How reliable are the journals of
William Clayton as a source for determining what Joseph Smith did or did not do,
said or did not say? If you’ve read the
compilation by George Smith called William Clayton: An Intimate Chronicle, that collects all of William Clayton’s writings
into one source, then you’ve seen a narrative that appears seamless and flows
across the early Church history as if it is all one continuous stream of events
from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City. And a stream of events that shows God
introducing polygamy to earnest Saints, who although may be struggling to live
the “Higher Law”, are nonetheless walking the path that God has laid out before
them.
But that compilation of entries
by George Smith disguises a problem with the narrative. In reality, it is pieced together from
a dozen sources, and whatever may have been his original intention with the
core journals, Clayton added and edited them and turned them into a propaganda
tool for the LDS church.
The above link will take you to
an essential source if you are going to delve into the William Clayton
writings. Why? Because it will provide the original source
references for each entry in the compilation of William Clayton’s writings. And
that's highly valuable.
Here's an
important note found at the beginning of this collection:
"This
compilation attempts to capture chronologically, all of the personal writings
of William Clayton while he was a resident of Nauvoo, Illinois. It begins with
the day Clayton arrived in Nauvoo, and ends with the day he left Nauvoo and
crossed the Mississippi River"
Easy to overlook,
but did you catch what the meaning of this editorial note is really
saying? The editor took all of the
writings of William Clayton and compiled them in the order of chronology found
in the subject matter and NOT in the order of which these writings were
actually written. This changes the
reliability of the statements because when Clayton is writing about statements
made by Joseph Smith, he is sometimes writing twenty or more years after the
fact.
The March 9, 1843 entry is a good example that illustrates the problem with the Clayton writings.
9
March 1843, Thursday
Nauvoo 1
Thursday 9. At prest. Josephs office. Walked
out in the P.M. he told
me it was lawful for me to send for Sarah
& said he would furnish me
money.
Affidavit, p. 225
During this period the Prophet Joseph
frequently visited my house in
my company, and became well acquainted with
my wife Ruth, to whom I
had been married five years. On day in the
month of February, 1843,
date not remembered, 22 the Prophet invited
me to walk with him.
During our walk, he said he had learned that
there was a sister back
in England, to whom I was very much
attached. I replied there was, but
nothing further than an attachment such as a
brother and sister in the
Church might rightfully entertain for each
other. He then said, ``Why
don't you send for her?'' I replied, ``In
the first place, I have no
authority to send for her, and if I had, I
have not the means to pay
expenses.'' To this he answered, ``I give
you authority to send for
her, and I will furnish you with means,''
which he did. This was the
first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me
on the subject of plural
marriage. He informed me that the doctrine
and principle was right in
the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that
it was a doctrine which
pertained to celestial order and glory.
After giving me lengthy
instructions and information concerning the
doctrine of celestial or
plural marriage, he concluded his remarks by
the words, ``It is your
privilege to have all the wives you want.''
23 After this
introduction, our conversations on the
subject of plural marriage were
very frequent, and he appeared to take
particular pains to inform and
instruct me in respect to the principle. He
also informed me that he
had other wives living besides his first
wife Emma, and in particular
gave me to understand that Eliza R. Snow,
Louisa Beman, Desdemona W.
Fullmer and others were his lawful wives in
the sight of Heaven.
This is the entry cited as the very day that Joseph Smith
introduced polygamy to William Clayton.
This specific
entry, March 9, 1843 does not come from
a journal, rather it comes from an affidavit. The affidavit is the
source reference. See the bibliography
at the beginning for a complete list of original resources used and compare it
to the notes attached to each entry. The March 9, 1843 “entry” is not a journal
entry, but an affidavit. An affidavit written
nearly thirty years after the fact and composed for the purpose of defending
his (William Claytons) choices. Here, he
uses the name of a man now long since dead by three decades, to bolster his
claims for the authority and justification of his own lifestyle.
++++++++++++++Affidavit+++++++++++++++++++++++
" A statement made by Clayton and sworn to before a notary on February
16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in Andrew Jenson, The
Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1888, pp. 224-226. Although
not a writing made in Nauvoo, it relates almost exclusively to the
Nauvoo period and contains information not found elsewhere, which was
possibly taken from Clayton's own diaries. It was printed as Appendix
C in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, pp. 555-559."
