Excerpts from William R. Jankowiak, Illicit Monogamy (2023)

The following excerpts are taken from:

William R. Jankowiak, Illicit Monogamy: Inside a Fundamentalist Mormon Community (New York: Columbia University Press, 2023)

 

To document that many people find monogamous less than satisfying does not mean monogamous marriage cannot be very satisfying. By the same token, to acknowledge that a polygamous family can be dissatisfying for some does not mean that polygamous marriage cannot work or bring satisfaction to many of its participants. (p. x)

 

The conventional feminist critique of the polygamous or plural marriage states that the dissatisfactions of women are the by-product of their dependency on their husbands, who monopolize both their earning power and sexuality. However, recent research of the polygamous family has not found this dynamic to be typically the case. Most Angel Park women have their own earning power and are more than ready to engage their husband in the give-and-take negotiations that potentially benefit themselves (Bennion 1998, 2004; Altman and Ginat 1996). Moreover, fundamentalist religious doctrine and its ethnical guidelines also restrict men’s sexual behavior. For both sexes, premarital sex is condemned. Also condemned are affairs that married and non-married men might have outside a church-sanctioned marriage. Contrary to the feminist critique of the polygamous family, it is not women but young men who are more likely to lose out in the evolutionary struggle to obtain a wife (Bennion 1998, 2020; Jankowiak 2019). (p. 32)

 

Since the Middle Ages, people have erroneously misunderstood the primary motivation for the establishment of a polygamous family. Contrary to the prevailing folklore, the polygamous family was never principally designed to satisfy male sexual desire. On the contrary, it is the institutionalization of a marriage and family system designed to increase reproduction to achieve an exalted spiritual state of being. It stands in contrast, therefore, to the monogamous family system, which is ideally anchored in the intimacy of a couple, complemented by active coparenting of the mother and father. The polygamous family system values and promotes the development of warm supportive relationships with all family members. Its structure is a distinctly more collective than individualistic.

 

Every family is different. Because a person’s place and understanding of family life is shaped by his or her position within the family, any investigation into the plural family requires probing the way fathers, wives, cowives, and offspring understand their place within the larger family structure. There are variations within variations. Still, there are prevailing themes and commonalities typical of most polygamous families. It is a misconception to think that most fundamentalist families live in bad faith and/or assert and affirm religious doctrine and moral standards they do not believe in—I found this not to be so. (pp. 267-68)

 

The Mormon fundamentalist ideal of plural or multiple love bonds is similar to the contemporary cultural phenomenon of polyamory (or the ability to love more than one person) found across the world. Both strive to avoid creating or establishing emotionally exclusive dyads. The community readily acknowledges that the best family is where everyone takes pleasure in one another’s well-being and finds joy in witnessing their love for their husband. But this is an ideal seldom realized in actual life.

 

Successful polyamorous unions are grounded in greater material affluence, linked to a personal commitment sustained through informal but ongoing conversations. In effect, polyamorous unions functions as ad-hoc therapeutic groups when three or more individuals gather to discuss their relationship with each other and the benefits of their mutual love. Significantly, the issue of reproduction and care for offspring is not a matter of contention for sustaining most polygamous unions. In a polygamous family, each wife is primarily focused on providing care for her offspring. Plural wives do not have the opportunity to engage in regular in-depth conversations with family members. For most of them, focusing on their natal family is the primary way in which they organize their time and thus their relationship with their children and their husband.

 

Given the polygamous proclivity to form exclusive dyadic bonds, we are left with a critical question: can contemporary polygamous families endure over time? Their success will depend to a large extent on whether their members can uphold another equally salient and very human capability: sustaining a commitment to a cosmologically inspired ideal that says plural love is superior to monogamous love. This presents something of a paradox; humans are both a pair-bond species that desires to form dyadic unions, even when these are not culturally sanctioned, and one that shows an adaptive cognitive capacity to create alternative ways of living. (pp. 275-76)

 

 

Ross Hassig on an Aztec Army Trekking 1,900 km and Porters Carrying 50 pounds or more of equipment

 

Building on his recent consolidation of the Huaxyacac area, Ahuitzotl directed his next major campaign into the Tecuantepec region around 1497. It was ostensibly precipitated by the murder of merchants from Tenochtitlan, Acolhuacan, Cuauhtitlan, Toltitlan, and the Tepanec towns, as well as Tenanyocan, Cuetlachtepec, Xochi-milco, Cuitlahuac, Mizquic, and Chaleo. These southern coastal lands had been at least partially conquered before, but they were difficult to secure because they were so far from Tenochtitlan. In an effort to quell future rebellions Ahuitzotl resolved not only to retaliate but also to make a major demonstration of power: he would kill 2,000 people for every merchant who had been killed.

