Joseph Smiths Polygamy

#Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

#Present-day Concern over Polygamy

The practice of plural marriage in the Church between 1852 and 1904 is mostly comfortably acknowledged and accepted by the majority of informed and committed members of the Church today. Much has been written about this period—mostly by participants. We know that many were happy and fulfilled living in polygamous relationships, and a few were most unhappy. Many of our contemporaries today are the products of polygamous families. We all readily acknowledge that they are just as normal and productive as those of us who cannot identify any polygamists among our ancestors. We accept the fact that the Lord commanded, and the Church responded for all of those fifty or so years. Finally, and thankfully—in the opinion of many of us today—the Lord rescinded the practice through the prophets Wilford Woodruff (1890) and Joseph F. Smith (1904).

One aspect of the early polygamy practices in the Church, however, continues to engender some apprehension, misgiving, and tension among those who allow themselves to become informed. It is the role of the prophet Joseph himself and his personal, and mostly secretive, practicing of polygamy during the nine or so years prior to his martyrdom. Residual uneasiness of some within the Church centers on the details of Joseph’s intentions, motivations, and actions as he introduced the principle and practice of plural marriage. In the view of all of us committed to the Church today, Joseph was and is the prophet of the restoration! We simply must not learn anything about him that is ignoble or reprehensible! Our very spiritual lives depend on his being all he claimed to be!

Several notable controversies and questions arose prior to Joseph’s death and in the years that followed. And some of these continue even today. For example:

1. What was Joseph’s general reputation during the 1830s and even before? Did it or did it not include licentiousness?

2. What of Joseph Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger in the mid-1830s? Did it constitute his first plural marriage, or was it merely an adulterous union?

3. We know that the Prophet was “sealed” to several plural wives prior to his death. Exactly how many plural wives did Joseph have, and what was the nature of those sealings? Were they all for “time and eternity,” that is, for this life and the next, or were some of them for “eternity only,” meaning only after death?

4. What does the evidence indicate concerning Joseph’s conjugal relations with his plural wives? Was he sexually involved with any, with most, or with all of the women sealed to him?

5. What about Joseph’s being sealed to women who were legally married to other men at the time they were sealed to Joseph? Did Joseph Smith have sexual relations with them? Wouldn’t that constitute the sin of adultery?

6. What of John C. Bennett, the mayor of Nauvoo in 1841 who claimed to be a polygamy insider and blamed Joseph’s plural marriage policies for his own gross infidelities?

7. What of the two fourteen-year-olds to whom Joseph was sealed? What was the nature of his relationship with them? Did he have sexual relations with them?

8. What of the more than two dozen allegations that Joseph Smith was sexually involved with non-wives—women to whom he was not married? Did Joseph ever have sexual relations with a woman to whom he was not married?

9. We all have been taught and most of us fully hold to the notion that the Lord virtually forced a reluctant Joseph to become personally involved in polygamy. It wasn’t his idea. It was the Lord’s will. Is this formulation really true?

Most of these questions remain on the agenda of some anti-Mormons even today. Their opinions always run counter to Joseph’s and to the Church’s interests. While their views are usually quickly rejected by loyal Latter-day Saints, it is apparent that some of these same saints live with a subtle disquiet in their hearts over these issues.

It would seem that the most common strategy for dealing with these questions found among devoted members of the Church today is to not bother to become fully informed and to sweep what little they do know under the figurative rug. Some members are not completely certain they want to know more. They maintain a subtle fear they will be uncomfortable with what they may learn. Some members also despair over ever being able to learn the complete and unbiased truth about this period. They feel they are at the mercy of anti-Mormons whom they don’t trust. It is these “anti’s” that seem to have written what is most often quoted about the period.

In this chapter, I will first present a relatively brief summary of the practice of polygamy in the Church. I will then address the issues of that problematic early period between 1835 and 1844 when Joseph secretly instituted the practice. My goal is to provide each student of the gospel the opportunity to understand and feel comfortable with all that happened during those years. I gratefully acknowledge the meticulous and exhaustive research of the physician and church history scholar, Brian C. Hales. I have made abundant use of his website (http://www.josephsmithpolygamy.com). This same material will soon be published by Dr. Hales as Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books). The book’s publication is anticipated in 2012. My intent here is to summarize much of his material in abbreviated, and hopefully palatable, form. I have cited many of his references. The serious student of polygamy is strongly recommended to obtain and study his book when it becomes available.

I acknowledge right up front my firmly held biases in approaching this subject. I am immovably committed to the divine calling and complete integrity of the prophet Joseph Smith. This chapter will be written in an apologetic spirit. Nevertheless, I will sincerely attempt to provide an objective look at the role, objectives, intentions, and motivations of the Prophet during these problematic years.

#Definition of Terms

“Polygamy” means a man or woman having more than one spouse. Two forms exist. “Polygyny” is defined as one man with more than one wife. In common usage today, we mostly refer to polygyny as “polygamy.” “Polyandry” is one woman having more than one husband. Polyandry is pertinent in our consideration of Joseph Smith’s practices of polygamy. Of the thirty-four plural wives of Joseph, thirteen were allegedly already civilly married to other men, and eight of these other men were active members of the Church. This, of course, resulted in each of these women’s having two husbands—a state of “polyandry.”

Theoretically, there are two types of polyandry:

1. Pseudo or “ceremonial” polyandry. This means having the marriage ritual performed, but never consummating the marriage sexually.

2. “True” or sexual polyandry. This means the woman maintains sexual relationships with more than one man.

We will learn and discuss the fact that Joseph Smith taught that true (sexual) polygyny, when authorized by God, is divinely accepted. In contrast, he declared that “true” or sexual polyandry constituted the sin of adultery (D&C 132:63).

#Justifications for the Practice of Polygamy

It was the Lord who initiated the revelation of the principle of plural marriage. We must keep in mind that he is not obliged to provide us with an explanation for his actions. He does not owe us any explanation as to just why he wanted the Church to practice polygamy. We, in mortality, are beholden to adjust our lives to any principle he deems appropriate. However, he has mercifully revealed to us some of his objectives in providing us this principle. Joseph Smith identified three reasons why the Lord revealed the concept of plural marriage to the Church:

1. The restoration of Old Testament polygamy. Through his writings and discourses, Orson Pratt produced more teachings concerning plural marriage than any other priesthood authority in the nineteenth century. In 1874 he explained that the restoration of plural marriage was part of the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:20-21. He wrote: “Inasmuch then as the Lord has promised to restore all things spoken of by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began, supposing that he should begin this great work of restoration in our day, how are we going to help ourselves? I can’t help it. Brigham Young, our President, can’t help it; Joseph Smith could not help it. If God sees proper to accomplish this great work of restoration—the restitution of all things, it will include . . . a plurality of wives” (October 7, 1874, JD, 17:221).

Joseph Smith taught: “God purposed in himself that there should not be an eternal fulness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one and that all things whatsoever that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations . . . all things had under the authority of the priesthood at any former period shall be had again—bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets” (Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1980, 39, 42).

This view continues to be promoted by Utah church leaders today. While serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Gordon B. Hinckley explained: “Mormonism claims to be a restoration of God’s work in all previous dispensations. The Old Testament teaches that the patriarchs—those men favored of God in ancient times—had more than one wife under divine sanction. In the course of the development of the Church in the nineteenth century, it was revealed to the leader of the Church that such a practice of marriage again should be entered into” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997, 457).

Most Bible believers today express discomfiture over observations that Old Testament patriarchs and others practiced plural marriage. Despite their distaste, it is clear the Bible itself does not condemn the practice. The New Bible Dictionary concedes: “Polygamy . . . is not forbidden in scripture . . . It is difficult to know how far polygamy was practiced, but on economic grounds it is probable that it was found more among the well-to-do than among the ordinary people.”

Throughout the Old Testament, polygamy is treated with the same level of respect as monogamy. The two options appear to be subject to the individual choices of the men and women involved. These choices carry no inherent level of increased righteousness or wickedness. Men are instructed: “If he take him another wife; her [the first wife’s] food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10; see also Malachi 2:11-15). At times plural marriages were clearly authorized by God: “And Nathan said to David . . . Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah (2 Samuel 12:7-8; see also Deuteronomy 21:15-16).

Some have pointed to a biblical passage that seems to condemn the practice of polygamy. The Lord Jehovah instructed the Israelites regarding the king who would rule over them in the land of Canaan: “When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:14-17). When carefully viewed in context, these verses seem to constitute a warning against the potential king’s esteeming things, including plural wives, above the Lord.

Apparently the Lord’s guidelines governing polygamy under the law of Moses were more strict than those governing the early patriarchs. The Israelites were commanded to not marry sisters or a “woman and her daughter” (Leviticus 18:17-18). In contrast, Jacob married sisters, Rachel and Leah.

In one situation under the Law of Moses, polygamy was actually commanded. “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her” (Deuteronomy 25:5). If the deceased husband’s brother was already married, then marrying his brother’s widow would create a polygamous union. This commandment is called the “levirate” law. The New Bible Dictionary states: “The first instance of this custom occurs in the patriarchal period, when Onan is called upon to marry his brother Er’s widow (Genesis 38:8).” The name of this law is derived from the Latin levir meaning “husband’s brother. When a married man died without a child his brother was expected to take his wife. Children of the marriage counted as children of the first husband. Apparently the brother could refuse (Deuteronomy 25:6-10) and later directives have been interpreted as contradictory by some interpreters (see Leviticus 18:16; 20:21). However, the levirate law was apparently still valid in Jesus Christ’s day. The Sadducees referred to it as they posed a question to the Savior regarding the resurrection (see Matthew 22:23).

A variety of references to the Old Testament were recruited by Latter-day Saints authors to defend the practice of plural marriage including the observation that within the Savior’s genealogical lines were polygamists. The best known are Abraham, Jacob, and David.

Defending the practice of polygamy in the Bible, Orson Pratt taught:

If plurality is offensive in the sight of God, why was Abraham, who practiced it, called the friend of God, and the father of the faithful? Why did the Lord promise that in him, as well as in his seed, all the families of the earth should be blessed? Why require all the families of the earth, under the Christian dispensation, to be adopted into the family of a polygamist in order to be saved? Why choose a polygamist to be the father of all saved families? Why require all Christian families in order to be saved, to walk in the steps and do the works of Abraham? Why did God proclaim himself to be “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and say that this shall be “my name and my memorial to all generations?” (see Exodus 3:15). If polygamy is not to be sanctioned among the generations of Christendom, why did he represent himself to be the God of polygamists, and say that all generations should adopt that memorial of him? Why choose these polygamists to be examples for Christians, and say, that many should come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down with them in the kingdom of God? Will Abraham’s wives and concubines, and Jacob’s four wives be in the kingdom of God with their husbands? . . .

Did not the Lord greatly bless and prosper Jacob both before and after he became a polygamist? Did he not continue to give him many revelations and visions, and send hosts of angels to converse with him? If polygamy were a crime, would not God have informed him of the fact? If it were sinful, would he have saved him in his kingdom without repentance? As Jacob did not repent, but continued a polygamist until his death, and as he was saved, he must have been saved in his sins; for God does not forgive sins without repentance; or, otherwise, polygamy is not sin . . .

Where was there ever a more holy man than Moses with whom God spake face to face? . . . Did not God himself give laws through Moses to regulate the descent of property in the families of polygamists? Was not Moses, though a polygamist, saved in the kingdom of God? Did not Moses and Elias appear in glory to Peter, James, and John in the holy mount at the time of Christ’s transfiguration? . . .

If polygamy was sinful and criminal, why did God command the living brother to marry all the widows of his deceased brothers who died without children? Would God command his people under a heavy penalty to commit sin and then punish them for doing it? It must have been a hard case, if the children of Israel were to be cursed if they did not keep the law, and then again to be cursed if they did keep it! Yet this must have been the case, if they were to be cursed for being polygamists when the law of God compelled them in certain cases to be such. . . .

If polygamy is not a divine institution why did God command the prophet Hosea to marry two wives? . . .

Did our Savior or any of his apostles ever forbid polygamy or condemn it as sinful? If not, why should Christendom now condemn it? Do they think to be more righteous in this respect, than Jesus Christ the great Author of Christianity? (The Seer, December 1853, 12:187-91).

2. To raise up a righteous seed. Perhaps the second most common explanation advanced by polygamy apologists is based upon the doctrine of the premortal existence—a doctrine unique to the LDS Church. Plural marriage allows faithful men to sire a greater number of children, thus providing more physical bodies for premortal spirits to inhabit on earth where they can be raised under the influence of believing fathers and mothers. It appears that Joseph Smith personally discussed this as a benefit of earthly polygamy. He wrote: “. . . for they [plural wives] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth . . . for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men” (D&C 132:63).

Nauvooan Charles Lambert recalled: “The Prophet used to hold meetings in a log house of his sometimes. . . . At one of these he said he wished he had a people that he could reveal to them what the Lord had shown to him. But one thing I will say, there are thousands of spirits that have been waiting to come forth in this day and generation. Their proper channel is through the priesthood” (“Autobiography,” Church History Library; quoted in Daniel W. Bachman, “The Authorship of the Manuscript of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132” in Sidney B. Sperry Symposium: A Sesquicentennial Look at Church History, January 26, 1980, Provo Utah: Religious Instruction, BYU, 1980, 43- 44).

Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph’s, wrote: “It was revealed to the Prophet that there were thousands of spirits, yet unborn, who were anxiously waiting for the privilege of coming down to take tabernacles of flesh, that their glory might be compete” (Why We Practice Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884, 7).

Brigham Young explained: “This revelation [authorizing plural marriage] which God gave to Joseph, was for the express purpose of providing a channel for the organization of tabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to come forth in the kingdom of God, and that they might not be obliged to take tabernacles out[side] of the kingdom of God” (JD, 3:265). Brigham also wrote: “I have told you many times that there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?—to prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law . . . This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth” (JD, 4:56).

Years later Brigham counseled: “If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives” (JD, 16:166).

Orson Pratt taught in 1852 that before mortality, there were spirits in the premortal world who “were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God” (JD, 1:62). Polygamy would increase the possibility that these noble spirits might be born into mortality unto “noble parentage.”

Despite these obvious advantages, it might be observed that the more wives and children in a patriarch’s family, the less personal time he has to spend with each one. Accordingly, his direct influence is paradoxically diluted. However, his beliefs might remain strong as his wives reflect his convictions in their interactions with their own children and his literal fatherhood provides an expanded lineage of the House of Israel through which spirits could be born.

3. A lesser degree of salvation for all who are not eternally married. Joseph Smith taught that exaltation into the highest third of the celestial kingdom does not occur to single individuals. No man or woman receives a fulness of the celestial glory alone. Accordingly, all men and women need the ordinance of eternal marriage in order to be exalted in the highest degree of the celestial heaven. “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

Joseph taught that those who are not sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage at the time of the final judgment are not exalted: “Those who keep no eternal law in this life or make no eternal contract are single & alone in the eternal world” (Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1980, 357).

Those who remain unmarried during mortal life will have the opportunity in the spirit world to marry (with proxy ordinances performed on earth). Individuals who are personally righteous, but legally married to disobedient spouses, will have an opportunity for an eternal sealing to a worthy eternal husband or eternal wife. In other words, the only single individuals in the celestial resurrection are those who elect to remain single on earth, in the world of spirits, and for all eternity. Joseph declared such unsealed persons “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity” (see D&C 132:15-17, 25).

George A. Smith explained: “Without the law of sealing, no man could be exalted to a throne in the celestial kingdom, that is, without he had [sic] a woman by his side; and that no woman could be exalted in the celestial world, without she was [sic] exalted with a man at her head; that the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord” (JD, 2:216).

Inherent in the doctrine of eternal marriage is the unavoidable inclusion of plural marriage. Why? Because at the end of the world, after all men and women have been judged, the number of worthy men and women will not be exactly equal. If monogamy were the only acceptable form of eternal marriage, at the final judgment, unsealed and unmarried individuals who were worthy would “remain separately and singly, without exaltation” (D&C 132:17) through no fault of their own. The question arises, will there be an excess of worthy men or worthy women? Brigham Young wrote: “The fact is, let the pure principles of the kingdom of God be taught to men and women, and far more of the latter than the former will receive and obey them” (JD, 18:249). Brigham also made the obvious observation: “It [plural marriage] would save a good many more women than men” (Scott G. Kenny, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833-1898, 9 volumes, Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983-85, 6:171-72).

Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton wrote that one of the reasons plural marriage was practiced “might well have been the practical difficulty of providing for all the unmarried females who were attracted to the new religion (The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints. New York: Vintage Books, 1980, 195).

Despite these observations and assertions, a close review of the number of women and men in Nauvoo and later in Utah shows that it was never a primary driving force in the practice. Historian Donna Hill wrote: “The claim of surplus women is not valid, since the United States census from 1850 to 1940 and all available records of the Utah Church show that men outnumbered women in the Church and in Utah (Joseph Smith, the First Mormon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977, 360). John A. Widtsoe observed: “The most common of these conjectures [explaining why polygamy was practiced in the 1800s] is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families—father, mother, and children—have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men” (Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1943-51, 390).

Over the decades since Joseph Smith’s death, a few other explanations for the practice of plural marriage have been promoted by church apologists. It is unknown whether the Prophet actually promoted any of these explanations, and these certainly might have arisen as ex post facto justifications. I will number these separately, as they did not originate with Joseph Smith:

1. Women outnumber men in the world. Throughout the world’s history, the number of living adult women has usually exceeded that of men. Contributing factors creating this disparity include an increase in male deaths as a consequence of war, physical exposure, riskier lifestyles, shorter natural life expectancy, etc.

Some, both in and out of the Church, have assumed that plural marriage was instigated to allow this apparent “surplus” of women to marry. This idea was also discussed by Orson Pratt in “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer, volume 1, number 2, 28-29. See also Charles W. Penrose in 1867, “Why We Practice Plural Marriage,” The Millennial Star, (September 14, 1867) 37:577. In a monogamous society, these disparate numbers would relegate some women to earthly spinsterhood. Add to the unfavorable numbers the fact that there is no legal compulsion for every man to marry, and polygamy was considered by some to be a “common sense” approach.

This explanation appears to have been more of an afterthought—a logical but specious justification for the practice of polygamy.

2. To bring needed trials and challenges to the Church. Some apologists have advanced the theory that the Lord intended for polygamy to bring to the Church added adversities that would provide opportunities for more spiritual growth. Joseph taught the value of tribulations: “Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation. For after much tribulation come the blessings. Wherefore the day cometh that ye shall be crowned with much glory; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand” (D&C 58:3-4).

Brigham Young wrote: “I foresaw, when Joseph first made known this doctrine, that it would be a trial and a source of great care and anxiety to the brethren, and what of that? We are to gird up our loins and fulfill this, just as we would any other duty” (JD, 3:265).

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, a plural wife of the prophet Joseph, explained: “I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons—a ‘blessing in disguise’” (Why We Practice Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884, 8, 23-24). Another of Joseph’s plural wives, Lucy Walker, concurred (see statement of Lucy Walker quoted by Lyman Omer Littlefield in Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience, Logan, Utah: Utah Journal Co., 1888, 50-51).

Plural wife Martha Cragun Cox (1852-1932) wrote: “I knew the principle of plural marriage to be correct—to be the highest, holiest order of marriage. I knew too, that I might fail to live the holy life required and lose the blessings offered. If I had not learned before to go to the Lord with my burden, I surely learned to go to him now. . . I found relief only in prayer when the Holy Spirit gave me inspiration” (Kenneth W. Godfrey, Audrey M. Godfrey, and Jill Mulvay Derr. Women’s Voices: An Untold History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1982, 278).

Harold Bloom observed: “I can accept the notion that the prophet Joseph sought to follow the Jewish pattern, in which a religion becomes a people. Marked by the glory and stigma of plural marriage, the Mormons of 1850 through 1890 indeed became a peculiar people, a nation apart” (The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post- Christian Nation, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992, 278). Non-LDS historian Jan Shipps wrote: “What plural marriage did was make people commit to the church. It drew them in and made them commit. It had a purpose of creating a movement, of creating a tradition. . . Religious traditions come into existence through pain and exhilaration at the same time” (quoted in Heidi S. Swinton, American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Shadow Mountain, 1999, 140).

In spite of the compelling nature of this argument, it does not appear that Joseph Smith ever declared an association between the practice of plural marriage and the beneficial trials it would generate. Whether he would have listed it as a reason for restoring plural marriage is unknown.

3. Publicity value. An interesting view was offered by B. H. Roberts, one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy in the Utah Church in 1930:

A possible reason mentioned as justifying the introduction of plural marriage into the New Dispensation is the publicity value of it. Of course, it would be insufferable to mention such a thing if the principle itself were not true and pure and good and necessary to be established for completeness to the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. But plural marriage being all that is here said of it, I see nothing amiss in referring to it as possessed of a certain publicity value to the whole work of God. And I know of no single thing in the New Dispensation that has done so much to keep that dispensation and its major message before the world as this same principle of plural marriage and the practice of it by the Church. It has kept the message well-nigh constantly before men; through the press, daily, weekly, and monthly. It has been the incentive to the multiplication of books on “Mormonism” ad libitum. It has kept the New Dispensation before state legislatures and congress—house and senate; before successive United States presidents and their cabinets. Before state and territorial courts; and time and again before the Supreme Court of the United States, and through that court has attracted the attention of leaders of thought in all the world (A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 volumes. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1930, 6:227-28).

Elder Roberts suggests that negative publicity is better than no publicity. Whether or not this publicity has benefited or injured the missionary work of the Church is unclear.

4. To solve the world’s moral problems. One reason suggested for the establishment of polygamy was to rid the world of the social ills of prostitution and licentiousness. Orson Pratt asserted that by adopting plural marriage, “whoredom, adultery, and fornication” would “be entirely done away” (JD, 1:61-62; see also Belinda Marden Pratt, “Defense of Polygamy by a Lady in Utah In a Letter to Her Sister in New Hampshire,” Millennial Star, July 19, 1854, 15:225-229). A writer in an 1853 article in the Millennial Star wrote: “I have come to the conclusion . . . that the one-wife system . . . is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people” (Anonymous, “Nelly and Abby,” Millennial Star, April 9, 1853, 16:225-29).

By allowing men to have more wives than one, it was theorized that mistresses and brothels would no longer be patronized by libido-driven men. One church member wrote in 1854: “In Deseret, there are not libertines, with their paramours, no houses of prostitution, no cases of seduction, or those which disturb the peace of the families in the states under your laws. Here every woman can have what God intended she should—a husband—and every man that wants to may have a wife” (“Advantage of Having Many Wives,” Millennial Star, January 20, 1855, 14:213-14).

