Summary

Joseph Smith’s original journal entry for October 5, 1843 records him forbidding polygamy and instructing to try those who were preaching or teaching polygamy. The entry was altered by later Church historians or leaders in order to countenance polygamy.

Original Entry

Joseph Smith’s journal entry from October 5, 1843 reads:

Thursday October 5. … eve at home walked up and down st. with scribe.— and gave instruction to try those who were preaching teaching or the doctrin of plurality of wives. on this Law. Joseph forbids it. and the practice thereof— No man shall have but one wife

First Manuscript History Draft

The [manuscript] History Draft includes a statement “to be revised” in the margin, and the original draft (in the pen of Thomas Bullock, I believe) was altered1 somewhat drastically (JS Papers link; image with red bounding box):

Evening at home, and walked up and down the streets with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; on this on this law for according to the law I hold the keys of this power in the last days, for there is never but one on Earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred—and I have constantly said Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise.

Final Manuscript History Draft

Finally, the text as it appears in the final draft (image) includes all the alterations:

Evening, at home, and walked up and down the Streets with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for according to the law I hold the keys of this power in the last days, for there is never but one on Earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred— and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

Final Print Version

The final print version, found in History of the Church 6:2 as published at BYU Studies, reads:

Evening, at home, and walked up and down the streets with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives: for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

Interpretation

There are many ways to interpret the original entry and the later changes (some involving dishonesty of one or more parties). Meg Stout has advanced the tactical mandate hypothesis.

Joseph Fielding Smith attestation2

In the book Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph Fielding Smith (JFS) corresponded with Richard G. Evans, second counselor in the Presidency of the RLDS Church:

You “confidently affirm that there is not a single word in a single sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or Church publication printed during the life of Joseph Smith, wherein he by word has endorsed the doctrine of plurality of wives, not a single statement.” Whether any such statement was ever printed in his lifetime or not I am not prepared to say. But I do know of such evidence being recorded during his lifetime, for I have seen it.

I have copied the following from the Prophet’s manuscript record of Oct. 5, 1843, and know it is genuine:

“Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom this power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise.”

The Manuscript History Draft and Final Manuscript History Draft differ in two places: capitalization of the word “No” in “No man shall have” and the use of a final comma between “time” and “unless”. JFS follows the Final Draft with the lowercase “no” and the First Draft with the absence of a comma. The lowercase “no” seems less substantive than the final comma (few would let stand the capitalized “No” in a sentence like that but many might overlook the unnecessary comma in a transcription), but JFS could have lowercased the “no” and and also dropped the final comma in accordance with good English grammar regardless of which source he was referring to. So, scrutiny of the sources directs us more towards the First Draft (if we weigh the comma as being more substantive than the odd capitalization), but it is in no way conclusive since JFS could have dropped the final comma regardless.

If JFS was referring to the Final Manuscript History Draft then he may have been acting in ignorance of the nature of the original entry and its alteration by earlier historians. To some extent, then, he may have overstated attribution (“such evidence being recorded during his [Joseph Smith’s] lifetime, for I have seen it”). Were he referring to the initial draft (with corrections) or were he aware of the original journal entry, then it would be reasonable to conclude that he was guilty of duplicity to some degree. At the very least, JFS overstated the significance of the evidence to which he referred.

  1. George A. Smith, the person responsible for dictating this portion of the manuscript history from original source material noted “The History has been compiled to the day of his [JS’s] death and the principal part of it has been revised by the Council of the First Presidency almost without any alteration. …” I did my own cursory analysis of the handwriting and think it may match up to John L. Smith’s? Benjamin G. Bistline attributes the change to George A. Smith. ↩

  2. The JFS attestation h/t kinderhookandzelph and ThomasTTEngine here. ↩