John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

[[{{{L}}}|{{{H}}}]]

Sidney Rigdon, His Family, and John C. Bennett

[Joseph Smith had] a too implicit trust in [men's] protestations of repentance when overtaken in their sins; a too great tenacity in friendship for men he had once taken into his confidence after they had been proven unworthy of the friendship.… - Brigham H. Roberts

Following his departure from Nauvoo, one of John C. Bennett's first attacks on Joseph Smith accused him of attempting the seduction of Sidney Rigdon's daughter, Nancy, in April 1842. Bennett claimed that George W. Robinson (Sidney's son-in-law) and Francis M. Higbee (Nancy's boyfriend) could confirm the tale, and called on them to do so. Of all the charges leveled against Joseph, this is perhaps the most convoluted. The story began with Bennett in 1841, involved Nancy by 1842, and some essential facts did not come to light until 1844. Bennett and Prostitution

Bennett was not content with seducing the women of Nauvoo privately. Brigham Young later told him that "one charge was seducing young women, and leading young men into difficulty—he admitted it—if he had let young men and women alone it would have been better for him." Young was essentially charging Bennett with prostitution.

A teacher named John Taylor, not to be confused with the third president of the Church, wrote later of Bennett's establishment of a brothel in Nauvoo: "John C. Bennett and a lot of them built an ill-fame house near the Temple in Nauvoo.... After they had built it, John C. Bennett and the Fosters,—I knew all their names at the time, they were the head men of it, after they got it built, they wrote on it in large letters what it was,—a sign declaring what it was, and what it was there for...." The Mormons were not amused, since "We could not get [to meeting] without passing this house and looking right at it, and one or two thousand people would go…[past it] on a Sabbath and they didn't feel very good seeing that house there with great big letters facing them." After Bennett's departure, they "took the building, and put it on rollers; and there was a deep gully there, and they pitched the house into it." While mayor, Bennett also reportedly tried to prevent the city council from disposing of a "house of ill fame."

Not only did Bennett encourage vice, but he took steps to ensure that his followers did not suffer the consequences. He was repeatedly accused of "embryo infanticide" and his biographer observes that this charge "was likely true." The accusation is plausible, since it derives from both Mormons (Hyrum Smith, Zeruiah Goddard) and their enemies (Sarah Pratt). Bennett probably had the requisite expertise, since he had been twice professor of obstetrics or midwifery while promoting medical colleges. In 1837, a medical class wrote Bennett and requested that his lecture notes be made available "for publication in pamphlet form…that the practice of obstetric medicine would be rendered much less onerous to the operator, and safer for the female." The request demonstrates that others besides Bennett considered him an expert in women's issues. This is one of the few times when Bennett's help was sought, rather than aggressively self-promoted.

Bennett also used his medical skills to treat at least one patient for venereal disease—Chauncey Higbee's younger brother, Francis M. Higbee. He was unsuccessful. "Too Indelicate for the Public"

Desperate for a cure, Higbee asked Joseph Smith for help. "A French woman," (likely a prostitute) from Warsaw caused Higbee's need for "medical assistance…Dr. Bennet[t] attended him, Joseph Smith administered unto him but it was irksome," recalled one witness. "Higbee assented that it was so, he did not contradict it, he promised to reform—he would do better, he would do so no more."

Joseph would later speak of troubling events involving Bennett and Higbee which likely date to this period. He claimed that it "occurred a long time before John C. Bennet[t] left [t]his city." A 1841 date seems more plausible than the spring prior to Bennett's 1842 departure. Joseph reported, "I was called on to visit Francis M. Higbee; I went and found him on a bed on the floor." At this point, the editor of the ‘‘Times and Seasons’’ felt that the material was too graphic for public consumption, and inserted the following parenthetical remark: Here follows testimony which is too indelicate for the public eye or ear; and we would here remark, that so revolting, corrupt, and disgusting has been the conduct of most of this clique, that we feel to dread having any thing to do with the publication of their trials; we will not however offend the public eye or ear with a repetition of the foulness of their crimes any more. What, then, was so terrible that the ‘‘Times and Seasons’’ would not print it? By this time—May 1844—the war of affidavits and words against Bennett had included charges of seduction, adultery, attempted murder, prostitution, and abortion. What could be worse? Novelist Samuel W. Taylor "concluded that the only charge that was worse than what was already published was sodomy. Taylor presumed that Higbee was with Bennett on the floor."

Bennett's biographer also details how after Nauvoo "he [may have] had a passionate relationship with Pierce B. Fagen." Bennett certainly felt strongly about Fagen. "[T]his attraction might well have been of a passionate nature, at least on Bennett's part" but "no further information" is available. The openly homosexual D. Michael Quinn is convinced of Bennett's homosexuality, but Quinn's tendency to refract evidence through the lens of his own sexual proclivities makes him a weak witness.

The only other mention of homosexual sin in Nauvoo came from William Smith, whose no-holds-barred editorial style led him to attack Bennett as guilty of "adultery, fornication and—we were going to say (Buggery)." Bennett's biographer notes that no evidence was presented, "and perhaps [this charge] was made in the heat of battle." While this is possible, I think it more likely that William had at least heard rumours, though Joseph was not then willing to tell all he knew, and risk alienating Francis Higbee completely. As will be seen, Higbee was close to the Rigdon family, and the charge of buggery against Bennett appeared less than a month after Bennett's accusations regarding Nancy appeared. William's remark is perhaps best seen as a warning to Higbee, who Bennett was encouraging to attack Joseph.

Brigham Young testified that a few days after his return from England in July 1841, Bennett "acknowledged that Higbee had the [a blank is here inserted by the editor, rather than naming the venereal disease] and that he had doctored him, he acknowledged that, and a great deal more." Higbee's immorality was revealed at the same time as the first accusations of seduction against Bennett (see PREVIOUS CHAPTER). Anxious to placate Joseph and the other leaders, Bennett betrayed Higbee's confidence and disclosed his medical problem to the prophet. As Hyrum Smith remembered, "Francis did not say any thing about his sickness, but Dr. Bennet[t] made those observations to him [Joseph] that he had doctored him in the time of his sickness." Hyrum later insisted that eventually Higbee too "had confessed to him that he had had the [blank] !"

