Polygamy | Polyandry
Start: Introduction
Previous: Book of Abraham
Last Updated 27-Aug-24
Contents for this section:Unlike most other sections, Jeremy didn't number his items and instead wrote everything in a paragraph format. A paragraph can cover a number of topics, and then the topics can also go back and forth, but here are some general topics this section. Everything is specifically about how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.
- Polyandry
- Young wives
- Related wives
- Emma
- Angel with a drawn sword
- Rules
- Denials
- Fanny Alger
- D&C 132
- Article on Marriage
- Affidavit
- Warren Jeffs
- Polygamy infographic
“So, the question of Polyandry. Polygamy is when a man has multiple wives. Polyandry is when a man marries another man’s wife. Joseph did both.”– ELDER MARLIN K. JENSEN, LDS CHURCH HISTORIAN
Yes, Joseph had multiple wives. Doctrine and Covenants 132 records God commanding Joseph to practice it, and it was not an invention of Brigham Young. But Jeremy will focus more in this section on Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages—that is to say, women he was sealed to who were already married to another man.
D&C 132 forbids a woman from being married to more than one man at the same time, but as we look at Joseph's polyandrous marriages, it does not appear that any of these women treated both men she was married to as husbands at the same time. So while it appears to us as polyandry, it was only technically polyandry and not polyandry in practice. Brian Hales uses the terms "ceremonial polyandry" and "sexual polyandry" to distinguish the two, and he finds no evidence of sexual polyandry.
It appears as though these sealings were either for eternity-only, and so Joseph didn't treat them as wives during mortality, or the sealings overrode their marriage to their husband, and these women were no longer considered married to their previous husband.
As an aside, to be technical, "polygamy" means more than one wife or husband at the same time, so plural marriage is actually polygyny (more than one wife) and forbids polyandry (more than one husband). But I think most people use the word polygamy to just mean more than one wife, so I'm not going to make a big deal about it and I'll even use the word this way in my response.
The Church has a Gospel Topics essay on plural marriage which itself links to three additional essays on its beginnings, its practice in Utah, and its ending. Jeremy will link to it later on, but it is generally just the practice of Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo that he talks about having problems with.
One of the things that also truly disturbed me in my research was discovering the real origins of polygamy and how Joseph Smith really practiced it.
In Jeremy's bulleted list that follows, he will talk about how Joseph practiced it (specifically: the number of wives, their age, marital status or other relationship status, and timing of sealings) but he won't talk about origins of plural marriage until afterwards. Unless he means just in the generic sense that it began with Joseph Smith.
I think it will help to have a brief overview of its beginnings before going into more detail. Although the revelation on plural marriage wasn't written down until 12 July 1843, evidence suggests that at least some of the principles were revealed to him as early as 1831. He most likely learned of it during his translation of the Bible at that time. His first plural marriage was to Fanny Alger, no later than 1836. His next plural wife was Louisa Beaman or Zina Huntington in 1841.
Beginning in 1842, Joseph Smith taught members of the Quorum of the Twelve and others about plural marriage. When his brother Hyrum began hearing rumors, he initially did not believe, but later became convinced it was from God.
Emma accepted of the practice for a time, even approving of at least four marriages in May 1843. However, other times she did not approve. The summer of 1843 was one of those times, and Hyrum believed that a written revelation would convince her, and in this way the revelation on plural marriage was written. She was not convinced, but a copy was made and appears today in Doctrine and Covenants 132.
The practice was kept secret in the early days for fears of mob violence. Before Joseph and Hyrum were killed in June 1844, about 29 men and 50 women had entered into plural marriage, not counting Joseph and his wives. After moving to Utah, Church leaders began teaching plural marriage publicly in 1852.
- Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women, as now verified in the Church’s 2014 polygamy essays.
None of the Church's Gospel Topics essays actually verify a number of wives, only that Joseph practiced plural marriage. It actually says, "The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary." The footnotes say "Careful estimates put the number between 30 and 40."
The reason the evidence is fragmentary is because it was practiced in secret. But there are good estimates. Counting Emma, at least 34 wives seems correct. Different people have come up with different counts.
For those interested, here is some history regarding how Joseph's wives were identified and counted:
After the death of Joseph Smith, not all the Saints followed Brigham Young. Emma Smith and her family were among those that remained behind. After convincing from Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley Sr., in 1860 her son Joseph Smith III accepted leadership of a new organization that came to be known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). Emma at that time had rejected and denied the existence of plural marriage, and so Joseph Smith III believed it to be a creation of Brigham Young, and that his father never practiced it.
When missionaries from their church arrived in Utah in 1866 with these claims, then-apostle Joseph F. Smith was motivated to collect written statements from those who were married to his uncle, Joseph Smith. In total, he collected 58 separate statements. Seven of these were printed in 1879 in the Deseret News, including those that affirmed Emma knew about the practice. In 1887, Andrew Jenson published a lengthy article where he reprinted the seven affidavits, and he independently gathered different attestations. The article identified 27 plural wives of Joseph Smith.
In 1891, the RLDS Church sued the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) for ownership of the land where Joseph Smith was going to build a temple in Independence, Missouri. The RLDS Church claimed that they were the true successor to the church Joseph Smith started, therefore they should own the property. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn’t directly involved, but they assisted the defense provide witnesses that affirmed polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo, contrary to RLDS claims. These testimonies also provide evidence for us today that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.
Besides these compilations of statements, there are many individual sources that also provide claims for Joseph’s plural marriage, and so others have compiled lists of potential or probable wives of Joseph Smith.
Fawn Brodie counted 48 wives in her 1945 biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History. In 1994, D. Michael Quinn listed 46, and George D. Smith 42.
In 1997, Todd Compton published In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, an award-winning book with chapter-long biographies of each of Joseph’s 33 most probable plural wives. He also identified 8 others who had ambiguous or very limited evidence.
In 2013, Brian C. Hales published his 3-volume work, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy including references to all claims about Joseph’s plural marriage, including these from earlier authors. Hales counts 35 total wives after his first wife, Emma. These are the same 33 that Todd Compton provides, plus two others that have very limited evidence. He provides brief biographies for each of these women on his website.
- Polyandry: Of those 34 women, 11 of them were married women of other living men.
- Zina Huntington - Joseph taught her about plural marriage through her brother, Dimack. She knew it was from the Lord and received it. Dimack performed their sealing for eternity on 27 October 1841. She was seven months pregnant at the time, she and Henry B. Jacobs being married eight months prior. According to Zina, as reported by her granddaughter, Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man."
After Joseph's death, she and Henry had a second child. Most of Joseph's plural wives were resealed to him in the temple after it was completed. Henry witnessed Zina's resealing to Joseph for eternity, and confusingly to Brigham for time. Zina said her marriage to Henry was an unhappy one and they separated. Henry remained a faithful member of the Church. He later married three other women, each ending in divorce. - Presendia Huntington's husband, Norman Buell had become disaffected from the Church several years prior. Emmeline Wells reported that when Joseph taught her the principle of plural marriage, "her heart was humble, and her mind open to receive the revelations of heaven. She knew Joseph to be a man of God, and she had received many manifestations in proof of this" and so she accepted what he taught her. Her brother Dimack performed the sealing on 11 December 1841 for eternity.
- Mary Elizabeth Rollins refused to believe Joseph at first, but came to believe after being visited by an angel. She was sealed in February 1842 for eternity, and as instructed by Joseph, she remained with her husband. Adam Lightner was not a member of the Church. He came to Utah with her and they remained together until he died.
- Patty Bartlett was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards on 9 March 1842 for eternity in Newel K. Whitney's chamber and in the presence of her daughter, Sylvia Sessions. Joseph F. Smith acted as proxy when she was again sealed to Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple. She was never sealed to her husband, David Sessions, though he was later sealed to his plural wives.
- Marinda Nancy Johnson's husband was Orson Hyde, the apostle. He was sealed to two other women a couple months prior with Marinda's consent, and she was present. Marinda signed an affidavit that she was sealed to Joseph in May 1843 by Brigham Young in the presence of Eliza and Emily Partridge.
Although most of Joseph's plural wives were resealed to him posthumously after the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Marinda was sealed to Orson instead. They later divorced in 1870. - Elizabeth Davis is listed as a plural wife by Eliza R. Snow. Original sealing date is unknown, but was sealed in the Nauvoo Temple to Joseph 22 January 1846. She had married Jabez Durfee in 1834, but had apparently separated at some point, as they were endowed on different days and was not involved in her sealing to Joseph. They divorced in 1846.
- Sarah Kingsley married John Cleveland in 1826. He never joined the Church. She was sealed to Joseph Smith, probably before June 1842. In the Nauvoo Temple, she was sealed to John Smith for time, then to Joseph Smith for eternity. It was customary to be sealed to a member for time first, even though it didn't necessarily constitute a real marriage. She was going to go west, but Brigham Young counseled her to stay with her husband, who refused to go to Utah.
- Lucinda Pendleton married George Harris in 1830, and they joined the Church in 1834. Original sealing date is unknown, but George stood in proxy for Joseph in the Nauvoo Temple when she was sealed to him on 22 January 1846. However, they separated by 1853 and neither traveled west with the rest of the Saints.
- Sarah Ann Whitney's parents had received a witness of plural marriage and so gave permission for their daughter to marry Joseph Smith. Of her own free will, she was sealed to Joseph on 27 July 1842 by her father, Newel K. Whitney, using language that Joseph had received by revelation.
Nine months later, she was legally married to Joseph Kingsburry in a ceremony performed by Joseph Smith. According to Joseph Kingsburry, this was a "pretended" marriage. Also in 1843, he made a copy of the revelation on marriage. - Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon in 1838 by Joseph Smith. By 1840, they had moved to Nauvoo. However, in 1842, he was excommunicated, and according to family tradition left Sylvia in Nauvoo and moved to Iowa City. Sylvia said she was sealed to Joseph Smith when her husband was out of fellowship with the Church, supporting a late 1842/early 1843 date. Windsor returned and rejoined the Church. According to Brigham Young, he consented to Sylvia's posthumous resealing to Joseph Smith.
- Ruth Vose married Edward Sayers in 1841. He was not a member of the Church, but became friends with Joseph Smith. He didn't put much importance to the theory of life after death, and so insisted that his wife be sealed to Joseph for eternity. She was sealed in February 1843 in Emma's presence by Hyrum Smith. Given that Hyrum didn't accept plural marriage until May that year, either the date or officiator is in error.
- Elvira Annie Cowles married Jonathan Holmes on 1 December 1842 by Joseph Smith. She was sealed to Joseph five months later on 1 June 1843 with Vilate Kimball and Eliza Partridge as witnesses. Jonathan was a friend of Joseph and served as a bodyguard, then a pallbearer at his funeral. He stood in proxy for Joseph when Elvira was sealed to Joseph in the Nauvoo Temple. Their first child was born after Joseph died.
- Esther Dutcher was never sealed to Albert Smith, but he stood as proxy for Joseph when they were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple.
- Mary Heron was never sealed to John Snider. He remained faithful in the Church, and they moved to Utah together. After Mary's death, he remarried, and was sealed to his second wife.
The three extra in Brian Hales' list that Jeremy isn't counting are the two that Todd Compton did not count as wives: Esther Dutcher, and Mary Heron who have extremely limited documentation. The third is Sarah Ann Whitney, but she married nine months after her sealing to Joseph. But this would still be a polyandrous marriage, meaning married to multiple husbands at the same time.
