May 25, 2023 • 47 mins
This podcast explores the evidence that D&C 132 was indeed an authentic Nauvoo revelation received by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, and read to the Nauvoo High Council a month later on August 12, 1843.
Support Faithful Saints here https://faithfulsaints.com/support/
*Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith in June 1844 publicly confirmed that Joseph had a revelation regarding ancient polygamy and eternal marriage in the summer of 1843 and read it to the High Council.
*In May 1844 William Law and Jane Law both signed affidavits describing parts of D&C 132 as read to them by Hyrum Smith. Austin Cowles signed an affidavit describing the revelation saying that Hyrum Smith read it to the High Council the previous year.
*Five different members of the Nauvoo High Council gave testimony at later times that a revelation regarding practicing plural marriage was read to the Nauvoo High Council by Hyrum Smith: James Allred, Aaron Johnson, and Thomas Grover as followers of Brigham Young in Utah confirmed that D&C 132 was the same revelation read by Hyrum, as well as William Marks and Leonard Soby who were members of the Nauvoo High Council who didn't follow Brigham Young, yet confirmed Hyrum Smith read a revelation teaching plural marriage to the Nauvoo High Council.
*Contemporary records of the Nauvoo High Council for August 12, 1843 record Hyrum Smith and William Marks gave "teachings" to the High Council. Franklin D. Richards' "Scriptural Items" notebook for that day confirm Hyrum Smith taught about principles regarding polygamy being restored on that day.
*Smith family members who did not follow Brigham Young preserved and told tradition of Emma burning the revelation.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/faithful-saints--5805960/support.
Support Faithful Saints here https://faithfulsaints.com/support/
*Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith in June 1844 publicly confirmed that Joseph had a revelation regarding ancient polygamy and eternal marriage in the summer of 1843 and read it to the High Council.
*In May 1844 William Law and Jane Law both signed affidavits describing parts of D&C 132 as read to them by Hyrum Smith. Austin Cowles signed an affidavit describing the revelation saying that Hyrum Smith read it to the High Council the previous year.
*Five different members of the Nauvoo High Council gave testimony at later times that a revelation regarding practicing plural marriage was read to the Nauvoo High Council by Hyrum Smith: James Allred, Aaron Johnson, and Thomas Grover as followers of Brigham Young in Utah confirmed that D&C 132 was the same revelation read by Hyrum, as well as William Marks and Leonard Soby who were members of the Nauvoo High Council who didn't follow Brigham Young, yet confirmed Hyrum Smith read a revelation teaching plural marriage to the Nauvoo High Council.
*Contemporary records of the Nauvoo High Council for August 12, 1843 record Hyrum Smith and William Marks gave "teachings" to the High Council. Franklin D. Richards' "Scriptural Items" notebook for that day confirm Hyrum Smith taught about principles regarding polygamy being restored on that day.
*Smith family members who did not follow Brigham Young preserved and told tradition of Emma burning the revelation.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/faithful-saints--5805960/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Faithful Saints is dedicated to promoting truthand correct principles based on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. Though the truth isoftentimes uncomfortable, the Savior said it will
set us free. The truth,no matter how uncomfortable, leads to Christ.
Visit us at Faithful Saints dot comfor more. Okay, so today
(00:21):
I wanted to review some slides thatI had put together last year on DNC
one thirty two entitled DNC one thirtytwo Authentic Revelation or later Forgery. So
this revelation really is one of thekey documents that determines whether Joseph Smith taught
and practiced polygamy, because this documentboth demonstrates that he taught it but also
(00:44):
that he was practicing it. Andit's just a very you know, it's
sixty six verses long. It's avery in depth, theologically rich section of
the Doctrine Covenants. You could spendhours talking about it, going into the
different theological aspects of it, atdifferent historical aspects of it, because there's
(01:07):
a lot of history that's contextually aroundDNC one thirty two. But this is
just going to be a brief overviewof the reasons why I believed it to
be an authentic revelation that came fromJoseph Smith, when my most historians also
believe it to be authentic revelation,even though Brigham Young did not publish it
(01:30):
until eighteen fifty two. So it'sindisputable that Joseph Smith had a revelation in
eighteen forty three regarding plural marriage andeternal marriage. Joseph Smith and his brother
Hiram at the Navu City Council inJune of eighteen forty four in response to
(01:52):
the Navis plauser didn't call them abunch of liars. They said that they
were twisting and misinterpreting what this revelationwas. So they didn't deny that there
was an authentic revelation in the summerof eighteen forty three. They just tried
to say it was about polygmy informer times, not the present, and
it was about eternal marriage, iswhat Joseph Smith really emphasized. And he
(02:15):
said eternal polygby were, according tothe Keys, the holy priests of Man
cabinet wife on earth and have onein heaven. And he accused William Law
of trying to make a criminality ofthat. So we have contemporary evidence of
a revelation was received by Joseph Smithwritten in two different journals, both Joseph
Smith's Journal so as William Clayton's Journal. So Joseph Smith's Journal Wednesday July twelfth
(02:38):
received a revelation in the Office andthe Presidence of Hiram and William Clayton.
And then in William Clayton's journal thisam I wrote revelation consisting of ten pages
on the order of the priesthood,shoeing the designs in Moses, A Ram,
David and Salman having many wives andconcubines. So there was a revelation.
The debate really is what were whatwas the substance and contents of that
(03:00):
revelation. So the Navo Expositor Affidavitswere made in May of eighteen forty four
and published in the Navo Expositor inJune seventh, eighteen forty four, and
there they describe and corrob rate keydetails about DNC one thirty two. Among
the things that about DNC one thirtytwo verified, William Law recalls that told
(03:21):
Joseph that this is the law andto enter into my law, referencing verses
thirty two to thirty four. JayLaw recalled that authorized some men to have
up to ten wives, and thatthe women who did not allow their husbands
to have more than one wife wouldbe under transgression before God, referencing verses
sixty one through sixty five. SoAustin Calls recalled that the revelation Hires read
(03:43):
to the High Council taught sealing upto eternal life against all sins except the
Cheney venisent blood verse twenty six,and that David and Salomon had many wives
yet and this they sin not savein the matter of Uriah versus thirty nine
through fort excuse me thirty and thirtynine. So just to show this,
(04:05):
so this is William Law's statement,and this is the it's color coda to
show what sections, it's what partsof DNC one thirty two it's referencing.
So William Law May fourth, eighteenforty four, publishing the Nabuxposor, he
said, I hereby certify that ironSmith did in his office read to me
a certain written document which he saidwas a revelation from God. He said
(04:28):
he was with Joseph when it wasreceived. He afterwards gave me the document
to read, and I took itto my house and read it, and
showed it to my wife, andreturned it the next day. The revelation
so called author I certain men tohave more wives than one at a time
in this world and in the worldto come. It said this was the
law commanded Joseph to enter into thelaw, also that he should administer to
others. Several other items were inthe revelation supporting the above doctrines. So
(04:54):
that's interest. Several other items inthe revelations supporting the old doctrine. So
in eighteen In William Law's interview inthe eighteen eighties, he said he didn't
recall the theological introduction and it wasmuch shorter. But here in his earlier
statement he says there were other thingsin the revelation supporting the above doctrines,
which you know fits that there isa big theological introduction to the floral marriaging.
(05:17):
Instead of in the eighteen eighties,he tries to say that he only
recalled reading the command for Joseph andother high priests to enter into polygamy was
what. But we'll get to thatstatement later. But anyhow, that's color
coded. You can see he's referencingthings in the early verses as well as
you know, like verse nineteen aboutit's glen b for time and all eternity
(05:41):
versus thirty two, saying do theworks event a ram enter into my law.
In verse thirty seven, you know, it's says that many of these
servants received this law, and we'reauthorized in practicing polygamy forty eight and Joseph,
I'm going, whoever you give toany on my worth by my word,
(06:04):
according to my law, it shallbe visited with blessings and not cursings.
So pretty significant statement by William Law. His wife Jane, in her
affidavit, says, I certify thatI read the revelation referred to in the
above affidavit of my husband. Itssustained in strong terms the doctrine of more
(06:29):
wives than that I'm one at atime in this world, and in the
next authorized some to have the numberten, and set forth that those women
who would not allow their husbands tohave more wives than one should be under
condemnation before God. So she's againreferencing the theological introduction. Its sustained in
strong terms. It's referencing that therewas a big you know, you know
(06:50):
there was theological justification for this.It wasn't just the command to enter into
it. So DNC one thirty two, verse sixty two, who is where
she's remembering? It references up toten virgins given to him by this law,
And then verses sixty four and sixtyfive said that women whould not allow
their husbands have more wives than whatshould be under condemnation before God. And
(07:13):
it says, if any man havea wife who holds the keys of this
power, and he teaches her thelaw of my priesthood has pertained to these
things, then shall she believe ina minister and to him orse, she
shall be destroyed. Say it,the Lord your God, for I will
destroy if I will magnify my nameupon all those who received and abide in
my law. And then it goeson to say, if she received not,
off is lawful for him to receiveall things whatsoever, I, the
(07:33):
Lord as God, will give themto him. Because she did not believe
in a minister and do him acoin to the my word, then she
becomes the transgressor. So again,you know, she verifies what's in verses
sixty one, sixty two, sixtyfour sixty five. So the probably the
most significant affidavit, however, comesfrom Austin Cowles, who in his depositor
(08:00):
AFFI David, goes into a bitmore detail, kind of summarizing it rather
than this, remembering key parts likeWilliam Law and Jane Law and so this
is you know, Austin Coles wasin the member of the Navu High Council,
and he's saying that this was readto the High Council by him Smith
(08:22):
in the summer of eighteen forty three, and he gives a description of it,
says, to all whom it mayconcern, or as much as the
public mind has been given much agitationby course of procedure in the Church of
Jesus Christilarity Saints, by number ofpersons declaring against certain doctrines of practices there
and among whom I am one isbut meet that I should give my reasons,
at least in part for the causeas a cause that led me to
(08:45):
declare myself in the latter later partof the summer of eighteen forty three,
the Patriarch Him Smith did in theHigh Council of which I was a member,
in truced way, said was arevelation given through the profit at the
said himesmith did essay to read thesaid revelation in the said council, that
according to his reading, there wascontained the following doctrines versus the sealing up
(09:05):
of person's eternal life against all sinssave the shedding of incent blood of consenting
there too. Second the doctor ofplurali wives or marrying virgins, and that
David and Salomon had many wives.Yet in this they sinned not save in
the matter of Uriah. This revelation, with other evidences that have here two
forced heresies were taught in practiced inthe church. Determined me to leave the
(09:26):
office of first counselor to the Presidentof the Church at Napu, as much
as I dared not teach or administor such laws. And so he's clearly
in purple referencing DNC one thirty two, verse twenty six about being sealed up
against all sins save the shedding incentblood. Or and yet they shall come
forth to the First Resurrection, butthey shall be destroyed in the flesh,
(09:48):
and shall be delivered into the buffingsof Satan toil the day of redemption.
