On May 23rd, 1844, Joseph Smith was indicted for the crimes of adultery and fornication. Two weeks later he would destroy the Nauvoo Expositor. Two weeks after that he would be dead. The last month of Joseph’s life was filled with so many events that we have almost no answers to today. I truly wish Joseph had lived longer so we would have some of these crucial questions answered.
Indictment
On May 20th, 1844, William Marks, the Nauvoo Stake President was randomly selected to serve on a Hancock County grand jury. Normally the grand juries would hear testimony pertaining to mundane crimes. However, that day the grand jury heard testimony from William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, who testified to crimes pertaining to the prophet Joseph Smith.
On May 23rd, and again on May 24th, the grand jury heard testimony and decided that there was sufficient evidence to issue an indictment for Joseph Smith. There is no know written account concerning the testimony of William Law, however it is safe to assume that much of what was testified to was also printed in the Nauvoo Expositor two weeks later. For some reason Joseph felt the need to completely destroy the Expositor instead of showing how the information was false, which he claimed it was.
The trial itself however didn’t take place because of Joseph’s death, for historical reasons it certainly would have been helpful though. Without a trial we are left with a lot of questions and very little answers. However, we can piece together a picture from the historical records we do have. The mentioned indictment on May 23rd, was for the crimes of adultery and fornication. This indictment however was dismissed the next day by the state’s attorney for unknown reasons.
On May 24th, the next day, the grand jury met again and decided to indict Joseph on additional charges, which may have been the reason for the first indictment to be dismissed. The second indictment was more specific than the first and now included 5 total charges. The text of the indictment is quite legalistic, however it is valuable to examine it briefly. The indictment itself reads:
The Grand Jurors chosen selected and sworn in and for the County of Hancock, in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Illinois upon their oaths present that Joseph Smith … did live together in an open state of adultery with one Maria Lawrence …
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that the said Joseph Smith … unlawfully then & there did live together in an open state of fornication with one Maria Lawrence …
And the Gr[a]nd Jur[o]rs aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that the said Joseph Smith … unlawfully then & there did live together in an open state of adultery with one Maria Lawrence …
And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid do further present, that … Joseph Smith … with certain women to the jurors unknown, then of said County of Hancock in said State of Illi[n]ois, unlawfully did then & there live together, in an open state of adultery and fornication …
the Grand Juro[r]s aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do furth[u]r present, that … within eighteen months from the day of finding this indictm[en]t … Joseph Smith … with certain women to the jurors unknown, then of said County of Hancock, did then & there live togeth[e]r in an open state of adultery a[n]d fornication
Indictment, May 24th, 1844, State of Illinois vs. Joseph Smith
According to the law of the time, the grand jury couldn’t indite someone for a crime unless they considered the evidence presented to be sufficient for a conviction. Of course, this doesn’t mean the person was guilty. It just means that the evidence presented was sufficient to convince an average person of the guilt of the person. If we look at the five counts of the indictment, then they can be summarized as follows:
- Joseph had engaged in the crime of adultery with Maria Lawrence, between October 12th, 1843, and May 24th, 1844.
- Joseph had engaged in the crime of fornication with Maria Lawrence, between October 12th, 1843, and May 24th, 1844.
- Joseph has specifically committed adultery on October 12th, 1843.
- Joseph had engaged in adultery and fornication, with women unknown, between October 12th, 1843, and May 24th, 1844.
- Joseph had engaged in adultery and fornication, with women unknown, between July 10th, 1843, and an 18-month time window.
Response
On May 24th, before Joseph had learned the first indictment was dismissed, he ordered the city council to meet together on the 25th and issue a protective order which would prevent his immediate arrest. His journal for that day reads:
orderd city council called tomorrow.— and a protective ordinance— passed on habeus corpus.
Joseph Smith Journal, May 24th, 1844
Joseph had actually requested these protective orders for himself and others multiple times. This is one of the reasons that it was so difficult for him to be extradited back to Missouri for the outstanding crimes that he was accused of. Before learning of the second indictment and dismissal of the first indictment, Joseph’s journal records that he was avoiding his expected arrest until William Marks returned to Nauvoo to inform Joseph of his two new indictments. After this, it seems Joseph decided that avoiding the arrest was no longer prudent. Joseph’s journal for the 25th records:
Keeping out of the way of expected arrests from carthage … infomd [informed] me were 2 indictme[n]ts fou[n]d agint [against] me— one for false swearing … and one for polygamy … conclud[e]d not to keep out of their way any longer
Joseph Smith Journal, May 25th, 1844
The following day, on May 26th, Joseph gave a very impassioned speech which is the source of several popular quotes people use today. In the speech we do get a little bit more clarity as to what the evidence may have been that was presented to the grand jury. Joseph mentioned that one of the accusations was that he had told William Law that he was sexually involved with some women other than Emma. This would very likely have been Maria Lawrence, or at least included her, since the indictments specifically addressed her. Of course, it is unclear, however this would certainly make sense considering the language of the indictments. The meeting minutes themselves mention:
[William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery
Joseph Smith discourse, May 26th, 1844
This direct admission of adultery may not make sense, however as we will see it certainly seems to be consistent with other records. It also would be very tricky for Joseph to admit polygamy to people, since even today, people seem to take it a number of different ways. Just ask yourself personally what would you do if a close friend, and someone that you respected, admitted to you that they participated in a crime that you considered repulsive. Would you accept it as a new principle of the gospel or see the friend in a completely different light? Even today, most people are incapable of discussing polygamy without an emotional reaction.
