Woe Unto You, Scribes: The Hidden History of Polygamy

0:00

>>Introduction

Thank you for being here. I am so excited about this! Over the last year and a half, I’ve come across information that I think is really important and really good news, so I wanted to share it with you and provide some sources so that you could look it up for yourself.

My main purpose is to increase faith and understanding among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those of other faiths by sharing information about Joseph Smith and his alleged practice of polygamy. Erroneous ideas about this topic have circulated for decades. Some have understood that polygamy only began in the church after the trek west, and they’re surprised to learn that Joseph is said to have practiced it in Nauvoo long before that. Early church leaders taught that polygamy was necessary for exaltation, which can be very disturbing. For many faithful women, especially, the unspoken dread of future polygamy – in this life or the next – is set aside on a spiritual “shelf” of troubling questions. For some, it’s an ever-present wedge keeping them from giving their whole hearts to their spouses and quietly damaging that most sacred relationship.

Correct information on this topic is essential, and while most of us, including busy church leaders, have typically gotten our history filtered through professional researchers, we can now examine thousands of original and contemporaneous documents – meaning documents created during Joseph’s lifetime – for ourselves, thanks in large part to the Joseph Smith Papers Project. These documents demonstrate that Joseph Smith consistently opposed polygamy as an abomination; that he denied ever having taught or practiced it; and that, contrary to the narrative perpetuated by well meaning historians, Joseph was in fact telling the truth. As we examine the traditional narrative, the work of Brian Hales will be cited frequently, since his writings have heavily influenced our current teachings about Joseph Smith. Hales’ efforts to gather documentation and make it available online are enormously appreciated, but, as we’ll see, his conclusions are not always supported by the historical record.

We’ll be covering Joseph’s and Hyrum’s teachings on polygamy; then the evidence for the claim that Joseph practiced it; the scriptural basis for plural marriage, including Doctrine and Covenants Section 132; and finally, the testimonies – and absence of testimonies – from the alleged plural wives. This is going to be a lot of information, so buckle up. Editorializing will be kept to a minimum, but it’s impossible not to make the occasional observation. Let’s dig in!

3:15

>>Joseph’s Teachings on Polygamy

On Sunday, May 26, 1844, Joseph Smith preached to the saints in Nauvoo, Illinois, addressing rumors of his alleged practice of polygamy: “I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the gospel before it was reported that I had seven wives… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one. I am the same man and as innocent as I was 14 years ago, and I can prove them all perjurers.” In July 1838, as editor of the Elders’ Journal, a church publication something like our Ensign or Liahona, Joseph published a list of questions and answers, including this one: “Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.” In fact, the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, published in 1835 under Joseph’s direction, contained an article on marriage as part of Section 101: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” This article was printed and reprinted in numerous church publications and was included in the second edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, published in 1844.

4:45

Some historians believe the article contained a special loophole that actually allowed for polygamy, because it said that “one man should have one wife; and one woman BUT one husband.” They argue that “one wife” is a tricky way to say “at least one wife.” Obviously, this would defeat the purpose of the declaration, which was to clarify the church’s position on polygamy – not to create ambiguity or deceive.

Fortunately, the church republished this article on marriage in the January 1844 edition of the Millennial Star and made it crystal clear: “we declare that we believe, that one man should have but one wife, and one woman but one husband,” which should surely put to rest any idea that the article was carefully worded to secretly allow for what it clearly condemns. In fact, this article on marriage remained in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876, when it was finally removed, and Section 132 – which presents polygamy as a doctrine from God – was added.

5:50

Section 132 has been a great source of confusion, since it contradicts teachings found in all four books of scripture, including the Doctrine and Covenants itself. Genesis 2: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Mark 10: For this cause shall a man cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Jacob 2: There shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none. D&C 42: Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

Importantly, Section 132 was not introduced to the saints until 1852 – eight years after Josephs death. We’ll examine this section in detail, but for now, let’s look at Joseph’s and Hyrum’s recorded teachings, which consistently condemned polygamy and any such thing. For instance, under Joseph’s editorial direction, the Times and Seasons published this in April of 1844: “To the Elders Abroad – In the first place, we cannot but express our surprise that any elder or priest…should for one moment give credence to the idea that anything like iniquity is practised, much less taught or sanctioned, by the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are the more surprised since every species of iniquity is spoken against and exposed publicly at the stand… If any man writes to you or preaches to you doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter… Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach or teach or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches…”

7:50

At about the same time, a very exasperated Hyrum Smith gave this strongly worded rebuke in April of 1844: “One reason I speak to the elders is in consequence of the ten thousand reports which come to me from abroad – almost every foolish man runs to me to enquire…how many spiritual wives a man may have… I am authorized to tell you from henceforth that any man who comes in and tells any such damn fool doctrine, to tell him to give up his license. None but a fool teaches such stuff. The devil himself is not such a fool. Every elder who teaches such stuff ought to have his nose wrung… I wish the Elders of Israel to understand it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more…”

While this speech is preserved in the church History catalog, the Joseph Smith Papers project only includes an edited version, which requires some explanation.