 

An army was raised in eight days by drawing soldiers from the basin of Mexico and areas to the west, north, and east. The army was told to kill everyone, adult or child, because it would be too far to take captives back to Tenochtitlan, but 1,200 captives were brought back from Tlacuilollan.

 

The Aztec army conquered Miahuatlan and Izhuatlan . . . and then, with guides from these cities, headed to Max-tlan ( Amaxtlan) and Tecuantepec. Also conquered in this campaign were the towns of Xochitlan (Izquixochitlan, Xochtlan), Tlacuilollan, Chiltepec, Apanecan, and Acapetlahuacan. Amextloapan, Nacaz-cuauhtlan (Cuauhnacaztitlan), and Quetzalcuitlapilco (Quetzalcui- tlapillan) were also conquered, apparently capitulating on the demonstration of Ahuitzotl's superiority. The entire trek covered 1,900 kilometers (1,200 miles), requiring 59 to 99 days, exclusive of days needed for combat, rest, and regrouping. However, only 300 kilometers (190 miles) of that trek extended beyond the area of previous logistical support, requiring a round trip in that portion of 9 to 16 days.

 

On the army's return messengers were sent ahead, partly to notify local lords of its approach and ensure a proper reception. But the primary purpose of the messages was to spread the news of the army's success and compel the local rulers to acknowledge their allegiance. The leaders' only alternative was to revolt openly, but both the speed with which the Aztecs would appear and their new campaign success doomed that option. (Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control [Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988], 215, 217, emphasis added)

 

 

   Elsewhere, we read that:

 

Weapons, armor, and shelter were necessary for a major campaign, but food (yaoihtacatl, war victuals) was the greatest logistical barrier on distant and lengthy campaigns. The records are silent on the actual quantities of food consumed on a campaign, but reasonable conjecture can shed light on the matter. Sixteenth-century records of Indian food consumption place daily adult male rates at around 3,800 calories (approximately .95 kg. or 2.1 lb. of maize).

 

Under normal transport conditions, each porter carried an average load of two arrobas (23 kg. or 50 lb.) per day. And while war would demand that loads be heavier, military conditions limited their size. Because the porters had to carry their burden day after day for the duration of the campaign, the size of their load was limited. They nevertheless provided the army with considerable logistical support through sheer numbers. In the war against Coaixtlahuacan, for example, the Aztec army numbered 200,000 warriors and 100,000 porters, an average of 1 porter for every 2 warriors, or an additional fifty pounds of supplies for every 3 men (2 warriors and 1 porter). Nevertheless, this porter-to-warrior ratio and the above consumption rates meant that the army could travel only eight days if all the porters' loads were dedicated to food (which they were not). (Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control [Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988], 63-64)

 

Ross Hassig on the use of Spies During Warfare among the Aztecs

 

Spies

 

For tactical intelligence formal spies were employed. Once war had been decided on but before mobilization, spies (quimichtin, literally, mice; sing, quimichin) were sent into enemy territory dressed like the foes and speaking their language, but they traveled at night and tried to remain hidden. Their job was to observe the enemy's fortifications, army, preparations, and so forth. They also sought out the dissidents present in virtually every land and paid them for information. Maps were then drawn of the territory to be crossed, and obstacles such as rivers were marked.

 

The use of spies was a two-edged sword, however, and Tenochtitlan was also penetrated by disguised enemies, foreign merchants, disgruntled "allies," and domestic traitors. If enemy spies or local informers were discovered, they were tom apart, and their families were enslaved. The same fate awaited Aztec spies who fell into enemy hands, so spies were well compensated (usually with land) for the danger of their work. But plans could not be kept secret forever, particularly once mobilization had begun. (Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control [Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988], 51-52)

 

Ross Hassig on Merchants among the Aztecs

 

Merchants

 

General information could be gleaned from many sources, including returning troops and travelers, but perhaps the most useful and organized conduits of general intelligence were the merchants.

 

The pochtecah (merchants; sing, pochtecatl)8 traded in a wide range of commodities throughout a vast geographical expanse. Not only did they travel throughout the Aztec Empire, they also went beyond it to trade with independent groups owing no allegiance to Tenochtitlan. In both areas the merchants brought back specific information for the state as well as general assessments of the local political climate, based on the way they had been received.