Among them being Apostle Orson Hyde, who was sent on his mission to dedicate Palestine when Joseph secretly married his wife, Marinda Hyde. Church Historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen and unofficial apologists like FairMormon do not dispute the polyandry.There are actually two dates for their sealing: Either April 1842 or May 1843. One is in a list of marriages in Joseph Smith's Journal kept by Willard Richards, written on a blank page by Thomas Bullock in an entry after 14 July 1843, that says "Apr 42 Marinda Johnson to Joseph Smith."
The other comes from Joseph F. Smith's affidavit books, where she signed an affidavit "that on the [blank] day of May A.D. 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, A of Hancock, State of Illiniois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Brigham Young, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of Said Church, according to the laws of the same, regulating marriage; in the presence of Eliza Maria Partridge Lyman, and Emily Dow Partridge Young."
Orson Hyde returned from his mission to Palestine on 7 December 1842, so if the first date was correct, then that would have been on his mission.
According to Nancy Rigdon's brother-in-law, Oliver Olney, Marinda invited Nancy to her home to help Joseph persuade her to be a plural wife, but Nancy refused. This would have been in April 1842, so even if not sealed, if this account is true, she would have at least been a polygamy insider.
John D. Lee was an early polygamist, and in his reminiscence, after relating that Orson Hyde was sent to Jerusalem says, "Report said that Hyde's wife, with his consent, was sealed to Joseph for an eternal state, but I do not assert the fact."
Marinda did not conceive any children while Orson was on his mission. After Orson returned, they had two more children. Orson was also sealed to two plural wives by Joseph Smith, Martha R. Browitt in February or March, and Mary Ann Price in April 1843. This would be followed by Marinda's May 1843 sealing to Joseph, according to her affidavit.
After Joseph's death on 11 Jan 1846, Marinda was sealed to Orson in the Nauvoo Temple instead of Joseph. They moved out to Utah, but later divorced.
While we don't have all the answers, it appears as though Joseph and Marinda were in an eternity-only sealing, and it seems likely Orson as a polygamy insider would have known about his wife's sealing to Joseph.
UPDATE: The Church admits the polyandry in its October 2014 Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay.
The Church and apologists now attempt to justify these polyandrous marriages by theorizing that they probably didn’t include sexual relations and thus were “eternal” or “dynastic” sealings only. How is not having sex with a living man’s wife on earth only to take her away from him in the eternities to be one of your [Joseph] forty wives any better or any less immoral?
It's not just the Church and apologists, but also several of these women said they were for eternity alone.
Though Joseph had carefully-worded "denials" of polygamy (which we will talk about later) there is no such ambiguity in what he and others taught about a woman having multiple husbands being a sin. That is why people find the need to explain why participants didn't feel that they were engaging in polyandry.
The only way anyone will be "taking away" another man's wife in the eternities is if God sanctions it. For those that believe Joseph was a false prophet with no authority, that means that literally nothing changes. For those that believe Joseph was a true prophet, we believe that God has revealed and accepted for a time a plurality of wives, but never a plurality of husbands. We are taught that although not all the details have been revealed, we are to trust in the Lord.
There are virtually no complaints from any of the men involved in these polyandrous marriages.
Several of these men were not even members of the Church, and so could not be sealed to their wives even if they wanted. Edward Sayers went so far as to say he didn't attach "much importance to the theory of a future life [and so] insisted that his wife Ruth should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself could only claim her in this life."
Many husbands who were members of the Church stood in proxy for Joseph Smith when their wives were resealed to him after his death when the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Though I don't understand it, they lived it and accepted it.
The Church's Gospel Topics essay gives several possible explanations for the polyandrous sealings:
- To connect families together, creating an eternal bond between Joseph's family and other families within the Church. Today, we seal children to parents, sealing our family trees together. In Joseph's day, parents and children were not sealed until the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Even after then, sealings were only between people who had joined the Church during their life. It wasn't until 1894 that Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that people should seek out their own ancestors and to seal actual relations together.
- Joseph may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord's command to practice plural marriage without having to have normal marriage relationships. He was reluctant to practice plural marriage and knew Emma didn't approve. Most of these polyandrous sealings happened in the early days of Nauvoo.
- Several women were married to men who were not members of the Church, or who had left, and they desired a sealing to Joseph to give them blessings they might not otherwise receive in the next life.
Not many of Joseph's polyandrous wives spoke about their simultaneous marriages. Zina Huntington explained in an interview with RLDS Elder John W. Wright that her sealing to Joseph was for eternity only, and that her marriage with Henry Jacobs was an unhappy one and they soon parted.
Mary Elizabeth Rollins wrote to the apostle John Henry Smith that she would like to meet him and Joseph F. Smith, and that she would be able to explain how it was that she remained with Adam Lightner after being sealed to Joseph Smith, and that they would be "perfectly satisfied" with her. While we don't have her explanation, it appears as though no one tried to defend polyandry in the way that they strongly defended plural marriage. For this reason, it appears to me as though participants did not believe they were practicing polyandry.
During the summer of 1841, Joseph Smith tested Helen Mar Kimball’s father, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, by asking Heber to give his wife, Vilate – Helen’s mother – to Joseph:
“…shortly after Heber's return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test—a sacrifice that shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Then came the Abrahamic test. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God. On the evening of the third day, some kind of assurance came, and Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph's store on Water Street. The Prophet wept at this act of faith, devotion, and obedience. Joseph had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test.”– Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, p.93
If Joseph’s polygamous/polyandrous marriages are innocuous “dynastic sealings” meant for the afterlife, as the Church and apologists are now theorizing, and Joseph wanted to “dynastically link” himself to the Kimball family, why was Apostle Heber C. Kimball so troubled by Joseph’s command for his wife that he “touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights”?
Ask yourself: Wouldn't you react similarly if the person you believed to be a prophet asked for your wife, even if not for this life, but for eternity? Just so we are clear, a "dynastic marriage" means "I'm connecting you with my family through marriage" not "nothing changes, no big deal." In the previous paragraph, Jeremy had criticized Joseph for "taking away" wives from their husbands in the eternities saying it was immoral, so it seems that Jeremy is aware of how even an eternity-only sealing might be troubling.
From a later question, it seems that Jeremy thinks dynastic means non-sexual. While that can be true, that isn't usually the case. A synonym for dynastic marriage is royal intermarriage, and children are expected even if they didn't marry for romantic reasons. Joseph isn't a monarch, but D. Michael Quinn thought it was a way to build up the hierarchy by connecting families of general authorities. Todd Compton agreed, and used the term "dynastic marriage" to describe these marriages, identifying eight of Joseph's wives that could be described as dynastic:
- Fanny Young, sister of apostle Brigham Young
- Rhoda Richards, sister of apostle Willard Richards
- Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of apostle Heber C. Kimball
- Zina Dinatha Huntington, sister of Dimick Huntington, friend of Joseph Smith
- Presendia Lathrop Huntington, another sister of Dimick Huntington
- Flora Ann Woodworth, daughter of Lucien Woodworth, friend of Joseph Smith
- Sarah Ann Whitney, daughter of Newel K. Whitney, bishop
This also serves to explain those that don't make sense from a romantic point of view. At 14, Helen Mar Kimball was the youngest of Joseph's wives, and she was the daughter of the apostle Heber C. Kimball. His oldest wife was Rhoda Richards, 61, sister of Willard Richards, and the next oldest was Fanny Young, 56, sister of Brigham Young.
Here, the term Jeremy probably means to use is "eternity only-sealings" instead. No one is saying that eternity-only sealings are "innocuous" meaning "harmless and not likely to offend" but if you are like me and think that there are some situations where sexual intercourse is morally wrong, then an eternity-only (and therefore sexless) marriage is certainly less offensive than the alternative.
That being said, Joseph did not present this Abrahamic test as an eternity-only sealing. The original source his his grandson, Orson F. Whitney, who wrote in Life of Heber C. Kimball, An Apostle: The Father and Founder of the British Mission that Joseph gave him "a requirement for him to surrender his wife, his beloved Vilate, and give her to Joseph in marriage!"
Not all sealings were eternity-only, either. However not everyone left records so it's not always easy to tell.
In the next bullet, Jeremy will describe this as a "disturbing Abrahamic test" and I'd rather respond to that here. If you recall the original Abrahamic test, Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. I would suggest that being disturbing is a big part of what makes it an Abrahamic test. It is a sacrifice beyond what one may reasonably expect. Abraham's trial also serves as a type of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father sacrificed His only begotten son that through Him we may have everlasting life.
Jesus also taught this principle of sacrifice. Jesus taught "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
Because Heber and Vilate were willing to put Jesus and the restored gospel first and sacrifice their marriage, their marriage was sealed so they would be married for eternity. Had they been unwilling to sacrifice, their marriage would have ended at death.
Since we will be talking about the Kimball's for a while, Heber had another test of faith when it came time for him to actually practice plural marriage. Joseph told him to take a second wife, and keep it secret from Vilate. Their daughter related how it was also a trial of faith for her mother.
In Nauvoo the Prophet's life was in constant jeopardy, not only from outside influences and enemies, who were seeking some plea to take him back to Missouri, but from false brethren, who had crept into his bosom and then betrayed him. Therefore, when he told my father to take a second wife, he requested him to keep it a secret and not divulge it even to my mother, for fear that she would not receive the principle. Father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he felt for the Prophet was so great that he would rather have laid down his own life than have betrayed him. This was the greatest test of his faith he had ever experienced. …
The thought of deceiving the kind and faithful wife of his youth, whom he loved with all his heart, and who with him had bourne so patiently their separation and all the trials and sacrifices they had been called to endure, was more than he felt able to bear. He realized not only the addition of trouble and perplexities that such a step must bring upon him, but his sorrow and misery were increased by the thought of my mother hearing of it from some other source which would no doubt separate them forever, and he shrank from the thought of such a thing or of causing her any unhappiness. Finally he was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt--that he, was fearful if he took such a step he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet went and inquired of the Lord; His answer was: "Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself."
Father was heard many a time to say that he had shed bushels of tears over this ORDER, the order of "Celestial or plural marriage."
The Prophet told him the third time before he obeyed the command. This shows that the trial must have been extraordinary, for he was a man who from the first had yielded implicit obedience to every requirement of the Prophet.
My mother had noticed a change in his looks and appearance, and when she enquired the cause he tried to evade her question, saying it was only her imagination, or that he was not feeling well, etc. But it so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring at night, and instead of going to bed he would walk the floor; and the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep, beseeching the Lord with his whole soul to be merciful and reveal to his wife the cause of his great sorrow, for he himself could not break his vow of secrecy. His anguish and my mother's , were indescribable, and when unable to endure it longer, she retired to her room, where with a broken and contrite heart she poured out her grief to Him who hath said: "If any lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." "Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you."
My father's heart was raised at the same time in supplication, and while pleading as one would plead for life, the vision of her mind was opened, and as darkness fleeth before the morning sun, so did her sorrow and the groveling things of earth vanish away, and before her she saw the principle of Celestial Marriage illustrated in all its beauty and glory, together with the great exaltation and honor it would confer upon her in that immortal and celestial sphere if she would but accept it and stand in her place by her husband's side. …Her soul was satisfied and filled with the Spirit of God. With a countenance beaming with joy she returned to my father, saying, "Heber, what you kept from me the Lord has shown to me.["]
She related the scene to me and to many others, and told me she never saw so happy a man as father was, when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew that it was from God. She covenanted to stand by him and honor the principle, which covenant she faithfully kept, and though her trials were often heavy and grievous to bear, her integrity was unflinching to the end.