While plural marriage might have assisted moral men to control their sex drives by allowing additional wives, it is questionable whether it would have had significant influence on men possessing lesser ethical values. The ability of polygamy to stem the evils of prostitution and other sexual abuses remains unproven.

5. Plural marriage produces healthier parents and offspring. An almost comical aspect is readily detected in this rationale. In an article in the Millennial Star (June 2, 1866, 341), an anonymous author wrote: “Sexual relations during pregnancy robs the future mother of that vigor which should nourish her embryonic offspring, and giv[es] intensified sensual desires to that offspring.” Accordingly, polygamy provides other wives for sexual relations thus assisting the husband in maintaining continence with pregnant wives.

In 1870 Brigham Young argued: “Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children! A person possessing a moderate knowledge of physiology, or who has paid attention to his own nature and the nature of the gentler sex, can readily understand this” (JD, 13:317).

Heber C. Kimball suggested an even more novel justification: “I would not be afraid to promise a man who is sixty years of age, if he will take the counsel of brother Brigham and his brethren, that he will renew his age. I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. Some of you may not believe this; but I not only believe it—I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business; for it is as much as we can do now to keep up under the burdens we have to carry; and I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece” (JD, 5:22).

While Brother Kimball’s explanation for added youthfulness of the participants of plural marriage relates to God’s “love” and “honor” granted to the obedient, other polygamists have asserted that having more wives made the participants young and more virile.

There is obviously no scientific validation of these suggestions. They also seem to have no relationship to Joseph Smith’s theology of polygamy.

#Brief History of the Church’s Practice of Plural Marriage (Polygyny)

In answer to Joseph Smith’s question as to why many of the Old Testament leaders had more than one wife, he received what is now known as Section 132. The date in the heading of section 132 is July 12, 1843, about one year prior to the prophet’s death. This is not the date when the revelation on celestial marriage was given to Joseph. Note that the heading states that the revelation was recorded, not received, on that particular date. Joseph learned about plural marriage by revelation probably in early 1831, or even earlier. He received this revelation in connection with his work on his inspired revision of the King James Bible. He started work on the Bible revision in June 1830 and began with the book of Genesis. When he came to the great patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon—who had more than one wife, he was provoked to ask of the Lord, “Why, Lord, didst thou justify thy servants in having many wives and concubines?” (D&C 132:1).

Joseph did inquire of the Lord and received a revelation in 1831. He learned that the Church would one day be required to live the law (D&C 132:1-4, 28-40). It may have been written down in that year, but today we have no such written record, and Joseph was instructed not to teach it to anyone until the time was right. It was thus kept quiet. In 1841, after the saints had settled in Nauvoo, Joseph began to teach the principle of plural marriage to a few of his intimate friends and associates among the Church’s leaders. The principle was practiced to a limited extent by Joseph and some others whom he authorized.

There was also some unauthorized practicing of the principle. John C. Bennett, mayor of Nauvoo and adviser to Joseph Smith, twisted the idea of polygamy to his own advantage. Capitalizing on rumors and lack of understanding among general Church membership, he taught a doctrine of “spiritual wifery.” He and his associates sought to have illicit sexual relationships with women by telling them they were married “spiritually,” even if they had never been married formally, and that the Prophet approved the arrangement. Bennett was found out and excommunicated for immorality in May of 1842. He then toured the country speaking against the Latter-day Saints and published a bitter anti-Mormon exposé, The History of the Saints; or, an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842) charging the Saints with licentiousness. Two years later enemies and dissenters, some of whom had been associated with Bennett, published the Nauvoo Expositor, to expose, among other things, plural marriage, thus setting in motion events leading to Joseph Smith’s death.

As one might suppose, the doctrine of plural marriage was a difficult pill for the saints to swallow. Spiritual descendants of the Puritans and sexually conservative, early participants in plural marriage first wrestled with the prospect and then embraced the principle only after receiving personal spiritual confirmation that they should do so. Nor did others enter into plural marriage blindly or simply because Joseph Smith had spoken, despite biblical precedents. Personal accounts document that most individuals that entered plural marriage in Nauvoo faced a crisis of faith that was resolved only by personal spiritual witness. Those who participated generally did so only after they had obtained divine reassurance and saw it as religious duty. Even those closest to Joseph Smith were challenged by the revelation. After first learning of plural marriage, Brigham Young said he felt to envy the corpse in a funeral cortege and “could hardly get over it for a long time” (JD, 3:266). The Prophet’s brother Hyrum Smith stubbornly resisted the very possibility until circumstances forced him to go to the Lord for understanding. Both later taught the principle to others. Emma Smith vacillated, one day railing in opposition against it and the next giving her consent for Joseph to be sealed to another wife (see comments by Orson Pratt, JD 13:194). President John Taylor said, “When this system [polygamy] was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that was ever taken up by any set of men [and women, of course] since the world stood” (JD, 11:221).

One of those for whom the principle was particularly difficult was Emma Smith. Emma and Joseph apparently had serious problems over the principle. Joseph confided some of these problems to his trusted brother Hyrum. Hyrum felt that he could convince Emma of the divine origin of the principle if only Joseph would write down the revelation on the subject and allow Hyrum to take it to Emma. A quote from the Prophet’s scribe, William Clayton picks up the story:

On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office of the upper story of the “Brick-Store,” on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking of the subject of plural marriage, [and] Hyrum said to Joseph, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.” Joseph smiled and remarked, “You do not know Emma as well as I do.” Hyrum repeated his opinion, and further remarked, “The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity, and heavenly origin,” or words to that effect. . . . Joseph and Hyrum then sat down, and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on Celestial Marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. [When he was about to dictate it to William Clayton, Hyrum asked Joseph to use his seerstone, but Joseph declined saying that he had the revelation perfectly memorized.] After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, D&C Commentary, 820-21).

Hyrum took the written revelation and went to Emma. She responded by giving Hyrum what he referred to as a “severe talking to” (HC, 5:32-33). The tradition in the Church is that some time later she either burned it or persuaded Joseph to burn it, and she rejected the principle and Hyrum’s attempt to convince her. Fortunately, a copy of the revelation (requested by Hyrum Smith) had been made before destruction of the original. One of the brethren particularly interested in obtaining a copy was Bishop Newell K. Whitney, as his daughter was already one of the plural wives of Joseph. Hence, William Clayton had allowed one Joseph Kingsbury to make a copy of the revelation to give to Bishop Whitney. This copy made by Joseph Kingsbury remained with the Church and was taken to Utah by Brigham Young.

Until 1852 the principle was officially kept a secret from the public and even from most of the saints. Emma was opposed to the principle to her death and even denied publicly that her husband was involved in the practice, claiming that Brigham Young was responsible for the doctrine. Even today, the Reorganized LDS Church (now the Community of Christ) denies that Joseph ever practiced polygamy.

Historical data suggests that Joseph was married to some thirty-four women prior to his death. That period will be discussed in some detail later in this chapter. After Joseph’s death many female members were sealed to him.

After the martyrdom, plural marriage continued as a “well-known secret” among many church members. Brigham Young tightly controlled all new sealings. Polygamy was practiced in this manner from 1844 to 1852, only by those who had individual authorization from the president of the Church.

Once the Saints left Nauvoo, though it was officially remained secret, it seems many if not most members had heard rumors and stories. In Winter Quarters, for example, discussion of the principle was an “open secret” and plural families were acknowledged. As early as 1847, non-member visitors to Utah commented on the practice.

With the Saints firmly established in the Great Basin, Brigham Young announced the practice publicly and published the revelation on eternal marriage. Under his direction, on Sunday, August 29, 1852, in a specially-called conference, Elder Orson Pratt read section 132 and discussed and defended the practice of plural marriage.

After examining the biblical precedents (Abraham, Jacob, David, and others), Elder Pratt argued that the Church, as heir of the keys required anciently for plural marriages to be sanctioned by God, was required to perform such marriages as part of the restoration. He offered reasons for the practice and discussed several possible benefits (see JD 1:53-66). But such discussions were not really the justifications. Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage because they believed God commanded them to do so. Polygamy became church policy following that special conference.

At that time the revelation was made available for all of those who were interested in reading it. It was first published in the Deseret News in August 1852. Orson Pratt included it in the new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876. Section 132 is not the original revelation received by Joseph in 1831, though undoubtedly parts of the 1831 revelation are contained in this important section. From 1852 until 1890, Mormon Church leaders preached and encouraged members, especially those in leadership positions, to marry additional wives.

The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20 to 25 percent of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. At its height, plural marriage probably involved only a third of the women reaching marriageable age—though among Church leadership plural marriage was the norm for a time. A majority of the Latter-day Saints never lived the principle. The number of families involved varied by community. For example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880.

Generally plural marriage involved only two wives and seldom more than three. Larger families like those of Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball were exceptions. Sometimes the wives simply shared homes, each having her own bedroom, or they lived in a “duplex” arrangement, each inhabiting a mirror-image half of the house. In other cases, husbands established separate homes for their wives, sometimes in separate towns. When the wives lived near each other, the husbands usually visited each wife on a daily or weekly basis. Although circumstances and the mechanics of family life varied, in general the living style was simply an adaptation of the nineteenth century American family. Polygamous marriages were similar to national norms in fertility and divorce rates as well. Wives of one husband often developed strong bonds of sisterly love. However, strong antipathies could also arise between wives. While there were the expected troubles between wives and families, polygamy was usually not the only cause, although it certainly could cause greater tension. Since polygamy was openly practiced for only a relatively short time in the Church, there were no established rules about how family members should relate to each other. Instead, each family adapted to their particular circumstances.

As with families generally, some plural families worked better than others. Anecdotal evidence and the healthy children that emerged from many plural households witness that some worked very well. But some plural wives disliked the arrangement. The most common complaint of second and third wives resulted from a husband displaying too little sensitivity to the needs of plural families or not treating them equally. Not infrequently, wives complained that husbands spent too little time with them. But where husbands provided conscientiously and devoted ample time, husbands and wives developed deep love and respect for each other. Children grew up as members of large, well-adjusted extended families.

Plural marriage helped mold the Church’s attitude toward divorce in pioneer Utah. Though Brigham Young disliked divorce and discouraged it, when women sought divorce he generally granted it. He felt that a woman trapped in an unworkable relationship with no alternatives deserved a chance to improve her life. But when a husband sought relief from his familial responsibilities, President Young consistently counseled him to do his duty and not seek divorce from any wife willing to put up with him.

Contrary to the caricatures of a hostile world press, plural marriage did not result in offspring of diminished capacity. Normal men and women came from plural households, and their descendants are prominent throughout the Intermountain West. Some observers feel that the added responsibility that fell early upon some children in such households contributed to their exceptional record of achievement. Plural marriage also aided many wives. The flexibility of plural households contributed to the large number of accomplished LDS women who were pioneers in medicine, politics and other public careers. In fact, plural marriage made it possible for wives to have professional careers that would not otherwise have been available to them.

Reactions from outside the Church to statements about polygamy were immediate and negative. Although polygamy had been practiced for much of history in many parts of the world, to do so in “enlightened” America in the nineteenth century was viewed by most as incomprehensible and unacceptable, making it the Church’s most controversial and least understood practice. Though the principle was lived for a relatively brief period, it had profound impact on LDS self-definition, helping to establish the Latter-day Saints as a “people apart.” The practice also caused many nonmembers to distance themselves from the Church and see Latter-day Saints more negatively than would otherwise have been the case.

Faced with a national anti-polygamy campaign, LDS women startled their eastern sisters, who equated polygamy with oppression of women, by publicly demonstrating in favor of their right to live plural marriage as a religious principle. Judging from the preaching, women were at least as willing to enter plural marriage as men. Instead of public admonitions urging women to enter plural marriage, one finds many urging worthy men to “do their duty” and undertake to care for a plural wife and additional children. Though some were reluctant to accept such responsibility, many responded and sought another wife. It was not unheard of for a wife to take the lead and insist that her husband take another wife. Yet, in other cases, a first marriage dissolved over the husband’s insistence on marrying again.

In 1854 the Republican Party termed polygamy and slavery the “twin relics of barbarism.” In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories, dis-incorporated the Church, and restricted the church’s ownership of property. The nation was in the midst of the Civil War, however, and the law was not enforced. In 1867 the Utah Territorial Legislature asked Congress to repeal the Morrill Act. Instead of doing that, the House Judiciary Committee asked why the law was not being enforced, and the Cullom Bill, an attempt to strengthen the Morrill Act, was introduced. Although it did not pass, most of its provisions later became law. Out of a number of other bills introduced during the 1870s against polygamy, only the Poland Act passed in 1874. It gave district courts all civil and criminal jurisdiction and limited the probate courts to matters of estate settlement, guardianship, and divorce.

The Mormons continued to practice polygamy despite these laws, since they believed that the practice was protected by the freedom of religion clause in the Bill of Rights. To test the constitutionality of the laws, George Reynolds, Brigham Young’s private secretary, agreed to be tried. In 1879 the case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the Morrill Act: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.”

In 1882 Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which was actually a series of amendments to the Morrill Act. It restated that polygamy was a felony punishable by five years of imprisonment and a $500 fine. Unlawful cohabitation, which was easier to establish because the prosecution had to prove only that the couple had lived together rather than that a marriage ceremony had taken place, remained a misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and a $300 fine. Convicted polygamists were disenfranchised (their right to vote was removed), and they became ineligible to hold political office. Those who practiced polygamy were disqualified from jury service, and those who professed a belief in it could not serve as jurists in a polygamy case. All registration and election officers in Utah Territory were dismissed, and a board of five commissioners was appointed to direct elections.

Because the Edmunds Act was unsuccessful in controlling polygamy in Utah, in 1884 Congress debated legislation to plug the loopholes. Finally, in 1887, the “hodgepodge” Edmunds-Tucker Bill passed. It required plural wives to testify against their husbands, dissolved the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company (a loan institution that helped members of the Church come to Utah from Europe), abolished the Nauvoo Legion militia, and provided a mechanism for acquiring the property of the Church, which already was dis-incorporated by the Morrill Act. The Cullom-Struble Bill with even stricter measures was debated in 1889, but the Mormon Church helped to prevent its passage by promising to do away with polygamy.

All of these pressures had an impact on the Church, even though the leaders did not compel the Latter-day Saints to abolish polygamy. Church leaders as well as many of its members went into hiding—“on the underground” as it was called—either to avoid arrest or to avoid having to testify. Mormon Church President John Taylor died while in hiding. His successor, Wilford Woodruff, initially supported the continued practice of polygamy. A harsh and effective federal antipolygamy campaign known by the Latterday Saints as “the Raid” occurred. Wives and husbands went “on the underground” and hundreds were arrested and sentenced to jail terms in Utah and several federal prisons. This campaign severely affected the families involved, and the related attack on Church organization and properties greatly inhibited its ability to function. Following a vision showing him that continuing plural marriage endangered the temples and the mission of the Church, not just statehood, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto in October 1890, announcing an official end to new plural marriages and facilitating an eventual peaceful resolution of the conflict. The Manifesto was approved at the church’s general conference on October 6, 1890.

Rather than resolving the polygamy question, however, according to one historian: “For both the hierarchy and the general membership of the LDS Church, the Manifesto inaugurated an ambiguous era of secret practice of plural marriage rivaled only by the status of polygamy during the lifetime of Joseph Smith.” Woodruff’s public and private statements contradicted whether the Manifesto applied to existing marriages. As a result of the Manifesto, some men left plural wives. Others interpreted it as applying only to new marriages. All polygamous general authorities (including the First Presidency, Council of the Twelve Apostles, church patriarch, First Council of Seventy, and Presiding Bishopric) continued to cohabit with their wives. Based on impressionistic evidence in family histories and genealogical records, it appears that “most” polygamists followed the general authorities’ example.

Neither did all new plural marriages end in 1890. Although technically against the law in Mexico and Canada, polygamous marriages were performed in both countries. Mormon plural families openly practiced polygamy in Mexico. The Canadian government allowed Mormon men to have only one wife in the country, so some men had a legal wife in the United States and one in Canada. In addition, a few plural marriages were performed in the United States.

During the Senate investigation in 1904 concerning the seating of Senator-elect Reed Smoot, a monogamist but a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Mormon Church President Joseph F. Smith presented what historians have called the “Second Manifesto” on April 7, 1904. It included provisions for the Church to take action against those who continued to perform plural marriages and marry plural wives. Matthias Cowley and John W. Taylor, both apostles, continued to be involved in performing or advocating new plural marriages after 1904, and, as a result, Cowley was disfellowshipped and Taylor excommunicated from the Church. In 1909 a committee of apostles met to investigate post-Manifesto polygamy, and by 1910 the church had a new policy. Those involved in plural marriages after 1904 were excommunicated. Those married between 1890 and 1904 were not to have church callings where other members would have to sustain them. Although the Church officially prohibited new plural marriages after 1904, many plural husbands and wives continued to cohabit until their deaths in the 1940s and 1950s.

For twenty years or so following 1904, scattered individuals within and without the Church attempted to practice plural marriage without permission from the church president. During these years, no polygamous organization existed among these maverick pluralists, nor did they claim special priesthood keys that transcended church authority. However, beginning in 1921, Lorin C. Woolley claimed to possess a previously unheard of priesthood office as a member of an unknown council that ostensibly could authorize new plural marriages. In 1935, Elden Kingston asserted his own unique authority to practice polygamy. Twenty years later, the LeBaron brothers arrived with their own distinctive offices and authorities. During these years and afterwards, dozens of other “Mormon fundamentalist” groups entered the scene with their novel interpretations and priesthood claims.

Fundamentalist groups who believe that the Church discontinued polygamy only because of government pressure continued the practice. As they were discovered by the LDS Church, they were excommunicated. Some of these polygamists have appointed leaders and continue to live in groups, including those in Colorado City (formerly Short Creek), Arizona, and Hildale, Utah. Others, such as Royston Potter, practice polygamy but have no affiliation with an organized group. The phenomenon of “Mormon Fundamentalism” will be discussed later in this chapter.

#Joseph Smith’s Personal Practice of Plural Marriage

#An Overview

Researchers today seeking to understand the details surrounding Joseph Smith’s personal practice of plural marriage must acknowledge that the only individual who knew personally about his motives, intentions, and practice of polygamy left no record about these central matters. Virtually everything learned about Joseph Smith’s polygamy is second-hand, coming from later recollections and reminiscences, which may suffer from their own credibility problems.

Joseph’s apprehensions and sense of obligation. Several original sources testify that Joseph was horrified at the prospects of practicing polygamy. It certainly ran against his grain. He surely knew full well that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism—from without the Church, from within the Church, and even from within his own family. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. Several months before his death, Joseph taught: “The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I stand alone in it” (TPJS, 332).

Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged “in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings” regarding plural marriage. He knew the voice of God. He knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward-to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those “of the whole Christian world . . . but God . . . had given the commandment” (The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 69-70). Several close confidants later said he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggles and divine threats. President Snow taught of Joseph Smith’s account of an angel “with a drawn sword” who declared that Joseph proceed, or his calling would be given to another (Bachman, Daniel W. “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith.” M. A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 74-75). Another version of the story suggested that the angel warned him that if he delayed, the angel would slay Joseph (Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review,

st

Mesa, Arizona: 21 Century Printing, 1992, 95-96). Yet another version originated with Erastus Snow. He reported that the angel accused the Prophet of “being neglectful in the discharges of his duties” and spoke “of Joseph’s having to plead on his knees before the Angel for his Life” (Erastus Snow quoted in A. Karl Larson and Katherine Miles Larson, Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2 volumes, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 1980, 2:611, entry for June 17, 1883). According to Mary Elizabeth Rollins, the angel was required to visit Joseph three times between 1834 and 1842 before he fully complied (“Remarks” at Brigham Young University, April 14, 1905, vault MSS 363, fd 6. 2-3).

Joseph Smith told Brigham Young he was determined to press ahead though it would cost him his life, for “it is the work of God, and He has revealed this principle, and it is not my business to control or dictate it” (Brigham Young Discourse, October 8, 1866, Church Archives).

Parley P. Pratt doubtless accurately reflected the prophet’s Joseph’s view of the practice of polygamy when he wrote: “These holy and sacred ordinances have nothing to do with whoredoms, unlawful connections, confusion or crime; but the very reverse. They have laws, limits, and bounds of the strictest kind, and none but the pure in heart, the strictly virtuous, or those who repent and become such, are worthy to partake of them. And . . . [a] dreadful weight of condemnation await those who pervert, or abuse them” (The Prophet, May 24, 1845; cf. D&C 132:7). Another safeguard was that authorized plural marriages could be performed only through the sealing power controlled by the presiding authority of the Church (D&C 132:19).

The initial commandment. As already mentioned above, historical documents suggest that Joseph received the Lord’s command to practice polygamy within a year of the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830. He probably received the original revelation in early 1831. Also as mentioned, the Lord initially included the counsel that the saints, at large, were not yet ready for the practice.

Polygamy prior to the Nauvoo period. The only plural marriage practiced by Joseph prior to 1841 was Joseph’s marriage in 1835 to a nineteen-year-old domestic in the Smith household named Fanny Alger. That union ended in 1836. The following year, most church members began to leave Ohio to live in Missouri. The saints were driven out of Missouri in late 1838. They would establish themselves in Nauvoo in 1839.

Nauvoo plural marriage. Joseph’s second polygamous marriage occurred in Nauvoo on April 5, 1841. During the next seventeen months, he was probably sealed to about a dozen plural wives. A few other men (church leaders) and women were also invited to participate in the practice. Records indicate that the principle was not openly practiced during that period. By the end of August 1842, Joseph discontinued plural marriages for a period of five months, undoubtedly due to the influences of dissenter, Joseph C. Bennett. The Prophet resumed his polygamous marrying in February of 1843. He was sealed to nearly two dozen plural spouses during the next ten months. Current evidence supports that after November 2, 1843—during the last eight months of his life—Joseph contracted no new polygamous unions. By the time of Joseph’s death on June 27, 1844, evidence shows that twenty-nine other men in the Church had married fifty-one plural wives.

The secret introduction of plural marriage into the Church was probably the one most important factor in Joseph’s martyrdom. By the time of his death, Joseph had been sealed to some thirty-four polygamous wives.