 

Much of the merchants' intelligence gathering was incidental to their primary trading functions, but they were sometimes given intelligence duties to perform for the state. King Ahuitzotl ordered merchants to penetrate the lands of Anahuac, ostensibly to trade but actually to reconnoiter. On at least some occasions when entering hostile areas beyond the Aztec Empire, the merchants disguised

 

themselves as natives of other areas, cutting their hair in the local manner and learning the language, because if they had been discovered, they would have been killed.

 

As noted, killing a merchant was a just cause of war in Meso- america, and such incidents initiated many wars. The merchants often acted as provocateurs. By demanding to trade or requesting materials for some domestic or religious purpose, they left independent cities little alternative but to expel or kill them or to become subjects of the Aztecs.

 

On other occasions the merchants passed through enemy lands armed with shields and swords, as if prepared for war. They met with some success when battle was thrust upon them and were rewarded by the king in the same manner as valiant warriors. If the merchants were openly attacked or were besieged, the king sent warriors to their aid. Although flight was not honored among warriors, it was rewarded among merchants because of the emphasis on obtaining their information.

 

The importance of the merchants’ intelligence functions increased as the empire expanded, because the time required to learn of an offense and for the army to respond increased. Consequently, rebellions and, more importantly, invasions or hostile actions by other polities could not be met in a timely manner without advance knowledge. An unanticipated attack might attain its objective before the Aztecs could muster their army and march to the defense. Though small rebellions and enemy intrusions were expected in a hegemonic system, large thrusts or massive rebellions could not be tolerated or allowed to gain momentum. Only warnings could stem such a tide, and providing them was perhaps the merchants’ most significant role in state activities. Thus the immediacy and force with which the Aztecs retaliated for the killing of their merchants had less to do with the value placed on their persons than on the need for their information. Moreover, a region where merchants were killed or excluded was a blind spot and a danger to the empire. (Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control [Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988], 49-50)

 

James E. Talmage on The Meaning of Power of Godliness

 

Meaning of Power of Godliness

 

The power of godliness is the authority to officiate in the name of God. It is the Holy Priesthood which had been denied because it was not then operative upon the earth. In accordance with the predictions of old the world had been left for centuries without the ministry of the priesthood, and without its saving authority; but also in accordance with prediction the priesthood was to be restored, and has been restored, and only through the power of that priesthood can any ordinances be administered upon the earth that can possibly be even conceived of as valid beyond the grave. The Lord has been particularly plain, explicit and simple in His explanation of that principle. In a revelation given in July, 1843, relating to this restored Church of Jesus Christ, and to the authority of the Holy Priesthood operative therein. (James E. Talmage, The Philosophical basis of “Mormonism”: An Address Delivered By Invitation Before the Congress of Religious Philosophies Held in Connection with the Panama-pacific International Exposition, July 29, 1915, p. 43)

 

Grant Underwood on JST Romans 4

  

In LDS theology, salvation in an eschatological sense requires that works of Christian discipleship not be separated from Christian faith, and Smith emended the New Testament accordingly where this seemed to be in question. Thus Romans 4:16—“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace”—is modified to read: “Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace.” (NTOB, 483, emphasis added) Earlier in Romans 4, Smith believed Paul had Jewish law (halakhah) rather than Christian discipleship in mind when he wrote of “works” and their salvific insufficiency. He replaced each instance of “works” or its cognates in verses 2-6 with “the law of works.” (NTOB, 483) This coincides with the soteriological contrast between the ”law of Moses” and faith in Christ set forth in Romans 3:28 where Paul avers that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” or, as the NRSV renders it, “apart from works prescribed by the law.” On the other hand, Smith made quite clear his view that Christ-prescribed works, as fruits of the Spirit, were inextricable from saving faith. He even intensified this affirmation in the book of James. To the famous line “faith without works is dead,” Smith added “and cannot save you.” Then, he reinforced the idea by an additional sentence addressed to James’s imagined, interlocutor who considered belief sufficient for salvation: “Thou hast made thyself like unto them [the devils], not being justified.” (NTOB, 549) These changes suggest that Joseph Smith believed that an unadulterated Bible would have taught justification by faith, but not by faith alone. (Grant Underwood, “Joseph Smith’s ‘New Translation’ of the Bible,” in The Bible and the Latter-day Saint Tradition, ed. Taylor G. Petrey, Cory Crawford, and Eric A. Eliason [Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2023], 57-58)

 

Further Reading:

 

Kevin L. Barney, “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 JST

James E. Talmage on Jesus

 

 

No other man has lived without sin, and therefore wholly free from the domination of Satan. Jesus Christ was the one Being to whom death, the natural wage of sin, he was not due. Christ’s sinlessness rendered Him eligible as the subject of the atoning sacrifice whereby propitiation could be made for the sins of all men.