The following day, it is recorded that Joseph presented himself in the Carthage courthouse for an unrelated case, however he failed to appear to answer for the two indictments issued on May 24th. Some have claimed otherwise, however there is no evidence to suggest Joseph, or his attorney addressed anything other than the civil lawsuit from Charles Foster that he appeared for. This was the only record for the appearance of Joseph on that day in court records.
Maria Lawrence
Maria Lawrence was specifically mentioned in the indictments however we honestly know very little about her directly. What we do know however, was that William Law was a close personal friend to Maria Lawrence’s family. Both William Law and the Lawrence family lived in Canada and had known each other for some time. William Law joined the church, in 1836, after listening to a sermon from Parley P. Pratt. While the Lawrence family joined the church, in 1837, after listening to a sermon from Joseph and other prominent leaders.
By 1840, the Lawrence family had relocated about 30 miles outside of Nauvoo, when Maria’s father tragically died. Following his death, the remaining family members moved into Nauvoo. Joseph was then appointed the guardian of Maria and her sister Sarah. Following the appointment, Maria and Sarah began living with Joseph and Emma. At that time Maria was 19 years old, and her sister Sarah was 17.
We know very little else about Maria as she tragically died just 4 years later. There are however several non-contemporary recollections about Maria and her actions while in Nauvoo. I won’t specifically address those as they aren’t directly relevant to this discussion. However, those statements certainly do help to shed some light on this already murky situation.
July 10th, 1843
July 10th, 1843, was the date listed in the indictment as the time when Joseph began engaging in adultery and fornication with multiple unknown women. From the historical records it is unclear if anything important happened on the 10th, however that date may have been recollected incorrectly. From the historical records we have though, only two days later on the 12th something very important happened.
In Joseph’s journal it is recorded that on July 12th, 1843, he received a revelation in the presence of Hyrum and William Clayton. In the journal itself, there is no mention of what the revelation pertained to, however William Clayton later mentioned that it was a revelation pertaining to plural marriage. Joseph’s journal for that day reads:
Receivd a Revelation in the office in presence of Hyrum [Smith]. & Wm Clayton
Joseph Smith Journal, July 12th, 1843
Interestingly, this also correlates perfectly with what William Law testified to in the Nauvoo Expositor, which was printed just two weeks after the indictment. In the Expositor he testified that Joseph received a revelation in the presence of Hyrum and the revelation pertained to plural marriage. William Law’s statement reads:
I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. … The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come.
William Law affidavit, Nauvoo Expositor, June 7th, 1844
William Law was not present when the revelation was received. However, he very likely would have known about it through various whispers and such. Of course, this may all just be circumstantial however it aligns remarkably well to say the least. William Law testified that Joseph began engaging in adultery and fornication, with multiple women, starting on July 10th, 1843. Two days after this date Joseph received a revelation authorizing him to engage in adultery and fornication with multiple women. The alignment is certainly remarkable. I absolutely wish we had the testimony of William Law during the grand jury proceedings.
October 12th, 1843
In the first four counts of Joseph’s indictment the date of October 12th, 1843, was specifically listed as quite significant. From the historical records there is nothing directly tied to this day. However, it is entirely possible that William Law could have learned about Joseph’s purported relationship with Maria on that day. It is impossible to say either way with any kind of certainty since the historical snapshot we have is limited to a few sentences for any particular event when people would naturally talk for hours on a subject. For instance, many people sum up their entire day with a couple of sentences which is not even close to an accurate picture of their lives.
However, the day prior, on October 11th, 1843, it is recorded that Joseph, Hyrum, and William Law, along with their wives, attended an evening event at John Benbow’s. This wouldn’t have been just another meeting since John Benbow lived about 8 miles outside of Nauvoo. That trip alone would have been at least 2 hours, one way, in a horse and carriage. Therefore, if the wives attended as well then it would have elevated the significance of the event and certainly would have given them plenty of time to talk. Joseph’s journal for the day simply records:
about home A.M.— PM. with Hiram [Hyrum Smith]. Wm Law.— & Ladies to John Benbows
Joseph Smith journal, October 11th, 1843
Certainly, we don’t know what was mentioned during the dinner party. However, it is very interesting that there is not a single positive mention of William Law, in Joseph’s or Clayton’s journal after this point. After this point in the records, he is either not referred to at all or referred to as an apostate or false prophet. Just 3 months later, on January 3rd, 1844, William Law spoke during a city council meeting and mentioned that he felt Joseph wanted the police to quietly take him out. The minutes for that meeting read:
[Joseph] said Bro Hiram told him last evening that Wm Law had said that some of the police had told him that they had been sworn by the Mayor (Joseph) secretly to put (Law) out of the way
Nauvoo City Council, Jan 3rd, 1844
The meeting minutes continue with a discussion of “spiritual wifes” and a significant back and forth between William Law, Joseph, and others. The meeting minutes conclude with some form a reconciliation and then a very curious note of a remark by Joseph on spiritual wives and the need to keep secrets. The minutes read:
Mayor spoke on spiritual wife system, and explained, The man who promises to keep a secret and does not keep it he is a liar.