It seems that Higbee's behaviour came to light at about the time when Bennett's seductions were first discovered in the summer of 1841. Higbee did not, reportedly, fight the charges—like Bennett, he frankly admitted them. Brigham Young recalled how downcast Higbee and Bennett were: "when I came into the room, Francis Higbee rather recoiled and wished to withdraw; he went out and sat upon a pile of wood. He said it is all true, I am sorry for it, I wish it had never happened…."

Higbee's intense shame may give credence to the homosexual charges—while fornication was frowned on, it was at least understood. For nineteenth century Americans—especially religious ones—homosexual behaviour was beyond the pale. Bennett was not shy about accusing Joseph and the Mormons of every imaginary crime. They were supposedly guilty of infidelity, deism, atheism; lying, deception, blasphemy; debauchery, lasciviousness, bestiality; madness, fraud, plunder; larceny, burglary, robbery, perjury; fornication, adultery, rape, incest; arson, treason, and murder; and they have out-heroded Herod, and out-deviled the devil, slandered God Almighty, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Angels. Despite this encyclopaedic parade of evil—including rape, incest, and bestiality—Bennett is silent on homosexual issues. Perhaps he knew that topic was best left quiet.

Whatever the truth of the homosexual charges, the matter of Higbee's immorality in 1841 seems to have been handled quietly by Joseph and a few leaders; no formal record of Church discipline has been found. We have already seen the same approach with Bennett and Sarah Pratt (see PREVIOUS CHAPTER). Nancy Rigdon

Matters remained relatively quiet until the following spring, though from then onward "Bennett's influence in official matters steadily diminished." With Bennett's help, a Masonic Lodge was established in Nauvoo in October 1841, and new members were inducted beginning March 15, 1842. In November 1841, the city council approved the destruction of a Nauvoo brothel, perhaps provoked by Francis Higbee's escapades. Joseph continued to privately teach and enter into plural marriages throughout the winter and spring. Bennett would later accuse Joseph of attempting to seduce Nancy Rigdon on April 9, 1842. Bennett's Version

In Bennett's version, Joseph offered Bennett "five hundred dollars or the best lot on Main Street," if he would "assist me in procuring Nancy as one of my spiritual wives}}" Bennett, never shy of self-aggrandizement, replied nobly that "I cannot agree to it. Elder Rigdon is one of my best friends, and his family are now pure and spotless, and it would be a great pity to approach the truly virtuous."

Bennett went on to claim that Joseph had Nancy brought to the printing-office by Mrs. Orson Hyde. Joseph was reportedly unable to see her, and told her to call the next day. It is at this point that Bennett's scheme becomes clear, since he reports that Nancy "communicated the matter to Colonel Francis M. Higbee, who was addressing her, and asked his advice as to the second visit." Francis Higbee was Nancy's boyfriend, as well as Bennett's secret protégé in the seduction of women.

Bennett, ever anxious to present himself the hero, implored Joseph not to touch the daughter of a fellow Mason, but the comic-book Joseph of Bennett's fictions refused to listen. Bennett then claimed that he returned to Higbee, "and told him Joe's designs, and requested him to go immediately and see Miss Rigdon, and tell her the infernal plot…but advise her to go and see for herself what Joe would do."

Bennett insisted that Joseph took Nancy "into a private room…and LOCKED THE DOOR." Bennett's version had Joseph tell Nancy she would join the fictitious "Chambered Sisters of Charity," or "Cloistered Saints," promised her she could marry another besides him, and tried to kiss her. Nancy bravely threatened to scream, and was released with the promise that Sister Hyde would explain matters to her more fully. A few days later, Joseph sent his secretary, Willard Richards, with a letter to Nancy, which Bennett reproduced after having it "handed me by Colonel F.M. Higbee."

We can easily dismiss a great deal of this narrative. The idea that Joseph would offer Bennett money for his aid is ridiculous; it is more absurd that Bennett would turn him down if the offer was made. Bennett's concern for purity and virtue is pure fiction, as is his talk of the Chambered Sisters and Cloistered Saints (see  (needs URL / links)). The claim that Joseph used romantic gestures—declaring her the "the idol of his affections," or trying to kiss her—matches little of the more reliable testimony.

More interesting is the apostate Sarah Pratt's later testimony that she "knew Nancy intimately and says that she was a very good, virtuous girl, and that Bennett's tale is true in all essential points." How does Sarah know this? She is nowhere described as being present for these events. In the same late-life reminiscences, Sarah attacked Bennett as "full of low cunning and licentiousness," and Wyl elsewhere observes that "Mrs. Sarah M. Pratt has given us a portrait of him [Bennett], which shows conclusively that one can be a great man in the world while he would be a very little one in the penitentiary." Yet, she assures us that Bennett's account of an event for which she was not present is accurate.

The intrigue thickens, for in Bennett's work, he portrayed himself as the friend and defender of Mrs. Pratt, willing to risk Joseph's wrath to warn her privately of the prophet's plans for seduction. Bennett went so far to claim that Joseph had told him to have some bogus plates manufactured that he could display as the Book of Mormon record. Bennett insisted that he then "mentioned this proposition to Mrs. Sarah M. Pratt, on the day the Prophet made it, and requested her to keep it in memory, as it might be of much importance." Bennett's report of Joseph's designs on her virtue gave the noble Mrs. Pratt the chance to remind him—and the reader—how "I remember well when you told me of his desiring you to procure the engraving of new plates of the Book of Mormon, for the further and more perfect blinding of the people." This is as unlikely as it is heavy-handed.

In 1842, Bennett seemed confident of Sarah's support for his version, and praises her extravagantly as "one of the most elegant, graceful, amiable, and accomplished women in the place" and claims he "had influence with her." By 1886, Sarah had nothing but contempt for Bennett, but still assured us that his version is utterly reliable when it attacks Joseph Smith.

This dynamic strengthens the case for Sarah and Bennett's adultery. In 1842, Bennett had high hopes that Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt (whom he also fawned on in print) would support him and Sarah in their attack on Joseph. By 1886, Sarah knew too well that Bennett had used and betrayed her too—their adultery likely alienated Orson, who chose to believe Joseph over her, and ultimately embraced plural marriage. Because of Bennett, Sarah lost her husband, her faith, and her respectability among the Saints. Calm Before the Storm

Though much of Bennett's account is fabricated, virtually all historians have accepted that the letter attributed to Joseph by Bennett is legitimate, though the only source for the text is Bennett's anti-Mormon works (the letter's contents are discussed in  (needs URL / links)). We know little about what was going on between Nancy's receipt of the letter, dated between April 10–15, and the end of the month. That Joseph was troubled by the visit with Nancy, however, is suggested by his sermon the next day: "[I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse] upon all adulterers and Fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs."