 

No other man has possessed the power to hold death in abeyance and to die only as he willed so to do. We accept in their literalness and simplicity with the scriptural declarations to the effect that Jesus Christ possessed within Himself power over death. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” we read (John 5:26); and again “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:17, 18).

 

This unique condition was the natural heritage of Jesus the Christ. He being in His embodied state the Son of a mortal mother and of an immortal Sire. No mortal man was His father. Form May He inherited the attributes of a mortal being, including the capacity to die; from His immortal Father he derived the power to live in the flesh indefinitely, immune to death except as He submitted voluntarily thereto. (James E. Talmage, The Philosophical basis of “Mormonism”: An Address Delivered By Invitation Before the Congress of Religious Philosophies Held in Connection with the Panama-pacific International Exposition, July 29, 1915, p. 13)

 

The Contingent Nature of the Canadian Copyright Revelation

In a revelation received in early 1830, we read the following contingent promise:

Behold I say unto you that I have covenanted & it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the <Copy> right & they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto me Salvation through mine only Begotten Behold I am God I have spoken it & it is expedient in me Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go to Kingston seeking me continually through mine only Begotten & if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me & I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell <a copyright> through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation & or to their salvation

Hiram Page, one of the people named in the revelation above, in his February 2, 1848, letter to William E. McLellin, understood that this promise was contingent:

 

... when Joseph was first visited by the angel and had the promise of the plates, it was told him no one should have them to get gain and in concequence of not being satisfied with wisdom from on high by the mouth of the angel he was deprived of the privilege of obtaining those plates for years. here we find Joseph erred by his over anxious desire for filthy lucre, again we find in conciquence of the same causfe] he lost the 116 pages of the first of his translating, he did not think of the Savors admonition; take no thought what ye shall eat or drink, See Matt 6:25. This was an error in him althofugh] it was a permit [was permitted] by revelation as also that of going to Canada.5 here it may be necesary to look at the way and manor in which revelation [s] are received, it was said to Oliver that he should not seek for riches of this world but for wisdom (book of commandments 5—3) [D&C 6:6-7] the same was said to Hyram Smith [D&C 11:7]; it was said to Joseph that in temporal labor thou shalt not have strength[,] for this is not thy calling; (B.C. 25—14) [D&C 24:9] we see that he was not to medle with temporal afairs except being steward over his own; for the church was to provide for him for food, for rament for shoes, &c. his calling was not to act in temporal labor; but we find a degression from this in the case of the Canada affair

 

Joseph he[a]rd that there was a chance to sell a copyright in Canada for any useful book that was used in the Statesf.] Joseph thought this would be a good opertunity to get a handsomfe] Sum of money which was to be (after the expencis were taken out) for the exclusive benefit of the Smith family and was to be at the disposal of Joseph[.] accordingly Oliver Cowdery[.] Joseph Knights, Hiram Page and Joseah Stoel [Josiah Stowell] were chosen (as I understood by revilation) to do the buisaness; we were living some 30 to 100 miles apart[.] the necesary preporation was made (by them) in a Sly manor So as to keep martin Har[r]is from drawing a Share of the money, it was told me we were to go by revilation but when we assembled at father Smiths; there was no revilation for us to go but we were all anctious to get a revilation to go; and when it came we were to go to kingston where we were to Sell if they would not harden their hearts; but when we got their; there was no purcheser neither were they authorized at kingston to buy rights for the provence; but little york was the place where Such buisaness had to be done; we were to get 8,000 dollars[.] we were treated with the best of respects by all we met with in kingston—by the above we may See learn how a revilation may be rece[i]ved and the one person receiving it not be benefited. (Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003], 5:257-59)

 

The view that this revelation was a "failure" (alt. false prophecy) comes much later. William E. McCllelin, who, unlike Page, had no firsthand knowledge of the event, wrote to Joseph Smith III on July 1872. He wrote that:

 

Joseph had a revelation for Oliver and friends to go to Canada to get a copy-right secured in that Dominion to the Book of Mormon. It proved so false that he never would have it recorded, printed or published. I have seen and read a copy of it, so that I know it existed. So do all those connected with him at the time. (EMD 5:328)

 

This would be repeated by J. L. Traughber in 1881:

 

