FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Plural marriage/Lorenzo Snow's statements about polygamy during the Temple Lot case: Difference between revisions
(m) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Main Page}} | ||
<onlyinclude> | <onlyinclude> | ||
== == | {{H2 | ||
|L=Mormonism and polygamy/Lorenzo Snow's statements about polygamy during the Temple Lot case | |||
|H=Lorenzo Snow's statements about polygamy during the Temple Lot case | |||
|S= | |||
|L1=Question: What is Lorenzo Snow claimed to have said about plural marriages being adultery prior to 1843? | |||
|L2=Question: Did Lorenzo Snow state that polygamy was actually adultery prior to 1843? | |||
|L3=Question: Are the original Temple Lot Case transcripts available online? | |||
|L4=Question: I've seen Temple Lot court transcripts online. Are these not accurate? | |||
}} | |||
</onlyinclude> | |||
{{:Question: What is Lorenzo Snow claimed to have said about plural marriages being adultery prior to 1843?}} | |||
{{:Question: Did Lorenzo Snow state that polygamy was actually adultery prior to 1843?}} | |||
{{:Question: Are the original Temple Lot Case transcripts available online?}} | |||
{{:Question: I've seen Temple Lot court transcripts online. Are these not accurate?}} | |||
{{endnotes sources}} | |||
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
[[Category:Debunking FairMormon]] | |||
<!-- This material is from another article on the same subject and should be integrated with the items in this one. I am redirecting the other article Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Adultery before 12 July 1843 to this one for now. - RN | |||
{{Criticism label}} | {{Criticism label}} | ||
Doctrine and Covenants 132 was written 12 July 1843. Lorenzo Snow testified during the late nineteenth century that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy prior to this date. | |||
*Was anyone who practiced plural marriage before that date guilty of adultery? | |||
*Since Joseph had entered into plural marriages before that date, was Lorenzo Snow essentially admitting that Joseph was an adulterer? | |||
(The source for this claim is Lorenzo Snow's testimony given during the late-nineteenth century [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Lot_Case Temple Lot] court case between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganized_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints RLDS], now Community of Christ) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot) Church of Christ (Temple Lot)], two groups who did not follow the leadership of Brigham Young and the Twelve after the death of Joseph Smith.) | |||
{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Adultery before 12 July 1843/CriticalSources}} | |||
{{Conclusion label}} | |||
Lorenzo Snow's complete testimony in the Temple Lot case demonstrates that he did not regard ''Joseph's'' marriages prior to July 1843 as adulterous. This stance is also consistent with his earlier sworn testimony, and his sister's account. | |||
For the Tanners' reading to be accepted, we must reject all but the snippet which they quote—including an attempt by the prosecution in the Smoot case to draw the very conclusion which the Tanners advance. Yet, the witness rejected that attempt, as he would doubtless reject the Tanners' insinuations almost a century later. | |||
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:18:Joseph Smith's doctrine and character demand our amazement}} | |||
{{Response label}} | |||
(Note that the critics also err in assuming that 12 July 1843 was the day the revelation was ''received'', whereas it is clear that Joseph had been teaching the doctrine since at least 1831. The revelation was merely put ''into writing'' in 1843 at the instigation of Hyrum Smith.) | |||
{{SeeAlso|Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice|l1=Origins of the doctrine of plural marriage}} | |||
===The testimony - part #1=== | |||
The relevant testimony from Lorenzo Snow reads: | |||
:Up to the time of the presentation of that revelation to the church and its acceptance by the church, the law of the church on marriage was the same as you have read, and which I referred to in the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Exhibit E. That was the law of the church up to the time of the purported revelation and its acceptance by the church; yes, sir, that is true. | |||
:And a man that violated this law in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes, sir, he would have been cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had. | |||
:Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the State, too. <ref>Lorenzo Snow, cited in ''The Temple Lot case : complainant's abstract of pleading and evidence, in the Circuit Court of the United States, Western District of Missouri, Western Division, at Kansas City: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, complainant, vs. The Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri : also decision of John F. Philips, Judge in the Temple Lot case'', [Offset copy of the original published in Lamoni, Iowa by Herald Publishing House, 1893] (Independence, Mo : Price Publishing Co., 2003), 320.</ref> | |||
Lorenzo Snow is clearly explaining that the Church's marital standard was monogamy until they had received and accepted the plural marriage revelation. | |||
Does this mean, then, that even if Joseph—the prophet—contracted a marriage before 13 July 1843, it would necessarily be adulterous? There are two possibilities: | |||