The prophet's remarks to the Relief Society on April 28 suggest that his concerns grew ever more acute. Joseph did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them -- that they were going to be left to themselves -- they would not long have him to instruct them -- that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings. He spoke of delivering the keys to [both] this society and to the Church -- that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere. He exhorted the sisters always to concentrate their faith and prayers for, and place confidence in those whom God has appointed to honor, whom God has plac'd at the head to lead—that we should arm them with our prayers—that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that they may be able to detect every thing false—as well as to the Elders… He said if one member become corrupt and you know it; you must immediately put it away. The sympathies of the heads of the church have induc'd them to bear with those that were corrupt in consequence of which all become contaminated—you must put down iniquity and by your good example provoke the Elders to good works…. Joseph was clearly tired, and we see one of many intimations of his early death. His preoccupations are clear, however: he and other leaders have allowed their "sympathies…to bear with those that were corrupt." To his dismay, Joseph now feared that the actions of these few could corrupt the entire Church. While urging the sisters to encourage virtue, Joseph also tried to forestall a witch-hunt based on rumour: "Let your labors be confined mostly to those around you to your own circle, as far as knowledge is concerned, it may extend to all the world, but your administrations, should be confin'd to the circle of your immediate acquaintances and more especially to the members of the society." The last thing Joseph wanted was over-zealous Relief Society members accusing others (including him) of impropriety based on rumor or insufficient information, but he also wanted to protect them from the predations of Bennett and his clique.

As we saw in the last chapter, Bennett's repeated seductions were proven after women appeared before the high council and testified against him and Chauncey Higbee in 1842. Yet, the first of these witnesses appeared on May 20; three days earlier, Joseph had told his secretary to allow Bennett to withdraw from the Church if he would do so, and Joseph began having leaders sign a letter withdrawing fellowship from Bennett nine days earlier. It is therefore inescapable that Joseph was already worried about Bennett, and likely others, by at least sometime in April. Otherwise, he would not have spoken as he did to the Relief Society, or prepared to ease Bennett out even before Chauncey Higbee's sins came to light at the end of May.

Willard Richards certainly believed that Bennett was the cause of Joseph's trouble. Richards acted as Joseph's scribe, and kept his journal. The day after the address to the Relief Society, Richards wrote in Joseph's journal that there "was made manifest a conspiracy against the peace of this househould." As Dean Jesse notes, the initials "'J.C.B.' written lightly in the margin by Willard Richards no doubt refers to John C. Bennett." When Richards expanded Joseph's journal for the History of the Church, he wrote that "it gave me some trouble to counteract the design of certain base individuals, and restore peace. The Lord makes manifest to me many things, which it not wisdom for me to make public, until others can witness the proof of them." By late April, Bennett was definitely causing problems, and Joseph had concerns about some other members' behaviour.

Francis Higbee was likely a prominent cause of those concerns. Joseph's later testimony reported that Bennet[t] said Higbee pointed out the spot where he had seduced a girl, and that he had seduced another. I did not believe it, I felt hurt, and labored with Higbee about it; he swore with uplifted hands, that he had lied about the matter. I went and told the girl's parents, when Higbee and Bennet[t] made affidavits and both perjured themselves, they swore false about me so as to blind the family. I brought Francis M. Higbee before Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith and others; Bennet[t] was present, when they both acknowledged that they had done these things, and asked us to forgive them. I got vexed, my feelings had been hurt; Higbee has been guilty of adulterous communication, perjury… It is not immediately clear whether this remark applies to the initial problems with Higbee and Bennett (1841, just after Brigham Young's return from England), or whether it refers to 1842. The editor's decision to omit the preceding testimony (which, we recall, possibly addressed Higbee and Bennett's homosexual crimes in 1841) makes the transition into the above paragraph abrupt.

A close look, however, makes it clear that Joseph is here describing a later problem with Higbee. "I also preferred charges against Bennett," continued Joseph, the same charges which I am now telling: and he got up and told them it was the truth, when he pleaded for his life, and begged to be forgiven; this was his own statement before sixty or seventy men; he said the charges were true against him and Higbee. I have been endeavoring to throw out shafts to defend myself, because they were corrupt, and I knew they were determined to ruin me: he has told the public that he was determined to prosecute me, because I slandered him, although I tell nothing but the truth. These charges were eventually confessed to sixty or seventy men—they are not the immoralities handled quietly in 1841. Instead, Joseph is here describing the confession which Bennett made before the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge on May 26, 1842. Hyrum Smith's testimony recalled "Dr. Bennett asking forgiveness of the Lodge…Francis M. Higbee acknowledged that it was the truth, that he was sorry, and had been a thousand times," with "about sixty [people] present." Heber C. Kimball described the same event in his 1844 testimony: I think it is near two years [i.e., 1842]: I had some conversation with Francis Higbee, he expressed himself indignant at some things; he expressed himself that he was sorry, he would live a new life, he never would say a word against President Joseph Smith…. Higbee, then, was indignant about some things, and confessed himself guilty of seduction along with John C. Bennett at the Nauvoo Lodge. Joseph further noted that when he told the parents the truth, Higbee and Bennett swore false affidavits "to blind the family" of one of the girls Higbee had seduced. The pieces of the puzzle compel us to ask—was the girl Nancy Rigdon? And, if so, is such a charge justified? The Character of Nancy Rigdon

As with Sarah Pratt, historian Richard Van Wagoner seems determined to defend and rehabilitate Nancy Rigdon while savaging Joseph Smith. For example, he claims that "orthodox Mormon sources provides evidence of the prophet's passion for women," leading Joseph to create a Nauvoo "where eros and duplicity seemed to subvert the highest moral values." Van Wagoner's Joseph was "slandering [Rigdon's] family" while Nancy's "reputation…[was] impugned by avalanche of slander." This is not the language of dispassionate analysis—the reader is cautioned not to ignore the none-too-subtle agenda at work.

Scandalous stories do not make slander—one has to actually demonstrate that such statements are maliciously false. Van Wagoner fails to undertake this analysis; he cites Bennett and other apostates or enemies of the Church without comment, and yet says nothing of the sworn testimony from 1844 which we have discussed in the previous section. It will not do to merely label such claims as slander; we must test them.