And then he quotes Versus thirty eight, that David sal I had many wives,
and this they sin not save inthe matter of your Riya, and
so Verses thirty eight to thirty nine. David also received many wives and concubines,
and also Solomon and Moses my servant, as also many others of my
(10:11):
servants, from the beginning of creationuntil this time. And nothing did they
send, saving those things which theyreceived, not of me. David's wives
and concubines were given on to himby Me by the hand of Nathan,
my servant, and others of theprophets, who had the keys of this
power. And none of these thingsdid he sin against me, save in
the case of your Rayah and hiswife. And therefore he had fallen from
(10:33):
his exultation, received his portion.He shall not inherit them out of the
world, for I gave them untoanother saith the Lord. And then again
he says the Doctor. And theclarity of wives are marrying virgins is laid
out in Verses sixty one, whichis also right there. You know,
if any man spouse a version desired, or spouse another, the first giver
(10:54):
consent. If you espouse the second. The air virgins have vowed to no
other man, then he is justified, for you an't commit adultry, for
there given that to him. Hecan't commit adultry with that that belongeth ton
to him and to no one else. At sixty two. And if you
have ten virgins given to him bythis law before, he can't. He
cannot commit adultry, for they belongto him and they're given to him.
Therefore he is he justified. Sothe question is, so Joseph and hire
(11:20):
him. The question is whether thesedenials are reliable or not? And so
what complicates you know what, whythere is even this discussion of whether there
um these affidavits are accurate, isthat Joseph and hire Him gave some non
denials, or gave some denials thatwere kind of non denials, I would
(11:41):
argue in response. So in theNovel City Council confirmed that these statements were
not completely fabricated out of nothing.But indeed there was a revelation received and
read to the Navu High Council asAustin Kewell's testified hire Er statements and Joseph's
a pure contradictory hire him. Emphasisis that the revelation was about polygmy in
(12:01):
former days and not the present.Joseph emphasized that the revelation had to do
with eternal marriage, also implicity eternalpolegmy having a wife on earth while as
one and having according to the keysof the Holy Priest. And significantly,
while accusations of immorality and affidavits againstthe Nabu dissenters were made read and included
in the city council minutes, josephinhim, in my opinion, very significantly
(12:24):
did not either publish this new revelationor even read it to the city council.
And then so that begs the questionthat would be the easiest way to
debunk the Navu expose or testimonies tojust publish this revelation. So the big
question is why wasn't this revelation publishedin eighteen forty three and when it was
received or even publicly acknowledged as beinga new revelation. And the second one
(12:48):
is after the eighteen forty four controversyabout the revelation, why wasn't it published
in eighteen forty four? If youreally want to just show that these guys
weren't telling the truth, you shouldhave just published the revelation but the reality
is the revelation in my you know, my opinion, the reality is the
revelation said exactly what the Navu dissenterssaid it was, and that is the
(13:15):
key. That is why they didn'tpublish the revelation. In my opinion,
I don't see any other justifiable reasonwhy it was never published in eighteen forty
three or or in eighteen forty fourby Joseph and hire him. And so
these minutes about in response to theNavu dissenters were published in the Nabu neighbor
on June nineteenth, eighteen forty four, So I've got those statements. So
(13:39):
Counselor June eighth and June tenth werethe two meetings where they discussed the revelation
and the Nabu exposor. So CounselorH. Smith referred to the revelation read
to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about
multiplicity of wives, that said revelationwas answered to a question concerning things in
former days and no reference to thepresent time. So it's you could actually
(14:03):
say he's kind of being truthful becauseit wasn't to the church in general at
that time, but it was toselect individuals who were authorized by Joseph to
enter into the practice. So youknow, you could you could say in
a sense that he's not lying,he's just kind of bending the truth a
bit when he's but you know,the question concerning things in former days,
that's right in d NC one threetwo, verse one. So then that
(14:26):
was Janue and eighth, and thenJune tenth we have some significant statements that
even more detailed. Mayor Joseph Smithsaid, they make a criminality for a
man to have a wife on theearth while he is one in heaven,
according to the keys of the HolyPriest. And he then read a statement
of William Laws from the Exposor wherethe truth of God was transformed into a
lie concerning the thing. He thenread several statements of Austin Cows and the
(14:48):
Exposor concerning a private interview, andsaid he never had any private conversation with
Austin Cows on these subjects. Theypreach from the stand for the Bible,
showing the order in ancient days havingnothing to do with the present time.
So breaking this one down significant,he says, having a man to have
a wife on earth while he's onein heaven according to the keys of the
Holy Priesthood. So hire him announcedat the April eighteen forty four General Conference
(15:13):
that a man that Joseph, heldthe ceiling power to steal eternal marriages,
and that Joseph had stealed him toboth his living wife and his deceased wife.
And that appears to be what Josephis saying here again at the at
the June tenth, eighteen forty fourCity Council meeting, that you know,
you can have a wife on earthand in heaven, both sealed to you.
(15:35):
And that's referenced in the Jacob Scottletter in January eighteen forty four.
It's reference of the Times and Seasonsin November of eighteen forty four. And
then also I understand the Nabu neighborin February of eighteen forty five also references
this doctrine of eternal polygamy was announcedby him, even though he's still saying,
you know, we're not authorizing earthlypolygamy, we're just authorizing eternal polygamy.
(15:58):
So, but it's the theological foundationis there in DNC one thirty two.
So and then he goes on tosay he didn't have a private interview
with Austin Cowles, which is true, but Austin Cowles wasn't saying that Joseph
was the one who read the revelation. He said it was Hiram who was.
He didn't say anything about Joseph.And then what's interesting is the Smile
(16:22):
party said he preached from the standfrom the Bible, showing the order in
ancient of days, having in ancientdays having nothing to do at the present
time. So their later recollection sayingthat Joseph had at one time taught about
polygamy in a public sermon, butthen had to backtrack and kind of take
it back afterwards because of some ofthe women being upset about it. And
(16:42):
so this seems to be a corrobboringstatement where he's were contemporary, Joseph was
lifetime saying that he had taught polygamyat some time on the stand from the
Bible, which is interesting. Soagain Counselor H. Smith proceed to show
the falsehood of Austin cows In relationshipthe revelation referred to. It was referenced
(17:03):
to former days, not the presenttime. As related to cow By cows.
So he again reiterates, this isabout ancient polygamy. So Joseph is
like this about you know, havinga wife on earth while in heaven a
great to the keys the the priesthoodbyrom saying it's about ancient polygamy. And
then Joseph, in this final statementsaid he had never preached the revelation in
(17:25):
private as he had in public,had not taught it to the annointance in
the church and private, which statementmany present confirmed. Uninquiring concerning the passage
and the resurrection, concerning they neithermarry nor given in Merrigis, there he
received for answer that men in thislife must marry and beauty attorney, otherwise
they must remain as angels or besingle in heaven, which was the doctrine
(17:45):
the revelation referred to. And theMayor spoke at considerable length and explanation of
this principle. Is willing to forone to subscribe his name to declare the
exposure and the whole establishment a newsits. So first part he says that
he had never preached the revelation inprivate as in publicly not taught to the
anointed in the church in private,which statement. Many present confirm that's referencing
(18:06):
he never caught the revelation to DNCone thirty two to the anointed Korum.
And there's a decent reason to believethat that's true, because first he had
William Law who was in Hiram ineighteen forty two, and the anointed Korma
reposed to polygamy. William Hiram didn'tconvert to polygmy until May of eighteen forty
(18:26):
three. And then Emma was broughtin in September of eighteen forty three and
to the annointed Korum, And soyou had Joseph had people in his anointed
Korum who were opposed to polygamy.At Brigham Young were called, but Joseph
felt trapped in there unfortunately, thathe couldn't really teach all the principles he
(18:47):
wanted to because there was opposition.And Brigham recalled that William Law made a
comment in the forum saying that ifan angel of heaven tried to teach him
poigamy, and he had in hispower you tried, he would kill him.
And so he was that post topologny that he would even threaten to
kill an angel from heaven if hecould do so, if it were to
try to teach him poligamy. Soso, but then he confirms the eternal
(19:11):
marriage aspect of the revelation. Oninquiring concerning the passage and the resurrection,
concerned they'd either marry nor given inmarriage, he received for an answer,
men in this life must vary inview of eternity, otherwise than must remain
as angels or single in heaven.So that's um, you know, clearly
laying out the need to be sealedin this mortality in order to receive the
(19:37):
blessings of eternal marriage. And Josephwas saying that they neither marry nor given
in marriage, is saying that allmarriages must be contracted in this life and
not in the reserve. You know, they couldn't be in the next life
or after the resurrection. Had tobe done by people in mortality. And
that's arguably why proxy marriages was introducedas a doctrine by Josep Smith, which
(20:00):
iron Smith said his living wife stoodas proxy for his deceased wife to be
sealed to him as well. Sothose are their statements. So the question
comes who is telling the truth?The Navutist Center saying that it was about
m poligamy in the present or Josephand Iron saying that it didn't really have
(20:22):
to do with Pollie in the present, just eternal marriage and ancient polly game.
So some significant witnesses from Utah theBrigamites include William Clayton and Joseph Kingsbury,
were both scribes for this revelation.Both gave their testimony that DNC one
three two was indeed a Naveu revelationof Joseph Smith. William Clayton said the
(20:45):
Kingsbury copy was true and correct.That was a true and correct copy.
