Back to Table of Contents

CHAPTER VI

THE PLANO YEARS: 1866-1881

Early in January 1866, Joseph, Emaline, and their four children arrived in
Plano. After moving into their new home, purchased for them by Bishop Israel L.
Rogers, Joseph took up his new routine as editor-in-chief of the Herald. He was
embarking on duties which would occupy the better part of his adult life.¹

Not long after their arrival, Emaline became homesick. She took little
Joseph Arthur with her on a trip back to Nauvoo. As he saw them off on the
train, Joseph Smith III had a terrible premonition that he would never see mother
and son alive together again. His sense of foreboding came to pass. The following
week he received an urgent summons to Nauvoo. Making his way as quickly as he
could upon the transportation of that day, he arrived in Nauvoo on March 13th.
But he was too late. His infant son had passed away the previous day.

A funeral service was conducted for the infant in the dining room of the
Mansion House. An RLDS elder preached the sermon. Then the small body was
laid to rest in the family plot next to the Old Homestead.

Joseph's bereavement was bittersweet. Emaline greeted him with the
welcome news that she had been baptized into the RLDS Church shortly before
Joseph Arthur died. In his memoirs, Joseph recalled:

. . . because of some manifestations to herself, the nature of which she
never disclosed to me, my wife had received the ordinance of baptism at
the hands of my brother, David. This news was a great joy to me, and I
was happy to know she had at last joined me as a member of the church I
loved. I think she found great comfort in it, as well.

His wife's baptism was a great solace to Joseph, particularly since her health
began to decline seriously about this time. They remained in Nauvoo for a while,
visiting friends and relatives.²

During Joseph Smith Ill's absence in Nauvoo, an important caller came
looking for him. On March 22nd, General P. Edward Connor stopped in Plano on
his way east, hoping to visit the RLDS president.³

First Visit to Washington, D.C.

Connor had developed strong opinions about Mormonism during his stay in
Utah.⁴ He disliked polygamy and the rule of the Mormon hierarchy. During his
command in Utah, he had encouraged the development of the territory's mineral
wealth—an idea which Brigham Young opposed—hoping that profitable mines
would attract an influx of Gentiles, and that this in turn would undermine the
political and social domination of the Mormon hierarchy.⁵ He outlined his views
in a letter to Lt. Colonel R. C. Drum in 1863:

Entertaining the opinion that Mormonism, as preached and practiced
in this Territory, is not only subversive of morals, in conflict with the
civilization of the present age, and oppressive on the people, but also
deeply and boldly in contravention of the laws and best interests of the
nation, I have sought, by every proper means in my power, to arrest its
progress and prevent its spread. As a question for the civilian, I can
conceive of but two ways of striking at its root and annihilating its
baneful influence. The one, by an adequate military force, acting under
martial law and punishing, with a strong hand, every infraction of law or
loyalty; the other, by inviting into the Territory large numbers of
Gentiles to live among and dwell with the people. The former, I am
aware, is at the present time impracticable, even though it were deemed
advisable. The latter, if practicable, is perhaps, in any event, the wiser
course. With these remarks I desire to inform the Department
Commander that I have considered the discovery of gold, silver, and
other valuable minerals in the Territory of the highest importance . . . .⁶

Connor favored a multi-faceted assault upon the Mormon hierarchy's
power, utilizing political, military, economic, social, and religious tactics. He had
lent his protection to RLDS missionaries and saw in the RLDS Church a weapon to
be used against Brigham Young.⁷ He particularly hoped that David H. Smith
might be sent on a mission to Utah, since he was aware of Brigham Young's
statements that David someday would lead the church. Connor hoped that a "son
of the prophet" could detach the loyalty of the Mormon populace from the
hierarchy. His hopes were no secret. On February 28, 1866, Joseph F. Smith
wrote contemptuously of Connor's plan:

I understand that Gen. Conner has gon to Washington to favor, if possible
the plan, of getting Cousin David out here with a vew to break down the
power & influence of Prest. Young and in that way abolish polygamy.
Whew! what a Coup-d'tat!! don't we "mormons" quake!⁸

Connor proceeded on to Washington, where he canvassed the Mormon
question with prominent members of the federal government. Afterwards, he
wrote to Joseph Smith III, informing him that some of them favored the idea that
Joseph go to Utah. He related that Joseph, David H. Smith, and E. C. Briggs were
likely to be summoned to appear before the House Committee on Territories. He
also requested copies of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald, particularly those
containing extracts of Brigham Young's sermons. He planned to use the extracts
to demonstrate his twin complaints of Mormon disloyalty and continued practice
of polygamy. He concluded by stating that he would not return west for some
weeks, and inquired if Joseph would be willing to join him.⁹

Connor's strategy aroused the interest of at least one powerful
congressman. James M. Ashley of Ohio was a leading radical Republican.¹⁰ As
chairman of the House Committee on Territories, he was in a position to initiate
legislation aimed at eliminating the "twin relic of barbarism" in the Territory of
Utah. On May 10th, Ashley wrote to Joseph Smith III, summoning him to
Washington to testify to the committee.¹¹

The RLDS president left Plano on May 30th and arrived in the nation's
capital on June 2nd. He was unable to see Representative Ashley immediately,
due to the chairman's being out of town on vacation. Joseph took the opportunity
to do some sightseeing. He watched both Houses of Congress conduct their
business. He was favorably impressed with the progress of the Negroes he
observed and concluded that they would make rapid educational and social
advances if given the opportunity.¹²

On June 6th he was able to talk with Ashley for the first time. Ashley
informed Joseph that he wished to enact legislation which would end the practice
of polygamy in Utah. After some general discussion of the situation, he posed the
question which underlaid his calling Joseph Smith III to Washington:

"Mr. Smith, what legislation would you, from your knowledge of the
situation, recommend to congress for enactment?"

He offered Joseph time to think about the matter and requested his answer
in writing. Several more such interviews took place during the following week.
Finally he had Joseph write out his testimony, in the form of answers to fifteen
questions. Rep. Ashley urged Joseph to suggest specific legislative enactments
aimed at Mormon polygamy, but Joseph's objectives were different than the
congressman's. Ashley desired to crush Mormon polygamy. Joseph Smith III
desired to see the demise of polygamy, but he also sought to dissociate "primitive
Mormonism" from contemporary Mormon practice and to ensure that any Anti-
Mormon legislation was not so loosely drawn as to include the Reorganized
Church.¹³ He was embarking on the first of a long series of ventures in public
relations. He sought, by his testimony, to create a distinction in the mind of
Congress and the public between pristine Latter Day Saint faith and practice
under his father (and under himself) and the apostacy and wickedness prevailing
under Brigham Young. Joseph Smith II! never appeared before the committee
proper; Ashley conveyed his testimony in written form.¹⁴

In reply to the question, "On the death of your father, who, under the rules
prescribed in the Mormon book of Doctrine and Covenants, became his
constitutional successor?," he answered: "His eldest son." He went on to explain
that the Twelve Apostles had been the next ranking quorum in the church, after
the First Presidency, and that most members of the church had aquiesced in their
leadership, since he himself had been a minor, "upon the declaration publicly
made, that such right was exercised by said quorum during the minority of 'young
Joseph Smith,' and with reference to his attaining to proper age, and the ultimate
reorganization of the first presidency in accordance with the rules of the book of
Doctrine and Covenants . . .." But, in 1847, Brigham Young was elected president
by a portion of the Saints, and he "thereupon assumed the right and attempted to
lead and control the whole church." However, not more than one-third of the
Saints ever followed Brighom Young to Utah, he estimated.

The most sensational part of his testimony was his repudiation of
polygamy. To the reading public, Mormonism and polygamy were practically
synonomous. But here was the prophet's son, not only denouncing polygamy as
morally wrong, but denying that it was any proper part of the Latter Day Saint
faith. He quoted extensively from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and
Covenants to show that both books "explicitly condemn and forbid" polygamy. For
the first time, he laid before the general public his belief that polygamy was an
innovation introduced under Brigham Young. The introduction of the doctrine of
polygamy and kindred teachings constituted "an apostacy" from primitive
Mormonism, he charged. Brigham Young and his close associates had apostatized
and led many innocent people astray. Joseph held out hope, however, that the
majority of Brigham Young's nominal followers—who had never entered into
polygamy—would abandon their theoretical allegiances if properly informed and if
"secured in the safety of their persons and property."

Besides arguing that Brigham Young had usurped the presidency of the
church and introduced polygamy, Joseph Smith III tried to establish another line of
demarcation between the RLDS Church and the Mormon Church. To the question
whether the church under his father or himself taught hostility to the government
of the United States, he replied:

The church under the presidency of my father did not teach hostility
to the government of the United States, as I have every reason to
believe. Neither does it now, under my presidency, so teach; but to the
contrary, we hold it to be a cardinal virtue to "be subject to the powers
that be." And furthermore, that it is our duty to uphold good men in
office; honoring magistrates and rulers as such; denouncing sedition and
strife as unbecoming to the Christian and punishable by legitimate
process of law.

He declined to answer the question whether the Mormon leaders in Utah taught
hostility to the government on grounds that he had no personal knowledge of the
subject. Nevertheless, the distinction was plain enough, especially when General
Connor testified that "Mormonism, in Utah, teaches disloyalty and treason to the
government as a practice enjoined by their religion."¹⁵

Joseph Smith III refused to recommend additional legislation aimed at the
Mormons of Utah. He maintained that all that was necessary was enforcement of
existing lows and protection of dissidents and non-Mormons. Additionally he
recommended removal of "such governmental appointees as have only strength
enough to suck the 'pap' patriarchal, and the appointment of such men as have had
no affiliation with treason and the evasion of the law . . . ." In his view, the
problem was not so much lack of legislation as failure to enforce federal
authority.

The Committee on Territories had been directed to investigate conditions
in Utah by two resolutions adopted in January 1866 and to make recommendations
whereby "this great and remaining barbarism of our age and country should be
swept (like its twin system—slavery) from the territories of the republic."¹⁶
However, after taking testimony, the committee was unable to agree on any plan
or legislation which would "promise a practical solution of the abuses and evils
complained of, and which are admitted to exist." The committee specifically
rejected the idea of dividing the territory and annexing the parts to surrounding
territories. However, the committee's report to the House was a damaging piece
of publicity for the Utah Church. It stated:

The testimony discloses the fact that the laws of the United States
are openly and defiantly violated throughout the Territory, and that an
armed force is necessary to preserve the peace and give security to the
lives and property of citizens of the United States residing therein.¹⁷

When Joseph Smith III left Washington on June llth, he could take
satisfaction in having accomplished—at least in part—his objectives in going
there. First and foremost, he had aimed to create a distinction in the eyes of the
public and Congress, between his church and Brigham Young's: the one true to
primitive Mormonism and the other apostate, the one led by a "true son of a true
father" and the other by a usurper, the one loyal and the other disloyal, the one
monogamous and the other polygamous. Second, he had sought to place the onus
of introducing polygamy upon Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, Jr. Third, he had
sought to prevent any enactments which might be so broadly constructed as to
include the RLDS Church within its proscriptions. Fourth, he had sought to steer
a middle course between the advocates of radically punitive measures and those
who would adopt a "hands-off" policy toward Utah.¹⁸ Fifth, he had desired to
show that Mormon polygamy was a social, not a religious evil. He reasoned that
polygamy was not properly a part of Mormonism, and therefore not subject to
protection as a religious principle, under the First Amendment.¹⁹

His trip to the nation's capital marked the opening shot in a lifelong
campaign to convince the public that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not the author of
polygamy. When the committee's report was issued, in July, Joseph Smith III
received some favorable publicity. For example, the Chicago Tribune's story of
July 27th cast Utah Mormonism in a highly unflattering light, but devoted a
favorable paragraph to the testimony of the son of the prophet:

Among the witnesses examined was Joseph Smith, the son of the
founder of the Mormon Church, who says the Book of Mormon explicitly
condemns and forbids polygamy, which was not known, acknowledged or
held as an article of faith until Brigham Young become the leader of that
part of the church which went west with him. The church did not, under
the presidency of his father, nor does it now under his (the witness')
presidency, teach hostility to the Government of the United States.²⁰

The Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures

One project which was on Joseph's mind, even before leaving for
Washington, D.C., was the "New Translation" of the Bible. At his death, Joseph
Smith, Jr. had left a revision of the Bible in manuscript. Although often referred
to as a "translation," the prophet did not employ conventional methods of
translating, since he could read neither Greek nor Hebrew. His method was to
read and study passages in the King James Version and then to indicate inspired
additions, deletions, or alterations to his scribes.²¹

When Emma Smith fled from Missouri—Joseph Smith, Jr. was imprisoned in
Liberty Jail at the time—she carried the manuscript in two cotton bags, fastened
to her waist and concealed under the folds of her dress. Thereafter she guarded
the manuscript as a sacred treasure. She adamantly refused to turn it over to
Brigham Young, prior to the exodus from Nauvoo, despite numerous requests that
she do so. She considered herself divinely appointed to protect the manuscript,
much as David Whitmer felt about the manuscript of the Book of Mormon.²²

The Saints had not forgotten the manuscript of Joseph Smith's translation
of the Bible. At the Annual Conference of 1866, the following resolutions were
adopted:

Resolved, That the church ought, as speedily as possible, to publish
the translation of the Scriptures made by Joseph Smith.

Resolved, That the time has arrived for the church to publish the
New Translation immediately.

It was also resolved that local leaders should solicit subscriptions and donations
for the work, that a committee should wait upon Emma Smith Bidamon
"respecting the relinquishment of the manuscripts of the New Translation of the
Scriptures, for the purpose of publishing the same to the church and to the world,
. . . that said committee be empowered to enter into and fulfill the contract for
the same," and that the printer's copy be engrossed so that the original might be
preserved.²³

When the appointed committee—Israel L. Rogers, William Marks, and
Ebenezer Robinson—called upon Emma Bidamon, they found her quite willing to
release it for publication. Accordingly, the church began soliciting subscriptions
and donations. This task occupied the rest of 1866. The RLDS Church was small.
To undertake publication of such a large work strained the church's financial
resources. Finally the church considered that it had a sufficient number of
pledges and cash to proceed with publication.

A second committee was entrusted with the work of preparing the printer's
manuscript. Joseph Smith III, Israel Rogers, Ebenezer Robinson, and W. W. Blair
began the laborious task on January 2, 1867. Despite a series of problems, not the
least of which was the complex task of correlating markings in the prophet's Bible
with the appropriate notations in the manuscript, the project was finally
completed.²⁴ Stereotyped plates were secured, and arrangements were made for
printing. At last, the tiny church presented to the world The Holy Scriptures,
Translated and Corrected by the Spirit of Revelation, by Joseph Smith, Jr., the
Seer.²⁵

Joseph felt that he had discharged a sacred obligation. The manuscript had
been entrusted to his mother by God, and at the proper time the family of the
prophet had brought it forth and presented it to the world. When the committee
began its work on the manuscript, in January 1867, he composed a lengthy poem
to his mother, entitled, "To the Elect Lady, on Her Faithful Care of the MSS. of
the New Translation," commending her for her faithful care of the documents. It
read, in part:

Our day has come, as raptured Enoch saw.
The visits of the Angels once again
Are had, to bring to earth the treasured word.
And thou, elect, art worthy found, to hold
These priceless treasures in a sacred trust;
To keep them safe for sore tried Israel's weal;
And bartered Judah's self-made wound to heal.

Hail, mother, hail. Thou best of mothers, hail!
For so, must greet thee Israel's children, blest ....

And when these pages with their truths sublime,
Are placed within the hands of Israel's host,
My father, smiling on his earthly son,
Will shout the victory over Death and Hell;
And pointing with his spirit hand to earth,
Will ask the Master, Is my crown now won,
Through faithful ministry, of wife and son?²⁶

Through most of 1867, the committee labored diligently at its task. It was
a large undertaking, occupying much of Joseph Smith Ill's time and thought. With
anticipation the Saints awaited the result: a perfect translation produced by the
power of God.²⁷ Isaac Sheen produced a series of articles for the True Latter
Day Saints' Herald, quoting from the work of the committee. He aimed to show
that Joseph Smith's translation was an improvement over the King James Version,
since it explained many difficulties and eliminated contradictions and absurdities.
At last, in the December 15, 1867 issue of the Herald, Joseph Smith III was able to
announce that the Herald Office had received the first shipment of the New
Testament (Inspired Translation).

The Inspired Version was seen as validating the ministry of the RLDS
Church. Joseph Smith III called the Holy Scriptures "the crowning mercy of God
unto us ... one of the strong testimonies in favor of the divinity of the latter day
work . . . ." ²⁸ The scriptures which had been entrusted to the prophet and his
wife had come forth at last. Joseph Smith, Jr. had proclaimed that the Saints
believed in the Bible "insofar as it is correctly translated." No other church in
Christendom possessed such a correct translation, one authenticated by divine
inspiration, not mortal scholarship. The Mormon Church employed the fallible
King James Version of the Bible, but the RLDS Church proclaimed the pure Word
of God: RLDS elders delighted to press home the distinction, to the
embarrassment of their Mormon counterparts.

The Utah Church felt the force of such arguments. Even before the
Inspired Translation had come off the press, Alexander H. Smith reported that
rumors were afoot that Joseph Smith III "was now changing the manuscript of the
New Translation." ²⁹ W. W. Blair encountered similar rumors soon after
publication, and indignantly denied them. He even quoted a verse from the
Doctrine and Covenants to prove that such alteration was impossible, because it
had been foretold that the translation would be "preserved in safety." Blair called
publication of the Holy Scriptures "one of the strongest of proofs that the
Reorganized church is the church of Christ." God had honored the Reorganization
by causing the New Translation to be brought forth by its auspices. No other
faction could make this claim:

The Brighamite, Rigdonite, Hedrickite, and all other churches, are
dependent on the Reorganized church for the New Translation.—God has
chosen that it should be the source, and its elders the ministry from
whence the fulness of the scriptures should go forth to all men, hence it
is the Lord's church, and its elders are the Lord's elders. ³⁰

Another tactic of the Mormon Church was to claim that the Reorganized
Church possessed a spurious copy of the New Translation. RLDS missionary
Thomas Job encountered this rumor in Southern Utah:

On this trip I first heard what 1 had been looking for for some time,
and that is, that the original manuscript of the Inspired translation of the
scriptures in in the possession of Brigham Young, and that it endorses
polygamy in the most clear manner. The genuine had to come out before
the spurious counterfeit could make its appearance. I heard Brigham
telling that the copy you have over there, had been through the hands of
the Gentiles. It is a fact that the Brighamites will not receive the
Inspired translation."³¹'

Later in 1868, Thomas Job reported additional moves taken to discredit the
Inspired Translation:

Brigham lately brought the Inspired Translation of the Scriptures, as
a present from you, into the School of the Prophets, and requested Orson
Pratt and George A. Smith to pass their verdict as to its merits, it [sic]
was compared with some extracts that they had before in the Pearl of
Great Price, and as it was not exactly worded the same, it was
pronounced spurious.

Your cousin Joseph was preaching in Provo last Sunday week, and he
said that the New Bible was pronounced spurious by the President of the
Church; and that you thought of making your fortune by the speculation;
that the imposition was intended to be palmed upon this people; that the
book has been examined, and does not agree with the original in their
possession; but this is nothing but what I expected, for it would not do to
be otherwise. Now this people is warned against the imposition, but I
find that the more they are warned, the greater is their anxiety for
seeing the book . . . .³²

During his visit to Salt Lake City in 1885, Joseph Smith III visited Orson
Pratt's widow, Sarah. She told him that her husband had been elated at first
seeing the Inspired Translation and had stated in public that the work was
accurate. Brigham Young summoned him to his office and demanded that he
retract his endorsement of the New Translation, which Pratt was compelled to do,
reluctantly and with embarrassment.³³

Up until recent times the LDS Church has refused to make official use of
the Inspired Translation, maintaining that the manuscript was never finished by
the prophet. After the death of Brigham Young, some overtures were made to the
RLDS Church to be allowed to compare the manuscript with the published version,
but the request was denied due to a dispute over the protocol to be observed in
such an inspection.³⁴

Alexander Hale Smith's First Visit to Utah

The Annual Conference of 1866 appointed Alexander H. Smith to take
charge of the California Mission. This entailed passing overland through Utah. It
would be the first time that one of the prophet's sons had set foot in the territory.
Despite Alexander's inexperience as an elder, Emma Smith Bidamon's displeasure
at the thought of one of her sons going to Utah, and the difficulty of the journey,
there were compelling reasons for sending one of the sons of the prophet to the
"Salt Land." The possibility that one of the Smith brothers might be called to
serve in the Union Army was no longer a restraining factor. General Connor had
tried to persuade Joseph Smith III himself to make the trip earlier in the year,
thinking that his appearance might undermine Brigham Young's authority. One of
the Smith brothers might attract more publicity, draw larger crowds, and win
more converts than any other RLDS missionary.

Alexander set out for the west in May. The long journey did not daunt him.
He was an outdoorsman and possessed a spirit of adventure. He took with him two
companions: James W. Gillen (appointed to labor in Utah) and William Anderson
(appointed to California). At Fort Laramie they joined a train of Mormon
emigrants and were unfavorably impressed with the lack of piety they observed
among the Brighamites. Toward the end of August they reached Salt Lake City.
Alexander was warmly welcomed by his cousin John Smith, presiding patriarch of
the Utah Church. John insisted that Alexander stay in his home so long as he was
in Salt Lake City. Their religious differences did not affect his friendliness. John
Smith, however, deflected all attempts at religious discussion. John Smith held a
prestigious title, but he possessed no power within the Mormon hierarchy. This
was driven home the first Sunday Alexander was in the city. The two cousins
attended services together at the Tabernacle. John asked if Alexander would like
to sit on the stand. Alexander was willing but indicated he did not expect to
receive an invitation. John went confidently to the stand but returned to their
seats chastened and wiser. "They said it wouldn't do," he told Alexander.³⁵

Soon after arrival, Alexander reported to Joseph: "I have seen nearly all
the big bugs here; they all strive to win my confidence, professing love for the
family to a fabulous degree." He was not convinced, and requested David Hyrum
Smith to write to him, giving a "strong testimony." Alexander found it necessary
to combat a a variety of rumors:

The people here do not believe that either you, or David, are indeed in
good earnest, nor working yourselves, but simply giving your leave and
names to some one else. They are taught from the stand by their
masters that David will be a Prince and ruler of this people; yet I heard
yesterday, that in a private meeting B. Young ordained his son to the
office he himself holds.³⁶

Alexander was surprised at some discoveries. All immigrants were
rebaptized upon arrival in the Great Basin. Their comrades in the emigrant train
were taught to ostracize them as soon as they arrived in the city. He reported
that some newcomers were compelled to sign a note to the Perpetual Emigrating
Fund, despite having paid for the journey in advance. He was shocked to hear his
arguments for the RLDS position—from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine
and Covenants—dismissed out of hand: "The books are a dead letter. They are
not worth the ashes of a rye straw. We have the living oracles." Most alarming
was the physical danger in which the RLDS elders felt themselves.

Alexander H. Smith's visit accomplished little until the last week. A new
amusement park was opening in town, and the owners thought nothing could
attract a larger crowd for the opening than having Alexander give an address. It
was as expected. A huge throng gathered to hear Alexander speak at Line and
Fox's Gardens. Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith were in attendance.
Alexander spoke boldly, denouncing polygamy. At the end of his address he asked
why his listeners continued to sustain Brigham Young as prophet, seer, and
revelator when Young publicly had said he was "neither a prophet, nor the son of a
prophet." A voice from the rear shouted that the reporters had made a mistake;
Brigham Young had said no such thing. Alexander asked why the mistake had
never been corrected. There was quite a commotion as numerous voices shouted
that they had heard Brigham Young make the remark. Having finished, Alexander
opened the floor to discussion. Joseph F. Smith arose and defended polygamy and
Brigham Young's leadership of the church. He prophesied that Joseph III and
David would yet come and endorse Utah Mormonism and claimed that the
hierarchy had great love for the prophet's family. When he finished, Alexander
roundly castigated him. After the meeting, Joseph F. and Samuel H. B. Smith
continued to discuss their differences with Alexander until late in the night.³⁷

Alexander H. Smith's visit to Utah accomplished little. He was the object
of great curiosity. He put to rest some of the rumors that the prophet's sons were
not really associated with the Reorganization. And his presence brought the first
public demonstration of the cleavage between the two branches of the Smith
family. Relations between Joseph F. Smith and the prophets sons would never be
cordial again. But there were no mass conversions and no shaking of the power of
the Mormon hierarchy. Hopes that this particular son of the prophet might work a
revolution in Utah had proven illusory. On September 15, 1866, Alexander Hale
Smith and William Anderson left Salt Lake City for California.

Campaign against the Smith Family

Until 1860, many Mormons in Utah expected Young Joseph to assume
leadership of their church someday. Brigham Young had fostered this idea. But
after 1860, David Hyrum Smith was said to be "the coming man."³⁸

By 1863 Brigham Young was becoming more and more blunt in his
criticisms of Joseph Smith III. In private he told E. C. Briggs that Emma Smith
was a "wicked, wicked, wicked woman," laboring under the influence of the devil,
who had misled her sons. God, he told Briggs, had nothing to do with the prophet's
family at present. But in public he still held out hope that David Hyrum Smith
would come to Utah and lead the Mormon Church, despite what he called the
"humbug" of "Young Josephism." Joseph Smith III would never lead the Mormon
people, and if he truly had a revelation from God he would be told to come humbly
and meekly to the Lord's servant, Brigham Young. He roundly attacked Joseph
Ill's character, calling him a money-seeking hypocrite, a lawyer, and an infidel.
He vilified Emma Smith for allegedly trying to destroy the church, poison the
prophet, and alienate the prophet from the Twelve.³⁹

This was a harbinger of things to come. In 1865, Brigham Young moved to
suppress Lucy Mack Smith's Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet,
and His Progenitors for Many Generations. Lucy Smith had dictated this work to
her amanuensis Martha Jane Coray in 1845. Eventually the manuscript had passed
into the hands of Apostle Orson Pratt, who had published it in England, in 1853. It
had been recognized for some time that a number of factual inaccuracies had
crept into the work, but up until 1865 it had continued to enjoy popularity among
Mormon readers. In that year Brigham Young issued orders that the work be
suppressed. The Deseret News of June 21, 1865 carried Brigham Young's request
that all copies be turned in to the church. A series of subsequent notices
appeared to the same effect. The Millennial Star of October 21st carried a
lengthy condemnation of the work. Ecclesiastical authorities were urged to
gather up and destroy every copy of Mother Smith's book, "so that it will never be
read by any person again." In particular the account of William Smith's behavior
after leaving Missouri was condemned as inaccurate. Brigham Young felt that the
book painted all too favorable a picture of the Smith family, particularly those
members who had rejected his leadership such as William and Emma.⁴⁰

The suppression of Lucy Mack Smith's book did not go unnoticed by the
Reorganization. The Herald printed a biting letter from Thomas Job in Utah,
which reported that Brigham Young had lately traversed the Territory collecting
copies of the book:

He said that they are nothing but falsehoods, that there were "more lies
in them than Lucifer ever told," that he was going to grind those books
over again. But the chief cause is (as one observed) that that book gives
a little more favorable account of Sister Emma than Brigham Young
does. His exertion is to hurry that family into oblivion, if possible. His
wrath towards that family is without bounds.⁴¹

By 1866, the prophet's family was the subject of a widespread whispering
campaign of vilification, rumor, and innuendo. It was said that the leaders of the
Reorganized Church were impersonating the sons of the prophet. The characters
of Emma and Joseph Smith III were slandered. Joseph was said to have visited
Washington, D. C. for the purpose of getting federal troops to come to Utah and
kill off the Mormons.⁴²

After Alexander's visit to Salt Lake City, Brigham Young vented his spleen
at the Semi-annual Conference. He reiterated in public a long list of calumnies
against the Smith family. Emma Smith he called the "damndest liar that ever
lived," one who had raised her sons in lies. As for Joseph Smith III, Brigham
Young claimed that he was a confirmed Spiritualist.⁴³

In the December 15, 1866 issue of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald,
Joseph Smith III replied to Brigham Young's remarks, questioning the propriety of
one in his position descending to vituperative attack. As for Young's particular
accusations, he responded:

The statement made by Pros. Young, that Joseph Smith ... is "a
confirmed spiritualist," lacks but one essential ingredient to be fearfully
effective in the hands of those opposed to the tenets held to by us, and
that one essential is truthfulness. It is false in inception, false in theory,
and false in facts, and has no sort of foundation save the isolated truth
that he did once endeavor to investigate Spiritualism, and finding no
good in it for him, at once and entirely discarded it.

He challenged Brigham Young to enquire of Oliver Boardman Huntington
concerning the truth of this account.

He dismissed the report that he went to Washington to bring soldiers down
upon Utah. To support his contention, he appealed to the report of the
Committee on Territories.

He replied to the attack on his mother with characteristic understatement
when under fire. He diplomatically suggested that perhaps Brigham Young had
been misreported and added that Brigham Young might rectify the mistake by
publishing a correction in the press. In any case, Brigham Young's statement that
Emma Smith Bidamon was a liar was "unqualifiedly false."

As to Brigham Young's motives in making such statements, Joseph Smith III
concluded that he desired "to counteract the influence which may have obtained
through the efforts made by my brothers and myself to recall the saints to the
practice of virtue and the paths of righteousness." Vituperation against the wife
and sons of the prophet—professedly the objects of great love—would not be
returned in kind, he promised. He would continue to rebuke error and vice,
without any need to take refuge in lies."⁴⁴

Joseph Smith III rarely replied to the rumors which spread concerning
himself. However, when Sophia Jewks, the only member of the RLDS Church in
the smalt town of Fountain Green, Utah, wrote him asking for a statement which
she could show to her neighbors, in reply to the "disgracing and calumniating"
rumors she encountered, he published a response. Sophia Jewks had reported that
her LDS neighbors taunted her, "But is not your prophet a lawyer, a man guilty of
receiving bribes for allowing the publicity of his name as a prophet . . . ?" Joseph
replied:

To the accusation of being a lawyer, (heinous crime?) we reply that
we did study law; but have never practiced it as a profession.

To the one charging us with receiving a "bribe" for the use of our
name, we reply: no bribe has ever been offered, no overtures made to
induce us to permit the use of our name in the manner named. . . .

For good measure he contradicted the common rumor that he received a
handsome salary and added that no officer of the Reorganized Church received
any salary for his duties. "There is not," he concluded, "an orthodox minister, of
any celebrity, in the United States, that does not receive a more adequate support
from his ministerial labors than we do."⁴⁵

Life in Plano

The battle with the Mormon Church now was joined in earnest. Joseph
already was hearing the cry, in 1866, that he should go to Utah. But it would be
another decade before he undertook such a mission. The reasons for this delay
were largely of a personal character. His situation in Plano did not permit him to
be away from home for extended periods of time.

Since the birth of Joseph Arthur Smith, in 1865, Emaline Smith's health had
been poor. Her decline was hastened by a miscarriage in Plano. Joseph felt that
he must stay close to home because of Emaline's illnesses. The situation was a
great strain upon him:

For five years I carried the ever-present consciousness that she whom I
loved so dearly ... would not remain with me, and for two whole years I
never knew an undisturbed or unbroken night of rest and sleep. . . .

The last two years of her life she spent in the peaceful
consciousness that she had done what she could to prepare herself for the
transition from this life to another. During her last sickness, which
lasted some ten weeks, I did not have my clothing off except for
purposes of cleanliness and change, and the only rest I knew was that
obtained in the semi-consciousness condition of an anxious watcher,
aware of her every move ... .⁴⁶

The long-anticipated stroke occurred on March 25, 1869. Emaline Griswold
Smith's body was taken back to Nauvoo and laid to rest next to those of her
departed children. Joseph Smith III was now a widower at the age of thirty-six.

