The 1842 "Happiness" Essay

[Elphaba]

WARNING: This is NOT a faith-promoting post.

When I asked Heather about creating a "Church History" forum, my goal was an appropriate place to discuss the more difficult aspects of the Church's history, to which she agreed.

In other words, it IS appropriate to discuss the Church's more controversial history in this forum, and I welcome everyone's input.

I am asking, however, that you please keep the forum's intent in mind if you choose to read, or post, to the thread.

Thank you in advance,

Elphaba

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, Hemi made note of the 1842 "Happiness" Essay, writing: The Prophet Joseph recorded his "Happiness is the object and design of our existence" essay, probably with the newly revealed law of celestial marriage in mind as he wrote it."

The essay has an extremely interesting provenance, and I thought it worth its own post.

While it is true this essay originated with the law of celestial marriage in mind, it was actually a letter Joseph had written to Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of Sidney Rigdon, after she had refused his request to become one of his plural wives.

According to Robert S. Van Wagoner, in Mormon Polygamy, a History, George W. Robinson, a prominent Nauvoo citizen and brother-in-law to Nancy, said that “Smith sent for Miss Rigdon to come to the house of Mrs. (Orson) Hyde, who lived in the under rooms of the printing office.” Robinson said Nancy ‘inquired of the messenger . . . what was wanting, and the only reply was that Smith wanted to see her.”

Robinson claimed that Smith took her into a room, “locked the door, and then stated to her that he had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with the matter, for he had got a revelation about the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, &c., &c., and that there was no sin in it whatsoever.” Robinson reported that Nancy “repulsed him and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out.”

Van Wagoner goes on to state that Nancy withheld details of the situation until a day or two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by Smith’s personal secretary, Willard Richards.

It is Joseph's letter, appealing to Nancy to become his plural wife, that is the origin of what we call the “Happiness” essay in the History of the Church.

Here is a link to the letter, plus a look at the person, John C. Bennett, who printed it in the newspaper, thus humiliating Joseph. (While Bennett's part in this discussion is not large, it is telling of the man who had ingratiated his way into Joseph’s life, and then took advantage of Joseph’s revelation about polygamy. There is more, which is explained in the introduction to the letter.)

Van Wagoner, quoting Robinson, writes that when Sidney Rigdon first confronted Joseph, he “attempted to deny it at first," and face her (Nancy) 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, . . . “that ultimately he could not withstand the testimony; he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon’s testimony was true.”

However, in a letter to the local newspaper, the Nauvoo Wasp, dated September 3, 1842, Sydney said Nancy denied the letter was in Joseph’s hand, and furthermore said that Joseph denied writing it.

Of course, we know today the letter would not have been in Joseph’s hand, as Willard Richards, Joseph’s secretary, had transcribed it while Joseph dictated.

However, there was also a strategic reason Nancy would deny Joseph had written the letter. First, there were already tensions between Sydney and Joseph before Joseph‘s proposal, and when Sydney heard about that he was furious. (It should be noted that, according to Van Wagoner‘s biography of Sydney, he was easily infuriated, and his behavior was very erratic and hard to predict.)

Additionally, when Bennett had printed Joseph’s letter to Nancy, it had been a public humiliation for him. Thus, there is speculation that Sydney asked Nancy to publicly deny Smith had written her the letter to help smooth Smith’s/Rigdon’s aforementioned tensions.

And finally, when Nancy refused Joseph’s proposal, suddenly there were mutterings about Nancy’s virtue, intimating she had not been pure, and speculating on liaisons she had had. During that time period in Nauvoo, there was no way she could defend herself against these accusations to those who would not listen.

Thus, writing the letter to the paper took care of all of the above, though Joseph and Sydney’s tensions never really resolved, even to the end of Joseph’s life.

However, there is no doubt Smith wrote the letter to Nancy, as it has been authenticated by Dean Jesse, the then-editor of what we now call The Joseph Smith Papers, a project he worked on for decades.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (I had written Dean Jesse had passed on. However, he hasn't, thus my exes. It was Utah historian Dean May who passed away.)

One final, important note:

As Hemi wrote above, when the “Happiness” essay was inserted into the History of the Church, noted Mormon historian B. H. Roberts said that although the occasion for the writing of the letter seemed clouded, it nevertheless was produced at the time the new law of marriage was being introduced by the Prophet and that it was "very likely" that the letter was written with a view of applying its contents "to the conditions created by introducing said marriage system."631

( Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also "The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon," Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives)

Roberts’ footnote is technically accurate. But what is impressive, to me, is that Smith articulated the reasons God allowed for polygamy, without ever actually using the word "polygamy," or any other variation thereof. And he did so in such beautiful prose, I enjoyed reading it very much.

I think this is a testament that Joseph was a creative and talented wordsmith, which I think is often dismissed because of his “backwoods farm boy” description.

So, while its origins were difficult for many involved, I can see how the ensuing “Happiness” essay inspires members of the Church to this day.

Elphaba

Edited August 29, 2008 by Elphaba
I wrote that Dean Jesse had passed on and I am wrong. It was Dean May, another Utah historian, who passed on.