In eighteen sixty nine, several NavuCity Council member excuse me, Navu High
Council members Thomas Grover, James Alread, and Aaron Johnson all signed affidavits saying
that d NC one thirty two wasindeed read to them and other members of
(21:06):
the Nabu High Council honor about Augusttwelfth, eighteen forty three. They gave
testimony to other occasions as well.I think Aaron Johnson actually gave a statement
in the early eighteen fifties about describinghim reading the revelation to the High Council,
so oh, excuse me. JamesAlread gave one in the eighteen fifties
on October fifteenth, eighteen fifty four, saying that meaning of the Navu High
(21:30):
Council in Nabu, brother Hiram Smithread the revelation relating to the plurality of
vibes. He James Alred said hedid not believe it at first, it
was so controduced feelings. But hesaid he knew Joseph a prophet of God.
So he made a covenant that youwould not eat, drink or sleep
until he knew for himself. Theygot testimony that until that he had got
a testimony. That is what JamesAlred related on the night of the fifteenth
(21:52):
of October eighteen fifty four. Itwas true that he had excuse me this
this kind messed up. He hadgotten testimony that it was true that he
even heard the voice of God concerningit. This is what James Alred related
on the night of the fifteenth ofOctober eighteen fifty four. That's statement the
Eldiest Church archives. Josea's Stout,a clerk for the Nabus High Council,
(22:15):
recalled that August eighteen forty three DNCone three. He was read to the
Council, but he was excused onother business during the reading and was at
present during it being read. Hewas just told about the revelations description from
several of the High Council members afterwards, and JOSEA. Stout related this to
Joseph F. Smith in eighteen eightythree in response, I think Joseph F.
(22:40):
Smith was trying to get all thewitnesses he could to plural marriage compiled,
and so jose Stout was the clerkwho was keeping the minutes of the
Council, and this is what hewrote to Joseph F. Smith. Well,
I can very well remember that inthe year eighteen forty three, and
I think in the month of August, but not certain as to the date.
The High Council met at present Smith, your father, as we were
(23:00):
expecting, came into the Council whatthe document said to be the revelation pearl
marriage, for the purpose of readingit to the Council. I was Kirk
of the Council the time, andsuppose it would be filed in the Council
for their future years. At thevery time I had another appointment to me
and was excused by the council,supposing it would be filed there and come
in through my hands as a clerk, and I can then peruse it at
my leisure. I returned the councilorto journed in. Your father had gone
(23:23):
taking the revelation with him, ButI saw some of all the counsels who
informed me as the purport. Asto the purport of the revelation, which
corresponds to what was published, isnow in the book of doctrine covenants.
Certain is it was the one.It was the one particular town topic then
of both friends and enemies. Sothere's some other So this is significantly.
(23:49):
The men in Utah would date itto about the August twelfth, eighteen forty
three minute meeting of the Navu HighCouncil, and so the minutes for that
they simply record council met According tothe German hire N Smith's office, no
business boarder of the council teaching byPresidents Hiram Smith and William Marx, and
(24:10):
so it doesn't give too much detail. It's just saying that Hiram Smith and
William Marx gave some teachings to thecouncil. Very vague about what they were
teaching. But what significant in myopinion is Franklin D. Richards and his
Scriptural Item's Notebook on August twelve,eighty four y three wrote, well,
Hiram said before the High Council thatno prophet ever did transgress, but was
directed by the impulse of the spiritinvoluntary. Also he said that man shall
(24:33):
take his brother's wife and raise upseed into him, as it was in
Israel, must be again established,referencing Deuteronomy twenty five, verses five through
ten to one place in the Lawof Moses where polygamy is commanded where a
man is to raise up seed tohis brother if his brother dies without an
heir in Israel. And so that'sSeeds recording that I'm taughtless to the High
(24:56):
Council. So this is showing thatindeed Chiram did teach earthly polygamy would be
needed to be restored as it wasin Israel, must be again established in
the Nabo residents, Sarah Scott wroteletters to her parents in Junia July eighteen
forty four, confirming that her brotherin law, Jesse Haven, had the
(25:17):
plural marriage revelation taught to the Elder'sQuorum by Hiram Smith. We have another
letter by M. Jacob Scott writesto his daughter about in January eighteen forty
four about there being a revelation newrevelations that have been received relating to plural
(25:37):
excuse me relating to eternal marriage andchurl polygamy. Said there was many more
other things about it that he couldn'twrite on paper to her, but that
she should be careful not to opposeanything of that came from God. And
so that's another significant evidence there.This reading to the High count Council and
(26:00):
reading to the Elder's Corm is referenceby um William Law in the Navu City
Council meetings in early January of eighteenforty four, and Joseph didn't deny what
William Law said. He this kindof the minutes just recorded that m He
basically said the man who promised tokeep a secret and couldn't keep it wasn't
(26:21):
to be trusted. In response toWilliam Law's comments about saying that the spiritual
wife business was blowed up before byJoseph and hire him to the High Council
and to the Elder's Corm and soSarah Scott was referencing Jesse Haven had was
a person who recalled told her thatit was read to the elder's corm.
He was a member of the naveelder's corm. So significant. The bring
(26:48):
of my testimony should be compelling inand of itself, as well as the
contemporary sources about it. But ifthat's not enough to be the nail on
the coffin, the non Brighamite testimonyshould definitely be the nail in the coffin.
Confirming a DNC one thirty two isan authentic revelation was what Joseph Smith
(27:08):
received a navou. So we havem three different individuals who didn't follow Brigham
Young. Austin Cowles, William Marx, and Leonard Sobey all testified to a
revelation of plural marriage being read byhigher Smiths and the lu hYP counsel.
We read Austin Cow's statement. WilliamMarx and Leonard Sobey are significant because William
(27:33):
Marx became a member of the rldiestChurch first presidency, and he was always
opposed to polygamy, but he evenadmitted the hid the revelation of plural marriage
to the High Council, and thathe saw them receive it, but that
he didn't. And then Leonard Sobywas didn't follow Brigham Young, but said
followed Sydney brigged in, and healso gave a statement, gave two affidavits
(27:57):
saying that the revelation in Utah,to his best of his knowledge, was
in memory, was the same revelationthat he heard Hiram Smith read to him
when he was a member of theNavou High Council. So William Marks first,
as his testimonies were called by JohnHolly. John Holly testimony what Brother
(28:18):
Mark said to him in July ofeighteen sixty eight at Plano, Tendel County,
Illinois, on the subject of thePolygmy revelation. I John h was
a follower of Brigham Young at thetime when the conversation came up between us
and the subject of the revelation offorty three on polygamy. He told me
he knew the very day the revelationwas given, and said one morning brother
Hiram was walking down the street prettyfast. Ill piled him and said,
(28:41):
brother Hiram, which way, Andhe told me he was going down to
Joe's Aphos going to get a revelationon patriarchal marriage today if we can.
And in the evening he came alongand back and handed him the revelation,
asked him to call the High Counciltogether and read it to them, and
said brother Marks did so, andasked them to express their belief or disbelief.
And the High Council all said theybelieved it to be of God.
(29:02):
They did not, And from thattime, he said, the leading men
the Church looked upon him as onthe eve of a postasy. So if
you remember the Navoo City Council minute, excuse me, Navo High Council Minutes
for August twelve, eighteen forty threesaid teachings by hire Smith and William Marx.
This account seems to fit perfectly withthat, because it's brother Marx is
(29:25):
saying that Hiram had him read itto them. So Hiram had William Marx
read the revelation, so that's whyit would say teachings by Hiram and William
Marx. So, but he didn'tbelieve it to be of God, even
though the council did. And fromthat time he said, the leading men
(29:45):
and the church looked upon him ason the eve of Apostasy. So that
Saint John Holly's autobiography in the Communityof Christ's Library archives. So similarly,
William Marx gave his testimony in theprivate RLDS Church presidency meeting with their church
leaders. It says the minutes sayquote the question arose as to whether Joseph
(30:06):
the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Mark said that brother him came
to his place once and told himhe did not believe in it, and
he was going to see Jugs aboutit, and if he had a revelation
on the subject, he would believeit. And after that him read a
revelation on it in the High Council, and he Marx felt it was not
true, but he saw the HighCouncil received it. So that was on
(30:27):
May first, eighteen sixty five,the private meeting of the Arldiest Church first
Presidency in quorm of the twelve.So we have William Mars. It's another
non bringing my corroborating it. SoZenus Girley Junior is a fascinating story because
(30:48):
he was apostle in the Arldiesst Church, but he grew disaffected over this issue.
Because he believed. He came tobelieve that that Joseph Smith did,
and he teach and practice plum hisbrother his father in law was Ebenezer Robinson,
and ebenez Or Robinson gave many statementsand signed several affidavits in his lifetime
(31:12):
saying Hiram Smith indeed taught being pluralmarriage in the fall of eighteen forty three
or in November December. He didn'tremember exactly when, but Hiram taught it
to him, and he rejected atthe time, and Hiram was disappointed at
him for rejecting it. So ZenusCurley Junior apparently heard about Leonards Sobey,
(31:33):
and he was the one who wentand met with Leonard Sobey to fit see
if he had confirm or deny thatwhether the Utah revelation was the same revelation
that he was read in the NabuHigh Council. And so he said he
met with him. Brother Sobey sworepositively honor about the August twelve to eighteen
(31:55):
forty three, Hire Smith, thebrother of the prophet jose Smith, presented
read to the Council of the revelationpoligamy Boris testimony to its truth and the
name of the Lord and enjoined itskeeping or words the effect. Mister Sobey
opposed it, and he with AustinCollins and William Marx, I believe,
rejected it all, which caused theirseparation from the church. Finally, and
so Zenus Gurley Junior considered this testimonydamning enough that he resigned his apostleship in
(32:20):
the RLDS Church over it, andso he got an affidavit by Sobey,
and then Soby signed a second affidavitin eighteen eighty six, a couple of
years after this first affidavit, andhe said, being remembered on the twenty
third day of March in the yeareighteen eighty six, before Joshua W.
Roberts, notary Public for the Cityof Beverley County, Burlington, State of
(32:43):
New Jersey, Leonard Soby upset cityCounty and his state was buy me duly
sworn Uponezel said the honor about thetwelfth day of August eighteen forty three.
I was a resident Naboo, HancockCounty, State of Illinois, and being
a member of the High Council ofthe Church of Jesus Christ. Lady since
was present in the meeting of saidCouncil the time here above, stated Thomas
Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fulmer, William Huntington, and others. When
(33:07):
Elder Hyron Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial Marriage,
I've read an examine carefully said revelationsince published in the Book of Doctrine Covenants
of said Church, and say,the best of my knowledge and belief,
it is the same word for wordas the revelation then read by Hyron Smith.