Life as a widower was not to Joseph's liking. He had loved Emaline
deeply.⁴⁷ He was left with three young children. His home-loving, domestic
instincts rebelled at the idea of breaking up his home. As a stop-gap measure he
employed a housekeeper to oversee household duties and care for his children.
Her name was Bertha Madison. She was the daughter of Norwegian immigrants, a
member of the RLDS Church, mature, and responsible.⁴⁸

Having a live-in housekeeper soon set gossiping tongues to wag, despite the
fact that Joseph had hired on assistant housekeeper to forestall just such
criticisms. Joseph made the situation a matter of intense prayer and received his
answer in a dream. In the dream he was instructed to marry Bertha. After a
period of courtship, they were married on November 12, 1869.

Joseph's first marriage had been born of romance. His second marriage
was born of more pragmatic considerations. Nevertheless, Joseph and Bertha
grew to love each other and enjoyed years of married life together. Joseph
trusted Bertha's managerial abilities and felt it safe to leave domestic affairs
under her supervision while he traveled to distant locations.

During their stay in Plano, Bertha bore seven children: David Carlos
(August 14, 1870), Mary Audentia (March 23, 1872), Frederick Madison (January
21, 1874), Israel Alexander (February 2, 1876), Kenneth (October 6, 1877), Bertha
Azuba (October 15, 1878), and Hale Washington (February 22, 1881). Kenneth died
in infancy. The others moved with the family, in 1881, to Lamoni, lowa.⁴⁹

Plano assumed the character of an unofficial church headquarters. The
president of the church and various other members of the hierarchy lived in or
near the town. A number of annual conferences were held there. But it was the
presence of the Herald Office more than anything else which gave Plano its
position of prominence.

Joseph Smith III received no remuneration as president of the church. His
livelihood came from his salary as editor of the Herald, fees received as justice of
the peace in Plano, and gifts from members of the church.

Joseph Smith III had been reluctant to assume the position of editor of the
True Latter Day Saints' Herald. He felt that he lacked qualifications.
Nevertheless, he yielded to pleas that he undertake the task, recognizing the
strategic importance of the church's publishing arm.⁵⁰ More than merely an
"editor," he managed the Herald Office. Under his leadership, the Office offered
on ever expanding list of publications, mainly tracts. In 1869 the church acquired
a steam power press, which greatly increased its publishing capacity. Also in
1869, the Office began issuing a new periodical, a children's paper entitled Zion's
Hope.

Since 1863 the Herald had been a bi-weekly. This required constant
editorial supervision. Isaac Sheen continued to render assistance, but he was
growing elderly. Without an assistant editor, Joseph was tied closely to the
office. Beginning in 1870 a series of assistant editors allowed him to begin
making longer missionary journeys without having to worry that editorial duties
were being neglected. Mark H. Forscutt served as assistant editor from 1870 to
1872, M. B. Oliver from 1874 to 1876, and Henry A. Stebbins from 1876 to 1880.⁵¹

Given this additional freedom, Joseph gradually expanded the scope of his
missionary journeys. His journeys took him into neighboring states. The entries in
his journals are sporadic and brief, but it is evident that he was a busy man during
his years in Plano, attending to office duties, preaching, corresponding, attending
conferences, baptizing converts, performing weddings and funerals,
"administering" to the sick, and receiving money from the Saints for publications.
Gradually he gained confidence in his abilities as a preacher. However, during
these years he always preferred to address a familiar congregation. He later
recalled:

. . . I still knew what it was to have my knees quake under me when
rising to address a new congregation. I was tortured by an almost
uncontrollable fear when meeting strangers to the faith, to whom I was
under the necessity of explaining it, for experience had proved that
thereby I often exposed myself to their contempt and abuse. These fears
and qualms can only be explained by the fact of those unhappy early
experiences in my life, when I was surrounded by unbelievers who not
only had a disrespect for our faith but allowed their aversion to be
extended to those who presented it—apparently believing that "Mormons"
had no rights they were under obligation to recognize or treat with
tolerance.⁵²

He was terribly sensitive to slights received from Protestants. Anything
smacking of religious prejudice raised his hackles. When Methodists in Plano tried
to have the Saints evicted from Academy Hall, a public building, Joseph Smith III
demanded that they receive the same privileges as any other religious group. It
irritated him when local pastors warned their congregations not to attend RLDS
meetings; Joseph countered by telling the Saints that they were perfectly at
liberty to attend the meetings of other churches. Snubs from ministers
particularly galled him. He complained of clergymen who ignored or avoided the
Saints, "giving us no countenance or recognition as coworkers with God and the
church on earth." Such ministers were willing to make common cause with him in
temperance work, but "evidently feared to soil their ministerial garments by
touching elbows with us in religious affairs . . . ." The Methodist preacher, James
T. Hanna earned his enmity through persistent attacks on the faith of the Latter
Day Saints.⁵³

When the Saints built what came to be known as the "Stone Church" in
Plano, they took subscriptions from the community. In return they promised that
the building would be open, whenever they were not using it, for the free use of
others, without restriction as to sect or association. When a visiting Utah elder
came through Plano, Joseph made a point of offering him the use of the Stone
Church, much to the chagrin of Isaac Sheen.⁵⁴

He strongly desired to win the good opinion of his Gentile neighbors. Not
only did he wish everyone to know that the Saints were not polygamists, but he
also took pride in the reputation they won among local businessmen for honesty
and fair-dealing.⁵⁵

While engaged in this quest for respectability, calls continued for the "seed
of the prophet" to come to Utah. During the last years of Emaline's life, Joseph
never left her side for an extended period of time. Nevertheless the cry was
heeded. At the Annual Conference of 1869 it was decided to send Alexander Hale
Smith and David Hyrum Smith on a mission to Utah and the Pacific coast.⁵⁶

Mission of Alexander and David to Utah

Late in May 1869, Alexander Hale Smith left Plano and went to Nauvoo to
meet his brother David and to visit for a few days. Before the brothers left for
the west, Emma Smith Bidamon warned them that she would be attacked and be
called a liar. She wrote to Joseph, telling him of her warning to Alexander and
David:

I tried before they left here to give them an idea of what they might
expect of Brigham and all of his ites but I suppose the impression was
hardly sufficient to guard their feelings from such unexpected falsehoods
and impiouse profanity as Brigham is capable of I hope they will be able
to bear with patience all the abuse they will have to meet. I do not like
to have my childrens feelings abused but I do like that Brigham show to
all both saint and sinner that there is not the least particle of friendship
existing between him and myself.⁵⁷

While Emma worried about her sons, others in the Reorganization rejoiced
at their going to Utah. Apostle W. W. Blair expressed the high hopes of many
when he wrote from California that all were pleased at their mission. "No one,"
he said, "can do the same amount of good in that mission, as the sons of your
honored father."⁵⁸

Alexander and David departed Nauvoo early in June. They stopped and
preached at various places along the way. Their journey west was made easier by
the near-completion of the transcontinental railroad. In the middle of July they
arrived in Salt Lake City. John Smith again greeted his cousins cordially and
persuaded them to lodge at his house.⁵⁹ The following day John took his cousins
to visit their older cousin, the portly and genial Apostle and Church Historian,
George A. Smith. They called upon him at the Church Historian's Office. George
A. told his Illinois cousins that he was their friend, however much they might
differ religiously. On July 17th they called at President Brigham Young's office
to inquire whether they might have the use of the Tabernacle for preaching
services. After a long wait they were ushered into the office. Brigham Young
had sent for the leading elders in the city, thus occasioning the delay. After
Alexander had requested the Tabernacle, the discussion turned to the points of
difference between the two churches. Differences over polygamy naturally
turned the conversation to Emma Smith Bidamon. Brigham Young was convinced
that she had poisoned her sons' minds against the doctrine. Alexander was
naturally hot-tempered and had to exercise the greatest restraint as President
Young opened this topic of discussion. Young launched into an abusive attack on
Emma, calling her "a liar, yes, the damndest liar that lives," claimed that she had
tried to poison the prophet, and also claimed that she had stolen Hyrum Smith's
portrait and gold ring. Alexander and Brigham exchanged bitter words, Alexander
all the while making a deliberate effort not to lose his temper. David said little.
The Tabernacle was denied to them. Both brothers wrote letters describing the
interview which were published in the True Latter Day Saints' Herald.⁶⁰

Since John Smith was patriarch of the church, Alexander and David felt
they might be imposing upon him if they continued to lodge at his house. They
moved out and received room and board from members of the RLDS Church.

Although denied the use of the Tabernacle, the influential Gentile
merchants, the Walker Brothers, secured the use of Independence Hall for the
Smith brothers. Although street preaching was illegal, they conducted meetings
in private residences.

Joseph F. Smith spearheaded the opposition to his cousins. He had been
ordained an apostle in 1866. In that same year he had taken Julina Lambson as a
plural wife, having been counselled to do so by Brigham Young. In 1868 he had
taken another plural wife, Sara Ellen Richards⁶¹ He was completely committed
to the revelation on celestial marriage. On Sunday, July 29th, Joseph F. attended
the crowded meeting at Independence Hall. He interrupted Alexander's discourse,
to the disgust of both Alexander and the crowd, which shouted, "Shame: Put him
out; Silence:" On August 3rd, Alexander reported to Joseph III that Joseph F.
had armed himself with affidavits of women claiming to have been plural wives of
the prophet. Joseph F. had spent time working in the Church Historian's Office
and was far better posted on the history of plural marriage than were his cousins.
George A. Smith, the Church Historian, may have been working with him in
compiling these affidavits of those who had first-hand knowledge of Joseph Smith,
Jr.'s teaching and practice of plural marriage.⁶²

Joseph F. Smith began holding meetings throughout the wards of Salt Lake
City, to counteract the influence of Alexander and David. In an address on
August 8th he replied to their citation of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's published
denials of polygamy. He began by stating that he possessed twelve affidavits of
living women who had been "spiritual wives" of Joseph Smith, and he further
stated that he knew that Hyrum Smith, his father, had taken two plural wives.
The correspondent for the Utah Daily Reporter, who wrote an account of the
meeting, noted that Joseph F. seemed "powerfully wrought up," as he launched
into an explanation of why Joseph and Hyrum Smith had published denials of
polygamy. "I cannot help the position this places my father and Joseph in as to
their denials," he said. "I only know these facts." The denials were necessary
because the people were not ready for the doctrine, because the Mormons were in
the midst of their enemies, and because public disclosure in Illinois would have
resulted in imprisonment.⁶² He went on to claim that Emma Smith was
responsible for luring her husband back to Nauvoo and to his death, after he had
crossed the Mississippi. "And I say in plain fact, that the blood of Joseph and
Hyrum is upon the souls of Marks and Emma Smith, and there it will remain until
burned out by the fires of hell;" He acknowledged that these statements might
hurt Alexander and David, but if they did not want to hear them, he suggested
that they "go away and keep their mouths shut."⁶³

The Gentile-owned Reporter (of Corinne) was the only paper in Utah which
opened its pages to the RLDS missionaries. David prepared a reply to Joseph F.,
dated August 13th, which was published in the Reporter. He testified to the good
character of his brother Joseph ill. He argued that Joseph Smith, Jr. anointed,
appointed, and dedicated his eldest son to stand in his place as president and
prophet to the church, as many in Utah could testify. He then replied to those
who said to him, "My dear young friend, your father taught polygamy and
practiced it, and I know it." He argued against such statements by citing the
public denial of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, appearing in the February I, 1844 Times
and Seasons. He appealed to the gospel and the sacred books, in opposition to the
evil of polygamy. He urged his readers to shake off oppression and bravely
embrace the gospel.⁶⁴

Alexander and David spent the latter part of August in Malad, Idaho,
attending an RLDS conference there. Malad was in southern Idaho. Malad's Welsh
population included a goodly number of Josephites. All through the nineteenth
century, Malad served as a sort of safety-valve where RLDS converts from Utah
might locate.

They returned to Salt Lake City on September 2nd. Joseph F. Smith
reported to his third wife, Sarah:

David and Alex. got back to the City last week and held forth as usual
yesterday, D. ocupying the time. He said B. Y. was in the habit of
"cutting off people from his church because they investigated the Book
of Mormon & D. and Covenants." Meaning Mrs. Sargent I suppose, who
you know asked to be cut off, and her desire was complyed with. Their
insolence and misrepresentation has not deminished by their visiting
Malad, one of the filthiest stink-holes outside of christiandom, where I
understand they have met with considerable success; baptizing about 20
persons.⁶⁵

If David earned Joseph F.'s enmity, Alexander antagonized many more
Mormons. David was the "son of promise," and many women longed to meet him.
David attempted to be more diplomatic in his discourses than Alexander. The one
referred to "plural marriage" or "polygamy," while the other attacked Brighamite
"adultery." The one criticized "blood atonement," while the other accused the
Mormons of "murder."⁶⁶

There was reason for the enmity directed against the sons of the prophet.
They baptized scores of converts during their stay in the Great Basin. In the face
of this threat, the Mormon hierarchy marshalled its resources. Not only was the
son of Hyrum Smith designated to lead the defensive polemical warfare, but a
variety of measures were employed to deprive the brothers of a hearing. David H.
Smith concluded that there was, in Utah, "a system of intoleration, and a policy
the like of which I never before experienced, and at which I am the more
astonished, practiced as it is by a people who have complained so bitterly of the
like spirit exhibited towards them by the world." He complained of the policy
which shut every meeting room but one, in a city of twenty thousand, to the two
brothers. He complained of their letters being barred from all papers but one; of
being denied water in which to perform baptisms; of coercion; of ostracism; of
economic measures directed against Josephites; of book-burning; of slanderous
rumors; of surveillance; and of heresy-hunting. This letter, written toward the
end of his stay in Utah, was published in the Herald. It reflected personal
frustration and the enormity of the task facing any RLDS missionary in Utah.⁶⁷

Alexander and David Smith boarded a west-bound train at Corinne on
December 5, 1869 and headed for California. They had won converts, but not in
the great numbers which would be necessary to portend any mass movement
toward the Reorganized Church. Their visit demonstrated that the mere
appearance of a "son of promise" would not be sufficient to alter the loyalties of
the Mormon people. Their visit widened the fissure between the Illinois and Utah
branches of the Smith family. And their visit marked the first shot in a long "war
of affidavits," in which the two contending churches sought to marshalI evidence
of witnesses to prove that Joseph Smith either was or was not involved in
polygamy. The first generation of Saints was growing old. Leadership was
gradually passing to those who had no first hand knowledge of affairs in Nauvoo.
With the passing of the "old Mormons," and the presence of increasing numbers of
newer Saints, it was becoming easier for Joseph Smith III and his brothers to
maintain their argument that their father was not the author of polygamy. Joseph F. Smith felt the necessity of gothering first-hand testimony to the contrary while
he might.