While I might feel inclined to focus on teachings that plural marriage was part of the restoration of all things, and that it served the purposes of multiplying and replenishing the Earth and making eternal marriage available to everyone, there is another purpose, that it served as a trial of faith for many of the early Saints.
- Out of the 34 women, 7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14-years-old. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this is shocking.
UPDATE: The Church now admits that Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball “several months before her 15th birthday” in its October 2014 Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay.
By Brian Hales' count, Joseph was actually sealed to ten teenage girls. (Besides the FAQ on his website, he also deals with the question on pages 290-300 in Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Volume 2.) It looks like Jeremy is just counting the seven young teenagers who were under 18. Three were seventeen (Sarah Ann Whitney, Sarah Lawrence, and Lucy Walker), one was sixteen (Flora Ann Woodworth) and one was fourteen (Helen Mar Kimball). Marriage date are unknown for Fanny Alger, so she could have been between sixteen and nineteen, and likewise Nancy M. Winchester was probably fourteen, but may have been fifteen.
Anyway, the Church essay also says that "Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens." It is incorrect to say an older man marrying a 14-year-old was "shocking"—it was rare, sure, but it happened, and if anyone disapproved, it wasn't because of the age.
By 19th century standards, the shocking part was the plural part, not the age. Although Joseph's plural marriage was kept mostly secret, when word got out, especially after the Church moved to Utah, the practice was heavily criticized. However, despite the fact Brigham Young and others also married teenage girls many years younger than them, this is not a point of criticism. At the time, only the number of wives was criticized, and it wasn't until later on that we as a society came to recognize child brides as wrong.
After Joseph died, Helen married for time 22-year-old Horace Kimball Whitney in 1846 when she was 17, and they moved out to Utah together.
Evidence suggests that Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was never consummated. Although she was a prominent defender of plural marriage, she was not called up to be a witness at the Temple Lot trial. Others who were called up were asked to testify regarding their sexual relations with Joseph Smith. It is likely that those of the RLDS faith would not recognize a non-sexual union as a "real" marriage.
There are also several examples that teaching or practice that husbands would not have sexual intercourse with young brides (14 or 15) until they were more mature (18 or 19). Apostle Charles C. Rich married a 14-year old plural wife in 1847, but did not live with her until she was 18. Wilford Woodruff married a 15-year-old plural wife in 1853 named Emma Smith. A couple months later, he married a 19-year-old named Sarah Brown and they had children, but he did not have any children with Emma until seven months after she turned 19. Letters from Brigham Young counseled men that young women should be physically mature before having sexual relations.
Joseph took 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball’s hand in marriage after his disturbing Abrahamic test on her father, Heber, while promising Helen and her family eternal salvation and exaltation if she accepted:
“Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, and having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seemed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched until they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.’”This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God and angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart – when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied, ‘If Helen is willing, I have nothing more to say.’ She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older and who better understood the step they were taking, and to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.”
Why all the agony and anguish if this was an innocuous “Dynastic Linking” and sealing for the afterlife? Why did it seem “cruel” to Vilate, “whose heartstrings were already stretched”?
It appears that Jeremy doesn't realize that a dynastic marriage is still a marriage. In fact, that's how Helen described it right here in the quote, that her father "having a great desire to be connected to the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him". That's what a dynastic marriage means—to connect your family to another through marriage. Contrast that with a romantic marriage, where a man and woman marry because of their romantic feelings for one another.
Like I said before, it is possible that Jeremy is using "dynastic" to mean "eternity-only" however, it is possible that Helen may have been married to Joseph for both time and eternity. Perhaps Jeremy was actually using it to mean "non-sexual" or maybe he was conflating all three terms.
Some have taken Helen's poem where she said, "I thought through this life my time will be my own / The step I now am taking's for eternity alone" meant it was an eternity-only sealing. However, it also has the line "Bar'd out from social scenes by this thy destiny" which suggests that she was not to socialize with others as an unmarried teenager, confirmed in another reminiscence. This restriction only makes sense to me if the marriage was for both time and eternity. So that's why there's two different interpretations and ambiguity.
After Joseph died, Helen remarried in a marriage for time-only. Latter-day Saints, like those of other religions, have no problems with remarriage after the death of a spouse.
The idea of "eternity-only" marriages is foreign to us today, as we do not practice this. However, in those early days, several married women described their marriages to Joseph this way. Even after the Saints moved to Utah, they would seal families together through "adoption" sealings. However, in 1894 Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that limited adoptive sealings and focused on sealing actual marriages and parent-child relationships, even if they weren't members of the Church. Today, we continue that practice and we will eventually connect families together by sealing children to deceased parents and connecting through our family trees.
Eternity-only sealings necessarily must be non-sexual, because sexual relations outside of marriage (for time) is a sin. However, time and eternity sealings could also be non-sexual. Many Latter-day Saints go so far as to think that Joseph never had sexual relations with his plural wives. However, there is plenty of evidence for several of his wives that he did, most notably, testimonies given at the temple lot case. And that is why it serves as negative evidence for Helen Mar Kimball, since she would have been a great witness, but if she never consummated her marriage to Joseph, that would explain why she wasn't asked to testify.
- Among the women and girls was a mother-daughter set and three sister sets. Several of these girls included Joseph’s own foster daughters who lived and worked in the Smith home (Lawrence sisters, Partridge sisters, Lucy Walker).
Here is a combined history of these five named women, plus the Huntington sisters. In early 1839, the Saints arrived in Nauvoo. Zina Baker Huntington died from malaria on 8 July 1839 leaving William the single parent of seven children, and they were all ill. Joseph and Emma brought all the children (except one) to the house, and nursed them back to health.
In March 1840, Edward Lawrence died soon after moving to Nauvoo. Maria and Sarah Lawrence were left orphans, and Joseph and Emma were appointed guardians over the family.
Edward Partridge, the first Bishop of the Church, died unexpectedly on 27 May 1840, leaving his wife Lydia to care for her five children. They were destitute and the two oldest girls, Eliza and Emily wanted to help earn money. Eliza was a seamstress and had no difficulty obtaining work. Emma Smith sent for Emily to come live with her to help take care of her baby, Don Carlos, who was born 13 June 1840. Eliza also came to live with them. They were not foster daughters, but Emily did later say "Joseph and Emma were very kind to us; they were almost like a father and mother, and I loved Emma and the children". The widowed Lydia married the widower William Huntington.
Zina Diantha Huntington and Henry Bailey Jacobs asked Joseph to perform their marriage. On 7 March 1841, he didn't show up to the county clerk's office, so they asked the clerk to perform it instead. According to a grandchild, When Zina asked him later why he didn't come, he told her that it had been made known to him that she was to be a plural wife, and so could not perform her marriage to another man.
According to one family tradition, Zina may have actually learned of plural marriage as early as 1840. However, In an interview with RLDS Elder John W. Wight, Zina said she first learned of plural marriage in 1841 from her brother Dimick, whom Joseph had instructed to teach her, and Joseph personally never taught her about plural marriage before her sealing. She wrote that when she heard about plural marriage, she searched the scripture and by humble prayer obtained a testimony for herself that God had required that order to be established in His Church. So she consented, and the sealing was performed by Dimack on 27 October 1841, when she was 20. In her interview, she clarified that it was for eternity only.
At around the same time, her sister Presendia Lathrop Huntington also learned of plural marriage. She had married Norman Buell in 1827 when she was 16, but he became disaffected from the Church in 1838. On 11 December 1841, Dimack sealed her to Joseph Smith, she was 31.
Sometime in 1842, Joseph told Lucy that he had been commanded of God to take another wife, and that she was the woman. He taught her the principle of plural marriage, but she initially rejected him. He invited her to pray for light and understanding, and that she would receive a testimony of the correctness of the principle. She prayed in agony, but received no comfort.
She rejected him again saying, "Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light." She forbid him from speaking on the subject and said that God must manifest His will to her.
Joseph responded, "God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew." She prayed and her soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that she never knew. She received a testimony of the truth of plural marriage and she consented to be sealed to Joseph as a plural wife.
Since her father was gone, Joseph asked permission from her oldest brother, 22-year-old William instead. He told him that it was her choice, and if she entered into it by her own free will and choice that he had no objection. Even though it was contrary to how he was raised, he reported that he treated her honorably. Joseph and Lucy were sealed on 1 May 1843, the day after she turned 17.
As time went on, Joseph and Emma were true to their word and one by one the younger Walker children came to live together, except the baby. William was married in November 1843 and he and his wife stayed in the Mansion House for several months, and when they left, they took the younger Walker children with them. Lucy asked to go with them to help take care of the children. When their father returned in April 1844, Lucy's marriage was explained to him, and it received his approval.
Meanwhile, according to Emily Partridge, Joseph attempted to introduce her to plural marriage in about the Spring of 1842. He told her that he had something important to tell her if she could keep could keep it secret. She told him she could, but he didn't have an opportunity for a while. She heard rumors about plural marriage, so when Joseph told her he would write a letter if she would burn it after reading, she got frightened, and said she would rather he not write. Joseph said he wouldn't and asked if she wanted him to not say any more, and she said yes, she did not want to hear nay more.
But she prayed about it and became convinced that there was nothing wrong about it. Several months later, Joseph spoke to her again and she granted it, and he taught her the principle of plural marriage, and asked for her consent, which she gave. She was married on 4 March 1843.
Her sister Eliza was also married to Joseph at about the same time, but because everything was so secret, they didn't find out about each other until later on. Eliza said plural marriage was a great trial for her, but she had the most implicit confidence in him as a prophet and so consented.
In May 1843, Emma Smith temporarily accepted plural marriage so long as he would let her choose them for him, and she chose Eliza and Emily. They were resealed in a second ceremony on 11 May 1843. Emily was 19 and Eliza was 22. At about the same time, Emma also chose Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and they were also sealed to Joseph in May. Maria was 19, Sarah was 17.
Soon after their marriage, Emily recalled that Emma became bitter towards them. The Smith family moved into the Nauvoo Mansion house on 31 August 1843, and sometime after that, most likely after October, Eliza and Emily Partridge left the Mansion house. Sarah and Maria Lawrence remained.
Jeremy will talk about the mother-daughter pair in the next paragraph, so here lets address his complaint with these seven women. In the next paragraph, he will argue against sealing being sealed to a mother and daughter as a dynastic or eternal-only sealing.
However, most of these marriages aren't described as dynastic in nature. The only exception is the Huntingtons, who were sisters of Joseph's friend, Dimick. Multiple marriages between two families even closer together, so it doesn't really make sense to say a dynastic marriage wouldn't have multiple women from the same family.
The other thing he will mention in the next paragraph is a criticism of "eternal" sealings only, except again, that only applies to the Huntington sisters, who were already married. Zina clarified in an interview that it was for "eternity only" and she was not called to testify at the temple lot case. DNA testing and timing rules out Presendia's youngest children from being Joseph's.
However, the other women were sealed for both time and eternity, and evidence shows that Joseph had sexual relations with them. Emily Partridge testified in the temple lot case that she slept with Joseph Smith. She also affirmed that the Lawrence sisters lived with Joseph as his wives. Lucy Walker said "he was my husband" but refused to answer questions relating to sexuality. Her niece and an acquaintance each said that she lived with Joseph as a wife. Lucy did affirm that Joseph associated with the Partridge and Lawrence sisters as wives "within the meaning of all the word implies." William Law accused Joseph of living in an open state of adultery with Maria Lawrence. Benjamin F. Johnson wrote that Eliza Partridge shared a room with Joseph Smith.