8:50

After the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young commenced work on a compilation of church history in which he and his scribes made numerous revisions to original journals and notes, as noted in Brigham’s journal: “April 1st, 1845: I commenced revising the history of Joseph Smith at Brother Richards’ office…” “April 2nd: Engaged at Elder Richards’ office with Elders Kimball and Smith revising church history…”

This effort continued for months. Some of the so-called “revisions” included deleting entire speeches and sections of speeches. Here’s an example of text that was to be omitted at the direction of Brigham Young. The text is crossed out, and we can see a notation in the left hand margin: “Not to go in by BY’s orders.” Here’s an example of a draft copy of the minutes from a meeting on April 8, 1844. We can see that a few additions have been made near the top of the manuscript in a different handwriting. This particular draft is noteworthy, as this is the speech by Hyrum Smith referenced earlier, in which he says that none but a fool teaches that a man may have multiple wives. We can see that the entire speech has been crossed out to indicate that it should be omitted from the final version of the history that was being compiled. And here’s an excerpt from the revised version, in which Hyrum’s fiery speech has been omitted and replaced with a mildly worded summary that does not resemble the original at all: “He treated upon the subject of the Elders preaching abroad. He said…that the Elders of Israel should know what they were about when they go to preach the gospel – They should… be ready to give a reason for the hope of their calling. When they are sent to preach the gospel, they should preach the gospel and nothing else… Many other remarks were made by the speaker.” The Joseph Smith Papers editors acknowledged that this revised version of Hyrum’s speech was “created” over a decade later, in 1855 or 1856.

10:50

After the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, Brigham Young recounted numerous stories of private conversations he claimed to have had with both men. One such story is repeated in Saints: The Standard of Truth, in which Brigham says that Hyrum approached him one day in 1843 begging for information that Brigham and the twelve seemed to have but of which Hyrum – beloved brother of the prophet and co-president of the church – was somehow ignorant. According to Brigham’s story, which he told in 1866, Hyrum was brought to tears over the realization that, in his ignorance, he had been preaching against polygamy, unaware that this holy doctrine had secretly been revealed to Joseph.

Yet Hyrum’s strongly worded speech, given just two and a half months before his death, does not comport with Brigham’s story of his tearful conversion to polygamy more than a year earlier. It’s very instructive to note that the contemporary record of Hyrum’s anti-polygamy speech was omitted from Brigham’s history of the church, while his own pro-polygamy recollection from over two decades later was included.

Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian under Brigham Young, recorded the following in his diary: “[H]aving been employed in the historian’s office at Nauvoo, I know that after Joseph’s death, his memoir was ‘doctored’ to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young…”

12:20

On October 5th, 1843, the following important entry was recorded in Joseph’s journal by his scribe, with whom he had been discussing holding disciplinary church courts for those practicing polygamy: “walked up and down street with scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching or teaching the doctrine of plurality of wives. On this law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof – No man shall have but one wife” And we do have records of church members being excommunicated for these practices shortly after this. For example, Joseph Smith brought charges against Harrison Sagers for attempting to seduce his own wife’s younger sister and claiming that Joseph condoned it. Another man named Hiram Brown was cut off from the church for preaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines. Unfortunately, the October 5th entry from Joseph’s journal, which so clearly illustrates his position on polygamy, was also altered before it was placed into the historical record. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers, we can actually see for ourselves the alterations that were made. Here’s the original October 5th entry, clearly stating, “No man shall have but one wife.” And here is the draft version of that entry, in which multiple major changes were made to the original. Notice the notation, “to be revised,” in the left margin near the bottom of the page. We can see the original words, “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives.” The following words were then inserted in someone else’s handwriting: “for according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days, for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred. And I have constantly said…” And then there’s an arrow pointing to the original sentence, “No man shall have but one wife,” followed by another addition: “unless the Lord directs otherwise.” The sentence “Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof” is completely crossed out.