David H. Smith's Last Mission to Utah

After arriving in California, David H. Smith became ill. This was anything
but unusual for missionaries in the field. The two brothers returned to Illinois, not
because of David's illness, but because Alexander's wife had been seriously ill with
"lung fever." March 2, 1870 found Alexander and David in Plano, Illinois. At the
Annual Conference, in Plano, Alexander gave a glowing report of the progress in
Utah and California. They had spoken to crowded assemblies. Now, he argued,
was the time to strike. W. W. Blair, who had stayed in the west with E. C. Brand,
wrote encouragingly from Utah. Liberty of thought and freedom of speech were
increasing, reported Blair, materially aided by the Smith brothers' efforts. An
effort was made at the conference to return Alexander and David to Utah, but
Alexander quietly objected and the matter was dropped for the time being.⁶⁸

Even before leaving for the west, David had been thinking of matrimony.
By May 10, 1870 he had recovered sufficiently from his illness to marry nineteen
year-old Clara Charlotte Hartshorn. The couple took up residence in the Nauvoo
Mansion. Alexander and his family also returned to Nauvoo and made their home
at the Mansion. Emma and Major Bidamon moved across the street to the newly
completed Riverside Mansion, where they spent their remaining years. In Nauvoo,
David continued to be haunted by the illness which had first struck him in
California. Unbeknownst to anyone, this was the opening stage of a lifelong
affliction. However, he was well enough to continue working on a new hymnal for
the church, entitled The Saint's Harp.⁶⁹

Pressure continued to be exerted for the Smith brothers to come to Utah.
Both Gentiles and members of the Reorganization believed that their presence
would contribute to diminishing the power of Brigham Young. Mark H. Forscutt
wrote a reply to J. W. Shatter, Utah's territorial governor, on July 6, 1870,
explaining why none of the brothers could come at the time: "Joseph cannot be
spared from this office, Alexander is so engaged in business matters that he can
hardly leave until late fall if then. David the youngest of the three is recently
married and can hardly be expected to leave under the circumstances." But
Forscutt told the governor he shared his wish that one of the brothers could reside
in Utah⁷⁰

Joseph Smith III was under increasing pressure to send David H. Smith back
to Utah. His close friend, Apostle W. W. Blair, had been to Utah and observed
conditions there. In 1871, Blair's report to the Annual Conference noted a change
in strategy in Utah. Hitherto the RLDS missionaries had encouraged their
converts to leave Utah and gather to the "regions round about" the land of Zion,
i.e., to Iowa, Illinois, or Missouri. As late as 1870 they sent back six companies of
emigrants from Utah. But political, economic, and religious changes were
occurring so quickly in Utah that Blair now believed it best for RLDS converts to
remain in Utah to strengthen the work there. Blair felt that the time was ripe for
a "speedy emanicipation of the masses from the thraldom of priestcraft." To that
end, he recommended sending well-qualified elders to Utah. The most qualified
would be the sons of the prophet: "None would be more acceptable as ministers in
Utah, by all classes of the truth-loving, than Brs. A. H. and D. H. Smith, except,
perhaps our beloved President, Joseph Smith."⁷¹

During 1871, Alexander and David used Nauvoo as their base of operations.
At the Semi-Annual Conference of 1871, Joseph Smith III reported that Alexander
H. Smith and David H. Smith had been laboring in the String Prairie and Nauvoo
District. Earlier it had been planned that they would go to Utah, but
circumstances had prevented their going, he told the conference.⁷²

At the same conference, W. W. Blair personally reported on the Utah
Mission. He argued that it was of strategic importance. He reasoned that "the
brothers of the President, Alexander H. and David H. Smith should take that
mission, and that if the President himself were to go, it would result in great
benefit to the cause." The delegates agreed, and a resolution was approved that a
telegram be sent to the absent brothers Alexander and David, to ascertain
whether they would accept a mission to Utah. Joseph Smith III was reluctant to
send David back to Utah. After behind-the-scenes maneuvering, the motion was
reconsidered and rejected.⁷³

Joseph's reluctance centered around David's declining mental health. He
feared that a return to the fiery furnace of the Utah Mission would upset David's
'precarious balance. The conflicting demands—to strike while the iron was hot
versus concern for David's well-being—are evident in a letter from David to
Joseph, written November 19, 1871:

I have so much to say to you that I scarcely know how to begin, the
interests of the Church and private concerns are so mixed up in my
confused mind that my ideas shoot in so many directions it is hard to
begin. . . . You have given me a mission to western Iowa well it is a good
mission. But there is one thing I feel to tell you every man of business of
sagasity says to me why are you not in Utah, why is Alex and especially
yourself [not] in Utah, now is the time the very best time why do you
not go immediately there. Well this is the universal opinion. ... I have
been . . . distressed with a haunting idea that we were letting the very
best time slip by us, for a raid on Utah. Then again something says to
me, ... he distrusts your health.

David then replied to possible objections to his return to Utah. His health was as
robust as ever, he argued. He promised that he would not allow himself to be
overworked or over-excited, as in his first mission to Utah. He admitted that he
lacked sufficient funds for the trip to Utah, but reasoned that he could secure the
necessary assistance. Above all, he argued that the time was ripe for his return
to Utah, unless Joseph were planning to go there himself. In that event, David did
not wish to steal his brother's thunder.⁷⁴

Joseph turned over the matter in his mind. Despite the difficulties which
would be entailed, he himself gave serious consideration to making the trip to
Utah. David—perhaps preferring to go himself—warned his brother that this
would mean administrative headaches and potential embarrassments. "Yet," he
conceded, "your influence is great with the people, and ... the good
(overestimated by many) that will probably be done" might justify the trip.⁷⁵

Finally, under pressure from his own church, Joseph Smith III acquiesced in
David being called back to the Utah Mission at the Annual Conference of 1872.
He later recalled the forces at work:

... the church [saw] fit to send my youngest brother, David Hyrum, on
a mission to Utah. The brethren regarded him as a "child of promise,"
one who, like some of olden times, having been named before his birth,
had been blessed above the average with a rich endowment of grace and
gifts. They were of the opinion that among the misguided but often
earnest people in that mission, he would be given a more cordial
reception than would be accorded either Alexander or myself.⁷⁶

On July 4, 1872, David H. Smith arrived in Ogden, Utah. His co-workers in
Utah were Apostle Josiah Ells and Judge A. D. Boren of San Bernardino. Both
were chosen as old-time Saints whose personal testimonies would bolster the
cause.⁷⁷ But David was the center of attention, the "son of promise," whom
Brigham Young had taught possessed the right to lead the Mormon Church.⁷⁸

Again the RLDS elders were able to hold meetings in the Liberal Institute.
Crowds filled the building to capacity, excitement was intense, and the
newspapers reported the controversy. David related: "We receive the support of
many noble minded, not of our ranks, and the sympathy of all opposed to the
tyrannical rule here; besides, the secret sympathy of many in the ranks of the
polygamists." David wrote that the RLDS missionaries aimed their arrows at
"polygamy, secret penal oaths, and wicked covenants for binding the people under
penalty of death," and avoided personal attacks and abuse.⁷⁹

As for their relatives in the Great Basin, David found that John Smith
remained congenial, as did Samuel H. B. Smith. Two other relatives were viewed
negatively, however:

Joseph F. is—well, he is uncongenial to me. I retain too vivid a
recollection of his abuses to Alexander to mingle freely with his spirit.
as for George A. his false and slanderous assertions in regard to
yourself are too much for my charity he called you in public a drunkard
a horse racer, a gambler and a lawyer. I shall keep clear of him as I fear
the results of an interview with him he is much despised here.⁸⁰

During the summer, Judge Boren repeated a rumor that George A. Smith,
in 1856, had invited Joseph Smith III to come west and assume the presidency of
the Utah Church. George A. Smith and Joseph F. Smith denied that such an offer
ever was made. David wrote a letter to his brother Joseph, asking whether the
rumor cited by Judge Boren were true.⁸¹ There is no record of Joseph's response,
but it must have been negative. If he had responded affirmatively, his response
would have received extensive publicity.

An ominous note appeared in a letter David wrote on July 27th.
Apparently a member of the RLDS Church in Pontiac, Michigan had written David
in Salt Lake City, asking for information about polygamy. David's response
revealed that he had come across discomfitting evidence:

It is an unpleasant subject to me if I knew in regard to the subject I
would tell you the truth, you I think know me well enough to know I
never would decieve you in any thing cost what tears it would I would
tell you if I thought my brother was a deciever I would save you from
deception. I know my Mother believes just as we do [?] in faith,
repentance, baptism and all the saving doctrines, in the books of the
church and all, but I do not wish to ask her in regard to polygamy, for
dear brother God forgive me if I am wrong I how can I tell you if I did
not love you I could not, I believe there was something wrong, I dont
know it, but I believe it, the testimony is too great for me to deny. ... if
my father sinned I can not help it. The truth to me is the same he must
suffer for his sin. I do not know that he did, and if I had not recieved
such convincing testimony of the gospel my faith might fail but it does
not even though he did sin. ... I hope you will burn up this letter, and
not let it shock your faith, if I could tell you otherwise I would oh how
gladly .... When I was with you before I did not know as much as I do
now in regard to my fathers life. Even if he did wrong he repented and
told the saints that poligamy was a false and wicked doctrine.⁸²

One likely source of David's new information was Amasa M. Lyman.
Lyman had joined the Mormon Church in 1832. Joseph Smith, Jr. had intended to
drop Sidney Rigdon from the First Presidency and replace him with Lyman.
Brigham Young made Lyman a member of the Quorum of Twelve. But in 1870
Amasa Lyman was excommunicated.⁸³ He had embraced liberal theological
tenets and Spiritualism, and became associated with the Godbeite movement.⁸⁴

Lyman became a friend of David Smith. During their visits he had
opportunity to tell David about his personal knowledge of polygamy. In the Lyman
home, David probably heard first-hand testimony about his father's actual
involvement, because Amasa M. Lyman had married Eliza Partridge, one of the
prophet's plural wives.⁸⁵ Evidence indicates that David, probably armed with
names and information from Amasa M. Lyman, sought out and interviewed other
plural wives of his father.⁸⁶

The association with Amasa M. Lyman had another serious consequence for
David Hyrum Smith. In the fall of 1872, Lyman traveled about with David. David
began to imbibe his liberal views. The extent to which David was influenced by
Lyman is suggested by his attendance at Lyman's seances.⁸⁷

David's theological foundations were shaken. The discoveries about
polygamy rocked him. He was introduced to an entirely different view of spiritual
phenomena from that in which he had been reared. Personally, he was depressed
by the RLDS Church's failure to provide adequate care for his family.⁸⁸ The
hostile reception of his colleagues, Josiah Ells and Judge Boren, also disturbed
him. Judge Boren in particular was grossly insulted. Not only was he treated
with contempt and vilified as "an old apostate," but he was even attacked at night
and daubed with human excrement. Boren returned to California in humiliation
and died soon afterwards.⁸⁹ And through all this, the stress on David's fragile
system was approaching the breaking point.

Signs of unorthodoxy began to appear in David's writings. He even
expressed his liberal sentiments in a letter to Joseph III. By November, David was
becoming an extremely popular speaker with the liberal element in Salt Lake
City. His speeches were well received by the Salt Lake Tribune, the liberal organ.
A disturbing announcement appeared in the Tribune on February 6, 1873:
"We regret to learn of the serious illness of Mr. David H. Smith, from an attack of
brain fever. He was, however, improving rapidly yesterday afternoon." Within a
week, the Tribune was advising its readers of David's return to health and urging
them to attend his lectures. Despite the paper's optimism, however, David was
seriously ill. His biographer has written:

The David Smith that his family and friends knew and loved so well
would be no more. His mind unable to function properly, David wandered
from lucidity to irrationality and back again until his insanity dominated
his life.⁹⁰

In March, there was a flurry of rumors about David. He was reported to be
ready to accept baptism in the LDS Church. However, later in the month, David
wrote a lucid letter to Joseph, advising him concerning ecclesiastical affairs, in
tones which suggest total loyalty to his brother and the RLDS Church.⁹¹

Written in the form of a revelation, David's letter urged that the quorums
of the RLDS Church be filled, in order to strengthen the church's mission. Joseph
and other RLDS leaders had reached the some conclusion. Joseph received a
revelation directing him to appoint a first and second counselor and seven new
apostles. Not knowing that David was suffering from a serious mental illness,
Joseph designated David one of his new counselors. Joseph's revelation, dated
March 3, 1873 stated: "Behold, it is wisdom in me, and expedient in my church
that the chief quorums should be more nearly filled, and their organization more
nearly completed. Thus saith the Spirit. Let my servants William W. Blair and
David H. Smith, be chosen and ordained to be counselors to my servant, the
presiding elder of my church."⁹²

Sometime in the spring of 1873, David Hyrum Smith left Utah for Plano,
Illinois. The "son of promise" would never return to Utah. Instead of becoming a
"prince" over Israel, he would spend the last three decades of his life in an insane
asylum. An apocryphal tale has it that when he first saw his mother, after
returning, he rebuffed her embrace with the harsh query, "Mother, why have you
deceived us?"⁹³

David H. Smith's Insanity

The point at which Joseph Smith III became aware that his brother was
suffering from a serious mental malady is not known, but it must have been
shortly after David's return. David's illness was a severe trial for him. Joseph
undoubtedly rebuked himself for having consented to the mission. He also laid the
blame at the feet of David's associates in Utah:

The effect of this unfortunate mission upon my brother David was
even more deplorable. He had formed some acquaintance among a
certain class of so-called "free thinkers," which included some leading
spiritualists. In these circles he was to some extent—and possibly
through seemingly good intentions—made the object of much flattering
attention. For reasons still unknown to me his health, including the
spiritual side of it, failed, and it became necessary for him to return
home. . . . While I could never get a very comprehensive idea as to the
nature of the conversations he used to hold with them, . . . I have
concluded that they were concerned largely with matters pertaining to
manifestations of spiritism. I am convinced that insidiously there was
inculcated into my brother's mind the idea that his father was either a
polygamist in practice or that he was the spiritual author of the Utah
plural marriage philosophy.

There is reason to fear, also, that under the influence which
surrounded them, they indulged in seances and listened to so-called
communications from an unseen world, none of which were favorable to
the claims of the Reorganized church in regard to those matters, and
most of which were decidedly contrary thereto.

From my knowledge of his character I do not believe my brother had
the power to resist such insidious teaching, nor to perceive the danger of
thus submitting himself to the uncanny will and influence of unseen
spirits which, according to the teaching of the philosophy itself, lurk
around in the twilight zone of human consciousness ready to take
advantage of people still tabernacled in the flesh.⁹⁴

David was unfitted for ministerial work. The family attempted to care for
David as best they knew how. He busied himself with activities such as fishing
and gardening. Finally, in 1877, the family felt that they could no longer cope
with David. Both Joseph and Alexander felt that he had become dangerous to
their wives and children. In his demented state, he made a nuisance of himself at
the Plano train station and elsewhere in town.

In what he described as "the most trying vicissitude" of his life to that
time, Joseph Smith III decided to institutionalize his youngest brother. On
January 19, 1877, David Hyrum Smith was committed to the Northern Illinois
Hospital for the Insane at Elgin. Here he would remain, except for brief visits to
the outside world, for the rest of his life.⁹⁵

Committing David to a mental hospital was a blow to both the RLDS and
LDS Churches. Joseph Smith III had appointed his mentally ill brother to the First
Presidency. That the appointment had come in the form of a revelation proved an
embarrassment. Authorities in the LDS Church long had foretold that David one
day would become their leader, and these prophecies were now doomed to
disappointment. Ugly rumors and accusations were exchanged, such as the belief
of some Reorganites that David had been poisoned in Utah, or the suggestion of
some Mormons that Joseph had David put away to keep him from becoming a
Mormon or because he feared David as a rival.⁹⁶

At the Annual Conference of 1885, when David had been hospitalized for
eight years, Joseph Smith III was asked to inquire of God concerning David's
status. He received the following answer: "The voice of the Spirit is that David
H. Smith be released. He is in mine hand."⁹⁷

However, Joseph Smith III held out hope that his brother might some day
recover and left David's position in the First Presidency vacant. At the General
Conference of 1894 he delivered a revelation declaring that it was not yet
expedient for another counselor to be appointed to the First Presidency. The
revelation stated: "My servant David H. Smith is yet in my hand and I will do my
will in the time for its accomplishment. Be not troubled or fearful in this matter
for it shall be well for my work in the end."⁹⁸

Finally, in 1897, Joseph Smith III received a revelation appointing two
counselors in the First Presidency. This was an admission, in effect, that David
H. Smith would never again occupy that position.⁹⁹

On August 29, 1904, David Hyrum Smith died at Elgin, Illinois. Joseph
Smith III comforted himself with the belief that his brother had improved in the
final two years of his life, and finally was "emancipated."¹⁰⁰ His death
certificate listed diabetes melitus as the immediate cause of his death, and
chronic mania as the contributory cause.¹⁰¹ Joseph Smith III always viewed his
brother's suffering as the result of associations formed in Utah. In a tragic way,
David H. Smith was a casualty of the war against polygamy.