"The bedeviling paradox for many regarding the Nancy Rigdon incident," claims Van Wagoner, "is that while Smith's fame as a prophet of God makes the charges against him hard to believe, her steadfast reputation makes them difficult to dismiss." This argument fails to acknowledge, however, that it may be true that Joseph approached Nancy about being a plural wife, but this does not mean that Nancy was otherwise pure or innocent.

Van Wagoner makes much of the affidavits attesting Nancy Rigdon's purity. At best, such affidavits only prove that some believed Nancy to be chaste. Bennett, of course, managed to have multiple affairs for months without public outcry, and taught both Higbee brothers to do likewise. Affidavits attesting to Joseph Smith's "high moral character" were also produced, and yet Van Wagoner clearly sees them as mistaken.

Is it surprising, then, that Nancy's reputation might well have been unblemished, even if she was guilty? This is, after all, the point of conducting clandestine seduction—the public remains unaware. One notes too that despite Bennett's urging in the press, there was no statement from Francis Higbee affirming Nancy's innocence—strange indeed for a boyfriend not to rush to his beloved's defence.

Bennett would claim that Nancy showed Francis Higbee the letter from Joseph, and eventually to her family. Subsequent events demonstrate that, for once, Bennett was correct. The Rigdon Family Version of Joseph's Proposal

George Robinson, Sidney's son-in-law, provided his understanding of Joseph's first interview with Nancy, during which "[Joseph claimed] he had got a REVELATION on the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, &c., &c., and that there was no sin in it whatever; but if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her PRIVATELY, and enjoined her to secrecy…." Robinson claimed that Nancy "repulsed him…and she left him with disgust, and came home and told her father."

Robinson has some credibility, though he is only a second-hand witness of what Joseph told Nancy in their first private meeting. Even the hostile Nancy's version, filtered through Robinson, affirms that Joseph framed his proposal as a matter of revelation. The use of the phrase "blessings of Jacob" also resonates authentically, since Joseph saw plural marriage as a culmination of promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The "&c., &c." describing Joseph's theological justification is likely intended to be dismissive by Robinson, but it demonstrates that a good deal more was probably said, which Nancy ignored or did not understand. Joseph also mentioned marrying Nancy privately—i.e., without her parents' knowledge—which is also consistent with his proposals to other adult women. Joseph's emphasis on secrecy is likewise authentic.

How did Nancy explain matters? The only direct account from her is from 1884. This account has its problems: it was reported by RLDS elders, who were always keen to prove that plural marriage was an invention of Brigham Young, not Joseph. They reported Nancy saying, "I never heard of [polygamy] until after we came to Pittsburg [sic], and some time after." She did admit to hearing about "sealing," in 1842, but said, "I can not say that I ever understood it fully. Can not give the object." The elders then asked, "Was it a state of marriage and did it contemplate living together as husband and wife?" Nancy replied, "I never so understood it." Nancy also added that Joseph "seemed entirely different" in "the last year or two" of his life, "but I never knew or even heard that he had more than one wife."

Either Nancy or the RLDS elders were lying in 1884, or Robinson and Bennett were lying in 1842. Nancy's remarks may be technically correct: Joseph may have been offering more of a sealing than a marriage in which they would live "together as husband and wife," and Nancy rejected it because she did not appreciate the offer or theology which underlay it. Alternately, she may simply have wished not to get dragged back into the plural marriage debate, and so misled the RLDS elders, who were happy to have their beliefs confirmed.

It is difficult to know if Nancy was as insulted and dramatic as Robinson claims. It serves Bennett's purposes to portray her as outraged female innocence, and her family would have had an equal investment in believing that Nancy fearlessly defended her virtue. Their natural concern with clearing Nancy's name affects how we read other accounts from the Rigdon family. Long after her death, Nancy's son wrote "some one is wrong, BUT I KNOW MY MOTHER IS NOT. FOR SHE WAS THE PERSON MOST CONCERNED.… I would believe her, above any person living or dead.… SHE [WAS] NOT MISINFORMED OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES." His passion and certitude are clear, but would we expect a son to feel otherwise? Joseph Smith, III, had equally passionate views on Joseph Smith, Jr.'s plural marriages, because he trusted his mother. Yet, young Joseph was entirely misled.

Having decided to reject the prophet's offer—whatever its nature—Nancy herself would have wanted to appear righteously indignant for the benefit of her family and Francis Higbee. Given Joseph's concern for secrecy, however, if Nancy had left hostile and belligerent it would seem strange for him to commit his ideas to paper. If she did rebuke him as strongly as Robinson claims, why would Joseph provide her with written evidence of his offer and then trust that Nancy would destroy it unread by others?

If, however, Joseph confronted Nancy with a reprimand for immoral behaviour, she may have been ashamed and taken aback. A proposal of plural marriage would only have surprised her further, and she may have then left in a much more subdued—or ambiguous—manner. As with Sarah Pratt, Joseph may have hoped to both tie himself closer to a prominent leader while also redeeming a wayward relation. (If we grant Nancy the benefit of the doubt, we might conclude that Joseph only cautioned her about closer attachment to Francis Higbee, and urged plural marriage as a better option than pursuing a relationship with Francis. Such a marriage would have protected Nancy and also bound Joseph to Sidney. In either scenario, plural marriage could have been astonishing enough to send Nancy away thinking, rather than shouting.)

"Despite the drama of these events," Van Wagoner tells us, "neither [Nancy] Rigdon [or Sarah] Pratt…stood to gain from exposing the prophet's prurience; none had obvious political motives to hurt him." This is sheer nonsense—if Sarah or Nancy was guilty of sin, as Joseph and others claimed, then they had every reason to undercut Joseph. Political considerations are irrelevant. Having made the decision to share the letter with Francis, Nancy effectively informed Bennett, who knew exactly what use to make of this gift the prophet had handed them. Under the influence of Bennett and Higbee, Nancy had several days to tell and retell her story. Memory is fickle and fluid. If Nancy had been immoral with Higbee, she had a motive to paint the man who could unmask her in the worst light. If Nancy had done nothing wrong, Bennett and Higbee likely did little to encourage her to seek the revelatory guidance to which other plural wives had recourse (see CHAPTER). Private Visit With Sidney Rigdon

It seems clear that tensions were high between the Rigdons and Joseph before May. Joseph presented his first address to those who would receive the full endowment on May 1, but Sidney and Bennett "were conspicuously absent." On the 11th, Joseph drafted the letter to withdraw Church fellowship from Bennett, "he having been labored with from time to time, to persuade him to amend his conduct, apparently to no good effect." The next day, Joseph "[d]ictated a letter to Elder Rigdon concerning certain difficulties, or surmises which existed" between them. Rigdon replied the following day, but the text of neither letter is available. This exchange of views led to a visit the next night, during which Joseph "walked with Elder Richards to the post office, and had an interview with Elder Rigdon concerning certain evil reports put in circulation by Francis M. Higbee, about some of Elder Rigdon's family, and others; much apparent satisfaction was manifested at the conversation, by Elder Rigdon."