Three types of Joseph’s plural marriages. An examination of the types of plural marriages entered into by Joseph Smith indicates that three forms of unions were contracted. Some were for this life only—called “time only” matrimonies. Most were “time and eternity” sealings, meaning a marriage for this life that would continue after death and forever. Over a third of the relationships were “eternity only” sealings. Such a sealing is a marriage only for the next life. It permits the woman to be married to a different man on earth. While a few “eternity only” marriages were performed during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, evidence indicates the practice of sealing a living male to a living female for “eternity only” was discontinued after Joseph’s death.

Joseph Smith instructed that when authorized by the “one” man on earth holding the sealing keys (D&C 132:18), polygynous sealings can occur on earth. They can also be performed by proxy after the unmarried man or women are deceased, and this project will undoubtedly be a focus of temple work during the millennium. When one of the two parties is deceased, the sealing then is obviously for “eternity only” since “time and eternity” sealings require that both parties are alive on earth when that sealing is performed. Importantly, all sealings for eternity must be performed prior to the resurrection, “For in [after] the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30; see also Mark 12:24-25). According to the Prophet’s teachings, by the end of the millennium, all worthy men and women who were born on this earth will be bound to an eternal spouse of their choice, either through ordinances for the living or the dead.

Emotional problems that arise because of polygamy. Though polygamous arrangements tend to expand the man’s emotional and sexual relationships, they tend to do the opposite for women. The loss of exclusivity in each marriage association and the lessened availability of the husband make it particularly difficult for the woman to share her heart-felt beliefs, dreams, concerns, and expectations. In other words, rich and intimate communication is rendered more difficult for the woman. The husband then secondarily suffers because of the loss of intimacy in each of his relationships.

Joseph Smith apparently became sensitively aware of these relationship problems and frequently counseled and reassured the women involved that the blessings of heaven would eventually be theirs and that “all will be well in the end” (Bathsheba Smith, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), 291, 313, questions 14, 466).

Joseph was selective, cautious, and patient in his marriage choices. John C. Bennett ostensibly quoting Sarah Pratt and Sarah Fuller claimed that Joseph Smith would destroy the reputation of any woman who rejected him (The History of the Saints: Or an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism. Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842, 231, 253). This was hardly the case as evidenced by the following.

Within the recollections of Joseph Smith’s plural wives are several descriptions of the manner through which he proposed plural marriage. Generally, he cautiously introduced the subject to them, biding his time as they pondered and prayed to either accept or reject the offer.

Emily Partridge recalled in 1892 that Joseph Smith approached her when they were alone “and asked me if I could keep a secret, and I told him I thought I could, and then he told me that he would some time if he had an opportunity—he would tell me something that would be for my benefit, if I would not betray him, and I told him I wouldn’t.” Despite this introduction, nothing happened immediately. Emily continued:

Well it ran along for a good while—I don’t know just how long, and there was no opportunity of saying anything to me more than he had, and one day he sat in the room alone, and I passed through it and he called to me or spoke to me, and called me to him, and then he said that he had intended to tell me something, but he had no opportunity to do so, and so he would write me a letter, if I would agree to burn it as soon as I read it, and with that I looked frightened, for I thought there was something about it that was not just right, and so I told him that I would rather that he would not write to me—that he would not write me any letter, and then he asked me if I wanted him to say any more, and I said yes, that I did not want to hear anything more about it at all, for I had got a little frightened about it . . . (Emily P. Young, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 350, question 22).

Although Emily does not state the reason for her fears, she undoubtedly knew that the subject of the letter was plural marriage. Rumors of Joseph’s personal involvement were not widespread at that time, but were likely within range. Over the space of the ensuing months, Emily’s feelings changed:

Well it went in that condition and there was not anything more said about it for several months, not until 1843 I think—some time in ’43, for he had no other opportunity until then and I did not think he would ever say anything more about it until then, but I had thought a great deal about it in that time, and I had prayed for it to know what it was, and if it was my duty. I thought I ought to have listened to it, that is, to what he was going to tell me or write to me, for I was greatly troubled over it, as I feared I had done wrong in not listening to it—and so I prayed to be enlightened in regard to what I would have done. Well, in time I became convinced that there was nothing wrong about it, and that it would be right for me to hear what he had to say, but there was nothing more said for a good while after I came to that conclusion. I think it was months before there was anything more said about it, but I don’t know just how long it was (Ibid., pages 350-52, questions 22-24).

Perhaps sensing Emily’s change of heart, the Prophet approached her asking for another opportunity to speak, and she granted it. He explained celestial marriage and proposed to her, and she accepted. Emily recalled that once the sealing was performed, she didn’t spend her wedding night with Joseph: “I cannot tell all that Joseph said . . . I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way, and I going my way alone.” She added: “A strange way of getting married, wasn’t it?” (Emily D. P. Young, autobiographical sketch, “Written Especially for My Children,” January 7, 1877, Marrriott Library, manuscript owned by Emily Young Knopp, copy of typescript in possession of the author).

In 1883 Almera W. Johnson, sister of Benjamin F. Johnson, remembered her own personal experience that occurred in 1842/43. She had “many conversations” with Joseph over many months (Almera W. Johnson, affidavit dated August 1, 1883, digital holograph, MS 3423, CHL; typescript published in Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1905], 70- 71).

Another account from Lucy Walker is important because it is sometimes misquoted to make it appear that Joseph Smith proposed to her and then immediately gave her a twenty-four hour period to either comply or to be condemned. Unfortunately, some authors forget to mention that the time limitation was imposed only after Lucy had wavered for many months, possibly over a year. She related: “In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: ‘I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.’ My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. ‘Most assuredly I do,’ I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage” (Lyman Omer Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience, Logan, Utah: Utah Journal Co., 1888, 46).

After this initial introduction, Lucy agonized for many months as the Prophet waited. She became increasingly agitated. After witnessing Lucy’s agitation, Joseph gave Lucy the twenty-four hour ultimatum mentioned above. She was sealed to Joseph shortly thereafter.

Extant accounts indicate that the usual pre-marriage interactions between the Prophet and his prospective plural wives usually involved multiple instructions concerning the underlying theological principles either from Joseph or an intermediary. Typical “courting” behaviors such as walks, buggy rides, the exchange of physical affection, or flirtatious conversations, whether publicly or privately, did not occur. In no cases is there evidence for a quick sealing in reaction to mounting passions or attractions.

To help his potential plural brides overcome their initial disgust at the thought of polygamy, the Prophet promised at least two of them that they could receive their own “spiritual” confirmation that polygamy was right. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner wrote: “I did not believe. If God told him so, why did he not come and tell me? The angel told him I should have a witness. An angel came to me . . .” (“Statement” signed February 8, 1902 [Vesta Crawford Papers, MS 125, bx1 fd 11]). Similarly, Lucy Walker recalled: “He [Joseph Smith] assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him of the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its divine origin for myself. He counseled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and thereupon received from him a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage” (Affidavit dated December 17, 1902, MS 3423, CHL).

Joseph declined several opportunities to marry additional plural wives. Evidence shows that Joseph had many more opportunities to marry than he actually chose. Doubtless, he was approached by many women. For reasons he never explained, he declined some plural marriage opportunities, accepted others, and even arranged additional polygamous unions for family members and friends (Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review 2:7; George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Salt Lake City:

Signature Books, 2008, appendix B, 599, no. 92; see Franklin D. Richards’ diary, quoted in Minutes of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1894-99, Salt Lake City: Privately Published, 2010, 116; see Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1945], 323-24).

Occasionally Joseph sought plural marriage opportunities for others rather than seeking to marry the women himself. In 1908 Almira, daughter of Martha McBride Knight, was asked if she would consider becoming a plural wife of Hyrum Smith. She said “No.” The marriage never took place, and Almira later left the Church (Almira Hanscom statement, 1908 in “Autobiography of Hyrum Belnap,” from a compilation by Della Belnap titled “Biographies of the Belnap and Knight Families” copied by BYU library 1958; copy at BYU HBLL Special Collections—Amer BX 8670.1.B41. This statement is found on page 55 of the whole compilation, or page 20 of Hyrum Belnap Autobiography).

In another example, Mary Ann Covington recalled an interaction with the Prophet in which Joseph asked her to be the plural wife of his brother William Smith. Mary Ann was sealed to William Smith by the fall of 1843 (George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, appendix B, 623, no. 156).

Joseph also facilitated the plural marriages of Parley P. Pratt to Elizabeth Brotherton (see “Affidavit of Mary Ann Pratt,” MS 3423, CHL) and Heber C. Kimball to Sarah Noon (see Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Scenes and Incidents In Nauvoo,” Women’s Exponent, 10 [October 15, 1881], 10:74).

Joseph infrequently used plural marriage as a test for some of his apostles. Two narratives involving Heber C. Kimball and John Taylor demonstrate that these men were willing to give their legal wives to the Prophet, if that were required. In both cases, Joseph did not marry their wives, but sealed them to their husbands (See Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1945, 323-24; John Mills Whitaker, Autobiography and Journals, 1883-1960, MS 1356, LDS Church History Library, Reel 1, entry dated November 1, 1890; Samuel W. Taylor, The Kingdom or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. and London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1976, 80-83, 87-89). No historical data has been found providing evidence that the Prophet ever demanded a follower to give up his wife so he could marry her.

Joseph Smith’s plural marriage proposals were rejected several times. Joseph apparently felt that plural wives should not be coerced or manipulated. Joseph Smith’s offers of plural marriage were apparently turned down by at least seven women. The historical record indicates that his preferred response to these rebuffs was to quietly let the matter rest. There is no evidence of retaliatory excommunications or other vengeful reactions have been found. Two of these women had second thoughts and were sealed to Joseph following his death. They were Cordelia C. Morley and Rachel Ivins.

On two occasions Joseph sought to counteract allegations he considered untrue. It appears Joseph Smith proposed plural marriage to Nancy Rigdon who declined. She did, however, fail to keep the offer secret. Months later John C. Bennett wrote a letter to the Sangamo Journal and portrayed himself as dramatically saving Nancy from being “ensnared” by Joseph. Joseph denied Bennett’s version.

Apparently Joseph also proposed to Sarah Pratt. One story was voiced by John C. Bennett that claimed Joseph had tried to seduce her. Apparently Sarah and Bennett had been sexually involved. Their allegations against Joseph were an attempt to cover up their own immorality. Joseph later confided to Orson Pratt, that Sarah “lied about me.” Orson later acknowledged that Joseph had told the truth (see Sydney Rigdon, “Tour East,” Messenger and Advocate of the Church of Christ, [Pittsburgh] 2 December 1845, 2:1).

It is likely that if Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt had kept silent about Joseph’s proposals, the public scandals that followed would have been avoided.

Joseph Smith considered himself a genuine husband to his plural wives. Evidence supports that fact that Joseph considered himself married to his plural wives with all the obligations incumbent upon husbands including the revelation that specified: “Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance” (D&C 83:2). While little is known concerning Joseph Smith’s day-to-day interactions with his plural wives, the historical record indicates he treated them as genuine spouses, and they viewed him as their eternal husband.

Historians Newell Linda King and Valeen Tippetts Avery wrote: “No evidence exists that [Joseph] assumed the support of his wives in the traditional sense of providing them with food, clothing, and shelter, except for the young women in his house” ((Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1984, 147). However, King and Avery also note that their material needs were met: “Some remained with their parents; others lived with other plural wives; a few lived with other families where plural marriage was also practiced. Their personal accounts attest that, for the most part, they felt Joseph cared for them deeply, and they felt important to him” (Ibid.).

Reportedly, Joseph asked members of the Quorum of the Twelve to marry his widowed wives and to take care of them, should he ever be killed. Apparently, following Joseph’s death, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and the rest of the Quorum of Twelve apostles approached the widows of Joseph Smith and offered themselves as husbands.

Possible motivations for Joseph Smith’s marrying so many plural wives. During the thirty-one months between April 1841 and November 1843, Joseph was sealed to thirty-three wives (with Fanny Alger in Kirtland in 1835 the total is thirty-four). One may well wonder why Joseph married so many women when two or three wives might have fulfilled the reported divine command to enter polygamy. The following reasons have been suggested:

1. We have already mentioned the sword-bearing angel that commanded him to practice plural marriage. The various recollections state that the angel demanded the Prophet to “establish that principle upon the earth,” to be “obedient,” to “proceed to fulfill the law that had been given to him,” to “no longer delay fulfilling that command,” to “move forward and establish plural marriage,” “to have women sealed to him as wives . . . and obey the commandment.” Specific details of what the angel required of him, however, are not known. If details were imparted, the Prophet did not share them. Was there a specific number of wives the Prophet was expected by the angel to marry? Would “eternity only” sealings (effective only in the next life) suffice? Was Joseph expected to have children with his plural wives (or at least try)? Answers to these questions are simply unavailable.

2. Libido—to provide more opportunities for sexual experience. There is evidence he did have sexual relations with nine of his plural wives, and possibly with another five. There is no credible evidence for relations with the other twenty.

There is no evidence that Joseph ever had sexual relations with (1) women to whom he was not married; (2) women sealed for the next life only (“eternity only” sealings); (3) his two fourteen-year-old plural wives; and (4) with women married to and living with their husbands.

Even though Joseph taught that sexual relations were justified and expected in polygamous unions in order “to multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:6), this was not the primary reason for plurality in his theology. Also, it does not appear that conjugal relations were a common occurrence in the Prophet’s life in Nauvoo. Opportunities for Joseph to spend intimate time with his plural wives would have been limited by many factors including his parenting responsibilities, his duties as church president, his obligations as mayor and chief judge of the Nauvoo Municipal Court, his role as Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, the scrutiny of dissenters and unbelievers, and Emma’s vigilant and mostly intolerant eyes.

Evidence supports that he and Emma lived an outwardly monogamous lifestyle, especially during the last eight months of his life. That sexual relations were uncommon is also evidenced by the observation that only one or two (and possibly three) pregnancies have been documented with any degree of reliability. One child was born to Sylvia Sessions in 1844. She lived out her life as Josephine Lyon in Bountiful, Utah. The second child was born to Olive Frost and did not live long or may have miscarried. The identity of a third child remains unknown, if in fact a third baby was born to one of Joseph’s plural wives.

3. Physical attraction and/or romantic love. The question naturally arises as to whether romantic or physical attraction influenced his decisions regarding to whom to propose. Joseph believed plural marriage had been restored to the earth and was a legitimate practice, legitimate in the eyes of God. Under such circumstances, he seemed to have experienced no moral qualms about contracting new polygamous unions for the same reasons monogamists choose to marry. It is probable that emotional and physical attraction played a part in some of his plural relationships. If it were a non-issue, then Joseph would have been abnormal. However, one of Joseph’s plural wives, Lucy Walker did say, “Men did not take polygamous wives because they loved them or fancied them or because they were voluptuous [sensually pleasing], but because it was a command of God” (“Talks of Polygamy,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 24, 1899).

4. An idea sprang up in the early Church that the greater number of women a man married, the greater the man’s exaltation. This idea also became prevalent among “Mormon fundamentalists.” However, it does not appear that Joseph Smith or other church leaders ever plainly proclaimed this principle to be true. Nor is this idea supported by observing Old Testament polygamists. Noah was a monogamist. Abraham adopted the practice only slowly and reluctantly. And Jacob (Israel) stopped at four plural wives. Joseph saw himself as restoring Old Testament plural marriage (D&C 132:1-2), but available accounts do not seem to support that ancient patriarchs believed that more wives were forever better than fewer.

Another concern stems from the apparent disadvantage the doctrine would place on the righteous monogamist peoples, like those of the Book of Mormon or the New Testament. It would also appear to everlastingly compromise the wives themselves through no fault of their own. For example, would the second wife of a man with three plural spouses receive less eternal reward than a woman who was the fourth wife of a man with four? It is not clear that any such doctrine ever existed.

5. Dynastic connections. Some writers have suggested that another primary motive of Joseph’s was to marry a wife to form a “dynastic” connection between him and the family of the woman. They felt Joseph foresaw how his marriages would connect the families of the most faithful in this life and in the next. For some reviewers, the best evidence for the phenomenon is found in the case of Helen Mar Kimball, the daughter of Heber C. Kimball. In her 1881 autobiography, Helen Mar wrote that her father had “a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, [so] he offered me to him.”

The primary problem with this idea is that no clear teachings of Joseph Smith declare special blessings to extended family members of the described “dynasty.”

6. “Proxy husbands.” One interesting accusation against Joseph Smith asserts that he sent men on missions so he could marry their wives or possibly assume the role of a “proxy husband” for the missionary while he was away. Despite the accusations, available historical data fail to support that the Prophet deliberately dispatched men as missionaries to create “church widows,” whom he could approach with plural marriage proposals. Of Joseph’s thirteen “polyandrous” marriages, the husbands of three were suggested to have been on a mission at the time. These were Orson Hyde, George Harris, and Albert Smith. However, uncertainties about the sealing dates of all three to Joseph render impossible any conclusions. Also Joseph always taught that any form of sexual polyandry was adultery.

It is ludicrous to believe that men called on missions, who faced all the challenges that confronted them as missionaries traveling across the country and perhaps the world enduring persecutions and deprivations, would tolerate being told: “By the way, here’s Brother Jones. He’s going to be sleeping with your wife while you are away as her proxy husband.” There is no record of such a thing ever happening or being mentioned.

7. Premortal promises. A hypothetical concept, popular in recent decades among some Latter-day Saints is that premortal spirits could experience romantic attractions and subsequently make premortal promises to “find each other” during mortality. This idea was popularized in the LDS musical, Saturday’s Warrior. The Idea of such premortal marital promises constitutes an unorthodox teaching among LDS Church members today.

The only example of this possible phenomenon among Joseph’s plural wives is found in a recollection from Mary Elizabeth Lightner who remembered Joseph telling her: “I was created for him before the foundation of the earth was laid” (summer 1905 letter to Emmeline Wells. See Mary Elizabeth Lightner collection, CHL. She also recalled her own feelings that potentially could have been a reflection of a premortal promise: “I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife” (remarks at Brigham Young University, April 14, 1905).

8. Women may have sought to be sealed to Joseph Smith. Specific evidence supports that at least one woman personally sought to be sealed to Joseph Smith. This was Ruth Vose Sayers. She was probably sealed to Joseph for “eternity only” (see below).

The precise dynamics underlying Joseph’s incentives for being sealed to thirtyfour wives remain unclear. To reduce it to a single motivation would probably oversimplify the process. He unfortunately left no record concerning his personal thoughts and feelings regarding plural marriage.

#Notes on Joseph’s Plural Wives

It is notable that none of Joseph’s plural wives complained that he had abused or deceived them. None left a record reflecting disdain concerning his treatment of her. In later years, none of the Prophet’s plural wives sought to discredit him in any way. Even seven of his wives that left the Church did not write exposés or other criticisms of Joseph Smith. None accused Joseph of being a seducing imposter. None wrote that Joseph Smith’s polygamy was a sham or a cover-up for illicit sexual relations. If any had been critical of him, numerous anti-Mormon publishers would have been eager to print their allegations. Even those wives who left the faith seem to have maintained respect for the Prophet. Many exposés were written, but not by any of the actual participants. It appears that Joseph Smith’s plural wives viewed his polygamy very differently than cynics do today. Let us consider briefly each of Joseph’s plural wives:

Fanny Alger. Fanny was born on September 20, 1816. She was one of ten children born to Samuel Alger and Clarissa Hancock Alger. She most likely moved into the Smith home as a domestic to help Emma some time in 1834. Emma accepted and loved Fanny as if she were her own daughter.

Joseph had received the revelation on plural marriage in early 1831. Yet, he was extremely reluctant to enter into the practice of polygamy until commanded to do so by a heavenly messenger. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, who joined the Church in 1830 and was a confidant of the Prophet in some of these matters, quoted him as saying (already alluded to above) that the angel came “three times between the years of [18]34 and [18]42.” Joseph endeavored to reason with the heavenly being, stating that the Book of Mormon taught that to take plural wives was “an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things [monogamy] except the Lord speak.” But the angel declared: “Thus saith the Lord, the time has now come that I will raise up seed unto me as I spoke by my servant Jacob, as is recorded in the Book of Mormon [see Jacob 2:27-30]” (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrines of the Kingdom. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 471-72). Apparently, on those three occasions the angel of God stood by Joseph with a drawn sword, and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his priesthood would be taken from him and he would be destroyed!

The first of these warning visits came in 1834 while Joseph was procrastinating taking his first plural wife. He finally gave in and decided to enter into a polygamous relationship with Fanny Alger. After he approached Fanny, she expressed her willingness. There is general agreement that Fanny’s parents had been informed of the concept of plural marriage and were enthusiastically supportive of the marriage. Joseph had Levi Hancock perform the ceremony in 1835. All indications are that it was a priesthood marriage for “time only.” So far as is known, Joseph’s only stated justification for entering into this polygamous union was that he was restoring Old Testament polygamy. There was no mention of sealing for eternity. The sealing keys had yet to be restored. They would not be restored by Elijah in the Kirtland Temple until April 3, 1836.

It then seems most likely that Emma, noting that Joseph and Fanny were missing from home one evening sought them out and found them in the Smith barn. It is not clear exactly what she saw, but she became hysterical. In a rage, she drove Fanny out of her home. Emma was so upset that Joseph, in desperation, sent for Oliver Cowdery at midnight to see if Oliver might help him make peace with Emma. What role Oliver may have played, if any, to reduce the emotional mayhem is unclear. To Oliver, Joseph explained he was not having an adulterous affair but said he had taken Fanny as a plural wife. And his actions were part of the effort to restore the Old Testament practice of polygamy. Oliver did not accept this explanation and remained thereafter disgusted with the situation and dubious about Joseph’s proffered justifications. Oliver’s critical and refractory attitude about the situation would eventually result in his excommunication from the Church.

Eliza R. Snow was knowledgeable about the truth of the situation since she lived in the Smith home at the time Emma discovered Fanny’s pregnancy. She had moved into the Joseph Smith home in 1835. There she taught a school for the Smith children and others. She was personally acquainted with Fanny, and she knew and would later reveal that Fanny was a plural wife of Joseph’s. Both Emma and Oliver were told the truth about Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. Researcher Don Bradley concluded “Eliza’s late, but firsthand and friendly, testimony concurs on this point with Oliver Cowdery’s hostile but roughly contemporaneous statements. When intimate friend and intimate foe agree on the basic facts of Joseph Smith behavior, we have reason to trust their accuracy” (Analysis of Documents 1-18. Andrew Jenson Papers MS 17956, Box 49, fd. 16 Church History Library).