First Extended Missionary Journey

During the summer of 1875, Joseph Smith III undertook his first extended
missionary journey. Hitherto he had confined himself to short forays within
striking distance of home. Now he accepted an invitation to assist in dedicating
an RLDS church building in Jonesport, Maine. He had a trusted assistant editor
who could attend to the Herald, his wife Bertha was efficient and able to care for
the home and children, and his confidence as a preacher had increased.
Furthermore, the visit would coincide with the centennial celebration of the
Battle of Bunker Hill. Joseph's patriotic instincts were always moved by such
celebrations.

Nevertheless, he had to force himself to make the trip. He was needlessly
self-conscious about his homiletical ability, and was deeply insecure about
defending his faith before strangers. Years of insults had left deep scars. But he
forced himself to set aside his fears. He made the trip and thereby prepared
himself for numerous missionary journeys in the years to come.¹⁰²

In and around Jonesport, Maine, there was a scattering of old Saints,
remmants from George J. Adams' abortive Jaffa colony. It was part of Joseph
Smith Ill's policy to gather together all the disparate elements into which the
church had broken following the events at Carthage, Illinois. Preaching among
these former followers of Adams was part and parcel of Joseph's strategy.

Joseph left Plano on June 10, 1875. He reached Boston two days later,
where he enjoyed visiting all of the historic sites associated with the American
struggle for independence. On June 17th he witnessed the parade marking the one
hundredeth anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, and ever afterwards
considered it a rare privilege to have been there, "to pay honor to the memory of
those intrepid patriots who had so bravely stood and fought for emancipation from
kingly rule and for this noble country ... ."¹⁰³

From there he went by sea to Jonesport, Maine. He overcame his fears and
preached in various locations, reaping a small harvest. The value of this journey
was not measured in numbers of converts, however. It was a personal triumph.
Joseph Smith III had taken a large step toward overcoming his own insecurities.
He was now prepared to embark on a greater missionary trip: the one which had
been urged upon him for so many years but which he had feared to undertake.¹⁰⁴

First Missionary Journey to the West

Joseph Smith III had received an invitation to attend an RLDS reunion in
Santa Ana, California. He had heard much in praise of California's beauty and
weather, and he desired to see the state. He therefore made preparations to visit
the Golden State, which contained a goodly scattering of RLDS branches. When
he left Plano and headed west, on July 17, 1876, he had not committed himself
definitively to visit Utah, but he left the option open. With him was his brother
David H. Smith, whom he left with his brother Alexander at Chariton, Iowa.
Alexander had heeded the call to "gather to the regions round about the land of
Zion" and was farming in Northern Missouri. Joseph continued on by train to
California, taking careful note of the many sites along the way.

California. He stayed in California from late July until November 1st,
ministering in both the northern and southern halves of the state. In the north, he
made San Francisco his base of operations. From there he visited Saints around
the Bay Area and in outlying areas such as Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Stockton, and
Sacramento. In the south, he visited Anaheim, San Bernardino, Los Angeles,
Pomona, and other locales.¹⁰⁵

In San Bernardino, he interviewed two old-time Saints who had lived in
Nauvoo: an elder named Seeley and Caroline Huntington. In both cases, Joseph
attempted to verify rumors that they had first-hand knowledge connecting his
father with polygamy. He found Seeley evasive. Finally he put the matter
bluntly:

Mr Seeley, I am extremely anxious to know the truth about those
matters. I have been told, repeatedly, that you are one who can tell me
positively whether or not my father was connected with the doctrine of
plural marriage .... I wish, if you have definite information about this
matter, you would give it to me in a straightforward and positive
manner.

To his astonishment, the older man replied, "Brother Smith, I wish I did
know!"' Despite additional attempts to elicit information from him, Seeley
continued to maintain that he did not know.

The interview with Caroline Huntington, ex-wife of John Huntington,
proceeded similarly. She had separated from her husband when he took a plural
wife—her own sister—against her wishes. Joseph asked her what she knew of his
father's involvement in polygamy, telling her that it had been reported frequently
that she had made statements in regard to the matter. She refused to make any
statement about the subject and denied having made any statements to others.
Joseph concluded that "she either knew nothing herself which would implicate my
father, or for reasons known to herself preferred not to tell the story." He felt
that her information might have been based solely on hearsay.¹⁰⁶

In the future, particularly during his trips to Utah, Joseph Smith III had a
number of similar interviews. He concluded that the "knowledge" many boasted
of possessing about polygamy in Nauvoo was based on rumor and hearsay. In a
number of cases this may well have been the case. But the explanation does not
fit all cases. Particularly when interviewing those who had grown to abhor
polygamy, there was another motive for refusing to speak candidly to the son of
the prophet. When those being interviewed sympathized with Joseph's attempts to
return the Latter Day Saints to monogamous pathways, they faced a dilemma. If
they spoke candidly to Joseph Smith III, they risked undermining his polemical
stance. To tell him the truth might turn him from his present course. A powerful
warrior against polygamy might retire from the field.

Nevada. On November I, 1876, Joseph boarded a train for Nevada. There
were clusters of Latter Day Saints scattered about this thinly populated state. He
visited those along the route of the Union Pacific Railroad, in the Reno-Carson
City areo and at Battle Mountain. At Battle Mountain, he visited his boyhood
friends, Albert and Alpheus Haws. He met a polygamous daughter of Brigham
Young, who had earned her father's displeasure by marrying a Gentile, and assured
her that he did not look down upon her because she had been born in polygamy.
He also met a Mrs. Davis, who was a daughter of William Walker. In his journal he
recorded: "She says that Lucy Walker told her that she lived with J Smith as a
wife."¹⁰⁷

On November 20th, Joseph left Battle Mountain. He had reached a critical
decision. Despite the possibility of encountering similar testimony in the "City of
the Saints," he had decided to detour south from Ogden to Salt Lake City.
Members of the RLDS Church there had invited him to visit.

Decision to visit Utah. He had been urged many times to go to Utah. Why
did he decide to do so in 1876? A visit shortly after his ordination in 1860 would
have had a far more dramatic impact, yet he had delayed. Several reasons
suggest themselves, explaining Joseph Smith Ill's delay:

1. Initially Joseph Smith III was a novice, both as an elder and as a church
president. He was inexperienced and unsure of himself: as a leader, as a
preacher, and in his knowledge of Latter Day Saint history and doctrine. He
would have had great difficulty defending his position in earlier years. Only after
a period of study and practical experience did he feel secure enough to attempt
work in Utah.

2. Until the completion of the transcontinental railroad, the journey to
Utah was lengthy, difficult, and dangerous. Alexander H. Smith's first journey to
Utah demonstrated as much. As early as 1856, Joseph Smith III had indicated that
he would await the completion of a railroad to Utah before attempting such a
journey, and he was true to his word.

3. Earlier, the uncertainty of the Civil War years precluded such a journey.
The possibility of being drafted, the unsettled state of affairs in Utah, and the
shortage of troops along the plains to guard against Indians were all considerations
dictating a stay-at-home policy.

4. In earlier years, Joseph Smith III may have feared that his life would be
in danger in Utah. Tales of Utah Danites and "avenging angels" were given
widespread publicity in the eastern states. Anti-Mormon writers had pointed out
the existence of oaths of vengeance in the Mormon endowment ceremonies.
Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders had taught the doctrine of "blood
atonement."¹⁰⁸ The Mountain Meadows Massacre and the slaughter of the
Morrisites lent credence to the belief that such measures were practiced.¹⁰⁹
Closer to home, Joseph Smith III had first-hand knowledge of the measures
employed against apostates in Nauvoo and was aware of the dangerous situations
Alexander H. Smith and other RLDS missionaries had encountered in Utah¹¹⁰
But by 1876, such fears were fading from view. RLDS missionaries had operated
in Utah for some years. Reports from Utah indicated that Brigham Young's
monolithic control of society had weakened significantly.

5. Communications had improved immensely by 1876. Mail between Plano
and Salt Lake City now travelled quickly over the rails. In an emergency there
was always the telegraph. And, if need be, Joseph Smith III could return home in
a matter of days, not months. Ecclesiastical administration would not be
endangered by his absence.

6. In earlier years he felt unprepared to debate polygamy with the
Mormons. By now he had worked out his basic apologetic position. He might fear
that he would be confronted by a polygamous wife of his father, while in Utah, but
mentally he felt prepared for such a contingency. Earlier revulsion against polygamy had flowered into a developed polemical position. If Brighamites relied
upon testimonies of his father's involvement in polygamy, the prophet's son would
reply that it was still wrong. The sacred books were against it. ¹¹¹

7. Others had blazed the trail for him. There were RLDS branches in Utah.
Elders such as E. C. Briggs, Thomas Job, Alexander H. Smith, David H. Smith,
E. C. Brand, and W. W. Blair all had conducted successful missionary work in
Utah. Ever cautious, Joseph now knew that he was not attempting the impossible
and that he would be among at least a handful of friends.

8. Personally, Joseph felt free to make this and other extended missionary
journeys in a way he had never felt free before. The responsibilities for managing
the Herald Office were now another's.¹¹² Henry A. Stebbins had become
assistant editor of the Herald in April 1876, and could be trusted with the church's
most important publication. ¹¹³ His wife was capable of caring for the family in
his absence. And his eastern trip in 1875 had increased his confidence.

Arrival in Utah. On November 21, 1876, Joseph Smith III entered Utah for
the first time. At Ogden he switched trains and headed south for Salt Lake City.
There he was met by members of the RLDS Church. Throughout his stay in the
city he was lodged by members of his own church, not his Utah relatives.

Early in November, Joseph Smith III had been stricken with an attack of
facial neuralgia. Extracting a tooth at Carson City had failed to relieve the pain.
As he walked down the streets of Mormondom's capital, he was in no condition to
preach. The left side of his face was swollen, and eating was tortuous. It was
three weeks before he felt able to talk with reasonable freedom from pain.¹¹⁴

Nevertheless, he felt that he had reached an epochal moment in his life.
Although in pain, he was intensely aware of his surroundings. As he walked
through the streets from the train depot, he was aware of being on object of
curiosity but hardly of cordiality. He noted that none of his relatives came to
greet him. ¹¹⁵

Joseph visited about the city, but avoided public speaking for some time.
The ostracism he encountered discomfitted him. People would avoid meeting him
on the street. While unable to engage in missionary work and coolly greeted by
the citizens of the city, he grew more and more depressed. ¹¹⁶ He turned over
and over in his mind how to approach the controversy when he was able to speak.
Finally a conversation with an optimistic RLDS member named Sister Browning
cheered his spirits, and at once the "clouds of distress and homesickness, of doubt,
uncertainty and bewilderment" departed. Suddenly the course to pursue became
clear in his mind:

I decided to present the attitude and beliefs of the church at the time of
the death of my father and Uncle Hyrum, as I knew them to be from my
own personal understanding and reading of the public documents of the
church and from the teachings I had received through hearing the
doctrine preached from the stand as a child, or from study of the Book of
Mormon and Book of Covenants, later. . . .

No one knew better than I the exact position I occupied in the
controversy and the delicate one in which I found myself in the city of
Salt Lake. I knew that by the major and controlling portion of the people
there, I was regarded as being recreant to the rights and privileges of my
heritage and as having forfeited the respect and esteem they might have
accorded me as the son of Joseph the Seer. By Brigham Young I had
been openly branded as an apostate, and, evidently to make the charge
more substantial, more to his liking, and more impressive upon his
people, he had added that I was a lawyer and a spiritualist!

Joseph decided to adopt an "affirmative attitude" in his public addresses. His
position would be to stand upon the platform of Latter Day Saint scripture. He
would supplement his arguments with citations from Latter Day Saint
publications. In his heart, he felt he was no apostate, but rather one who stood
upon the faith and doctrine of the church left behind by his father, as indicated by
published records. ¹¹⁷

He had learned, by rumor, that he would meet with well organized
opposition in his meetings. It was said that ten women would be seated in the hall
who would testify that they had been wives of his father. This prospect was
disconcerting, but Joseph determined to put his legal training to good use if
confronted by such witnesses:

I had made up my mind that ... I should plainly, publicly, and
persistently cross-question them with all the art and skill I could
command, using every method within my legal knowledge and ability in
on effort to discover the truth or falsity of their statements. I felt I
could also judge a great deal by their manner and appearance as well as
by their spoken words.¹¹⁸

There was a strong element of legalism in Joseph Smith Ill's position. He
viewed statements that his father had practiced polygamy as charges against the
prophet's moral character, charges which must be sustained by weight of
evidence. He viewed himself as an attorney charged with the defense of his
father's name, one duty-bound to cross-examine hostile witnesses and to subject
their testimony to rigorous scrutiny. He refused to accept "testimony" which did
not conform to courtroom rules of evidence. He legalistically relied on a set of
books—the standard works of the church—and insisted that no purported
revelation could be accepted which contradicted previous revelation. He reasoned
that oral tradition purporting to emanate from his father was devoid of authority
if it contravened previously validated revelation.

Finally he was healthy enough to speak in public. He held forth several
times at the Liberal Institute, before large crowds. As rumored, he found seven
women seated in the front row at his first meeting. But when the opportunity was
given for comments and questions, not one of them said a word. During none of
his visits to Utah did a woman ever arise in public and state that she had been
married to the prophet Joseph Smith.

In his addresses in Utah, Joseph steared a middle course between that of
Alexander H. Smith and that of David H. Smith. He avoided Alexander's warm
speech and invective, but he did follow David's conciliatory course. He plainly
stated his objections to Mormon marital practices, basing his position upon the
standard works and published statements of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. His policy
was to be fair but forthright.

Besides his talks at the Liberal Institute, Joseph Smith III also spoke once
at Union Fort, which was the only time he was allowed to speak in a Mormon
meeting house. He did not seek permission to speak in the Tabernacle. His
addresses created considerable publicity but no rush of conversions. There is no
record of Joseph Smith III baptizing anyone while visiting Utah in 1876.¹¹⁹

Reception by relatives. Joseph was taken aback by his relatives' failure to
greet him when he arrived in the city. Even after this initial aloofness, he sensed
that an uncomfortable cloud hung over their relationship. The Utah relative with
whom he felt least comfortable was Joseph F. Smith.

He was invited to supper once by Joseph F. Smith. After chatting amiably,
the two men entered the dining room. Joseph III was introduced to his cousin's
plural wives: Julina Lambson Smith, Sarah Ellen Richards Smith, and Edna
Lambson Smith. Absent was Joseph F.'s first wife, Levira, who had separated
from him in 1868. This was to be Joseph Ill's last face-to-face social contact with
Joseph F. until 1913.

This was Joseph Ill's first opportunity to observe a polygamous household at
firsthand. He did not enjoy the experience. As they sat down to dinner, he felt an
almost overpowering feeling of revulsion:

The very fibers of my being seemed to cry out in protest, and so strong
was my prejudice and antipathy that I seemed to feel almost physically
ill as I contemplated the scene. ...

Reared as I had been in a home and environment which would never
have brooked or tolerated such associations as were there evident, I
could see nothing of the "sanctity of marriage" in such relationships.

The conversation was desultory. The undercurrent of tension was uncomfortable.
Joseph III had concluded from Joseph F.'s defiant tone, when introducing his
wives, that it would be impolitic to broach the subject of polygamy. However, he
thought he detected a hint of embarrassment in two of Joseph F.'s wives
concerning their domestic situation.¹²⁰

As the two cousins parted that December evening, they did not realize that
they would not visit with one another for decades. In the future they would
maintain an outward show of decorum toward one another, as demanded by
kinship, but their correspondence was marked by an air of frigid propriety devoid
of warmth. The differences which separated the two cousins were fundamental
and deeply felt by both.