" A statement made by Clayton and sworn to before a notary on February
16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in Andrew Jenson, The
Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1888, pp. 224-226. Although
not a writing made in Nauvoo, it relates almost exclusively to the
Nauvoo period and contains information not found elsewhere, which was
possibly taken from Clayton's own diaries. It was printed as Appendix
C in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, pp. 555-559."
Joseph Smith’s
sons, viewing themselves as the rightful recipients of their father’s church
went on a mission for the reorganized church into Utah and denounced the Utah
Mormons, specifically for polygamy.
In response to the RLDS missionary effort, John Taylor compiled affidavits in his attempt to refute their claim that Joseph Smith was innocent of polygamy. Brigham Young was heavily invested in defending his choices and because these choices began in Nauvoo, and because he didn’t have any real authority in the form of a personal witness from God, he had to go back to the Nauvoo era to obtain a rationalization and borrow authority from a dead Joseph Smith. William Clayton, writing as scribe and historian, also shared Brigham’s motivation, and rewrote the History of the Church to reflect a narrative that supported their cause. In that process, he doctored his own journals to support his version of events.
For more
information regarding RLDS missionaries in Utah during the Brigham Young era,
see:
http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/r/REORGANIZED_CHURCH_LDS.html
In response to the RLDS missionary effort, John Taylor compiled affidavits in his attempt to refute their claim that Joseph Smith was innocent of polygamy. Brigham Young was heavily invested in defending his choices and because these choices began in Nauvoo, and because he didn’t have any real authority in the form of a personal witness from God, he had to go back to the Nauvoo era to obtain a rationalization and borrow authority from a dead Joseph Smith. William Clayton, writing as scribe and historian, also shared Brigham’s motivation, and rewrote the History of the Church to reflect a narrative that supported their cause. In that process, he doctored his own journals to support his version of events.
So what we have
is an affidavit written in Utah: “A statement made by Clayton: and sworn to
before a notary on February 16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah.”; now inserted
into a journal to appear as if it was an original entry. That deceptive use of
the original written statements make them unreliable to determine what Joseph
Smith really did or did not do. At best, all you can claim, is that it is what
William Clayton wanted and wished Joseph had done. Otherwise had it been an
actual conversation with Joseph, it would have been in the original and would
have required no editing.
Here’s another
example from the source material at the beginning of this collection provided
by www.boap.org :
“Nauvoo 2
Diary for 27
April 1843 through 24 September 1844. (Original in
possession of the
LDS Church.)
Nauvoo 3
Diary for 14 June
through 22 June 1844 - Inserted under the cover of
the 1842-1845
diary. (Original in possession of the LDS Church.)”
Notice that the reference in this “journal compilation” called NAUVOO 3 is an insert that was later added to the inside cover of the journal. It covers a shared time line with the original journal. Of course it is only one week, and a critical week at that, but it illustrates the point, that Clayton would go back and amend his own writings to support and rationalize the path that the LDS Church had taken after the death of Joseph Smith.
William Clayton
was a prolific writer both in Nauvoo and Salt Lake. He wrote journals for other
men in the church (as you know) and did so in the first-person voice. He was
one of the primary contributors who wrote, edited, and compiled the official
LDS History of the Church, under the direction of Brigham Young. This creates a
problem for his records. He is heavily invested in portraying the history in a
way that justifies his own actions in the past and the actions of the Utah
Mormons. He has a hand in the narrative creation from the beginning in Nauvoo
and across decades in Utah. He was extraordinarily capable as a writer and as
you can see from the sources cited, he doctored that record to fit his own
version of events.
Be sure to add the following collection of Clayton writings to your personal library from the following link. Just the fact that it includes proper citations for each "entry" goes a long way to unraveling the mess of Nauvoo history.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries
Be sure to add the following collection of Clayton writings to your personal library from the following link. Just the fact that it includes proper citations for each "entry" goes a long way to unraveling the mess of Nauvoo history.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries
