|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{FairMormon}}
| + | #REDIRECT[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership#Was Joseph Smith ever charged with adultery under Illinois law?]] |
| − | <onlyinclude>
| + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| − | ==Question: Was Joseph Smith ever charged with adultery under Illinois law?==
| |
| − | ===William and Wilson Law charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery under Illinois Law. This occurred shortly before his death, when Robert Foster, William Law (Joseph's former counselor in the First Presidency) and Law's brother Wilson charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|403,414}} Joseph took an aggressive stance in the defense of himself and Maria, which would be surprising if Illinois law was as detrimental to his case as many have assumed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For example, as soon as Joseph was charged, two days later he and his supporters "rode to Carthage, intent on having" the charge "'investigated.'"<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|404}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open"===
| |
| − | It is vital to understand, however, that:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.<ref name="defining"></ref>{{Rp|402}}</blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition===
| |
| − | The same author emphasized:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day<ref>Bradshaw cites Criminal Code, section 123, ''Revised Laws of Illinois'': "Any man or woman who shall live together in '''an open state''' of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted...." (Bradshaw, 407, emphasis added).</ref>] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|408}}</blockquote>
| |
| − | </onlyinclude> | |
| − | {{endnotes sources}}
| |
| | [[Category:Letter to a CES Director]] | | [[Category:Letter to a CES Director]] |
| | [[Category:MormonThink]] | | [[Category:MormonThink]] |
| Line 24: |
Line 6: |
| | [[es:Pregunta: ¿Estaba José Smith nunca acusado de adulterio en virtud de la ley de Illinois?]] | | [[es:Pregunta: ¿Estaba José Smith nunca acusado de adulterio en virtud de la ley de Illinois?]] |
| | [[pt:Pergunta: Foi Joseph Smith em qualquer época condenado por adultério segundo a lei de Illinois?]] | | [[pt:Pergunta: Foi Joseph Smith em qualquer época condenado por adultério segundo a lei de Illinois?]] |
| | + | [[Category:Questions]] |