Poor old Martin [Harris] intended to pay [for the printing of the Book of Mormon] all the time, but as he would have to sell his farm to do so, he wanted the best price he could get, so he held on and would not sell just as soon as Joe wanted him to. Early in 1830, while matters stood thus, Joe delivered a whooping big revelation directing Oliver Cowdery3 and Hiram Page to go over into Kingston, Canada, and sell a copyright under that Dominion, and thus get money to pay the printer and let Martin go—be independent of him. The revelation promised them success, and all that sort of stuff. Well, the boys went over on the ice and as they had not money enough to bear their expenses, came back nearly starved, completely wearied, with no money nor copyright sold either. (EMD 5:333-34)

 

David Whitmer, near the end of his life, wrote the following about this event:

  

When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm, in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin Harris was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice. Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue. He was wrong in thus judging Bro. Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land. Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble ; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know why it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord. This was a lesson for our benefit and we should have profited by it in future more than we did. Without much explanation you can see the error of Hyrum Smith in thinking evil of Martin Harris without a cause, and desiring to leave him out in the publication of the Book ; and also the error of Brother Joseph in listening to the persuasions of men and enquiring of the Lord to see if they might not go to Toronto to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon, when it was made known to Brother Joseph that the will of the Lord was to have Martin Harris raise the money. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ [Richmond, Miss.: David Whitmer, 1887], 30-31, italics in original)

 

While later reports indicate this revelation was a false prophecy or even diabolical in origin, Hiram Smith’s 1848 letter, only rediscovered in recent years, shows that it was understood to have been a contingent promise. This is why B. H. Roberts (who I am a fan of), basing his comments on Whitmer’s 1887 book, wrote the following about this event (taken from vol. 1 of Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):

 

In the text of this chapter, attention is called to the fact that our knowledge of the "Toronto Journey Incident" rests chiefly upon the testimony of David Whitmer, and the possibility is suggested of his misapprehending some detail of the matter, which might, if accurately known, put the incident in an entirely new light. That, however, is but conjecture; and while the possibility and even probability of misapprehension by Whitmer is great, still the incident must be considered as it is presented by him, since his testimony may not be set aside.

In that view of the case we have here an alleged revelation received by the Prophet, through the "Seer Stone," directing or allowing men to go on a mission to Canada, which fails of its purpose; namely, the sale of the copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada. Then in explanation of the failure of that revelation, the Prophet's announcement that all revelations are not of God; some are of men and some even from evil sources. The question presented by this state of facts is: May this Toronto incident and the Prophet's explanation be accepted and faith still be maintained in him as an inspired man, a Prophet of God? I answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative. The revelation respecting the Toronto journey was not of God, surely; else it would not have failed; but the Prophet, overwrought in his deep anxiety for the progress of the work, saw reflected in the "Seer Stone" his own thought, or that suggested to him by his brother Hyrum, rather than the thought of God. Three things are to be taken into account in all mental phenomenon, at least by theists, and especially by Christian theists. One is the fact that the mind of man is an intelligent entity, capable of thought, of originating ideas; conscious of self and of not self; capable of deliberation and of judgment—in a word, man is a self-determining intelligence. But while man is all this, and has power to will and to do things of himself, still he is also susceptible to suggestion; to suggestions from his associates, and all Christians believe, susceptible to suggestion and impressions from God through the Holy Spirit: "There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8); and to those who believe in the Bible account of the fallen angels—"who kept not their first estate" (Jude 6, 9; also II Peter 2:4); and whose chieftain, satan, "deceiveth the whole world," (Rev. xii 7-10); to those it is not incredible that these reprobate spirits also at times should, by thought-power, make evil suggestions to the mind of man. These are the principles recognized in the answer—"some revelations are of God; some revelations are of men; and some revelations are of the devil"—of Joseph Smith to his questioning disciples; and in this instance of the Toronto journey, Joseph was evidently not directed by the inspiration of the Lord. Does that circumstance vitiate his claim as a prophet? No; the fact remains that despite this circumstance there exists a long list of events to be dealt with which will establish the fact of divine inspiration operating upon the mind of this man Joseph Smith. The wisdom frequently displayed, the knowledge revealed, the predicted events and the fulfilment thereof, are explicable upon no other theory than of divine inspiration giving guidance to him.