Here’s the final draft or “fair copy,” including the omissions and extensive additions that were made after Joseph’s death. This revised version is now part of the church history compiled by the Utah scribes.

14:45

Amateur historian Brian Hales was instrumental in helping to craft the church’s Gospel Topics Essays on polygamy, as well as the stories of Joseph’s polygamy as told in Saints: The Standard of Truth. Hales addressed this dramatic change to Joseph’s journal. He notes that the words added after Joseph’s death precisely match phrases from Section 132 of our current Doctrine and Covenants – which, as noted earlier, was also added after Joseph’s death – and he somehow concludes that this was what Joseph intended all along.

[Hales:] The amateur historians will often make this observation – that Joseph Smith’s journal, when it was transcribed into the history of the church, was changed…after Joseph’s death and compiled after his death, during the tenure of Brigham Young… Now, the amateur historian will come in and say, ‘There have been a lot of additional words that have been added here’… They will take these seven words, ‘No man shall have but one wife,’ and say, ‘Here’s Joseph’s policy’… If we compare the expanded version of History of the Church…we see the exact same words. The expansion is, ‘I hold the keys of power in these last days.’ The revelation says, ‘I have appointed my servant Joseph to hold this power in these last days.’ It is verbatim… The expanded version isn’t Brigham young changing Joseph Smith’s meaning. This is Joseph Smith being expanded by Joseph Smith… And so what we find is if we use amateur historian techniques, we come away deceived. But if we can expand and be transparent and understand what actually is happening, we will find that when Joseph Smith gave his scribe this information, and then the scribe was putting it into the history of the church, he’s simply using Joseph’s words to help the audience understand what Joseph was trying to teach.”

The idea that Joseph was “trying to teach” that God sometimes approves of polygamy by saying “No man shall have but one wife” stretches credulity, and for a scribe to change Joseph’s words after his death seems anything but honest and transparent. What’s more, Joseph’s original journal entry aligns perfectly with all of his teachings on polygamy. As editor of the Times and Seasons, he published a letter penned by Hyrum Smith in March of 1844, which included this portion: “To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints living…in Hancock County… Whereas…some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly, any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the high council and lose his license and membership also…”

17:50

One of the strongest speeches ever given on the topic was written by Joseph Smith to the Relief Society sisters in March of 1842, asking for their help in preventing “iniquitous characters from carrying their iniquity into effect.” He warned the sisters not to be duped by any man claiming to have authority from Joseph or the first presidency, or any other presidency of the church, and told them that “no such authority ever has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let him be treated with utter contempt, and let the curse of God fall on his head, and let him be turned out of society as unworthy of a place among men, and denounced as the blackest and the most unprincipled wretch; and finally let him be damned!” He further made it clear that this was to be universally applied to all men, no matter their office or calling, saying, “all persons pretending to be authorized by us, or having any permit or sanction from us, are and will be liars and base impostors, and you are authorized…to denounce them as such and shun them as the fiery flying serpent, whether they are prophets, seers or revelators; patriarchs, twelve apostles, elders, priests, mayors, generals, city councillors, aldermen, marshal, police, lord mayor, or the devil, all are alike culpable and shall be damned for such evil practices.”

19:20

Emma Smith also stood united with her husband in condemning all forms of iniquity, including polygamy. To several overflowing crowds of sisters she read a scathing speech entitled “The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo,” denouncing the “ungodly wretches” that were “blasting the chastity of widows and wives, and corrupting the virtue of our unsuspecting daughters…” She implored the sisters to rebuke such an outrage upon the chastity of society and to thwart such a death blow at the hallowed marriage covenant. “Wherefore,” she concluded, “while the marriage bed undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, [and] prostitution be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature, ‘where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched!’ and let all the saints say, Amen!”

Incredibly, Saints: The Standard of Truth has this to say: “Because neither Joseph nor Emma wrote down how they felt about plural marriage, many questions are left unanswered.”

It’s astonishing that church historians so often ignore the words of Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma. Scholars routinely claim that these three pillars of the restoration never meant what they said about polygamy. They insist that Joseph was prevaricating; that Hyrum, his faithful brother and co-president of the church, was ignorant of Joseph’s secret doctrine; and that Emma – who consistently denied both before and after Joseph’s death that her husband ever practiced polygamy – was simply lying.