When the relationship between Joseph and Fanny first came to light, rumors spread and most of those privy to the rumors assumed Joseph had been having an adulterous affair with her. Joseph was able to defuse this notion by publicly and repeatedly denying he had committed adultery. The Lord had not yet allowed that the practice of plural marriage be vouchsafed to the Church at large, so Joseph was left with the awkward necessity of simply denying any adultery on his part. Apparently the members of the Church who heard his denials were left thinking that Joseph was denying any sexual relationship whatever with Fanny.

On being rejected from the Smith home, Fanny knew she was finished with Joseph. She lived briefly in the home of Chauncy and Eliza Churchill Webb. Soon thereafter Fanny left Kirtland and the Church never to return. Later that same year she moved with her family to Missouri and then to Wayne County, Indiana. There she quickly married a non-member Solomon Custer. She would bear nine children prior to her death. There is no record of her having given birth to Joseph’s child which is puzzling. Perhaps the child was born, but its paternity was obscured by being assimilated into the new family.

Fanny’s parents and at least one brother, John, followed the body of the saints to Nauvoo in 1839. They also joined the migration west in 1846 and settled in southern Utah where Fanny’s parents died in the 1870s. Fanny’s parents’ continued faithfulness would be less likely had Joseph violated his own publicly declared standards of sexual morality with their daughter. Nothing in Joseph’s behavior with their daughter seemed to weaken the Algers’ faith in the restoration.

As for Fanny herself, according to Benjamin Johnson, “She did not turn from the Church nor from her friendship for the Prophet while she lived. Late in life she reportedly rebuffed questions about her relationship with Joseph Smith: “That is all a matter of my own, and I have nothing to communicate” (Dean R. Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets” An Analysis of the Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George R. Gibbs, Reporting Doctrinal Views of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1976, 33). There is other evidence that Fanny joined the Universalist Church in 1874 and remained a member of that church until her death. She died in 1889, in Indiana.

The marital relationship of Fanny and Joseph was unique in that it was not a part of the knowledge of celestial and plural marriage yet to be revealed in Nauvoo. It is probable that between 1831 and 1835 Joseph knew that Old Testament polygamy was acceptable to God and would need to be restored, but he was unaware of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage with all its associated doctrines and implications. Even when he received the keys of sealing in 1836, he may not have, at that time, realized its full significance. The Prophet would gain more insight into this doctrine over the ensuing years until he was finally able to share the doctrine privately with a few others in Nauvoo in 1841.

One question relates to the ceremony performed by Levi Hancock in marrying Fanny Alger and Joseph. Though several individuals subsequently referred to this ceremony as a “sealing,” that reference is probably anachronistic since the keys of sealing would not be restored until April 1836. Obviously civil law would not ratify a bigamous marriage. Levi was not acting with the authority by which plural marriages were later sealed in Nauvoo. All of this notwithstanding, it is likely that “priesthood authority” was invoked to perform a ceremony that “gentile law” would not allow.

There later developed a belief in Nauvoo that all eternal sealing ceremonies performed outside of a temple, whether monogamous or polygamous, would need to be repeated within temple walls (with the same individuals present or by proxy) at some point. By this logic, the Joseph Smith—Fanny Alger plural marriage would also have needed to be re-performed within a temple in order to have become an eternal marriage. There is no evidence this was ever accomplished for Fanny and Joseph, attesting to the basically different nature of their marriage. It had been for “time only.”

William McLellin caused some confusion when he wrote a letter, in 1872, to Joseph Smith III, wherein he recalled a conversation he had had with Emma in 1847. In the letter he referred to Emma’s catching Joseph in the act of having a sexual relationship with both a “Miss Hill” and Fanny Alger at the Smith home (William E. McLellin in a July 1872 letter to the Smith’s eldest son, Joseph III, Community of Christ Archives, copy in Church History Library). There is no additional evidence that Joseph had a relationship with a woman named “Hill” at Kirtland or at any time in his life. Richard L. Anderson concurs: “I cannot find a possible ‘Miss Hill’ in Kirtland, nor is there any verification of the story” (Richard L. Anderson to Dawn Comfort, May 9-15, 1998, copy of letter in Scott H. Faulring Papers, box 93 fds 1-3, accn 2316, Marriott Library).

More recent research has also failed to find any evidence of a “Miss Hill” in the Smith home at any time or to identify any likely candidate whom McLellin might have been referencing. Three years after his letter was written, McLellin was interviewed by anti- Mormon newspaperman, J. H. Beadle. In that interview McLellin told of only one incident “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!” (J. H. Beadle, “Jackson County,” Salt Lake Tribune, volume 9, number 147, October 6, 1875, 4). Obviously Beadle would have been elated to include two allegations of Kirtland “sealings.” Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery hypothesized regarding the confusion surrounding the identity of “Miss Hill”: “Perhaps, in his old age, William McLellin confused the hired girl, Fanny Alger, with Fanny Hill of John Cleland’s 1749 novel and came up with the hired girl, Miss Hill” (Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1984, 66).

In retrospect, the Joseph Smith—Fanny Alger relationship wrought havoc in the lives of several individuals and in the Church. Both Emma and Fanny were traumatized. Oliver Cowdery was also alienated. As already mentioned, his involvement in the situation would contribute to his eventual excommunication. In addition, the Prophet was also traumatized. Accusations of “adultery” required urgent specific damage control efforts by the Prophet to suppress an expanding crisis in the Church.

Louisa Beaman. Born February 7, 1815. After Fanny Alger, Joseph did not marry another woman until he was sealed to Louisa Beaman on April 5, 1841, in Nauvoo. She died in 1850, in Utah.

Zina Diantha Huntington. Born January 31, 1821. She was sealed to Joseph October 27, 1841. She was married to Henry B. Jacobs March 7, 1841 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Jacobs was a member of the Church who had been baptized in 1832. Henry stood as a witness as Zina was married to Joseph for eternity and to Brigham Young for “time” on February 2, 1846. She died in 1901, in Utah.

Presendia Lathrop Huntington. Born September 7, 1810. She was sealed to Joseph December 11, 1841. She was married to Norman Buell on January 6, 1827, and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Buell was a member of the Church who had been baptized in 1836. He became disaffected and left the Church in 1838. He continued to live with Presendia. He became an avid anti-Mormon and would have persuaded her, if possible, to leave the Church, but she remained firm and steadfast. She died in 1892, in Utah.

Agnes Moulton Coolbrith. Born 1811. She was sealed to Joseph January 6, 1842. She died in 1876, in California. She was the widow of Don Carlos Smith. After Joseph’s death, she married a member, William Pickett. Pickett eventually left the Church and transported his family to California. Despite her geographic estrangement from the Church, Agnes remained in contact with various church members throughout her life.

Agnes’s daughter, Ina Coolbrith, was critical of the Church and of polygamy. She wrote to her cousin, Apostle Joseph F. Smith on July 22, 1857 quoting several scriptures and expressing her willingness to gather to Jackson County or Nauvoo, but not to Salt Lake City. Her words reflect a belief in the restoration, but she openly argued: “Is polygamy not spoken of as a crime there.” Her mother, Agnes, added a postscript of her own to the letter, but said nothing about Joseph and polygamy.

In 1876, just months before her death, Agnes was visited in California by David and Alexander Smith (two sons of Joseph and Emma) who were on a missionary journey, promoting their anti-polygamist RLDS religion. They were undoubtedly surprised by what “Aunt Agnes” had to say. Lucy Walker visited Agnes eight years later and wrote that Agnes challenged the “boys” testimonies by recalling earlier events in her own life. They pretended not to believe but were clearly moved by her testimony. Reportedly, her last words were “O! what a dupe I have been; what a dupe I have been! Agnes’s daughter interpreted this as referring to her association with Mormonism while Agnes’s nephew, Apostle Joseph F. Smith, believed it a reference to marriage to William Pickett and her separation from the Church.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. Born April 9, 1818. She was sealed to Joseph in February 1842. She was married to Adam Lightner on August 11, 1836 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. He was not a church member and remained a non-member his entire life. She died in 1913, in Utah.

Patty Bartlett. Born February 4, 1795. She was sealed to Joseph March 9, 1842. She was married to David Sessions on June 28, 1812, and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. He was a member of the Church and had been baptized in 1834. David married two wives polygamously and largely abandoned Patty. She died in 1892, in Utah.

Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde. Born June 28, 1815. There are two sealing dates to Joseph: April 1842 and May 1843. She married Orson Hyde September 4, 1834 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Orson was a church member and a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. He was dropped from the Quorum of Twelve and disfellowshipped from the Church in early May of 1839 but reinstated just seven weeks later in late June of 1839. When two sealing dates are suggested by historical data, perhaps a first was for “eternity only” and then a later second sealing was for “time and eternity.” There is insufficient historical data available in this case to explain why the two sealings were done. Marinda divorced Orson in 1870. She died in 1886, in Utah.

Elizabeth Davis. Born March 11, 1791. Her sealing date to Joseph is unknown. She was married to Jabez Durfee March 3, 1834 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Jabez was a member of the Church. Jabez and Elizabeth divorced prior to January 1846.

Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring believe the evidence for Elizabeth Davis’s being included on the list of Joseph Smith’s list of wives is not compelling. However, her name was added to the list personally by Eliza R. Snow. Elizabeth followed the westward movement as far as Winter Quarters, but then she departed form the migrating saints and turned back to Illinois. During the 1850s she visited Salt Lake City. Elizabeth lived out the remainder of her life with her son. Ironically, in the late 1860s she and her son were baptized into the RLDS Church, despite its official position that Joseph did not practice plural marriage. She died as a member of the RLDS faith, whose president Joseph Smith III vehemently denied that his father had ever practiced polygamy. Perhaps Elizabeth came to believe that polygamy was wrong by the time she became a “Reorganite,” or perhaps she simply felt drawn to her old friend Emma Smith and Emma’s children (who were associated with the RLDS faith). She remains one of the most interesting of Joseph’s wives, a puzzle only partially solved. She died in 1876, in Kansas.

Sarah Merietta Kingsley Cleveland. Born October 20, 1788. Her sealing date to Joseph is unknown. She was married to non-Mormon John Cleveland who refused to migrate west. She was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. A letter from John L. Smith to the First Presidency, March 8, 1895, supports that Sarah was sealed to Joseph for “eternity only.” The letter read: “Mother . . . Cleveland by advice, was sealed to the Prophet in Nauvoo but lived with her husband John Cleveland” (D. Michael Quinn Papers). The author of this letter was likely John Lyman Smith (1823- 1898), who was both a son-in-law to Sarah Merietta Kingsley Cleveland and a first cousin to Joseph Smith. John Cleveland was friendly to the Church initially but later became embittered. When the Latter-day saints pulled out for the Rocky Mountains, Sarah joined them, leaving her husband behind. However, church leaders Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball counseled her to return to John in Illinois. She obeyed the counsel and stayed with her husband. One biographer wrote that she was faithful and true to her religion and died a faithful member of the Church. Another wrote, however, that prior to her death in 1856 she joined a revivalist religion. Admittedly, it would have been difficult to live as a Latter-day Saint in Illinois without the support of other members of the Church. It is possible that her outward membership in a local Protestant congregation may not have changed her spiritual views significantly. She died in 1856, in Illinois.

Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris. Born September 7, 1801. Her sealing date to Joseph is unknown. She was married to George Harris on December 3, 1830 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. George Harris was baptized a member of the Church in 1834 and served on Nauvoo High Council. He was divorced from Lucinda by 1853.

A few authors wrote that Lucinda apostatized, joined a Catholic convent in the 1860s, and worked in a hospital during the Civil War. But evidence supporting this is thin. Recently discovered evidence proves that she died at the home of her daughter, Mrs. Lucinda Wesley Smith in Memphis, Tennessee in 1856, thus rendering untenable the theory that she was in any way connected with a convent and with the Civil War.

Delcena Johnson. Sealed to Joseph prior to July 1842. She was the former wife of Lyman Sherman, a dedicated member of the Church. Sherman’s crowning achievement in the Church was to be designated as a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles, but he died of an illness in February 1839 in Far West, Missouri, before he could be notified of his call. Delcena died in 1854, in Utah.

Eliza R. Snow. Born January 21, 1804. She was sealed to Joseph June 29, 1842. She died in 1887, in Utah.

Sarah Ann Whitney. Born March 22, 1825. She was sealed to Joseph July 27, 1842. She was married to Joseph C. Kingsbury on April 29, 1843 several months after she was sealed to Joseph.

This is the only polyandrous relationship formed in which the civil marriage occurred following the sealing to Joseph Smith. In this civil marriage, Joseph Kingsbury was simply a “front husband.” He married Sarah Ann at the request of Joseph apparently to dispel suspicions then focused on the Prophet. There apparently was a time when law officers were seeking evidence of Joseph’s polygamous relationships. A plural wife of Joseph’s could feign legal matrimony to someone else in order to shield him from suspicions from those law officers. Kingsbury was a member of the Church. Apparently, it was understood that Sarah Ann and Kingsbury would never consummate the union. She died in 1873, in Utah.

A colorful addendum to this story is that years later in 1880, Kingsbury submitted a bill to the Church for his financial support of Sarah Ann. On November 23, 1880, Kingsbury asked President John Taylor that $8,000 “be remitted in consideration of services he had rendered in Nauvoo, and after leaving there, to the Prophet Joseph, in keeping one of his wives, Sarah Whitney, daughter of Bishop N. K. Whitney” (L. John Nuttall, Notes for J. Taylor Office Journal, HDC, d1346). It is doubtful that President Taylor ever paid this “debt.” There may have been other “front husbands” during Joseph’s polygamy experiences.

Martha McBride. Born March 17, 1805. She was sealed to Joseph during the summer 1842. She died in 1901, in Utah.

Sylvia Porter Sessions. Born July 31, 1818. She was sealed to Joseph between November 29, 1842 and approximately May 18, 1843. She was married to Windsor Lyon April 21, 1838. He was a member of the Church but excommunicated in November 1842. He was rebaptized in January 1846 following Joseph’s death. Windsor fathered three children with Sylvia prior to his excommunication and two after his 1846 rebaptism. The only child conceived while he was out of the Church was Josephine who was probably the daughter of Joseph Smith.

Ruth Vose Sayers. She was sealed to Joseph in February 1843. She was married to Edward Sayers on January 23, 1841 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Her sealing to Joseph was probably an “eternity only” sealing. Sayers was not a church member, but lived among the saints until his death. Edward did not believe in an eternal life hereafter, and there is evidence that Edward conceived the idea that his wife should be sealed to Joseph. She died in 1884, in Utah.

Flora Ann Woodworth. She was sealed to Joseph during the spring of 1843. Joseph presented her with a gold watch. A few months later there was a confrontation between Emma and Flora Ann. Emma demanded a return of the gold watch. Flora reacted radically to the quarrel by marrying Carlos Gove, a non-member, the very next day (Andrew Jenson Papers, ca. 1871-1942, MS 17956; LDS Church Archives, Box 49, folder 16, document #14). The prophet gave his consent to this marriage and allowed Flora to separate from (divorce) him without any public repercussions.

Carlos Gove turned out to be an anti-Mormon. She received her endowment in the Nauvoo Temple on January 17, 1846 and a temple sealing to Joseph Smith by

th

proxy on February 4 . Despite her husband’s dislike for the Church, Flora convinced him to accompany the migration. They got as far as Winter Quarters where they remained. Flora had confided, prior to her death, that she had never been happy with her husband, and intended to cling to the Prophet. She died in 1850, in Iowa.

Emily Dow Partridge. Born February 28, 1824. She was sealed to Joseph March 4 and May 11, 1843. She died in 1899, in Utah.

Eliza Maria Partridge. Born April 20, 1820. She was sealed to Joseph March 4 and May 11, 1843. She died in 1886, in Utah.

Almera Woodard Johnson. She was sealed to Joseph April 1843. She died in 1896, in Utah.

Lucy Walker. Born April 30, 1826. She was sealed to Joseph May 1, 1843. She died in 1910, in Utah.

Maria Lawrence. Born December 18, 1823. She was sealed to Joseph May 1843. She died in 1847, in Illinois.

Sarah Lawrence. Born May 13, 1826. She was sealed to Joseph in May 1843. She died in 1872, in California. She is the only one of Joseph thirty-four plural wives who appears to have openly denied a relationship with him in later life. She married a dissipated character who initially claimed to be “a Mormon.” She became embittered against the Church and on a visit to Salt Lake City, she denied any prior association with the prophet and became angry when others disputed her word. She returned to California, and died there.

Helen Mar Kimball. Born August 25, 1828. Sealed to Joseph May 1843 when she was only fourteen years of age. She died in 1896, in Utah.

Hannah Ells. She was sealed to Joseph prior to the summer 1843. She died in 1845, in Illinois.

Elvira Annie Cowles. Born November 23, 1813. She was sealed to Joseph June 1, 1843. She was married to Jonathan Holmes on December 1, 1842 and was married at the time she was sealed to Joseph. Jonathan was baptized a member of the Church in 1832. He was a faithful church member, serving as a bodyguard and pallbearer to the Prophet. He stood as proxy when Elvira was sealed to Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple. It is possible Jonathan may have been a “front husband” to Elvira just as Joseph C. Kingsbury was a “front husband” to Sarah Ann Whitney. She died in 1871, in Utah.

Rhoda Richards. Born August 8, 1784. She was sealed to Joseph June 12, 1843. She died in 1879, in Utah.

Desdemona Fullmer. Born October 6, 1809. She was sealed to Joseph in July 1843. She died in 1886, in Utah.

` Olive G. Frost. Born 1820-23. She was sealed to Joseph in the summer of 1843. She died in 1845, in Illinois.

Malissa (Melissa) Lott. Born January 9, 1824. She was sealed to Joseph September 20, 1843. She died in 1898, in Utah.

Nancy Maria Winchester. Born August 10, 1828. Her sealing date to Joseph is unknown. She was sealed to Joseph when she was fourteen (or possibly 15) years of age. She died in 1876, in Utah.

Esther Dutcher Smith. Born January 25, 1811. Her sealing date to Joseph is unknown. She was married to Albert Smith on May 17, 1826 and was married to him at the time she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph. She died in 1856, in Utah.

Fanny Murray Young. She was sealed to Joseph on November 2, 1843. Fanny was Brigham Young’s widowed older sister. She is thought by some to be Joseph’s last plural wife. She died in 1859, in Utah.

Some historians have included other women as possible wives of the Prophet, though evidence is weak or absent. These include Vienna Jacques, Hannah Ann Dubois, Sarah Bapson, Mrs. G******, Sarah Scott, Mary Houston, Mrs. Tailor, Mary Heron, and Mary Ann Frost.

#Did Joseph’s Polygamous Marriages Include Sexual Relations?

The Prophet taught that one reason for polygamy was “to multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63). Hence, Joseph taught that sexual relations were justified and expected in polygamous unions. Evidence of sexual relations, however, is lacking or unpersuasive in four groups: (1) women to whom Joseph Smith was not married; (2) women sealed for the next life only, that is, “eternity only” sealings; (3) in his sealings to two fourteen-year-old wives; and (4) in situations of polyandry.

Though sexuality was permitted in Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, it does not appear that conjugal interactions were a common occurrence. Opportunities for Joseph to spend intimate time with his plural wives would have been limited by many factors including his parenting responsibilities with Emma, his preoccupation with church and civic matters, the constant need for secrecy, the scrutiny of dissenters and unbelievers, and Emma’s mostly intolerant watchfulness. Emily Partridge recalled:

We [Emily and Eliza Partridge] were sealed [to Joseph] in her presence with her full and free consent. It was the 11th of May, but before the day was over she turned around or repented of what she had done and kept Joseph up till very late in the night talking to him. She kept close watch of us. If we were missing for a few minutes, and Joseph was not at home, the house was searched from top to bottom and from one end to the other, and if we were not found, the neighborhood was searched until we were found (Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the Early Life of Emily Dow Partridge,” 5, in Marriott Library, Special Collections. See also Emily D. P. Young, autobiographical sketch, “Written Especially for My Children, January 7, 1877,” manuscript owned by Emily Young Knopp).

Reliable firsthand accounts in four cases and credible secondhand accounts in another five relationships are available and suggest that Joseph had sexual relations with the following plural wives: Fanny Alger, Louisa Beaman, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Woodard Johnson, Lucy Walker, Sylvia Sessions, Malissa Lott, and Olive Frost.

In five other relationships there is some historical evidence of sexual relationships, but the evidence suffers from ambiguities or other problems. These include: Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney, Hannah Ells, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence.

Evidence regarding any possible physical relationship between Joseph and his other plural wives is lacking.

#Children of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

That sexual relations were uncommon is also reflected by the observation that only two or three pregnancies have been mentioned, and only two have been documented with any degree of reliability. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated: “I know he [Joseph] had three children. . . . They are not known as his children as they go by other names” (“Remarks” at Brigham Young University, April 14, 1905, Harold B. Lee Library Special Collections). Current research supports the idea that one daughter, Josephine Lyon, was born to Sylvia Sessions in 1845. Also a child was born to Olive Frost that did not live long or may have miscarried.

Most of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were fertile and young—capable of conception if the timing was right. The Prophet was virile, having fathered nine children with Emma despite their long periods of time apart and challenging schedules.

Antagonists and tabloids argued that several other children were born to Joseph and his plural wives, but their existence was kept secret. However, decades after the martyrdom when RLDS missionaries were claiming that Joseph was not a polygamist, and Utah Church authorities were aggressively combating their claims, it is probable that if they (the Utah Church) would have known of any children fathered by the Prophet with his plural wives, they would have publicly acknowledged it. No convincing evidence has been found to support a third child born to the Prophet’s plural wives, despite intense research by multiple investigators.

#The “Naturalistic” View of Joseph’s Plural Marriages: “Joseph Was in it for the Sex”

Much of the controversy surrounding plural marriage centers on the question, “Just what motivated Joseph Smith to teach and practice plural marriage?” It is interesting and revealing to note that the most common answer advanced by critics is that he wanted to expand his sexual opportunities. This cynical view has been proclaimed in the vast majority of publications, early and recent, that have addressed the topic. The number of these is prodigious. For those who do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, it would be illogical to conclude otherwise. Richard L. Bushman in his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) wrote: “Polygamy is an interesting thing because it serves as a Rorschach test. People project onto Joseph Smith and polygamists their own sense about human nature.” And, I would add that their sense of human nature come from their sense of themselves.