Since Jeremy also included Lucy Walker who was not a sister, perhaps he is instead attempting to make a comment that he finds it improper for Joseph to marry his foster children. Since he mistakenly identifies the Partridge sisters as foster children, I suspect this is the case, as many take issue with that. Which is fair, but given that Emma gave the Partridge and Lawrence sisters to Joseph, apparently she didn't find it any more repugnant than plural marriage itself. William Law accused Joseph and Maria Partridge of adultery, but didn't remark on their relationship.
Plural marriage already runs contrary to the puritanical standard our society expects. There is no prohibition in the revelation on plural marriage that one can't marry sisters or foster daughters. Perhaps Jeremy thinks there should have been a restriction, but there wasn't. And given that several of these reported a spiritual manifestation confirming the truth of plural marriage, those participating believed these marriages were approved by God.
If some of these marriages were non-sexual “dynastic” “eternal” sealings only, as theorized by the Church and apologists, why would Joseph need to be sealed to a mother and daughter set? The mother would be sealed to the daughter and would become part of Joseph’s afterlife family through the sealing to her mother.I talked about the sets of sisters in the previous paragraph, so let's give some background to the mother and daughter he was sealed to. Patty Bartlett married David Sessions on 28 June 1812. Their third child, Sylvia Sessions was born in 1818. The family joined the Church in 1837 and then moved to Missouri. There, Sylvia met Windsor Lyon and they were married on 21 April 1838 in a ceremony performed by Joseph Smith. Two years later, they moved to Nauvoo along with the rest of the Saints.
Patty wrote in her diary that she was sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith 9 March 1842 by Willard Richards. She was 47 and her daughter Sylvia was present at the ceremony.
Windsor Lyon was excommunicated 7 November 1842. Sylvia's sealing date is unknown, but possibly early 1843, when she was 24. Windsor eventually rejoined the Church, and according to Brigham Young, he consented to her posthumous sealing to Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple.
Patty and David both attended the Nauvoo Temple together, receiving their endowments the same day, but were not sealed. David was later sealed to two other plural wives. Patty described her sealing to Joseph as "for eternity" and after David's death she said she was sealed to John Parry "for time". Several years after that, she signed an affidavit that she was sealed to Joseph Smith, but was never sealed in the temple. She was soon after sealed by to Joseph Smith with Joseph F. Smith standing for proxy.
Neither of these sealings appear to be dynastic in nature, but even if so, plural marriage allows dynasties to form even closer bonds through multiple marriages. The sealing to Windsor makes sense given the context that he was excommunicated at the time, and so Sylvia needed to be sealed in order to receive the blessings of being sealed. What is less clear is why Patty and Joseph were sealed. The Church essay gives several possible explanations, and one that works here is that Joseph may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord's command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships.
Further, Joseph died without being sealed to his children or to his parents. If a primary motive of these “sealings” was to be connected in the afterlife, as claimed by the Church and apologists, what does it say about Joseph’s priorities and motives to be sealed to a non-related and already married woman (Patty Sessions) and her 23-year-old already married daughter (Sylvia Sessions) than it was to be sealed to his own parents and to his own children?
No sealings between parents and children took place at all until the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Brigham Young explained that Joseph instructed him to perform sealings between parents and children once the Nauvoo Temple was ready.
- Joseph was married/sealed to at least 22 other women and girls before finally being sealed to his first legal wife, Emma, on May 28, 1843. Emma was not aware of most of these other girls/women and their marriages to her husband. Why was “elect lady” Emma the 23rd wife to be sealed to Joseph?
Emma did not accept plural marriage, which was a requirement in order to be sealed. But in May 1843, Emma accepted the principle (at least for a time) and selected the Partridge and Lawrence sisters for Joseph to marry, and so Emma was sealed to Joseph shortly afterwards.
This ends the bulleted list, and the next page is presented in a paragraph format.
Some of the marriages to these women included promises by Joseph of eternal life to the girls and their families, or threats that he (Joseph) was going to be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if the girls didn’t marry him.
Sealing of marriages today also come with promises of eternal life to participants and their families. That is what it means to be sealed.
Sometimes critics present this as if it was a guarantee of eternal life, but that is not the case. Helen Mar Kimball was one of these that critics point at because she told her children that Joseph said, "If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation an that of your father's household and all of your kindred." However, a letter from her father sent weeks after her marriage instructed her, "My child, remember the care that your father and mother have for your welfare in this life, that all may be done well, and that in view of eternal worlds, for that will depend upon what we do here, and how we do it." Just like today, promises of eternal life given then also included that you actually have to keep your covenants.
According to those who reported it, an angel with a drawn sword appeared to Joseph commanding him to practice plural marriage or be cut off. He was not faced with destruction—not for marrying a specific woman, just for not practicing the principle. Women could—and did—reject him, and they faced no consequences.
One great example is Mary Elizabeth Rollins, she related what happened this way:
I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Tell" said I, "Don't you think it was an angel of the Devil that told you these things?"
Said he, "No. It was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of Light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the year of '34 and '42 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie. All that He gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me."
Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him, "I would have a witness." Said I, "If God told you that why would he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such talk from a married man," said I.
"Well," said he, "pray earnestly, for the angel said to me you should have a witness."
Well Brigham Young was with me. He said if I had a witness he wanted to know it. "Why should I tell you?" said I.
"Well," said he, "I want to know for myself." Said he, "do you know what Joseph Said? Since we left the office the angel appeared to him and told him he was well pleased with him and that you should have a witness."
"I made it a subject of prayer and I worried about it because I did not dare to speak to a living being except Brigham Young. I went out and got between three haystacks where no one could see me. As I knelt down I thought why not pray as Moses did? He prayed with his hands raised. When his hands were raised Israel was victorious but when they were not raised the Philistines were victorious. I lifted my hands and I have heard Joseph say the angels covered their faces. I knelt down and if ever a poor mortal prayed I did.
A few nights after that an angel of the Lord came to me and if ever a thrill went through a mortal it went through me. I gazed upon the clothes and figure but the eyes were like lightening. They pierced me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. I was frightened almost to death for a moment. I tried to waken my aunt but I could not. The angel leaned over me and the light was very great although it was night. When my aunt woke up she said she had seen a figure in white robes pass from our bed to my mother's bed and pass out of the window.
Joseph came the next Sabbath. He said, "have you had a witness yet?"
"No."
"Well" said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have."
Said I, "I have not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak."
He studied a while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up and said, "How could you have been such a coward?"
Said I, "I was weak."
"Did you think to say, "Father help me?"
"No."
"Well, if you had just said that your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I ever dared to reveal."
I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to me?"
"You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted."
Said I, "will it ever come again?"
He though a moment and then said, "No. Not the same one, but if you are faithful, you shall see greater things than that."
And then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although my husband was away from me at the time. Every word came true. I went forward and was sealed to him.
Joseph's remarks about the angel with a drawn sword are used only to explain why he reluctantly agreed to engage in plural marriage. It was not presented as a threat to force women to comply. Women had their choice, and Joseph was rejected a number of times. Others like Mary Elizabeth Rollins said they would not marry him until they received a witness, and they did.
I have a problem with this. This is Warren Jeffs territory. This is not the Joseph Smith I grew up learning about in the Church and having a testimony of. This is not the Joseph Smith to whom I sang “Praise to the Man” or taught others about for two years in the mission field.
"Praise to the Man" is a hymn about Joseph Smith, not to him. That would go towards explaining why it appears that Jeremy has an assumption that prophets be perfect. I don't know what Jeremy taught on his mission, but I taught Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith to tell him that he shouldn't join any church, and in the process of time, chose him to be a prophet. I taught that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and that angels visited him to restore the priesthood.
Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is so opposed to polygamy today, it is understandable that a member might not know all the details. It was a big part of the early Church, so we would have to be ignorant to not know polygamy was a thing, but since we don't learn about it at Church, we learn about it through other sources and so our knowledge will vary. Now, we have the Gospel Topic essay, which I think has gone a long way towards giving people a basic understanding.
When I first heard that Joseph Smith married more than one wife, I was surprised because I hadn't heard that before. But then the Spirit immediately told me, "Did you really think that the prophet who introduced plural marriage didn't practice it?"
The only similarity to Warren Jeffs is that both practiced polygamy. We will talk more about him later, but here, the comparison Jeremy is making is based on the previous paragraph, where he felt like Joseph was either promising special rewards or threatening potential wives, coercing them to marry him. However, this was not the case. Many report having received a spiritual witness first, others that they rejected him. Not everyone left records, and even those that did, not all of them talked about how they first came to accept plural marriage.
- Zina Diantha Huntington wrote that after learning of plural marriage she searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to her heavenly Father, she received a testimony for herself that God had required plural marriage to be established in His Church
- Emmeline Wells wrote of Presendia Lathrop Huntington that she had received many manifestations, and so when Joseph taught her what she had already learned from the Lord, she accepted the sealing to Joseph
- Mary Elizabeth Rollins, as related above, refused to marry Joseph until she received a witness. She saw an angel and many other signs
- Eliza R. Snow told a reporter that it was repugnant to her at first, but she went to God and asked Him to enlighten her, and He did
- Helen Mar Kimball wrote that Sarah Ann Whitney "took this step of her own free will"
- According to Andrew Jensen, Ruth Vose's husband instigated her sealing to the prophet for eternity, as he was not a member, but supported his wife.
- Emily Dow Partridge testified at the temple lot trial that she initially rejected him, that she didn't want to hear anything about what he had to say, suspecting it would be about polygamy. But as she prayed about it, she said she became enlightened, that it was a correct principle, and she consented to their sealing.
- Eliza Partridge wrote in her autobiography that though it was a trial, she had implicit confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet of the Lord, and so she accepted being sealed to him.
- Lucy Walker said in an affidavit that she at first felt indignant. But when she prayed, she received from the Lord "a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage." She also wrote a longer story that related that she at first rejected Joseph, saying that despite being a prophet, he could not convince her unless she knew God approved, and she would rather die. Joseph promised she would receive a manifestation of the will of God, joy and peace that she never knew. As she prayed, her room was lighted up by a heavenly influence, and she felt the peace that she never knew. She consented to her sealing to Joseph
- Helen Mar Kimball wrote that she just went along with her father's testimony, but a few years later she had a spiritual manifestation and she gained a testimony for herself of the principle of plural marriage.
- According to her brother, Joseph Smith spoke with Nancy Rigdon about plural marriage, and invited her to be a plural wife. She flatly refused saying she would be sealed to a single man or not at all.
- Almira Knight told her nephew that one day Joseph arrived at their house, and she suspected why he was there, so she went out the back door until he were gone. When she came back in, her mother told her Joseph had come to ask her to be a plural wife of his brother Hyrum. She refused.
- Cordelia Calista Morley wrote in her autobiography that she turned down a sealing proposal from Joseph Smith, but after his death, she agreed to be sealed to him for eternity.
More circumstantial evidence is just the general observation that none of Joseph's plural wives ever criticized him later in life. Most remained faithful in the Church, and those who left generally remained friendly. Only one (Sarah Lawrence) denied ever being connected to Joseph, but even she didn't leave any accusation against him.