[Moksha]

I liked this line Joseph wrote to Nancy:

Our heavenly father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive...

"Happiness is the object and design of our existence" is a theme we don't hear a lot about at Church.

:)

[HiJolly]

I had read somewhere that Bennett had warned Nancy before Joseph's approach, so perhapse his role was larger than you are saying?

Also, yes, Moksha, good quote.

HiJolly

[Misshalfway]

Robinson claimed that Smith took her into a room, “locked the door, and then stated to her that he had an affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with the matter, for he had got a revelation about the subject, and God had given him all the blessings of Jacob, &c., &c., and that there was no sin in it whatsoever.” Robinson reported that Nancy “repulsed him and was about to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out.”

Sorry Elph, but this just screams rumor mill. I've been to high school I know how it works.

How can any of the inner conversation really be verified? How can the actual event be authenticated?

One guy said so.......and so and so and so.....

[Elphaba]

I had read somewhere that Bennett had warned Nancy before Joseph's approach, so perhapse his role was larger than you are saying?

Bennett himself is the one who claimed he warned Nancy about Joseph's approach. Bennett also claimed he warned Joseph not to propose to Nancy.

Bennett made these claims in a book he wrote after his final break with Joseph and the Church. Bennett also wrote innumerable other claims that cannot be backed up in his expose'. But despite the fact that Van Wagoner says nothing about these supposed warnings, they do not make sense.

If Bennett had warned Nancy, it is very likely she would not have accepted a meeting with Joseph, as evidenced by her reaction to Joseph‘s actual proposal.

Additionally, if Bennett had warned Joseph not to propose to Nancy, Joseph may have listened to him. Bennett had as many ties to the Church as Joseph did at the time, and Joseph trusted him, though he didn’t take well to being told not to do something.

Joseph's relationship with Bennett is extremely complicated, and Van Wagoner discusses his role in the Nauvoo period at length.

However, Van Wagoner says nothing about Bennett warning Joseph or Nancy, and since Bennett's expose was obviously self-aggrandizing on this point, I don't know that it merits mention in a post like this one. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I would be very interested if you, or anyone else, have evidence that explains Bennett's actions differently. As always, I want to be accurate when I write about these historical incidents.

If I’ve missed something, I really do want to know.

Elphaba

Edited August 29, 2008 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Sorry Elph, but this just screams rumor mill. I've been to high school I know how it works.

How can any of the inner conversation really be verified? How can the actual event be authenticated?

One guy said so.......and so and so and so.....

What part of the conversation do you doubt? I need to know to answer your question thoroughly.

The reason I ask is because I do not want to have to type more than I have to. In other words, if you doubt Joseph said the Lord had revealed to him that Nancy was to be his wife, I can focus on that part.

The incident itself is not in doubt. Joseph himself authenticated the event when Sidney Rigdon confronted him.

As I wrote in my original post, two days after Joseph’s proposal Nancy received the letter that later became the “Happiness” essay. She showed it to her father, Sidney, who became furious with Joseph, and insisted on meeting with him.

Initially Joseph denied Nancy's claims, which outraged Nancy. In fact her brother wrote of the incident: “Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said Joseph Smith you are telling that which is not true you did make such a proposition to me and you know it. . . . “

But, because the Rigdons had the letter Joseph had sent Nancy, and because Nancy was so insistent, and angry that Joseph was not telling the truth, Joseph was persuaded to admit he had done as Nancy said.

In fact, Joseph later said he had proposed to Nancy because he “wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the facts."

Regarding the actual proposal, most of it was commonly the way he did it. He would find someone to support him, in this case Marinda Hyde, wife of Orson Hyde. Joseph had already married Marinda as a polyandrous wife, and thus she was his support in this instance.

He had prearranged with Marinda to bring Nancy to her house, and so Marinda knew Joseph took Nancy to a room to propose to her. When Nancy refused him, Joseph asked Marinda to explain the revelation about polygamy to Nancy, but she remained opposed.

His other proposals were often a variation on this theme, with the exception being the majority of them accepted his proposal. Most of them balked at first, but Joseph relied on his inner circle, including women who were already married to him, to explain the eternal principle, and thus convince the women to become his wife.

Regarding the dialogue, are the quotes exact? I am sure some are and some are not, which I am sure happens with the gazilions of history books written. I am typing these particular quotes directly out the book, so that's the best I can do. Ultimately, we can only depend on what the people tell us their quotes are, via journals, affidavits, or some other document. And even if it is not word for word, it should be as close as possible or the historian should not use it.

Edit: I just read your post again, and think I missed the point. You are questioning the second-party account, if I'm correct. In this case, that party is Nancy's brother-in-law, so it is going to be weighted to Nancy's version. However, as I said above, Joseph corroborated her accusations. Again, were they word for word? Probably not in this case, but I don't doubt they get the gist across.

Other than the above, I’m not sure what part of the story you take issue with. Let me know and I’ll answer as best I can.

Elphaba

Edited August 29, 2008 by Elphaba