It should be noted that all of these allegations, mostly by anti-Mormons, are not backed by evidence. In the decades following Joseph’s death, hundreds of authors accused Joseph and the other men in the Church of immoral and unrestrained behavior in their practice of polygamy. Most are sensationalized, and all go beyond all available evidence. It is interesting to note that there were no such accusations prior to 1842 when John C. Bennett wrote his exposé, The History of the Saints; or, an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842).

#Alleged Sexual Involvement of Joseph Smith with Women Who Were Not his Plural Wives

Twenty-six different individuals have accused Joseph Smith of sexual involvement with women to whom he was not married. By the Prophet’s own teachings, such relations would have been considered to be adulterous unions (D&C 42:22-24; 63:14-19; 132:43). Below, I will name and briefly discuss each of these accusers. We claim that Joseph never committed adultery and these accusations are simply anti-

Mormon propaganda raised by the enemies of the Church. The following are reasons why their charges are untenable and false:

1. It is curious that all of the allegations raised are from published accounts rather than from private individual manuscripts such as journals, diaries, or letters from alleged victims or their immediate families. That is, none exist as part of a confidential communication between a victim and her family or her friends. No woman, herself, ever claimed that Joseph Smith tried to seduce her to have sexual relations and succeeded. It appears that each accusation was brought to light as a reiteration of published accusations originating from Joseph’s enemies.

2. None of the accusers provide a second witness, even though many of the charges reportedly involved multiple alleged indiscretions that could have easily been witnessed by other interested parties.

3. Joseph’s reported brazenness in many of the accounts directly contradicts his well-known patterns of behavior. Available historical accounts suggest that when dealing with his polygamous wives, he always emphasized and maintained confidentiality and discretion. The principle of polygamy prior to his death had not yet been announced to the Church and thus, by instructions from the Lord, was to be kept secret. To his plural wife Sarah Whitney and her parents, he stressed: “Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible. I know it is a heroic undertaking . . . Burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all [herein] locked up in your breast. My life depends upon it” (Joseph Smith to Newel K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Whitney. 18 August 1842, copy of holograph in possession of the Brian C. Hales. Quoted by Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1984, 539-40). After teaching Joseph B. Noble of plural marriage, Joseph said “In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands” (Joseph B. Noble in Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 1:38, 1869, CA MS 3423 fd 5). Emily Dow Partridge remembered that regarding plural marriage in Nauvoo: “Everything was so secret” (“Incidents of the life of a Mormon Girl,” n.d. MS d 5220 fd 2, CA). Sometime after the Prophet’s assassination, his plural wives became aware of each other, forming personal friendships that probably did not exist in Nauvoo because of the clandestine nature of polygamy practiced there. On April 28, 1886, Emily wrote to fellow plural wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner: “Of course you heard of my sister Eliza’s death. Also Sister Marinda Hyde’s death, Desdamona Fullmer has passed away also, all went pretty near together. It seems as if Joseph was calling his family home” (Emily Dow Partridge Young to Mary Elizabeth Lightner, April 28, 1886, copy of holograph in LKNC, Marriott Library, University of Utah). In all known research documents, caution and secrecy were maintained and appear to have guided his personal interactions that dealt with marriage and sexuality.

4. Brian C. Hales, who has reviewed all available documents containing accusations of Joseph’s committing adultery with women to whom he was not married, has concluded, “In summary, I have yet to identify any convincing evidence in historical record that Joseph Smith was sexually involved with a non-wife.”

The twenty-six accusers. Ordinarily, I would not think it necessary to review each of the twenty-six accusers who charged Joseph Smith with gross sexual misconduct. It should be sufficient to know that there were several anti-Mormons who did so accuse him. However, I have chosen to briefly discuss each accuser to give the reader a feeling for who they were, the type of people they were, for their credibility, and for their motives in making their accusations. This specific review has been at once both enlightening and comforting to me.

1. Levi Lewis. He was the son of Emma’s uncle Nathaniel Lewis, a Methodist minister. He wrote that he had “been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, and that he has heard them both say, adultery was no crime” (“Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register and Northern Pennsylvanian, May 1, 1834; quoted in Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed [sic], Painesville: by the author, 1834, 268-69 and by Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002, 4:296-97). The entire quote was: “Levi Lewis states, that he has “been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, and that he has heard them both say, adultery was no crime. Harris said he did not blame Smith his (Smith’s) attempt to seduce Eliza Winters &c . . . With regard to the plates, Smith said God had deceived him—which was the reason he (Smith) did not show them.”

Such a recollection greatly contrasts with numerous other public and private evidences showing that Joseph Smith taught and practiced a rigorous moral standard. Also, that such hypocrisy would have been unnoticed by others would be most surprising. The Book of Mormon sexual standard that placed extra-marital relations next to murder in severity (Alma 39:5) was well known to Latter-day Saints in 1843.

Another problematic part of the quote is its statement that Joseph “did not show” the golden plates to others. He obviously did show them to others including the three and eight witnesses. Thus, this part of the statement is obviously blatantly false.

Third, it is unclear whether Levi Lewis was ever positioned to witness the two men (Martin Harris and Joseph Smith) making declarations they would later contradict on numerous other occasions throughout their lives. Neither is anything known about the circumstances through which Martin might have become privy to sensitive information regarding Joseph Smith’s alleged immoral behavior with Eliza Winters.

2. Dan Vogel. Dan Vogel is an accomplished author and researcher. Unfortunately he appears to have the tendency of going beyond available evidence resulting in his making assertions that consistently seem to portray Joseph Smith in a negative light. Examples follow:

In a statement above, Levi Lewis purportedly quotes Martin Harris. Lewis •

implies that Martin Harris knew of and did not object to Joseph’s trying to seduce Eliza Winters. It is certainly doubtful that Martin Harris would approve of this action by

Joseph Smith. The chance that Levi Lewis correctly quotes Martin Harris here is most unlikely. Vogel distorts this report of Levi Lewis and has Martin Harris saying that Levi Lewis accused Joseph Smith of trying to seduce Eliza Winters. Vogel states that Martin Harris said that Levi Lewis made the accusation. Vogel’s version—that Martin Harris allegedly made this statement—implies that Martin thought this worth mentioning. It would seem to suggest that Vogel hopes to imply that Martin thought it a distinct possibility. This error transforms a dubious account into a firsthand allegation. Vogel’s distortion in this case is surprising and disappointing.

• In addition, Vogel states that in an interview of Eliza Winters years later, she did not “confirm or deny” the Levi Lewis allegation (Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002, 4:346). In fact, available evidence does not disclose that the incident was even discussed. Here Vogel goes clearly beyond the evidence in his assertion.

Regarding another accusation, Vogel writes: “His [Joseph Smith’s] July 1830 •

trial in South Bainbridge included testimony accusing him of improper conduct with two of Josiah Stowell’s daughters, Miriam and Rhoda” (Ibid., 4:206 footnote 9). In fact, no such trial records exist that contain any “testimony accusing him of improper conduct” matching Vogel’s description. This error carries the potential of turning non-evidence into evidence. It indicates Vogel is also capable of pure fabrication.

3. William Bond. Bond was an obvious anti-Mormon. In his book, The Early History of Mormonism, and the True Source Where the Aborigines of the Continent Came from (Portland: Schwab Brothers), Bond accuses Joseph of sexual impropriety with a woman in the year 1829-30 while visiting Erie county, Pennsylvania. Bond does not identify the source of his allegation and many of the details contradict contemporaneous historical accounts. This was an empty accusation indeed.

4. Clark Braden. Braden was born in 1831. He became a Protestant minister in 1848 and served as a pastor of thirty-five different churches before his death in 1915. He had a reputation as a fierce and skillful debater. He was an excellent public speaker, and his technique in debating was to pepper his opponents with accusations that were poorly documented. He was often criticized for his poor research on the topics he would address. As his opponents tried to respond, they would find themselves trying to correct misinformation rather than promoting their own agenda.

In 1884 in Kirtland, a public debate occurred between Braden, representing the Church of Christ, and one E. L. Kelley representing the RLDS Church. In that debate Braden presented rapid-fire over a dozen accusations of immortal conduct against Joseph Smith, several of which can be shown to be blatant falsehoods and the rest based upon questionable evidence or upon no evidence at all. Despite lack of evidence for his allegations during this speech, several have been repeated many times in antagonistic literature.

5. Nancy Smith Alexander. Alexander wrote a statement that has been quoted as genuine by several anti-Mormon authors. While we have the quotations, we don’t have the original manuscript in which it was allegedly written. The statement is: “My father, William Smith [no relation to the Prophet’s brother William B. Smith] and mother became Mormons in Bolton, N. Y., and moved to Kirtland Ohio in 1836. After Jo Smith, the Mormon Prophet robbed us, I worked out at housework at 25 cents a week. My sister received 50 cents a week; we gave our wages to our parents. Father had broken his arm six weeks before leaving N. Y., and could not work. Mother had to work very hard, she had 14 children.”

The details provided in the document help to corroborate one Nancy Maria Smith as the first person in the account. She was the daughter of William and Lydia Calkins Smith, born December 1, 1822. She and her family gathered to Kirtland only to apostatize, blaming Joseph Smith for robbing them. Nancy married Justin Alexander on September 4, 1850 at Kirtland. She and her husband stayed in the area of Kirtland. A problem with this woman as an accuser is the inability of historians to corroborate her relationship to the document that contains the quotation in question. The original document has not been located.

6. Richard Van Wagoner. In his book Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, Van Wagoner writes: “Gossip in Ohio’s Western Reserve linked Smith to Athalia and Nancy Rigdon, Sidney’s sixteen and fifteen-year-old daughters” (634). Van Wagoner doesn’t explain the specific nature of the described “link,” but sexuality seems to be implied. To support the presence of a “link,” Van Wagoner refers to an 1884 testimony from a man named William S. Smith (no relation to the Prophet’s brother) that was recorded during the debate between Clark Braden and RLDS member E. L. Kelley. Nothing in the script of the debate between Clark Braden and E. L. Kelley describes or even implies a “link” between Joseph Smith and the Rigdon daughters. No other evidence is presented. Van Wagoner’s assertion regarding the “link” is recklessly undocumented while contradictory evidence is available.

In another of Van Wagoner’s publications, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, first edition 1986, second edition 1989), he speaks of “rumors” and “stories” to his readers as if they together constituted a documented history of Joseph Smith’s polygamy for the 1832-35 period. On pages 4-6 Van Wagoner quotes several narratives in succession without providing his readers with any analysis of credibility of the accounts. First he misquotes the Levi Lewis allegation concerning Eliza Winters. Next comes a rendition of Clark Braden’s late account (1884) concerning Marinda Nancy Johnson. This is followed by Benjamin Winchester’s charges (from 1889). After this, readers encounter the Vienna Jacques story (reportedly from Nancy Maria Smith Alexander in 1886). Lastly, Van Wagoner rounds out his “history” by including several antagonistic accounts of the Fanny Alger relationship (1872 and later) concluding that it did not include a “distinctly polygamous marriage ceremony.”

As the first author to write a chronology of Mormon polygamy, Richard Van Wagoner is commended for his 1986 research and willingness to tackle a difficult subject. Yet it appears he lined up dubious historical sources chronologically without checking credibility or providing context. That most of these accounts were not published until many decades later may undermine their ability to accurately describe any contemporaneous unfolding of plural marriage during the 1832-35 period. To repeatedly quote “rumors” and “stories” without analyzing reliability might sensationalize common gossip, transforming it into documented history in the minds of his readers.

Van Wagoner’s audience will easily conclude from his reconstructions that Joseph Smith was a licentious womanizer. That seems to be the conclusion he wants to portray. However, new documents and greater scrutiny of existing manuscripts indicate that Van Wagoner’s interpretations of the beginnings of plural marriage may be dated, problematic, and simply false.

7. Sarah Pratt. Historical evidence supports that in 1841, John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt had an illicit sexual relationship. An August 31, 1842, special edition of The Wasp, contained the statements of J. B. Backenstos and Stephen and Zeruiah Goddarda supporting the charge (The affidavits have been dismissed as inaccurate by authors like Richard Van Wagoner and Gary Bergera. However, close examination demonstrates they are reliable and attempts by antagonists to discredit them are based upon faulty reasoning). D. Michael Quinn connects Sarah to Bennett as a wife (or sexual partner) by referring to her as “Sarah M. Bates (Pratt, Bennett, Pratt)” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994, 503). Quinn intends to say that Sarah was married to Orson Pratt, then John C. Bennett, then Orson Pratt again, although nothing exists to suggest that a liaison between Sarah and Bennett would have included a marriage ceremony.

Sarah denied any relationship with Bennett and accused Joseph Smith of trying to seduce her. On January 20, 1843, Joseph Smith told Orson Pratt, Sarah’s husband: “She lied about me. I never made the offer which she said I did. I will not advise you to break up your family, unless it were asked of me. I would counsel you to get a bill from your wife and marry a virtuous woman and raise a new family” (minutes of a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, January 20, 1843—on New Mormon Studies: A Comprehensive Resource Library, CD-ROM. Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1998). One year earlier, Joseph Smith told Orson Pratt that “if he did believe his wife and follow her suggestions he would go to hell” (Elden Jay Watson, ed., Manuscript History of Brigham Young. 1801-44. Salt Lake City: Smith Secretarial Service, 1968, August 8, 1842, 120-21).

In 1845 Sidney Rigdon interviewed Orson Pratt: “When Pratt was interrogated about this [disagreement with Joseph Smith concerning his wife Sarah in 1842], he said that he had got a bad spirit when he said so, and that he had repented of it. Thus, literally telling the people that all Smith said about his wife was true” (Sydney Rigdon, “Tour East,” Messenger and Advocate of the Church of Christ, volume 2, number 2, December, Pittsburgh, 1845, 1).

In 1875 Sarah Pratt reported: “I was formerly a member of the Mormon Church and don’t know that I have been cut off. I have not been a believer in the Mormon doctrines for thirty years and am now considered an apostate, I believe” (excerpt from an undated column of the Salt Lake Herald, copied into the “Journal History” for January 22, 1875, Richard E. Turley, Jr. Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, volume 2, DVD #6).

Wilhelm Wyl (a pseudonym for Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal) in 1886 used Sarah Pratt for his source in accusing Joseph Smith. When he asked her about the statement, “Joseph had eighty wives at the time of his death.” Sarah replied: “He had many more, my dear sir; at least he had seduced many more, and those with whom he had lived without their being sealed to him, were sealed to him after his death” (Mormon Portraits, or the Truth About Mormon Leaders From 1830 to 1886. Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886, 54). There is simply no reliable evidence that Joseph seduced any woman at any time or that he lived with other women without being married to them.

On March 31, 1886, Sarah Pratt signed a statement affirming: “This cerifys [sic] that I was well acquainted with the Mormon Leaders and Church in general, and know that the principle [sic] statements in John Bennetts [sic] Book of Mormonism are true” (Sarah Pratt, Handwritten statement, March 31, 1886, Mormon Collection, Chicago Historical Society; copy in D. Michael Quinn Papers, Yale University, Special Collections, Uncat WA MS. 98, 881028, bx3, fd 3). So, we are forced to choose. We must accept the truth of Bennet’s book, The History of the Saints or decide that Sarah Pratt is an unreliable witness.

8. Mary Ettie Coray Smith. Stanley S. Ivins, arguable the most extensive researcher on Mormon polygamy, considered Mary Ettie Smith’s writings as “inaccurate and of no value” (Stanley S. Ivins Collection, USHSS notebook 4, 63). Exposé author Fanny Stenhouse described Ettie Smith in 1875 as “a lady who wrote very many years ago and in her writings, so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where the one ended and the other began (“Tell It all,” The Story of a Life’s Experiences in Mormonism. Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Co., 1875, 618).

9. William Hall. Accusations against Joseph Smith were published in 1852 by William Hall in The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; containing many Facts and Doctrines concerning that singular people during seven years’ membership with them, from 1840 to 1847, (Cincinnati: I. Hart). Non-LDS sociologist Lawrence Foster wrote: “William Hall’s accounts are of extremely dubious accuracy and must be evaluated with the caution used in evaluating any malicious gossip” (Religion and Sexuality: Three

American Communal Experiments of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981, 308 n. 93). In most ways, Hall’s claims resemble tabloid level reporting. No evidence is available to substantiate his accusations and reliable historical sources contradict his reconstructions.

10. Fawn Brodie. The most influential and widely distributed interpretation of Joseph Smith’s involvement with plural marriage was written by Fawn Brodie in her 1945 biography, No Man Knows My History.

A major weakness of Brodie’s work is her excessive dependence upon published sources rather than original personal manuscripts (journals, diaries, letters). Virtually all books and pamphlets printed by non-Mormons in the 1800s reflected the idea that Nauvoo polygamy arose because Joseph Smith was a womanizer. Clergy and anti- Mormons wrote numerous reports during that time period with that singular message. Any writer who, like Brodie, preferentially quotes printed documents will also reflect this view. Excommunicated from the LDS Church, Fawn Brodie composed her biography without doing any research in the Church Historical Department, even though it holds the largest cache of pertinent documents, including hundreds of handwritten manuscripts written by participants.

LDS historian Marvin S. Hill wrote: “With regard to plural marriage, where Brodie is so confident that the real Joseph Smith, the pleasure lover and sensualist, shows through, there is no evidence in his writings to suggest that he thought of it in other than religious terms. Had Brodie seen more of what is in the archives she might have hesitated before adopting her thesis of intentional fraud” (“Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal.” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, winter 1972, 4:76). Charles L. Cohen, professor of history and religious studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and director of the Lubar Institute for the study of the Abrahamic Religions, assessed: “Brodie’s insight that Smith’s life must have become sexually stale. . . rests on inference rather than evidence” (“No Man Knows My Psychology: Fawn Brodie, Joseph Smith, and Psychoanalysis,” BYU Studies, 2005, 1:67).

Undoubtedly the popularity of Brodie’s biography is due to the impressive writing style and the prose she produced. In addition, her credentials are impressive. However, the greatest factor propelling her views among subsequent generations is undoubtedly that she presents a version of Joseph Smith that is appealing to readers who disbelieve his message.

11. Benjamin Winchester. Benjamin Winchester and his family were baptized in 1833 and moved to Kirtland. He was a missionary for the Church in 1837-39. Following his mission he moved, in 1839, to Philadelphia. In December 1839 the Philadelphia Branch was organized by the visiting prophet Joseph Smith. Three months later Winchester was installed as the presiding elder or president. He proved early on, to be rebellious, stubborn, contentious, and completely unwilling to take counsel. In 1841, the apostle John E. Page recommended, in a letter to Joseph Smith, that

Winchester be replaced as president of the branch. He was summoned to Nauvoo and given a severe reproof by Joseph. In January 1842, he was suspended from his office for disobedience. In April 1843, Joseph Smith said of him: “You can never make anything out of Benjamin Winchester, if you take him out of the channel he wants to be in” (Journal History for the date, April 19, 1843; Richard E. Turley, Jr. Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, volume 2, DVD #1. See also HC, 5:367).

In May 1843 Joseph received a letter from Sister Armstrong of Philadelphia complaining of slanderous conduct of Benjamin Winchester. He was again called to Nauvoo at the end of May and a council was immediately convened to deal with his insubordination including his accusations that the Prophet was guilty of “improper conduct” with “Miss Smith.” Joseph called Winchester’s accusations “damnable lies.” Joseph sharply rebuked Winchester, told him he had a lying spirit, and told him of his many errors (HC, 5:410-11). That same day the Prophet recorded in his journal: “Winchester was silenced” (Scott H. Faulring, ed. An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989, 381).

Winchester thereafter had a mercurial relationship with the Church. After the Prophet’s death, he aligned himself with Sidney Rigdon’s group in Pittsburgh. In the 1850s he moved to Iowa and embraced “spiritualism.” He visited Utah in 1871 and in 1889 wrote a recollection entitled “Primitive Mormonism,” for the Salt Lake Tribune, wherein he vented his frustrations in an article highly critical of Joseph Smith.

12. John C. Bennett. The ostensible strength of Bennett’s witness stems from the fact that he claimed he was a polygamy insider and therefore privy to information known only to those who had the confidence of the Prophet.

Current research, however, suggests that Bennett was positioned close enough to hear rumors of Joseph Smith’s plural marriage practices, but that he never learned anything about celestial marriage directly from the Prophet. Andrew F. Smith acknowledged: “No primary evidence has been presented indicating that Bennett was officially involved in the evolving practice of polygamy at Nauvoo” (John Cook Bennett’s Nauvoo,” The John Whitmer Historical Association 2002 Nauvoo Conference Special Edition, Nauvoo: JWHS, 114-15). This conclusion is strengthened by several observations:

• The timeline shows that Bennett had lost the confidence of the Prophet and was an outsider before even a handful of men had entered plural marriage in Nauvoo. In May of 1842, he was excommunicated for grossly immoral conduct. At that time only Heber C. Kimball, Vinson Knight, and Brigham Young had also married polygamous wives under Joseph’s direction. By that time Bennett and his followers had seduced many women in the name of his “spiritual wifery” practices.

• Bennett’s own behaviors in 1841 and early 1842 fail to provide any evidence that he was aware of the principle of plural marriage as Joseph was then privately teaching. Bennett’s directives involving “spiritual wifery” bore no resemblance to Joseph Smith’s teachings on polygamy. Bennett never practiced the principle of authorized plural marriage. The only principle Bennett espoused at that time compatible with the principle of plural marriage was keeping his practices secret. In the case of Bennett, he tried to keep his sins secret.

• Bennett’s “spiritual wifery” included no marriage ceremonies or marital vows prior to conjugal relations. It was only clandestine, opportunistic seduction and then sharing a bed.

• Bennett’s description of the “Church’s system of polygamy,” as published in his book History of the Saints, does not resemble the authorized polygamy happening in the Church. Bennett referred to the system as the “Grand Lodge” or “Mormon Seraglio.” A “seraglio” is a harem. The women involved in Bennett’s “Relief Society” were classified as to their status in the system and wore veils with colors indicative of their status. The women of the lowest status wore white veils and were known as “Cyprian Saints.” The more honored women were “Chambered Sisters of Charity” and wore green veils. The most honored were “Consecratees of the Cloister” or “Cloistered Saints” and wore black veils. The women in this last category were those “married or unmarried, who, by an express grant and gift of God, through his Prophet the Holy Joe, are set apart and consecrated to the use and benefit of particular individuals as secret, spiritual wives.” If Bennett ever learned the details of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, he never so indicated in his writings or recorded teachings. He obviously had his “own system.”