The despondent said further that the revelationdid not originate with Brigham Young,
as some persons have falsely stated,but was received by the prophet Joseph Smith,
(33:30):
and read to Thigh Counsel by hisauthority as a revelation to the Church
of Jesus Christ already saints. Whenread to this desponded and said High Counsel,
I believed it was a revelation fromJesus Christ. I believe it now,
so he's statement there, I've readan examine carefully said revelation since published
in the Book of Doctrine Covenants ofsaid Church, and say, to the
(33:52):
best of my knowledge and belief,it is the same word for word as
the revelation then read by Hiram Smith. So just to cover another, you
know, tangent issue that's kind ofrelated, is there seemed to have been
shorter versions and longer versions of dNC one thirty two in circulation. But
this isn't strange. The shirt beseen as strange because we know that other
(34:14):
revelations had different versions. You knowthat there was revelations who were expanded upon
at other times, and you couldsee that if you study the differences between
the Book of Commandments and the DoctrineCovenants in you know, the eighteen thirty
three book Who Commands in eighteen thirtyfive Doctrine Covenants. So William Clayton's original
copy was ten full scrap pages goingto his journal, which you know that's
(34:38):
the earliest source about the length ofthe revelation, and so that fits at
being a longer revelation. So JosephKingsbury's copy he made of the revelation for
Bishop Neuel K. Whitney was eightpages long and is still extent to this
day. So we know the originalold copy was burned, but this copy
is the one that is still extent, and this one's eight pages long copy
(35:01):
you know, whatever, you know, either penmanship or different size of paper
met it made it be a coupleof pages difference in length. So some
people think that this might be ananomaly that nouel K Whitney took a personal
copy of this revelation, but thereality is Nouel K Whitney kept copies of
(35:22):
many other revelations. I was recentlyreading about the history of the Book of
Commandments and the Doctor and Covenants,and Oliver Cowgary when they were working on
republishing the revelations in the Evening andMorning Star, he actually wrote to Noel
K. Whitney to ask for originalcopies of or early copies of revelations that
(35:47):
nouel K Whitney had been keeping.And so Noel K. Whitney sent those
to Oliver Cawgury so that he coulduse those in republishing Revelations that was in
you know, eighteen thirty four,eighteen thirty five. So Horace K.
Whitney significantly made a copy of theKingsbury version of DNC one thirty two on
(36:07):
March fourteenth, eighteen forty seven.It's also eight pages long, and it's
still extent. The actually started.He made two copies kind of but they
didn't finish the first one. He'skind of start over and made the second
one. And this was because Noelkit Whitney was being asked to turn over
the revelation to bring him young inwinter quarters, and so Horace K.
(36:27):
Whitney, as Noel K. Whitney'soldest son, was asked or instructed to
make a copy for them to stillhave a copy for their own Families Revelations
collection. So there were some individualswho know they saw a shorter version of
the revelation that was like two orthree pages long. Mercy Fielding, Thompson,
James wy Ed, and William Law. And so these are sometimes used
(36:51):
by people to say these are thisis our smoking gun that that there was
a this was a modified revelation,because these individuals said they saw a shorter
revelation we're talking about. They focusedmostly on James Whited and William Law.
Where these are guys in the eighteeneighties who are trying to remember back to
(37:15):
you know, forty years earlier,and they're using at the same time,
they will discount other late testimonies beinglate. They will their key argument is
based off of these two men inthe eighteen eighties and James white ed in
the eighteen nineties when he was crossexamined on the subject and they tried to
ask him which parts were original andwhich parts were modified. He couldn't tell
(37:37):
them what was modified, and hebasically had to admit that the revelation he
must have saw that was only frontand back page had to have been a
totally different revelation. And significantly,he said he was talking about revelation he
was shown in winter Quarters by NoelK. Whitney, and he said that
it was dated July of eighteen fortytwo. He emphasized eighteen forty two.
(38:01):
And what's significant about that is therewas a July eighteen forty two revelation that
was a one page front and backrevelation that Noel K. Whitney had and
that was the revelation for Sarah andWhitney to marry Joseph Smith. And so
it's what James Wyatt was telling thetruth. I want to be charitable with
him. I think that he wasremembering the July twenty seventh, eighteen forty
(38:22):
two revelation for Sarah and Whitney tomarry Joseph Smith is what he was shown
in Winter Quarters by by nowel KWhitney. But the significant is he also
in his earlier eighteen eighties statement hesaid he saw the original and Joseph Smith's
handwriting that was copied. He sawan original revelation and Joseph Smith's handwriting duck
(38:45):
was copied by William Clayton and thatwas burned. You know, So he's
contradicts himself. He isn't really themost reliable witness, especially when he's testifying
he gets polygamy. In the eighteeneighties, eighteen nineties and earlier, he
had privately told our olds leaders thathe knew that Joseph had practice, taught
(39:05):
and practiced polygamy, and that Emmaconsented and put wives hands in Joseph's hands.
That's covered in one of my previousvideos, his credibility and his statements
in that regard. And then sobut then, you know, I William
Law and Mercy Thompson, I believewhat they may have seen is that Hiram
instead of giving out the entire full, you know, eight or ten page
(39:27):
revelation to others, he probably onlygave a couple of pages at a time
like probably just the key parts ofit, like the layer parts commanding polygamy,
is what he may have loaned to, what Mercy Fielding Thompson may have
seen, and what William Law probablysaw if his memory is accurate. But
again, as I mentioned, hisearlier statement implied there was a lot of
(39:52):
other things to in the revelation tosupport the doctrine of the plurality of wives.
So you know, but I'm willingto give them the benefit of the
doubt. Maybe they saw the Maybehe saw the longer version and he was
only lent short the shorter part ofit. You know. That's kind of
you know, a theory that's beenpostulated by some about that. So interestingly,
(40:16):
Lyman White reportedly had a longer versionof DNC one thirty two, according
to Gideon Carter, a version ofthe revelation containing quote many rules governing plural
marriage, which fits with the DNCone thirty two ending saying, and now
is pertaining to this law barely barelysaying to you, I will reveal boring
to you hereafter therefore let this sufficefor the present, And William Clayton saying,
(40:37):
after the whole of us written Josephasked me to read it through slowly
and carefully, which I did,and he pronounced it correct. He then
remarked that there was much more thatcould that he could write on the same
subject, but that that was whatwas written was sufficient for the present.
So um to be honest, GideonCarter's kind of ambiguous, he said,
(40:57):
he's William William excuse me. Theinqureyor said that Lyman White published a pamphlet
that pported it contain the plural marriagerevelation, but he said there were many
rules in it that where he didnot find in the Utah Church's revelation.
And so you know, but youknow, I think that's implying that it
was the same revelation but had abunch of more rules attached to it.
(41:21):
And Brigham Young was aware of similarrules, which is something to discuss in
a different video. So regardless withWilliam Law's late recollection his shorter revelation,
he said that he was shown.He said, the contents are substantially the
same, but there was not thetheological introduction. The things simply consists in
(41:42):
the command of doing it, andthat command was restricted to the high priesthood
and to virgins of widows. MasterJoseph himself the Lord's chosen servant. It
was restricted to virgins only to cleanvessels from which to you procure a pure
seed for the Lord. So that'sin his interview with the Salt Lake Tribune
on March thirtieth, eighteen eighty seven, and he said, I was a
starch seeing book. The Revelation wassuch a long document. I remembered distinctly.
(42:07):
The original given me by him wasmuch shorter, covered not more than
two or three pages of fulls ofscrap the contents or substance to the same,
but there was not the theological introduction. So he's still saying it was
about polygamy, it was about pluralmarriage, but he doesn't remember the theological
introduction being in the pages that himlet him borrow. But significantly also confirmed,
(42:29):
so that part confirmed, you knowVersus fifty two about you know,
those given to servant Joseph need tobe virtuous and pure, which is what
he's remembering as virgins only to cleanvessels. But he also recalled m Ema,
corroborating verse fifty four. He said, what the question was, what
(42:52):
do you remember Emma's relation to therevelation on celestial marriage. Well, I
told you that she used to complainto me about Joseph Eskip escapades. Whenever
she met me on the street,she spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation.
She said, once the revelation saysI must submit or be destroyed. Well,
I guess I have to submit.So that's referencing verse fifty four saying
(43:13):
I command my handmade an Mma Smithto abide and cleveland to my servant Joseph,
and to none else. If shewill not bide this commandment, she
shall be destroyed, saith the Lord, for I am the Lord thy God,
and will destroy or if she abidenot in my law. So one
other key thing from non Bregamite sourcesthat to me confirms that DNC one thirty
(43:35):
two was indeed the revelation that JosephSmith had and it wasn't a non polygamist
revelation about eternal marriage or this aboutpolygamy in the ancient times is that Emma
and her family privately preserved the traditionthat she and Joseph indeed learned the revelation.
(43:55):
So this is from Linda King Newell'sarticle the Emma Smith Lord reconsidered,
and she has three different sources showingthat this was You know that this tradition
was preserved. So this is first. One is William E. McClellan to
Joseph the Third in July of eighteenseventy four, he recalled that in eighteen
(44:16):
forty seven Emma told him that Josephquote wished her to get up and burned
the revelation. She refused to touchit, even with tonks. He rose
up from the bed and pulled upin the fire with his finger and put
the revealment in and burned it up. Now, William McClellan, and of
himself, I wouldn't consider a reliablesource. I think everything he said it's
(44:36):
true, but it's because it canbe corroborated from other sources. So Joseph
Smith the Third apparently seemed to believethis was true. Or either James White
I believed that it was true thatthere was a copy of the revelation burn
because he wrote in his diary onApril twentieth, eighteen eighty five, visited
James White had had a long andinteresting chat with him. He says he
saw the revelation about one page bullscrappaper and other's handwriting. William Platon copied
(45:01):
it and it was this copy thatmother burned. So and this was quoted
by Audentia Anderson and a letter toPaul Hansen on October thirteenth, nineteen thirty
one. This is a letter inthe Community of Christ's Library archives. So
that doesn't really you know, youknow, that's short and kind of ambiguous.