The relative who greeted Joseph most cordially was Utah Patriarch John
Smith. Just as he had welcomed Alexander and David with warmth, so he
welcomed Joseph. John Smith was a monogamist, and Joseph quickly perceived
one of the reasons why. John's wife Helen and daughter Lucy showed themselves
strongly opposed to plural marriage. While John discreetly avoided discussing
their religious differences, Helen delighted in talking about Mormonism and
passed along many items of interest. ¹²¹

As for the other relatives, George A. Smith had died in 1875. Samuel H. B.
Smith was a polygamist, but greeted Joseph with friendship. So did John Henry
Smith and Elias Smith. ¹²²

Was the situation dangerous? Some people feared that Joseph Smith Ill's
life might be in danger. One member of the RLDS Church went so far as to give
him a revolver. After carrying the unfamiliar weapon around for three days,
Joseph decided that it was a waste of time. He encountered no threats or
uncomfortable situations.

However, on one dark night, John Smith insisted on walking home with him.
Halfway home, Joseph told him that the procedure was unnecessary.
Nevertheless, John warned him to stay in the middle of Salt Lake City's wide
streets, to avoid shadows, and to stop and talk with no one.

In Sandy he met one Josephite whose blunt ways had earned him a number
of death-threats. The man always kept a number of firearms primed and loaded in
his home, ready for use at a moment's notice. Shortly after Joseph's visit, the
man's son was shot to death. Called upon to preach the funeral sermon, Joseph
took the occasion to denounce violence and lawlessness in strong terms. He felt
that he had learned something of the meaning of the inscription in the ward
meeting house at Union Fort: "Brigham lives/The Kingdom grows/The stone is
rolling/Mind your toes." Joseph felt that he was in no personal danger, but
concluded that in earlier days this might not have been the case. ¹²³

Conversations with old Saints about polygamy. More than physical danger,
Joseph feared the discovery of evidence implicating his father in polygamy. Not
only did he run this risk in public meetings, but in private conversations with old
Nauvooans. He had a number of such talks. ¹²⁴

One such conversation was with Dr. John M. Bernhisel, his old teacher and
friend. The elderly gentleman had no desire to engage in controversy, however.
They chatted pleasantly about the family and old times. Joseph did learn that the
doctor's experience with plural marriage had been unhappy, which reinforced his
own anti-polygamous convictions.

Vienna Jacques was another elderly visitor. Outwardly, she was a spinster.
Secretly, however, she had been one of Joseph Smith's plural wives in Nauvoo.¹²⁵
Vienna Jacques was known to have been a defender of plural marriage, and when
she visited Joseph she informed him that she had come to "tell him what she
knew." Unfortunately, the only record of this conversation is contained in Joseph
Smith Ill's memoirs, where—in typical fashion—he records only those points
favorable to his own side of the controversy. During his cross-examination, he
obtained an account of controversy among the women in the Relief Society in
Nauvoo. One faction spoke favorably of the new doctrine of plural marriage,
while the uninititated reacted with horror. Vienna Jacques was one of the latter
group. She reported the talk to Emma Smith who denounced the doctrine. In all
likelihood, Vienna Jacques was telling a true story. But she never got around to
telling of her own subsequent conversion to the doctrine and marriage to the
prophet. Perhaps Joseph Smith Ill's moral indignation or force of personality
intimidated her. His account of the interview seems to indicate some
embarrassment on her part. Ironically, he came away from this conversation,
with one of his father's plural wives, convinced that he had "one more testimony"
that his parents were "free from blame regarding the institution of plural
marriage."

Henry Lawrence and several other leading Godbeites visited Joseph one
day. Several times Lawrence interrupted Joseph, stating that he did not care
what Joseph believed about polygamy, "for he knew so-and-so, and so-and-so."
Finally Joseph rebuked him for the interruptions and reminded his visitor: "I know
that I am older than you, for I knew you at school when you were much younger
and smaller than I. ... I had a much better chance to be aware of what went on in
my own father's family than you could possibly have had . . . ." He let the
Godbeites know that he would not condone evil, even in his own father, but that
he would not accept second-hand accounts of his alleged misdeeds as evidence.

Joseph met William Clayton on the streets of Salt Lake City. Clayton was
broken down with age and alcoholic dissipation. They passed a few words, but
nothing more. Whether by design, by accident, or simply through lack of
opportunity, Joseph Smith III never interrogated the man who transcribed the
revelation on plural marriage at the prophet's dictation. ¹²⁶ There would never be
another opportunity. Clayton died in 1879.

Bishop Edward Hunter was another old acquaintance whom Joseph
encountered on the street. He assured the old man that he remembered him.
Hunter turned to his companions and commented tellingly: "If we had listened to
Sister Emma we wouldn't have gotten into this mess." One of them warned him to
be careful, but Hunter retorted: "I know what I am saying, sir; Sister Emma Smith
was a noble, good woman, and things would have been very different for us all if
she had been listened to." ¹²⁷

Brigham Young was not in the city, having gone south to St. George for the
winter. Joseph did have the opportunity to hear Orson Pratt preach on December
10th, but had no chance for a lengthy conversation.

None of these conversations shook Joseph Smith Ill's conviction that his
father was "not guilty" of polygamy. In fact, they reinforced the opposite
conviction.

On December 12, 1876, Joseph Smith III left Ogden and headed east. The
long called-for visit of the prophet's son had taken place. But the anticipated
results had not occurred. The prophet's son had been ill with facial neuralgia and
unable to speak during much of his visit. His legalistic arguments failed to spark
the flames of revolt against "Brighamism." He went home with little to show for
his efforts, save the conviction that he could withstand the "testimonies" of the
Utah Mormons concerning polygamy. He had developed the art of "cross-
examining" such testimonies, an art which he would finely hone in coming years.

William Smith's Affiliation with the Reorganization

One aspect of Joseph Smith Ill's strategy was to war relentlessly against
polygamy. Another was to gather together the scattered fragments of Latter Day
Saint factions under the umbrella of the Reorganization. Yet another aspect of
his strategy was to gather the members of the Smith family into the RLDS fold.
With those members who had not emigrated to Utah, he experienced great
success. Eventually the Milliken and Salisbury families enlisted under his banner,
including the two surviving sisters of the prophet. ¹²⁸ But his greatest triumph
occurred in 1878, when the sole surviving brother of the prophet, William Smith,
cast his lot with the Reorganization.

The breakup of William Smith's church in Illinois and Wisconsin had
provided the nucleus for the Reorganization. William himself had held aloof,
refusing to join any church which did not recognize his prerogatives as the sole
surviving son of Joseph Smith, Sr.¹²⁹ During the Civil War he served in the Union
Army. After the war he settled down to life as a farmer in Elkader, Clayton
County, Iowa. There he lived in strict monogamy, attended to his temporal
affairs, and built a good reputation among his neighbors.

Eventually William mellowed and engaged in friendly correspondence with
his nephew Joseph Smith III. In 1878 Joseph invited him to attend the Annual
Conference at Plano, hoping that his uncle would be ready, at last, to join the
Reorganized Church. William was nearly seventy years old, and there was no
prospect of his forming another church of his own. If he were to do anything,
religiously, with the rest of his life, the RLDS Church was his last significant
option. ¹³⁰

But there were some differences to be negotiated before affiliating.
William would have preferred to have been recognized as patriarch of the church
(which position he had always claimed by right of lineage), or at least as an
apostle. He also insisted that he should be received into membership on the basis
of his original baptism, and that his church work since 1844—baptisms,
ordinations, etc.—be accepted as valid.

Joseph strongly desired that his uncle lend his prestigious name to the
cause. But these demands presented him with difficulties. Although he never
admitted it in public, he was well aware that polygamy had led to the demise of
his uncle's ecclesiastical organization. ¹³¹ To acknowledge the validity of all the
ordinances performed by William—ordinances performed while he was practicing
polygamy—would contradict a basic tenet of the Reorganization. ¹³² Joseph had
left the office of patriarch vacant—probably with William's situation in view—but
to admit him to that office or to the apostleship would risk antagonizing
influential members of the church who were intimately familiar with William's
earlier transgressions. Some of these would prefer that he undergo rebaptism
before admission into the church.

After days of stubborn negotiation, a comprise was reached. On April 9,
1878 the Annual Conference received William into membership on his original
baptism. On April 10th he was recognized as a high priest.

Until his death in 1893 William lent his name and energy to the cause of
the Reorganization. He occasionally preached, went on missions, and attended
conferences. He lent his pen to the cause and took every opportunity to excoriate
Brighamites as apostates. At Joseph's urging, he even signed an affidavit
affirming that Joseph Smith, Jr. had never advocated polygamy.¹³³

There was an element of symbiosis in the relationship between William
Smith and Joseph Smith III. William obtained legitimacy and a certain amount of
vindication from his affiliation with the Reorganization. Joseph obtained
something more: the last surviving brother of Joseph Smith, on apostle in the old
church, lent his prestigious name to the cause. One more member of the Smith
family added his voice to the chorus of denunciation against "the Utah apostasy."

Sister Emma's Last Testimony

But there was one member of the family who might render a far more
influential word of testimony than William Smith. This was Emma Smith
Bidamon. Unlike William, who loved the limelight, Emma spent her last years
avoiding notoriety as much as possible. But Joseph felt that he must obtain her
testimony to counterbalance discomfitting statements by those who claimed that
his father had taught and practiced plural marriage.

Tentatively at first, but now with increasing confidence, Joseph Smith III
advanced the proposition that his father had not taught or practiced polygamy.
Isolated as he was from his father's intimate disciples and plural wives, he found
few in Plano, Illinois who could contradict his position with first-hand evidence to
the contrary. But there was one weak link in his apologetic armor. Repeatedly he
had been told: "You were too young to know anything about it. Ask your mother.
She knows better."

Joseph Smith III knew that he had embarked on his religious career without
thorough investigation of this factual question. In 1860 his moral and spiritual
certainty that polygamy was wrong was sufficient to determine his course. But in
Utah, in his correspondence with his relatives, and in pointed questions from
others, the embarrassing factual questions had popped up repeatedly: Did the
prophet sanction polygamy, and did his mother have first-hand knowledge of
it?¹³⁴

Early in 1879, Joseph Smith III discussed with some of his key associates
the advisability of questioning his mother. He was aware that his mother's health
was fragile. If ever he were to ask her the fateful question, he knew it must be
soon. Intellectually, he was prepared for the worst. Even if his father had
practiced polygamy, he reasoned, it was still wrong. But emotionally, to ask such
a question was extremely difficult. Nevertheless he determined to ask. The
interview with his mother would provide an opportunity to settle some other
disputed questions about early Latter Day Saint history, as well. Accordingly, a
list of some of the more important questions was drawn up, and Joseph departed
Plano for Nauvoo on February 4, 1879. The next day, he interviewed his mother.
The record in his journal is quite simple: "Wrote up from mother's
recollections."¹³⁵ He later gave a fuller description of the scene:

Sister Emma answered the questions freely and in the presence of her
husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, who was generally present in their
sitting-room where the conversation took place. We were more
particular in this, because it had been frequently stated to us: "Ask your
mother, she knows." "Why don't you ask your mother; she dare not deny
these things." "You do not dare to ask your mother."

Our thought was, that if we had lacked courage to ask her, because
we feared the answers she might give, we would put aside that fear; and,
whatever the worst might be, we would hear it. ...

We apologized to our mother for putting the Questions respecting
polygamy and plural wives, as we felt we ought to do.¹³⁶

This was a dramatic scene. For nineteen years he had avoided such a
discussion, but he felt he could postpone it no longer. He knew he was breaching a
family taboo. He and others in the family had heard his mother's terse denials to
unwelcome questions from visitors about polygamy. But they had far too much
respect for her to raise the unpleasant subject themselves. But now apologetic
necessity demanded that a statement be derived from the prophet's widow before
she died. Perhaps there was a nagging doubt, as well, in Joseph's own mind. So he
screwed up his courage and dared to trespass upon the forbidden territory. And
having gone this far, his deep-seated integrity (and perhaps his legal training)
caused him to have a witness present during the questioning. The interview
began. Joseph apologized for the necessity of some of the questions. And then,
rather than plunge immediately into the main issue, he began with some less
painful questions, asking about details of her marriage, her children who had died
in infancy, and her recollections of Sidney Rigdon. At last, he came to the long
unasked questions about polygamy:

Q. What about the revelation on Polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have
anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?

A. There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives.
There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my
husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that in a chat about
plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possibly be, if
everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they
would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven."

Q. Did he not have other wives than yourself?

A. He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever
have.

Q. Did he not hold marital relation with women other than
yourself?

A. He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever
came to my knowledge.

Q. Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?

A. At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard
certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and
assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there
was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or
consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any
sense, either spiritual or otherwise. ¹³⁷

Some additional questions were posed, but the great hurdle had been
traversed.

Joseph Smith III must have greeted his mother's answers with an internal
sigh of relief. Her answers relieved him of lying upon a procrustean bed. He held
two irreconcilable positions. In his heart he believed that his father had not been
a bad man and could not have taught or practiced something so wicked as
polygamy. But whenever he was confronted with difficult evidence to the
contrary, he fell back upon his second line of defense, i.e., that the truth of the
Latter Day work was independent of Joseph Smith's character. But these two
positions left an unresolved dilemma. What if the prophet, qua prophet, had
declared polygamy to be God's will? Logically, if Joseph Smith, Jr. did
promulgate such a revelation, either plural marriage was a righteous principle
sanctioned by heaven, or the prophet had produced a false revelation sanctioning
wickedness.

Emma's testimony resolved the potential dilemma. Joseph now had the
testimony of the one who had known the prophet most intimately. With this
testimony he could counterbalance the testimonies of those who claimed the
contrary.

Joseph Smith III departed Nauvoo on February 10th and returned home. On
April 30th, Emma passed away. In October 1879 the Saints' Herald and the Saints'
Advocate (a missionary paper edited by W. W. Blair) both published the interview
of February 5, 1879, under the title, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma." ¹³⁸ The
accounts bore the signature of Joseph Smith III.

When copies of the Saints' Advocate reached Utah, there was a swift
reaction. The Mormon Church was fighting a war on two fronts to defend its
practice of plural marriage. The "Last Testimony of Sister Emma" posed a
strategic threat on both fronts. On one front, the LDS Church was fighting
federal anti-polygamy laws by claiming that plural marriage was an integral part
of the Mormon religion and therefore protected under the First Amendment. But
the "Last Testimony" buttressed the arguments of those who claimed polygamy
was no part of Mormonism proper. On the other front, RLDS missionaries in Utah
were seeking converts on the grounds that the LDS leadership was in apostacy.
The "Last Testimony" strengthened the RLDS claim to be the true church.

Apostle Joseph F. Smith spearheaded the Mormon counterattack. For some
time he had been collecting affidavits from those who had first-hand knowledge of
Joseph Smith's teaching and practice of plural marriage. Now he made
devastating use of the information he had accumulated. Joseph F. Smith
submitted a lengthy letter to the Deseret Evening News. reproducing many of the
sworn affidavits. The effect of his letter was to contradict the whole of his Aunt
Emma's testimony concerning plural marriage.

For example, the affidavit of Joseph B. Noble stated that the Mormon
prophet had taught Noble the principle of plural marriage in 1840 and that the
prophet affirmed that an angel from heaven commanded him to practice the
principle. Benjamin F. Johnson swore that the prophet taught him the principle in
1843, entered into plural marriage with Johnson's sister, counseled Johnson's
widowed mother to enter into a plural marriage, and secretly cohabited with two
plural wives at Johnson's residence. Apostle Lorenzo Snow swore that the prophet
taught him the principle in 1843, and that his sister Eliza R. Snow was sealed to
the prophet as a plural wife. John Benbow swore that the prophet taught him the
principle in 1843 and housed one of his plural wives at Benbow's house. Two of
Joseph Smith, Jr.'s plural wives—the sisters Eliza M. Partridge Lyman and Emily
D. Partridge Young—testified that they were sealed to the prophet in 1843, in the
presence of Emma Smith. Lovina Walker, niece of Emma Smith, swore that in
1846, her Aunt Emma told her that she had witnessed the sealing of four young
women to Joseph Smith, Jr. as plural wives.