Nauvoo City Council, Jan 3rd, 1844
If there was a reconciliation, then it seems to have completely deteriorated. Just 3 months after the city council meeting Joseph seemed to have significant problems with William Law and mockingly referred to him as a “holy prophet” and a “liar”. It seems that something happened at the John Benbow dinner party or very close to it, that set William Law and Joseph on completely different trajectories.
If William Law found out about Joseph’s purported relationship with Maria Lawerence, then it certainly would have deeply affected him since he had known the Lawrence family for many years, and Maria personally since she was a very young child. It also would have been seen differently by William Law since Joseph had direct financial responsibility over Maria as her legal guardian. Certainly, it seems something involving polygamy or spiritual wives happened, or William Law thought it did, either at the friendly John Benbow dinner or very close to it.
Conclusion
As mentioned, the indictments don’t give us any definite answers, but certainly do shed some light on this part of the history of the church. It certainly seems that William Law had a very strong reason to believe that Joseph authored a revelation on plural marriage and was involved personally in a sexual relationship with Maria Lawrence. William Law was very much against plural marriage which caused him a lot of strain with the leaders of the church at the time. According to the City Council meeting minutes, this topic seemed like it was a source of major contention among the leadership.
It is also quite interesting that William Marks was on the grand jury that heard the testimony from William Law. Marks had to have been familiar with all the evidence presented against Joseph and everything that William Law was claiming. It also is quite interesting that William Marks mentioned multiple times that about two weeks before Joseph’s death, Joseph approached him concerning polygamy and mentioned that he had been deceived about the practice. Certainly, everyone sees Mark’s statements how they want to. However, when the indictments and timing of events are taken into consideration, then it is quite difficult to see Mark’s statements the way that anti-polygamy proponents see them.
In addition, the July 10th date listed in the indictments seems to align amazingly well with a date that is significant according to the overall polygamy narrative of the church. It is hard to imagine how William Law could have gotten this date so correct without a significant link being present. It is also hard to imagine why William Clayton would have chosen this date if he was just making things up as many claim he was today.
Lastly, the October 12th date also aligns amazingly well with an event where Joseph, Hyrum, and William Law would have talked for several hours. Of course, we don’t know what was discussed, however it seems something certainly was discussed that changed William Law’s opinions on Joseph. This date is hard to believe it was just a random date that William Law picked to try and frame Joseph. Something happened and something was very likely discussed. It seems from the city council meeting minutes, that William Law may have promised to remain silent and when he didn’t then that angered Joseph.
Certainly, the truth is inconvenient to a lot of people, however that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. I am not claiming that everything in the indictment is true or William Law never lied or exaggerated things. However, if we just look at what we know, concerning Joseph, then it certainly seems like there is a lot that we can safely assume is true concerning the indictments.
For instance, we know that Joseph taught different things publicly and privately. We know Joseph was involved in secret societies like Freemasonry. We know Joseph swore select groups of people to secrecy. We know that Joseph introduced certain ideas to a trusted inner group of people in the Anointed Quorum and Council of Fifty. We know that Joseph admitted that some of his revelations were not from God. Lastly, we also know that Joseph started to significantly deviate from doctrines tied to the scriptures as is evidenced by the King Follett discourse.
I certainly don’t claim to know the answer to the polygamy discussion. I seriously doubt this discussion will ever be solved, as it has become an emotional issue instead of a logical one. However, I certainly think Joseph is being put on a pedestal with many people waging a holy war, in their minds, to clean up his image. They simply move the things they don’t like about Joseph to other people so Joseph can be clean in their minds. Instead, we should be searching for the truth and what God wants us to learn from it. I am fine with saying that polygamy seems to be unscriptural, however I think it is folly, in the extreme, to say that God can’t command it if he wanted to.
The scriptures are filled with examples of extreme unbelievable hardships from the prophets. However, it seems like today we have to make God in our own image to even begin to want to worship him. My only constant prayer is that God reveals his will to me and that I can have the courage and strength to obey it. Frankly, nothing else is even remotely important. It is extremely arrogant for me, or anyone else, to require heaven to conform to my requirements and limited understanding. If God thinks something would be beneficial for me, then I am more than happy to accept it from him the best way that I can.
