs. B. – ‘No; I never did.’
J.W.B. – ‘Did Joseph Smith ever teach you the principles of polygamy, as being revealed to him, or as a correct and righteous principle?’
Mrs. B. – ‘He never did.’
J.W.B. – ‘What about that statement of Brigham Young, that you burnt the original manuscript of that revelation?’
Mrs. B. – ‘It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth.’
(Jason W. Briggs, Interview with Emma Smith Biddamon, The Messenger, vol. 1, p. 23.)

Samuel Clemens a.k.a. “Mark Twain” (1872, Feb 18) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Joseph Smith, the finder of the Book of Mormon and founder of the religion, was driven from state to state… The neighbors rose up and drove the Mormons out of Ohio, and they settled in Missouri… The Missourians drove them out, and they retreated to Nauvoo, Illinois… But the Mormons were badgered and harried again by their neighbors. All the proclamations Joseph Smith could issue denouncing polygamy and repudiating it as utterly anti-Mormon were of no avail; the people of the neighborhood… claimed that polygamy was practiced by the Mormons… Finally Nauvoo was invaded by the Missouri and Illinois Gentiles, and Joseph Smith killed… Brigham seized the advantage of the hour and without other authority… hurled [Sidney] Rigdon and occupied it himself… [The people] straightway elected Brigham Young president. One of the last things which Brigham Young had done before leaving Iowa was to appear in the pulpit dressed to personate the lamented prophet Smith, and confer the prophetic succession, with all its dignities, emoluments and authorities upon ‘President Brigham Young!’ The people accepted the pious fraud with the maddest enthusiasm, and Brigham’s power was sealed and secured for all time. [The people]Within five years afterward he openly added polygamy to the tenets of the church by authority of a ‘revelation’ which he pretended had been received nine years before by Joseph Smith, albeit Joseph is amply on record as denouncing polygamy to the day of his death.… Up to the date of our visit to Utah, Brigham Young was the only real power in the land. He was an absolute monarch—a monarch who defied our President, who received without emotion the news that the august Congress of the United States had enacted a solemn law against polygamy, and then went forth calmly and married twenty-five or thirty more wives.” (Mark Twain, Roughing It, pp.392-395)

William McLellin (1872, July) – 34 + 25 year recollections | 3rd hand + 4th hand | Contradictory stories contained in the same letter
“Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, retired in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. I did not ask her to tell, but I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams practiced with me in Clay Co. Mo. during the latter part of 1838. And he told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [sic]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” (William McLellin, Letter to Joseph Smith III, July 1872, Community of Christ Archives. Editor’s note: McLellin makes perhaps an accidental freudian slip in this letter, calling Fanny Alger “Fanny Hill.” Fanny Hill is a fictional erotic character from John Cleland’s popular 1748 pornographic book “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure“)

William Smith / William W. Blair (1877 Jul) – 34 year recollection | 1st hand | 80% verbatim written
“That Joseph the Seer was not the author of the endowment given either at Voree, Nauvoo, or in Utah, may be further seen by the following questions by the writer in July last, and their answers by W. B. Smith, the only surviving brother of the Seer, and one of the Quorum of the Twelve at his death.

W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach or give an endowment at Nauvoo, or elsewhere, the same or similar to that given by the Brighamites?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, he did not.’
W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach or sanction, in church affairs, the giving of secret oaths, covenants, signs, grips, passwords, etc.?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, he did not.’
W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach that the Twelve, or any one of them, should lead the church after his death?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, he did not.’
W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach that the priesthood was superior to the law of the church and the revealed word of God?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, he did not. Joseph’s teaching always was that the law was the supreme rule of the church, and that all other powers were in subjection to the law and the books.’
W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach that polygamy was essential to salvation and a fullness of glory?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, Joseph taught no polygamy-not to my knowledge.’
W.W. Blair – ’Did Joseph the Seer teach that, by the will of God, the saints would be gathered to the Rocky Mountains?’
Willaim B. Smith – ‘My answer is, he did not. For at the last General Conference held in Nauvoo, in the spring of 1844, Joseph’s teaching was that the next great work to be accomplished after the completion of the temple, would be to divide the United States into districts, charging the ministry with special care to this work.’“
(William W. Blair interview with William B. Smith, 1878, The Saints’ Advocate, vol. 1, p. 61)

Emma Smith / Joseph Smith III (1879 Feb) – 35-52 year recollections | 1st hand
“In a conversation held in the Herald Office during the early days of the present year, between Bishop Rogers, Elders W. W. Blair, H. A. Stebbins, and a few others, leading minds in the church, it was thought advisable to secure from Mother Bidamon (Sister Emma Smith) her testimony upon certain points upon which various opinions existed; and to do this, it was decided to present to her a few prominent questions, which were penned and agreed upon, the answers to which might, so far as she was concerned, settle these differences of opinion. In accordance with this understanding the Senior Editor of the Herald visited Nauvoo, in February last, arriving on the 4th and remaining until the 10th. Sister Emma answered the questions freely and in the presence of her husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, who was generally present in their sitting room where the conversation took place. We were more particular in this, because it had been frequently stated to us: ‘Ask your mother, she knows.‘ ‘Why don’t you ask your mother; she dare not deny these things.‘ ‘You do not dare to ask your mother!’ Our thought was, that if we had lacked courage to ask her, because we feared the answers she might give, we would put aside that fear; and, whatever the worst might be, we would hear it. The result is given below; it having been decided to give the statements to the readers of the Herald, in view of the death of Sister Emma having occurred so soon after she made them, thus giving them the character of a last testimony. It is intended to incorporate these questions and answers in the forthcoming history of the Reorganization. We apologized to our mother for putting the questions respecting polygamy and plural wives, as we felt we ought to do.

Question.-Who performed the marriage ceremony for Joseph Smith and Emma Hale? When? Where?
‘Answer.-I was married at South Bainbridge, New York; at the house of Squire Tarbell, by him, when I was in my twenty-second or twenty-third year.’
We here suggested that Mother Smith’s History gave the date of the marriage as January 18, 1827. To this she replied:-
‘I think the date correct. My certificate of marriage was lost many years ago, in some of the marches we were forced to make.’
In answer to a suggestion by us that she might mistake about who married Father and herself; and that it was rumored that it was Sidney Rigdon, or a Presbyterian clergyman, she stated:- ‘It was not Sidney Rigdon, for I did not see him for years after that. It was not a Presbyterian clergyman. I was visiting at Mr. Stowell’s, who lived in Bainbridge, and saw your father there. I had no intention of marrying when I left home; but, during my visit at Mr. Stowell’s, your father visited me there. My folks were bitterly opposed to him; and, being importuned by your father, aided by Mr. Stowell, who urged me to marry him, and preferring to marry him to any other man I knew, I consented. We went to Squire Tarbell’s and were married. Afterwards, when Father found that I was married, he sent for us. The account in Mother Smith’s History is substantially correct as to date and place. Your father bought your uncle Jesse’s [Hale] place, off Father’s farm, and we lived there till the Book of Mormon was translated; and I think published. I was not in Palmyra long.’
Q.-How many children did you lose, Mother, before I was born?
A.-‘There were three. I buried one in Pennsylvania, and a pair of twins in Ohio.’
Q.-Who were the twins that died?
A.-‘They were not named.’
Q.-Who were the twins whom you took to raise?
A.-‘I lost twins. Mrs. Murdock had twins and died. Bro. Murdock came to me and asked me to take them, and I took the babes. Joseph died at eleven months. They were both sick when your father was mobbed. The mob who tarred and feathered him, left the door open when they went out with him, the child relapsed and died. Julia lived, though weaker than the boy.’
Q.-When did you first know Sidney Rigdon? Where?
A.-‘I was residing at Father Whitmer’s, when I first saw Sidney Rigdon. I think he came there.’
Q.-Was this before or after the publication of the Book of Mormon?
A.-‘The Book of Mormon had been translated and published some time before. Parley P. Pratt had united with the church before I knew Sidney Rigdon, or heard of him. At the time the Book of Mormon was translated there was no church organized, and Rigdon did not become acquainted with Joseph and me till after the church was established in 1830. How long after that I do not know, but it was some time.’
Q.-Who were scribes for Father when translating the Book of Mormon?
A.-‘Myself, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and my brother, Reuben Hale.’
Q.-Was Alva Hale one?
A.-‘I think not. He may have written some; but if he did, I do not remember it.’
Q-What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?
A.-‘There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that, in a chat about plural wives, he had said, ‘Well, such a system might possibly be, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven. No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband’s death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.’
Q.-Did he not have other wives than yourself?
A.-‘He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.’
Q-Did he not hold marital relation with women other than yourself?
A.-‘He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge.’
Q.-Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?
A.-‘At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.’
Q.-What of the truth of Mormonism?
A.-‘I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.’
Q.-Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read or dictated to you?
A.-‘He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.’
Q.-Could he not have had, and you not know it?
A.-‘If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.’
Q.-Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?
A.-‘The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.’
Q.-Where did Father and Oliver Cowdery write?
A.-‘Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.’
Q-Could not Father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery, and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?
A.-‘Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, ‘your father,’ or ‘my husband’] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to anyone else.’
Q.-I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
A.-‘I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.’
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
A.-‘I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.’
Q-Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity or origin of the Book of Mormon?
A.-‘My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity-I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.’
Q.-What was the condition of feeling between you and Father?
A.-‘It was good.’
Q.-Were you in the habit of quarreling?
A.-‘No. There was no necessity for any quarreling. He knew that I wished for nothing but what was right; and, as he wished for nothing else, we did not disagree. He usually gave some heed to what I had to say. It was quite a grievous thing to many that I had any influence with him.’
Q.-What do you think of David Whitmer?
A.-‘David Whitmer I believe to be an honest and truthful man. I think what he states may be relied on.’
Q.-It has been stated sometimes that you apostatized at Father’s death, and joined the Methodist Church. What do you say to this?
A.-‘I have been called apostate; but I have never apostatized, nor forsaken the faith I at first accepted; but was called so because I would not accept their new-fangled notion.’
Q.-By whom were you baptized? Do you remember?
A.-‘I think by Oliver Cowdery, at Bainbridge.’
Q.-You say that you were married at South Bainbridge, and have used the word Bainbridge. Were they one and the same town?
A.-‘No. There was Bainbridge and South Bainbridge; some distance apart; how far I don’t know. I was in South Bainbridge.‘

Joseph Smith III (1885) – 41+ year recollection | 1st hand
“I was baptized by my father [Joseph Smith Jr.] and confirmed a member of the church he organized. The faith into which I was baptized and confirmed was the faith which was held and taught by the church at that time, and it included no provision concerning polygamy. There were no polygamic marriages known to me to exist therein at that time… However, now that I have questioned you closely, I discover that, like others, you know nothing at all, personally, that would so convict and condemn him, for you say he never taught you the doctrine; you say you never saw him married to any woman other than my mother; you say you never saw him act toward any other woman as though she were his wife, in any form; and that you were never introduced to any other woman who posed or was recognized, either in his house or at the house of anyone else, as his wife.” (Joseph Smith III, interview with Solon Foster in Salt Lake City 1885, published in “Saints’ Herald” 83 [March 24, 1936]: 368)

James Whitehead (1888 Jan) – 44+ year recollection | 1st hand
“Did Joseph say anything about the church being led away into this terrible condition? He did, and I heard him. One Sunday afternoon after partaking of the sacrament, Joseph got up and spoke and said, ‘Brothers and sisters, I am going to warn you today of things to come. Do not let these things overthrow you, but be faithful and cleanse yourselves from filthiness and everything corrupt. Beware of all kinds of iniquity, for it is in high places.‘ He then turned around to Parley Pratt, and pointing to him, said, ‘Brothers and sisters, if that brother knew what I know, he would turn around and want my life.‘” (James Whitehead, “Supplement,” Lamoni Gazette [January 1888], 7; Autumn Leaves 1 [May 1888]: 203)

Joseph Smith III (?) – no date? | 1st hand
“To assert that Joseph Smith was afraid to promulgate that doctrine [polygamy], if the command to do so had come from God, is to charge him with a moral cowardice to which his whole life gives the lie. Nor does it charge him alone with cowardice, but brands his compeers with the same undeserved approbrium. The very fact that men are now found who dare to present and defend it, is proof positive that Joseph and Hyrum Smith would have dared to do the same thing had they been commanded so to do. The danger to the lives of those men would have been no more imminent, nor any greater in the preaching of ‘Celestial Marriage,’ than it was in preaching the ‘Golden Bible’ and the doctrine that Joseph Smith was a prophet blessed with divine revelation. For the preaching of these tenets many lost their lives; Joseph and Hyrum Smith were repeatedly mobbed, were imprisoned and finally died, in the faith originally promulgated, but—if we may judge from their public records,—not believers in polygamy.” (Joseph Smith III, Reply to Orson Pratt [tract], 4, YA Pamphlet Collection, Library of Congress [date unknown])

Alexander Hale Smith (?) – no date? | 1st hand
“We also learn another fact:… That in the brain of J. C. Bennett was conceived the idea, and in his practice was the principle first introduced into the church; and from this hellish egg was hatched the present degrading, debasing, and destructive polygamic system, known as ‘spiritual wifery,’ or the ‘celestial marriage,’ so called. It is said that Joseph Smith, the martyr, received a revelation revealing the ‘celestial marriage’ and instituting ‘plurality of wives.’ I have already examined the testimony of Joseph Smith, concerning the marriage ceremony; and he declares that he knew of no other system of marriage than the one quoted from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [1835 Kirtland Edition, 101; 1844 Nauvoo Edition, 109; 1866 Liverpool Edition, 109; RLDS DC, 111]… But says one, ‘that was only a sham to blind the eyes of our enemies.’ Shame on the man, or set of men, who will thus wilfully charge the two best men of the nineteenth century, the two Prophets of the most high God, with publishing to the church and the public at large a lie, and signing their names to it. ‘Oh! but it was done to save their lives.’ A very likely story, when those two men had faced death and the world for fourteen long years, preaching the word of God to a sin-cursed generation. No, no, it will not do, you must meet the truth with better weapons than that, if you expect to make much of a battle. Besides all that, Is it not written, that ‘He who seeketh to save his life shall lose it, and he who loseth his life for my sake shall find it,’ and did not they know this. Yes, a thousand times yes; it was their hope, their consolation in times of danger.” (Alexander H. Smith [Joseph & Emma’s son], “Polygamy: Was It an Original Tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?” [tract], 6, YA Pamphlet Collection, Library of Congress [date unknown])

Wilford Woodruff (1890, Sep 24) – contemporary | 1st hand
“To Whom It May Concern: Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy— I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory. One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay. Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. [signed] Wilford Woodruff, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Wilford Woodruff, September 24, 1890, Official Declaration 1, Doctrine & Covenants)

↪ Lorenzo Snow (1890, Oct 6) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.” (Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890, Official Declaration 1, LDS Doctrine & Covenants)

↪ Wilford Woodruff (1890, Oct 6) – contemporary | 1st hand
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” (Wilford Woodruff, Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah, Published in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) [Editor’s note: Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff all served as “President of this Church” and had varying public teachings and actions regarding polygamy. Any attempt to teach or practice polygamy privately while denying it or condemning it as a practice publically would be technically classified as an attempt to “lead you astray.”]