21:00

Brian Hales dismisses Joseph’s declaration of his innocence, cited earlier, in which he exclaims, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one,” by explaining that Joseph was not telling the whole truth. He says, “Outwardly, Joseph only had one wife, having never publicly acknowledged his plural wives in any way. So as he was openly addressing the congregation that day, Emma was the only wife Joseph had legally or publicly acknowledged… These observations demonstrate an attempt to share only partial truths in the hopes that the audience would not read between the lines.” “Historians have generally recognized that most statements include elements designed to avoid frank lying.”

Regarding Hyrum, Hales explains, “As associate church president and church patriarch, Hyrum Smith was close to Joseph, his brother. However, as late as May 1843, he was not in Joseph’s polygamy inner circle.”

Incidentally, the historical evidence actually does support the idea of a secret circle of Nauvoo polygamists, but it also shows that Joseph was not part of it and was, in fact, fighting against it.

22:15

Emma also denied, consistently and till the end of her life, that her husband ever taught or practiced polygamy and repudiated the idea that she and Joseph were ever at odds over any supposed plural wives. In fact, contrary to the stories told by historians, they didn’t argue about much at all. In Emma’s words, “There was no necessity for any quarreling. He knew that I wished for nothing but what was right, and as he wished for nothing else, we did not disagree.” Joseph Smith III, son of Joseph and Emma, also testified that, though his room was adjacent to theirs, he never heard them argue. “It has been reported…that Mother was quarrelsome and was antagonistic to my father and frequently made trouble for him. I never heard any quarrelling or harsh language between them under any circumstances, and…even disagreements between them were not conducted in a noisy or angry manner, that mother’s language was quiet and temperate, and so was father’s.

This exemplary picture of marital harmony between the Lord’s prophet and his faithful wife is completely at odds with the wild assertions by Brigham Young and other early polygraphs, including this statement made by Brigham in 1866: “Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her…of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she… I have witnesses of this scene all around who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him.”

23:55

Brian Hales counters Emma’s repeated denials that her husband ever practiced or taught polygamy by citing testimony from a man named William McLellin.

[Hales:] “Years later, in 1847, William McLellin had an interview with Emma, and Emma didn’t want to talk about polygamy, but she did say, look, if you tell me things you heard, I’ll tell you whether they’re true or false. And in that conversation, she said Joseph was both an adulterer and a polygamist.”

Hales also cites McLellin as a source in his books and articles and includes, among others, the following story that McLellin told to Joseph Smith III: “At your birth, your father committed an act with a Miss Hill – a hired girl. Emma saw him and spoke to him. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!!” A few facts that might put William McLellin’s testimony in perspective are that in 1833, the Lord had already revealed that he was “not well pleased” with him; that McLellin was excommunicated from the church twice; that in 1839, he robbed Joseph and Emma’s home; and that, according to the History of the church, he “asked the sheriff for permission to do violence to the person of Joseph Smith while the latter was confined in prison.” In light of all this, it’s mystifying that Brian Hales would prioritize McLellin’s testimony over Emma’s, but for some reason, he dismisses both her testimony and that of her son, Joseph III.

25:35

[Host:] “Well, let’s talk about Emma again. So, as I understand it, on her deathbed, she said that Joseph never practiced polygamy. How do you – why do you think she denied that? Was that just, she didn’t want to believe it, or she didn’t want her children to believe it, or what do you…?”

[Hales:] “You know, just months before she died, Joseph Smith III asked her a series of questions, and it took several days to get these answers recorded… Well, one of the questions was, ‘Was Joseph a polygamist?’ And she denies that he had any other wives than her…and, to be quite honest with you, there are at least two other denials that clearly were not senility, were clearly not specially phrased questions, where Emma just comes right out – and they’re fairly well documented – and said, ‘Joseph did not practice polygamy.’ And how do I deal with that? I don’t know. I do not have a good explanation… I think Emma was an amazing woman… She had the worst row to hoe of all polygamous wives in my view. She did remarkably well. She stumbled, but I believe there’s plenty of forgiveness on these things for her…”

The suggestion that Emma “stumbled” in rejecting polygamy and that she would need to be forgiven for affirming that Joseph was a faithful husband is extraordinary. As Hales mentions, Joseph III, Joseph’s and Emma’s oldest living son, conducted an interview with his mother near the end of her life in which she affirmed multiple times that her husband never practised polygamy or anything like it and stated unequivocally, “I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.” However, Hales dismisses this statement and instead suggests that Joseph III may have falsified his mother’s testimony.

27:35

[Host:] “I’d love to understand more about Emma’s relationship with plural marriage after the saints left to Utah. We know her son was out here denying his father ever taught the doctrine, but what did Emma ever say on the subject afterwards?”