# Lorenzo Snow is making a blanket statement about any and all plural marriages, including Joseph's. | |||
# Lorenzo Snow is speaking about any member doing so without Joseph's instruction and approval, since there was nothing in LDS scripture to permit it until the revelation was written on 13 July 1843. But, Joseph could potentially contract such a marriage without being adulterous, since he had already received the command from God to do so. Other members, however, had not been so commanded, and so they would not have been justified. | |||
As we will now see, Lorenzo's other testimony shows that he clearly ''did not'' regard Joseph as an adulterer, even for plural marriages contracted before the revelation was written. Thus, the second option best captures his intent. We can be certain that the Tanners did not fairly represent the intent of Snow's testimony, or the conclusions which he drew, since the Reed Smoot hearing tried to draw the same conclusion, only to have Snow reject it a page later in his testimony. | |||
===Lorenzo Snow's testimony - part #2=== | |||
Lorenzo Snow's sister, Eliza R. Snow, was married to Joseph Smith in April 1843—before the revelation was written down. | |||
If option #1 above is the intent of Snow's testimony, then he would regard Eliza's marriage as adulterous. If, on the other hand, option #2 was his intent, then he would not be troubled by Joseph's sealing to his sister. | |||
It is clear that the person asking the questions at the Smoot hearings wishes to draw the same conclusion as the Tanners—option #1. Let's see how Snow responds: | |||
:'''Q'''. You state now that Joseph Smith was sealed or married to your sister in April, 1843, and this so-called revelation was given in July, 1843? | |||
:'''A'''. [Lorenzo Snow:] Well, the time I said it, it was all right. According to my understanding of this new covenant, the woman is sealed to the man and not the man to the woman, and I stated that Joseph Smith took my sister for a wife when he had a wife living, and that was prior to the giving of this revelation. | |||
:'''Q'''. Well, what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in? | |||
:'''A'''. It put them in a first-rate, splendid condition for time and eternity. <ref>''Temple Lot Case'', 321–322.</ref> | |||
There is no hint that Snow regards their act as adulterous or improper. The questioner clearly hopes that when he asks "what kind of position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in?" Snow will be forced to reply, "an adulterous position." But, Snow says no such thing—he notes that their status before God is "first-rate," and "splendid" both before and after death. Given the seriousness with which adultery is and was regarded by Latter-day Saints, the Tanners' reading is implausible. | |||
== == | ==Other evidence of Lorenzo's attitude to Eliza's marriage == | ||
Furthermore, Lorenzo Snow had been taught the doctrine of plural marriage well before July 1843, as he later swore: | |||
:In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith’s house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment. | |||
:He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think one hour or more, m which he told me many important things. | |||
:I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true. <ref>Lorenzo Snow affidavit, 28 August 1868; cited by Joseph F[ielding] Smith, Jr., ''Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion'' (Independence, Missouri: Press of Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1905), 67–68.</ref> | |||
Lorenzo gives no sign that Joseph was adulterous—indeed, he emphasizes the divine command, the revelation from God, and the angel's insistance. | |||
Eliza also gave witness about her brother's attitude to her marriage: | |||
:While my brother was absent on this, his first mission to Europe, changes had taken place with me, one of eternal import, of which I supposed him to be entirely ignorant. The Prophet Joseph had taught me the principle of plural, or Celestial Marriage, and I was married to him for time and eternity. In consequence of the ignorance of most of the Saints, as well as people of the world, on this subject, it was not mentioned only privately between the few whose minds were enlightened on the subject. | |||
< | :Not knowing how my brother would receive it, I did not feel at liberty, and I did not wish to assume the responsibility of instructing him in the principle of plural marriage, and either maintained silence, or, to his indirect questioning, gave evasive answers, until I was forced, by his cool and distant manner, to feel that he was growing jealous of my sisterly confidence-that I could not confide in his brotherly integrity. I could not endure this-something must be done. I informed my husband of the situation, and requested him to open the subject to my brother. A favorable opportunity soon presented, and, seated together on the lone bank of the Mississippi river, they had a most interesting conversation. The Prophet afterwards told me that he found that my brother’s mind had been previously enlightened on the subject in question, and was ready to receive whatever the spirit of revelation from God should impart. That comforter which Jesus said should “lead into all truth,” had penetrated his understanding and, while in England, had given him an intimation of what at that time was, to many, a secret. This was the result of living near the Lord, and holding communion with him. <ref>Eliza R. Snow, ''Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow,'' 68-69</ref> | ||
</ | |||
Lorenzo's mind had been prepared, and so he did not reject the teaching, or frown on Eliza's marriage to Joseph as adulterous. This evidence is all consistent with option #2, but not with the Tanners' option #1. | |||
{{ | {{HalesSite | ||