↪ Wilford Woodruff (1891, Nov 1) – contemporary | 1st hand | 27% verbatim written
“It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto… The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: ‘Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?’ The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write… I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.” (Wilford Woodruff, Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

↪ Wilford Woodruff (1893, Apr) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing… All these things [listed in the entry above] would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.” (Wilford Woodruff, discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Temple Lot Case (1892)
[Editor’s note:]

John Taylor (1892) – 42 year recollection | 1st hand | 100% verbatim verbal | testimony under oath
“It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that he also attaches very great importance to the statements of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of course, for want of better testimony. I have already referred to their characters, I have already stated that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent people, will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the same object…. We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the ‘White Veil,’ the ‘Black Veil,’ and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330.” (John Taylor, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.330)

Wilford Woodruff (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“There was no other rule of marriage acknowledged by the church except what is found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, the 1835 edition.” (Wilford Woodruff, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.303)

Joseph Kingsbury (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“There was nothing said about whether I had the privilege of taking another woman or not. I never heard anything of that kind in those days either under the laws of the land or under the laws of the church. No one had the privilege under the laws of the church up to 1844, nor under the laws of the United States or in any State up to 1844, to take more wives than one. We did not consider that we had such a privilege at all. I have been married three times since 1844. My wives were not all living at the same time, but two of them were living at the same time. I do not remember hearing any minister in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prior to 1844 in Nauvoo or any other place, preach or teach the doctrine of polygamy, nor in any other place or time prior to 1844; never heard it preached from the stand prior to 1844 at all. I never heard it preached from the pulpit before 1844. I heard it in private conversations as I stated; Bishop [Newell K.] Whitney told me of it before. I did not hear it taught privately to any number of persons prior to 1844. Bishop Whitney told me we had the privilege of having more than one wife.” (Joseph Kinsbury, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.338; Editor’s note: Joseph Kingsbury is the man who’s handwriting is on the only alleged surviving copy of the revelation on polygamy, also known as the July 12, 1843 or section 132 revelation. Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and many others in the 1850s spoke openly about Joseph Kingsbury’s involvement in the copying and preserving of the revelation, which is said to have originated from Joseph Smith Jr. However, under oath, he did not mention Joseph Smith as the originating source for this teaching, but rather Newel K. Whitney.)

Bathsheba Smith (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“I never heard Joseph Smith teach polygamy, nor did I ever hear him say anything about it, either publicly or privately.” (Bathsheba Smith, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.361)

Cyrus H. Wheelock (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“I never heard Joseph Smith teach the practice of polygamy from the stand; never heard any elder of the church preach it publicly from the stand in Nauvoo, until after the death of Joseph Smith. After Joseph Smith was dead I heard polygamy preached from the pulpit publicly in Nauvoo, by William Smith. He started a great many things; undertook to prove that polygamy was right, and that the order of marriage would be restored, and he preached so many strange things there to the people that Elder John Taylor got up and corrected him. Yes, sir, it was forbidden, and William Smith was cut off from the church because he preached that. That was in the winter of 1844… The law of the church when I became a member (1839) did not teach polygamy. It was that one man should have but one wife, and one woman but one husband,… Anybody was liable to be excommunicated or disfellowshipped from the church who attempted to teach the doctrine of plural marriage at that time, up to the death of Joseph Smith.” (Cyrus H. Wheelock, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.384-386)

Jason W. Briggs (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“The doctrine of the original church from the time it was established up to 1844, when Joseph Smith was killed, was that one man should have one wife, and one woman one husband. It was the one wife doctrine at that time.” (Jason W. Briggs, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.400)

Lorenzo Snow (1892) – 49 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church [Aug 29, 1852] violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in [July 12] 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too.” (Lorenzo Snow, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.320-322; Editor’s note: Lorenzo Snow was very close to his sister Eliza Snow, who claimed to have married Joseph Smith Jr. while in Nauvoo, and who was by this time open about her marriage to Joseph before the retraction of the “law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Editon.” Either he disbelieved Eliza’s claims, or else he believes them and is calling Eliza Snow and Joseph Smith Jr. adulterers by implication.)

Samuel W. Richards (1892) – 50 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“I do not know anything about the principles of plural marriage, or what is commonly called polygamy, before the death of Joseph Smith, only what was reported to me by other persons… Yes sir, I knew all the time I was there in Nauvoo, from 1842 down to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, that there was no other system of marriage taught or practiced by the church than that of monogamy.” (Samuel W. Richards [Nephew of Willard Richards], statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.390-392)

Lyman O. Littlefield (1892) – 52 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
[in response to question: “were you not taught it [polygamy] previous to 1840?”] “I cannot say; I have told you all I knew about it with reference to dates, and there is no sense in asking me these questions. I never heard Joseph Smith teach it or preach it. I never heard him say anything about it personally or mention it.” (Lyman O. Littlefield, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.328)

John Taylor (1892) – 52 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
[Editor’s note: This John Taylor is not the same as the 1835-called Apostle who later served as President of the LDS Church.] “I held the position of teacher in the original church from September, 1832, until Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. It was my mission to teach and instruct from the Book of Covenants, and the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament. We went together from house to house and visited every house….It was our duty in case we found anybody with more wives than one to report them to the President of the Teachers’ Quorum. That was the instruction that Brother Hyrum Smith gave in the quorum. It was about that time that John C. Bennett’s secret wife system came to be heard of, and it was talked around that there was such a thing as that; and that was the reason that the instructions were given us, for [we] were told to search it out and find what there was to it if we could… During the time that I was a teacher from 1832 up to 1844, there was no rule or law of the original church that permitted the practice or principle of polygamy… after I reported John C. Bennett there was action taken on his case. He was cut off from the church for that offense… Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith never taught polygamy, and there was no revelation on polygamy or celestial marriage, or anything of the kind. The church was governed entirely as a monogamy church from 1832, at the time I became connected with it, up to the time of Joseph Smith’s death.” (John Taylor [not the apostle] statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.190–193)

Judge John F. Phillips (1894, Mar 16) – contemporary | 1st hand | Judge’s final decision in court of law based on sworn testimony of key witnesses
“There can be no question of the fact that Brigham Young’s assumed presidency was a bold and bald usurpation. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants (printed in 1846) page 411, containing a revelation to Joseph Smith, January 19, 1841, gave unto them ‘my servant Joseph, to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer and a prophet. I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon, and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and first presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church. I give unto you, my servant Brigham Young, to be a president over the twelve traveling council.’ So that Brigham Young was but president over the ‘twelve,’ a traveling council. The book clearly taught that the succession should descend lineally and go to the firstborn. Joseph Smith so taught, and, before his taking off, publicly proclaimed his son Joseph, the present head of Complainant Church, his successor, and he was so anointed. The book also contains the following, when referring to Joseph Smith: ‘But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead; and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations, or commandments; and this I give unto you, that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me, shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.’ Brigham Young’s assumption of this office (under the claim of something like a transfiguration) was itself a departure from the law of the church. The Book of Mormon itself inveighed against the sin of polygamy. True it is that Brigham Young taught that these denunciations of the book were leveled at the Indians— the Lamanites. But I confess to an utter inability to interpret human language if this be correct. In chapter 1, Book of Jacob, in speaking of the people of Nephi, the favored people, they are arraigned for growing hard of heart and indulging themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring ‘many wives and concubines,’ and also as did Solomon, David’s son; and in chapter 2, same book, after alluding to the filthiness evidently of the Indian tribes, it says: ‘Behold, the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you: for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers, that they should have, save it were one wife: and concubines they should have none…. And now this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them, and one day they shall become a blessed people.’ How it can be that the Lamanites please God in sticking to one wife and the Nephites displease him by imitating David and Solomon in multiplying wives, and yet polygamy is to be a crown of righteousness in the teachings of the Angel Mormon, challenges my power of comprehension. It requires transfiguration to do so. Conformably to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants expressly declared ‘that we believe that one man should have but one wife, and one woman but one husband.’ And this declaration of the church on this subject reappeared in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, editions of 1846 and 1856. Its first appearance as a dogma of the church [the dogma of polygamy] was in the Utah Church in 1852. Claim is made by the Utah Church that this doctrine is predicated of a revelation made to Joseph Smith in July, 1843. No such revelation was ever made public during the life of Joseph Smith, and under the law of the church it could not become an article of faith and belief until submitted to and adopted by the church. This was never done. No more complete and caustic refutation of this claim made by Brigham Young can be found than in exhibit ‘W’ in this case, in a book entitled ‘The Spiritual Wife System Proven False,’ issued by Granville Hedrick, the head of the Respondent Church, in 1856. He ridiculed the pretension of Brigham Young that he had this revelation, unproclaimed, locked up in his private chest for nine years. He says: ‘Now how strangely inconsistent, that the revelation should be given nine or ten years before its time, and have to lie eight or nine years under his patent lock before it would be time to proclaim it. Here, then, we have a specimen of an abortive revelation, come before its time, and had to be put in the sacred desk, under a patent lock, for eight or nine years, and shown occasionally- just often enough to get the thing used to it, so that when it go told enough it could go abroad. So much for this curious revelation, come in an abortion— got burned up— then locked up— and now has gone forth to damn everybody that don’t believe in it. Why! It is a perfect phoenix. When the present President of the Salt Lake Church, Wilford Woodruff, was on the witness stand, he testified that on the 15th of November, 1844, there was no marriage ceremony in the church except that published in the [Book of Doctrine and Covenants] edition of 1835.’ He was then asked why the church, of which he is President, in the publication of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants in the Salt Lake edition of 1876, eliminated the section on marriage as found in the 1835 edition and in all editions thereof published up to 1876, and inserted in lieu thereof the claimed revelation on polygamy of July, 1843. ‘Answer. I do not know why it was done. It was done by the authority of whoever presided over the church, I suppose. Brigham Young was the President then.’… It has introduced societies of a secret and established secret oaths and covenants, contrary to the book of teachings of the old church. It has changed the duties of the President, and of the Twelve, and established the doctrine to ‘Obey Counsel,’ and has changed the order of the ‘Seventy, or Evangelists.’ It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, ‘the Martyr,’ secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in ‘nest hiding.’ In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the ‘secret wife system,’ charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Dr. Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor, the former President of the Utah Church. And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph’s death. But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage,- is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be Imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young… I, John F. Philips, Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri,do hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of the opinion handed down by me in the above entitled cause. Witness my hand this 16th day of March, A.D. 1894. [signed] jno. f. Philips, Judge.” (Judge John F. Phillips; March 16, 1894; Final decision in the “Temple Lot Case” or “the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints versus The Church of Christ” in the circuit court of the United States for the Western Division of the District of Missouri; online copy)

Joseph F. Smith (1904, Apr 6) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.” (Joseph F. Smith, President, General Conference, Apr 6, 1904)

Gordon B. Hinckley (1998, Sep 8) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, interview with Larry King on TV show “Larry King Live”, Sep 8 1998) [Editor’s note: At what point did the Church take the position that “we will abide the law”? Joseph Smith Jr. wrote and published in March 1842 (4 months before the alleged revelation on plural marriage) “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Polygamy was illegal in Illinois during the time the saints were living in Nauvoo, and therefore any preaching or practice in favor of polygamy would be in violation of basic tenets of the faith.]

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Apr 8?) – 4 month recollection | 2nd hand | no original copy | someone else’s handwriting
“Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of god; but we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received! That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, thou shalt not kill; at another time he said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of god, all good things will be added. So with solomon; first he asked wisdom, and god gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart; Even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which, in reality, were right, because god gave and sanctioned by special revelation [Editor’s note: the “special revelation” on polygamy known as D&C 132 was not said to have been revealed until July 12, 1843, 15 months after this letter was written and delivered by Willard Richards.]. A parent may whip a child, and justly too, because he stole an apple; whereas, if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasures of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost. this principle will justly apply to all of god’s dealings with his children. Every thing that God gives us is lawful and right, and it is proper that we should enjoy his gifts and blessings, whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness, the happiness of all his creatures, he never has, he never will, institute an ordinance or give a commandment to his people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which he has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive, and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not, or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

‘Be wise to-day; ’tis madness to defer!
Next day the fatal precedent may plead;
Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time,’ into eternity.’

Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way than we are apt to suppose him to be; he will be inquired of by his children; he says, Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find; but, if ye will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things; who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom i have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the laws of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.” (Joseph Smith, Jr. [disputed], published August 2, 1842 in the “Sangamo Journal” as “letter #6” and later published in John C. Bennett, “The History of the Saints; or, An Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism” [Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842]: 243–245; LDS History of the Church 5:134–136; Editor’s note: This source is commonly known as “The Happiness Letter” and is often included in support for the idea that Joseph Smith taught polygamy. It’s included here in this column, despite there being no mention of polygamy in the entirety of the letter. The original document was delivered to Nancy Rigdon in early April 1842, and contained no signature, no date, no addresses, and was attributed to Joseph Smith Jr. as the source by John C. Bennett in August 1842, when he sent it to be published as letter #6 in Sangamo Journal (Aug 19, 1842). Nancy Rigdon, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith Jr. are all on record denying authorship by Joseph Smith. John C. Bennett described the document with these words: “The original, of which the above is a literal copy, in the handwriting of Dr. Richards, is now in my possession. It was handed me by Colonel F. M. [Francis M.] Higbee, in the presence of General George W. Robinson.” How Francis Higbee got possession of Nancy’s private letter is unclear, and questionable, given his numerous attempts to seduce Nancy Rigdon into sexual favors, using Joseph’s name to passify Nancy into participating in immoral acts. Original document was written and delivered by Willard Richards, with no signature. No date on letter, but believed to have been delivered on or around April 8, 1842. No original copy exists, but a copy of the letter was published August 2, 1842 in the “Sangamo Journal” as “letter #6” and later published in John C. Bennett, “The History of the Saints; or, An Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism” [Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842]: 243–245;)

↪ Sidney Rigdon (1842, Aug 27) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Nauvoo, Aug. 27th, 1842. Editor of the Wasp. Dear Sir: I am fully authorized by my daughter, Nancy [Rigdon], to say to the public through the medium of your paper, that the letter which has appeared in the Sangamo Journal, making part of General Bennett’s letters to said paper, purporting to have been written by Mr. Joseph Smith to her, was unauthorized by her, and that she never said to Gen. Bennett or any other person, that said letter was written by said Mr. Smith, nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another person’s hand writing. She further wishes me to say, that she never at any time authorized Gen. Bennett to use her name in the public papers as he has done, which has been greatly to the wounding of her feelings, and she considers the obtruding of her name before the public in the manner in which it has been done, to say the least of it, is a flagrant violation of the rules of gallantry, and cannot avoid to insult her feelings, which she wishes the public to know. I would further state that Mr, [Joseph] Smith denied to me the authorship of that letter. [signed] Sidney Rigdon. P. S. I wish the Sangamo Journal and all papers that have copied Bennett’s letters to copy this also, as an act of justice to Miss Rigdon. S. R.” (Sidney Rigdon, letter written August 27, 1842 to Editor of Wasp newspaper; included in “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving the Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C, Bennett’s Letters,” August 31, 1842; published in Wasp, September 3, 1842)

Joseph Smith Jr. (1842, Jun 24) – 20+ month recollection | 1st hand
“more than twenty months ago [September or October 1840] Bennett went to a lady in the city and began to teach her that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes was lawful and no harm in it.” (Joseph Smith Jr., June 24, 1842, LDS History of the Church 5:42–43)

Martha Brotherton (1842, Jul 13) – 10 month recollection | 1st hand | 53% verbatim verbal | no original copy
“General John C. Bennett: Dear sir, I left Warsaw a short time since for this city, and having been called upon by you [John C. Bennett], through the ‘Sangamo Journal,’ to come out and disclose to the world the facts of the case in relation to certain propositions made to me at Nauvoo, by some of the Mormon leaders, I now proceed to respond to the call, and discharge what I consider to be a duty devolving upon me as an innocent, but insulted and abused female. I had been at Nauvoo near three weeks, during which time my father’s family received frequent visits from Elders Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, two of the Mormon Apostles; when, early one morning, they both came to my brother-in-law’s (John Mcllwrick’s) house, at which place I then was on a visit, and particularly requested me to go and spend a few days with them. I told them I could not at that time, as my brother-in-law was not at home; however, they urged me to go the next day, and spend one day with them. The day being fine, I accordingly went. When I arrived at the foot of the hill, Young and Kimball were standing conversing together. They both came to me, and, after several flattering compliments, Kimball wished me to go to his house first. I said it was immaterial to me, and accordingily went. We had not, however, gone many steps when Young suddenly stopped, and said he would go to that brother’s, (pointing to a little log hut a few yards distant,) and tell him that you (speaking to Kimball) and brother Glover, or Grover, (I do not remember which,) will value his land. When he had gone, Kimball turned to me and said, ‘Martha, I want you to say to my wife, when you go to my house, that you want to buy some things at Joseph’s store, (Joseph Smith’s,) and I will say I am going with you, to show you the way. You know you want to see the Prophet, and you will then have an opportunity.’ I made no reply. Young again made his appearance, and the subject was dropped. We soon reached Kimball’s house, where Young took his leave, saying, ’I shall see you again, Martha.’ I remained at Kimball’s near an hour, when Kimball, seeing that I would not tell the lies he wished me to, told them to his wife himself. He then went and whispered in her ear, and asked if that would please her. ‘Yes,’ said she, ‘or I can go along with you and Martha.’ ‘No,’ said he, ‘I have some business to do, and I will call for you afterwards to go with me to the debate,’ meaning the debate between yourself [Dr. Bennett] and Joseph. To this she consented. So Kimball and I went to the store together. As we were going along, he said, ‘Sister Martha, are you willing to do all that the Prophet requires you to do?’ I said I believed I was, thinking of course he would require nothing wrong. ‘Then,’ said he, ‘are you ready to take counsel?’ I answered in the affirmative, thinking of the great and glorious blessings that had been pronounced upon my head, if I adhered to the counsel of those placed over me in the Lord. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘there are many things revealed in these last days that the world would laugh and scoff at; but unto us is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom.’ He further observed, ‘Martha, you must learn to hold your tongue, and it will be well with you. You will see Joseph, and very likely have some conversation with him, and he will tell you what you shall do.’ When we reached the building [Joseph’s store], he led me up some stairs to a small room, the door of which was locked, and on it the following inscription: ‘Positively no admittance.’ He observed, ‘Ah! brother Joseph must be sick, for, strange to say, he is not here. Come down into the tithing-office, Martha.’ He then left me in the tithing-office, and went out, I know not where. In this office were two men writing, one of whom, William Clayton, I had seen in England; the other I did not know. Young came in, and seated himself before me, and asked where Kimball was. I said he had gone out. He said it was all right. Soon after, Joseph came in, and spoke to one of the clerks, and then went up stairs, followed by Young. Immediately after, Kimball came in. ‘Now, Martha,’ said he, ‘the Prophet has come; come up stairs.’ I went, and we found Young and the Prophet alone. I was introduced to the Prophet by Young. Joseph offered me his seat, and, to my astonishment, the moment I was seated, Joseph and Kimball walked out of the room, and left me with Young, who arose, locked the door, closed the window, and drew the curtain. He then came and sat before me, and said, ‘This is our private room, Martha.’ ‘Indeed, sir,’ said I, ‘I must be highly honored to be permitted to enter it.’ He smiled, and then proceeded—’Sister Martha, I want to ask you a few questions; will you answer them?’ ‘Yes sir,’ said I. ‘And will you promise not to mention them to any one?’ ‘If it is your desire, sir,’ said I, ‘I will not.’ ‘And you will not think any the worse of me for it, will you Martha?’ said he. ‘No, sir’ I replied. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘what are your feelings towards me?’ I replied, ‘My feelings are just the same towards you that they ever were, sir.’ ‘But, to come to the point more closely,’ said he, ‘have not you an affection for me, that, were it lawful and right, you could accept of me for your husband and companion?’ My feelings at that moment were indescribable. God only knows them. What, thought I, are these men, that I thought almost perfection itself, deceivers! and is all my fancied happiness but a dream? ‘Twas even so; but my next thought was, which is the best way for me to act at this time? If I say no, they may do as they think proper; and to say yes, I never would. So I considered it best to ask for time to think and pray about it. I therefore said, ‘If it was lawful and right, perhaps I might; but you know, sir, it is not.’ ‘Well, but,’ said he [Brigham Young], ’brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days, and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it.’ ‘Sir,’ said I, ‘I should not like to do any thing of the kind without the permission of my parents.’ ‘Well, but,’ said he, ‘you are of age, are you not?’ ‘No, sir,’ said I, ‘I shall not be until the 24th of May.’ ‘Well,’ said he, ‘that does not make any difference. You will be of age before they know, and you need not fear. If you will take my counsel, it will be well with you, for I know it to be right before God, and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it. But brother Joseph wishes to have some talk with you on the subject—he will explain things—will you hear him?’ ‘I do not mind,’ said I. ‘Well, but I want you to say something,’ said he. ‘I want time to think about it,’ said I. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘I will have a kiss, any how[‘], and then rose, and said he would bring Joseph. He then unlocked the door, and took the key, and locked me up alone. He was absent about ten minutes, and then returned with Joseph. ‘Well,’ said Young, ‘sister Martha would be willing if she knew it was lawful and right before God.’ ‘Well, Martha,’ said Joseph, ‘it [polygamy] is lawful and right before God—I know it is. Look here, sis; don’t you believe in me?’ I did not answer. ‘Well, Martha,’ said Joseph, ‘just go ahead, and do as Brigham wants you to—he is the best man in the world, except me.’ ‘O!’ said Brigham, ‘then you are as good.’ ‘Yes,’ said Joseph. ‘Well,’ said Young, ‘we believe Joseph to be a Prophet. I have known him near eight years, and always found him the same[‘] ‘Yes,’ said Joseph, ‘and I know that this is lawful and right before God, and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it before God; and I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and if you will accept of Brigham, you shall be blessed—God shall bless you, and my blessing shall rest upon you; and if you will be led by him, you will do well; for I know Brigham will take care of you, and if he don’t do his duty to you, come to me, and I will make him; and if you do not like it in a month or two, come to me, and I will make you free again; and if he turns you off, I will take you on.’ ‘Sir,’ said I, rather warmly, ‘it will be too late to think in a month or two after. I want time to think first.’ ‘Well, but,’ said he, ‘the old proverb is, ‘Nothing ventured, nothing gained;’ and it would be the greatest blessing that was ever bestowed upon you.’ ‘Yes,’ said Young, ‘and you will never have reason to repent it—that is, if I do not turn from righteousness, and that I trust I never shall; for I believe God, who has kept me so long, will continue to keep me faithful. Did you ever see me act in any way wrong in England, Martha?’ ‘No, sir,’ said I. ‘No,’ said he; ‘neither can any one else lay any thing to my charge.’ ‘Well, then,’ said Joseph, ‘what are you afraid of, sis? Come, let me do the business for you.’ ‘Sir,’ said I, ‘do let me have a little time to think about it, and I will promise not to mention it to any one.’ ‘Well, but look here,’ said he; ‘you know a fellow will never be damned for doing the best he knows how.’ ‘Well, then,’ said I, ‘the best way I know of, is to go home and think and pray about it.’ ‘Well,’ said Young, ‘I shall leave it with brother Joseph, whether it would be best for you to have time or not.’ ‘Well,’ said Joseph, ‘I see no harm in her having time to think, if she will not fall into temptation.’ ‘O, sir,’ said I, ‘there is no fear of my falling into temptation.’ ‘Well, but,’ said Brigham, ‘you must promise me you will never mention it to anyone.’ ‘I do promise it,’ said I. ‘Well,’ said Joseph, ‘you must promise me the same.’ I promised him the same. ‘Upon your honor,’ said he, ‘you will not tell[?’] ‘No, sir, I will lose my life first,’ said I. ‘Well, that will do,’ said he; ‘that is the principle we go upon. I think I can trust you, Martha,’ said he. ‘Yes,’ said I, ‘I think you ought.’ Joseph said, ‘She looks as if she could keep a secret.’ I then rose to go, when Joseph commenced to beg of me again. He said it was the best opportunity they might have for months, for the room was often engaged. I, however, had determined what to do. ‘Well,’ said Young, ‘I will see you tomorrow. I am going to preach at the school-house, opposite your house. I have never preached there yet; you will be there, I suppose.’ ‘Yes,’ said I.—The next day being Sunday, I sat down, instead of going to meeting, and wrote the conversation, and gave it to my sister, who was not a little surprised; but she said it would be best to go to meeting in the afternoon. We went, and Young administered the sacrament. After it was over, I was passing out, and Young stopped me, saying, ‘Wait, Martha, I am coming.’ I said, ‘I cannot; my sister is waiting for me.’ He then threw his coat over his shoulders, and followed me out, and whispered, ‘Have you made up your mind, Martha?’ ‘Not exactly, sir,’ said I; and we parted. I shall proceed to a justice of the peace; and make oath to the truth of these statements, and you are at liberty to make what use of them you may think best. Yours, respectfully, Martha H. Brotherton. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 13th day of July, A. D. 1842. Du Bouffay Fremon, Justice of the Peace for St. Louis County.” (Martha Brotherton, sworn affidavit, St. Louis County in presence of Du Bouffay Fremon, Justice of the Peace, July 13, 1842, published by John C, Bennett, History of the Saints, 236–240; Editor’s note: No original copy exists. Document contains similar writing styles to John C. Bennett’s account of Nancy Rigdon’s proposal, namely with the high percentage of verbatim dialogue and the common conversational links such as “‘Yes, but,’ said [person]” and “‘But,’ said he'”)

Joseph Smith (1842, Jul 27) – 70 year recollection | 4th hand+ | 3rd copy (copy of a copy of a copy) | no original copy | no verifiable handwriting on document
“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel] K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon, is right in mine eyes, and shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young. Because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. [Sarah Ann] Whitney: They shall take each other by the hand, and you shall say, You both mutually agree (calling them by name) to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others, and also throughout eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times past. If you both agree to covenant and to ​do​ this, I then give you, S. A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors by the right of birth, which is of Priesthood vested in me by revelation, and commandment, and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Mechisedek, Jethro, and others of the holy fathers, commanding, in the name of the Lord, all those powers to concentrate in you, and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that through this order He may be glorified, and that through the power of anointing, David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever.” (Joseph Smith Jr. [disputed], “Revelation, 27 July 1842,” The Joseph Smith Papers p.1–2; Editor’s note: This document is typed, and given that commercial typewriters were not invented until 1874 and didn’t become widely available until the 1880s, it’s a copy of another document to which there is no original. The Joseph Smith Project curators state: “The original revelation was in the possession of the Whitney family and is apparently no longer extant. Years later, Orson F. Whitney received a copy of the revelation from his father, Horace Whitney, which Orson believed may have come from his grandfather Newel K. Whitney. Orson F. Whitney made a typescript of the revelation at the request of church president Joseph F. Smith, probably in early 1912, and gave the typescript to Smith on 1 April 1912. At some point the letter was transferred to the possession of the First Presidency—possibly in 1970, when Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the church and took several documents with him from the Church Historian’s Office to the Office of the First Presidency.”)