[Hales:] “We don’t have a lot of material from her. We have a couple of denials that are recorded. One of them comes through Joseph Smith III, who waited until she was dead to publish it, and, interestingly, if you go to the notes that he wrote during his interview on that occasion, it doesn’t have anything in there on polygamy. It talks about the Book of Mormon and her statement on the Book of Mormon being beyond Joseph’s ability in 1829. But when you get to all the polygamy stuff, there’s no notes there. He’s reconstructing this from notes that we don’t have or from his own memory, and I’m just not sure he’s representing her words very accurately there.”

He’s even more frank in another interview.

28:25

[Host:] “I’m curious what you’ve uncovered regarding Emma.”

[Hales:] “…Regarding her so called denials, I don’t believe Joseph Smith III. That whole interview was written down, published well after Emma had died. Emma wasn’t there to respond to it. And I’ve seen Joseph Smith III’s notes for those, those interviews… There’s a number of things written down about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon… There’s no notes about – at least that we have currently – and there may have been and they’ve been lost – but nothing about what she actually said regarding polygamy.”

29:05

This is manifestly false. The handwritten notes made by Joseph III in preparation for and during his interview with Emma exactly match his report of that interview in the Saints’ Herald, published October 1st, 1879. Here are the actual images of the notes he took while interviewing his mother. We can see his questions, written in pen, on the first page. The fifth question is, “What about the revelation on polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?” We can also see Emma’s corresponding answers, written in pencil, including this unequivocal response: “There was no revelation on either polygamy or spiritual wives… No such thing as polygamy or spiritual wifery was taught publicly or privately before my husband’s death that I have now or ever had any knowledge of. He had no other wife but me.” And again, according to the interview notes, Emma stated clearly, “I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.”

All of this precisely matches what Joseph III published in the Saints’ Herald. If Brian Hales really did examine these notes, it’s hard to imagine how he could claim that they contained “nothing about what she actually said regarding polygamy.”

30:30

Other testimonies are likewise rejected or ignored when they don’t support the traditional narrative of Joseph’s polygamy, such as statements from Nancy Rigdon and her father regarding a document known as the “Happiness Letter.”

In May of 1842, several women testified that they had been seduced by certain “iniquitous characters,” as Joseph called them, who had assured them that Joseph sanctioned extramarital intercourse, as long as it was kept secret and there were no accusers. Sarah Miller and Margaret and Matilda Nyman testified against one of these wicked men, Chauncey Higbee. Another was John C. Bennett, who, after a short-lived period of repentance, continued his seductions; gave contradictory affidavits; was excommunicated; and became a fierce enemy of Joseph Smith and the church.

On June 27, Bennett wrote one of many letters to the Sangamo Journal declaring, “Joseph Smith, the notorious Mormon prophet and swindler…is the most consummate blackguard and dastardly coward…” and that he had “seduced not only hundreds of single and married females, but…attempted to seduce Miss Nancy Rigdon, the eldest…daughter of Sidney Rigdon.” Bennett claimed that Joseph Smith had offered him $500 for his help in procuring Nancy as one of his spiritual wives, and that when Bennet refused, Joseph locked Nancy in a room, only releasing her when she threatened to alarm the neighbors.

According to Bennett’s tale, Joseph then wrote Nancy what is popularly known as the “Happiness Letter,” in which the author uses half-truths to persuade Nancy that a plurality of wives is sometimes approved of, or even required, by God. Here are a few excerpts: “Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it… That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is right under another…” The letter’s author teaches that “God gave [the biblical king Solomon] every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable…but which, in reality, were right, because God gave and sanctioned [them] by special revelation.” Importantly, this perfectly matches the teachings about Solomon’s polygamy found in section 132 of our current Doctrine and Covenants, which we’ll examine shortly.

32:55

The letter continues: “Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant…for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly; but unto him that hath not, or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath…”

It’s striking that the principle implied here – that rejecting a plurality of wives is akin to burying one’s talent – was later taught explicitly by Brigham Young to the Utah saints: “Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there, he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, ‘Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,’ and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever.”

34:05

Of the letter to Nancy Rigdon, Bennett writes, “I have seen it, so has her father, and various other persons… Now call upon Miss Rigdon for the truth of the foregoing.” As it happens, we do have a response from the Rigdons, written by Nancy’s father and published the following month in the Wasp newspaper: “Editor of the Wasp. Dear Sir: I am fully authorized by my daughter, Nancy, to say to the public through the medium of your paper, that the letter which has appeared in the Sangamo Journal…purporting to have been written by Mr. Joseph Smith to her, was unauthorized by her, and that she never said to Gen. Bennett or any other person, that said letter was written by said Mr. Smith, nor in his handwriting, but by another person and in another person’s handwriting… I would further state that Mr. Smith denied to me the authorship of that letter. [Signed,] Sydney Rigdon.”

