Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion — Context and Discussion

The Structure of a Public Disputation

The work is not a treatise but a printed debate, preserving the epistolary form of the original exchange. Smith’s open letter is followed by Evans’s personal reply, then Smith’s rejoinder, and finally Evans’s closing letter. The editor notes that portions of Smith’s first letter were purposely suppressed when the Zion’s Ensign published the correspondence, while Evans’s side appeared in full. This editorial complaint underscores the pamphlet’s function as a corrective document, intended to restore what Smith saw as a deliberately incomplete record.

Witness Testimony as Evidence

Smith draws heavily on depositions from the Temple Lot suit, quoting Jason W. Briggs and James Whitehead on the early Nauvoo practice of sealing—a term used before plural marriage became common. Briggs testified that sealing was understood as binding a woman to a man “for eternity,” and Whitehead confirmed an ordinance for sealing as early as 1842 or 1843. Smith also cites Sidney Rigdon’s 1845 letter in The Messenger and Advocate, where Rigdon blamed the Smiths for introducing plural marriage and warned it led to their deaths. These witnesses, Smith argues, were founders of the Reorganized Church, lending weight to his case.

Manuscript Records and the Prophet’s Own Words

Smith reproduces a passage from Joseph Smith’s manuscript record of October 5, 1843, in which the Prophet stated he held the keys to the doctrine of plurality of wives and that no man should have more than one wife “unless the Lord directs otherwise.” He also cites a Bible at the Historian’s office containing the record of Joseph Smith’s marriage to Melissa Lott on September 20, 1843, performed with Hyrum Smith’s sanction. These primary sources are presented as direct evidence that the doctrine was taught and practiced during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, countering Evans’s claim that no such endorsement existed in print before the Prophet’s death.

The Rhetoric of Authority and Accusation

Smith’s language is consistently confrontational, accusing Evans of wilful misrepresentation and unwarranted abuse. He frames the debate as a conclusive refutation of false charges, using legalistic phrasing such as conclusive refutation and false charges persistently made. Evans, in turn, is quoted defending his faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet, asserting that if the Prophet received a revelation on plural marriage, it was from God. The pamphlet thus becomes a battle over who speaks for the authentic Mormon tradition, with each correspondent claiming the mantle of true doctrine.

Readers should approach this pamphlet as a primary source in the history of Mormon doctrinal controversy, not as an impartial survey. The correspondence reveals how both sides used manuscript records, witness testimony, and appeals to prophetic authority to bolster their positions. Because only excerpts are available here, the full argument—including Evans’s responses and the affidavits in the supplement—remains incomplete. The work rewards attention to the specific documentary evidence each correspondent chooses to highlight and the editorial framing that shapes the reader’s understanding.

There’s something tender in watching two men argue in 1905 over what their faith meant, each certain they held the truer thread. I found myself thinking about how we all carry our own maps of the sacred, half-remembered. That same quiet wrestling lives in The Way of Martha and the Way of Mary — A Reader’s Guide, where action and contemplation don’t resolve so much as rest beside each other.