Joseph Smith & William Clayton (1842, Aug 18) – contemporary | 1st hand + 2nd hand | no original date
“Dear, and Beloved, Brother [Newel K. Whitney] and Sister, [Elizabeth Ann Smith] Whitney, and &c. — I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and [​if you​] three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of come [you can​] come and see me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at [the] window; it is​ next to the cornfield; I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, [I know] it is the will of God that you should comfort [me] now in this time of affliction, or not all at all now is the time or never, but I have no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I [will] tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it, keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it, one thing I want to see you for is [to] get the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on [this subject] when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to [make] every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come to night if she dont dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, [and] affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith” (Joseph Smith Jr. [disputed], “Letter to Newel K., Elizabeth Ann Smith, and Sarah Ann Whitney, 18 August 1842,” The Joseph Smith Papers p.source – Editor’s note: “The letter was delivered to the Whitney family and remained in their possession until 1869, when Elizabeth Ann Smith Whitney and Sarah Ann Whitney Kimball gave it to the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City” at the same time that the church called for templated affidavit statements to be collected by as many witnesses as possible in preparation for impending legal battles in the near future. No evidence of the visit exists in any journals, histories or oral tradition until this letter surfaced 27 years later)

John C. Bennett (1842, Oct) – 16 month recollection | 1st hand + 2nd hand + 3rd hand | 29% verbatim verbal
“Knowing that I had much influence with Mr. Rigdon’s family, Joe Smith said to me, one day last summer [1841]… ‘If you will assist me in procuring Nancy as one of my spiritual wives, I will give you five hundred dollars, or the best lot on Main Street.’ I replied, ‘I cannot agree to it. Elder Rigdon is one of my best friends, and his family are now pure and spotless, and it would be a great pity to approach the truly virtuous.’ ‘But,’ said Joe, ‘the Lord has given her to me to wife. I have the blessings of Jacob, (meaning thereby a plurality of wives,) and there is no wickedness in it. It would be wicked to approach her, unless I had permission of the Lord; but, as it is, it is as correct as to have a legal wife, in a moral point of view.’ I replied that it might be so, but that he must see her himself, as I could not approach her on a subject of that kind. There I supposed the matter had ended; but, at the funeral of Mr. Ephraim R. Marks, Mrs. [Orson] Hyde told Miss Rigdon that Joseph desired to see her at the printing-office, where Mrs. Hyde and Dr. [Willard] Richards resided, on special business. She said she would go, and accordingly did; but Joe was busily engaged at his store. Dr. Willard Richards, however, one of the holy twelve Mormon Apostles, and Spiritual High Priest, and Pander-General for Lust, whom I had long suspected as being up to his eyes in the business with Joe, came in, and said, ‘Miss Nancy, Joseph cannot be in today; please call again on Thursday.’ This she agreed to do; but she communicated the matter to Colonel Francis M. Higbee, who was addressing her, and asked his advice as to the second visit. I then came to a knowledge of the facts, and went immediately to Joe, and said to him, ‘Joseph, you are a Master Mason, and Nancy is a Master Mason’s daughter … so stay your hand, or you will get into trouble—remember your obligation.’ Joe replied, ‘You are my enemy, and wish to oppose me.’ I then went to Colonel [Francis] Higbee, and told him Joe’s designs, and requested him to go immediately and see Miss Rigdon, and tell her the infernal plot—that Joe would approach her in the name of the Lord, by special revelation, &c., and to put her on her guard, but advise her to go and see for herself what Joe would do. He did so, and she went down. Joe was there, took her into a private room, (his favorite assignation room,) and LOCKED THE DOOR…. Joe then swore her to secrecy, and told her… that he had asked the Lord for her, and that it was his holy will that he should have her as one of the Chambered Sisters of Charity; but that, if she had any scruples on the subject, he would consecrate her with the Cloistered Saints, AND MARRY HER IMMEDIATELY … that he had the blessings of Jacob granted to him—and that all was lawful and right before God…. She told him she would alarm the neighbors if he did not open the door and let her out immediately. He did so… and, after agreeing to write her a doctrinal letter, left the house…. In a day or two, Dr. Richards… handed her the… letter from the Prophet Joe, (written by Richards, by Joe’s dictation,) and requested her to burn it after reading.” (John C. Bennett, History of the Saints, p.241–243)

William Law (1844, May 4) – 10 month recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines. [signed] WM. LAW State of Illinois, Hancock County, I Robert D. Foster, certify that the above certificate was sworn to before me, as true in substance, this fourth day of May A.D. 1844. [signed] ROBERT D. FOSTER J.P.” (William Law, sworn affidavit to Robert D. Foster on May 4, 1844; Published in “Nauvoo Expositor” vol.1, no.1, June 7, 1844, Nauvoo, IL)

↪ Jane Law (1844, May 4) – 10 month recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives that one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God. [signed] JANE LAW Sworn and subscribed befoore me this fourth day of May, A.D. 1844. [signed] ROBET D. FOSTER, J.P.” (Jane Law, sworn affidavit to Robert D. Foster on May 4, 1844; Published in “Nauvoo Expositor” vol.1, no.1, June 7, 1844, Nauvoo, IL)

Austin Cowles (1844, May 4) – 10 month recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“To all whom it may Concern: Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a number of persons declaring aginst certain doctrines and practices therein, (among whom I am One,) it is but meet that I should give my reasons, at least in part, as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that “David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not. [signed] AUSTIN COWLES. State of Illinois, }ss. Hancock County, } To all whom it may concern I hereby certify that the above certificate was sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of May, 1844. [signed] ROBERT D. FOSTER, J.P.” (Austin Cowles, sworn affidavit to Robert D. Foster on May 4, 1844; Published in “Nauvoo Expositor” vol.1, no.1, June 7, 1844, Nauvoo, IL)

Sylvester Emmons (1844, Jun 7) – contemporary + 4-26 month recollections | 1st hand + 2nd hand
“We give this week to the following Preamble, Resolutions and Affidavits, of the Seceders from the Church at Nauvoo.– The request is complied with on account of their deeming it very important that the public should know the true cause of their dissenting, as all manner of falsehood is spread abroad in relation to the schism in the Church. In our subsequent numbers several affidavits will be published, to substantiate the facts alleged. Hereafter, no further Church proceedings will appear in our columns, except in the form of brief communications.–ED…. God will inspire his ministers with courage and with understanding to consummate his purposes; and, if it is necessary, he can snatch them from the fiery furnace, or the Lion’s den; as he did anciently the three Hebrews from the former, and Daniel from the latter. As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.–Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man’s conceptions of God and his atributes [sic]. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave. We believe that all men, professing to be the ministers of God, should keep steadily in view, the honor and glory of God, the salvation of souls, and the amelioration of man’s condition: and among their cardinal virtues ought to be found those of faith, hope, virtue and charity; but with Joseph Smith, and many other official characters in the Church, they are words without any meanings attached-worn as ornaments; exotics nurtured for display; virtues which, throwing aside the existence of a God, the peace, happiness, welfare, and good order of society, require that they should be preserved pure, immaculate and uncorroded. We most solemnly and sincerely declare, God this Day being witness of the truth and sincerity of our designs and statements, that happy will it be with those who examine and scan Joseph Smith’s pretensions to righteousness; and take counsel of human affairs, and of the experience of times gone by. Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical. We hope many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however, are taught secretly, and denied openly, (which we know positively is the case,)and others publicly, considerate men will treat with contempt; for we declare them heretical and damnable in their influence, though they find many devotees… It is absurd for men to assert that all is well, while wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction, by a perversion of sacred things; for all is not well, while whordoms and all manner of abominations are practiced under the cloak of religion. Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints: and we say to the watchmen standing upon the walls, cry aloud and spare not, for the day of the Lord is at hand-a day cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate. It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.–They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front–Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph’s) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God’s will be done and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit… Resolved 2nd, Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humbility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood, by a perversion of their priestly authority and thereby forfeiting the holy priesthood, according to the word of Jesus; ‘If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.‘ St. John, xv.6. ‘Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that abideth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds;‘ we therefore are constrained to denounce them as apostates from the pure and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ… That we hereby notify all those holding licences to preach the gospel, who know they are guilty of teaching the doctrine of other Gods above the God of this creation; the plurality of wives; the unconditional sealing up against all crimes, save that of sheding innocent bood; the spoiling of the gentiles, and all other doctrines, (so called) which are contrary to the laws of God, or to the laws of our country, to cease preaching, and to come and make satisfaction, and have their licences renewed.” (Nauvoo Expositor, vol.1, June 7, 1844. Nauvoo, IL.)

Sidney Rigdon (1846 Jun) – contemporary + 2-4 year recollection | 79% 1st hand + 21% 2nd hand | 8% verbatim verbal
“As a sample of the characters of their leaders, and as evidence of their real condition, we give a short address, delivered by Brigham Young, the Sunday before our informant left ‘Some asked where are we a-going, and what are we a-going to do? I do not know where we are a-going, nor what we are a-going to do, neither do I care, for you will all go to the devil, unless there is less selfishness in the camp‘… Our informant says when he left, which was some three weeks since, the mud, by reason of the incessant rains, was some six inches deep round their camp. Surely there is a day of reckoning, both for the leaders of this people and their presecutors. We are well aware that the leaders of this people, introduced many corruptions among them, and was the thing which gave their enemies power over them, had they not have become basely corrupt, no enemy would have had power over them. They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death. This system the twelve, so called, undertook to carry out, and it has terminated in their overthrow, and the complete ruin of all those who follow their pernicious ways… We went from Pittsburgh to Nauvoo, as directed by the Lord, and in the name of the Lord warned that people, we told them, that they would be scattered, and peeled, and driven, from their places into the western wilds; them and their wives, and their little ones together, and that they would be wasted and destroyed; for verily thus said the Lord, unto us, and it would be so, unless they repented; but instead of listening to the voice of the Lord they, railed upon us, gnashed with their teeth, and threatened our life, unless we desistd. We left them to their fate, and it has come and is coming on them to the very uttermost. As we declared unto them, so has it come to pass. They are now in the, wilderness, in parties and companies, and sending messengers to find each other, this we declared unto them, would be their situation, until they were utterly wasted and made monuments of the displeasure of the Lord against those who, knowing the truth, departed from it and practiced iniquity, and use their liberty to practice lasciviousness with greediness. We warned Joseph Smith and his family, of the ruin that was coming on them, and of the certain destruction which awaited them, for their iniquity, for making their house, instead of a house of God a sink of corruption. From them we received like treatment, as we did from the Twelve, and their followers. The Lord has let them and the world see, that he authorised us to say as we did. The Smiths have fallen before threir enemies, as the Lord said they would, and their families sunk into everlasting shame, and disgrace, until their very name is a reproach; and must remain so forever.” (Sidney Rigdon, The Latter Day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, June 1846, Vol.2, No.6, Whole No.30)

Richard Hewitt (1849 Jun 14) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I want to know what your [J. J. Strang’s] mind is about men having the priesthood having more wives than one. The principle is taught amongst all that I have been with. Some have from two to ten, or twenty, and some have none. If it is consistent I want you to let me know when you write to me, and I want you to write as soon as you get this, so Brother Miller [Bishop George Miller] and myself may know what to do. You must excuse me for asking so much, but you must bear with me, as I confess I am ignorant. Bro. Miller says their whoring will send them all to hell. You can see Bro. Hyrum’s epistle to me on that subject, in the Times and Seasons, 15th March, 1844, if I don’t mistake. I don’t find such things in the Book of Covenants, nor in the Book of Mormon, nor in the writings of the apostles: and I don’t want to be deceived, nor flattered any more, etc.” (Richard Hewitt of Bastrop, Texas, private letter to J. J. Strang, June 14, 1849)

Heber C. Kimball (1852, Aug 28) – contemporary | 1st hand
“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice [to marry] of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You understand that. Amen.” (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, August 28, 1852, Journal of Discourses 6:256)

Orson Pratt (1852, Aug 29) – contemporary | 1st hand
“It is quite unexpected to me brethren and sisters, to be called upon to address you this, forenoon; and still mere so, to address you upon the principle which has been named, namely, a plurality of wives. It is rather new ground for me, that is, I have not been in the habit of publicly speaking upon this subject; and it is rather new ground to the inhabitants of the United States, and not only to them, but to a portion of the inhabitants of Europe; a portion of them have not been in the habit of preaching a doctrine of this description ; consequently, we shall have to break up new ground. It is well known, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faith. It is not, as many have supposed, a doctrine embraced by them to gratify the carnal lusts and feelings of man; that is not the object of the doctrine… Do you believe, says one, that they [noble spirits] are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage. Then is it not reasonable, and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants, that had proved themselves before Him all the day long; that had been ready and willing to do whatsoever His will required them to perform—take unto yourselves more wives, like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of old—like those who lived in ancient times, who walked in my footsteps, and kept my commands?” (Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852, Salt Lake City, Journal of Discourses 1:54, Reported by G. D. Watt)