Yet despite this public refutation and the fact that the letter was not written in Joseph’s handwriting, Brian Hales continues to attribute the letter to Joseph Smith: “Apparently, in an attempt to propose plural marriage to her, the prophet dictated a letter to her containing doctrinal teachings that was published by excommunicated member John C. Bennett.” Hales adds, “While some researchers may question whether Joseph Smith was the true author, no other plausible candidate has been proposed.” Attributing this letter to Joseph because its true author has not been positively identified is a prime example of the carelessness underlying the traditional narrative of Josephs polygamy.

What is the motivation for continually rejecting the well documented, contemporary, and consistent statements of Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum, in favor of later recollections and “the testimony of traitors”? What evidence do we have that the testimonies and teachings from our founding prophet, his faithful wife, and his beloved brother should not be believed?

36:05

>>Evidence for Joseph’s Alleged Polygamy

The most well known testament to Joseph’s supposed polygamy is Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, “relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage.” The heading to Section 132 describes it as a “revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843.” It would be much more accurate to say that in 1852 – eight years after Joseph was killed – Brigham Young introduced this purported revelation for the first time, claiming that Joseph had received it years before, but that it had been kept secret in Brigham’s desk. At a special conference on August 29, 1852, Brigham asked apostle Orson Pratt to introduce the subject to the Utah saints: “It is quite unexpected to me, brethren and sisters, to be called upon to address you this forenoon; and still more so, to address you upon the principle which has been named, namely, a plurality of wives. It is rather new ground for me; that is, I have not been in the habit of publicly speaking upon this subject… consequently, we shall have to break up new ground…”

Orson also provided reasons for polygamy: “Whoredom, adultery, and fornication have cursed the nations of the earth for many generations… How is this to be prevented? For we have got a fallen nature to grapple with. It is to be prevented in the way the Lord devised in ancient times; that is, by giving to His faithful servants a plurality of wives…” He then flattered those very men, explaining that “many spirits…are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth… Then is it not reasonable…that the Lord should say unto his faithful and chosen servants…take unto yourselves more wives…?”

38:00

In the afternoon, during the same conference, Brigham Young also addressed the congregation: “You heard Brother Pratt state this morning that a revelation would be read this afternoon. The original copy of this revelation was burnt up. Sister Emma burnt the original. This revelation has been in my possession many years. And who has known it? None but those who should know it. I keep a patent lock on my desk, and there does not anything leak out that should not.” After Brigham’s remarks, what we now know as D&C Section 132 was then read to the congregation for the first time.

In an 1867 interview with Jason Briggs, Emma was asked about Brigham’s claim, to which responded, “The statement that I burned the original of the copy Brigham Young claimed to have is false and made out of whole cloth and not true in any particular. I never saw anything purporting to be a revelation authorizing polygamy until I saw it in The Seer, published by Orson Pratt [in 1853].”

Since Emma and Brigham can’t both be telling the truth, let’s examine some of the claims surrounding the receipt of the alleged revelation on polygamy.

39:10

There are a variety of recollections as to where and when polygamy was first introduced as a divine principle. In 1874, Brigham recalled, “While we were in England, I think, the Lord manifested to me by vision and his Spirit things that I did not then understand… And when I returned home and Joseph revealed those things to me, then I understood the reflections that were upon my mind while in England… This was in 1841…right in front of my house in the street…”

39:40

Heber C. Kimball confirmed that Joseph taught him about polygamy as soon as he returned from the same mission to England. But in his version, Joseph called Heber, Brigham, and Willard Richards together and taught it to them all for the first time. Heber recalls, “I received a revelation from God through Joseph Smith myself once in the presence of Brigham Young and Willard Richards. It was, ‘Thus saith the Lord, for my servant Willard and Brigham and Heber to take more wives.’ When we came home in 1841, we had not been home over six days before Joseph called us together and laid these things before us the first time we knew of them.” Heber’s account cannot be true, however, as Willard Richards did not arrive in Nauvoo until several weeks after the others.

