The revealed truth on this issue came to me while defending the prophet from numerous attacks on his character from those both inside and outside the church. I found great strength in the following statement by President John Taylor, which God has, on more than one occasion, verified to me to be absolutely true. After outlining his deep and personal familiarity with the prophet in all manner of circumstances President Taylor stated;
“I have seen him, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man—that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome—that his precepts were such as became a man of God--that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony. If it is disputed, bring me a person authorized to receive an affidavit, and I will make one to this effect. I therefore testify of things which I know and of things which I have seen”. (The Gospel Kingdom, 355 as Quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor) Emphasis Added.
Since significant portions of Chapter 40 of Saints appear to be inconsistent with that revealed truth, applying Technique 2 was the next step. To be shorter in writing I reviewed only a few of the sources with regard to the alleged marriage of Joseph to Emily and Eliza Partridge.
Before presenting my findings, I want to lay some groundwork; First, with an excellent comment also from the book Saints; Second, with an objection by the Plaintiffs Attorney in the Temple Lot case, to questions Emily was being asked with regard to the marriages in question.
From Saints page 490: “Because neither Joseph nor Emma wrote down how they felt about plural marriage, many questions are left unanswered.”
From the transcript of the trial: “Counsel for the Plaintiff objects to the answer to this witness on the ground that it details or purports to detail the substance of an arrangement or conversation that occurred between a party which is living and one who is dead, and therefore it is incompetent, and move the court to strike it from the record for that reason.
Both the statement and the attorney’s objection are powerful reminders the Joseph Smith is dead. He cannot defend himself, He is an easy target for anyone to claim anything about him. The defenseless are often the targets of fake news, revisionist history, alternate facts, teenage fantasies written in journals, claims of promiscuity, etc. because they are easy. However, without the Prophet’s version of the events, such claims are nothing more than conjecture. To conclude facts about his character solely from external sources, particularly in light of the revealed truth about that character, is the equivalent of proclaiming him guilty until proven innocent. Such reasoning might satisfy biased historians, but it is still dishonest.
My reading of the writings of the Partridge sisters revealed some issues. For example, in the reference titled: "Testimony that Cannot Be Refuted," published in the Woman’s Exponent in 1884, (40 years after the events) which was a sort of reaffirmation by Emily of her past claims. The interesting point of that reference is that one reason she seems to be writing her account again is to refute the claims of others (Emma Smith and Judge Adams) that her original account of the marriages was in error.
In another version of her statement, Emily asserts that the second ceremony which she claimed was performed by Judge Adams, for the benefit of Emma Smith, who was present, occurred on the 11th of May 1843. As mentioned before, Joseph did not write about the alleged plural marriages, but he did keep a journal. A review of those journal entries indicated some discrepancies with Emily’s story. First, according Joseph’s journal, Judge Adams was not in Nauvoo on the 11th of May, and in fact did not arrive until the 21st, ten days later. Additionally, Joseph mentions on his 11 May entry that Emma was out of town, having taken the carriage to Quincy. Thus not only does Emily's memory appear inaccurate, but at the end of her statement, she complains that soon after the marriage she and her sister were “cast off” indicating a possible motive of revenge against Emma.
I admit readily that these are minor details and in no way constitute absolute proof that the marriages did not happen. However, they are reminders of how unwise it would be to rely upon such statements, particularly absent any confirming statement or testimony from Joseph Smith. The best an honest historian could conclude would be that Joseph was possibly married to Emma and Eliza.
As to the many other claims about marrying teenagers, or other men’s wives, etc. Insofar as such actions are inconsistent with the revealed truth of Joseph’s "unimpeachable character," are unsupported by him, and would constitute acting in violation of the law of the priesthood as revealed in D & C 132, they can with confidence be cast aside.