Brigham Young (1852, Aug 29) – 9+ year recollection | 1st hand + 2nd hand | 21% verbatim verbal | no original copy | copy hidden for 9 years
“You heard Bro. Pratt state, this morning, that a revelation [D&C 132] would be read this afternoon, which was given previous to Joseph’s death. It contains a doctrine, a small portion of the world is opposed to; but I can deliver a prophecy upon it. Though that doctrine has not been practiced by the elders, this people have believed in it for years. The original copy of this revelation was burnt up; William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime it was in Bishop Whitney’s possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which Brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is, because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence. The revelation will be read to you. The principle spoken upon by Brother Pratt, this morning, we believe in. And I tell you– for I know it–it will sail over and ride triumphantly above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day; it will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portions of the world, as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people. Your hearts need not beat; you need not think that a mob is coming here to tread upon the sacred liberty which the Constitution of our country guarantees unto us, for it will not be. The world have known, long ago, even in Brother Joseph’s days, that he had more wives than one. One of the senators in Congress knew it very well. Did he oppose it? No! but he has been our friend all the day long, especially upon that subject. He said pointedly to his friends, ‘if the United States do not adopt that very method-let them continue as they now are-pursue the precise course they are now pursuing, and it will come to this-that their generations will not live until they are thirty years old; they are going to destruction; disease is spreading so fast among the inhabitants of the United States, that they are born rotten with it, and in a few years they are gone.‘ Said he, ‘Joseph has introduced the best plan for restoring and establishing strength and long life among men, of any man on the earth; and the Mormons are a very good and virtuous people.‘ Many others are of the same mind; they are not ignorant of what we are doing in our social capacity. They have cried out, ‘proclaim it [polygamy];’ but it would not do, a few years ago; everything must come in its time, as there is a time to all things. I am now ready to proclaim it. This revelation has been in my possession many years; and who has known it? None but those who should know it. I keep a patent lock on my desk, and there does not anything leak out that should not.” (Brigham Young, Aug 29, 1852, Supplement to Millennial Star 15 [1853]: 31; RLDS History of the Church 3:349; Editor’s note: Joseph C. Kingsbury claimed to have kept the original, and handed Hyrum the copy that he made, which would have been the copy that would have been given back to Joseph and shown to Emma. If Emma burnt the original, then she destroyed the copy that Brigham Young claims to have had in possession.)

Isaac Sheen (1852, Sep 20) – 8 year recollection | 1st hand
“Joseph Smith repented of his connection with this doctrine [polygamy], and said it was of the devil. He caused the revelation[s] on that subject to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enimies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said, that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that.” (Isaac Sheen, letter written September 20, 1852; published in both the “Cincinnati Commercial” and “Saturday Evening Post” on October 9, 1852; Republished 8 years later in “True Latter Day Saint’s Herald” January 1, 1860: p.27)

↪ Edmund Briggs (1860, Jan 30) – 16 year recollection | 1st hand | 6% verbatim written | 46% verbatim verbal
jump to journal entry

Orson Pratt (1853 Jan) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Some of the nations of Europe who believe in the one wife system have actually forbidden a plurality of wives by their laws; and the consequences are that the whole country among them is overrun with the most abominable practices: adulteries and unlawful connections through all their villages, towns, cities, and country places to a most fearful extent.” (Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” 1853, p.12)

Joseph Lee Robinson (1853) – 12 years later | 3rd hand | No original copy
“The Lord instead of releasing [Joseph Smith Jr.] from that burden, he sent an holy angel with a drawn sword unto him, saying unto him, Joseph, un-less you go to and immediately teach that principle (namely polygamy or plural marriage) and put the same in practice, that he, Joseph, should be slain for thus saith the Lord, that the time has now come that I will raise up seed unto me as I spoke by my servant Jacob as is recorded in the Book of Mormon, therefore, I command my people.” (Joseph Lee Robinson, “Reminiscences and Journal” p.25; Oliver Preston Rob-inson ed., “History of Joseph Lee Robinson,” p.27; Editor’s note: Dates for this entry are widely disputed, with Robinson himself in 1853 stating it was from 1841, and some believing it originated in 1846. See Brian Hales’s appendix footnote 1 here)

John Taylor (1854, Jun 27) – 12 year recollection | 1st hand
“I remember being with President Young and Kimball and I think one or two others with Brother Joseph soon after we had returned from England[.] He talked with us on these principles and laid them before us[.] It tried our minds and feelings[.] We saw it was something going to be heavy upon us[.] It was not that very nice pleasing thing some people thought about it[.] It is something that harried up our feelings[.] Did we believe it[?] Yes we did[.] I did[.] The whole rest of the brethren did but still we should have been glad to push it off a little further[.] We [would have] been glad if it did not come in our day but that somebody else had something to do with it instead of us.” (John Taylor, Papers of George D. Watt MS 4534, box 2, disk 2, 1854 images 151–52, Sermon not in Journal of Discourses or in CR 100 317, Transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth, 1 September 2009. Punctuation and capitalization added)

Orson Hyde (1854, Oct 6) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“I know that this [polygamy] doctrine is made the subject of a great deal of ridicule. I know that the world at large who profess to be pious, or, if not pious, morally upright, look upon it as a damning sin, as a stain upon the bright escutcheon of their country, here in the very heart of the United States territory, surrounded by tall mountains; they consider it a dark spot in the country’s history. Many of the great politicians of the day view it in this point of light. Religionists are still more scrupulous—they regard it as a heinous and damning sin. Will you listen to some of the sayings contained in that book? And then say whether we possess the same spirit now that inspired the breasts of the ancients, whose history is penned upon these pages. Judge for yourselves whether it be so or not. How was it with Abraham? Did he please God, walk before Him uprightly, and obtain this testimony that he pleased God, and obtain promises that no other man has obtained since the days of Abraham, the Son of God excepted? Jehovah promised that in him and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, as a pattern of piety, and as the great head of the Church. Because of his faithfulness in keeping the commandments of Jehovah on earth, he drew from on high this great promise. Who has lived since that time who has been thus blessed? I will venture to say not one. Then if we are his children, will we not do the works of faithful Abraham? So said the Savior, whoever spoke the truth, whoever declared the mind and will of his Father in heaven. Are we Abraham’s seed, or are we bastards and not sons? That is the question. If Abraham obtained promises, I want to obtain promises also. ‘What! A man that has more than one wife obtain promises from God?‘ I tell you there were but few in olden times whoever did obtain promises from God, that had not more than one wife, if the Bible be true. There was David, and there was Solomon; there were the whole line of the kings of Israel [Editor’s note: If the Bible be true, all of the Kings of Israel were put under strict command to not multiply wives (2 is a multiple of 1), when it was written ‘Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away’ (Deuteronomy 17:17)]. Says one, ‘That Old Bible was for the Jews, and has nothing to do with us; that is the Old Testament; and having more wives was according to their law, and according to their custom, but it does not apply to us; the Savior of the world is our great pattern, he is our great lawgiver.‘ Then you really mean to hold to the doctrine that the Savior of the world was married; do you mean to be understood so? And if so, do you mean to be understood that he had more than one wife?… I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives;” (Orson Hyde, General Conference, Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854, Reported by G. D. Watt)

Parley P. Pratt (1854, Nov 22) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“I hereby pledge my honor that I will publicly denounce Polygamy, and that the church I represent will do the same, on the following conditions, viz: The Old and New Testaments, the Constitution and laws, of the United States, and the laws of Utah Territory shall be their standard; and if in all this wide range one item of law can be found wherein God, angels, men, prophets, apostles, the Son of God or the Holy Spirit have made plurality of wives a crime, a transgression of law or an immorality, then, on these conditions, we will renounce Polygamy. But till this is done we shall hold the law of God on the subject of matrimony, including a plurality of wives, as a most sacred institution, binding on our own consciences, in the free exercise of which we claim the protection so freely and fully guaranteed by the constitution of our common country.” (Parley P. Pratt, Editor’s Chronicle, Santa Clara, CA, Nov 22, 1854; “The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt”, pp.462-463)

Brigham Young (1855, Jul 14) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted… Do not reject anything because it is new or strange, and do not sneer nor jeer at what comes from the Lord, for if we do, we endanger our salvation.” (Brigham Young, Discourse delivered in the Bowery, Provo, July 14, 1855, JD, vol. 3, p. 266-267, Reported by G. D. Watt)

George A. Smith (1856, Apr 16) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow minded, pinch-backed race of man, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They aught to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices.” (George A. Smith, Deseret News, April 16, 1856)

Heber C. Kimball (1856, Sep 26) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“Many of this people have broken their covenants by speaking evil of one another, by speaking against the servants of God, and by finding fault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. But you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another people that will carry out His purposes in righteousness, unless you walk up to the line of your duty. On the one hand there is glory and exaltation; and on the other no tongue can express the suffering and affliction this people will pass through, if they do not repent.” (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, September 28, 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:108)

Heber C. Kimball (1856, Oct 12) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord’s servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny “Mormonism,” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives.” (Heber C. Kimball, October 12, 1856, Salt Lake City, Journal of Discourses 5:204)

Heber C. Kimball (1856, Nov 9) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“It is the duty of a woman to be obedient to her husband, and unless she is, I would not give a damn for all her queenly right and authority; nor for her either, if she will quarrel, and lie about the work of God and the principle of plurality.” (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, November 9, 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:82)

Heber C. Kimball (1857, Feb 8) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“Do you suppose that Joseph and Hyrum and all those good men would associate with those ancient worthies, if they had not been engaged in the same practices? They had to do the works of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in order to be admitted where they are;-they had to be polygamists in order to be received into their society. God knows that I am not ashamed of those good men now, and how much more I shall prize my associate polygamists, when I am further advanced in knowledge, I do not know. I am talking in earnest, and from the experience I have had.” (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857, Journal of Discourses 4:224)

Heber C. Kimball (1857, Apr 6) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“I would not be afraid to promise a man who is sixty years of age, if he will take the counsel of brother Brigham and his brethren, that he will renew his age. I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. Some of you may not believe this; but I not only believe it—I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business; for it is as much as we can do now to keep up under the burdens we have to carry; and I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece.” (Heber C. Kimball, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, April 6, 1857. Reported by G. D. Watt, J. V. Long)

Heber C. Kimball (1860, Apr 1) – comtemporary | 1st hand
“Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.” (Heber C. Kimball, discourse to new missionaries about to embark to foreign missions, April 1, 1860, “Springfield Weekly Republican” vol. 37, no. 16; Editor’s note: Heber C. Kimball was 59 years old and the wife of at minimum 15 living wives at the time of this statement. While he makes no mention of himself wanting to pick wifes from the 1860 batch of converts, he uses the phrases “bringing on the ugly ones for US” and “let US ALL have a fair shake.”)

William W. Phelps (1861, Aug 12) – 30 year recollection | 1st hand + 2nd hand
“[I]t is [Jesus Christ’s] will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles… About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [Smith, Jr.] privately, how ‘we,’ that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the ‘natives’—as we were all married men? He replied instantly ‘In th[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.” (W.W. Phelps letter to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861; Young Collection, Church History Library; also Fred C. Collier, “Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2d ed.” (Salt Lake City: Collier’s Publishing Co., 1981), chapter 10, vs 4, p. 58)

Brigham young (1862, Aug 6) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?‘ It is the only popular religion there… Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire… Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” (Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862)

Brigham Young (1865, Jun 18) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early impressions that are untrue. Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious. Polygamy did not have its origin with Joseph Smith, but it existed from the beginning. So far as I am concerned as an individual, I did not ask for it; I never desired it; and if I ever had a trial of my faith in the world, it was when Joseph Smith revealed that doctrine to me; and I had to pray incessantly and exercise faith before the Lord until He revealed to me the truth, and I was satisfied. I say this at the present time for the satisfaction of both saint and sinner. Now, here are the commandments of the Lord, and here are the wishes of wicked men, which shall we obey?” (Brigham Young, delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, June 18, 1865. Reported by G. D. Watt. Journal of Discourses 11:127-128)

Heber C. Kimball (1866, Apr 4) – 23+ year recollection | 1st hand
“The revelations which Joseph Smith has given to this people were given to him by Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world; and this people cannot be blessed if they lightly esteem any of them… For this purpose did He give the revelation on plurality of wives, as sacred a revelation as was ever given to any people, and fraught with greater blessings to us than we can possibly conceive of, if we do not abuse our privileges and commit sin. This doctrine is a holy and pure principle, in which the power of God for the regeneration of mankind is made manifest” (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, April 4, 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:211)

Heber C. Kimball (1866, Jun) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Plurality of wives is a law established by God forever. It would be easier for the United States to build a tower to remove the sun as to remove polygamy.” (Heber C. Kimball, Jun 1866, Millennial Star, vol. 28, p. 190)

Brigham Young (1866, Aug 19) – contemporary | 1st hand
“It is not polygamy that men fight against when they persecute this people; but, still, if we continue to be faithful to our God, he will defend us in doing what is right. If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church. I did not ask Him for the revelation upon this subject. When that revelation was first read to me by Joseph Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the Elders, and the trouble and the persecution that it would bring upon this whole people. But the Lord revealed it, and it was my business to accept it. Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: ‘We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc.’ The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy… I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. “Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?” If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.” (Brigham Young, August 19, 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:268-269)

Brigham Young (1866, Oct 7) – 1 month recollection | 1st hand | 24% verbatim
We treated him [Alexander Smith] kindly…. Joseph F. Smith, who was from home, came back, and saw him, and met him in public in this city. Many of this congregation are acquainted with that circumstance. It was asked him… ‘What do you think of the doctrine of polygamy?’ It is his business to preach against polygamy, and his brother Joseph [III] said that his father never introduced it. Several of the sisters testified to him that they were sealed to his father. Well, said he, ‘if he did have any such revelation, or teach any such doctrine, or practice it, he must have got out of the way,’ or, in other words he must have been a fallen prophet, if he ever was a true prophet. That is the conclusion they come to when hard pressed with stern facts.” (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, 4:2379)