|subject1=The Prophet Receives the Sealing Keys in 1836 | |||
|link1=http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/kirtland-polygamy/ | |||
|summary1=It appears that shortly after the April 3 vision, Joseph Smith recorded a first-hand account of the vision in his own personal journal or notes. That original record has not been found and is probably lost. Nonetheless, these important visitations were documented in other contemporaneous records. Within a few days, the Prophet’s secretary Warren Cowdery transcribed Joseph’s first-hand account into a third-hand account to be used in the Church history then being composed. | |||
|subject2=Joseph Smith does not Mention Eternal Marriage until 1841 | |||
|link2=http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/kirtland-polygamy/ | |||
|summary2=It seems likely that after the Prophet received the authority to seal marriage in 1836, he realized that the minute he introduced eternal marriage, questions regarding plural marriage would quickly arise, questions he did not want to answer. Accordingly, for several years he hesitated to discuss either teaching with the Latter-day Saints until compelled by an angel to do so.}} | |||
[[ | {{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Adultery before 12 July 1843/CriticalSources}} | ||
{{endnotes sources}} | |||
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
[[fi:Mormonismi ja moniavioisuus/Lorenzo Snowin lausunnot moniavioisuudesta temppelin tontti -tapauksen aikana]] | |||
[[pt:Mormonismo e Poligamia/Foi adultério antes de 1843]] | |||
[[es:El Mormonismo y la poligamia/Declaraciones de Lorenzo Snow sobre la poligamia durante el caso del Lote del Templo]] | |||
Latest revision as of 20:05, 30 April 2024
Lorenzo Snow's statements about polygamy during the Temple Lot case
Jump to details:
- Question: What is Lorenzo Snow claimed to have said about plural marriages being adultery prior to 1843?
- Question: Did Lorenzo Snow state that polygamy was actually adultery prior to 1843?
- Question: Are the original Temple Lot Case transcripts available online?
- Question: I've seen Temple Lot court transcripts online. Are these not accurate?
Question: What is Lorenzo Snow claimed to have said about plural marriages being adultery prior to 1843?
One critic of the Church attributes the following quote to Lorenzo Snow during the Temple Lot Case:
A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too. – Temple Lot Case, p.320-322 [Bold and italics by the author.]
The critic concludes:
According to Lorenzo Snow, Joseph had zero business marrying his plural wives before 1843 and he should have been cut off from the Church as it was adultery under the laws of the Church and under the laws of the State. Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger in 1833 was illegal under both the laws of the land and under any theory of divine authority; it was adultery.” [1]
Question: Did Lorenzo Snow state that polygamy was actually adultery prior to 1843?
Lorenzo Snow did not state that polygamy was adultery prior to 1843
Brian Hales responds to this assertion:
One example of the weaknesses that are repeated over and over in his essay is illustrated when Runnells allegedly quotes Lorenzo Snow’s 1892 Temple Lot deposition. According to Runnells, Snow gave this testimony:
A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too. – Temple Lot Case, p.320–322 [Bold and italics by Runnells.]
Then Runnells concludes:
According to Lorenzo Snow, Joseph had zero business marrying his plural wives before 1843 and he should have been cut off from the Church as it was adultery under the laws of the Church and under the laws of the State. Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger in 1833 was illegal under both the laws of the land and under any theory of divine authority; it was adultery.”
It is obvious Runnells never viewed the actual 1892 Temple Lot deposition transcripts. Curiously, the last sentence in the paragraph above, the one that he emphasized with bold and italics, is incorrectly cited. Importantly, the words “and under the laws of the state too” are fabrication.[2] They are not in the original transcript; that is, Lorenzo Snow did not say them so far as any record is concerned. Notwithstanding, Runnells confidently asserts: “According to Lorenzo Snow, Joseph had zero business marrying his plural wives before 1843.” If Runnells had actually consulted the depositions, which are available at the Church History Library, he would have learned that later in that same deposition, RLDS attorney Kelley questioned Snow who directly disagreed with Runnells’ conclusion:
Q. Could he [Joseph Smith] receive a revelation and act upon it, that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church to govern the church, without a violation of those laws?
A. Yes sir, I see that distinctly and understand it and I want you to understand it too. [3]
This sort of problematic research and writing is common throughout the remainder of Runnells’ treatment of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages raising important questions regarding the accuracy and credibility of his conclusions.
Rather than provide a point-by-point rebuttal to Runnells’ claims, it might be most beneficial to refer him and other readers to JosephSmithsPolygamy.org where he can find the latest research dealing with all controversial topics regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy including supposed polyandry, young wives, Fanny Alger, sexuality, polygamy denials, Joseph’s interactions with Emma Smith, and other historical and theological considerations. [4]
Question: Are the original Temple Lot Case transcripts available online?
