Learn More About Book of Mormon Translation, Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage?
There are three new articles ("narratives") to discuss.
I added the question mark to pose the question whether these narratives actually help us learn more.
I discussed the one on Book of Mormon translation in detail here:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/07/church-and-gospel-questions.html
In that post, I made suggestions for improvement for the narrative. I included a table that illustrates how the narrative violates all of the Church's guidance and principles for seeking answers and understanding history.
_____
The narrative on Joseph Smith's character is well written.
One suggestion for improvement is to cite and quote from Letters II and VIII, in which Oliver defended Joseph's character in the context of ancient prophets. That contemporary explanation by Joseph's closest associate is more useful than modern interpretations by people who never knew Joseph and who are relying on exactly the same sources as the modern critics.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/52
Excerpt: "in reviewing the lives and acts of men in past generations, whenever we find a righteous man among them, there always were excuses for not giving heed or credence to his testimony. The people could see his imperfections; or, if no imperfections, supposed ones, and were always ready to frame an excuse upon that for not believing.— No matter how pure the principles, nor how precious the teachings—an excuse was wanted—and an excuse was had...
When looking over the sacred scriptures we seem to forget that they were given through men of imperfections, and subject to passions. It is a general belief that the ancient prophets were perfect—that no stain, or blemish ever appeared upon their characters while on earth, to be brought forward by the opposer as an excuse for not believing. "
_____
The narrative on plural marriage is mostly fine, although it too ignores some of the Church's principles of answering gospel questions and understanding the past, such as stating the opinions of the anonymous author(s) as facts.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng
I'll just give one example of ignoring the Church's principles. This is the section that asks and answers an important question.
Original in blue, my comments in red.
What did Emma Smith know about Joseph’s practice of plural marriage?
Emma did not leave any contemporary record of her own thoughts, feelings, or experiences related to plural marriage.
Note the qualification "contemporary" here. Most readers probably don't even notice that qualification, but it alerts knowledgeable readers that something is missing in this section. Obviously, what is missing is Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony," which we'll discuss below.
In this case, the "contemporary" qualification is used selectively to exclude only the "Last Testimony." The qualification is odd because many of the references cited in the narrative to support the proposition that Joseph originated plural marriage are even less "contemporary" than Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony." See the citations in note 18 below.
In the "Last Testimony," Emma is presented as having said
There was no revelation on either Polygamy, or
plurSpiritual wives. There were some rumors of some-thing of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it, that in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "well such a system might possibly be, if every body was agreed to it and would behave as they should, but they would not; and besides it was contrary to the will of heaven."
No such thing as polygamy, or Spiritual wifery, was taught publicly or privately before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.
He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my Knowledge ever have. He did not have im-proper relations with any woman that ever came to my Knowledge.
At one time he came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or any thing of the Kind, and assured me 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."
See the full version of "Last Testimony" here, along with the original manuscript:
https://www.mobom.org/emma-smiths-last-testimony
Obviously, the "Last Testimony" directly contradicts and refutes the claims in this narrative.
[To be clear, despite the "Last Testimony" I agree with the conclusion that Joseph initiated plural marriage, but I don't agree with an apologetic explanation that ignores relevant evidence. The Church's principles of answering questions and understanding the past do not accommodate apologetic approaches that simply censor contradictory historical evidence. That apologetic approach compounds the problems that arise from a perception that the Church is "hiding" historical evidence, which is not true generally but is true in the case of this particular narrative.]
The omission of Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony" violates the Church's principle that we should "Evaluate the reliability of sources." No one can evaluate the reliability of a source that is not quoted, cited, or even mentioned.
So why did they censor Emma's "Last Testimony" here?
We can infer that the anonymous authors of this narrative excluded the "Last Testimony" because Emma's statements there contradict their narrative. If they omitted the "Last Testimony" because they deem it unreliable, they should have explained that (pursuant to the Church's principles on evaluating sources).
But there may be another reason for censoring the "Last Testimony" here.
Church historians frequently cite the first part of Emma's "Last Testimony" to support their stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH), deeming it accurate and reliable. E.g., Saints, vol. 1, chapter 6, notes 24 and 25, cite "Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290."
They also cite Emma's "Last Testimony" as authoritative 16 times in the Joseph Smith Papers and 3 times in the essay on Book of Mormon translation.
But as seen in this narrative, by censoring Emma's "Last Testimony" they imply that they deem the second part of "Last Testimony" inaccurate and unreliable. This disparate, outcome-determined assessment of the credibility of the "Last Testimony" falls short of the standards of professional historians, as well as the Church's own advice on how to consult reliable sources.
In my view, Emma's "Last Testimony" is unreliable throughout for the reasons I've discussed elsewhere. Even Joseph Smith III, who conducted the interview with his mother and published, later concluded that Joseph did in fact translate the plates with the Urim and Thummim. But the scholars who promote SITH nevertheless stick with the "Last Testimony" as though it his highly credible about the translation.
Readers should ask if historians deem the "Last Testimony" not credible for events from the 1840s Nauvoo because it was not "contemporary" enough, why do historians consider it to be credible for earlier events from the 1820s?
According to accounts of others, Emma opposed plural marriage except for a short period of time when she consented to at least four of her husband’s plural sealings. Ultimately, she rejected the practice.
We can all see from the "Last Testimony" that Emma did not merely "reject" the practice but she denied it ever took place, and she claims Joseph denied it also. The authors owe it to readers to explain, at least in a footnote, why the "Last Testimony" is not credible. Then they should extend that reasoning to the SITH narrative to be consistent.
Despite emotional turmoil in their marriage over this practice, Emma and Joseph remained deeply committed to one another.17
Note 17: For more information, see Church History Topics, “Emma Hale Smith,” Gospel Library.
Emily Partridge, who was an early plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, reflected toward the end of her life on Emma’s complicated feelings about plural marriage: “I know it was hard for Emma, and any woman, to enter plural marriage in those days, and I do not know as anybody would have done any better than Emma did under the circumstances.”18
Note 18: Emily Dow Partridge Smith Young, “Testimony That Cannot Be Refuted,” Woman’s Exponent, Apr. 1, 1884, 12:165; Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl,” circa 1884, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, 5; see also Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, vol. 1, The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846 (2018), 507–8.
The response to Emma's "Last Testimony" was vociferous and robust. The Deseret News published numerous accounts refuting the claims in "Last Testimony," some suggesting that Emma was lying or did not even say what the document claims. The authors of this essay have good reason to question the reliability of the "Last Testimony" but they owe it to readers to explain those reasons instead of simply censoring the document.
And they should apply the same reasoning to question the reliability of the first part of the "Last Testimony" about SITH.