A summary of his system that marks it as completely distinct from Joseph’s teachings includes:

a. He spoke of his system as “spiritual wifery.”

b. He never spoke of his system as a restoration of Old Testament polygamy. c. He never spoke of, and was obviously unaware of, the commanding angel with a drawn sword.

d. No ceremony was required. No husband-wife marital relationship was established.

e. No priesthood authority was involved.

f. There was no test of worthiness to qualify.

g. There was no mention of eternality of the relationship.

h. He taught the “doctrine” of “there is no sin where there is no accuser.”

i. Polyandrous sexual relations were permitted.

j. His three orders of polygamous wives.

• Bennett was a known philanderer prior to arriving in Illinois in 1840 (see Richard and Pamela Price, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, volume 1, Independence, Missouri: Price Publishing, 2000, 63-73, for a well-written synopsis of Bennett’s pre- Nauvoo past). Just months after his appearance in Nauvoo, the Prophet became apprised of his immoral past. It is doubtful Joseph would have shared religious principles that required absolute sexual purity (D&C 132:42-43) with a man who was struggling to control his own sexual lusts.

• Bennett did not abide by his own “order” of spiritual wifery described in his book, History of the Saints. Eye-witness testimony demonstrates that he propositioned women for sex without any pretense toward his system of “spiritual wifery.”

• Bennett wrote on October 28, 1843, over a year after his excommunication, to the Hawk Eye newspaper, printed at Burlington, Iowa: “This ‘marrying for eternity’ is not the ‘Spiritual wife doctrine’ noticed in my esposé [The History of the Saints], but is an entirely new doctrine established by special Revelation” (“Letter from General Bennett,” Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa, December 7, 1843, 1).

As early as January of 1840, Joseph Smith had discussed eternal marriage (without plurality) with Parley P. Pratt in Philadelphia (Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 259-260). Joseph’s plural marriage to Louisa Beaman on April 5, 1841, was for both time and eternity, a fact unknown to Bennett. Bennett’s texts demonstrate that even in late 1843 (by which time he had completed his exposé), he was still unaware that “marrying for eternity” had been secretly taught during the entire time he lived with the saints in Illinois.

Even anti-Mormon writers acknowledged Bennett’s limitations. Apostate writer Ann Eliza Young commented on his exposé: “It is probable that the book would have had a much wider influence had not Bennett’s character been so well known. He was a notorious profligate, and was pronounced by Gentiles who had known him before he embraced Mormonism to be ‘the greatest villain unhung’” (Wife Number 19, Hartford: Dustin, Gilman, and Co., 1876, 74). Regarding his writings, anti-Mormon author T. B. H. Stenhouse cautioned: “There is no doubt, much truth in Bennett’s book . . . but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence” (The Rocky Mountain Saints, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873, 184 foot note 2). Fawn Brodie admitted: “To any discerning reader Bennett revealed himself in his own book to be a base and ignoble opportunist” (Now Man Knows My History, 317).

It appears Bennett’s accusations of Joseph Smith’s sexual misconduct must be filtered through the lens that he was unaware of the Prophet’s teachings regarding eternal marriage, with all the ramifications that acknowledgement demands. Numerous other problems can be identified in Bennett’s claims. While he was positioned to hear rumors about plural wives, his distance from the nucleus of Nauvoo polygamy requires all authors who quote him to exercise great caution.

13. Wilhelm Wyl (Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal). An unsophisticated anti- Mormon, he accused the Prophet of sexual misconduct in his book Mormon Portraits. Originally his book was intended to be a series of books. Only the first volume was ever printed. It contained the subtitle: Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family and His

Friends. Wyl’s major problem is the poor quality of his scholarship. His writings typify polemic literature. That is, they use controversial and questionable arguments directed against Joseph. Throughout his book, he makes extreme claim supposedly issuing from unidentified or partially identified informants. The anonymity of the contributing voices largely removes accountability from the informants and Wyl himself. It also impedes efforts to verify the accounts.

Concerning the accuracy of Wyl’s book, a few authors have commented. A non- Mormon writer Thomas Gregg wrote: “The statements of the interviews must be taken for what they are worth. While many of them are corroborated elsewhere . . . there are others that need verification, and some that probably exist only in the mind of the narrator. One fact, however, will obtrude itself upon the mind of the reader—that while these seceders are making all those damaging statements against the Prophet and the leaders at Nauvoo, it is remembered that only a year or so earlier they were denying them when made by others. It is for them to reconcile these damaging facts” (The Prophet of Palmyra: Mormonism Reviewed and Examined in the Life, Character, and Career of its Founder. New York: John B. Alden, 1890, 504). William Law, who lived in Nauvoo in the 1840s, addressing Wyl wrote: “Your informants . . . may, now and then, have drawn a little on their imagination, [and] may have reached false conclusions in some instances judged from circumstances and not from facts; doing injustice, perhaps, to the innocent” (letter written to Wyl, January 7, 1887; quoted in “The Mormons in Nauvoo: Three Letters from William Law on Mormonism, The Daily Tribune: Salt Lake City, July 3, 1887). Richard L. Bushman provided this assessment of Wyl: “[He] introduced a lot of hearsay into his account of Joseph. Personally I found all the assertions about the Prophet’s promiscuity pretty feeble. Nothing there [was] worth contending with” (email correspondence between Richard L. Bushman and Dr. Brian Hales). Elder B. H. Roberts wrote: “[Mormon Portraits] follows very much in the style and tone of Bennett’s exposé, and severer criticism than this could not be passed upon it” (Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:164).

Wyl’s accusations suffer from lack of corroborating evidence. Several claims can be shown to be blatantly false, hence, his accuracy regarding any statement should not be assumed. Historical data from more reliable sources predictably and consistently contradict his claims.

14. Ann Eliza Webb Young. Born in 1844, she had no personal knowledge of Nauvoo plural marriage. Her qualifications as a “polygamy insider” were gained through two sources. First, her parents were devout church members in Kirtland and later in Nauvoo. Reportedly, Fanny Alger went to live with the Webb family after being cast out of the Smith home in 1836. Second, Ann Eliza Webb became a plural wife of Brigham Young and would have had some association with Brigham’s other plural wives, some of whom had also been married to the prophet Joseph.

In 1876, she published Wife No. 19, Or, The Story of a Life in Bondage (Hartford Connecticut: Dustin, Gilman and Co.), which contains several allegations against Joseph Smith. Evaluation of her claims supports that she sensationalized many aspects of plural marriage. Many of her claims contain implausible accusations.

In 1887 Zina Huntington, plural wife of both Joseph and Brigham, speaking of Ann Eliza’s claims, said: “She was not truthful . . . she has convicted herself out of her own mouth. . . . Ann Eliza knew she was misrepresenting the facts” (“J.J.J.,” “Two Prophet’s Widows,” August 8, 1887, Globe Democrat). She obviously manifested deep anti-Mormon sentiments. Her claims were secondhand and late.

15. William Arrowsmith. He was not a member of the Church but was married to the sister of the apostle, John Taylor. Reportedly, on March 3, 1849, Arrowsmith called on anti-Mormon writer, John Bowes, and provided Bowes with a few complaints against Joseph and the Mormons. Arrowsmith claimed that some of the saints had persuaded his wife to leave him; that they had robbed him of three hundred dollars worth of property; that Joseph Smith was a drunken man; and that he (Arrowsmith) had slept at his mother-in-law’s house when Joseph Smith slept with Orson Hyde’s wife under the same roof. John Bowes eventually published his exposé entitled: Mormonism Exposed, in Its Swindling and Licentious Abominations, Refuted in Its Principles, and the Claims of Its Head, the Modern Mohammed Joseph Smith, Who Is Proved to Have Been a Deceiver and No Prophet of God.

16. Phebe Louisa Holmes Welling. She lived from 1851 to 1939. She was the daughter of one of Joseph’s plural wives, Elvira Cowles. Towards the end of her life she wrote a history of her extended family. In this history she alleged that her mother, “lived with” Joseph Smith as a plural wife. We noted above that she was married to Jonathan Holmes. Phebe’s wording is somewhat ambiguous, but could imply a sexual relationship. If Phebe was in fact alleging a sexual relationship and if she was correct, then it is likely that Jonathan Holmes may have served as a “front husband” to Elvira just as Joseph C. Kingsbury was a “front husband” to Sarah Ann Whitney. Without additional historical evidence, anyone asserting sexual polyandry from this account is going beyond the evidence.

17. John Hyde. In 1857 John Hyde, who had served as a missionary for the Church, apostatized and published Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York, 1857), a vitriolic attack on the Church. A review of his book showed that he was capable of extreme and ludicrous claims. For example, he asserted that proxy marriages for that dead had “to be consummated in the same manner as that of the living” implying some type of earthly sexual consummation was necessary with each such ceremony (88-89).

Kenneth L. Cannon, II wrote: “Hyde’s activities did not go unnoticed in the Salt Lake City. In a sermon delivered on January 11, 1857, Heber C. Kimball publicly moved that the errant elder be ‘cut off root and branch’ from the Church and ‘delivered over to Satan to be buffeted in the flesh’ because ‘there is no sympathy to be shown unto such a man.’” (“A Strange Encounter: The English Courts and Mormon Polygamy,” BYU Studies, volume 22, number 1, 76). His credibility is destroyed by his false statements made within his book and his highly biased antagonistic perspective.

18. Edwin Mace. Edwin Mace is a reliable witness who related in 1929 that his “parent told” him Joseph Smith was the father of Josephine Henry. It is probable that Edwin was sincere and that the rumor was known to a number of other people as well. Analysis of the gossip, however, shows that it could not have been true.

19. Joseph H. Jackson. Jackson often alleged a close relationship with Joseph Smith. However, after being befriended by Joseph on May 20, 1843, Joseph told William Clayton, three days later, “Jackson is rotten hearted” (George D. Smith, ed. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995,105-06). It seems unlikely Joseph would have confided in him after that point, including any private conversation regarding plural marriage. In his book, A Narrative of the Adventures and Experiences of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo (1844), he, however, repeatedly represented himself as belonging to Joseph’s “inner circle.” He made many salacious claims against the Prophet. His claims have no secondary source and many are as outlandish as “Joe Smith boasted to me that he . . . had seduced 400 women” (Ibid., 13). His narrative brims with self-importance and unverifiable claims.

On January 10, 1844, Hyrum Smith testified before the Nauvoo City Council: “Jackson told him he meant to have his [Hyrum’s] daughter. Jackson laid a plan with 4 or 5 persons to kidnap his daughter and threatened to shoot any man that should come near after he got her” (HC, 6:435). Non-LDS biographer Thomas Gregg wrote: “If half of Jackson’s statements were true, the Prophet and some of his abettors should have been hung. If not true, Jackson himself should have been hung—in either case without benefit of clergy. His exposé was of much the same character as that of General [John C.] Bennett” (The Prophet of Palmyra: Mormonism Reviewed and Examined in the Life, Character, and Career of its Founder (New York: John B. Alden, 1890, 296-97).

20. William Law. Law is undoubtedly the most credible accuser among the twenty six. He arrived in Nauvoo in November of 1839. After observing the Prophet for one year, he wrote to his close friend and one-time idol, Isaac Russell, who was in the process of apostatizing: “It is needless for me to express my regret that you remain so long from the body of the Church. . . I have carefully watched his [Joseph’s] movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it” (Lyndon W. Cook, “‘Brother Joseph Is Truly a Wonderful Man, He is All We Could Wish a Prophet to Be’: Pre-1844 Letters of William Law,” BYU Studies, 20:217-18).

In an 1871 letter, Law, who became a counselor in the First Presidency in January 1841, further reflected: “In 1842 I had not heard of such teachings [polygamy] .

. . I think it was in 1843 that I first knew of the ‘plurality doctrine,’ I believe, however, it existed possibly as early as 1840” (T.B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints, 198- 99).

Law was one of the first to receive his temple endowment from the Prophet in 1842. It appears that William and Jane Law were introduced to the principle of plural marriage the following year by Joseph and Hyrum sometime after the revelation on celestial and plural marriage was written (July 12, 1843). Law was allowed to take a copy home for him and Jane, his wife, to read and consider. The Nauvoo Expositor, printed June 7, 1844, contained this affidavit from Law: “I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did (in his office), read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law. And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.” Law later wrote of the events following his reading of the revelation on celestial marriage: “After reading it I went directly to Joseph Smith and showed him the document. He looked at it and said it was all right. Said it was a great privilege granted to the High Priesthood. He spoke strongly in its favor. I remarked that it was in contradiction to the ‘Doctrine and Covenant.’ He said they were given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babies, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation. He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times afterwards in its favor. I suppose he dreaded my official influence in opposing and utterly rejecting the so-called revelation” (quoted in Charles A. Shook’s The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy. Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Co., 1914, 126).

It is not known precisely when the Laws officially declared themselves unbelieving. Brigham Young recalled in 1866: “In one council where Joseph undertook to teach the brethren and sisters, William Law was there and William and Hyrum and a few others were against Joseph. William Law made this expression: ‘If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, and if it were in my power, I would kill him’” (quoted in Elden J. Watson, Brigham Young Addresses. 1865-1869, A Chronological Compilation of Known Addresses of the Prophet Brigham Young. Salt Lake City: Elden J. Watson, 1982, 5:53).

A journal entry recorded January 1, 1844, suggests that sometime prior to that date, he had seriously entertained the possibility of joining the two dozen Nauvoo pluralists then practicing polygamy. William and Jane Law’s son Richard S. Law gave this report in 1903: About the year 1842 [sic—should be 1843], he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, “Mormonism would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming form his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment. During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday. Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet’s manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration” (“An Interesting Testimony with Richard S. Law, son of William Law” Improvement Era, volume 6, number 7, May 1903, 508-09).

William Law penned his accusation of seduction against Joseph Smith in his journal May 13, 1844: “He [Joseph] has lately endeavored to seduce my wife and has found her a virtuous woman” (Lyndon W. Cook, William Law, Orem Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1994, 53). Law’s journal entry is crossed out for reasons that are not known. It is, however, still readable. It is possible that Joseph, seeing that William Law was inextricably headed toward complete apostasy, sought to save her by having her sealed to him for “eternity only.” William Law was doubtless made aware of Joseph’s attempt and misconstrued it as an attempt to seduce his wife. Possibly William Law became later aware of the true nature of Joseph’s approach to Jane Law and crossed out the accusatory journal entry, knowing it improperly represented the actual events.

In 1887 Jane Law’s son Tommy J. Law flatly contradicted the allegation that Joseph Smith had tried to seduce his mother: “What has been said about Joseph having made an attempt on her [Jane Law, his mother] is not true. In such a case my father would not have started a paper against him—he would have shot his head off. No man can be more delicate and conscientious about the relations of husband and wife and more apt to be terrible in such a case, than my father” (“The Law Interview,” The Daily Tribune: Salt Lake City, July 31, 1887).

The Laws were excommunicated in April 1844. William law would then take actions that would establish him in the minds of the saints as “a Judas.” Choosing the plural marriage of Joseph to Maria Lawrence as a test case, William Law filed a law suit on May 23, 1844, in the Hancock County Circuit Court, located at Carthage. Knowing that a judge would not recognize the legitimacy of Joseph’s sealing to Maria Lawrence, Law charged the Prophet with living “in an open state of adultery” with Maria from

October 12, 1843, to the day of filing (it is likely October 12, 1843, was the day Joseph confided in him details concerning his relationship with Maria). On June 7, 1844, William Law as the primary instigator, published the anti-Mormon Nauvoo Expositor, which set in motion the events that ultimately resulted in the death of the Prophet on June 27, 1844.

William Law’s rejection of plural marriage did not initially include discarding the Book of Mormon and other evidences of Joseph’s earlier prophetic calling. For him, Joseph was a fallen prophet, but not a false prophet. Law later abandoned Mormonism completely. One can only imagine Joseph’s pain experienced by the apostasy and betrayal of his beloved and respected friend, William Law.

21. Eliza Jane Churchill Webb. Eliza Jane Churchill (born 1817) married Chauncy Webb (1811-1903) in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835. By their own reported accounts, they were “intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith and his family for eleven years” (Wilhelm Wyl, Joseph Smith the Prophet: His Family and His Friends, also entitled Mormon Portraits, 7) and “offered to take her [Fanny Alger] until she could be sent to her relatives” (Wife Number 19) after she was sent away from the Smith home. Eliza Jane recalled: “Fanny Alger had lived in Joseph’s family several years, and when she left there she came and lived with me a few weeks” (letter from Eliza Jane Churchill Webb, Lockport, New York, to Mary Bond, April 24, 1876).

Chauncy and Eliza Jane migrated to Nauvoo, settling in a home on Granger Street, where their daughter, Ann Eliza was born on September 13, 1844, a few months after the Prophet’s death. She would later become a plural wife of Brigham Young and then apostatize. She would publish Wife Number 19; or, The Story of a Life in Bondage, Being a Complete Exposé of Mormonism, and Revealing the Sorrows, Sacrifices, and Sufferings of Women in Polygamy in 1876.

In 1846, Eliza Jane and Chauncy were sealed as a couple in the Nauvoo temple, where Chauncy served as a temple worker. They also traversed the plains to settle in the Tooele area of Utah. Chauncy served a mission in 1852. Later in life Chauncy married plural wives, and Eliza Jane became disaffected, moving to the East. There she wrote several letters that mention the early days of the Church, including Joseph Smith’s plurality. In one of these, she repeats a claim from William Law that Joseph Smith had attempted to seduce Jane Law. If the account is correctly related and is simply an echo of William Law’s accusation, this would not represent a separate allegation against the Prophet. See the above discussion of William Law.

22. Edward Brotherton. In 1845 Edward Brotherton (1816-1866) published a scathing anti-Mormon tract entitled: Mormonism: Its Rise and Progress and the Prophet Joseph Smith. Printed so soon after Joseph’s death, the potential for accuracy is enhanced. Unfortunately, Brotherton appears to have done little more than repeat prior antagonistic accusations without any reference to primary manuscripts. His approach was to write with no basis in documentable reality. He is a purely secondary source of hearsay and nonsense. For example, in his pamphlet he wrote: “Suffice it to say, that it is clearly established that a system of all but universal female prostitution exists at Nauvoo, as a secret regulation of the church, none but the faithful being permitted to have the privilege” (15).

23. “Mrs. Davenport.” In 1939, more than one hundred years after Joseph Smith’s first plural marriage, an otherwise unidentified Nan Hill quoted an also unidentified “Mrs. Davenport” as saying: “A later reminiscence from Chenango County [New York] claims that Smith was an early advocate of polygamy and that a Mrs. Davenport of Doravill, Chanango County, said ‘she repeatedly heard her grandmother tell of Joe Smith coming into her home one day, long after she was married and saying that it had been revealed to him that she was to be his ‘spiritual wife.’ The woman, according to the story, ejected him from the house with her broom” (Afton Enterprise, July 20, 1939).

Efforts to identify Mrs. Davenport have been unsuccessful. Surprisingly, Dan Vogel included this account in his book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. Vogel comments: “The early rumors cannot be dismissed too quickly” (514). This seems a level of logic and scholarship unworthy of Vogel.

24. Oliver Cowdery. It appears that the Prophet’s involvement with plural marriage in Kirtland in 1835-36 drove a wedge between him and Oliver. One account suggests that Oliver knew nothing of Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger until the night Emma insisted that she be ejected from the Smith home (Ann Eliza Webb Young, Wife No. 19, 66-67). Several pieces of evidence indicate that prior to this episode, Joseph, in a ceremony performed by Levi Hancock, was married to Fanny. It is surprising to learn that Oliver was kept in the dark concerning Joseph’s relationship with Fanny until that night. Perhaps Joseph sensed that Oliver would not be receptive to the restoration of Old Testament plural marriage and hence, approached Hancock to perform the ceremony. The earliest document referring to the Smith-Alger relationship is one written by Oliver in January 21, 1838. No other contemporary sources, published or private, mention it in any way prior to that time. It is obvious that Oliver did not consider the plural marriage to be legitimate. He later referred to it as “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair” (letter to Warren Cowdery, January 21, 1838, Letterbook, Huntington Library, San Marino, California).

Following Fanny Alger’s ejection from the Smith home, rumors began circulating that Joseph had committed adultery. These may have originated with Oliver. At that time the saints had no inkling of the doctrine of eternal or plural marriage. Joseph, therefore, took action to stem the tide of gossip that Joseph had confessed to Oliver that he had committed adultery. Joseph was limited by circumstances to being able only to deny any adultery. He was not yet allowed by the Lord to share the doctrine of plural marriage with the saints. Joseph requested that a statement be published in the next issue of the Elder’s Journal written by Oliver saying that Joseph had never acknowledged to him that he was guilty of adultery. It would seem at that time that no one but Emma and Oliver knew of Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. Richard L. Bushman summarized: “In contemporaneous documents, only one person, Cowdery, believed that Joseph had had an affair with Fanny Alger. Others may have heard the rumors, but none joined Cowdery in making accusations. David Patten, who made inquiries in Kirtland, concluded the rumors were untrue. No one proposed to put Joseph on trial for adultery. Only Cowdery, who was leaving the Church, asserted Joseph’s involvement. On his part, Joseph never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin. Presumably, he felt innocent because he had married Alger” (Rough Stone Rolling, 324- 25). Joseph was obviously in a difficult position. He had to let the saints believe that he was denying any type of sexual relationship with Fanny Alger.

Oliver’s experiences in the Church prompted him to eventually return to the Church and be rebaptized shortly before his death in 1850. It appears, however, he never was reconciled to the practice of plural marriage.

25. Fanny Brewer. In 1835, Heber C. Kimball traveled as a missionary to Boston. There, “in company with Apostles Thomas B. Marsh and Brigham Young, and after spending several days with the Saints in that city . . . each was presented with a new suit of clothes by Sisters Fanny Brewer, Polly Voce, and others” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 82). Two years later Fanny traveled to Kirtland. She lost her faith and in 1842 teamed up with John C. Bennett to disparage Joseph Smith. She wrote: “In the spring of 1837, I left Boston for Kirtland, in all good faith, to assemble with the saints, as I thought, and worship God more perfectly. On my arrival, I found brother going to law with brother, drunkenness prevailing to a great extent, and every species of wickedness. . . There was much excitement against the Prophet, on another account, likewise,—an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan [sic] girl residing in his family, and under his protection!!! Mr. Martin Harris told me that the Prophet was most notorious for lying and licentiousness!! In the fall of 1837, the Smith family all left Kirtland, by revelation, (or necessity) for Missouri” (John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints: Or an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism, 85-86).