(45:23):
You know who was saying that theEmma burned the revelation there, whether
it was James Whited or Joseph thethird Well, it's significant is Samuel Smith's
daughter wrote to Don Carlos Smith's daughterprivately, So this is Mary Bailey Smith
Norman to Ena Coolbrith in March twentyseventh, nineteen o eight, saying,
(45:44):
I suppose you've heard the aunt Emmaburnt the revelation, which I suppose was
so I've heard my aunt Lucy,so Joseph Smith's sister say that Emma would
not touch it with her fingers,but took the tongues to put it in
the fire. This is very similarto William Clellen saying that, you know,
the referencing a story with tongs andputting it in the fire. So
(46:07):
again this is published by Linda KingNewell in Dialogue magazine to Emma Smith were
reconsidered. And you know, thisraises a serious question. Why did Why
would Emma and Joseph or you knowJoseph consending to Emma wanting the revelation destroyed?
Why would Emma want the revelation destroyedso bad if it didn't, if
(46:29):
it didn't teach polygamy in the presenttime. I think that this is a
compelling reason, along with all theother ones I listed, to believe that
DNC one thirty two indeed was therevelation that Emma burned, and that was
the revelation that Joseph Smith received ineighteen forty three and was read by Hiresith
too the Nabu High Council. Sothat ends my presentation. If you like
(46:52):
it, please like and subscribe.It will be having other videos covering other
contact that relates to the subject ofaddressing blig Me Dow. Thanks
Faithful Saints is dedicated to promoting truthand correct principles based on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. Though the truth isoftentimes uncomfortable, the Savior said it will
set us free. The truth,no matter how uncomfortable, leads to Christ.
Visit us at Faithful Saints dot comfor more. Okay, so today
(00:21):
I wanted to review some slides thatI had put together last year on DNC
one thirty two entitled DNC one thirtytwo Authentic Revelation or later Forgery. So
this revelation really is one of thekey documents that determines whether Joseph Smith taught
and practiced polygamy, because this documentboth demonstrates that he taught it but also
(00:44):
that he was practicing it. Andit's just a very you know, it's
sixty six verses long. It's avery in depth, theologically rich section of
the Doctrine Covenants. You could spendhours talking about it, going into the
different theological aspects of it, atdifferent historical aspects of it, because there's
(01:07):
a lot of history that's contextually aroundDNC one thirty two. But this is
just going to be a brief overviewof the reasons why I believed it to
be an authentic revelation that came fromJoseph Smith, when my most historians also
believe it to be authentic revelation,even though Brigham Young did not publish it
(01:30):
until eighteen fifty two. So it'sindisputable that Joseph Smith had a revelation in
eighteen forty three regarding plural marriage andeternal marriage. Joseph Smith and his brother
Hiram at the Navu City Council inJune of eighteen forty four in response to
(01:52):
the Navis plauser didn't call them abunch of liars. They said that they
were twisting and misinterpreting what this revelationwas. So they didn't deny that there
was an authentic revelation in the summerof eighteen forty three. They just tried
to say it was about polygmy informer times, not the present, and
it was about eternal marriage, iswhat Joseph Smith really emphasized. And he
(02:15):
said eternal polygby were, according tothe Keys, the holy priests of Man
cabinet wife on earth and have onein heaven. And he accused William Law
of trying to make a criminality ofthat. So we have contemporary evidence of
a revelation was received by Joseph Smithwritten in two different journals, both Joseph
Smith's Journal so as William Clayton's Journal. So Joseph Smith's Journal Wednesday July twelfth
(02:38):
received a revelation in the Office andthe Presidence of Hiram and William Clayton.
And then in William Clayton's journal thisam I wrote revelation consisting of ten pages
on the order of the priesthood,shoeing the designs in Moses, A Ram,
David and Salman having many wives andconcubines. So there was a revelation.
The debate really is what were whatwas the substance and contents of that
(03:00):
revelation. So the Navo Expositor Affidavitswere made in May of eighteen forty four
and published in the Navo Expositor inJune seventh, eighteen forty four, and
there they describe and corrob rate keydetails about DNC one thirty two. Among
the things that about DNC one thirtytwo verified, William Law recalls that told
(03:21):
Joseph that this is the law andto enter into my law, referencing verses
thirty two to thirty four. JayLaw recalled that authorized some men to have
up to ten wives, and thatthe women who did not allow their husbands
to have more than one wife wouldbe under transgression before God, referencing verses
sixty one through sixty five. SoAustin Calls recalled that the revelation Hires read
(03:43):
to the High Council taught sealing upto eternal life against all sins except the
Cheney venisent blood verse twenty six,and that David and Salomon had many wives
yet and this they sin not savein the matter of Uriah versus thirty nine
through fort excuse me thirty and thirtynine. So just to show this,
(04:05):
so this is William Law's statement,and this is the it's color coda to
show what sections, it's what partsof DNC one thirty two it's referencing.
So William Law May fourth, eighteenforty four, publishing the Nabuxposor, he
said, I hereby certify that ironSmith did in his office read to me
a certain written document which he saidwas a revelation from God. He said
(04:28):
he was with Joseph when it wasreceived. He afterwards gave me the document
to read, and I took itto my house and read it, and
showed it to my wife, andreturned it the next day. The revelation
so called author I certain men tohave more wives than one at a time
in this world and in the worldto come. It said this was the
law commanded Joseph to enter into thelaw, also that he should administer to
others. Several other items were inthe revelation supporting the above doctrines. So
(04:54):
that's interest. Several other items inthe revelations supporting the old doctrine. So
in eighteen In William Law's interview inthe eighteen eighties, he said he didn't
recall the theological introduction and it wasmuch shorter. But here in his earlier
statement he says there were other thingsin the revelation supporting the above doctrines,
which you know fits that there isa big theological introduction to the floral marriaging.
(05:17):
Instead of in the eighteen eighties,he tries to say that he only
recalled reading the command for Joseph andother high priests to enter into polygamy was
what. But we'll get to thatstatement later. But anyhow, that's color
coded. You can see he's referencingthings in the early verses as well as
you know, like verse nineteen aboutit's glen b for time and all eternity
(05:41):
versus thirty two, saying do theworks event a ram enter into my law.
In verse thirty seven, you know, it's says that many of these
servants received this law, and we'reauthorized in practicing polygamy forty eight and Joseph,
I'm going, whoever you give toany on my worth by my word,
(06:04):
according to my law, it shallbe visited with blessings and not cursings.
So pretty significant statement by William Law. His wife Jane, in her
affidavit, says, I certify thatI read the revelation referred to in the
above affidavit of my husband. Itssustained in strong terms the doctrine of more
(06:29):
wives than that I'm one at atime in this world, and in the
next authorized some to have the numberten, and set forth that those women
who would not allow their husbands tohave more wives than one should be under
condemnation before God. So she's againreferencing the theological introduction. Its sustained in
strong terms. It's referencing that therewas a big you know, you know
(06:50):
there was theological justification for this.It wasn't just the command to enter into
it. So DNC one thirty two, verse sixty two, who is where
she's remembering? It references up toten virgins given to him by this law,
And then verses sixty four and sixtyfive said that women whould not allow
their husbands have more wives than whatshould be under condemnation before God. And
(07:13):
it says, if any man havea wife who holds the keys of this
power, and he teaches her thelaw of my priesthood has pertained to these
things, then shall she believe ina minister and to him orse, she
shall be destroyed. Say it,the Lord your God, for I will
destroy if I will magnify my nameupon all those who received and abide in
my law. And then it goeson to say, if she received not,
off is lawful for him to receiveall things whatsoever, I, the
(07:33):
Lord as God, will give themto him. Because she did not believe
in a minister and do him acoin to the my word, then she
becomes the transgressor. So again,you know, she verifies what's in verses
sixty one, sixty two, sixtyfour sixty five. So the probably the
most significant affidavit, however, comesfrom Austin Cowles, who in his depositor
(08:00):
AFFI David, goes into a bitmore detail, kind of summarizing it rather
than this, remembering key parts likeWilliam Law and Jane Law and so this
is you know, Austin Coles wasin the member of the Navu High Council,
and he's saying that this was readto the High Council by him Smith
(08:22):
in the summer of eighteen forty three, and he gives a description of it,
says, to all whom it mayconcern, or as much as the
public mind has been given much agitationby course of procedure in the Church of
Jesus Christilarity Saints, by number ofpersons declaring against certain doctrines of practices there
and among whom I am one isbut meet that I should give my reasons,
at least in part for the causeas a cause that led me to
(08:45):
declare myself in the latter later partof the summer of eighteen forty three,
the Patriarch Him Smith did in theHigh Council of which I was a member,
in truced way, said was arevelation given through the profit at the
said himesmith did essay to read thesaid revelation in the said council, that
according to his reading, there wascontained the following doctrines versus the sealing up
(09:05):
of person's eternal life against all sinssave the shedding of incent blood of consenting
there too. Second the doctor ofplurali wives or marrying virgins, and that
David and Salomon had many wives.Yet in this they sinned not save in
the matter of Uriah. This revelation, with other evidences that have here two
forced heresies were taught in practiced inthe church. Determined me to leave the
(09:26):
office of first counselor to the Presidentof the Church at Napu, as much
as I dared not teach or administor such laws. And so he's clearly
in purple referencing DNC one thirty two, verse twenty six about being sealed up
against all sins save the shedding incentblood. Or and yet they shall come
forth to the First Resurrection, butthey shall be destroyed in the flesh,
(09:48):
and shall be delivered into the buffingsof Satan toil the day of redemption.
And then he quotes Versus thirty eight, that David sal I had many wives,
and this they sin not save inthe matter of your Riya, and
so Verses thirty eight to thirty nine. David also received many wives and concubines,
and also Solomon and Moses my servant, as also many others of my
(10:11):
servants, from the beginning of creationuntil this time. And nothing did they
send, saving those things which theyreceived, not of me. David's wives
and concubines were given on to himby Me by the hand of Nathan,
my servant, and others of theprophets, who had the keys of this
power. And none of these thingsdid he sin against me, save in
the case of your Rayah and hiswife. And therefore he had fallen from
(10:33):
his exultation, received his portion.He shall not inherit them out of the
world, for I gave them untoanother saith the Lord. And then again
he says the Doctor. And theclarity of wives are marrying virgins is laid
out in Verses sixty one, whichis also right there. You know,
if any man spouse a version desired, or spouse another, the first giver
(10:54):
consent. If you espouse the second. The air virgins have vowed to no
other man, then he is justified, for you an't commit adultry, for
there given that to him. Hecan't commit adultry with that that belongeth ton
to him and to no one else. At sixty two. And if you
have ten virgins given to him bythis law before, he can't. He
cannot commit adultry, for they belongto him and they're given to him.