Brigham Young (1866, Oct 8) – 22+ year recollection | 1st hand | 31% verbatim
“I used to think, and think now, that an angel dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son possessed no more integrity in their hearts than did Hyrum Smith. While he lived he was Joseph’s fast friend. Notwithstanding this, I have heard Joseph tell him that if the Church was left to his leadership he would lead it directly to hell. He never appointed his brother Hyrum to be his successor. He never even thought of such a thing and if my word is good for anything I can say of a truth that Joseph told me not three months before he was killed, and I did not seek the information he gave me, we were talking upon counseling, governing and controlling; that ‘If I am moved out of the way you are the only man living on this earth who can counsel and direct the affairs of the Kingdom of God on the earth.’ When he said this to me we were walking up by the old burying ground where brother Wilford Woodruff was building a little brick house and turning to the north around the corner where Willard Richards lived. He often said to me when speaking upon polygamy, ‘I shall die for it and I would as leave die for it as not. It is the work of God and He has revealed this principle and it is not my business to control or dictate it: to say it shall or shall not be.’” (Brigham Young, October 8, 1866, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 4:2381; Editor’s note: compare to Brigham Young’s Times and Seasons Oct 15, 1844 declaration: “Did Joseph Smith ordain any man to take his place. He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum, but Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did. If Hyrum had lived he would have acted for Joseph”)

Brigham Young (1867, Jun 30) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Now, the sermon which I design preaching to the ladies comes right before me. It is said—’If it were not for your obnoxious doctrine of plurality of wives we could believe in the rest very well.’ It is not that. That is not the touchstone at all, but it is because our wives and daughters cannot be seduced; it is because this people are strictly moral, virtuous, and truthful… I do not wish to say much upon this subject, but I say, woe to you Eves if you proclaim or entertain feelings against this doctrine! Woe to every female in this Church who says, ‘I will not submit to the doctrine that God has revealed.’ You will wake up by and by and say, ‘I have lost the crown and exaltation I might have gained had I only been faithful to my covenants and the revelations which God gave. I might have been crowned as well as you, but now I must go to another kingdom.’ Be careful, O, ye mothers in Israel, and do not teach your daughters in future, as many of them have been taught, to marry out of Israel. Woe to you who do it; you will lose your crowns as sure as God lives. Be careful! ‘Well,’ but say you, ‘these men, these elders of Israel, have it all their own way.’ That is not so, and we are not going to have it all our own way, unless our way is to do just right. And the man and woman who set up their will against the providence of God, will be found wanting when accounts are squared. They will have to say, ‘the summer is past, the harvest is ended, and we have not received our crowns.’ Will you think of this, sisters, you who are not married as well as you who are? I have a good many daughters, but it would be better for every one of my daughters, and for every female in this Church, to marry men who have proved themselves to be men of God, no matter how many wives they have, than to take these miserable characters who are running around here.” (Brigham Young, delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, June 30, 1867, Reported by David W. Evans, Journal of Discourses 12:93-98)

Charles C. Rich (1869) – 25 year recollection | 3rd hand | affidavit
“On the [blank] day of May A.D. 1844 as he was about starting on a mission to the State of Michigan, Hyrum Smith, patriarch, taught him the principle of polygamy or celestial marriage, and told him that when he should return from the said mission it would be his privilege to take other wives.” (Charles C. Rich, 1869, Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:54, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Joseph Bates Noble (1869, Jun 26) – 28 year recollection | 2nd hand | affidavit
“AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BATES NOBLE Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss. Be it remembered that on the 26th day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Joseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on the fifth day of April, A. D. 1841, at the city of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed Louisa Beaman to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to the order of celestial marriage revealed to the said Joseph Smith. [signed] Joseph B. Noble. Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph Bates Noble, the day and year first above written. [Seal] James Jack, Notary Public.” (Joseph Bates Noble, affidavit sworn June 26, 1869; published in Joseph F. Smith, Jr., “Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage” [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press], p.75; Editor’s note: As of April 5, 1841’s marriage date, Louisa Beamon was not a member of the church in Nauvoo, but a future convert who was not baptized until 2 years and 5 weeks later on May 11, 1843. Joseph Bates Noble was an active polygamist when he wrote this 28 years later, having entered into polygamy during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.)

Brigham Young (1869, Jul 10) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Judge Trumbull-‘Will you promise obedience to the constitution and the laws of the union?‘
Brigham Young–‘Adherance to the Union, certainly. One enactment of Congress, however, we shall not obey; that is the one forbidding polygamy. It is not right to interfere in that matter. It is much better for a man to have several wives to support, honor, and cherish them, than it is for a man to deceive one, and cast off, disown and refuse to support her.‘
Judge Trumbull–‘That is a matter about which we must differ. We think the National Government and the States can rightfully pass laws against bigamy, and justly punish the offence. All the states make a plurality of wives a criminal offence.‘
Brigham Young–‘Yes, all the states have laws on the subject, and Utah, when a state, will have an equal right to make laws protecting polygamy. Until we came here the subject of polygamy was not broached. It was not until we had a revelation on the subject. We think we ought not to be interfered with in this matter, as it is nobody’s business but our own. We have about 70,000 people. Congress thinks we are unable to take care of ourselves as a State. When we number 300,000, as we soon shall, I think we will be admitted into the Union.‘ (Brigham Young, interview with Senator Lyman Trumbull, July 10, 1869; published in Chicago Tribune July 26, 1869; link)

Brigham Young (1869, Jul 10) – contemporary | 1st hand
Brigham Young-“…Why, what did Mr. Douglas do, when King James (Mr. Buchanan) sent him to us at Nauvoo? He made, as it were, a treaty with us, as the Government does with England or any other foreign country; promised, if we would go away beyond civilization, we would not be molested. The result was, we were set upon coming here, and 5,000 of our men forced into a legion of soldiers to fight the Mexicans and leave our women and children to starve, and Buchanan said, ‘Let them die!’“
Senator Trumbull-“You can depend upon a fair hearing in Congress.“
Brigham Young-“What! take our papers and throw them under the table. Send more-under the table they go.’ [this was said with energetic gesticulation]. ‘As to our institutions, we know we are right, and polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here [Utah].“
Senator Trumbull-“I have no doubt that Congress has a right to legislate upon the marriage relation and to regulate it.“
Brigham Young-“Then why not legislate about the intercourse of the [unmarried] sexes?” (Brigham Young interview with the Chicago commercial party and Senator Lyman Trumbull, reported in Daily Alta Californian; republished in The New York Times, July 26, 1869 and in ‘True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, vol. 16, p. 158; RLDS History of the Church 3:359, Link)

Brigham Young (1869, Jul 11) – 22 year recollection | 1st hand
“What were we driven for? Was it because of polygamy? No, for that was not known generally until after our arrival in these valleys.” (Brigham Young, July 11, 1869, Journal of Discourses 13:148)

Elizabeth Brotherton Pratt (1869, Aug 2) – 26 year recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake} SS. Be it remembered that on this second day of August A.D. 1869 personally appeared before me, James Jack a Notary Public in and for said county Elizabeth B. Pratt, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that, on the twenty fourth day of July A.D. 1843, in the city of Nauvoo county of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Parley P. Pratt for time and all eternity, by Patriarch Hyrum Smith in the presence of Mary Ann Young, and Mary Ann Pratt, Mary Ann Pratt being sealed at the same time. Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth B. Pratt the day and year first written } [signed] Elizabeth B. Pratt. [signed] James Jack Norary Public” (Elizabeth B. Pratt, sworn affidavit recorded by James Jack on August 2, 1869, Salt Lake County, Territory of Utah; “Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, 1869-1870” Folder 6, volume 2; Church Archives call number MS 3423 FD I-4, p.62)

Joseph F. Smith (1869, Aug 18) – 25-38 year recollection | 3rd hand+ | affidavit
“He [Joseph Smith Jr.] said that the Lord had revealed unto him and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives, that he foresaw the trouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, that an angel from heaven appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.” (Joseph F. Smith, August 18, 1869 affidavit, “Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books,” 2:19; MS 3423, fd 5, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah; Editor’s note: Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum Smith’s son, was born November 13, 1838 and was 5 years old when Joseph Smith Jr. was killed, making his statements of “he said” 3rd hand accounts heard from Lorenzo Snow.)

Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt (1869, Sep 3) – 26 year recollection | 1st hand | affidavit | notary seal hand-drawn
“Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake} SS. Be it remembered that on this third day of September A.D. 1869 personally appeared before me, Hiram Winters a Justice of the Peace in and for said county Mary Ann Pratt, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that, on the twenty fourth day of July A.D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo county of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Parley P. Pratt for time and eternity, by President Hyrum Smith in the presence of Mary Ann Young and Elizabeth Brotherton. [signed] Mary Ann Pratt. Subscribed and sworn to by the said Mary Ann Pratt the day and year first above written } [signed] Hiram Winters Justice of the Peace” (Elizabeth B. Pratt, sworn affidavit recorded by James Jack on September 3, 1869, Salt Lake County, Territory of Utah; “Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, 1869-1870” Folder 6, volume 1; Church Archives call number MS 3423 FD I-4, p.38; Editor’s note: This document, although done through a different person than the August 2, 1869 Elizabeth Brotherton affidavit, is written about 99% word-for word verbatim, aside from swapping out the names of the person being sealed and the notary. It is also lacking an official seal, but has one drawn on the page with the same handwriting and penmanship as the author, something that is currently illegal in all 50 states, and makes a document null and void. However, many of the affidavits signed by Hiram Winters in this collection have drawn-on seals, suggesting that either Utah Territory was unprofessional and non-secured in its legal protocols, Hiram Winters lost or broke his stamp, or the person writing the affidavits did not have a notary stamp.)

George Albert Smith (1869, Oct 8) – 25 year recollection | 1st hand
“I have never failed to bear a faithful testimony to the work of God, or to carry out, to all intents and purposes, the wishes and designs of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I was his kinsman; was familiar with him, though several years his junior; knew his views, his sentiments, his ways, his designs, and many of the thoughts of his heart, and I do know that the servants of God, the Twelve Apostles, upon whom he laid the authority to bear off the Kingdom of God, and fulfill the work which he had commenced, have done according to his designs, in every particular, up to the present time, and are continuing to do so. And I know, furthermore, that he rejoiced in the fact that the law of redemption and Celestial Marriage was revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of the power of earth and hell to destroy it;… There’s an opinion in the breast of many persons–who suppose that they believe the Bible– that Christ, when he came, did away with plural marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the subject, one of which is found in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy (iii chap. 2 vs), where Paul says: ‘A bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife.’ The friends of monogamy render it in this way: ‘A Bishop should be blameless, the husband of but one wife.’ That would imply that any one but a bishop might have more. But they will say, ‘We mean– A Bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife only.’ Well, that would also admit of the construction that other people might have more than one. I understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man. While we are considering this subject, we will inquire, did the Saviour in any place that we can read of, in the course of his mission on the earth, denounce a plurality of wives? He lived in a nation of Jews; the law of Moses was in force, plurality of wives was the custom, and thousands upon thousands of people, from the highest to the lowest in the land, were polygamists. The Saviour denounced adultery; he denounced fornication; he denounced lust; also divorce; but is there a single sentence asserting that plurality of wives is wrong? If so, where is it? Who can find it? Why did he not say it was wrong?” (George Albert Smith, delivered in the new Salt Lake Tabernacle, Oct 8, 1869, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13:37-42)

George Q. Cannon (1869, Oct 9) – contemporary | 1st hand
“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” (George Q. Cannon, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, October 9, 1869. Reported by David W. Evans)

Brigham Young (1870, Apr 17) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children! A person possessing a moderate knowledge of physiology, or who has paid attention to his own nature and the nature of the gentler sex, can readily understand this.” (Brigham Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday, April 17, 1870. Reported by David W. Evans. Journal of Discourses 13:317)

Brigham Young (1871, Jun 4) – 24 year recollection | 1st hand | 82% verbatim verbal
“‘But,’ say they, ‘what of your peculiar doctrine? What did you come to the mountains for? What did you leave us for? We suppose it was on account of your peculiar doctrine.’ I reply, ‘Pause! Wait a moment! When we left the confines of what is called civilization the doctrine of plurality of wives was not known by the world, and was not taught by us, and was known only to a very few members of our Church;’” (Brigham Young, June 4, 1871, Journal of Discourses 14:158-159)

Ebenezer Robinson & Angeline Robinson (1873, Dec 29) – 30 year recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“To whom it may concern: We, Ebenezer Robinson and Angeline Robinson, husband and wife, hereby certify that in the fall of 1843 Hyrum Smith, brother of Joseph Smith, came to our house in Nauvoo, Illinois, and taught us the doctrine of polygamy. And I, the said Ebenezer Robinson, hereby further state that he gave me special instructions how I could manage the matter so as not to have it known to the public. He also told us that while he had heretofore opposed the doctrine, he was wrong and his brother Joseph was right; referring to his teaching it. [signed] EBENEZER ROBINSON. ANGELINE E. ROBINSON. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of December, 1873. [signed] J.M. SALLEE, Notary Public. (L. S.)” (Ebenezer Robinson and Angeline Robinson, sworn affidavits before J.M. Sallee on December 29, 1873; cited in Charles Augustus Shook, “The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy” p.164; Editor’s note: Ebenezer Robinson signed a similar affidavit 12 years later on October 23, 1885)