Many members do not realize that there is a set of very specific and bizarre rules outlined in Doctrine & Covenants 132 (still in LDS canon despite President Hinckley publicly stating that polygamy is not doctrinal) on how polygamy is to be practiced. It is the kind of revelation you would expect from the likes of Warren Jeffs to his FLDS followers.
Jeremy isn't basing this claim about what many members do or do not know on any evidence, I suspect that he is just projecting—just because he didn't know Doctrine and Covenants 132 describes how plural marriage was to be practiced doesn't mean that everyone didn't know. I have the opposite point of view: since I was aware that polygamy was described in the scriptures from a young age, I assume that others were like me. But without evidence there is no way to really know what members think. I would be very surprised if Latter-day Saints didn't know, but I suppose Jeremy would be very surprised if we did.
President Hinckley is correct, Polygamy is not doctrinal. Official Declaration 1 rescinded the practice of polygamy. Additionally, ever since 1904, we automatically excommunicate people that practice polygamy.
I can't imagine Jeremy is unaware of these things. Instead, it seems more like he has the idea that if it weren't doctrinal that it would have been removed from the canon. However, that's not how scripture works. The Law of Moses is still in the scriptures, despite not being doctrinal, but I don't see people wanting to remove Leviticus from the Bible. Scriptures don't get removed when new revelation supersedes them, unless it is decided that the earlier scripture itself wasn't revelation. Even ignoring that, technically it's just the last part of Doctrine and Covenants 132 that is on plural marriage, the first half of it is on eternal marriage and is still doctrine in the Church.
Perhaps Jeremy is using an unusual definition of "doctrine" that I can't guess. The dictionary defines doctrine as a position in a system of belief, or more generally as something that is taught. The Church does not teach polygamy, and condemns those that practice it, therefore it is not a doctrine of the Church. The Church typically uses a more specific definition of doctrine that it refers to an "eternal, unchanging truth." Given that the practice of plural marriage has changed from time to time, it cannot be doctrine under that definition either.
Are the rules "bizarre" and more what you'd expect from the FLDS church? I don't think so, but that will be subjective based on how little you think of polygamy (or I suppose how highly you think of the FLDS church). Jeremy obviously strongly disagrees with polygamy, so I don't think the idea that there are rules to follow makes a difference to him.
The context of the next paragraph is Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-65. Related verses are 41-42, so I'll quote them first so we have that context:
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
…61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
With that background, let's look at the rules that Jeremy finds bizarre.
The only form of polygamy permitted by D&C 132 is a union with a virgin
Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-63 mentions plural marriage with virgins, but note that the context is that women cannot be married to another man, also mentioned in verses 41-42. Wouldn't that be redundant? "Virgin" here seems to mean "an unmarried woman" rather than literally a woman who has never had sexual intercourse.
after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed.”
Verse 61 says that if a man desires another wife, "and the first gives consent" then he is justified. The exception that Jeremy notes is in verses 64 and 65, but this appears to me to be talking about the man "who holds the keys of this power"—In verse 7 the Lord says this is Joseph Smith at that time, and only one ever holds the keys of this power. In 1853, Orson Pratt gave more specific instructions on what happens when the first wife does not consent.
When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to giver her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent: if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob.
Men couldn't unilaterally override their first wife's decision, but they would need to take it to the President of the Church.
Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed (D&C 132:41 & 63).
I've already talked about the term virgin—men were not prohibited from marrying widows and divorced women as plural wives. Here, we see that after their sealing if a woman "be with another man"—that is, if she has sexual relations with someone else—then she has committed adultery.
Adultery is a sin, and adulterers are among those listed in Doctrine and Covenants 76:103 that are said to be "cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work." This is what is meant by "destroyed"—not a literal destruction, but in the figurative sense that they will be sent to Hell. (See Matthew 10:28, where Jesus also used "destroy" in this sense.)
At the same time, it should be remembered that Jesus came to save us from destruction (see Luke 9:56, John 10:10) and when we repent, we are forgiven (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42) and that includes adultery (Doctrine and Covenants 42:24-25).
From here, it appears Jeremy is finished with the "very bizarre and specific rules" for plural marriage. Jeremy only brought up two rules: That a husband needs to have permission from the first wife, and that the new wife cannot already be married. It also clarifies that if a woman sleeps with a man she is not married to, then that is adultery. Of course, that's true even without the polygamy part. Is this really what we should expect from FLDS and not Joseph Smith?
One important part that Jeremy left out of the "bizarre and specific rules" is that in order for an ordinance, such as marriage, to remain in force after death is that it must be performed for time and eternity by one holding the authority—Joseph Smith.
It is interesting that the only prerequisite that is mentioned for the man is that he must desire another wife: “if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another…” It does not say that the man must get a specific revelation from the living prophet, although many members today assume that this is how polygamy was practiced.
This is correct, Doctrine and Covenants 132 doesn't mention that the prophet must receive a revelation. Perhaps at this point Jeremy realized that the revelation isn't actually very specific at all? I don't see anything bizarre in there, so I can only assume Jeremy felt that way due to his own misinterpretations.
In 1853, Orson Pratt described a more specific process for plural marriages.
No man in Utah, who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any propositions of marriage to a lady, until he has consulted the President over the whole church, and through him, obtains a revelation from God, as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight. If he is forbidden by revelation that ends the matter: if, by revelation, the privilege is granted, he still has no right to consult the feelings of the young lady, until he has obtained the approbation of her parents, provided they are living in Utah; if their consent cannot be obtained, this also ends the matter. But if the parents or guardians freely give their consent, then he may make propositions of marriage to the young lady; if she refuse these propositions, this also ends the matter; but if she accept, a day is generally set apart by the parties, for the marriage ceremony to be celebrated. It is necessary to state, that before any man takes the least step towards getting another wife, it is his duty to consult the feelings of the wife which he already has, and obtain her consent, as recorded in the 24th paragraph of the revelation, published in the first number of "The Seer."
Perhaps this is why many Latter-day Saints (or, at least many Latter-day Saint that Jeremy is acquainted with) believe that men had to get a specific revelation from the living prophet. Because Orson Pratt said they did. (Though I got the impression from Jeremy's comment that he thought the prophet is the instigator, rather than the man seeking a plural wife.) But to be fair, that doesn't mean that this is how it necessarily was practiced, but at the end of the day, only the president of the Church holds the keys of sealing, and all sealings are under his direction.
D&C 132 is unequivocal on the point that polygamy is permitted only “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.” This would be consistent with the Book of Mormon prohibition on polygamy except in the case where God commands it to “raise up seed.”
There are several reasons for polygamy, and yes, to raise up seed is one of them. But Doctrine and Covenants 132 gives two other reasons. verses 40 and 45 teach that it is part of the restoration of all things. Verses 18-17 say that those who do not have their marriages sealed will remain separately and singly without exaltation. Verse 63 is where it teaches that women will multiply and replenish the earth and bear the souls of men, but it also says that it is for their exaltation in the eternal worlds.
A fourth reason comes from Joseph Smith's other teachings as related by others, that it would serve as a trial.
AGAIN, CONTRARY TO D&C 132, THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES HOW POLYGAMY WAS ACTUALLY PRACTICED BY JOSEPH SMITH
Here is the part where we finish the transition from Jeremy arguing that Polygamy is wrong, to weird, to Joseph not following it correctly. Of course the real argument Jeremy is making is simply that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so it doesn't matter which type of argument one uses. But if Jeremy actually stated that as his argument, then we could ask our own difficult questions, like, if Joseph introduced polygamy for his own sexual gratification, then why all the rules in the first place? Why not keep it simple, like John C. Bennett who told those he slept with that "there was no sin in it, providing the person so indulging keep the same to herself, for there could be no sin where there was no accuser." Or even easier, like Henry Ward Beecher who committed adultery without any apparent justification.
Anyway, many of these are repetitions from earlier, but this time instead of Jeremy taking offense at the situation, he is taking offense that it contradicts Doctrine and Covenants 132, so that is how I'll answer in this segment.
- Joseph married 11 women who were already married. Multiple husbands = Polyandry.
And, to flesh out the argument, according to Doctrine and Covenants 132:41-42,61-63 polyandry is not permitted. Or technically, sexual polyandry is not permitted, as "be with another man" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This is considered adultery, and is a sin.
The gospel topic Plural Marriage in Kirtlandand Nauvoo by the Church notes that "neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were eternity alone." Doctrine and Covenants 132 is written with an understanding that marriage sealings are for time and eternity. None of the women involved make any sort of argument or defense for polyandry. This suggests that they did not consider it polyandry if they weren't having sexual relations with two husbands at the same time. A time and eternity marriage would have only permitted sexual relations with Joseph Smith until his death, while an eternity only sealing would have only permitted sexual relations with the one they were married to for time.
The Church essay gives three possible explanations for the practice, which we have discussed before, that it may have been to connect families, to be sealed in a way to avoid normal marriage relationships that would offend Emma, or to provide blessings to women who could not get sealed to their own husbands.
Another thing to consider is that the revelation was first written down 12 July 1843, which was after he had been sealed to almost all of his plural wives, and long after the polyandrous ones. If Joseph was making up rules, why not make up ones he had followed? And if he wasn't making up rules, then isn't it possible that God revealed to Joseph more instructions as he needed clarification?
And to be clear, Doctrine and Covenants 132 forbids sexual polyandry, but is silent about non-sexual polyandry, which would be the case for eternity-only marriages, and to marriages that superseded their first marriage. These explanations will apply to the bullets below.
- Unions without the knowledge or consent of the husband, in cases of polyandry.
Since Doctrine and Covenants 132 is silent on non-sexual polyandry, it doesn't say whether knowledge or consent of the husband is required, so can't be said to be a contradiction of the revelation.
That being said, there is no strong evidence that sealings were without the consent of the husband. In a few cases, there is evidence that they did consent.
- These married women continued to live as husband and wife with their first husband after marrying Joseph.
- A union with Apostle Orson Hyde’s wife while he was on a mission (Marinda Hyde).
- A union with a newlywed and pregnant woman (Zina Huntington).
- Threats that Joseph would be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if they did not enter into the union (Zina Huntington, Almera Woodard Johnson, Mary Lightner).
Zina said it was her brother who related story, that Joseph told him "I put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lose my position and my life." Joseph was threatened, but this was given as an explanation as to why he reluctantly practiced it. Zina shared her testimony that "I knew it was from the Lord and received it." She also reported that her husband supported her.
Almera Johnson didn't leave any reports of an angel with a drawn sword, but her brother Benjamin did. He said Joseph came to him to ask to marry his sister. He was shocked at first, but soon gained a testimony. Hyrum didn't know he had gained a testimony and tried to reassure him with his own testimony, adding that "he [Joseph] waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him." Again, this seems to be an explanation as to why Joseph reluctantly practiced it, not offered as a threat.
As described before, Mary rejected Joseph. She related Joseph's description of an angel with a drawn sword as an explanation as to why Joseph reluctantly agreed to practice plural marriage rather than as a threat. Mary only changed her mind when she herself received an angelic witness, and other signs that what Joseph taught was true.
- Unions without the knowledge or consent of first wife Emma, including to teenagers who worked with Emma in the Smith home such as the Partridge sisters and the Lawrence girls.
Anyway, in the context of the criticism that Joseph wasn't following the revelation, according to Doctrine and Covenants 132:65 as long as Emma did not accept plural marriage, then Joseph would be exempt from the law of Sarah, meaning he would not need Emma's consent anyway.