This entry is telegraphic, but it is again significant that Higbee's name is mentioned. Joseph had already taken steps to deal with Bennett, and more would follow. Bennett's Fall From Grace

The private interview with Sidney Rigdon likely reminded Joseph of Francis Higbee and his past involvement with prostitution. He may also have concluded that Bennett needed to be publicly opposed. At the city council meeting the next day, Joseph advocated strongly the necessity of some active measures being taken to suppress houses and acts of infamy in the city; for the protection of the innocent and virtuous, and the good of public morals; showing clearly that there were certain characters in the place, who were disposed to corrupt the morals and chastity of our citizens, and that houses of infamy did exist, upon which a city ordinance concerning brothels and disorderly characters was passed, to prohibit such things. It was later remembered that Bennett opposed a city council effort to suppress brothels; if so, it was likely on this occasion, and he doubtless understood it to be the shot across his bow that it was. Within three days, Bennett was encouraged to withdraw from the Church, and forced to resign as mayor.

The remainder of May saw the collapse of Bennett's hopes. The high council cases involving Chauncey Higbee concluded, and Bennett was soon pleading for mercy at the Masonic Lodge he had helped found. By mid-June, he had been publicly shamed and excommunicated, and left Nauvoo on June 21. He traveled to Springfield, where he concluded an arrangement to print anti-Mormon exposés. By prior agreement, the ‘‘Sangamo Journal’’ called for Bennett to "come out NOW." Since Bennett had no other income during this period, it is thought that he was paid for his anti-Mormon letters, of which he had written three before being urged to do so by the press. Bennett had discovered a fifth con: pretending to risk his life writing religious exposés he was urged to write after agreeing to write them for pay. George W. Robinson and John C. Bennett

If Joseph had ever satisfied Sidney, it did not last. "[I]n company with Bishop [George] Miller, I visited Elder Rigdon and his family, and had much conversation about John C. Bennett, and others, much unpleasant feeling was manifested by Elder Rigdon's family, who were confounded and put to silence by the truth." Miller had been responsible for uncovering Bennett's serial infidelities, and was probably along to back up Joseph's account of Bennett's wicked ways (see CHAPTER)}}

Unsurprisingly for such a contested tale, other versions of this visit exist. The most immediate is George Robinson's, who claimed to be present. We recall that he provided Nancy's version of Joseph's proposal, discussed above. His account, however, was not yet written. In evaluating it, we must remember that his statement was not made until July 27—a month after the family meeting, and more than three months after Joseph's discussion with Nancy. During that time, despite all the disclosures made about Bennett's actions and character, Robinson continued to associate with him as a friend. In fact, after having arranged to be paid for his anti-Mormon letters to the ‘‘Sangamo Journal’’, Bennett returned to the Nauvoo home of none other than George W. Robinson. Bennett arrived the day prior to Joseph's family meeting; we cannot ignore, then, the possibility that Robinson's first-person account was distorted or doctored because of his relationship with Bennett, who was immediately on-hand to counter anything Joseph told them.

Robinson's attitude and memory would also have been affected by the charges and rumours swirling around Joseph as Bennett published his exposés, since his letter was written after the publication of four of Bennett's letters.

Our reading of Joseph's meeting with Sidney's family will, then, be greatly influenced by the decisions we make about even this single source. Too many authors, anxious to smear Joseph or tell an exciting tale, have used Robinson (a first hand source, holy grail of historiography) incautiously, without informing their readers of the evidentiary pitfalls which await the unwary. Robinson should not be discarded, but nor should he receive our unbounded trust. Joseph Meets with the Rigdon Family

Of the meeting, Robinson wrote [Nancy] told the tale in the presence of all the family, and to Smith's face. I was present. Smith attempted to deny it at first, and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and THE FACT OF A LETTER BEING PRESENT, WHICH HE HAD CAUSED TO BE WRITTEN TO HER, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, the day after the attempt made on her virtue, breathing the same spirit, and which he had fondly hoped was DESTROYED,—all came with such force that he could not withstand the testimony; and he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true. If Nancy had left their interview in a hostile mood, Joseph would be a fool to meet with the entire family, which again makes that part of the Bennett/Robinson tale implausible. Bennett, unable to appreciate that others might have motives radically different from his own, had no qualms about portraying Joseph as a master of calculation and exploitation. To walk into the family bear trap and deny everything, as Joseph reportedly did, shows naiveté, not calculation.

Robinson saved the greatest part of his ire for Joseph's explanation of the plural marriage offer: "Now for his excuse, which he made for such a base attempt, and for using the name of the Lord in vain, on that occasion. HE WISHED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SHE WAS VIRTUOUS OR NOT, AND TOOK THAT COURSE TO LEARN THE FACTS!!!" If accurate, this is strong evidence that Joseph said at least something about Nancy's virtue. As we will see below, Francis Higbee was also almost certainly mentioned. One son remembered Rigdon insisting afterward that Joseph "could never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe in the doctrine."

It is possible, then, that Joseph's meeting with the Rigdon extended family was a serious miscalculation by the prophet. Confident that Sidney was upset only because he did not understand Higbee's (and, potentially, Nancy's) moral failings, Joseph arrived and was blindsided. Expecting to help parents call sinners to repentance, Joseph was suddenly on trial. Gone was the Nancy ashamed before a prophet's rebuke or astonished at his proposal; in her place stood a woman who could, merely by emphasizing different aspects of their conversation or omitting information about herself, use the truth to lie. Taken aback, Joseph may well have temporized and back-peddled furiously, knowing that the charged situation was ill-suited to persuading the Rigdons to consider his plural marriage teachings as anything but lasciviousness.