Apostle Joseph F. Smith concluded that these affidavits asserted "quite as
strong claims for belief" and presented "a much better appearance of veracity"
than Sister Emma's Last Testimony. His numerous witnesses were, for the most
part, still living and could be cross-examined, while Emma was dead and was
"represented as denying facts which it can be abundantly proven, were well known
to her." In death, her son was making her to assume "hazardous and untenable
ground." Such a denial should have been publicized years ago, he reasoned, if
true. ¹³⁹

Joseph F. Smith's letter was followed in the same issue by one from Eliza
R. Snow, the most prominent woman in Utah. She argued:

If what purports to be her [Emma's] "last testimony" was really her
testimony, she died with a libel on her lips ... and in publishing that
libel, her son has fastened a stigma on the character of his mother, that
can never be erased. .. . Even if her son ignored his mother's reputation
for veracity, he better had waited until his father's wives were silent in
death, for now they are her living witnesses of the divinity of plural
marriage .... [He has] through a sinister policy [branded his mother's
name] with gross wickedness—charging her with the denial of a sacred
principle which she had heretofore not only acknowledged but acted
upon—a principle than which there is none more important comprised in
the gospel of the Son of God.¹⁴⁰

The letters of Joseph F. Smith and Eliza R. Snow point up several
historiographical problems which are still of interest. These include:

Why was the "Last Testimony" published posthumously? Joseph F. Smith
implied that his cousin waited until Emma was safely dead and could not be cross-
examined before publishing her testimony. Did Joseph Smith III deliberately file
away the testimony until after his mother's demise so that she could not be cross-
examined? Or was it a matter of accident rather than policy? Joseph F. Smith
and Eliza Snow both implied that the Last Testimony had been withheld as a
matter of policy, for safety, and to lend an air of finality to the statement. Eliza
R. Snow even implied that the whole story might have been put into his late
mother's mouth by her designing son.

Unfortunately, neither Joseph Smith Ill's journals nor his letters reveal the
reason for the delay. However, there are certain inferential reasons for believing
that the posthumous publication was accidental. Upon his return to Plano, Joseph
Smith III almost immediately became caught up in the hectic activity incidental
to moving the Herald Office into new quarters. ¹⁴¹ Then came the incessant
round of activities associated with the Annual Conference, held at Plano,
beginning April 6, 1879. The conference was not long concluded when the fateful
telegram arrived on April 20th, calling him back to Nauvoo, because his mother
was passing away. ¹⁴² She died on April 30th. There simply was very little time to prepare the matter for the press between February 4 and April 30, 1879. That
such a crowded schedule was a factor is suggested by the additional delay of five
months before the Last Testimony appeared in print. ¹⁴³

Is the text of the Last Testimony trustworthy? One recent study states
that the manner in which the text was edited is unclear.¹⁴⁴ While it is true that
the printer's manuscript has gone the way of its kind, the original notes of the
interview are extant and can be compared with the published account. ¹⁴⁵ Both
questions and answers are in the unmistakable hand of Joseph Smith III and give
every indication of being authentic notes of a conversation.¹⁴⁶

Comparison of the published version with the longhand notes reveals close
correspondence between the two. There is no indication of editorial liberties
having been taken. The most significant change, in the printed version, is the
rearrangement of the rambling discussion into a more coherent sequence. In
substance, the printed version faithfully represents the notes.

There are several other reasons for believing that the Last Testimony
accurately reflects the actual interview. First, the controversial assertions made
in it are consistent with statements Emma Smith Bidamon made to others.
Second, the interview was conducted in the presence of Major Bidamon, who lived
until 1891 without contradicting its truthfulness. Third, however stubborn Joseph
Smith III may have been on the subject of polygamy, he was no liar. A fabrication
would have been out of character.

Why did Sister Emma fail to tell the truth about polygamy? This was the
question which vexed Eliza R. Snow, who had lived with the Smith family in the
Mansion House and was well acquainted with Emma's character. Eliza knew that
her own marriage to the prophet was known to Emma. How could Emma lie?

The problem was compounded by Emma's reputation for veracity. George
Edmunds—who was convinced that the prophet both taught and practiced
polygamy—was asked to explain this very discrepancy, toward the end of his life.
He told his interviewer emphatically: "I tell you, sir, no man could look Emma
Smith in the face and tell a lie! She would detect it at once, and he knew it"' The
interviewer then asked, "Judge, if Emma Smith was the kind of woman you say she
was, how do you account for her statement that her husband had had nothing
whatever to do with polygamy . . . ?" The old man replied, with an odd smile,
"That's just the h— of it; I can't account for it nor reconcile her statements with
what I had been led to believe. Nevertheless, she was just the kind of woman I
have said she was."¹⁴⁷

A strong clue to her motives is found in her reaction to her second
husband's infidelities. Major Bidamon fathered an illegitimate son by a local
widow named Nancy Abercrombie. While never acknowledging that her husband
had fathered the child, Emma took the boy into their home and raised him. In an
sketch of his mother's life, Joseph Smith III recalled that if Emma "ever did
suspect her husband in this unfortunate business, neither her own children nor any
one else ever knew it, so strong was her self control and her sense of right under
conditions of suspicion only."¹⁴⁸ Faced with infidelity on the part of her husband,
she maintained her dignity by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that anything
was amiss. In the case of her denial that Joseph Smith, Jr. was involved in
polygamy, such stern-willed determination to maintain her dignity undoubtedly
played a role.

Recently published material from William Clayton's diaries shows that
Emma Smith, when not cowed into submission, offered vigorous opposition to her
husband's practice of plural marriage. When she was confronted with the
revelation on celestial marriage, she declared that she did not believe a word of
it. Moral revulsion and a sense of personal betrayal by her husband were
fundamental motives for her opposition to polygamy. They operated as strongly in
1879 as they had in the 1840s.¹⁴⁹

Practical considerations also entered into the equation. Nauvoo was
something of a mecca for Mormons and curious non-Mormons. These visitors
naturally would stop at the Mansion House. In the face of repeated unwelcome
questions, Emma naturally developed some standard, terse denials concerning an
episode she preferred not to discuss. ¹⁵⁰ In the 1840s and 1850s there was the
practical matter of shielding her growing children from the evil practice; denial
and silence were the simplest means to this end. After 1860 there was the matter
of upholding the apologetic position of the RLDS Church. Protecting herself, her
children, and her church were all practical reasons for her policy.

Granted that Emma Smith Bidamon was motivated by her desire to shield
herself, her children, and her church, there remains the problem of how to
reconcile her Last Testimony with her reputation for honesty. Three possible
explanations suggest themselves.

First, psychological or physical factors may have altered her memory of
the past. The passing of time, failing memory, and psychological denial may have
changed her recollections. In a similar case of historical misstatement in old age,
Richard P. Howard suggested that "the endless nuances of the polemic process"
distorted James Whitehead's memory, "encouraging anomalies in statements over
time and under tumultuous conditions."¹⁵¹ But this hardly explains Emma's
denials spanning several decades.

Second, the "Last Testimony" may contain half-truths, term-switching, and
ambiguously-worded references to actual incidents.¹⁵² The accounts of the
prophet's denials of polygamy probably reflect actual conversations between
Joseph and Emma prior to 1843, when he first spoke to her about plural marriage
openly. The statements that there were "no other wives" and "no revelation" may
be ways of saying, "There were no true wives but myself and no true revelation on
polygamy." The phrase, "that ever came to my knowledge," may be akin to Emma
Smith Bidamon's refusal to acknowledge the existence of the affair between L. C.
Bidamon and Nancy Abercrombie.

Third, and last, the denials may be regarded simply as lies. In the final
analysis, this is exactly what they were. However much the prophet's first wife
may have justified her answers as technically true but semantically evasive, the
bald fact remains that, by design, they conveyed to the reader or listener an idea
which was false. In the case of one noted for her integrity, only extremities could
have driven her to such dissimulation. The hateful doctrine of plural marriage
was just such an extremity. In the eyes of the prophet's widow, the truth was too
painful, too dangerous, and too wicked to testify to, even as she approached death
in 1879.

The Accession of E. W. Tullidge to the Reorganization

After obtaining his mother's "Last Testimony," Joseph Smith III returned to
Plano to prepare for the Annual Conference in April. Held in Plano, the
Conference of 1879 witnessed the accession of the most famous Mormon ever to
join the Reorganization: Edward Wheelock Tullidge (1829-1894). Tullidge had
been converted to Mormonism in England in 1848. Later he was employed on the
editorial staff of the Millennial Star. In 1861 he immigrated to America. Here he
put his literary talents to good use in both Utah and New York. Disillusioned with
Brigham Young's rule, he became associated with the Godbeite movement for a
time, believing that it might be the vehicle to restore the Latter-day Saints to the
paths of truth and virtue. Tullidge had written a Life of Brigham Young and The
Women of Mormondom, but his lifelong dream had been to write a biography of
Joseph Smith. This he published in 1878 under the title, Life of Joseph the
Prophet. He sent a complimentary copy to Joseph Smith III, who sent him a
thank-you note. Apparently this favorable response, coupled with a negative
reaction to the book by some of the authorities in Utah, moved Tullidge to
consider affiliating with the Reorganization. He long before had concluded that
lack of a leader had contributed to the failure of the Godbeite movement, and he
also had been considering the claims of Joseph Smith III to the mantle of his
prophet-father. In April 1879 he travelled from Utah to Plano to attend the RLDS
Annual Conference. After discussions with Joseph Smith III, he was baptized and
ordained an elder. ¹⁵³

Tullidge remained in Illinois for a time. He labored actively as on elder,
while continuing to write for a living. In the fall of 1879 he became involved in a
movement, the brain-child of certain editors and others opposed to Mormon
polygamy, to install Joseph Smith III as Governor of Utah Territory. Writing to
President Rutherford B. Hayes, he argued that such an appointment would
undermine the Mormon theocracy. He extravagently forcast that 20,000 to 50,000
Mormons would join the crusade against polygamy, if the prophet's son were
installed in Utah's gubernatorial chair. ¹⁵⁴

At the Annual Conference of 1880, Tullidge was appointed to serve in the
Rocky Mountain Mission along with W. W. Blair. He returned to Utah in the
summer, but soon drifted away from church work and began publishing Tullidge's
Quarterly Magazine.

Before E. W. Tullidge's departure for Utah, Joseph Smith III had arranged
for the RLDS Board of Publication to reissue his Life of Joseph the Prophet. The
RLDS president long had felt the need to publish a church history, but the project
had languished for years. If some of the references to Utah doctrines such as
polygamy and plurality of gods could be removed, he reasoned, Tullidge's
laudatory portrait of the prophet might fill the void. The revisions were made.
Text was added scoring Brighamite usurpation and iniquity and recounting the
history of the Reorganization. Joseph Smith III himself appended an
autobiographical chapter. Plates were secured and the RLDS edition of the Life
of Joseph the Prophet was published in the fall of 1880.

To Joseph Smith Ill's chagrin, the accession of E. W. Tullidge to the
Reorganized Church brought him nothing but trouble. Others of Tullidge's
intellectual circle in Salt Lake City did not follow him into the ranks of the RLDS
Church. The publication of Tullidge's book severely strained the Board of
Publication's limited resources. To make matters worse, the Church was unable
to recoup its costs. Hundreds of copies were left in the Herald Office gathering
dust, due to a controversy within the church over the book.¹⁵⁵ Opponents of the
book, including a majority of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, charged that the
book's portrait of Joseph and Hyrum Smith was an unrealistic panegyric, and
worse, that it portrayed Brigham Young and other Utah leaders in favorable
light.¹⁵⁶ Sales of the book were stopped. Personal distaste for Tullidge, based
upon suspicions of opportunism and his unreformed drinking habits, also
contributed to the book's demise. In Utah, Tullidge lapsed farther and farther into
alcoholism. He contributed nothing to the RLDS cause and drifted away from all
church association. The Mormon authorities, headed by John Henry Smith and
Joseph F. Smith, "effectually stopped every intellectual or business enterprise in
which Mr. Tullidge engaged. They proscribed the sale of his works, and the
community generally refused to support his publishing ventures."¹⁵⁷ Joseph
Smith III would have liked to have forgotten the entire episode of the abortive
publication of Tullidge's Life of Joseph the Prophet. However, there was one final
chapter in the whole sorry affair. The RLDS Board of Publication used engraved
portraits of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in the book, obtained from Edward W.
Tullidge. Joseph F. Smith claimed a personal interest in these plates. Joseph
Smith III rejected his claim, insisting that the plates were solely the property of
the RLDS Board of Publication. A nasty controversy ensued between Joseph III
and Joseph F. Smith, each adamently insisting that the other was in the wrong. ¹⁵⁸

E. W. Tullidge died in Salt Lake City on May 21, 1894, his idealism
disappointed, a victim of alcoholism. Rather than a useful worker in the RLDS
cause, he had proven a personal disappointment to Joseph Smith III.

Vindication in Hancock County

If the accession of Edward Tullidge to the Reorganized Church in 1879 and
the publication of his Life of Joseph the Prophet in 1880 proved embarrassments
to Joseph Smith III, two other events in 1880 more than compensated for the
disappointment. In this year his long struggle for respectability and legitimacy
culminated in two strategic victories. The first victory was his successful
preaching mission in Hancock County. The second was a favorable judicial opinion
in a lawsuit over the Kirtland Temple. The second received greater publicity and
was of more apologetic value to the church, but the first was a personal triumph
which Joseph Smith III richly savored for years to come.

The better part of January 1880, Joseph Smith III engaged in a preaching
mission in Illinois. His confidence having increased with experience, he now found
himself filled with enthusiasm and a desire to present his message wherever
possible. This mission particularly fired his zeal, because part of the time was to
be spent in Hancock County.

First he visited Burnside, near the homes of his Aunt Katharine Salisbury
and her children. After preaching there he went to Colchester, home of his Aunt
Lucy Millikin. At both locations Campbellite preachers tried to deny him the use
of local church buildings. One succeeded; the other did not. Sharing church
buildings with other denominations was commonplace at that time. Joseph Smith
III always resented it when this courtesy was denied to RLDS elders. The clerical
opposition only fed the interest of the local citizens. Joseph's meetings were well
attended in both Burnside and Colchester. Joseph was pleased at his friendly
reception. ¹⁵⁹

His great triumph occurred at Carthage, however. There he spoke at the
Hancock County Court House, January 16, 17, and twice on Sunday, January 18,
1880. As he approached these meetings, his mind was filled with recollections of
past indignities and questions about how he would be received now:

... I had thought a great deal about this contemplated effort at
Carthage, and had speculated considerably, remembering my father's
death in the jail there, the causes . . . , all the trials and difficulties
which ensued, the later occupants of the county, the legal affairs at
Carthage taken over by many who had been at enmity with my father
and the church he sponsored, and—perhaps over and above all—the public
opposition to me which had once been shown in that city. I constantly
asked myself the questions, How would I be received? What course
should I pursue in my discourse there? Would the people listen to me?