In actual practice, once the revelation was written in 1843, there were only two documented plural marriages after that point: Malissa Lott that September with Emma's permission and Fanny Young with unknown consent from Emma, but likely an eternity-only sealing given that Fanny was 56.
- Promises of salvation and exaltation for the girls and/or their entire families.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:63 says the purpose of plural marriage is "to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."
This is also true of eternal marriage in general, and why we practice it today. This is in harmony with the revelation, not in contradiction to it.
JOSEPH’S POLYGAMY ALSO INCLUDED:
- Dishonesty in public sermons, 1835 D&C 101:4, denials by Joseph Smith that he was practicing polygamy, Joseph’s destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor that exposed his polygamy and which destruction of the printing press initiated the chain of events that led to Joseph’s death.
Given that Jeremy was arguing earlier that polygamy is wrong, I don't think that even if Joseph were open about the practice that Jeremy would find it acceptable. But if you believe that Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage, then it doesn't really matter whether you feel it is acceptable or not.
Consider the moral dilemma: Do you be honest and likely die for it, or do you preserve your life at the cost of your integrity? Personally, I value honesty greatly, but I think saving my life is more important than being honest. It appears that that was also a risk that Joseph was unwilling to take.
It also appears that Joseph did value honesty to an extent, since as George A. Smith explained in an 1869 letter to Joseph Smith III, "Any one who will read carefully the denials, as they are termed, of plurality of wives in connection with the circumstances will see clearly that they denounce adultery, fornication, brutal lust and the teaching of plurality of wives by those who were not commanded to do so."
There is also some evidence that Joseph twice attempted to publicly preach on plural marriage, but followed by taking back what he had said. Several people remembered that Joseph preached on polygamy, see reports by Joseph Lee Robinson, Horrace Cummings, Helen Mar Kimball, N. T. Silcock, James Leithead, and Thomas Charlesworth.
Jeremy brings up Oliver Cowdery's Article on Marriage, included in the first (1835) edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, as Section CI (101 in Roman Numerals) but doesn't discuss it until a later segment. The verse says that a man should have one wife, and that was true for the Church at the time, and appears in other verses that appear in previous sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. To avoid repeating myself, I will discuss it in more detail when we get there.
The Nauvoo Expositor was one of the few publications that accused Joseph Smith of polygamy that was actually published during his lifetime. The earliest was from John C. Bennett in letters to the Sangamo Journal printed in July of 1842. Most of those letters were republished in his History of the Saints in November that year. A few months after that, another ex-Mormon, Oliver Olney published The Absurdities of Mormonism Portrayed: A Brief Sketch that also accused Joseph Smith of polygamy. While published as exposés, I would describe them as "accusing" rather than "exposing" Joseph Smith's polygamy, since they are high on sensationalism and low on factual details.
For those under the assumption that it was just reporting facts, according to the Nauvoo Expositor, it claimed many women who had come to Nauvoo from foreign countries would go to Joseph Smith at his request expecting a blessing. But instead, after swearing an oath of secrecy under penalty of death that God revealed that she should be Joseph's spiritual wife. If she rejected, then Joseph would damn her, and then send her away for a time to avoid the risk of being exposed. This is contrary to those who left firsthand accounts of how Joseph approached introducing plural marriage to women.
While it didn't expose anything specific about Joseph Smith's polygamy, what it did expose was that there was a written revelation from Joseph Smith. In three affidavits from William and Jane Law and Austin Cowles, the public learned that Hyrum had given William a copy of the revelation to take home, and Hyrum had read it to the Nauvoo high council.
Besides plural marriage, it also accused Joseph of teaching plurality of Gods, and of mixing church and state.
After it was published on the June 7th, the Nauvoo City Council deliberated on it the 8th and again the 10th, and they declared it a "nuisance" and ordered the press destroyed. Going by precedent and by the laws at the time, the Nauvoo City Council acted legally to suppress the newspaper, but may have exceeded its authority in destroying the press itself. What Joseph may not have considered is that destroying the press riled up his enemies just as much as the paper itself.
A month earlier, Joseph was arrested on charges of adultery and sent to Carthage, but was released on bail when the prosecution asked to delay the trial for lack of a witness. Joseph continued to deny accusations of polygamy, but this time he (and the Nauvoo City Council) was charged with "riot" for destroying the press. Governor Thomas Ford convinced Joseph to go to Carthage to face trial. Riot was a misdemeanor charge with a maximum fine of $70 to $200 per defendant. However, the trial was again put off, supposedly due to a lack of a key witness, Francis Higbee. Bail was set at $500 per defendant, which they paid. Joseph and Hyrum were then charged with treason. This was due to Joseph declaring martial law in response to learning that 300 men had assembled in Carthage ready to march on Nauvoo. Treason is a capital offense, and no bail was permitted. Had they received a fair trial, it's likely they would have been found innocent. However, they were killed two days later.
- An illegal marriage to Fanny Alger, which was described by Oliver Cowdery as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair” – Rough Stone Rolling, p.323
All polygamous marriages were illegal, so I'm not sure why this one was singled out. Both Ohio and Illinois had anti-bigamy laws. Even in Utah, polygamy was made illegal by the Morill Anti-Bigamy act of 1862, so only the marriages that occurred in that small window in Utah before then would have been legal.
Perhaps this is in reference to a claim that the Saints were not authorized to perform marriages at all. However, Ohio had generous freedom of religion laws that allowed religious groups to perform marriages, so there wouldn't be a problem with the monogamous marriages that Joseph performed.
Oliver Cowdery did not recognize plural marriage as legitimate, so he considered it adultery. Much has been said regarding Oliver calling it an "affair" but in those days it didn't have the meaning it had today, instead just meaning a matter of business of any kind.
The source for the quote is a letter that Oliver wrote to his brother Warren A. Cowdery in January 1838. This was then copied into a letterbook by Oliver's nephew, Warren F. Cowdery. The text was originally "A dirty, nasty, filthy scrape" and then scrape was overwritten by affair. Don Bradley noted that the word "scrape" was also used during Oliver Cowdery's membership trial in April 1838. For these reasons, Brian Hales gives the quote with scrape instead.
During the membership trial, David W. Patten testified that Oliver told him "a history of some circumstances respecting the adultery scrape stating that no doubt it was true." Joseph Smith "gave a history respecting the girl business" but the minutes does not mention how he explained it to the council. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated for six different charges, one being "For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c."
Of course, to Joseph, believing members of the Church, and even many critics, it wasn't adultery, but a plural marriage. (Which critics still feel is wrong.) Oliver did not recognize it as a marriage, so considered it adultery. Examining all sources of Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger, some like Oliver either say or imply they believed it to be adulterous, others say or imply it was a plural marriage, while others are ambiguous.
William McLellin reported a conversation he had with Emma Smith in 1847, which account is accepted by both LDS and non-LDS historians, describing how Emma discovered her husband’s affair with Fanny Alger:
“One night she [Emma] missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.”
LDS polygamy apologists further discuss Emma’s disturbing discovery and the aftermath here.This comes from an 1872 letter to Joseph Smith III, speaking of how he (William McLellin) had visited Emma in 1847. He told her some stories he had heard, and she verified that they were true. This is only "disturbing" depending on what you think the "transaction" was. William McLellin provided more details when he was interviewed by sensational writer, J. H. Beadle in 1875:
He also informed me of the spot where the first well authenticated case of polygamy took place, in which Joseph Smith was "sealed" to the hired girl. The "sealing" took place in a barn on the hay mow, and was witnessed by Mrs. Smith through a crack in the door!
So it would seem that the transaction was actually a marriage ceremony. Whether you think that disturbing or not depends on how much you trust his story, and whether you find polygamy in general disturbing or not. It appears McLellin's account is actually one of plural marriage rather than of adultery. However, it is actually ambiguous, since earlier in McLellin's letter he wrote that Frederick G. Williams told him:
at your [Joseph Smith III's] birth, your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [probably a mistake for Miss Alger]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, [sic] but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!!
So McLellin says he "committed an act" but also describes it as "polygamy" and a "sealing" so Brian Hales categorizes it as ambiguous.
Emma turned Fanny out of the house. Her actions show that she did not recognize her marriage as legitimate. However, she forgave Joseph and remained with him the remainder of his life.
Fanny Alger left no clear answer either. When asked later in life, she said, "That is all a matter of my own, and I have nothing to communicate."
Perhaps the best evidence that it was a plural marriage comes from Eliza R. Snow, who later became one of Joseph's plural wives. She said she was "well acquainted" with Fanny Alger during their time together, and wrote that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith.
- Joseph was practicing polygamy before the sealing authority was given. LDS historian, Richard Bushman, states: “There is evidence that Joseph was a polygamist by 1835” – Rough Stone Rolling, p.323. Plural marriages are rooted in the notion of “sealing” for both time and eternity. The “sealing” power was not restored until April 3, 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph in the Kirtland Temple and conferred the sealing keys upon him. So, Joseph’s “marriage” to Fanny Alger in 1833 was illegal under both the laws of the land and under any theory of divine authority; it was adultery.
The marriage date for Fanny Alger is uncertain, with dates given between 1832 to 1836. The discovery and aftermath seems to have occurred in early 1836. Todd Compton supports some of the more detailed reminiscences that date the marriage earlier. Brian Hales thinks it unlikely that they could have kept it secret for so long, so dates it later, but he still thinks the marriage likely happened before the sealing keys were restored.
Perhaps before jumping to wild conclusions, we should ask ourselves, "why would active Latter-day Saints think it is okay for Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?" We believe that God commanded him to practice it. So dismissing it as "illegal … under any theory of divine authority" is ridiculous. Being commanded by God is what gives it divine authority.
Jeremy suggests that plural marriages "are rooted in the notion of 'sealing' for both time and eternity." This is where Jeremy makes the logical leap that plural marriages require sealing for both time and eternity, however that is not the case. People can be married just for "time" as well.
When Joseph began performing weddings in Ohio, he said that he did it "by the authority of the holy Priesthood." It is likely in the same way that Levi Hancock was able to perform Joseph's plural wedding to Fanny Alger.
And with that we are done with the last bulleted list, and we return to a paragraph format. The remaining arguments will repeat what from earlier, so I hope you don't mind me repeating my counter-arguments.
D&C 132:63 very clearly states that the only purpose of polygamy is to “multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.” Why did Joseph marry women who were already married? These women were obviously not virgins, which violated D&C 132:61. Zina Huntington had been married seven and a half months and was about six months pregnant with her first husband’s baby at the time she married Joseph; clearly she didn’t need any more help to “bear the souls of men.”
We have seen these criticisms before, but I'll answer them again.
Marrying non-virgins only would only violate Doctrine and Covenants 132 if it forbade marriage with non-virgins, which it does not. It only says plural marriage with virgins is permitted, but is silent about non-virgins. What it does forbid is women having sexual relations with multiple men at the same time.
The Church's Gospel Topics essay notes that some of these women that Joseph married said they were married for eternity alone. Others it is unknown if it was for time and eternity or for eternity alone. It gives a few possible explanations why they entered into these marriages, as discussed before, it may have been to connect their families together, it may have been seen as more acceptable to his wife Emma, or it may have been to provide blessings to women who could not be sealed to their own husbands.
Multiplying and replenishing the earth wasn't the only reason for plural marriage. From Joseph Smith's teachings, there are actually four reasons for plural marriage.