Then there must be taken into account the probable purpose of God in permitting the Toronto misadventure, the lesson he would teach through it. How important for the Prophet's disciples to know that not every voice heard by the spirit of man is the voice of God; that not every impression made upon the mind is an impression from a divine source. There are other influences in this God's world than divine influences. There are men-originated influences, and even satanic influences, as well as divine influences. It was important that these disciples be made aware of these facts, that they may not stumble in matters of grave concerns. How impressive the object lesson in this Toronto journey incident! The matter of the journey itself, and its object, were of small importance, but the lesson that came out of the experience was of great moment. It concerned the Prophet as well as his followers to learn that lesson. It is to the Prophet's credit that he submitted the matter to God for the solution. It is doubly to his credit that he boldly gave the answer received to his disciples, though it involved humiliation to him. But one will say, what becomes of certainty even in matters of revelation and divine inspiration if such views as these are to obtain? The answer is that absolute certainty, except as to fundamental things, the great things that concern man's salvation, may not be expected. Here, indeed, that is, in things fundamental, we have the right to expect the solid rock, not shifting sands, and God gives that certainty. But in matters that do not involve fundamentals, in matters that involve only questions of administration and policy, the way in which God's servants go about things; in all such matters we may expect more or less of uncertainty, even errors; manifestations of unwisdom, growing out of human limitations. Would absolute certainty be desirable? "Know ye not that we walk by faith, not by sight," is Paul's statement. From which I infer that this very uncertainty in the midst of which we walk by faith, is the very means of our education. What mere automatons men would become if they found truth machine-made, of cast-iron stiffness, and limited, that is to say, finite, instead of being as we now find it, infinite and elusive, and attainable only by the exertion of every power known to mind and heart of man, with constant alertness to ward off deception and mistake!

 

One final question that arises is why would Joseph Smith seek to secure a copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada? As we read in the article by Scripture Central, “Why Did Joseph Smith Attempt to Secure the Book of Mormon Copyright in Canada?:

 

The purpose for securing and selling a copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada­—rather than the copyright (a subtle but important legal distinction)—was to ensure that if the book were to be republished outside the United States, Joseph Smith, as the legally designated “author and proprietor,” would retain the legal intellectual property in the book and receive appropriate monetary compensation from sales. “Because a popular book [in the early nineteenth century] was usually reprinted in other countries without authorization at any rate in absence of international copyright laws,” selling a copyright to the Book of Mormon for the four provinces of Canada would have “hastened the printing and distribution of the book in that part of the British Empire.”

 

 Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Hugh Nibley, Joseph Fielding Smith, and LeGrand Richards on Jesus' Martial Status and if He was a Polygamist

The following is taken from:

 

Morris L. Reynolds, An Investigator’s Dilemma (Burley, Idaho: Morris L. Reynolds, n.d.), [6-7]

 

My fifth question was addressed to Hugh Nibley, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Le Grand Richards. I asked them, “Was Jesus a polygamist?” I received the following answers:

 

Hugh Nibley:

“5. Before deciding whether Jesus was a polygamist we would have to know whether he was married. If he was that information has been withheld. Some of the recently discovered early Christian writings from Egypt imply very clearly that he was married, but of course, they don’t prove it, since their authority has yet to be determined. I know of no official teaching of the church to the effect that Jesus was a polygamist. There are all sorts of things we do not know about Jesus, and this is one of them.”

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:

“Your fourth question: ‘Was Jesus a polygamist?’ There is no reference whatever to Jesus being married in the New Testament.”

 

Le Grand Richards:

“Your fifth question: ‘Was Jesus a polygamist?’ We believe in four standard Church works---the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price, and we have no revelations from the Lord to indicate that Jesus was either married or a polygamist.” “ . . . but as far as the church is concerned it does not teach that Jesus was married, or that he was a polygamist.”

 

Grant Underwood on the High Christology of the JST

  

Smith’s high Christology is apparent in a number of New Testament revisions and additions. When considering the young Jesus, Joseph Smith adds these words to the end of Matthew 2: “And it came to pass that Jesus grew up with his brethren and waxed strong and waited upon the Lord for the time of his ministry to come and he served under his father and he sape not as other men neither could be taught for he needed not that any man should teach him and after many years the hour of his ministry drew night.” (NTOB, 162-63 [compare 239]) Smith also revises passages to emphasize Christ’s earthly omniscience. For example, he emends the account of young Jesus “sitting in the midst of the doctors [in the temple], both hearing them, and asking the questions” (Luke 2:46) to read “sitting in the midst of the Doctrines, and they were hearing him, and asking him questions.” (NTOB, 371-72, emphasis added) Even so minor a matter as the account of Jesus “seeing a fig tree afar off” on his way from Bethany to Jerusalem and approaching it “if haply he might find any thing thereon” (Mark 11:13), was modified to preserve Jesus’ omniscience; Jesus “came to [the three] with his disciples; and as they supposed,, he came to see if he might find any thing thereon.” (NTOB, 342, emphasis added) (Grant Understood, “Joseph Smith’s ‘New Translation’ of the Bible,” in The Bible and the Latter-day Saint Tradition, ed. Taylor G. Petrey, Cory Crawford, and Eric A. Eliason [Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2023], 57)