The production of his letter would have been one more nail in the coffin, at which point Joseph may have hoped that a frank exposition of the doctrine might soften them. I suspect that he down-played the "marriage" component, and emphasized "sealing" and blessings. This scenario is most consistent with Robinson's version. Joseph ultimately admitted to mentioning plural marriage, but denied doing so with intent to seduce Nancy. Given his earlier denials, those present saw this as clear evidence of deception. Deception implied ill intent. If so, one can sympathize with the Rigdons' situation—many others who were taught about plural marriage under more benign circumstances were stunned and repulsed. This is one plausible reading of the data.

A second approach would read the matter as the History of the Church entry does—the Rigdons were upset, but Joseph's explanations finally reassured everyone. Sidney likely did not accept everything Joseph had to say, but (as when he first encountered the Book of Mormon) would not reject the ideas out of hand without prayer and reflection. In this reading, Joseph left confident that revelation would settle the matter.

The third—and, to my mind, most likely scenario—is essentially a blend of the first two. Joseph arrived into an explosive situation, as described in the first case. He was able, however, to defend his actions and his teachings far more ably than the hapless bumbler portrayed by Robinson and Bennett. Joseph may have left believing that he had done what was necessary to resolve the issue, but doubts lingered. Sidney's angry reaction following the prophet's departure would have decided the issue for any fence-sitters. Francis Higbee: Post-Bennett

Whatever else happened at the Rigdon household, Joseph seems to have named names. His journal for the following day records that "I held a long conversation with Francis M. Higbee. Francis found fault with being exposed, but I told him I spoke of him in self defense. Francis was, or appeared, humble, and promised to reform." Francis was upset that Joseph has revealed his present—and perhaps past—crimes. Joseph explained that he was placed in a position where he could not protect Higbee without harming himself and the Church. Any humility on Higbee's part was likely short-lived; within a few days he provided Bennett with an affidavit claiming Joseph Smith had told him that Bennett could easily be killed with no one the wiser. This is implausible on two grounds. First, given Joseph's clear antipathy to Higbee, he is the last to whom Joseph would make such a remark "about the time of Bennett's withdrawal from the Church, or a short time before." Secondly, Bennett was never shy about self-preservation, and he returned repeatedly to Nauvoo even after his break with Joseph}} Bennett didn't believe the affidavit, and neither should we.

Matters between Joseph and Sidney continued to smoulder. Sidney wrote Joseph, "in the greatest confidence to yourself and for your own eye and no other…I am your friend and not your enemy as I am afraid you suppose. I want you to take your horse and carriage on tomorrow and take a ride with me out to the Prairie…Say not a word to any person living but to Hiram only. [A]nd no man shall know it from me." Even if he could not support Joseph's plural marriage teaching, Sidney strove to repair their relationship.

Either during the family meeting or during the ride, Sidney and family believed Joseph had agreed to stop speaking ill of them. On July 3, George Robinson wrote Bennett. After reporting that Francis Higbee had Joseph's letter to Nancy, he promised to have Chauncey Higbee retrieve it, presumably for Bennett to publish. Outraged, Robinson insisted that Joseph had promised to "take back what he said about us," but reported that Joseph instead announced from the pulpit that "he had agreed to take back what was said, but, on thinking it over, he could not do it, for any man that would suffer Bennett to come into their houses, was just as bad as he." Though Joseph "did not say much about [Francis] Higbee," he did say "that a young man came down to see him the other day, and wanted to know why he came out on him; but…'I have settled all matters with him, and shall not mention his name, for he confessed his sins to me, and begged I would not mention him.' [Added Robinson,] Francis will roar."

Francis seems to have been less committed to Joseph's downfall than his brother or Bennett. On July 6, he purportedly wrote Bennett claiming that Nancy Rigdon would give her affidavit—which she never did. "As it respects my affidavit, sir," wrote Francis, for God's sake, my sake, and the sake of my people, do not show it to any one on earth, as yet, never, until I give you liberty…I am yet true as death, and intend to stick or die, but you must keep my name back, because I am not ready as yet to leave; and as soon as you bring my name out, they are certain to take my life… I am torn between presuming this is a forgery by Bennett, and concluding that Higbee was unbalanced. His behaviour does not seem consistent with fear for his life, and Bennett would publish a letter the very next day calling on Higbee and Robinson "to state what they know upon this subject…[for they] can tell some astounding facts in relation to this matter." Bennett feigned fear that "the Danites…[might] murder me," but said nothing of the risk to which he was supposedly subjecting Higbee and Robinson. Bennett would not have scrupled to publish Higbee's affidavit eventually—but, since one never appeared, it seems unlikely that Higbee had given it to Bennett, as the letter claims. Given "Higbee's" anxiety in the letter, it seems unlikely that he would be mistaken. Forgery it is, then.

Nothing was forthcoming from the supposedly eager but frightened Francis. On 22 July, his name appeared on an affidavit sustained by his father's; both insisted that claims about Mormons murdering a Missouri prisoner were unfounded. Bennett would then claim to receive a letter from Higbee about three weeks after the affidavits' publication, in which Higbee wrote "Statements have been forced from several [in Nauvoo]; you have seen mine; but great God! That's all from this child!"

Despite promises—all made, significantly, via Bennett—that he and Nancy had bombshells that would destroy Joseph Smith, Francis Higbee never delivered. He disappears from the narrative, only to reappear as Joseph's determined enemy in 1844. Heber C. Kimball recalled how "[Francis] had an inclination to write that what he published was false. I exhorted him to go and recall what he had said. I afterwards saw him in Cincinnati, when he promised by every thing sacred that he would come home, reform…He said he would study at Cincinnati, for his character was ruined here." Kimball's story is complimented by Robinson, who on September 16, 1842 wrote Bennett that "Frank Higbee [Colonel Francis M. Higbee] has gone to Ohio." One can sense the disappointment in Higbee's performance: "He did not intend to contradict your statements," he assured Bennett, "but he knew of no prisoner killed…Frank is true blue; but, I fear, like some others here, he lacks MORAL COURAGE!!" One sees how Bennett's clique may have worked on Higbee's sense of honor and pride—if he would not act against Joseph, he was branded a coward.

Not coincidentally, the next we hear of Higbee is a letter published in the ‘‘Times and Seasons’’ on Christmas day. Higbee's father asserts that the letter was written "upon the subject of two letters purporting to be written by him to J. C. Bennett and published in his book." Bennett's History of the Saints was published in October, and the letter rebutting it was written by Francis on November 28, from "Cary's Academy, Pleasant Hill." Of the two letters printed by Bennett, Higbee insisted "such a thing has no foundation in truth." Bennett had nothing from him, claimed Higbee, "except the affidavit that fell into his hands."