Therefore he is he justified. Sothe question is, so Joseph and hire
(11:20):
him. The question is whether thesedenials are reliable or not? And so
what complicates you know what, whythere is even this discussion of whether there
um these affidavits are accurate, isthat Joseph and hire Him gave some non
denials, or gave some denials thatwere kind of non denials, I would
(11:41):
argue in response. So in theNovel City Council confirmed that these statements were
not completely fabricated out of nothing.But indeed there was a revelation received and
read to the Navu High Council asAustin Kewell's testified hire Er statements and Joseph's
a pure contradictory hire him. Emphasisis that the revelation was about polygmy in
(12:01):
former days and not the present.Joseph emphasized that the revelation had to do
with eternal marriage, also implicity eternalpolegmy having a wife on earth while as
one and having according to the keysof the Holy Priest. And significantly,
while accusations of immorality and affidavits againstthe Nabu dissenters were made read and included
in the city council minutes, josephinhim, in my opinion, very significantly
(12:24):
did not either publish this new revelationor even read it to the city council.
And then so that begs the questionthat would be the easiest way to
debunk the Navu expose or testimonies tojust publish this revelation. So the big
question is why wasn't this revelation publishedin eighteen forty three and when it was
received or even publicly acknowledged as beinga new revelation. And the second one
(12:48):
is after the eighteen forty four controversyabout the revelation, why wasn't it published
in eighteen forty four? If youreally want to just show that these guys
weren't telling the truth, you shouldhave just published the revelation but the reality
is the revelation in my you know, my opinion, the reality is the
revelation said exactly what the Navu dissenterssaid it was, and that is the
(13:15):
key. That is why they didn'tpublish the revelation. In my opinion,
I don't see any other justifiable reasonwhy it was never published in eighteen forty
three or or in eighteen forty fourby Joseph and hire him. And so
these minutes about in response to theNavu dissenters were published in the Nabu neighbor
on June nineteenth, eighteen forty four, So I've got those statements. So
(13:39):
Counselor June eighth and June tenth werethe two meetings where they discussed the revelation
and the Nabu exposor. So CounselorH. Smith referred to the revelation read
to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about
multiplicity of wives, that said revelationwas answered to a question concerning things in
former days and no reference to thepresent time. So it's you could actually
(14:03):
say he's kind of being truthful becauseit wasn't to the church in general at
that time, but it was toselect individuals who were authorized by Joseph to
enter into the practice. So youknow, you could you could say in
a sense that he's not lying,he's just kind of bending the truth a
bit when he's but you know,the question concerning things in former days,
that's right in d NC one threetwo, verse one. So then that
(14:26):
was Janue and eighth, and thenJune tenth we have some significant statements that
even more detailed. Mayor Joseph Smithsaid, they make a criminality for a
man to have a wife on theearth while he is one in heaven,
according to the keys of the HolyPriest. And he then read a statement
of William Laws from the Exposor wherethe truth of God was transformed into a
lie concerning the thing. He thenread several statements of Austin Cows and the
(14:48):
Exposor concerning a private interview, andsaid he never had any private conversation with
Austin Cows on these subjects. Theypreach from the stand for the Bible,
showing the order in ancient days havingnothing to do with the present time.
So breaking this one down significant,he says, having a man to have
a wife on earth while he's onein heaven according to the keys of the
Holy Priesthood. So hire him announcedat the April eighteen forty four General Conference
(15:13):
that a man that Joseph, heldthe ceiling power to steal eternal marriages,
and that Joseph had stealed him toboth his living wife and his deceased wife.
And that appears to be what Josephis saying here again at the at
the June tenth, eighteen forty fourCity Council meeting, that you know,
you can have a wife on earthand in heaven, both sealed to you.
(15:35):
And that's referenced in the Jacob Scottletter in January eighteen forty four.
It's reference of the Times and Seasonsin November of eighteen forty four. And
then also I understand the Nabu neighborin February of eighteen forty five also references
this doctrine of eternal polygamy was announcedby him, even though he's still saying,
you know, we're not authorizing earthlypolygamy, we're just authorizing eternal polygamy.
(15:58):
So, but it's the theological foundationis there in DNC one thirty two.
So and then he goes on tosay he didn't have a private interview
with Austin Cowles, which is true, but Austin Cowles wasn't saying that Joseph
was the one who read the revelation. He said it was Hiram who was.
He didn't say anything about Joseph.And then what's interesting is the Smile
(16:22):
party said he preached from the standfrom the Bible, showing the order in
ancient of days, having in ancientdays having nothing to do at the present
time. So their later recollection sayingthat Joseph had at one time taught about
polygamy in a public sermon, butthen had to backtrack and kind of take
it back afterwards because of some ofthe women being upset about it. And
(16:42):
so this seems to be a corrobboringstatement where he's were contemporary, Joseph was
lifetime saying that he had taught polygamyat some time on the stand from the
Bible, which is interesting. Soagain Counselor H. Smith proceed to show
the falsehood of Austin cows In relationshipthe revelation referred to. It was referenced
(17:03):
to former days, not the presenttime. As related to cow By cows.
So he again reiterates, this isabout ancient polygamy. So Joseph is
like this about you know, havinga wife on earth while in heaven a
great to the keys the the priesthoodbyrom saying it's about ancient polygamy. And
then Joseph, in this final statementsaid he had never preached the revelation in
(17:25):
private as he had in public,had not taught it to the annointance in
the church and private, which statementmany present confirmed. Uninquiring concerning the passage
and the resurrection, concerning they neithermarry nor given in Merrigis, there he
received for answer that men in thislife must marry and beauty attorney, otherwise
they must remain as angels or besingle in heaven, which was the doctrine
(17:45):
the revelation referred to. And theMayor spoke at considerable length and explanation of
this principle. Is willing to forone to subscribe his name to declare the
exposure and the whole establishment a newsits. So first part he says that
he had never preached the revelation inprivate as in publicly not taught to the
anointed in the church in private,which statement. Many present confirm that's referencing
(18:06):
he never caught the revelation to DNCone thirty two to the anointed Korum.
And there's a decent reason to believethat that's true, because first he had
William Law who was in Hiram ineighteen forty two, and the anointed Korma
reposed to polygamy. William Hiram didn'tconvert to polygmy until May of eighteen forty
(18:26):
three. And then Emma was broughtin in September of eighteen forty three and
to the annointed Korum, And soyou had Joseph had people in his anointed
Korum who were opposed to polygamy.At Brigham Young were called, but Joseph
felt trapped in there unfortunately, thathe couldn't really teach all the principles he
(18:47):
wanted to because there was opposition.And Brigham recalled that William Law made a
comment in the forum saying that ifan angel of heaven tried to teach him
poigamy, and he had in hispower you tried, he would kill him.
And so he was that post topologny that he would even threaten to
kill an angel from heaven if hecould do so, if it were to
try to teach him poligamy. Soso, but then he confirms the eternal
(19:11):
marriage aspect of the revelation. Oninquiring concerning the passage and the resurrection,
concerned they'd either marry nor given inmarriage, he received for an answer,
men in this life must vary inview of eternity, otherwise than must remain
as angels or single in heaven.So that's um, you know, clearly
laying out the need to be sealedin this mortality in order to receive the
(19:37):
blessings of eternal marriage. And Josephwas saying that they neither marry nor given
in marriage, is saying that allmarriages must be contracted in this life and
not in the reserve. You know, they couldn't be in the next life
or after the resurrection. Had tobe done by people in mortality. And
that's arguably why proxy marriages was introducedas a doctrine by Josep Smith, which
(20:00):
iron Smith said his living wife stoodas proxy for his deceased wife to be
sealed to him as well. Sothose are their statements. So the question
comes who is telling the truth?The Navutist Center saying that it was about
m poligamy in the present or Josephand Iron saying that it didn't really have
(20:22):
to do with Pollie in the present, just eternal marriage and ancient polly game.
So some significant witnesses from Utah theBrigamites include William Clayton and Joseph Kingsbury,
were both scribes for this revelation.Both gave their testimony that DNC one
three two was indeed a Naveu revelationof Joseph Smith. William Clayton said the
(20:45):
Kingsbury copy was true and correct.That was a true and correct copy.
In eighteen sixty nine, several NavuCity Council member excuse me, Navu High
Council members Thomas Grover, James Alread, and Aaron Johnson all signed affidavits saying
that d NC one thirty two wasindeed read to them and other members of
(21:06):
the Nabu High Council honor about Augusttwelfth, eighteen forty three. They gave
testimony to other occasions as well.I think Aaron Johnson actually gave a statement
in the early eighteen fifties about describinghim reading the revelation to the High Council,
so oh, excuse me. JamesAlread gave one in the eighteen fifties
on October fifteenth, eighteen fifty four, saying that meaning of the Navu High
(21:30):
Council in Nabu, brother Hiram Smithread the revelation relating to the plurality of
vibes. He James Alred said hedid not believe it at first, it
was so controduced feelings. But hesaid he knew Joseph a prophet of God.
So he made a covenant that youwould not eat, drink or sleep
until he knew for himself. Theygot testimony that until that he had got
a testimony. That is what JamesAlred related on the night of the fifteenth
(21:52):
of October eighteen fifty four. Itwas true that he had excuse me this
this kind messed up. He hadgotten testimony that it was true that he
even heard the voice of God concerningit. This is what James Alred related
on the night of the fifteenth ofOctober eighteen fifty four. That's statement the
Eldiest Church archives. Josea's Stout,a clerk for the Nabus High Council,
(22:15):
recalled that August eighteen forty three DNCone three. He was read to the
Council, but he was excused onother business during the reading and was at
present during it being read. Hewas just told about the revelations description from
several of the High Council members afterwards, and JOSEA. Stout related this to
Joseph F. Smith in eighteen eightythree in response, I think Joseph F.