40:30

In a surprising statement given in 1869, Brigham told U.S. senator Lyman Trumbull that polygamy had actually originated in Utah – years after the death of Joseph Smith: “As to our institutions, we know we are right, and polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity after we came here.” While it’s true that polygamy was not part of the original doctrine taught by Joseph, the notion that it was instituted due to a surplus of women after the trek West was debunked over 80 years ago by Apostle John A. Widtsoe: “The United States census records from 1850 to 1940 and all available church records uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah and in the church. The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female church members fails from lack of evidence.”

41:25

Even though, as Brigham noted, polygamy was not originally part of the church, Brigham himself had secretly taken numerous wives before leaving Nauvoo, and, strikingly, the vast majority of his marriages took place immediately after Joseph and Hyrum were killed. The red line marks the date of the martyrdom. The blue line is Brigham’s departure from Nauvoo and arrival in the Salt Lake valley. This may be a clue as to the real reason the Nauvoo polygamists kept their practice secret – and from whom they were hiding it.

42:00

Heber C. Kimball’s situation was similar. Prior to the martyrdom, Heber had taken one additional wife. Less than six months after Joseph’s death, Heber had over a dozen wives and would eventually have over forty. This excerpt of a letter from Heber to his first wife, Vilate, gives us a glimpse into the justifications he used to persuade her to accept what he was doing behind her back: “What I have done is according to the mind and will of God for his glory and mine, so it will be for thine. Every son and daughter that is brought forth by the wives that are given to me will add to your glory as much as it will to them. What I have done has been by stolen moments for the purpose to save your feelings and that alone on the account of the love I have for you. I beg of you to consider my case. God has put power into my hands for the purpose to get women to myself and those that he has given to me.” It’s impossible not to digress for a moment and include the following remarks by Heber C. Kimball, given in the Salt Lake tabernacle in 1857: “If I am faithful all the time and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph [in the spirit world] and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys. Where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder. They would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands. Have all you want.’ Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it… I am looking for the day, and it is close at hand, when we will have a most heavenly time.” Let’s now return to the provenance of Section 132.

43:45

In another account of Brigham’s first learning about polygamy, he recalled, “When that revelation was first read to me by Joseph Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the elders. But the Lord revealed it, and it was my business to accept it.” If Brigham is here claiming that he first heard the revelation in 1841 as Joseph read it to him, this would conflict with the long-held narrative that it was only written down for the first time in 1843, according to the universally accepted account from Joseph’s clerk. Let’s examine his story in detail.

44:25

As entries in Joseph Smith’s journal were recorded on his behalf, some of his scribes would write in the first person, as if in Joseph’s own voice. His scribe Willard Richards recorded the following entry in Joseph’s journal for July 12, 1843: “Received a revelation in the office in presence of Hyrum and William Clayton.” Richards included no details about what the revelation entailed, but editors of the Joseph Smith Papers note that just four days later, Joseph gave his first public sermon on eternal marriage, so it’s plausible that this may have been the subject of the revelation. Meanwhile, one of Joseph’s clerks, William Clayton, is said to have kept a journal of his own during this time. Here’s an entry from Clayton’s personal journal, purportedly written on the same day, July 12: “This A.M. I wrote a revelation consisting of ten pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David, and Solomon having many wives and concubines, etc. After it was wrote, presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to Emma, who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious.” It seems odd that Clayton’s personal journal should include so many more details than the journal kept by Willard Richards on behalf of the prophet himself. Yet this entry by Clayton is heavily relied on as proof that Joseph received a revelation on polygamy – what would later become D&C Section 132.

Unfortunately, no image of Clayton’s 1843 journal is available. In 2017, church historians announced that it would be released to the public at some point, but for now we have only transcripts. The Joseph Smith Papers editors do reference Clayton’s journal entry in a footnote, but the document itself is not included in the papers. James Allen, an assistant church historian in the 1970s, noted that Clayton’s journals were recorded in a confusing way: “The journals are a bit difficult to follow, for the entries are not always strictly chronological. Apparently Clayton began writing in one journal, moved to another for some reason, and then moved back to the original. Sometimes there are two entries for the same day. It is not clear why.” Many researchers have long been eager to examine the William Clayton journals in their entirety, especially this important entry, to either verify their authenticity or discover whether part or all of them might also be later creations, like so many other documents. At any rate, a final version of Joseph’s July 12, 1843, journal entry was again created later in Utah, and the wording has again been altered from the original entry that Willard Richards made. Instead of “Received a revelation,” it reads, “I received the following revelation,” and then the full text of what we now know as Section 132 of our current Doctrine and Covenants was added to the entry. It’s William Clayton and the early Utah historians who claimed that this was the revelation Joseph received on July 12, 1843. Since the reliability of the early historians has already been called into question, we’ll now focus on Clayton and his accounts regarding the provenance of Section 132.