William Clayton (1874, Feb 16) – 31 year recollection | 1st hand | 12% verbatim verbal
“I was employed as a clerk in President Joseph Smith’s office, under Elder Willard Richards, and commenced to labor in the office on the 10th day of February, 1842…. On the 7th of October, 1842, in the presence of Bishop Newel K. Whitney and his wife Elizabeth Ann, President Joseph Smith appointed me Temple Recorder, and also his private clerk, placing all records, books, papers, etc., in my care, and requiring me to take charge of and preserve them, his closing words being, ‘When I have any revelations to write, you are the one to write them.‘ On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C. Kimball; and on the 22nd of July, 1843, he married to me, according to the order of the Church, my first wife Ruth. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly. On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the ‘brick store,’ on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, ‘If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.‘ Joseph smiled and remarked, ‘You do not know Emma as well as I do.‘ Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, ‘The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,‘ or words to their effect. Joseph then said, ‘Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.‘ He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was writen was sufficient for the present. Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger. Joseph quietly remarked, ‘I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did‘ Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office. The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he bad any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that be had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary. The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney, and but few knew of its existence until the temporary location of the Camps of Israel at Winter Quarters, on the Missouri River, in 1846. After the revelation on celestial marriage was written Joseph continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine, to myself and others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected with it. He appeared to enjoy great liberty and freedom in his teachings, and also to find great relief in having a few to whom he could unbosom his feelings on that great and glorious subject. From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory.” (Signed) William Clayton. Salt Lake City, February 16th, 1874.” (William Clayton, sworn testimony before John T. Crane, notary public, Salt Lake City, February 16, 1874; Historical Record, volume 6, p.224-226)

Brigham Young (1874 Jul 1) – 35 year recollection | 1st hand
“While we were in England, (in 1839 and 40), I think the Lord manifested to me by vision and his Spirit things [concerning polygamy] that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to any one concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo; Joseph had never mentioned this; there had never been a thought of it in the Church that I ever knew anything about at that time, but I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself. And when I returned home, and Joseph revealed those things to me, then I understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England. But this (communication with Joseph on the subject) was not until after I had told him what I understood—this was in 1841. The revelation [Section 132 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants] was given in 1843, but the doctrine was revealed before this.” (Brigham Young, Deseret News, July 1, 1874; The Messenger of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1 [June 1875]: 29)

Eliza R. Snow (1877) – 37 year recollection | 1st hand
“To narrate what transpired within the seven years in which we built and occupied Nauvoo, would fill many volumes. That is a history that never will , and never can, repeat itself. Some of the most important events of my life transpired within that brief term, in which I was married, and in which my husband, Joseph Smith, the prophet of God, sealed his testimony with his blood.” (Eliza R. Snow, quoted in Edward W. Tullidge, “The Women of Mormondom,” p.294)

Orson Pratt (1878, Sep 12) – 37 + 47 year recollections | 2nd hand + 3rd hand | 30% verbatim verbal
“At a meeting held in Plano, Illinois, Sept. 12,1878, Apostle Orson Pratt explained the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the revelation on plural marriage. He refuted the statement and belief of those present that Brigham Young was the author of that revelation [Section 132 in the Utah Doctrine and Covenants]; showed that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had not only commenced the practice of that principle himself, and further taught it to others, before President Young and the Twelve had returned from their missions in Europe, in 1841, but that Joseph actually received revelation upon that principle as early as 1831. He said, ‘Lyman Johnson, who was very familiar with Joseph at this early date, Joseph living at his father’s house [near Hiram, Ohio, beginning in September 1831], and [Lyman] who was also very intimate with me [Orson], we having traveled on several missions together, told me himself that Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831, that plural marriage was a correct principle. Joseph declared to Lyman that God had revealed it to him, but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church, but that the time would come.’ To this statement Elder Pratt bore his testimony. He cited several instances of Joseph having had wives sealed to him, one at least as early as April 5, 1841, which was some time prior to the return of the Twelve from England. Referred to his own trial in regard to this matter in Nauvoo, and said it was because he got his information from a wicked source [Sarah and Dr. Bennett], from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth, he was satisfied.” (Orson Pratt, sermon given Sep 12, 1878 in Plano, IL to RLDS congregation, published in Andrew Jensen, Historical Record 6:230; Editor’s note: The April 5, 1841 marriage referred to above was allegedly to Louisa Beamon, a future convert who was not baptized until 2 years and 5 weeks later on May 11, 1843. This plural marriage was based on a latent affidavit written by Idaho LDS polygamist Joseph Bates Noble 28 years later. If Joseph Smith did teach polygamy as a celestial law in 1841, then Louisa Beamon was not yet taught the gospel or baptized when she entered into that highest “covenant” and would have been considered unworthy of the ordinance.)

Eliza R. Snow (1879, Oct 22) – 35+ year recollection | 1st hand
“Recently, to my great astonishment, I read an article headed ‘Last Testimony of Sister Emma,’ published in the Saints’ 1 Advocate, a pamphlet issued in Piano, 111. In the article referred to, her son Joseph reports himself as interviewing his mother on the subject of polygamy, asking questions concerning his father. Did his father teach the principle? Did he practice or approve of it ? Did his father have other wives than herself? To all of these and similar inquiries, Sister Emma is represented as answering in the negative, positively affirming that Joseph, the Prophet, had no other wife or wives than her; that he neither taught the principle of plurality of wives, publicly or privately. I once dearly loved ‘Sister Emma,’ and now, for me to believe that she, a once highly honored woman, should have sunk so low, even in her own estimation, as to deny what she knew to be true, seems a palpable absurdity. If what purports to be her ‘last testimony‘ was really her testimony, she died with a libel on her lips — a libel against her husband— against his wives— against the truth, and a libel against God; and in publishing that libel, her son has fastened a stigma on the character of his mother, that can never be erased. It is a fact that Sister Emma, of her own free will and choice, gave her husband four wives, two of whom are now living, and ready to testify that she, not only gave them to her husband, but that she taught them the doctrine of plural marriage and urged them to accept it. And, if her son wished to degrade his mother in the estimation of her former associates, those familiar with the incidents of the period referred to, he could not do it more effectually than by proving her denial of any knowledge of polygamy (celestial marriage), and its practice by her husband. Even if her son ignored his mother’s reputation for veracity, he better had waited until his father’s wives were silent in death, for now they are here living witnesses of the divinity of plural marriage, as revealed by the Almighty, through Joseph Smith, who was commanded to introduce it by taking other wives. So far as Sister Emma personally is concerned, I would gladly have been silent and let her memory rest in peace, had not her misguided son, through a sinister policy, branded her name with gross wickedness — charging her with the denial of a sacred principle which she had heretofore not only acknowledged but had acted upon — a principle than which there is none more important comprised in the Gospel of the Son of God. It may be asked, Why defend plurality of wives, since the United States government forbids its practice? The action of the executors of this government can neither change nor annihilate a fundamental truth; and this nation, in preventing the practice of plural marriage, shoulders a heavier responsibility than any nation has ever assumed, with one exception— that of the ancient Jews. If the government can afford it, we can. The controversy is with God — not us. Eliza R. Snow. A wife of Joseph Smith, the Prophet.” (Eliza R. Snow Young, Deseret News (weekly), October 22, 1879; Editor’s note: Eliza R. Snow claims to be a “wife of Joseph Smith” in this publication but also stated 2 years earlier in 1877 that “I certainly shall not acknowledge myself of having been a carnal [wife]” to Joseph Smith, referencing her being sealed to him)

Erastus Snow (1883, Jun 17) – 51 year recollection | 3rd+ hand
“Attended the quarterly conference, this p.m. Pres. E. [Erastus] Snow spoke of the Angel of the Lord meeting Joseph with a drawn sword and of his going to slay him for his being neglectful in the discharge of his duties and of Joseph having to plead on his knees before the Angel for his life.” (Erastus Snow, A. Karl Larson and Katherine Miles Larson, “Diary of Charles Lowell Walker,” 2 Volumes, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 1980, 2:611, entry for June 17, 1883)

Wilford Woodruff (1884, Jan 6) – contemporary | 1st hand
“Mormonism is unpopular. Why is it unpopular? ‘Because,‘ say the priests of the day, ‘it interferes with our rights. We preach for hire and divine for money, and if the Mormons were to prevail in the earth, we should lose our business, and we cannot endure it.‘ ‘Why,‘ says the world, ‘you profess to believe in polygamy, and that is why you are persecuted.‘ No, you are mistaken about that. The worst persecution this Church ever endured was before polygamy was revealed to the Church. We have had more prosperity since we carried out that law, and endeavored to fulfill it according to the command of God, than we ever had as a people before. And here is the principle with me—I speak as an individual; I speak for myself—if this work is of God; if the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed to Joseph Smith, is true, then God will take care of it; if the patriarchal law of marriage comes from the God of Israel, He will take care of it; He will protect and defend it, and He will uphold the people that carry it out. I say this is in the name of Israel’s God, And if it is not of God, who wants it? I don’t, neither do this people. I speak of this principle because I want my brethren and sisters to understand the views I have upon it.” (President Wilford Woodruff, delivered in the Assembly Hall, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, January 6, 1884. Reported by John Irvine. Journal of Discourses 25:4-12)

John Taylor (1885, Feb 1) – 39+ year recollection | 1st hand
“Many of you have been driven from your homes, robbed of your property, dispossessed of your possessions and had to flee from your homes to these mountain valleys, and seek an asylum among the red savages which was denied you by your so−called Christian brethren. Before you came here [Utah] you were banished from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois. What for? Because you had the audacity to worship God according to the dictates of your own consciences. I have had to flee from blood−thirsty bandits time and time again. Brother Snow had to do it, and many of you grey−headed men and women have had to do it. What for? Because of polygamy? No, there was no such thing then alleged.” (John Taylor, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, Feb. 1, 1885. Reported by John Irvine. Journal of Discourses 26:151-153)

Ebenezer Robinson (1885, Oct 23) – 42 year recollection | 1st hand | affidavit
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : This is to certify that in the latter part of November, or in December, 1843, Hyrum Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) came to my house in Nauvoo, Illinois, and taught me the doctrine of spiritual wives or polygamy. He said he heard the voice of the Lord give the revelation on spiritual wifery (polygamy) to his brother Joseph, and that while he had heretofore opposed the doctrine, he was wrong, and his brother Joseph was right all the time. He told me to make a selection of some young woman and he would send her to me, and take her to my home, and if she would have an heir, to give out the word that she had a husband who had gone on a mission to a foreign country. He seemed disappointed when I declined to do so. [signed] E. ROBINSON. DAVIS CITY, Iowa, October 23, 185. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for Decatur County, Iowa, this 24th day of October, A. D. 1885. [signed] Z. H. GURLEY, Notary Public. (L. S.)” (Ebenezer Robinson, sworn affidavit before Z.H. Gurley on October 24, 1885, Davis City, Iowa; cited in Charles Augustus Shook, “The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy” p.164; Editor’s note: Ebenezer Robinson signed a similar joint affidavit with his wife Angeline Robinson 12 years earlier on December 29, 1873)

Joseph F. Smith (1886, May 20) – contemporary + 42-55 year recollections | 1st hand + 3rd hand + 4th hand
“The great and glorious principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates. Among them were Oliver Cowdery and Lyman E. Johnson, the latter confiding the fact to his traveling companion, Elder Orson Pratt, in the year 1832. (See Orson Pratt’s testimony.) And this great principle remained concealed in the bosom of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the few to whom he revealed it, until he was commanded, about 1842, to instruct the leading members of the Priesthood, and those who were most faithful and intelligent, and best prepared to receive it, in relation thereto, at which time, and subsequently until his martyrdom, the subject, in connection with the great principles of baptism, redemption and sealings for the dead, became the great themes of his life, and, as the late Pres. Geo. A. Smith repeatedly said to me and others, ‘The Prophet seemed irresistibly moved by the power of God to establish that principle, not only in theory, in the hearts and minds of his brethren, but in practice also,‘ he himself having led the way. While this doctrine was thus being taught by the Prophet to those whom he could trust—those who had faith, righteousness and integrity, to believe and accept it, with all its consequences (which are no trifling things), it remained an ‘unwritten law‘ and commandment of the Almighty to the faithful only of His Saints, designed to be enlarged as intelligence and fidelity to the laws. Let every Saint know by unimpeachable testimony, as well as by the spirit of inspiration, to which each Saint is entitled, that God Almighty revealed this doctrine to Joseph the martyr, and that under God he was and is the founder, by precept and example, of the same in the Church. Praying God to bless this testimony to the comforting of the Saints and the confusion of their enemies, I have the heartfelt pleasure to remain eternally yours for the truth, if it wake the dead. Joseph F. Smith” (Joseph F. Smith, Deseret News May 20, 1886)

John Taylor (1886, Sep 27) – contemporary | 1st hand
“My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.” (John Taylor, September 27, 1886 revelation. see document)

Charles W. Penrose (1887, Feb 16) – contemporary | 1st hand
“If the members of the Church who would vote on the Constitution question were quietly informed as to its effects and given to understand it as a political and not a Church question, and that it would not interfere with their standing as Latter-day Saints, it would soon be comprehended in its true light. So far from being a subterfuge, it would relieve our people from the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition imposes [wanting to continue in polygamy illegally], and which threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers.” (Charles W. Penrose, letter to President John Taylor, February 16, 1887, quoted in Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage [Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992], 368.)

Orson F. Whitney (1888) – 44+ year recollection | 2nd hand or 3rd hand
“Before he [Joseph Smith] would trust even Heber [C. Kimball] with the full secret, however, he put him to a test which few men would have been able to bear. It was no less than a requirement for him to surrender his wife, his beloved Vilate, and give her to Joseph in marriage! The astounding revelation well-nigh paralyzed him. He could hardly believe he had heard aright. Yet Joseph was solemnly in earnest. His next impulse was to spurn the proposition, and perhaps at that terrible moment a vague suspicion of the Prophet’s motive and the divinity of the revelation, shot like a poisoned arrow through his soul.” (Orson F. Whitney, “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” pg. 323; Editor’s note: Orson F. Whitney wasn’t born until July 1855, 11 years after Joseph Smith was killed. This means that he could not have heard the story and comprehended it until he was a minimum of 5 years old or so, making this at best a 2nd hand account passed along 16+ year later at the time it was first heard [as early as 1860], and at worst a 3rd hand story of a 44 year old incident when the book was finally published in 1888.)