The original 1650-page transcripts were not available online until recently. Only a 507-page abstract was available online prior to this
The original 1650-page Temple Lot Case transcripts were not available anywhere online until recently. They are now available online at the Church History Library at the following link: MS 1160: United States testimony 1892, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All that was previously available online, which was commonly cited, were abstract summary transcripts (507 pages) which have been heavily edited by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (now the Community of Christ). The edited transcripts that were available online were published by the RLDS Church and contain information that is not present in the original transcript. (see The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, Vs. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri [5])
A quote from the 507 page abstract is used by critics of the Church to prove that Lorenzo Snow claimed adultery
Here is the quote used by one critic of the Church, which is taken from the 507-page Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case:
[Question] A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage.
[Answer by Lorenzo Snow] Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too. [6]
The source of the edited quote in the original transcript is quite different from that in the abstract, and does not contain the statement about adultery
Here is the source of the heavily edited quote as it exists in the original 1650-page Temple Lot case transcript:
Page 128
321 Q. Could he [Joseph Smith] receive a revelation and act upon it, that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church to govern the church, without a violation of those laws?
A. Yes sir, I see that distinctly and understand it and I want you to understand it too.
323 Q. Could Joseph Smith receive a revelation and act upon it that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church as accepted by the church at that time, without being at the same time in violation of the laws of the church?
A. Why he might do so. Joseph Smith did, but I don’t consider he was a violator of any of the laws of the church, for he was the law of the church. I never knew of the church rejecting a revelation he gave to them. [7]
A more complete explanation, with full page scans, may be viewed on Brian Hales' website Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Question: I've seen Temple Lot court transcripts online. Are these not accurate?
The 507-page Temple Lot court transcript available online are heavily edited abstracts of the original. The original 1650-page transcript is not available online
There is at least one Temple Lot court summary transcript available online which contain the disputed phrase "and under the laws of the state too". This transcript can be viewed here: Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C.. This is a 507 page abstract, but it is not the original transcript. The original transcript is 1650 pages long and was not available online until recently.
Brian Hales clarifies:
The Temple Lot legal case transcript covers more than 1,650 pages and is NOT available online....
The originals are housed at the Eighth District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, with a carbon copy at the Community of Christ Archives. The Church History Library offers both microfilm and digital photographs of the microfilm (unrestricted). A 507-page version has been published and distributed by several booksellers including Herald House and Price Publishing Company; however, heavy editing makes this version of little or no use to polygamy researchers. Apparently parts of the original transcript have been digitally transcribed by Richard D. Ouellette.
The statement quoted by [Jeremy] Runnells is from one of the edited versions and I’m not surprised that the RLDS editor added some commentary that has been mistaken as in the original.
Here’s the transcript:
189 Q. And the man that violated this law in this book [Doctrine and Covenants 1835 edition] until the acceptance of that revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage? A. Yes Sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
190 Q. What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843? A. What would be the condition of a man that would do that?
191 Q. Yes sir? A. Why he would be cut off from the Church.
192 Q. Would not it have been adultery under those revelations I have just read? A. Yes sir. I expect it would be.
193 Q. You are one of the apostles in the church at the present time are you not . . . [8]
A scan of this page of the transcript may be viewed on Hales' website Joseph Smith's Polygamy here: Lorenzo Snow’s Temple Lot Testimony.
Notes
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon - Letter to a CES Director" (2014)
- ↑ Footnote 4 in Hales' response: Questions and answers to lines 189–193, Lorenzo Snow, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 121, read:
189 Q. And the man that violated this law in this book [Doctrine and Covenants 1835 edition] until the acceptance of that revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage?
A. Yes Sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
190 Q. What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843? A. What would be the condition of a man that would do that?
191 Q. Yes sir? A. Why he would be cut off from the Church.
192 Q. Would not it have been adultery under those revelations I have just read? A. Yes sir. I expect it would be.
193 Q. You are one of the apostles in the church at the present time are you not . . . - ↑ Footnote 5 in Hales' response: Lorenzo Snow, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 128, question 323.
- ↑ Brian Hales, "Jeremy Runnells—the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?", Rational Faiths (blog), posted 15 July 2014 off-site
- ↑ The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, Vs. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri: Richard Hill, Trustee; Richard Hill, Mrs. E. Hill, C.A. Hall [and Others] ... as Members of and Doing Business Under the Name of the Church of Christ, at Independence, Missouri, Respondents. In Equity. Complainant's Abstract of Pleading and Evidence off-site
- ↑ A digital abstract of the Temple Lot court proceedings containing this quote may be viewed here: Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C.
- ↑ Brian Hales, "Lorenzo Snow’s Temple Lot Testimony," Joseph Smith's Polygamy (website) off-site
- ↑ Brian Hales, "Lorenzo Snow’s Temple Lot Testimony," Joseph Smith's Polygamy (website) off-site