Fanny Brewer’s statement may correctly represent the gossip in Kirtland in 1837. As amply discussed, the Smith-Alger relationship was a plural marriage, a fact that few understood at that time. Virtually all of the rumors focused upon an adulterous interaction that Joseph had denied.

26. “Historicus.” “Historicus” was a pseudonym for a writer who remains unidentified. He/she wrote a column in the Anti-Polygamy Standard entitled “Sketches from the History of Polygamy, The First Polygamous Marriages,” 10:1 and 1:1). It appears that this author was not a contemporary of Nauvoo polygamy, but performed research and drew his own conclusions. Based upon the information he provided, one of his informants may have been William McLellin.

Latecomer accusers are only as reliable as their historical sources, and as a columnist for the Anti-Polygamy Standard, objectivity would not normally be expected. How extensively his biases influenced his interpretations is a question left to readers.

#Did Joseph Smith Practice Sexual Polyandry?

See the “Definition of Terms” above. Historical evidence indicates that Joseph Smith was sealed to thirteen women who had legal husbands. This list includes Sylvia Sessions Lyon—see the problematic case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon” below. Eight of those husbands were members of the Church. See “Notes on Joseph’s Plural Wives” above.

It would seem that the particular behavior of Joseph, relative to his practice of polygamy, that is most difficult to fully understand is his being sealed to women already legally married. How are we to interpret his actions? Most members of the Church are either ignorant of Joseph’s practice of polygamy or they have heard about and simply ignored it—hoping it will go away.

This is a most important topic that each of us in the Church should come to understand. Following these sealings, if Joseph then had begun a sexual relationship with any of the twelve and if the prior husband had also continued a sexual relationship with her, Joseph would then have been involved in true or sexual polyandry. We would all agree that both Joseph and the woman would then have been guilty of the sin of adultery. If, on the other hand, Joseph was sealed to these twelve women and never engaged in a sexual relationship with any of them, we would all be relieved and assume he was practicing only pseudo- or ceremonial polyandry.

It is apparent that each of us concerned members today is fully entitled, from all the evidence available to us, to believe that Joseph Smith’s sealings to women already married were pseudo-polyandrous relationships. This evidence, in impressive and comprehensive detail, has been made available to us by Brian C. Hales whose book to be published in early 2011 is referenced near the beginning of this chapter.

Specifically, Brother Hales has identified nine allegations of sexual polyandry and has found none of them to be convincing. He refers to each as unsubstantiated, “tabloid level” accusations. I will not review each of these allegations individually. They are available for review on Brian Hales’ website: http://www.josephsmithpolygamy.com. Brian Hales also offers compelling reasons why Joseph’s involvement in sexual polyandry is untenable. These are reviewed in the section that follows.

Reasons why accusations of Joseph’s involvement in sexual polyandry are false. 1. In the nineteenth century, for a woman to mention her personal sexual involvement was rare. To admit to a polyandrous relationship would be rarer. But to openly refer to a polyandrous sexual involvement would be most extraordinary and most unlikely. Any listener to such an admission would have had no context to evaluate the declarations except to consider the behaviors blatantly immoral. It is simply unthinkable that some type of doctrinal foundation was proffered by Joseph Smith justifying sexual polyandry. Hence, any woman who admitted an adulterous union with Joseph would be essentially declaring herself to be unchaste and guilty of adultery. A review of the particular allegations, as already stated, has shown that none rises above the level of “tabloid reporting”—that is, reported in a vulgarly sensational or lurid way without any admissions or evidences to corroborate it.

2. There were no complaints from any of the alleged participants. Despite several allegations, research fails to identify complaints of sexual polyandry from any of the alleged participants, including the women or their legal husbands. Todd Compton acknowledges that true polyandrous relationships would have been most difficult for the men involved. Unfortunately, we have no reliable evidence describing the husbands’ knowledge of or immediate response to their wives’ sealings to the Prophet in eleven of the twelve cases. Again, see the section above—“Notes on Joseph’s Plural Wives.” In one case—that of Zina Diantha Huntington—her husband stood as witness as his wife was sealed to Joseph and later to Brigham Young. On the matter of whether or not the other husbands knew and, if so, just what their responses were, opinions differ. Richard Van Wagoner wrote in 1985: “The legal husband did not usually know about the extralegal husband” (“Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, [fall 1985] 81). Richard L. Bushman wrote in 2005: “In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved” (Rough Stone Rolling, 439).

Reviewing these twelve “polyandrous” husbands, we find great diversity respecting their relationships to the Church and its leaders. There are friendly nonmembers (Cleveland, Lightner, and Sayers), an antagonistic member (Buell), an unpredictable member of the Church (Jacobs), active members in the Church (Durfee, Harris, and Sessions), a cyclic member (Hyde), and stalwart members (Kingsbury and Holmes). Despite their differences, research suggests that these men shared two things in common. First, their legal wives were sealed to Joseph Smith during the Prophet’s lifetime. The second is that they all seem to have reacted to the relationship with the exact same response—no response at all.

3. One common practice during the Nauvoo period that seems foreign to us today is that of ignoring legal secular marriages instead of obtaining formal divorces. Any Justice of the Peace could perform a marriage. But it took the circuit court or the state Supreme Court, or, in some states, the state legislature(!) to grant divorces. Nauvooans who sought divorces had to go to the Circuit Court in Carthage when it was in session. As it turns out, few did.

In that day, priesthood marriages were always viewed as superior to secular ceremonies. In Nauvoo, eternal sealings trumped any earthly matrimony (see D&C 132:15-17). Hence, legal marriages became a relative non issue during the early practice of plural marriage. Stanley B. Kimball wrote: “Some church leaders at that time considered civil marriage by non-Mormon clergymen to be as unbinding as their baptisms. Some previous marriages . . . were annulled simply by ignoring them” (Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981, 95).

There is no question that in special circumstances, Joseph Smith, as president of the Church, believed himself capable of granting permission to ignore legal unions (constituting a religious divorce). One example was the case of Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey. In October of 1835, the Prophet was consulted regarding the status of Lydia’s marriage to her abusive husband, Calvin Bailey, who had deserted her three years earlier. At that time, Lydia had received a marriage proposal from Newel Knight and didn’t know what to do, since a formal divorce had not been obtained. Hyrum Smith was acting as an intermediary. Hyrum took the matter to Joseph who, after prayer and reflection, declared that Lydia was capable of remarrying. Joseph also instructed that thereafter they needed to no longer “fear either the law of God or man.” Joseph evidently considered his judgment in that matter to satisfy all pertinent concerns including state and federal laws, so far as the participants were concerned. Throughout that case of Lydia Bailey’s, there was not hint of approved polyandry, sexual or otherwise.

On occasion the Nauvoo High Council also assumed authority to allow a new matrimony to a man still legally married (see the case of Henry H. Wilson in Fred C. Collier, Nauvoo High Council Minute Books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Hanna, Utah: Collier’s Publishing Co., 2005, 80).

It appears that for most Latter-day Saints, the sealing ceremony constituted a matrimonial upgrade sufficient to dissolve previously contracted earthly matrimonies. Priesthood authority was sufficiently superior as to trump any marriage ceremony sanctioned only by worldly powers. The eternal union authorized conjugality in the sealed marriage and eliminated permission for sexual relations in the previous union. The need for a legal divorce was ignored in the wake of an eternal nuptial, but the religious divorce was binding and prohibited sexual relations in the prior relationship.

The important factor in deciding whether or not Joseph Smith was involved in sexual polyandry was whether or not the woman was living with and having connubial relations simultaneously with Joseph and her “legal” husband. A previous legal marriage was not a valid deterrent to sexual relations, so long as the woman was not living with any other man.

4. From the standpoint of LDS theology, sexual polyandry is easily classified as non-doctrinal and anti-doctrinal. It constitutes the sin of adultery. No ceremonies are described that would solemnize a true polyandrous relationship wherein a woman was authorized to be sexually involved with both husbands. The revelation on eternal marriage defines sexual polyandry as adultery saying that if a woman, “after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed (D&C 132:63; see also verse 42).

Early Utah church leaders condemned true or sexual polyandry. Brigham Young stated in 1852: “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one? This is not known to the law” (JD, 1:361). On October 8, 1869 Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong” (JD, 13:41). Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law” (JD, 18:55-56). Importantly, each of these individuals quoted here were involved with Nauvoo polygamy and several were undoubtedly aware of Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women. Hyrum Smith’s son, Joseph F. Smith, wrote in 1889: “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order. It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage” (Richard E. Turley, Jr. Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, volume 1, DVD #29).

One of the ways sexual polyandry is anti-doctrinal is that it creates confusion regarding the paternity of the wife’s offspring. Charles W. Penrose wrote that in polyandry: “The paternal identity is destroyed, or made so doubtful, as to annihilate those natural sympathies which properly should exist between the father and his offspring” (“Why We Practice Plural Marriage.” Millennial Star, 29:578). Mormon theology assigns specific responsibilities to parents regarding their own children but does not hold them responsible for their neighbors’ children. Polyandry would unavoidably introduce confusion into this strict injunction.

Joseph’s eternal sealings involved witnesses and officiators, often family members of the women involved. How readily would these individuals have accepted and participated in a process they could have viewed only as adultery? There is no credible documentation that any of these women saw themselves as practicing sexual polyandry.

5. There is evidence for “eternity only” sealings in some of Joseph’s plural marriages. It is notable that some authors refuse to acknowledge that any of Joseph’s sealings in Nauvoo could have been for “eternity only.” Todd Compton explained: “There are no known instances of marriages for ‘eternity only’ in the nineteenth century” (Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 14; see also 500). D. Michael Quinn agreed: “If the phrase ‘eternity only’ ever appeared in an original record of LDS sealing in the nineteenth century, I have not discovered it while examining thousands of such manuscript entries” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, 183).

Actually, manuscript documentation has been identified supporting that “eternity only” sealing occurred during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and even within his own “polyandrous” marriages. Nauvooan Justus Morse recounted in an affidavit dated March 23, 1887: “In the year 1842 at Nauvoo, Illinois, Elder Amasa Lyman, taught me the doctrine of sealing, or marrying for eternity . . . and that within one year from that date my own wife and another woman were sealed to me for eternity in Macedonia, by father John Smith, uncle to the Prophet. This woman was the wife of another man, but was to be mine in eternity” (Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1914, 169-70). Within the research papers of Andrew Jenson, author of the 1887 Historical Record article on Joseph Smith’s plural wives, is the following statement: “Mrs. [Ruth] Sayers was married in her youth to Mr. Edward Sayers. . . . Though he was not a member of the Church, yet he willingly joined his fortune with her and they reached Nauvoo together some time in the years 1841. While there, the strongest affection sprang up between the Prophet Joseph and Mr. Sayers. The latter not attaching much importance to the theory of a future life for eternity, as he himself should only claim her in this life. She was accordingly sealed to the Prophet among the Prophets’ plural wives. She however continued to live with Mr. Sayers [and] remained with her husband until his death” (Andrew Jenson Papers, ca. 1871-1942, LDS Archives).

It is notable that Joseph did not seek out a relationship with Ruth Sayers. She likely sought him out at the encouragement of her husband. Other documents from Zina Huntington, Patty Bartlett, and Mary Elizabeth Rollins indicate their marriages may also have been “eternity only” sealings as well (see “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young,” Saints Herald, January 11, 1905, 29; Patty Bartlett in Donna Toland Smart, ed., Mormon Midwife: The 1846-1888 Diaries of Patty Bartlett Sessions, Logan, Utah: Utah State University, 1997, 276; and May Elizabeth Rollins in “Remarks” at BYU April 14, 1905, copy of original signed typescript in Special Collections at BYU, 7).

One interesting clue from Joseph’s behavior suggests that he was clearly motivated to be sealed to a woman for “eternity only,” perhaps just as much as he was to sealed to her for “time and eternity.” Brigham Young recalled the non-polyandrous sealing of his fifty-six-year-old spinster sister Fanny to the Prophet: “I recollect a sister conversing with Joseph Smith on this subject [plural marriage]. She told him: ‘Now, don’t talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.’ Joseph said ‘Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.’ He then said to me: ‘Here, brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.’ I sealed her to him. This was my own sister according to the flesh” (JD, 16:166-67). There is no indication that sexual relations were in any way contemplated or experienced by the participants, yet Joseph instantly requested the participation of both Fanny and Brigham in effectuating the ordinance. Todd Compton observed that this sealing “shows how casual and unromantic polygamy could be” (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 616).

It does seem likely that during the period of Joseph’s polygamy, a woman was given the choice as to whether or not she would like to be sealed “for eternity” to a man other than her legal husband. With Ruth Vose Sayers serving as an example, other women who were married to non-members or unworthy husbands may have followed her lead, or perhaps preceded her in this practice (see Justus Morse, Affidavit, March 23, 1887, in Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1814, 169-70). Apparently some women with active LDS husbands chose to be sealed to the Prophet, as with Esther Dutcher. Women’s preferences continued to be respected concerning sealings to Joseph Smith after his death. For example, Joseph married two widows, Delcena Johnson Sherman and Martha McBride Knight, presumably for “time only.” After the Prophet’s death, when the women appeared at the Nauvoo Temple to be re-sealed to him for eternity by proxy, Delcena was sealed vicariously to her deceased legal husband, Royal Lyman Sherman, while Martha McBride was sealed to Joseph Smith, not to her civil spouse, Vinson Knight (Lisle Brown, Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions, and Anointings: a Comprehensive Register of Persons Receiving LDS Temple Ordinances, 1841-1846, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006, 272, 273). Apparently the individual choices of these women determined to whom they were to be united eternally.

6. From a purely practical standpoint, Joseph knew well the inherent risks and possible consequences of having adulterous relations with another man’s wife. In that day, the Prophet knew well how readily a man would grab a gun or otherwise threaten the life of another male who takes sexual advantage of his wife. It seems to have been not only a common reaction, but an expectation in nineteenth-century America for husbands and brothers to avenge women who were coerced into extra-marital intimacies. It is unlikely that any of the husbands, particularly the four who were not members of the Church, would have accepted any type of explanation of plural marriage had they learned that Joseph was sexually involved with their wives. Retribution to the Prophet and perhaps even the man’s wife might have been swift and sure. The fear of frontier justice would have been a natural deterrent to Joseph were he to have contemplated any sexual polyandrous arrangements. Certainly such recklessness does not characterize the Prophet’s life and temperament.

The problematic case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon. One “polyandrous” relationship is routinely referenced as an undeniable example of polyandrous sexual relations. The relationship in question is that of Joseph Smith and Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, Sylvia’s daughter, Josephine Rosetta Lyon, signed the following affidavit: “Just prior to my mother’s death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith” (see Daniel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith.” M. A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 141). Several other historical documents, in addition to Josephine’s affidavit, support a genetic relationship between the Prophet and Josephine. How could this be? How could Joseph have fathered a child and yet not have been involved in sexual polyandry. We know that Sylvia wedded Windsor Lyon in a civil ceremony on April 21, 1838 (see “Notes on Joseph’s Plural Wives” above).

The question here is exactly when was she sealed to the Prophet and what was the status of her marriage to Windsor at that moment? Identifying sexuality between the Prophet and a “polyandrous” wife would not demonstrate sexual polyandry unless the persistence of sexual relations was also verified in the legal marriage.

Two dates have been suggested for their sealing from historical documents, but neither seems more likely than the other. The two dates are February 8, 1842 and February 8, 1843. Sylvia’s legal husband, Windsor Lyon was excommunicated from the Church November 19, 1842 over a falling out with stake President William Marks over a financial negotiation. As mentioned previously, when two sealing dates are suggested by historical data, perhaps a first was for “eternity only” and then a later second sealing was for “time and eternity.” That would make sense in this particular case. The same may hold true in a few other plural marriages of the Prophet’s, though there is simply no available information that might resolve the issue.

One question that arises is: “Did Windsor and Sylvia obtain a civil divorce after his excommunication? No documentation of a legal divorce between Windsor and Sylvia has been found. Such divorces required a hearing before the circuit court in Carthage. It seems doubtful that the absence of a legal divorce was not a major concern of either Joseph or Sylvia prior to being sealed. Several pieces of evidence indicate that some sort of divorce or termination was inherent in Windsor Lyon’s excommunication or at least accompanied it chronologically. Andrew Jenson reflects this perspective in referring to Sylvia as “formerly the wife of Windsor Lyon” (Andrew Jenson Papers, LDS archives). The same author wrote that Sylvia “was married to Mr. Lyon. When he left the Church she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith” (biographical information on Windsor and Sylvia Lyon, undated sheet in Andrew Jenson Collection, LDS Archives). It is also recorded that Sylvia told her daughter Josephine that she (Sylvia) was “sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Jr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church” (Josephine R. Fisher, certificate, February 24, 1915. Original in vault folder LDS Archives, 48-49). Windsor’s church estrangement was interpreted by Josephine as an official separation or divorce of her mother Sylvia and Windsor. There was never any implication that Josephine thought her mother was simultaneously married to two men or that Sylvia continued to cohabit with Windsor after his excommunication. No evidence exists to support continued conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor after his excommunication and prior to Joseph’s death.

Windsor was rebaptized in January 1846 following Joseph’s death. He had fathered three children with Sylvia prior to his excommunication, and he would father two after his 1846 rebaptism. The only child conceived while he was out of the Church was Josephine who was likely the daughter of Joseph Smith. Importantly, there is no evidence of sexual polyandry in this relationship.

Summary. We may summarize the probable characteristics of Joseph Smith’s thirteen “polyandrous” marriages. It appears that one sealing for “time and eternity” may not have been, in fact, polyandrous at all—that of Sylvia Sessions. A second was based upon a “pretend” marriage—that of Sarah Ann Whitney (Joseph C. Kingsbury was the “front husband). Five were probably “eternity only” sealings (Ruth Vose, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Sarah Kingsley, Presendia Lathrop Huntington, and Esther Dutcher). Additional historical data is needed to clarify the situation of the remaining six (Zina Diantha Huntington, Patty Bartlett, Marinda Nancy Johnson, Elvira Annie Cowles, Elizabeth Davis, and Lucinda Pendleton).

In light of all available evidence, authors who continue to assert that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry are obliged to agree and accept the following:

1. that credible evidence exists beyond the “tabloid level” accusations supporting it. Most serious researchers would not draw strict conclusions based upon the sensationalized claims that are currently available.

2. that Joseph Smith would blithely disobey a commandment he had dictated, a commandment that labels such behavior as “adultery,” stating that women so involved would be “destroyed” (D&C 132:63).

3. that the plural wives and other participants—including those who performed and witnessed the sealings—would have condoned the relationships, ignoring biblical teachings and Joseph Smith’s instructions condemning such relations.

4. that all participants would have easily overlooked Joseph Smith’s hypocrisy on this point, continuing to follow him as a prophet without apparent complaint.

For decades, anti-Mormon writers have apparently been comfortable with these assumptions, accusing Joseph Smith of sexual polyandry. Doubtless these accusations will continue.

#Joseph’s Relationships with Adolescents

The list of Joseph’s plural wives includes ten under the age of twenty at the time they were sealed to him:

Helen Mar Kimball 14

Nancy M. Winchester 14 (or possibly15)

Flora Ann Woodworth 16

Sarah Ann Whitney 17

Sarah Lawrence 17

Lucy Walker 17

Fanny Alger 19

Emily Dow Partridge 19

Maria Lawrence 19

Malissa Lott 19

Of particular concern is Joseph’s relationships with the two youngest on this list, Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester. Critics have usually assumed that since they were sealed to Joseph as plural wives, they were also having sexual relations with him. Other informed members of the Church are also uncomfortable with these two adolescents being on this list and hope that Joseph did not have sexual relations with them.

One may wonder about the possibility of what we would today refer to as “statutory rape.” This occurs when any adult, male or female, has sexual relations with a child who has not yet reached the age of consent. Attorney Melina McTigue wrote of the civil statutes governing the age of consent for sexual relations during the 1800s: “Early English law set the age of consent at ten. The age was gradually raised over the years. In the nineteenth century, most states had set the age of consent at ten. A few states began by using twelve as the cutoff. Delaware set the age of consent at seven” (“Statutory Rape Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Maryland: An analysis of Theory and Practical Change,” 2002, http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm). The minimum age for consent in Illinois at that time was ten (Mary E. Odem, Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995, 14).

Available research shows that in Joseph Smith’s day, marriages to fourteen yearold girls were legal, but rare. The Nauvoo City Council passed an ordinance specifying the minimum ages for marriage which recited Illinois State law verbatim: “All male persons over the age of seventeen years, and females over the age of fourteen years, may contract and be joined in marriage, provided, in all cases where either party is a minor, the consent of parents or guardians be first had” (“Nauvoo Records,” “An Ordinance Concerning Marriages passed February 17, 1842,” MS 16800, Church History Library).

Importantly, when analyzing the ages of women at the time of their first marriages, data derived from monogamous unions may not apply to polygamous marriages. This is because the sexual dynamics in monogamous and polygamous marriages may be very different. Male polygamists could experience sexual relations with their other plural wives, thus facilitating sealings to younger women wherein conjugality would be postponed. In contrast, monogamist men would be less willing to delay sexuality with their single wife, thus motivating them to marry older women who would be capable of bearing children immediately.

One of the most significant deterrents to pubescent brides throughout human history has been the potential complications arising from the physical immaturity of many fourteen-year-old girls. Generally it has been known that when immature females attempt to give birth to a term baby, both the baby and the mother may be in grave danger. This peril results from an undersized boney pelvis which creates a too-narrow birth canal that will not allow the baby’s head to pass. This disparity can and has resulted in serious injury and even death of both baby and mother.

There is no evidence to support that sexual relations were included in Joseph’s relationships with his youngest two wives. While we have no firsthand accounts outlining Joseph’s counsel on marriages to young girls, Brigham Young taught that young wives should be left to mature. Eugene E. Campbell described Brigham’s instructions given in Utah: “One of the more distressing developments was the number of men asking Young for permission to marry girls too young to bear children. To one man at Fort Supply, Young explained, ‘I don’t object to your taking sisters named in your letter to wife if they are not too young and their parents and your president and all connected are satisfied, but I do not want children to be married to men before an age which their mothers can generally best determine.’ Writing to another man in Spanish Fork, he said, ‘Go ahead and marry them, but leave the children to grow.’ A third man in Alpine City was instructed, ‘It is your privilege to take more wives, but set a good example to the people, and leave the children long enough with their parents to get their growth, strength, and maturity.’ To Louis Robinson, head of the church at Fort Bridger, Young advised, ‘Take good women, but let the children grow, then they will be able to bear children after a few years without injury.’ Another man in Santa Clara was told that it would be wise to marry an Indian girl but only if she were mature” (Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West 1847-1869. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988, 198 n. 5).

Wilford Woodruff married a fifteen year old named Emma Smith on March 13, 1853. Concerning that marriage, historian Thomas G. Alexander surmised: “[Brigham] Young . . . sealed Wilford, who had turned forty-six twelve days before, to fifteen-yearold Emma Smith and nineteen-year-old Sarah Brown. Sarah presented him with a son, David Patten Woodruff, the following year on April 4. He probably refrained from sexual relations with Emma until she became older, since she did not bear her first child, Hyrum Smith Woodruff, until October 4, 1857, seven months after she turned nineteen” (Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991, 168).

One study showed that the average age for plural wives married in one area of Utah was about twenty (Larry Logue, “A Time of Marriage: Mormon Monogamy and Polygamy in a Utah Town,” Journal of Mormon History, 1984, 13:3-26). C. C. Rich took a bride of 14 years though he did not live with her until she was 18 years old (Kimball Young, Isn’t One Wife Enough? New York: Henry Hold, 1954, 177). Lorenzo Snow and Eleanor Houtz (born 1831) made a promise to marry when she was just fourteen. However, they were not married for three more years (Bray, Mildred H., “Eleanor Houtz Snow: Biographical Sketch. MS 12145 Church History Library).

Mosiah Hancock recalled his sealing to Mary Dunn in the Nauvoo Temple in 1846. She was two months past her twelfth birthday, and he was three weeks shy of his: “On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple. . . I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go west and wait many a long time for another temple” (Amy E. Baird, Victoria H. Jackson, and Laura L. Wassell, compilers, “Mosiah Lyman Hancock Autobiography (1834-1865),” Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, undated, 20-21). It does not appear that the couple ever consummated the union, even four years later. They had no children together and each married other spouses in Utah. Mary wed Martin Luther Ensign in Salt Lake City in 1852 and had nine children.

As might be expected, some anti-Mormons have painted a different picture. Excommunicated Latter-day Saint Fanny Stenhouse wrote in 1872 concerning marriage patterns in Utah: “There is no particular age specified as proper for marriage, but the younger the girl is, the better. It is seldom that there are any girls married under fifteen years of age; but sixteen is a very sweet age” (Linda Wilcox DeSimone, ed., Fanny Stenhouse: “Exposé of Polygamy, A Lady’s Life among the Mormons,” Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2008, 129). Anti-Mormon writer Jules Remy asserted in 1861 that six years previously he heard Brigham Young state: “Let me see no more boys above sixteen and girls above fourteen unmarried” (Jules Remy and Julius Brenchley, A Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City. London: W. Jeffs, volume 2, 1861, 60). This statement directly contradicts the well documented statements of Brigham Young above.

The fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. Helen was one of Joseph Smith’s two fourteen-year-old plural wives. Current evidence suggests that Helen’s father brokered the union. Her father was Heber C. Kimball. Helen, speaking of her father, wrote: “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 altar” (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History. Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997, 482-87). Richard Anderson observed: “Helen says several times that her father took the initiative to arrange the marriage and very possibly he did so with the view to committing her to the Prophet before her budding social life produced a choice or a proposal [from someone else]” (letter to Richard L. Anderson to Dawn Comfort, May 9-15, 1998. Copy of letter in Scott H. Faulring Papers, box 93, fds 1-3, accn 2316, Marriott Library).

The question remains as to whether or not, in their thirteen-month relationship, sexual relations were ever initiated. As might be predicted, D. Michael Quinn claimed they were, though his statement, not surprisingly, is undocumented (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 639). Researcher Michael Marquardt disagreed with

Quinn: “Helen Kimball’s sealing to Joseph Smith was a spiritual one unlike other wives who had sexual relations with the prophet” (The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844. Longwood, Florida: Zulon Press, 2005, 609). Todd Compton claims a more central position: “Some conclude that Helen Mar Kimball, who married Smith when she was fourteen, did not have marital relations with him. This is possible, as there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexual relations until they were older. But the evidence for Helen Mar is entirely ambiguous in my view” (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 14).

Brian Hales has found no evidence of conjugal relations between Helen and the Prophet. In 1882 Helen wrote: “During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. . . Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. . . I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur” (Woman’s Exponent, volume 11, number 12, November 15, 1882, 90).

It is apparent that Helen lived with her father following her sealing to Joseph. It is also clear that Joseph had a role in preventing her from socializing as an unmarried lady. Church dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen’s saying: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than a ceremony” (Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities. Lynn, Massachusetts: by the author, 1848, 19).

There is no evidence of a sexual relationship in these accounts. If there had been one, we might expect that her anticipation of pregnancy and other wifely responsibilities might have oriented her more toward no longer being single. Instead, she expressed boredom and a desire to be socially involved like her peers. It would appear that she regarded the marriage as more symbolic than real. Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball’s biographer, wrote: “Many years later in Utah she [Helen] wrote a retrospective poem about this marriage from which we learn that it was “for eternity alone,” that is, unconsummated. Whatever such a marriage promised for the next world, it brought her no immediate earthly happiness. She saw herself as a “fetter’d bird” without youthful friends and a subject of slander. This poem also reveals that Joseph Smith’s several pro forma marriages to the daughters of his friends were anything but sexual romps. Furthermore, the poem reinforces the idea that, despite the trials of plurality in mortality, a “’glorious crown’ awaited the faithful and obedient in heaven” (Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, 98).

It would seem that the pattern of waiting until the women were mature, as taught in Utah, undoubtedly began in Nauvoo. Also, apparently Joseph had other relationships with the daughters of friends that followed a similar pattern.

The fourteen (or fifteen) year-old Nancy Winchester. Whether or not Nancy was fourteen or fifteen depends on the date of her sealing to the Prophet. She was born August 10, 1828 and therefore would have turned fifteen on that date in 1843. We don’t have the exact date in 1843 of her sealing to Joseph. In fact the evidence that Nancy was actually sealed to the Prophet is a bit soft. Perhaps the best evidence we have is that it was Eliza R. Snow’s opinion that she was (Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring, “Review of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd M. Comption,” FARMS Review of Books, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1998, 77).

It is curious that Nancy’s brother, Benjamin, failed to give evidence of her marriage to Joseph. Benjamin had many negative things to say about the Prophet, even accusing him of adultery in Philadelphia in 1840 and criticizing him several times in later writings. But throughout it all, Benjamin never mentioned a plural marriage or any improper relations between Joseph and his teenage sister. This might be because there was no marriage or because Benjamin was unaware of the sealing. Had he been aware, he surely would have condemned the union. No documentation exists to suggest that Nancy was sexually involved in any way with the Prophet.

#What Motivated Women to Want to Be Sealed to the Prophet?

A review of Joseph’s polygamous relationships suggests it was sometimes the woman or her family that took the lead in instigating the relationship and not Joseph himself. Why would they have wanted to be sealed to the Prophet? The notion developed early, even in Ohio, in the history of the Church that “sealing” meant being sealed up to eternal life. It seems likely that these women saw being sealed to Joseph as a way to have their calling and election made sure. Elizabeth Rollins Lightner wrote in 1902: “I was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by commandment. In the spring of 1831, the Savior appeared and commanded him to seal me up to everlasting life” (Lightner, “Statement signed February 8, 1902). Today, of course, we would regard an eternal marriage sealing as something quite apart from being sealed up to eternal life. At the time of Joseph’s experiences with polygamy the involved women or their families saw being sealed to Joseph as having great eternal value. In some cases, the alreadymarried women perceived that their civil marriages (their legal husbands) could not produce that same benefit.

At other times it was Joseph who instigated the polyandrous sealing. This seems to have occurred particularly when Joseph perceived that the woman’s present husband would not lead her to a celestial reward. It is also evident that on some occasions Joseph was rebuffed in these attempts.

#Following a July 13, 1843, Agreement, Joseph Married Only Two Additional Plural Wives.

Available evidence supports the idea that Emma tried desperately to accept the principle and uphold Joseph in its practice. She participated in four plural sealings in May of 1843 by approving and placing the woman’s hand upon Joseph’s during the ceremony. However, within weeks her experiences in a plural household became unbearable and she vacillated in her support for the principle. She apparently eventually confronted Joseph with an ultimatum that included the threat of divorce and/or exposure. Finally on July 13, 1843, Joseph and Emma came to an agreement that included the transfer of property and other resources into Emma’s name so that if anything happened to him or to their marriage, she would be capable of supporting herself and their children. An additional condition of their agreement appears to have been her insistence that Joseph not marry any more plural wives without Emma’s permission. Records show he was sealed to two additional spouses after this episode, but each was a special circumstance.

The first occurred in September involving Malissa Lott, the nineteen year old daughter of Cornelius Lott, the caretaker of Joseph’s farm outside of Nauvoo. She was sealed to Joseph on September 20, 1843. In 1892, Malissa explained that Emma knew all about the sealing and gave her consent.

It appears that Emma permitted this single new polygamous union after the July 13, 1843 agreement. Apparently she experienced a resurgence of faith in September and early October of 1843. During that time, she received her entire temple ordinances and began administering them to other sisters in the Church. However, her ability to sincerely support polygamy was still shaky. Mary Jane Woodward recalled a notable conversation with Emma in which Emma stated that she knew the principle was right but she admitted having a “jealous heart” (signed statement by Maria Jane Woodward attached to George H. Brimhall to Joseph F. Smith, April 21, 1902; on Richard E. Turley, Jr., Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, volume 1, DVD #28).

The second sealing occured a month and a half later with Brigham Young’s fiftysix year-old sister Fanny Young. The context of the sealing was so that Fanny would have a husband in “the celestial kingdom,” with no conjugality on earth. Consequently, it may not have been a concern to Emma.

According to available historical manuscripts Joseph Smith did not marry any additional plural wives during the remaining eight months of his life.

#“Fundamentalists’” Practicing of Plural Marriage Today

There are two fundamental differences between the polygamy taught by Joseph Smith (and practiced generally in the Church between 1852 and 1904) and that practiced by fundamentalists today:

1. The first centers on the question as to whether or not plural marriage is necessary for exaltation.

2. Joseph Smith’s polygamy was tightly controlled by “one” man who held priesthood authority—the keys of sealing—necessary to perform the marriages. He plainly taught that plural marriages performed without the authorization of the “one” man were “not valid neither of force” (D&C 132:18). The “one” man is also entitled to the inspiration allowing him to discontinue the practice when the Lord desires.

Is polygamy necessary for exaltation? “Mormon fundamentalist” groups have claimed ties to Joseph Smith’s polygamy. They assert that the practice of plural marriage is required today. They cling tenaciously to certain statements of the early brethren. For example, in 1866 Brigham Young taught: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory” (JD, 11:269). Brigham Young also taught: “It [plural marriage] is a principle that always has existed and that always will” (Elden J. Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 1865-1869, A Chronological Compilation of Known Addresses of the Prophet Brigham Young, Salt Lake City: Elden J. Watson, 1982, 5:155). Brigham did not say, however, it was a “commandment that always has existed.” Rather it is a principle that may be commanded permitted or not permitted. In 1855 Brigham referred to it as a “duty” (JD, 3:265). Years later he instructed: “I will now give you, in short, my opinion with regard to plural marriage. It is of God, and He has revealed it from the Heavens and made it obligatory upon the Saints in the last days” (Elden Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 1865-1869, 5:33). “It [polygamy] is the commandment of the Lord to us (Brigham Young, “Remarks,” October 27, 1875, Deseret News Weekly, 24:619).” Note that Brigham did not say it was a commandment to all men who ever lived on earth in any era.

It is obvious that Joseph Smith, between 1835 and his death was commanded and even threatened by the Lord (recall the angel with drawn sword) lest he practice it. From 1852 through 1890, priesthood authorities including Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff were always adamant that the Latter-day Saints, during those years, were required to comply. During those years, celestial marriage was equivalent to polygamy, and the two terms were used interchangeably. Section 132 was sometimes interpreted as referring strictly to plural marriage, rather than eternal marriage. Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey the law of polygamy. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church. However, even throughout those years, no priesthood leader ever proclaimed in unambiguous language that every man in the celestial kingdom is a polygamist regardless of when and where he lived on the earth. No such sweeping and all-inclusive declaration concerning the absolute requirement of plural marriage for all males who come to this earth has been found. If such a doctrine were orthodox and true, it is strange that priesthood leaders, in all of their hundreds of discourses that mentioned plural marriage, never made an explicit pronouncement to that effect.

Specifically, there is no documentation that Joseph Smith ever preached that all men, regardless of the time and place they existed on earth, must practice plural marriage in order to be exalted. Neither did he teach that all men in the celestial kingdom are polygamists. In 1892 Wilford Woodruff was asked “if Joseph Smith had ever taught you at Nauvoo or anywhere else during his lifetime, that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter, he must have more than one wife?” President Woodruff responded: “I don’t know that I ever heard him make use of that expression or use that form of expression” (Wilford Woodruff deposition. Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony [part 3], page 66, question 698). When queried: “Did Joseph Smith teach you that a man must have more than one wife to be exalted,” Nauvoo polygamist and apostle’s wife, Bathsheba Smith responded: “I never heart of that” (Bathsheba Smith deposition. Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony [part 3], page 319, questions 1028-1029). When Joseph C. Kingsbury was asked if Joseph Smith taught him “that a man could not be exalted in the hereafter unless he had more wives than one,” Kingsbury replied: “No sir. He did not teach me that. He did not say anything about that” (Joseph Kingsbury deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony [part 3], page 205, question 600). Kingsbury also recalled: “I heard it preached from the stand that a man could be exalted in eternity with one wife” (Ibid., 600).

In 1832, Joseph Smith taught a general principle, that to receive God’s blessings, his followers must be obedient to the works required of them at their particular time and place: “You have no right to claim the promises of the inhabitants before the flood; [and] you cannot found your hopes of salvation upon the obedience of the children of Israel, when journeying in the wilderness; nor can you expect that the blessings which the apostles pronounced upon the churches of Christ eighteen hundred years ago were intended for you: Again, if others’ blessings are not your blessings, others’ curses are not your curses; you stand then in these last days, as all have stood before you, agents unto yourselves, to be judged according to your works” (“To the Honorable Men of the World, “ Evening and Morning Star, August 1832, 3:22). There were righteous Book of Mormon monogamists and New Testament Saints who had but one wife. Joseph F. Smith explained: “It [plural marriage] is applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment” (JD, 20:26).

Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal on February 12, 1870, that a church member, John Holement “made a long speech upon the subject of polygamy. He contended that no person could have a celestial glory unless he had a plurality of wives.” In response, President Brigham Young clarified that “there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife” (Scott G. Kenny, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833-1898, 9 volumes, Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983-85, 6:527). On February 10, 1873, in the Salt Lake School of the Prophets a question was raised regarding the truthfulness of the statement: “That no man who has only one wife in this probation can ever enter [the] Celestial Kingdom.” Wilford Woodruff “expressed disagreement and John Taylor said ‘he did not believe [it]’” (Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, minutes, February 10, 1872, Church History Library). In 1884 First Presidency counselor, George Q. Cannon, stated that, “He believed there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife” (Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal: 1833-1898. 8:235).

It would seem to be important that each and every member of the Church, whether or not he or she is called upon to practice polygamy, must accept that the church’s practice of polygamy between 1852 and 1890 was a principle of divine origin and was mandated, at that time, by God. Polygamy is a law of the gospel applicable to all dispensations, but only when it is specifically commanded.

Mormon fundamentalists lack the priesthood authority with its vital keys of sealing. “Mormon fundamentalists” are similar to fundamentalist groups that have attached themselves to other religions such as Islam, Catholicism, and the Jewish faith in that they selectively emphasize a few fundamentals while ignoring other vital principles. For example, Mormon fundamentalists do not do missionary work, although preaching the gospel to non-members was more fundamental to Joseph Smith than polygamy. They seem to somehow assume the necessary priesthood authority through their supposed historical attachment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church, obviously, denies any relationship with them and denies that they hold the priesthood of God.

Joseph Smith taught that through him, God commanded the practice of plural marriage. Joseph emphasized that “one” man holds the sealing keys (D&C 132:7) and that all plural marriages performed must be authorized by him. Through “one” man God regulates this practice. Plural marriages performed without his approval are “not valid neither of force when they are out of the world”:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God (D&C 132:18).

It might be argued that this single verse was included in the Doctrine and Covenants in anticipation of the Mormon fundamentalist movement.

Without the Prophet’s permission in January 1844, church member Hiram Brown taught that polygamy was acceptable, for which he was excommunicated (“Notice,” Times and Seasons, February 1, 1844, 3:423). Latter-day Saint John Taylor (not the apostle) recalled another man named Durfy who “went out to Layhart [Illinois] and he told the people there he thought the time would come when they would practice polygamy, or the same doctrine in reference to plural wives, that David and Solomon did” (Times and Seasons, March 15, 1844, 474). Durfy was severely rebuked (Ibid.).

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, his brother, church Patriarch Hyrum Smith, attempted to seal a marriage without Joseph’s approval. In 1845 Brigham Young recalled the event: “Joseph said that the sealing power is always vested in one man, and that there never was, nor never would be but one man on the earth at a time to hold the—sealing power—keys of the sealing power in the church, that all sealings must be performed by the man holding the keys or by his dictation, and that man is the president of the church. . . Hyrum was counselor . . . but the sealing power was not in Hyrum. . . This was proven, for Hyrum did in one case undertake to seal without counsel, & Joseph told him if he did not stop it he would go to hell and all those he sealed with him (Brigham Young to William Smith, “City of Joseph, August 10, 1845,” in Brigham Young Collection, Church History Library, CR 1234/1).

After Joseph’s death, Brigham Young held the sealing keys as the senior apostle upon the earth. Three years later, W. W. Phelps served a mission to the eastern states where he married three wives. His mission companion Henry B. Jacobs performed the marriages without having first obtained permission from President Young. Upon returning to Winter Quarters, Iowa with the three women, Brigham Young heard the story. Hosea Stout recorded: “President Young decided that Phelps had committed adultery every time that he had laid with one of them & that Jacobs should be silenced for the part he had taken in marrying them” (Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861, 2 volumes, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964, 1:289). Phelps was excommunicated on December 6, 1847 and was quickly rebaptized after acknowledging his misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the most important observation is that unauthorized plural marriage relations were considered to be adultery by President Young, even though Phelps had been righteously intentioned.

Earlier that year President Young complained of men who would enter into plural marriages by virtue of the authority of “some clod head of an elder” who was willing to say the sealing ceremony, rather than being authorized by Brigham to use the true “authority of this church” (Charles Kelly, ed., The Journals of John D. Lee 1846-47 and 1859. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984, 80).

Some Mormon fundamentalists claim their authority to practice polygamy from a higher priesthood council called the “Council of Seven Friends,” comprised of “High Priest Apostles.” They claim this council was higher than the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There is no evidence that this council existed (see Brian C. Hales, Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: the Generations after the Manifesto, Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 1006, 193-214).

At Brigham Young’s death, John Taylor became the senior apostle thereby holding the sealing keys. Upon his passing, the presiding priesthood authority on the earth was Wilford Woodruff. These transitions occurred in an orderly fashion consistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings that God’s house is a house of order. Through the 1890 Manifesto, Wilford Woodruff informed the saints that the commandment to practice plural marriage was removed and the saints no longer needed to comply (George Q. Cannon, “Remarks Given at Logan.” Cache Stake Conference, November 1, 1891, 6). Lorenzo Snow succeeded President Woodruff and then at his death, Joseph F. Smith became the presiding apostle and holder of the sealing keys. In 1904, he refused to authorize any new plural marriages (see James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 volumes, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-71, 4:84-85) and wrote another Manifesto. Both the 1890 and 1904 Manifestos were included at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, but the latter was dropped from the 1981 edition.

Since 1904 the keys of sealing have been held by each succeeding president of the Church. They have been used daily to seal monogamous marriages for the living and sometimes plural marriages by proxy as when a widower is sealed to a new living wife.

Brian C. Hales concludes:

A review of Joseph Smith’s teachings demonstrates that unauthorized plural marriages bring divine condemnation. He taught that if the man holding the keys of sealing were to cease to permit plural matrimonies, irrespective of the reason, the ability to practice authorized polygamy would instantly cease (D&C 132:18). Proper sealing priesthood authority is always required. When sealing authority is withheld, celestial plural marriage cannot be practiced. Nothing—including traditions, individual sincerity, or personal revelation—can surmount the lack of genuine authority. Unauthorized polygamy [does] not constitute obedience. . . .

In my Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: the Generations after the Manifesto (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), I examine the priesthood claims of all major “Mormon fundamentalists” groups, identifying numerous insurmountable problems. My research into Joseph Smith’s polygamy further convinces me that stories that a special priesthood group could exist outside of the Church, ostensibly to keep polygamy alive, is unsupportable and in error (http://www.josephsmithpolygamy.com).

#Conclusion

In 1903 church President Joseph F. Smith wrote: “It is difficult to convince the prejudiced mind that any but base intents and impure desires prompted the practice of plural marriage, but nevertheless it was entered into, God knows, with the highest religious and moral motives” (“The Mormonism of Today,” The Arena, May, 1903, 5:450).

It is entirely appropriate to allow Dr. Brian Hales to conclude this chapter:

Several specific areas of controversy regarding the Prophet’s polygamy [have been] identified. . . After reviewing hundreds of historical documents, those topics can be readdressed perhaps with more complete understanding.

It appears that the best evidence indicates that Joseph Smith’s pre-

Nauvoo reputation did not include gossip of licentiousness and that Fanny Alger was his first plural wife. Manuscript documentation supports plural sealings to perhaps thirty-four women, with many of those being for “eternity only,” that is, for the next life. Sexual relations were present in some of the Prophet’s plural marriages, but probably much less than half and less commonly than detractors have alleged. It appears that two or perhaps three children were born through those unions. Evidence indicates Joseph Smith never participated in sexual polyandry and that he condemned such associations as adultery. No historical data has been found supporting sexual relations with his fourteen/fifteen-year-old wives, consistent with Utah policies of waiting until the women matured. A review of the numerous allegations of sexual involvement with non-wives fails to identify any that do not suffer from factual errors, internal inconsistencies, or gross implausibilities.

I enthusiastically join my testimony with that of Brian Hales. To me there is no question that Joseph “lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people” (D&C 135:3). He was a truly noble, dignified, and wholesome prophet of God.