Lorenzo Snow (1892) – 49 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church [Aug 29, 1852] violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in [July 12] 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too.” (Lorenzo Snow, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.320-322; Editor’s note: Included here in the polygamy column because Lorenzo Snow infers that practicing polygamy after July 12, 1843 was not grounds for being cut off from the church. However, he also says that if a man violated the statement on marriage [formerly D&C 101 until 1876] before “the acceptance of that revelation by the church” [which could only be referring to the August 29, 1852 declaration by Brigham Young], then he would be cut off from the church. Hundreds of men, including church leaders, entered into polygamy from 1844-1852 and were not cut off from the church.)

Lorenzo Snow (1892) – 49 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“[Joseph Smith Jr.] explained to me the principles of plural marriage distinctly and clearly, and told me that the Lord had revealed the principle and had commanded him to enter into that practice. And that he had received a revelation to that effect. He said that he had demurred to doing so as he foresaw the trouble that would ensue, but that an angel of the Lord had appeared before him with a drawn sword commanding him to do so and he could not go backward.” (Lorenzo Snow, Sworn testimony, 1892, Temple Lot Case, part 3, #258, p.124)

Joseph Kingsbury (1892) – 48 year recollection | 1st hand | testimony under oath
“There was nothing said about whether I had the privilege of taking another woman or not. I never heard anything of that kind in those days either under the laws of the land or under the laws of the church. No one had the privilege under the laws of the church up to 1844, nor under the laws of the United States or in any State up to 1844, to take more wives than one. We did not consider that we had such a privilege at all. I have been married three times since 1844. My wives were not all living at the same time, but two of them were living at the same time. I do not remember hearing any minister in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prior to 1844 in Nauvoo or any other place, preach or teach the doctrine of polygamy, nor in any other place or time prior to 1844; never heard it preached from the stand prior to 1844 at all. I never heard it preached from the pulpit before 1844. I heard it in private conversations as I stated; Bishop [Newell K.] Whitney told me of it before. I did not hear it taught privately to any number of persons prior to 1844. Bishop Whitney told me we had the privilege of having more than one wife.” (Joseph Kinsbury, statements made under oath, Temple Lot Case, Abstract of Evidence, p.338; Editor’s note: Joseph Kingsbury is the man who’s handwriting is on the only alleged surviving copy of the revelation on polygamy, also known as the July 12, 1843 or section 132 revelation. Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and many others in the 1850s spoke openly about Joseph Kingsbury’s involvement in the copying and preserving of the revelation, which is said to have originated from Joseph Smith Jr. However, under oath, he did not mention Joseph Smith as the originating source for this teaching, but rather Newel K. Whitney.)

Heber J. Grant (1896, Apr 1) – 53+ year recollection | 3rd hand | testimony under oath
“Prest Lorenzo Snow stated that he was in England with Bro [Parley] Pratt when reports came from Nauvoo to the effect that the doctrine of plural marriage was bring taught. Upon his return to Nauvoo in the spring of 1843 he had a long talk with the Prophet Joseph Smith, who fully explained to him the doctrine of plural marriage, and stated that an angel with a drawn sword had visited him and commanded him to go into this principle, and President Smith told Bro Snow to enter into plural marriage.” (Heber J. Grant, Diary, April 1, 1896, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah; Editor’s note: In July 1842, Brigham Young wrote a detailed letter to Parley P. Pratt documenting the situation in Nauvoo with John C. Bennett, Sarah Pratt, Orson Pratt and Joseph Smith. This is believed to have been the same “report” he’s referring to, which could be the link between the original “angel with a flaming sword” story and Brigham Young.)

Lorenzo Snow (1899 Jun 6) – 56 year recollection | 1st hand
“There is no man that lives that had a more perfect knowledge of the principle of plural marriage, its holiness and divinity, than what I had. It was revealed to me before the Prophet Joseph Smith explained it to me. I had been on a mission to England between two and three years, and before I left England I was perfectly satisfied in regard to something connected with plural marriage.” (Lorenzo Snow, Deseret Semi-Weekly News, June 6, 1899)

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (1902, Feb 8) – 68 year recollection | 2nd hand+
“In 1834 he [Joseph Smith] was commanded to take me for a wife. I was a thousand miles from him. He got afraid. The angel came to him three times, the last time with a drawn sword and threatened his life.” (Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, February 8, 1902, “Vesta Crawford Papers” MS 125, box 1, fd 11, Marriott Library, SLC, UT)

Benjamin F. Johnson (1903) – 68 year recollection | 3rd hand+ | 25% verbatim verbal
“And now to your question, ‘How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?‘ I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Rutland, I learned from my sister’s husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, ‘that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.‘ This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then lived with his family a neighbor’s daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her. After this, there was some trouble with Jared Carter, and through Brother Sherman I learned that ‘as he had built himself a new house, he now wanted another wife‘, which Joseph would not permit. And then there was some trouble with Oliver Cowdery, and whisper said it was relating to a girl then living in his family; and I was afterwards told by Warren Parish, that he himself and Oliver Cowdery did know that Joseph had Fannie Alger as a wife, for they were spied upon and found together. And I can now see that as at Nauvoo, so at Kirtland, that the suspicion or knowledge of the Prophet’s plural relation was one of the causes of apostasy and disruption at Kirtland although at the time there was little said publicly on the subject. Soon after the Prophet’s flight in winter of 1837 and 1838, the Alger family left for the West and stopping in Indiana for a time Fannie soon married to one of the citizens there, and although she never left the state, she did not turn from the Church nor from her friendship with the Prophet while she lived… It was Sunday morning, April 3rd or 4th, 1843, that the Prophet was at my home in Ramus, and after breakfast he proposed a stroll together, and taking his arm, our walk led toward a swail, surrounded by trees and tall brush and near the forest line not far from my house. Through the swail ran a small spring brook, across which a tree was fallen and was clean of its bark. On this we sat down and the Prophet proceeded at once to open to me the subject of plural and eternal marriage and he said that years ago in Kirtland the Lord had revealed to him the ancient order of plural marriage, and the necessity for its practice, and did command him then to take another wife, and that among his first thoughts was to come to my mother for some of her daughters. And as he was again required of the Lord to take more wives, he had come now to ask me for my sister Almira. My words astonished me and almost took my breath. I sat for a time amazed and finally, almost ready to burst with emotion, I looked him straight in the face and said: ‘Brother Joseph, this is something I did not expect, and I do not understand it. You know whether it is right, I do not. I want to do just as you tell me, and I will try, but if I ever should know that you do this to dishonor and debauch my sister, I will kill you as sure as the Lord lives.’ And while his eyes did not move from mine, he said with a smile, in a soft tone: ‘But Benjamin you will never know that, but you will know the principle in time, and will greatly rejoice in what it will bring to you.’ ‘But how,’ I asked, ‘Can I teach my sister what I myself do not understand, or show her what I do not myself see?’ ‘But you will see and understand it,’ he said, ‘And when you open your mouth to talk to your sister, light will come to you and your mouth will be full and your tongue loose, and I will today preach a sermon to you that none but you will understand.’ Both of these promises were more than fulfilled. The text of his sermon was our use of the ‘one, five and ten talents,’ and as God had now commanded plural marriage, and was exaltation and dominion of the saints depended upon the number of their righteous posterity, from him who was then but with one talent, it would be taken and given him that had ten, which item of doctrine seems now to be somewhat differently constructed. But my thought and wish is to write of things just as they occurred, and I now bear an earnest testimony that his other prediction was more than fulfilled, for when with great hesitation and stammering I called my sister to a private audience, and stood before her shaking with fear, just so soon as I found power to open my mouth, it was filled, for the light of the Lord shone upon my understanding, and the subject that had seemed so dark now appeared of all subjects pertaining to our gospel the most lucid and plain; and so both my sister and myself were converted together, and never again did I need evidence or argument to sustain that high and holy principle. And within a few days of this period my sister accompanied me to Nauvoo, where at our sister Delcena’s, we soon met the Prophet with his brother Hyrum and Wm. Clayton, as his private secretary, who always accompanied him. Brother Hyrum at once took me in hand, apparently in fear I was not fully converted, and this was the manner of his talk to me: ‘Now Benjamin, you must not be afraid of this new doctrine, for it is all right. You know Brother Hyrum don’t get carried away by worldly things, and he fought this principle until the Lord showed him it was true. I know that Joseph was commanded to take more wives, and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him.‘ This was the manner of Brother Hyrum’s teaching to me, which I then did not need, as I was fully converted.” (Benjamin F. Johnson, 1903, Letter to George F. Gibbs; transcript)

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (1905, Apr 14) – 74 year recollection | 2nd hand+ | no original record
“The words of the Prophet that had been revealed to him always have been with me from the beginning to the end of the gospel. Every principle that has been given in the Church by the prophet is true. I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He [Joseph Smith Jr.] preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. I am the first being that the revelation [D&C 132] was given to him for and I was one thousand miles away in Missouri, for we went up to Jackson County in 1841… In 1834 he [Joseph Smith] was commanded to take me for a Wife, I was a thousand miles from him, he got afraid… I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things” (Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, “Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Lightner,” address at Lee Library, Brigham Young University, April 14 1905, typescript, BYU, 1; Editor’s note: This unique account tells of Joseph Smith contesting with the angel using the scriptures. Mary was 87 years old when delivering this address, and would have been 13 in 1831, when she was “one thousand miles away in Missouri.” She states that “we went up to Jackson County in 1841” but that event was a full decade off, and was likely a reference to 1831.)

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (1905 Summer) – 63-74 year recollection | 1st hand
“I have never had five minutes conversation with Joseph F. Smith in my life, I could tell him a great many things about his father that he does not know, about the early days of the church, and in Far West, but have never had the opportunity. I have received but very little council or advise since Joseph’s death. I feel that I have been spiritually neglected…. As for Sister Whitney, Bishop Whitney’s wife, I shall never forget her. It was at their house that the Prophet Joseph first told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. That was in 1831. He was very much frightened, the angel appeared to him three times. It was in the early part of Feb. 1842 that he was compelled to reveal it to me personally, by the Angel threatening him. I said I would not accept it until I had seen an immortal being myself. I could tell you about this, but cannot write any more in regard to this subject…. I was baptized in the early part of 1830. Was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by Brigham Young in a room over the old red brick store in Nauvoo. Received my first washings and annointings in Parley P. Pratts house in Nauvoo, by Sisters Whitney and Pratt, before the temple was built. Joseph wished to give me the endowments himself but was debarred the percentious(?) at that time. I received them the second time in the Nauvoo Temple by Brigham Young standing proxy, Heber C. Kimball doing the work. Brigham said at that time that I had more blessings sealed on my head than ever before given to a woman. Said my brother Henry was full of the Holy Ghost from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet…. I never saw the Kirtland Temple. We left there by divine commandment in the fall of 1831 to go to Independence, Jackson Co., Missouri. Yes, all of my people were with the saints in Missouri…. Yes I love to talk about the Prophet and the early days of the church. Will always remember how he looked, especially how he looked at that first sealing. He was tall and of commanding figure, full of life and when filled with the Holy Sprit his face was beautiful in expression. I have a picture of him done in water color. but it is faded some. Joseph F. Smith’s smile is exactly like the Prophet Josephs was. Yes, I could tell you many things that I cannot write. I remember every word he ever said to me of importance, have seen his predictions verefied especially so in my own family.” (Mary E. Lightner, letter written to Emmeline B. Wells, Summer 1905, typed by Myrtle Hamblin Stoddard in June 1983; Editor’s note: According to this statement, Brigham Young performed the sealing ordinance for Joseph Smith and Mary Lightner in the Red Brick Store. The revelation said to have been received July 12, 1843 [later became D&C 132] states that this sealing ordinance must be performed “by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power… and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” According to D&C 132, Brigham Young could not have performed this ordinance while Joseph Smith Jr. was alive. During Mary’s “second time” receiving her endowment, she states that it was done by proxy and that Brigham Young said to her that she “had more blessings sealed on [her] head than ever before given to a woman.” What need had Mary to be “resealed” to Joseph by proxy after his death, if the first sealing had any merit or efficacy? Who was the “one person on the earth at a time” that Joseph or God had given the sealing power to between Joseph Smith’s death on June 27, 1844 and Brigham Young’s ordination to President of the Church in December 1847?)

Julius C. Burrows (1906, Dec 11) – contemporary | 1st hand | 31% verbatim written
[Editor’s note: Burrows was a U.S. Representative and a U.S. Senator (1895–1911) from Michigan] “We have authentic information that more than 1,500 Salt Lake Mormons took the following oath in the Temple of God at Nauvoo: ‘You do solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, His holy angels, and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach your children, and that you will from this time henceforth and forever begin and carry out hostilities against this nation, and to keep the same intent a profound secret now and forever. So help me God.’ The rulers of the Salt Lake church hypocritically pretend to venerate the name and character of the prophet Joseph Smith, that they may retain their popularity among that people who believe that he was a true prophet. These rulers are apostates from the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which church Joseph Smith was president of. They teach and practice polygamy. Surely your honorable body will not lend your aid to legalize adultery and all manner of wickedness. These men have left their country for their country’s good. They have left it that they might escape the punishment which their crimes have invoked. They have been guilty of murders, treason, robbery, counterfeiting, swindling, blasphemy, and usurpation of power, both political and ecclesiastical. This is the character of the man who is the political and ecclesiastical governor of the Salt Lake colony. The Salt Lake settlement is like Sodom and Gomorrah. Save the rising generation of that land from being trained up in such a sink of corruption, blasphemy, and treason. The practice of polygamy by this hand of apostate Mormons received further confirmation in the official report of the Indian agent for the Territory of Utah, dated March 29, 1852, in which it was stated: ‘Among these men (speaking of the Mormons) was Willard Richards, who kept a harem of some dozen or fifteen women, to all of whom he is wedded. He is acting secretary of state and postmaster of the city.’” (Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Address to the United States Senate, Tuesday, December 11, 1906)