Memory and Lucy Mack Smith – Part II

 As explained in the previous article, sixty-nine-year-old Lucy Mack Smith told her story to a scribe, twenty-three-year-old Martha Knowlton Coray, who had joined the Church five years earlier, during the bleak winter following her sons’ deaths at Carthage. This means that around 1845, Lucy Mack Smith was retelling events to Coray that had happened around 1825, or 20 years later. This retelling was given word-for-word of herself, her husband and her son in a conversation between Joseph and his father twenty years earlier, in which she claims Joseph used the term “Hill Cumorah.”

Lucy Mach and Joseph Smith, Sr.

 

As she stated: “When Joseph came home quite late one night he presently smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life.” My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would like to know what business anybody has to find fault with you.” “Stop, father, Stop,” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord—as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to be​ brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do” (emphasis added).

Since this conversation happened around 1825, and Lucy Mack Smith recounted it to Coray in 1845, or 20 years later, one might ask how exact is the retelling. Certainly the conversation took place that Lucy dictated to Coray, but the retelling of an exact conversation would be difficult for just about anyone to remember word-for-word so many years later.

In fact, as some scholar put it, Lucy’s book has a very complicated Provenance. In any given passage, depending on the in-print edition, it is not always immediately clear if we are listening to Lucy’s voice or to that of Martha Jane Coray, Howard Coray, Orson Pratt, George A. Smith, Elias Smith, Preston Nibley, or even an anonymous British typesetter.

Lucy Mack Smith’s Preliminary Manuscript

 

In any event, following Lucy’s retelling to Martha Coray, she and her husband, Howard, substantially edited Lucy’s raw notes, called the Preliminary Manuscript, into “essentially” the version that was published later. However, the word “essentially” suggests events of a long and somewhat dramatic journey from the Coray’s work to the bookshelf.

As an example, before Lucy Mack Smith’s death, a copy of the manuscript the Corays prepared was given to Lucy’s son, William Smith, and later ended up in the hands of Isaac Sheen, an active anti-slavery abolitionist, and editor of the Herald (formerly The True Latter Day Saints' Herald and The Saints' Herald) the official periodical of the Community of Christ—reorganized LDS Church).

Following the conference of August 28, 1852, Orson Pratt was called to preside over the Church in the eastern United States and to publish a magazine defending the principles of Mormonism, especially plural marriage. The result was The Seer, edited and published by Orson in Washington and simultaneously reprinted in Liverpool.

On his trip east, Pratt stopped to call upon Sheen and was shown the manuscript, which he purchased and later, under his direction in 1853, without the consent or knowledge of President Young or any of the Twelve, the full manuscript was published in Liverpool (Joseph F. Smith, Introduction to “History of the Prophet Joseph, by His Mother, Lucy Smith,” Improvement Era, vol.5, November 1901, pp1-2).

As for the reaction of Brigham Young (left)  to Lucy Mack Smith's history, it might be of note that she failed to mention in her writings some 30 years later, about Joseph’s First Vision, the primary cause of her son, Joseph, beginning the course he followed to his death. According to Brigham Young, it was a significant error that he felt could be used by critics of the Church to discount the events that followed.

Brigham Young also believed that the book was wrought with errors, even though Pratt had issued a statement in 1855 claiming that he believed Lucy's manuscript 'was written under the inspection of the Prophet Joseph Smith—however, based upon later evidences, it is now understood that the greater part of the manuscripts did not pass under Joseph’s review, as there were several points that are ascertained to be incorrect (Deseret News 5, 21 March 1855, p16).

Later, Orson Pratt himself pointed out that he had erred in suggesting the manuscript had been completed prior to the death of Joseph Smith.

Brigham Young began to point out errors in Lucy's history almost as soon as it was published in 1855, and instructed church historians to begin working on a corrected version, and assigned George A. Smith and Elias Smith to begin working on corrections in 1856, with Elias still working on them ten years later. It was finally published in 1902 by President Joseph F. Smith, a descendant of Lucy Mack Smith.

The publication was based on the corrections by George Albert Smith and Elias Smith, but it is not known exactly what the changes were that were made, nor do we know the relationship of the revised  and enhanced book by Preston Nibley in 1954 to the original or to the 1902 version. According to Lavina Fielding Anderson: “About ten percent of Lucy’s original material was omitted, much of it personal family references and Lucy’s original preface” (Lavina Fielding Anderson, The Textual History of Lucy’s Book, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2001).

It should be understood here that nothing stated in this article is meant to criticize Lucy Mack Smith—she was a great and elect lady. The intention and point of the two articles, is to reasonably show that one’s memory over 20 or even 30 years is seldom so accurate that exact conversations or specific words were used as Lucy Mack Smith dictated to Martha Coray. This article is simply stated factual data to keep in mind when evaluating such matters. After all, Lucy’s book is a recollection—and as such are how events are remembered—not how things actually occurred word for word.