Higbee is far too modest: the affidavit in which Joseph supposedly told Higbee that Bennett could be easily killed had to be prepared and sworn; it only fell into Bennett's hands because Higbee wished it so. But, he seems to have quickly had second thoughts, and distanced himself from Bennett. That Bennett printed nothing else proves he had nothing else. No stranger to forgery, Bennett did not let an absence of documents deter him. (It is possible, of course, that Joseph or Higbee's parents forged his November confessional letter. This is unlikely, given that Francis never denounced the letter, and given that the letters printed by Bennett are clearly forgeries on forensic grounds.) Francis' only material contribution to Bennett's campaign against Joseph was the affidavit about a murder plot, which was almost certainly false.

We can now draw some firm conclusions. From 1841 onward, Higbee flirted with sin, and when eventually found out, was manipulated and betrayed by his mentor, Bennett. Alternating between tearful remorse and belligerence, he waffled repeatedly between correcting his life and attacking those who exposed him. For a time, he seems to have decided to reform himself. Higbee was upset at Joseph for making his sins known and disgracing him before at least sixty men at the Nauvoo Lodge. He seems to have lost his connection with Nancy, and eventually left town.

Even his commitment to truth-telling at the end of November 1842 was short-lived: by January 1844 he was back in Nauvoo. The old problems had not died away. On January 5, Joseph made a veiled but pointed reference to Higbee's past indiscretions: Mayor referred to Francis Higbee's testimony. Thought Francis Higbee had better stay at home and hold his tongue, lest rumor turn upon him and disclose some private matters which he would prefer kept hid. Did not believe there was any rumor of the kind afloat, or he could have told some of the names of his informants. Thought the young men of the city had better withdraw from his society, and let him stand on his own merits. I by no means consider him the standard of the city. The intervening months had made Higbee bolder. "I received a long equivocating letter from Francis M. Higbee," reads Joseph's history, "charging me with having slandered his character and demanding a public trial before the Church. It contains no denial of the charges which he accuses me of having spoken against him, but is full of bombast." Higbee's tendency to vacillate revealed itself. Within the week, Joseph learned that Higbee was going to sue him for $10,000 "for speaking against him." A reconciliation was effected the next day. Francis "had written a slanderous letter concerning me, and said many hard things, which he acknowledged; and I forgave him. I went before the Council and stated that all difficulties between me and F. M. Higbee were eternally buried, and I was to be his friend for ever. To which F. M. Higbee replied, "I will be his friend for ever, and his right-hand man.'"

It was not to be. Higbee may have acquired some of Bennett's talent for dissembling; he certainly cannot have reconciled with Joseph out of fear, for he remained in Nauvoo and would eventually hound Joseph ceaselessly. A month later, Joseph faulted Higbee's intent to appeal a court case to Carthage, believing his intent was "to stir up the mob and bring them upon us." By May, Higbee was suing Joseph again. If Higbee was concerned about his good name, its value had dropped, for he now was demanding only $5,000. In an ironic twist, it was these attacks that led Joseph and other church leaders to report Higbee's actions of the last three years in open court. Higbee's zeal for revenge provided the clues necessary to untangle the Nancy Rigdon affair.

On May 18, 1844, Francis M. Higbee was excommunicated. He was to play a prominent role in the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum. Stephen Markham's Affidavit

If Francis Higbee was unwilling to provide affidavits about Nancy Rigdon, Stephen Markham was not. Born in 1800, Markham joined the Church near Kirtland, Ohio, in 1837. A faithful member, Markham would later play a key role in rescuing Joseph from an illegal effort to extradite him to Missouri. Fiercely loyal to Joseph, he helped prepare Carthage Jail against possible assault; he left and was not permitted to return, thus sparing him the assault that killed Joseph and Hyrum.

Markham provided an affidavit published in ‘‘The Wasp’’ on July 27, 1843. Several of Bennett's letters had been published, and the Nancy Rigdon charges swirled around Nauvoo. Markham claimed that sometime in 1842, he was at the house of Sidney Rigdon in the city of Nauvoo, where he saw Miss Nancy Rigdon laying on a bed, and John C. Bennett was sitting by the side of the bed, near the foot, in close conversation with her: [he] also saw many vulgar, unbecoming and indecent sayings and motions pass between them, which satisfied [him] that they were guilty of unlawful and illicit intercourse, with each other. The reaction was furious}} Several Nauvoo citizens published counter-affidavits, claiming that Markham had only testified "to help Smith out of his dilemma." Markham was, they said, "a man of little or no reputation," since he was "a liar, disturber of the peace, and what may justly be termed a loafer." George Robinson insisted that Markham's "character for truth and veracity is not good, and that I could not believe him under oath…I am personally knowing to his lying, and that his character in general is that of a loafer, disturber of the peace, liar, &c." Robinson further insisted that he had been present on the occasion referred to: "Miss Rigdon was then sick, and Dr John C. Bennett was the attending physician." Sidney Rigdon published a refutation, and hired an attorney to sue Markham.

On September 3, an unusual notice appeared in ‘‘The Wasp’’: "We are authorized to say, by Gen. Joseph Smith, that the affidavit of Stephen Markham, relative to Miss Nancy Rigdon, as published in the handbill of affidavits, was unauthorized by him; the certificate of Elder Rigdon relative to the letter, being satisfactory." The editor of the ‘‘Sangamo Journal’’ was sceptical, and declared Markham "putrid and corrupt" for helping Joseph "further his infamous designs." The statement was specific in its phrasing—Joseph did not admit that Markham's affidavit was false, he merely disclaimed responsibility for its publication. This would have been enough to allow the majority of members to disregard it if they chose to do so: it would have been harder to ignore an affidavit which was widely believed to have Joseph's tacit approval.

What are we to make of Markham's affidavit? Was he merely a loyal foot-soldier, willing to perjure himself to save Joseph Smith, and then take the heat when their scheme back-fired? Or, did he honestly see an exchange between Bennett and Nancy which—especially in retrospect when other charges appeared—troubled him, leading him to honestly misinterpret an innocent situation? Or, were Bennett and Nancy enmeshed more tightly than we have thought?

The out-pouring of support for Nancy in the face of the Markham affidavit is striking when compared to the silence which greeted the initial charges against her. Sidney did not swear an affidavit in her support before Markham published his charges; Bennett could not even produce affidavits from Francis Higbee or Nancy about Joseph, much as he wanted them. Sarah Pratt was likewise not defended by charging the prophet and his supporters with slander until decades later. I suspect that Markham made an honest mistake—what he had learned about Bennett and Nancy led him to misinterpret, in retrospect, an innocent medical visit. His false charge persuaded Joseph's enemies that the Prophet really would stoop to anything to avoid having his own crimes revealed.

Joseph distanced himself from the affidavit for two reasons. Firstly, he had no other evidence that Bennett and Nancy were having an affair, while he reportedly had testimony from Bennett and Higbee about Nancy and Francis. Secondly, as the notice indicates, Joseph had what he wanted from Sidney—there was nothing to be gained for the Rigdons, Joseph, or the Church in pursing the issue raised by Markham. By distancing himself from Markham's charge, Joseph could offer an olive branch to Sidney, and attempt to put the issue behind them.

What had Sidney done to placate Joseph? And why did he do it? Divine Intervention

Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon was published by Bennett in the ‘‘Sangamo Journal’’ on August 20. The most striking event in the whole saga occurred the following day. Sidney no doubt stunned the crowd by announcing that "never before had he seen the dead raised; yet this was a thing that had actually taken place in his own family." His daughter Eliza had been gravely ill, and was pronounced dead by the physicians. Eliza suddenly "rose up in bed," and informed her family that God had sent her back to deliver a message, and then she would return to Him. She insisted that "the Lord had said to her the very words she should relate, -- and so particular was she in her relation, that she would not suffer any person to leave out a word, or add one."

Eliza called each family member and spoke to them. She told Nancy, "It is in your heart to deny this work, and if you do, the Lord says it will be the damnation of your soul…She said concerning Geo[rge] W. Robinson, as he had denied the faith, the Lord had taken away one of his eye-teeth, and unless he repented, he would take away another. And concerning Dr. Bennett, that he was a wicked man, and that the Lord would tread him under his feet. Such is a small portion of what she related."

Sidney's daughter did not die. After laying as cold "as when laid in the grave" for thirty six hours, she called Rigdon and told him that the Lord had said to her, if he would cease weeping for his sick daughter, and dry up his tears, that he should have all the desires of his heart; and that if he would go to bed and rest, he should be comforted over his sick daughter, for in the morning she should be getting better, and should get well. That the Lord had said unto her, because that her father had dedicated her to God, and prayed to him for her, that he would give her back again. When faced with such an account, a sceptic can only marvel at Joseph Smith's extraordinary luck. Not only was a patient declared dead returned to life, but she brought messages which specifically targeted all those who were causing such difficulty. No prophetic charisma was brought to bear, and Rigdon made his own decision to make the events known. The Latter-day Saint who encounters this report will likely conclude that whatever the details of Joseph's interaction with Nancy, which we can only approximate, any fault or condemnation lay with others, not the prophet.

Sidney was not the only one moved by these events. Five days later, Eliza R. Snow's personal diary reported that Joseph "said he had some good news, viz. that George W. Robinson had declar'd his determination to forsake his evil deeds and return to the church. If he does return, I hope it may be for his soul's salvation: not to act the part of Hinkle and betray the innocent, in the time of danger." Sister Snow's hopes were not rewarded, but her account is a potent argument: it was not produced for public consumption, and one cannot accuse it of being designed for propaganda purposes. Joseph's remark was made in private to intimates who did not need to be persuaded to support him. If Robinson had persevered in his return, we might read his affidavits—which are supposedly so damning—with a great deal more perspective.

Nancy seems to have been likewise persuaded by her sister's message from the Lord. She never again accused Joseph, and even late in life refrained from charging him with any impropriety. Sidney issued a statement two days later in behalf of Nancy and himself: I am fully authorized by my daughter, Nancy, to say to the public through the medium of your paper, that the letter which has appeared in the ‘‘Sangamo Journal’’, making part of General Bennett's letters to said paper, purporting to have been written by Mr. Joseph Smith to her, was unauthorised by her, and that she never said to Gen. Bennett or any other person, that said letter was written by said Mr. Smith, nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another persons' hand writing. This statement is also carefully crafted. Nancy denied that she gave Bennett permission to publish her letter, which was likely true since she had given the letter to Francis, and Chauncey set out to obtain a copy. Sidney also drew a careful distinction: since Joseph had not written the letter himself (he had used Richards as a scribe) Nancy could legitimately claim that Joseph had not "written" it. This careful parsing of the facts to protect the Church was characteristic of how the confidentiality of plural marriage was protected in Nauvoo. Joseph and others realized that any statement made publicly had to withstand the scrutiny of a hostile and violent anti-Mormon element (see  (needs URL / links) for a more in-depth discussion).

The letter from Sidney continued: She further wishes me to say, that she never at any time authorised Gen. Bennett to use her name in the public papers, as he has done, which has been greatly to the wounding of her feelings, and she considers the obtruding of her name before the public in the manner in which it has been done, to say the least of it, as a flagrant violation of the rules of gallantry, and cannot avoid to insult her feelings, which she wishes the public to know. I would further state that Mr. Smith denied to me the authorship of that letter. Nancy denied authorizing Bennett's actions, which was likely true—even Bennett the forger had only produced letters from Robinson and the Higbees indicating Nancy's support. (I suspect she merely wanted the issue to go away.) Sidney's careful hair-splitting again shows in the last sentence, reporting that Joseph "denied to me the authorship." This also was likely true—during the meeting with Rigdon's family, Joseph probably sought to distance himself from the letter, before finally admitting his proposal and teachings. Rigdon does not say that Joseph "denies" (in the present tense) the authorship, only that he "denied" (past tense).

We have already seen that Joseph reciprocated Sidney's nuanced letter by distancing himself from Markham's affidavit. Eliza's message from beyond the grave seems to have been sufficient to settle Sidney's concerns about Joseph—at the least, it prevented an open rupture between the two men. It did not, however, restore Rigdon to Joseph's confidence. The prophet was well aware that Sidney remained skeptical about plural marriage, and he would remain suspicious of his counselor in the First Presidency for the rest of his life. For Joseph, Sidney had faced a great test, and been found wanting.

Notes