 

Luman Shurtliff, Orson Pratt, and Lyman Wight's Recollection of Joseph Smith Believing the Saints Would Move to the Rocky Mountains

The following comes from:

 

Duane S. Crowther, "A Study of Eschatological Prophecies Found in the Scriptures and in the Works of General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," (M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1960), 18-19:

 

Luman Shurtliff, upon his arrival in the Great Basin in 1851, also made it clear that the Prophet had definitely contemplated a western exodus:

 

We got into the Salt Lake Valley, September 23, 1851, thankful to the God of Heaven that I and my family were in the valley of the Rocky Mountains—here where the Prophet Joseph Smith had said thirteen years before [in 1838] that the Saints would go if the government did not put a stop to the mobbing and the persecution of them. (“Biographical Sketch of the Life of Luman Andros Shurtliff,” 1807-1864, under date)

 

Orson Pratt also testified that the Prophet had anticipated the exodus long before it transpired. In a public meeting held on April 26, 1846, in the early days of the exodus, he stated:

 

It is eight years today since we all came out of Missouri. Before that time Joseph the Prophet had this move in contemplation and always said that we would send a company of young men to explore the country and return before the families can go over the mountains; and it is decidedly my mind to do so. (“Diary of John D. Lee, 1844, 1846, 1850-1851,” under date above)

 

His testimony was corroborated by Lyman Wight, who stated in a letter to Wilford woodruff that “such a mission was even talked of while in [Liberty] Jail.” (Letter written by Lyman Wight to Wilford Woodruff, dated August 24, 1857)

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

 

Joseph Smith's March 10, 1844 Discourse Concerning William Miller and the Parousia

Joseph Smith, in his discourse dated March 10, 1844, made comments about the Parousia (Second Coming) against William Miller and indicates he did not believe Christ would come until at least 1890/91:

Wilford Woodruff account:

But I take the responsibility upon myself to prophesy in the name of the Lord that Christ will not come this year as [William] Miller has prophecyed for we have seen the bow. And I also Prophecy in the name of the Lord that Christ will not come in forty years & if God ever spake by my mouth he will not come in that length of time & Jesus Christ never did reveal to any man the precise time that he would come go & read the scriptures & you cannot find any thing that specifies the exact he would come & all that say so are fals teachers Their are some important things concerning the office of the Mesiah in the organization of the worlds which I will speak of hereafter. May God Almighty bless you & pour out his spirit upon you is the prayer of your unworthy servant Amen

Thomas Bullock account:

the Rainbow is a sign for seed time and harvest when the Rainbow is not to be seen— it is a sign of the commencement of famine— & pestilence &c &c and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant the Messiah will not come this year— upsets Millerites the Messiah will not come for 40 years— and he told the people to write it— a very large & attentive congregation—

Willard Richards account:

The Savior will not come this year. <nor 40 year to come.>

The bow has been seen in the cloud & in that year that the bow is seen seed time and harvest will be. but when the bow ceases to be seen look out for a famine.

James Burgess account:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith in answer to a certain question Son of Man if you live untill you are 85 years of age you shall see the face of the Son of Man and so long as you see the rainbow stretching across the heavens there will be seed time and harvest and the Son of man will not come that year.

We find the following mathematical equation from Burgess on the same page:

Joseph Smith was born in the year

1805

85

1890

Further Reading:

Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91? (cf. Vern Grosvenor Swanson on the Eschatological Timetable of Joseph Smith's April 6, 1843 Discourse; Joseph Smith III (1832-1914) Not Believing Jesus Would Come in 1890/91)

Joseph Smith and Imputation

Discourse, March 7, 1844 , as reported by Willard Richards:

I <Joseph> presented to the meeting the proceedings of O[rsamus] F Bostwick. & the Lawyers &c.— for the people to speak out. say whether such men should be. tolerated. and supported in our midst.— and from this time I design to bring such characters before the committee of the whole.— and if these things cannot be put a stop to. I will give them in to the hands of the mob—— the hands of the officers of the <city> fauter [falter]. and are palsied— <y the conduct of such men.>

There is another I will speak about he is a mormon.— a certain man. who lived here before we came here. the two first lette[r]s of his name is are Hiram Kimball—— when the city had passd an ordnanc [ordinance] to tax steam boats. He goes and tells th[e] captains of the steam boats that he owned the landing. and they need need not to pax [pay] tax— and I am determnd to use up such men if they will not stop their oppositi[o]n If this is not true. Let him come forward & throw of[f] the inputation [imputation].— when they people appeal to carthage I will appeal to this people— the highest court— I despise the La[w]yers who ha[n]g on these law suits.—

This shows that Joseph did know the term/concept of "imputation," and it is significant he never used it in his revelations or translations.