- Plural marriage was practiced by Old Testament prophets, and so plural marriage was part of the restitution of all things (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:40,45)
- Plural marriage brought trials to those who practiced it, which provided opportunities for spiritual growth
- Multiplying and replenishing the earth
- Provides the sealing ordinance to everyone, allowing everyone the ability to receive exaltation (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:63)
In addition, keep in mind that the revelation on plural marriage was written down in July 1843, it is certainly possible that it includes additional details were revealed to him along the way since first revealed in 1831.
How about the consent of the first wife, which receives so much attention in D&C 132? Emma was unaware of most of Joseph’s plural marriages, at least until after the fact, which violated D&C 132.
Doctrine and Covenants 132 gives the instruction that if Emma refused to accept plural marriage then Joseph would be exempt from the Law of Sarah, meaning he would not not need her permission. Jeremy criticized the explanation in an earlier segment, but that doesn't mean it violates the revelation.
The secrecy of the marriages and the private and public denials by Joseph Smith are not congruent with honest behavior. Emma was not informed of most of these marriages until after the fact.
It's a moral dilemma. You can choose to be honest and dead, or you can hopefully stay alive longer, but you have to be dishonest. Jeremy only states that lying isn't honest, but hasn't provided an argument as to why Joseph should have been honest.
The Saints did not know what was going on behind the scenes as polygamy did not become common knowledge until 1852 when Brigham Young revealed it in Utah.
In those early days, only those required to live it were taught the principle. Joseph probably would have taught more people if his life weren't threatened. According to some, he did try to teach the people, but had to recall his words, as they were not yet ready.
By 1852, Church headquarters had moved to Utah, and once living there, polygamists didn't have to hide their relationships at least from others living there. It was 1852 when Orson Pratt gave a sermon on plural marriage and the practice began to be taught publicly.
Joseph Smith did everything he could to keep the practice secret from the Church and the public. In fact, Joseph’s desire to keep this part of his life a secret is what ultimately contributed to his death when he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, which dared publicly expose his private behavior in June 1844. This event initiated a chain of events that ultimately led to his death at the Carthage jail.
Or he could have just been honest and died in Kirtland when he married Fanny Alger?
Once the revelation was written down in 1843, that's basically when the clock was set. Talk about plural marriage expanded from that time on. The Nauvoo Expositor didn't actually publicly expose his private behavior: it gave an exaggerated portrayal where Joseph was giving death threats to young women. But what it did have was affidavits that several had seen the written revelations. Even without accusations of polygamy, the paper also gave charges of blasphemy and of combining church and state.
Consider the following denial made by Joseph Smith to Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo in May 1844 – a mere few weeks before his death:
“...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”
It is a matter of historical fact that Joseph had secretly taken over 30 plural wives by May 1844 when he made the above denial that he was ever a polygamist.
On 23 May 1844, William Law filed legal charges against Joseph Smith claiming that he had been living with Maria Lawrence "in an open state of adultery" since 12 October 1843. (They were actually sealed May 1843.) Three days later, Joseph acknowledged the charges, speaking publicly about it and denying the charges.
Of course, to Joseph, he was not guilty of adultery since he considered their sealing a marriage. Notice also that Joseph only denied the adultery, and he dodged the question about multiple wives. (How hard did Joseph look, finding only one wife? Apparently not very hard.) This is a "carefully worded denial" so as to avoid lying, but not giving the entire truth.
The next day, Joseph went to Carthage to face the charge against him. The prosecution was missing a witness, so the case was put off to the next term. Joseph went to pay bail to the sheriff, and he had him go home and he would come and take bail at his own convenience. As they were about to leave, Chauncey L. Higbee came and urged him to stay as a witness in a case that he was the attorney for, but Joseph declined, saying he didn't remember it well enough to testify.
If these events sound familiar, it's because they would play out again the following month after the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, published by Law and Higbee.
Thomas Sharp, editor of the Wasp wrote of his release, "we have seen and heard enough to convince us that Joe Smith is not safe out of Nauvoo, and we would not be surprised to hear of his death by violent means in a short time."
If you go to FamilySearch.org – an LDS-owned genealogy website – you can clearly see that Joseph Smith had many wives (click to expand on Joseph’s wives). The Church’s October 2014 Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay acknowledges that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. The facts speak for themselves – from 100% LDS sources – that Joseph Smith was dishonest.
Jeremy claims the facts speak for themselves, yet he places his own interpretation on them. What Joseph denied was adultery, and he denied unsanctioned polygamy—those denials are correct. Facts don't speak for themselves, you have to read them, and you have to understand them and interpret. I recommend actually reading the Church essay, and it talks about Joseph's denials:
Joseph married many additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice spread slowly at first. By June 1844, when Joseph died, approximately 29 men and 50 women had entered into plural marriage, in addition to Joseph and his wives. When the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, at least 196 men and 521 women had entered into plural marriages.20 Participants in these early plural marriages pledged to keep their involvement confidential, though they anticipated a time when the practice would be publicly acknowledged.Nevertheless, rumors spread. A few men unscrupulously used these rumors to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as “spiritual wifery.” When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the Church.21 The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage.22 The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.2320. Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 1:3, 2:165.
21. Joseph Smith, Journal, May 19, 24, and 26, 1842; June 4, 1842, available at josephsmithpapers.org. Proponents of “spiritual wifery” taught that sexual relations were permissible outside of legalized marital relationships, on condition that the relations remained secret.
22. In the denials, "polygamy" was understood to mean the marriage of one man to more than one woman but without Church sanction.
23. See, for example, "On Marriage," Times and Seasons, Oct. 1, 1842, 939-40; and Wilford Woodruff journal, Nov, 25, 1843, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Parley P. Pratt, "This Number Closes the First Volume of the 'Prophet,'" The Prophet, May 24, 1845, 2. George A. Smith explained, "Any one who will read carefully the denials, as they are termed, of plurality of wives in connection with the circumstances will see clearly that they denounce adultery, fornication, brutal lust, and the teaching of plurality of wives by those who were not commanded to do so" (George A. Smith letter to Joseph Smith III, Oct. 9, 1869, in Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct. 9, 1869, Church History Library, Salt Lake City).
Personally, I don't have a problem with being dishonest to save his life, however Joseph didn't actually deny that he was sealing people in plural marriages.
Compare with Abraham, who told Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20 that Sarai was his sister. Although truthful about Sarai being his sister, he failed to mention that she was his wife. This is commonly called a "lie by omission" since leaving out that piece of information still intends to deceive despite being honest.
Like Joseph Smith, Abraham withheld the whole truth in order to save his life, so that is why it is justified.
The following 1835 edition of Doctrine & Covenants revelations bans polygamy:“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
This comes from Oliver Cowdery's Article on Marriage, which was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, and there is some controversy regarding the article itself. The motivations for it are unclear, but probably was not in response to Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger as some claim, given that knowledge of that didn't come out until 1836. It possibly was in response to individual misconduct, or a misconception that the law of consecration included a community of wives as well.
The second controversy is the timing—shortly after Joseph left Kirtland, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon hastily called a General Assembly, where W. W. Phelps read the article on marriage, and it was accepted to be included in the Doctrine and Covenants. Some suggest that Oliver was trying to sneak it in without Joseph's knowledge or approval, or Joseph purposefully wanted to avoid responsibility, but he returned six days later and did not have it removed when he could have. The proceedings of the General Assembly show they already had printed at least a majority of the book—the proceedings appear in the book itself right before the Index—so the General Assembly might have only been hasty because W. W. Phelps was ready to print the last part of the book.
The article actually resembles instructions on marriage that Joseph had already received by revelation, and had been printed in The Evening and the Morning Star some years prior, which were also included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and are still in our scriptures today. Doctrine and Covenants 42:22 (1835 13:7) says, "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-16 (1835 65:3) says, "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh".
Besides keeping plural marriage secret to preserve his life, another reason it may have been kept secret is because it was not yet a commandment for the whole Church. According to William Law, after he learned about plural marriage, he went to Joseph Smith to confirm it. William remarked about the article on marriage that it was contrary to the revelation. He said Joseph told him, "that was given when the Church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat."
The article on Marriage was removed in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as it was considered not a revelation and believed to contradict the revelation on plural marriage, which was added to the Doctrine and Covenants that year. However RLDS Elder David H. Bays analyzed this verse in 1897:
You may have observed the ingenious phraseology of that part of the document which is designed to convey the impression that the assembly, as well as the entire church, was opposed to polygamy, but which, as a matter of fact, leaves the way open for its introduction and practice. The language I refer to is this:
"We believe that one man shall have one wife; and one woman but one husband." Why use the restrictive adverb in the case of the woman, and ingeniously omit it with reference to the man? Why not employ the same form of words in the one case as in the other? Of the woman it is said she shall have but one husband. Why not say of the man, he shall have "but one wife except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." We repeat the question with emphasis, Why not restrict the man to one wife in the same manner that the woman is restricted to one husband? The reason seems obvious."
Joseph F. Smith made a similar observation in 1902. However, since the article on marriage was written by Oliver Cowdery, it is not clear if the "loophole" was intentional or not.
“Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.”
I used this earlier to show that the Article on Marriage was supporting already existing doctrines. However, this does not actually ban polygamy. Plural marriage is considered a marriage, and so the command against adultery still applies. This verse has not been removed from the Doctrine and Covenants.
“Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.”
I also used this one to show that the Article on Marriage was repeating what had already been taught. However this also does not ban polygamy. It is lawful that a man should have one wife. Is it unlawful that he should have two or more wives? It does not actually say. This verse was not removed from the Doctrine and Covenants.
Joseph Smith was already a polygamist when these revelations were introduced into the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants and Joseph publicly taught that the doctrine of the Church was monogamy. Nevertheless, Joseph continued secretly marrying multiple women and girls as these revelations/scriptures remained in force.
The Article on Marriage isn't considered a revelation, whereas what became Doctrine and Covenants 132 is. Another scripture is Jacob 2:27-30 where Jacob delivers the word of the Lord to the Nephites that no man should have more than one wife, except in the event that the Lord commands it. In the 1830s, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith, but it was not a commandment for the whole church yet. As a whole, the doctrine of the Church was monogamy at the time. But he slowly introduced plural marriage to others in the 1840s. Eventually, the revelation was made public and accepted by the Church.
The Article on Marriage was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants as it was believed to be contradictory to the revelation on plural marriage. It was written by Oliver Cowdery and not believed to be a revelation, but rather a statement of beliefs on marriage. The other two scriptures continued to remain in force and are present in our scriptures today as Doctrine and Covenants 42:22 and Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-16.
It's probably worth bringing up here, but earlier Jeremy wondered why Doctrine and Covenants 132 is still in our scriptures. The reason why is because Official Declaration 1 was a revelation that ended the practice of plural marriage, it did not say that Joseph was wrong for introducing it. The first part of Doctrine and Covenants 132 is about eternal marriage in general and still applies even without plural marriage. Latter-day Saints understand that plural marriage was a revelation that the early Saints were to follow, but not for us in our time.
In an attempt to influence and abate public rumors of his secret polygamy, Joseph asked 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit published in the LDS October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons stating that Joseph did not practice polygamy. Pointing to the above-mentioned D&C 101:4 scripture, these witnesses claimed the following:“…we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”The problem with this affidavit is that it was signed by several people who were secret polygamists or who knew that Joseph was a polygamist at the time they signed the affidavit. In fact, Eliza R. Snow, one of the signers of this affidavit, was Joseph Smith’s plural wife. Joseph and Eliza had been married 3 months earlier, on June 29, 1842. Two Apostles and future prophets, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, were also aware of Joseph’s polygamy behind the scenes when they signed the affidavit. Another signer, Bishop Whitney, had personally married his daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph as a plural wife a few months earlier on July 27, 1842. Whitney’s wife and Sarah’s mother Elizabeth (also a signer) witnessed the ceremony.