(22:40):
Smith was trying to get all thewitnesses he could to plural marriage compiled,
and so jose Stout was the clerkwho was keeping the minutes of the
Council, and this is what hewrote to Joseph F. Smith. Well,
I can very well remember that inthe year eighteen forty three, and
I think in the month of August, but not certain as to the date.
The High Council met at present Smith, your father, as we were
(23:00):
expecting, came into the Council whatthe document said to be the revelation pearl
marriage, for the purpose of readingit to the Council. I was Kirk
of the Council the time, andsuppose it would be filed in the Council
for their future years. At thevery time I had another appointment to me
and was excused by the council,supposing it would be filed there and come
in through my hands as a clerk, and I can then peruse it at
my leisure. I returned the councilorto journed in. Your father had gone
(23:23):
taking the revelation with him, ButI saw some of all the counsels who
informed me as the purport. Asto the purport of the revelation, which
corresponds to what was published, isnow in the book of doctrine covenants.
Certain is it was the one.It was the one particular town topic then
of both friends and enemies. Sothere's some other So this is significantly.
(23:49):
The men in Utah would date itto about the August twelfth, eighteen forty
three minute meeting of the Navu HighCouncil, and so the minutes for that
they simply record council met According tothe German hire N Smith's office, no
business boarder of the council teaching byPresidents Hiram Smith and William Marx, and
(24:10):
so it doesn't give too much detail. It's just saying that Hiram Smith and
William Marx gave some teachings to thecouncil. Very vague about what they were
teaching. But what significant in myopinion is Franklin D. Richards and his
Scriptural Item's Notebook on August twelve,eighty four y three wrote, well,
Hiram said before the High Council thatno prophet ever did transgress, but was
directed by the impulse of the spiritinvoluntary. Also he said that man shall
(24:33):
take his brother's wife and raise upseed into him, as it was in
Israel, must be again established,referencing Deuteronomy twenty five, verses five through
ten to one place in the Lawof Moses where polygamy is commanded where a
man is to raise up seed tohis brother if his brother dies without an
heir in Israel. And so that'sSeeds recording that I'm taughtless to the High
(24:56):
Council. So this is showing thatindeed Chiram did teach earthly polygamy would be
needed to be restored as it wasin Israel, must be again established in
the Nabo residents, Sarah Scott wroteletters to her parents in Junia July eighteen
forty four, confirming that her brotherin law, Jesse Haven, had the
(25:17):
plural marriage revelation taught to the Elder'sQuorum by Hiram Smith. We have another
letter by M. Jacob Scott writesto his daughter about in January eighteen forty
four about there being a revelation newrevelations that have been received relating to plural
(25:37):
excuse me relating to eternal marriage andchurl polygamy. Said there was many more
other things about it that he couldn'twrite on paper to her, but that
she should be careful not to opposeanything of that came from God. And
so that's another significant evidence there.This reading to the High count Council and
(26:00):
reading to the Elder's Corm is referenceby um William Law in the Navu City
Council meetings in early January of eighteenforty four, and Joseph didn't deny what
William Law said. He this kindof the minutes just recorded that m He
basically said the man who promised tokeep a secret and couldn't keep it wasn't
(26:21):
to be trusted. In response toWilliam Law's comments about saying that the spiritual
wife business was blowed up before byJoseph and hire him to the High Council
and to the Elder's Corm and soSarah Scott was referencing Jesse Haven had was
a person who recalled told her thatit was read to the elder's corm.
He was a member of the naveelder's corm. So significant. The bring
(26:48):
of my testimony should be compelling inand of itself, as well as the
contemporary sources about it. But ifthat's not enough to be the nail on
the coffin, the non Brighamite testimonyshould definitely be the nail in the coffin.
Confirming a DNC one thirty two isan authentic revelation was what Joseph Smith
(27:08):
received a navou. So we havem three different individuals who didn't follow Brigham
Young. Austin Cowles, William Marx, and Leonard Sobey all testified to a
revelation of plural marriage being read byhigher Smiths and the lu hYP counsel.
We read Austin Cow's statement. WilliamMarx and Leonard Sobey are significant because William
(27:33):
Marx became a member of the rldiestChurch first presidency, and he was always
opposed to polygamy, but he evenadmitted the hid the revelation of plural marriage
to the High Council, and thathe saw them receive it, but that
he didn't. And then Leonard Sobywas didn't follow Brigham Young, but said
followed Sydney brigged in, and healso gave a statement, gave two affidavits
(27:57):
saying that the revelation in Utah,to his best of his knowledge, was
in memory, was the same revelationthat he heard Hiram Smith read to him
when he was a member of theNavou High Council. So William Marks first,
as his testimonies were called by JohnHolly. John Holly testimony what Brother
(28:18):
Mark said to him in July ofeighteen sixty eight at Plano, Tendel County,
Illinois, on the subject of thePolygmy revelation. I John h was
a follower of Brigham Young at thetime when the conversation came up between us
and the subject of the revelation offorty three on polygamy. He told me
he knew the very day the revelationwas given, and said one morning brother
Hiram was walking down the street prettyfast. Ill piled him and said,
(28:41):
brother Hiram, which way, Andhe told me he was going down to
Joe's Aphos going to get a revelationon patriarchal marriage today if we can.
And in the evening he came alongand back and handed him the revelation,
asked him to call the High Counciltogether and read it to them, and
said brother Marks did so, andasked them to express their belief or disbelief.
And the High Council all said theybelieved it to be of God.
(29:02):
They did not, And from thattime, he said, the leading men
the Church looked upon him as onthe eve of a postasy. So if
you remember the Navoo City Council minute, excuse me, Navo High Council Minutes
for August twelve, eighteen forty threesaid teachings by hire Smith and William Marx.
This account seems to fit perfectly withthat, because it's brother Marx is
(29:25):
saying that Hiram had him read itto them. So Hiram had William Marx
read the revelation, so that's whyit would say teachings by Hiram and William
Marx. So, but he didn'tbelieve it to be of God, even
though the council did. And fromthat time he said, the leading men
(29:45):
and the church looked upon him ason the eve of Apostasy. So that
Saint John Holly's autobiography in the Communityof Christ's Library archives. So similarly,
William Marx gave his testimony in theprivate RLDS Church presidency meeting with their church
leaders. It says the minutes sayquote the question arose as to whether Joseph
(30:06):
the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Mark said that brother him came
to his place once and told himhe did not believe in it, and
he was going to see Jugs aboutit, and if he had a revelation
on the subject, he would believeit. And after that him read a
revelation on it in the High Council, and he Marx felt it was not
true, but he saw the HighCouncil received it. So that was on
(30:27):
May first, eighteen sixty five,the private meeting of the Arldiest Church first
Presidency in quorm of the twelve.So we have William Mars. It's another
non bringing my corroborating it. SoZenus Girley Junior is a fascinating story because
(30:48):
he was apostle in the Arldiesst Church, but he grew disaffected over this issue.
Because he believed. He came tobelieve that that Joseph Smith did,
and he teach and practice plum hisbrother his father in law was Ebenezer Robinson,
and ebenez Or Robinson gave many statementsand signed several affidavits in his lifetime
(31:12):
saying Hiram Smith indeed taught being pluralmarriage in the fall of eighteen forty three
or in November December. He didn'tremember exactly when, but Hiram taught it
to him, and he rejected atthe time, and Hiram was disappointed at
him for rejecting it. So ZenusCurley Junior apparently heard about Leonards Sobey,
(31:33):
and he was the one who wentand met with Leonard Sobey to fit see
if he had confirm or deny thatwhether the Utah revelation was the same revelation
that he was read in the NabuHigh Council. And so he said he
met with him. Brother Sobey sworepositively honor about the August twelve to eighteen
(31:55):
forty three, Hire Smith, thebrother of the prophet jose Smith, presented
read to the Council of the revelationpoligamy Boris testimony to its truth and the
name of the Lord and enjoined itskeeping or words the effect. Mister Sobey
opposed it, and he with AustinCollins and William Marx, I believe,
rejected it all, which caused theirseparation from the church. Finally, and
so Zenus Gurley Junior considered this testimonydamning enough that he resigned his apostleship in
(32:20):
the RLDS Church over it, andso he got an affidavit by Sobey,
and then Soby signed a second affidavitin eighteen eighty six, a couple of
years after this first affidavit, andhe said, being remembered on the twenty
third day of March in the yeareighteen eighty six, before Joshua W.
Roberts, notary Public for the Cityof Beverley County, Burlington, State of
(32:43):
New Jersey, Leonard Soby upset cityCounty and his state was buy me duly
sworn Uponezel said the honor about thetwelfth day of August eighteen forty three.
I was a resident Naboo, HancockCounty, State of Illinois, and being
a member of the High Council ofthe Church of Jesus Christ. Lady since
was present in the meeting of saidCouncil the time here above, stated Thomas
Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fulmer, William Huntington, and others. When
(33:07):
Elder Hyron Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial Marriage,
I've read an examine carefully said revelationsince published in the Book of Doctrine Covenants
of said Church, and say,the best of my knowledge and belief,
it is the same word for wordas the revelation then read by Hyron Smith.
The despondent said further that the revelationdid not originate with Brigham Young,
as some persons have falsely stated,but was received by the prophet Joseph Smith,
(33:30):
and read to Thigh Counsel by hisauthority as a revelation to the Church
of Jesus Christ already saints. Whenread to this desponded and said High Counsel,
I believed it was a revelation fromJesus Christ. I believe it now,
so he's statement there, I've readan examine carefully said revelation since published
in the Book of Doctrine Covenants ofsaid Church, and say, to the
(33:52):
best of my knowledge and belief,it is the same word for word as
the revelation then read by Hiram Smith. So just to cover another, you
know, tangent issue that's kind ofrelated, is there seemed to have been
shorter versions and longer versions of dNC one thirty two in circulation. But
this isn't strange. The shirt beseen as strange because we know that other
(34:14):
revelations had different versions. You knowthat there was revelations who were expanded upon
at other times, and you couldsee that if you study the differences between
the Book of Commandments and the DoctrineCovenants in you know, the eighteen thirty
three book Who Commands in eighteen thirtyfive Doctrine Covenants. So William Clayton's original
copy was ten full scrap pages goingto his journal, which you know that's
(34:38):
the earliest source about the length ofthe revelation, and so that fits at
being a longer revelation. So JosephKingsbury's copy he made of the revelation for
Bishop Neuel K. Whitney was eightpages long and is still extent to this
day. So we know the originalold copy was burned, but this copy
is the one that is still extent, and this one's eight pages long copy
(35:01):
you know, whatever, you know, either penmanship or different size of paper
met it made it be a coupleof pages difference in length. So some
people think that this might be ananomaly that nouel K Whitney took a personal
copy of this revelation, but thereality is Nouel K Whitney kept copies of
(35:22):
many other revelations. I was recentlyreading about the history of the Book of
Commandments and the Doctor and Covenants,and Oliver Cowgary when they were working on
republishing the revelations in the Evening andMorning Star, he actually wrote to Noel
K. Whitney to ask for originalcopies of or early copies of revelations that
(35:47):
nouel K Whitney had been keeping.And so Noel K. Whitney sent those
to Oliver Cawgury so that he coulduse those in republishing Revelations that was in
you know, eighteen thirty four,eighteen thirty five. So Horace K.