All his apprehensions vanished on January 16th. He had a large and
attentive audience. There were no disruptions or signs of hostility. Near the very
spot where his father had been murdered, he spoke freely. In the location where
an indignation meeting had passed resolutions forbidding him to preach Mormon
doctrine in the county, he fully and calmly expounded his belief in latter day
revelation, the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the church, and the RLDS
understanding of the gospel.¹⁶⁰

Many of his listeners congratulated him warmly, particularly for his
affirmative manner which was free of accusation, rancor, or bitterness. The
local press commented favorably on his meetings. The editor of the Carthage
Republican commented that he had good audiences which behaved respectfully.
The editor also noted Joseph Smith Ill's improvement as a public speaker since
leaving Hancock County. ¹⁶¹ The editor of the other Carthage newspaper, the
Gazette, was none other than Thomas C. Sharp, former editor of the Warsaw
Signal, and violent enemy of Joseph Smith, Jr. Editor Sharp commented:

The lectures of Elder Joseph Smith, of the Reorganized Mormon
Church . . . were attended by crowded audiences. We were not present
at any of the lectures, but learn from those who were, that there was
nothing said, at which any person could take offense. He simply argued
religious questions from a Mormon standpoint, but repudiated polygamy.
Mr. Smith has the reputation of being a gentleman and a good citizen,
and received from our people the courteous treatment which every man,
irrespective of his religious views, is entitled to.¹⁶²

Joseph Smith III felt himself vindicated. Years of good citizenship, moral
conduct, faithful preaching, and calm replies to Gentile hostility had produced the
desired result. Even in this former hotbed of Anti-Mormonism he could preach
freely. He had succeeded in dissociating the RLDS Church from much of the
opprobrium attached to the name "Mormon." His quest for respectability and
vindication was reaping dividends at the very time when the Utah Church was
under increasing attack for its practice of polygamy. His reception in Hancock
County demonstrated that he had managed to convince many Gentiles that the
RLDS Church was composed of non-polygamous, moral, law-abiding citizens who
differed from their neighbors only in certain theological tenets. ¹⁶³

Favorable Opinion in the Kirtland Temple Suit

One month after his gratifying reception in Hancock County, Joseph Smith
III scored a second major victory, this one also in a court room. In Lake County,
Ohio, Judge L. S. Sherman ruled that the RLDS Church was the legitimate
successor of the church established in 1830. The occasion for Judge Sherman's
ruling was a lawsuit over the Kirtland Temple. Judge Sherman's favorable opinion
demonstrated that Joseph Smith Ill's arguments for legitimacy were gaining
greater credance among Americans outside the Latter Day Saint camp. Based on
documents published during his father's lifetime, he set forth convincing
arguments that the Mormons of Utah had apostatized from the original Latter
Day Saint faith.

Joseph Smith Ill's apologetic stance owed much to his legal training, and it
was well suited to courtroom proceedings. As previously noted, his legal mindset
extended to the question of his father's involvement in polygamy. It also colored
his approach to his duties as president of the RLDS Church. In disciplinary cases
he always insisted that proper rules of evidence and procedure be followed. At
conferences he demanded orderly debate and adherence to proper parliamentary
procedure.¹⁶⁴ His theology also displayed strong legalistic tendencies.

Early in his career Joseph Smith III sensed that the law might be employed
to validate the Reorganization's position vis-a-vis the Utah Church. In April 1867,
while visiting Nauvoo, he discussed this possibility with his old friend George
Edmunds. After returning to Plano he sent Edmunds a request that he draw up an
abstract concerning a number of questions they had discussed, including the
following:

1st In the event of a controversy arising between the so called,
Brighamite branch; and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints; what would be necessary upon the part of the latter,
to show that they were the parties in rightful succession to the church,
organized by Joseph Smith Jr and others in A. D. 1830?

2nd What steps, if any, are necessary for the Reorganized C. of J. C. of
L. D. S. to take, to enable them to hold property in any and all the
state[s] of the U. S?

3rd What Steps, if any, are required to be taken by Church organizations,
to become persons, or corporate bodies, known to the law?
4th What effect, if any, will the action of congress forbidding the
consummation of marriages by Mormons authority have, upon said
Reorganized Church?¹⁶⁵

The last point illustrated a constant theme of Joseph Smith Ill's when
dealing with the Federal Government. He was concerned—in 1866 and later—that
legal proscriptions aimed at Utah Mormonism not be drawn so broadly as to
include the Reorganization.

The first three points focused on the question of the church's legal identity
as the successor of the original church organized by Joseph Smith, Jr. This letter
demonstrates that early in his career, Joseph Smith III was contemplating a
strategy whereby he might achieve legal recognition for the Reorganization as the
legitimate successor to the church established by his father. Part of this strategy
involved incorporating the church and establishing its right to hold property. Of
course there were other reasons for incorporating the church, but the letter to
Edmunds shows that the questions of incorporation and a legal test against the
Utah Church were linked in the thinking of Joseph Smith III.

At the Semi-Annual Conference of 1872, the RLDS president secured
approval of Articles of Incorporation for the church. The articles provided that
the church be incorporated under the laws of Illinois under the name,
"Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Significantly, the
first article stated: "The church adheres to the doctrines and tenets of the
original 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,' as organized by Joseph
Smith (the martyr), now deceased, on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1830, as the
same has been reorganized by Joseph Smith, now of Plano, Illinois, . . . and many
others." The fourth article provided that the corporation might hold property.
The fifth article provided that the corporation might "sue and be sued, defend and
be defended in all courts and places—but all shall be done in said corporate name."
The sixth article provided that all trustees holding property for the church
transfer title for same to the corporate body, and that "said corporation shall by
operation of law succeed to all property now owned by said church or held for its
use; and may sue for and recover the some, in the name of said corporation." ¹⁶⁶
This last provision closely followed the text of the Illinois statute governing
incorporation of religious bodies, which stated that an incorporated religious body
was entitled to "all the real and personal estate" of the previously incorporated or
unincorporated body which it succeeded. ¹⁶⁷

On February 5, 1873, the appropriate papers were filed with the Recorder
of Deeds in Kendall County, Illinois. ¹⁶⁸ Thereafter, the church was officially
incorporated, claiming to be the true successor of the original Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints. If that claim could be established in a court of law,
it might convey the right to property held by the church prior to the death of
Joseph Smith, Jr. This laid the groundwork for the legal contest in 1880
concerning ownership of the Kirtland Temple.

The glory of the Kirtland Temple had passed. After the Mormon exodus
from Nauvoo, in 1846, the trustees would have sold it had they been able to find
an appropriate buyer. In 1862 it had passed into private possession as the result of
a probate sale. The probate sale had resulted from revived court proceedings
against Joseph Smith, Jr.'s estate. The temple had been sold because Joseph
Smith, Jr. held title to it as sole trustee in trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints. Possession had then changed hands via a succession of quit
claims. In 1873 a member of the Reorganized Church came into possession of the
temple and conveyed possession to Joseph Smith III (president of the church) and
Mark H. Forscutt (secretary). ¹⁶⁹

Both Joseph Smith III and Mark H. Forscutt were in debt. The temple was
in need of repairs. When municipal officials in Kirtland suggested, in 1875, that
they would like to purchase the structure to convert it into a town hall, the offer
was favorably received. Joseph Smith III and Mark Forscutt were willing to sell
the temple for $2,500. In July 1875 Joseph Smith III went to Kirtland to complete
the sale, only to have it fall through because the town feared that the title was
clouded. ¹⁷⁰

Joseph Smith III then initiated research into who held title to the property.
George E. Paine, an Ohio attorney specializing in real estate law, was employed
to make an abstract of title. Paine concluded, from his research, that the title to
the temple, in 1841, belonged to Joseph Smith, Jr., as trustee for the church.
Since April 1862, he reported, possession of the property was under the quit claim
resulting from the probate sale. As for the present situation, Paine concluded:

It seems to me there can be no question as to the claim of
the legal representatives of "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints" .... to the property, if said claim is prosecuted within twenty
one years from April 19 1862—but it will be necessary to show that the
claimant is such legal representative of said Church ....

Since Joseph Smith III and Mark Forscutt were affiliated with the Reorganized
Church, Paine suggested leaving the probate sale undisturbed until the title was
perfected by twenty-one years' possession. He warned that if legal proceedings
were initiated to recover the property in the name of the church, it would be
necessary to prove "that those who now claim to recover the prope[r]ty are the
legal representatives of said original church . . . ."¹⁷¹

Joseph now came under pressure from some Saints to transfer title to the
church. Bishop Israel Rogers in particular desired him to do so. The matter
became the subject of debate at conference, but the RLDS president adamantly
insisted that if he simply transferred possession to the church, it would leave the
church's claim open to legal challenge. He proposed on alternative approach. He
persuaded Bishop Rogers and the conference of the wisdom of his strategy.¹⁷²

What he proposed was that the church file suit to establish its title to the
Kirtland Temple. The premise upon which the suit was to be built was that the
probate sale illegally treated the temple as personal property of Joseph Smith,
Jr., whereas it actually had belonged to the church, of which he was trustee-in-
trust. The Reorganized Church then could claim to be the rightful owner as the
successor of the church organized in 1830. If the court ruled that the probate sale
properly treated the temple as personal property of Joseph Smith, Jr., then Joseph
Smith III and Mark Forscutt would hold clear title, and nothing would be lost. The
temple still could be transferred to the RLDS Church. But if the court ruled the
probate sale improper, then the RLDS Church would be in a position to enter its
claims as the true church in succession.

There was the potential danger that the Utah Church—or some minor
Latter Day Saint faction—might make an appearance in court and claim to be the
true church in succession. This might make for a long and risky court battle. The
possibility was minimal, however. According to the requirements of Ohio law,
notice to the defendants was made by publication of a notice in the local press, in
August 1879. No papers were served upon John Taylor or any official of the
Mormon Church, even though "the Mormon Church, and John Taylor, President of
said Utah Church" were named as defendants. ¹⁷³

On February 17, 1880, RLDS attorney E. L. Kelley—assisted by non-
member J. B. Burrows—argued the case in the Court of Common Pleas, Lake
County, Ohio. Kel ley was confident of the result, because when Judge L. S.
Sherman took the case under advisement he stated that the evidence showed "a
very wide departure from the laws and usages of the original church by that body
of Mormons in Utah Territory." ¹⁷⁴

On February 23, 1880, Judge Sherman handed down his ruling in the case.
He ruled that Joseph Smith, Jr. never held the temple as personal property, and,
therefore, no title passed to other parties at the probate sale. Joseph Smith III
and Mark Forscutt therefore held no legal title to the property.

The judge then ruled on the question of which church was the successor of
the original body organized in 1830. Since only the Reorganized Church's lawyers
had presented evidence, his decision was a foregone conclusion, but it provided
powerful apologetic ammunition for future battles. He found that the church
organized in 1830 had "certain well defined doctrines, which were set forth in the
Bible, Book of Mormon, and book of Doctrine and Covenants." He found that the
church became disorganized in 1844 and broke up into fragments, each claiming to
be the original and true church. Furthermore, he found that only a fraction of the
members in 1844 ever followed the leadership of Brigham Young, and that the
Utah Church "has materially and largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws,
ordinances, and usages of said original Church, and has incorporated into its
system of faith the doctrines of celestial marriage and a plurality of wives, and
the doctrine of Adam-god worship, contrary to the laws and constitution of said
original church." On the other hand, he found that the RLDS Church represented
a legitimate reorganization of the original body, begun by members of the church
disorganized at Nauvoo, and largely incorporating all of the fragments of the
disorganized church except the one in Utah.

Therefore, the judge concluded:

. . . the plaintiff the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day
Saints is the true and lawful continuation of and successor to the said
organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints organized in 1830,
and is entitled in law to all its rights and property. And the Court do
further find that said defendants Joseph Smith Sarah F. Videon and Mark
H. Forscutt are in possession of said property under a pretended sale
thereof made by order of the Probate Court on the petition of Harvey
Holcomb as the Administrator of said Joseph Smith as the individual
property of said Joseph Smith and the Court finds that said Smith had no
title to said property except as the Trustee of said Church and that no
title thereto passed to the purchasers at said sale and that said parties in
possession have no legal title to said property.

And the court further finds that the legal title to said property is
vested in the heirs of said Joseph Smith in trust for the legal successor
of said organized church. And that the plaintiff are not in possession
thereof. And thereupon the court finds as matter of law that the
plaintiff is not entitled to the judgment or relief prayed for in its
petition. And thereupon it is ordered and adjudged that this action be
dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff. ¹⁷⁵

This ruling gave Joseph Smith III virtually everything he had sought.
Because the plaintiff (the RLDS Church) was not in possession of the Kirtland
Temple, the judge ruled that, as a matter of law, he could not give them legal
title. He could not do so, he ruled, because legal title had devolved upon the heirs
of Joseph Smith. Therefore, he dismissed the case. ¹⁷⁶

However, despite the fact that the RLDS Church's suit was dismissed, the
ruling was highly favorable to the church. First, the court ruled that the RLDS
Church was the true church in succession. This ruling had immense potential as a
weapon in polemical warfare. Second, fears that the Utah Church or some other
faction might lay claim to the temple were put to rest. Third, Joseph Smith III
was left with a free hand to transfer the property to the RLDS Church whenever
he desired. Despite the fact that the suit was dismissed, the ruling was an
instance of losing the battle while winning the war. For years to come, the RLDS
Church proudly cited Judge Sherman's ruling as evidence of its position as the true
church in succession. ¹⁷⁷

Joseph Smith III set the precedent in this regard. He immediately began
putting the ruling to good use. He sent letters to the four leading papers in
Chicago and the Burlington Hawkeye triumphantly announcing the decision.¹⁷⁸
The important polemical use to which he intended to put the decision is clearly
visible in a letter he wrote ten weeks after the decision:

Utah Mormonism is not the legitimate result of the teachings of Joseph
Smith, and here you err; as many have done, and are doing, Utah
Mormonism is a departure, and secular lawyers can see this, while you,
who persist in judging all Mormonism from its Utah phase can not, or will
not. ¹⁷⁹

Moving to Lamoni

From the beginning of his ministry, Joseph Smith III had sought to make the
name "Latter Day Saint" respectable. During his final years in Plano he enjoyed
the fruit of his labor. Not only did the citizens of Carthage welcome him as a
preacher and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas deliver a favorable
opinion, but his fellow-citizens in Plano voiced their esteem for him and his
church.

For some years, the Saints had been preparing Lamoni, Iowa, as a gathering
place. When it became known in Plano that the Saints were likely to move their
publishing operation to Lamoni, there were expressions of regret. In 1876 the
Plano Mirror editorialized:

Should this people leave Plano they will be a loss to the village; they
are good citizens, and number over two hundred in Plano and vicinity.
Elder Smith is a good man, and however much others may dissent from
his Mormon views, all who know him respect him.¹⁸⁰

The citizens of Nauvoo, learning that Plano might be abandoned as the
semi-official church headquarters, petitioned the church to return to Nauvoo, in
December 1877, in hopes that this might rebuild the city's economic fortunes.
The list of signers, in double columns, was three and a half yards long. The
petition stated that "the odium rightfully attached to the Brighamite Mormons in
the infamous practice of polygamy is detached from the Reorganized Church,"
and promised a cordial welcome from the citizenry. Joseph Smith III visited
Nauvoo on January 2, 1878 and discussed the possibility of returning to the city.
He felt an exhilarating sense of vindication, but could make no commitments. ¹⁸¹

When the Saints finally departed Plano the Kendall County Record
observed that Joseph Smith III took with him "the good will of Plano's citizens."
In his fifteen years' residence, he had "always borne the reputation of a good
citizen. Always to be found on the side of right, he maintained his position to the
end, and goes to his future home with sad farewells and good wishes of his many
friends." ¹⁸²

Two issues before the last Herald to be published in Plano, Joseph Smith III
observed:

Scarcely a day passes without newspapers being sent us showing up
the difference between the original faith of the Church, as taught by the
Reorganization and the schismatic branch led away into sin by Brigham
Young, and urging the government to put the law in force against the
Utah Church." ¹⁸³

During the years in Plano, Joseph Smith III had succeeded in slowly winning
respectability for the RLDS Church. Those who knew him personally respected
him. Those who knew members of his church recognized that they were not
polygamists. And the press was becoming aware of the difference between the
Mormons in Utah and the Saints led by the prophet's son. He had also succeeded
in making the Reorganization the only significant alternative to the LDS Church
in Utah. As he and his family left for Lamoni, Iowa, on October 7, 1881, he was
about to embark on a new phase of his warfare against "the Utah apostasy." Now
that his voice was recognized as a legitimate alternative to the Utah Church, he
was in a position to become a leader in a growing national crusade to abolish
polygamy.

© Copyright by Charles Millard Turner 1985
All Rights Reserved