This affidavit was in response to claims that John C. Bennett was making. In September 1840 he was baptized in to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo. There, he helped draft and secure the Nauvoo charter and he served as Mayor beginning in February 1841.
At about that time, Joseph Smith began to hear about his past. However, Joseph took no action at that time, believing that bad things are often said about good men. Meanwhile, since he was established in Nauvoo, Bennett began again his promiscuous behavior. I consider it different from Joseph Smith's since I consider Joseph Smith's polygamy as legitimate marriages. John C. Bennett did not have any intention or claim of marrying those he seduced.
In July 1841, Joseph learned from his brother Hyrum that Bennett had a wife, who had taken their children and left him. When confronted, Bennett confirmed it. He acted remorseful, and Joseph was merciful with him. However, Bennett continued his behavior in secret, telling those he seduced that there was no sin as long as no one found out, claiming it is what Joseph taught him.
His behavior resurfaced in the spring of 1842. At first, Joseph was forgiving again, but when it became clear that he was unrepentant, he was excommunicated for adultery on 11 May 1842. Bennett signed an affidavit on the 17th exonerating Joseph. He resigned as Mayor, and appeared before the city council and again spoke of Joseph's innocence. However, a month later on June 18th, Joseph spoke out publicly against John C. Bennett. Bennett left Nauvoo and wrote to the Sangamo Journal, saying that he signed the affidavit under duress. Meanwhile, Joseph wrote in the Times and Seasons to describe John C. Bennett's character before the public.
Bennett continued writing letters which were published from July 8th to September 2nd which accused Joseph Smith and the Saints of practicing "spiritual wifery" describing different classes of women. Although he correctly identified some of Joseph's plural wives, it does not appear from his descriptions that Joseph had personally taught him anything.
In August, Joseph sent out missionaries "to rebuke John Bennett's lies" and on August 31st, The Wasp published an extra commissioned by Joseph Smith containing 13 affidavits that refuted Bennett's claims.
The one Jeremy links is different, by the end of September 12 men and then 19 Relief Society members signed two separate affidavits, published in the 1 October 1842 Times and Seasons. It's not clear to me how Joseph was involved with this one besides being the editor at the time, it seems that Jeremy's claim that Joseph asked them to sign it is his assumption.
It is true that perhaps eight of those that had signed knew of Joseph Smith's polygamy. Joseph began practicing plural marriage in Nauvoo in 1841. That summer when the apostles returned from their mission to England, Joseph began to teach them, which would have included John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. They did not accept the principle until later on, but it sees likely their wives, Phebe Woodruff and Lenora Taylor, would have known about it also.
When Eliza R. Snow first heard of plural marriage, she didn't want to hear anything about it. But she went to God for enlightenment, and she received it. She was sealed to Joseph 29 June 1842.
It is unknown when Sarah Kingsley Cleveland was sealed to Joseph Smith, but she was a witness for his sealing to Eliza R. Snow, and so it is likely she was also sealed to him around this time in an eternity-only sealing.
When Joseph taught Bishop Newell K. Whitney regarding plural marriage, he was doubtful at first, but Joseph encouraged him to pray about it. He and his wife prayed about it, and they received a manifestation so powerful they couldn't deny it. They offered their oldest daughter, 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph as a plural wife. Joseph received a revelation 27 July 1842 which Bishop Whitney repeated, performing the sealing for time and eternity. On 21 August 1842, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney were sealed for time and eternity.
So why would these men and women sign such a document? Joseph F. Smith apparently asked Eliza R. Snow about it, and she wrote a letter back explaining why:
At the time the sisters of the Relief Society signed our article I was married to the prophet— we made no allusion to any other system of marriage than Bennett's— his was prostitution, and it was truly his, and he succeeded in pandering his course on the credulity of the unsuspecting by making them believe that he was thus authorized by the Prophet. In those articles there is no reference to divine plural marriage. We aimed to put down its opposite.
It doesn't appear that Joseph was involved, but these 31 men and women wanted to add their voices condemning the "secret wife system" taught by John C. Bennett.
It should also be noted that at the time, besides Joseph Smith, only Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young had married a plural wife. The Church as a whole was still required to practice monogamy, and even these few exceptions were still contrary to what was practiced by John C. Bennett.
What does it say about Joseph Smith and his character to include his plural wife and associates – who knew about his secret polygamy/polyandry – to lie and perjure in a sworn public affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist?
According to Eliza R. Snow, it wasn't a lie—they were condemning Bennett's secret wife system, which made no reference to divine plural marriage. Perjury is to lie under oath, and this isn't a court, just an affidavit. Perjury also doesn't cover lies of omission.
Even Fawn Brodie noted that the polygamy denials "are a remarkable series of evasions and circumlocutions involving all sorts of verbal gymnastics."
What it says to me is that Joseph was trying to 1) obey God's commandment to practice plural marriage 2) obey God's commandment to not lie and 3) keep from being killed.
It is an ethical dilemma, and perhaps Jeremy in that situation would prioritize things differently, but I don't think we should fault Joseph for prioritizing things the way he did.
Now, does the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and polyandry while denying and lying to Emma, the Saints, and the world over the course of 10+ years of his life prove that he was a false prophet? That the Church is false? No, it doesn’t.What it does prove, however, is that Joseph Smith’s pattern of behavior or modus operandi for a period of at least 10 years of his adult life was to keep secrets, to be deceptive, and to be dishonest – both privately and publicly.
It’s when you take this snapshot of Joseph’s character and start looking into the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook Plates, the Book of Mormon, the multiple First Vision accounts, Priesthood Restoration, and so on that you begin to see a very disturbing pattern and picture.
The evidence shows that Joseph tried to make carefully worded denials in order to pretend to obey the laws of the land while secretly obeying God's commandments. However, there is no strong evidence that Joseph pretended to obey God's commandments while secretly disobeying them. Importantly, those closest to him apparently saw no such inconsistency. There were no complaints from his plural wives, witnesses, nor husbands married to his plural wives.
Evidence also suggests that Joseph desired to make plural marriage public, or believed that it would be public one day.
It is also a mistake to assume that Joseph employed similar tactics in other areas of his life without specific evidence. We have already looked at the Book of Mormon. Jeremy claimed that Joseph created it by drawing from his environment. However, he omitted the many instances where it disagreed with his environment, and where it matches actual ancient native populations.
We have already talked about the Book of Abraham, where Jeremy talked about how it didn't match what Egyptoligists say, but he did not consider whether the Egyptologist interpretation is relevant to how a Jew in Egypt would interpret it. He dismissed its astronomy as not matching a modern world view, but did not consider that it matched an ancient world view. He complained about anachronisms, but he neglected to mention that it matches stories about Abraham that fit in with the time the papyrus was written that were unknown to Joseph Smith.
We already talked about the multiple first vision accounts. They vary in detail, but tell a consistent story. Telling the same story differently is not a lie, and leaving out details isn't even a lie of omission, since it is not with the intent to deceive. That's just what naturally happens when you describe an event.
We haven't gotten to the Kindrerhook Plates yet. We will see when we get there that someone tried to pull a prank on Joseph Smith by creating some fake plates with writing. Joseph pulled out the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, found a symbol that matched, and used it to describe what it meant, then ignored it after that. No one was deceived here in any meaningful way.
We haven't gotten to the Priesthood Restoration yet either, but Jeremy's complaint is going to be similar to his complaint about the First Vision, that Joseph came up with the idea later, then back-dated it for some reason. But not talking about something is not evidence of lying, either.
Today, Warren Jeffs is more closely aligned to Joseph Smith’s Mormonism than the modern LDS Church is.
If you find Joseph's polygamy offensive, the chart shows Warren Jeffs is worse in every way, notably illegal beyond just bigamy in the case of the youngest wife. But Jeremy is only using it to show that Joseph Smith is more like Warren Jeffs than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. In other words: Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, Warren Jeffs practiced polygamy, the Church today does not. It does not actually say anything about all the other things that they teach.
But first, how they actually practiced polygamy was very different. Warren Jeffs taught that plural marriage was primarily for sex, but for Joseph Smith allowing all worthy women to be sealed and receive exaltation was the primary concern. Although multiplying and replenishing the earth was one of four reasons Joseph gave for plural marriage, evidence shows that sealings without sex also occurred, and the lack of children suggests that sexual relations were not common.
Warren Jeffs taught that all men must be polygamists to be exalted, and that more wives means more exaltation. Joseph Smith taught that being sealed was required, but not plural marriage.
Warren Jeffs also controlled pairing of all plural couples and sexual relations among his followers. Joseph gave his followers freedom of choice. Joseph's wives never criticized him, but Warren's former wives have.
Outside of polygamy, Warren Jeffs maintained control over member's property and that his followers should always live the law of consecration. In Nauvoo, there was no attempt to live the law of consecration beyond the law of tithing. Even when practiced in Missouri, Joseph did not maintain control over their property. Latter-day Saints teach the importance of preaching the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, but Fundamentalists isolate themselves from the world.
William Hall claimed that Henry Jacobs was on a mission to England and when he returned he found his wife Zina pregnant by Joseph Smith, and that he put up with the insult and still lived with her. However, Henry Jacobs was in Nauvoo at the time of Zina's sealing, and his only child born during Joseph's lifetime was prior to her sealing, and DNA evidence concludes it was definitely Henry's son.
David Sessions went on his mission three months after Patty Bartlett was sealed to Joseph.
Not all sealing dates are known, so the numbers are not all exact. We have discussed the polyandrous marriages and marriages to young wives before. It might be interesting to see how old those wives were when they married their previous husbands. (Multiple numbers represent multiple marriages.)
- Lucinda Pendleton: 18, 29
- Zina Huntington: 20
- Presendia Huntington: 16
- Patty Bartlett: 17
- Sylvia Sessions: 19
- Mary Elizabeth Rollins: 18
- Marinda Nancy Johnson: 19
- Elizabeth Davis: 20, 27, 42
- Sarah Kingsley: 19, 38
- Ruth Vose: 33
- Elvira Cowles: 29
Most were teenagers when they first married, and two were younger than 18. Joseph's youngest wife was 14, and that was more unusual, but the marriage was not likely consummated. After Joseph's death, she married Horace Whitney, when she was 17. Complaints about Joseph's marriages were that they were multiple marriages, not the age of his wives. It was only later on that society recognized that marrying that young is wrong.
Most of Joseph's wives were between 20 and 40 when they were sealed. These young wives (and older wives) were the exception, not the rule.
The chart mentions that Eliza R. Snow was one of many sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph's death. Joseph asked the apostles to take care of his plural wives after he died, and most were sealed for time to Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball. Brigham Young was sealed to Louisa Beaman, Zina Diantha Huntington, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Eliza R. Snow, Emily Dow Partridge, Maria Lawrence, Rhoda Richards, and Olive Frost.
Heber C. Kimball was sealed to Presendia Huntington, Sylvia Sessions, Sarah Ann Whitney, Martha McBride, Lucy Walker, Sarah Lawrence, and Nancy M. Winchester.
Perhaps that seems strange for us, but if you don't think there's anything wrong with remarrying after the death of a spouse, then the only strange part is the polygamy part.
Next: Prophets
No comments:
Post a Comment