Further Reading:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Lyman O. Littlefiend, February 16, 1844 on Joseph Smith and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

Lyman O. Littlefield, Letter to Joseph Smith, February 16, 1844, p. 2:

I have learned that to Joseph Smith have been committed the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which are not to be taken away in this world or in the world to come.

Joseph Smith's May 12, 1844 Discourse and Resurrected Bodies Lacking Blood

 In George Laub’s account of Joseph’s May 12, 1844 discourse, we read:

as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, all shall be raised from the dead— the Lamb of God hath brought to pass the resurrection so that all shall rise from the dead— God Almighty himself dwells in Eternal fire, flesh and blood cannot go there, all corruption is devoured by the fire— our God is a consuming fire— when our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood

In Thomas Bullock’s account of Joseph’s May 12, 1844 discourse, we read:

Concerning Resurection

Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god or the kingdom that god inhabits But the flesh without the blood and the spirit of god flowing in the veins in the stead of the blood for blood is the part of the body that causes corruption therefore we must be changd in the twinkling of an Eye or have to lay down these tabernacles and leave the blood vanish away therefore Jesus Christ left his blood to atone for the sins of the world that he might asend into the presents of the father for god dwels in flaming flames and he is a consuming fire he will consume all that is uncleen and unholy and we could not abide his presents unless pure spirits in us. for the Blood is the corruptible part of the tabernacles—— for the resurection of the dead is devised to take away coruption and make man perfect or in the glory which he was created for the body is sowen in coruption and raised in Incoruption then we will be able to goe in the presents of god

Joseph Smith's May 12, 1844 Discourse and Revelation 14:6-7

 Joseph Smith, Discourse, May 12, 1844 (as reported by Thomas Bullock):

John the Revelator saw an angel flying thro’ the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, &c. the Scripture is ready to be fulfilled when great wars, famines, pestilence, judgments &c are ready to be poured out on the Inhabitants of the Earth— John saw the angel having the priesthood who should preach— God had an angel, ordained, & prepared for the that purpose in the last days— Woe! Woe! be to that man, or set of men, who lift up their hands against God and his Witness in these last days—— for they shall deceive almost the very chosen ones

In George Laub’s account of Joseph’s May 12, 1844 discourse, we read:

Nauvoo By Joseph Smith Prophet Concerning gods Witness

14 chapter of revelations of John 6–7 verses & the Original translation Reads thus and I will send you a nother witness and he shall preach this gospel to all nations to the Ends of the world. But woe to that man or woman who shall lift up his or their hands against gods witness for the[y] are rasing their arm against the power of god and the[y] will be cursed. But in these times in the last days there will many fals Prophets arise and fals teachers and deceave many the[y] shall have many followers by their deceit. the[y] strive to get power and by their pernitious ways lead of[f] many— For Brother Joseph Smith was chosen for the Last despensation or seventh Despensation the time the grand council set in heaven to organise this world Joseph was chosen for the Last and greatest Prophet to Lay the foundation of gods work therefore the Jews asked John the Baptist if he was Elias or Jesus or that great prophet that was to come—— and the devil or lucifer also organised his kingdom in oposit to overthrow gods and he Became a sun [son] of perdition . . .  Brother Joseph Smith was sent to remind the world of sin of rituousness and of a judgment that was to come But this is that of what John says in his 14th. chapter but he says of sin of rituousne [righteousness] and of a judgment to come to reprove the world. this is rong Translated for to remind is correct way Concerning thos[e] who here the gospe[l] Now concerning these who know the gospel and do not obey But fight against it will be shut up in prison under condemnation and shall not be visited till many days hence. Isaiah 24 ch. then some person has to redeem them By making a forfit of some payment for them. &

Such shows that Joseph believed that Rev 14:6-7 was not limited to merely Moroni and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. For more, see:

Defending the Latter-day Saint Interpretation of Revelation 14:6-7