Whitney significantly made a copy of theKingsbury version of DNC one thirty two on
(36:07):
March fourteenth, eighteen forty seven.It's also eight pages long, and it's
still extent. The actually started.He made two copies kind of but they
didn't finish the first one. He'skind of start over and made the second
one. And this was because Noelkit Whitney was being asked to turn over
the revelation to bring him young inwinter quarters, and so Horace K.
(36:27):
Whitney, as Noel K. Whitney'soldest son, was asked or instructed to
make a copy for them to stillhave a copy for their own Families Revelations
collection. So there were some individualswho know they saw a shorter version of
the revelation that was like two orthree pages long. Mercy Fielding, Thompson,
James wy Ed, and William Law. And so these are sometimes used
(36:51):
by people to say these are thisis our smoking gun that that there was
a this was a modified revelation,because these individuals said they saw a shorter
revelation we're talking about. They focusedmostly on James Whited and William Law.
Where these are guys in the eighteeneighties who are trying to remember back to
(37:15):
you know, forty years earlier,and they're using at the same time,
they will discount other late testimonies beinglate. They will their key argument is
based off of these two men inthe eighteen eighties and James white ed in
the eighteen nineties when he was crossexamined on the subject and they tried to
ask him which parts were original andwhich parts were modified. He couldn't tell
(37:37):
them what was modified, and hebasically had to admit that the revelation he
must have saw that was only frontand back page had to have been a
totally different revelation. And significantly,he said he was talking about revelation he
was shown in winter Quarters by NoelK. Whitney, and he said that
it was dated July of eighteen fortytwo. He emphasized eighteen forty two.
(38:01):
And what's significant about that is therewas a July eighteen forty two revelation that
was a one page front and backrevelation that Noel K. Whitney had and
that was the revelation for Sarah andWhitney to marry Joseph Smith. And so
it's what James Wyatt was telling thetruth. I want to be charitable with
him. I think that he wasremembering the July twenty seventh, eighteen forty
(38:22):
two revelation for Sarah and Whitney tomarry Joseph Smith is what he was shown
in Winter Quarters by by nowel KWhitney. But the significant is he also
in his earlier eighteen eighties statement hesaid he saw the original and Joseph Smith's
handwriting that was copied. He sawan original revelation and Joseph Smith's handwriting duck
(38:45):
was copied by William Clayton and thatwas burned. You know, So he's
contradicts himself. He isn't really themost reliable witness, especially when he's testifying
he gets polygamy. In the eighteeneighties, eighteen nineties and earlier, he
had privately told our olds leaders thathe knew that Joseph had practice, taught
(39:05):
and practiced polygamy, and that Emmaconsented and put wives hands in Joseph's hands.
That's covered in one of my previousvideos, his credibility and his statements
in that regard. And then sobut then, you know, I William
Law and Mercy Thompson, I believewhat they may have seen is that Hiram
instead of giving out the entire full, you know, eight or ten page
(39:27):
revelation to others, he probably onlygave a couple of pages at a time
like probably just the key parts ofit, like the layer parts commanding polygamy,
is what he may have loaned to, what Mercy Fielding Thompson may have
seen, and what William Law probablysaw if his memory is accurate. But
again, as I mentioned, hisearlier statement implied there was a lot of
(39:52):
other things to in the revelation tosupport the doctrine of the plurality of wives.
So you know, but I'm willingto give them the benefit of the
doubt. Maybe they saw the Maybehe saw the longer version and he was
only lent short the shorter part ofit. You know. That's kind of
you know, a theory that's beenpostulated by some about that. So interestingly,
(40:16):
Lyman White reportedly had a longer versionof DNC one thirty two, according
to Gideon Carter, a version ofthe revelation containing quote many rules governing plural
marriage, which fits with the DNCone thirty two ending saying, and now
is pertaining to this law barely barelysaying to you, I will reveal boring
to you hereafter therefore let this sufficefor the present, And William Clayton saying,
(40:37):
after the whole of us written Josephasked me to read it through slowly
and carefully, which I did,and he pronounced it correct. He then
remarked that there was much more thatcould that he could write on the same
subject, but that that was whatwas written was sufficient for the present.
So um to be honest, GideonCarter's kind of ambiguous, he said,
(40:57):
he's William William excuse me. Theinqureyor said that Lyman White published a pamphlet
that pported it contain the plural marriagerevelation, but he said there were many
rules in it that where he didnot find in the Utah Church's revelation.
And so you know, but youknow, I think that's implying that it
was the same revelation but had abunch of more rules attached to it.
(41:21):
And Brigham Young was aware of similarrules, which is something to discuss in
a different video. So regardless withWilliam Law's late recollection his shorter revelation,
he said that he was shown.He said, the contents are substantially the
same, but there was not thetheological introduction. The things simply consists in
(41:42):
the command of doing it, andthat command was restricted to the high priesthood
and to virgins of widows. MasterJoseph himself the Lord's chosen servant. It
was restricted to virgins only to cleanvessels from which to you procure a pure
seed for the Lord. So that'sin his interview with the Salt Lake Tribune
on March thirtieth, eighteen eighty seven, and he said, I was a
starch seeing book. The Revelation wassuch a long document. I remembered distinctly.
(42:07):
The original given me by him wasmuch shorter, covered not more than
two or three pages of fulls ofscrap the contents or substance to the same,
but there was not the theological introduction. So he's still saying it was
about polygamy, it was about pluralmarriage, but he doesn't remember the theological
introduction being in the pages that himlet him borrow. But significantly also confirmed,
(42:29):
so that part confirmed, you knowVersus fifty two about you know,
those given to servant Joseph need tobe virtuous and pure, which is what
he's remembering as virgins only to cleanvessels. But he also recalled m Ema,
corroborating verse fifty four. He said, what the question was, what
(42:52):
do you remember Emma's relation to therevelation on celestial marriage. Well, I
told you that she used to complainto me about Joseph Eskip escapades. Whenever
she met me on the street,she spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation.
She said, once the revelation saysI must submit or be destroyed. Well,
I guess I have to submit.So that's referencing verse fifty four saying
(43:13):
I command my handmade an Mma Smithto abide and cleveland to my servant Joseph,
and to none else. If shewill not bide this commandment, she
shall be destroyed, saith the Lord, for I am the Lord thy God,
and will destroy or if she abidenot in my law. So one
other key thing from non Bregamite sourcesthat to me confirms that DNC one thirty
(43:35):
two was indeed the revelation that JosephSmith had and it wasn't a non polygamist
revelation about eternal marriage or this aboutpolygamy in the ancient times is that Emma
and her family privately preserved the traditionthat she and Joseph indeed learned the revelation.
(43:55):
So this is from Linda King Newell'sarticle the Emma Smith Lord reconsidered,
and she has three different sources showingthat this was You know that this tradition
was preserved. So this is first. One is William E. McClellan to
Joseph the Third in July of eighteenseventy four, he recalled that in eighteen
(44:16):
forty seven Emma told him that Josephquote wished her to get up and burned
the revelation. She refused to touchit, even with tonks. He rose
up from the bed and pulled upin the fire with his finger and put
the revealment in and burned it up. Now, William McClellan, and of
himself, I wouldn't consider a reliablesource. I think everything he said it's
(44:36):
true, but it's because it canbe corroborated from other sources. So Joseph
Smith the Third apparently seemed to believethis was true. Or either James White
I believed that it was true thatthere was a copy of the revelation burn
because he wrote in his diary onApril twentieth, eighteen eighty five, visited
James White had had a long andinteresting chat with him. He says he
saw the revelation about one page bullscrappaper and other's handwriting. William Platon copied
(45:01):
it and it was this copy thatmother burned. So and this was quoted
by Audentia Anderson and a letter toPaul Hansen on October thirteenth, nineteen thirty
one. This is a letter inthe Community of Christ's Library archives. So
that doesn't really you know, youknow, that's short and kind of ambiguous.
(45:23):
You know who was saying that theEmma burned the revelation there, whether
it was James Whited or Joseph thethird Well, it's significant is Samuel Smith's
daughter wrote to Don Carlos Smith's daughterprivately, So this is Mary Bailey Smith
Norman to Ena Coolbrith in March twentyseventh, nineteen o eight, saying,
(45:44):
I suppose you've heard the aunt Emmaburnt the revelation, which I suppose was
so I've heard my aunt Lucy,so Joseph Smith's sister say that Emma would
not touch it with her fingers,but took the tongues to put it in
the fire. This is very similarto William Clellen saying that, you know,
the referencing a story with tongs andputting it in the fire. So
(46:07):
again this is published by Linda KingNewell in Dialogue magazine to Emma Smith were
reconsidered. And you know, thisraises a serious question. Why did Why
would Emma and Joseph or you knowJoseph consending to Emma wanting the revelation destroyed?
Why would Emma want the revelation destroyedso bad if it didn't, if
(46:29):
it didn't teach polygamy in the presenttime. I think that this is a
compelling reason, along with all theother ones I listed, to believe that
DNC one thirty two indeed was therevelation that Emma burned, and that was
the revelation that Joseph Smith received ineighteen forty three and was read by Hiresith
too the Nabu High Council. Sothat ends my presentation. If you like
(46:52):
it, please like and subscribe.It will be having other videos covering other
contact that relates to the subject ofaddressing blig Me Dow. Thanks
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!