47:55

According to the often ignored testimony of James Whitehead, who was Joseph’s private secretary beginning in early 1843, Clayton was removed from his position as private secretary by Joseph Smith and the temple committee about the time Whitehead was appointed because some money disappeared and he was blamed for it, and for that reason he was removed from that office. That occurred in 1843 in the beginning of the year. Whether or not these assertions are true, Clayton’s trustworthiness is already called into question when we examine his own testimony concerning Section 132.

48:35

Let’s take another look at the entry he allegedly made in his personal journal. On July 12, 1843: “This A.M. I wrote a revelation consisting of ten pages on the order of the priesthood… After it was wrote, Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to Emma, who said she did not believe a word of it.” But Clayton would later give a sworn affidavit, written in his own hand, that differs considerably. And it’s not just a question of embellishing the story, which is common when people tell stories decades after the fact. In Clayton’s case, the contradictory details he gives in 1874 actually make up the core of his narrative, which is that on July 12, Joseph and Hyrum came into the church office discussing Emma’s obstinate opposition to polygamy. He recalls, “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 very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph in reply said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it. Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger. Joseph quietly remarked, ‘I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.’ Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.”

This is no minor discrepancy. Clayton’s early account – his alleged journal entry – specifically says that Joseph and Hyrum went to see Emma together, but his later testimony completely revolves around Hyrum’s going by himself. It’s Hyrum who begged Joseph to write the revelation; Hyrum who took it to Emma while Joseph waited with Clayton; and Hyrum who came back with the tale of being berated by Emma. This is, in fact, a complete deal-breaker. The journal entry, supposedly written mere hours after the event, should have been an extremely accurate and reliable record. Yet, if that’s the case, then his later account – his sworn affidavit – was a complete fabrication. The two are totally irreconcilable. Why is this so important? Because according to William Clayton, the only three who were present when the polygamy revelation was received were himself, Joseph, and Hyrum, making Clayton the only living witness. In fact, his testimony is the only purportedly contemporaneous account of Joseph’s receiving any such revelation, a revelation that contradicts everything Joseph ever taught about polygamy. Recognizing that Clayton fabricated at least one of his statements completely destroys his credibility as a witness, making it absolutely irresponsible to prioritize his testimony over Joseph’s. Yet, this is exactly what historians have done for over a century and a half. Importantly, Clayton’s falsification of these events also undermines all other claims that hinge on his dubious accounts.

52:30

For example, in June 1844, three weeks before Joseph and Hyrum were killed, excommunicated member William Law and others created a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Intended to expose Joseph Smith as a “pernicious and diabolical…criminal,” this newspaper published affidavits from apostates William Law, his wife, Jane, and a man named Austin Cowles, who had previously been a member of the high council and who swore that Hyrum Smith had read the polygamy revelation to the entire high council ten months earlier, in August of 1843. Joseph and Hyrum denied these claims, and Joseph, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, further explained that “…on inquiring concerning the passage and the resurrection concerning ‘they neither marry nor are given in marriage,’ he received for answer, men in this life must marry in view of eternity otherwise they must remain as angels or be single in heaven, which was the amount of the revelation referred to…” Joseph also referred to William Law’s affidavit, saying that “the truth of God was transformed into a lie.” The affidavits themselves raised several questions: If Hyrum had read such an offensive and heretical revelation as claimed, why did Cowles wait almost ten months to publish his complaints? Why did Cowles and the Laws voice their concerns only after they had all been excommunicated for apostasy and become open enemies of Joseph Smith? And why, during all that time, did not one of the other council members say a word to anyone about this shocking new doctrine, especially with Hyrum supposedly sharing it so freely with the whole council?

The only intriguing part of these implausible affidavits is that each contains language specific to the purported revelation written by William Clayton. Cowles, in particular, in his affidavit, writes that the revelation contained the following doctrines: First, the sealing up of persons to eternal life against all sins, save that of shedding innocent blood or of consenting thereto. And we can see the nearly identical language in Section 132. Second, the doctrine of a plurality of wives or marrying virgins, which of course is also in Section 132. That David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not, save in the matter of Uriah. These elements are all found in the so-called revelation written by William Clayton. Yet, all that connects it to Joseph and Hyrum are Clayton’s fraudulent story and the claims of these three avowed enemies of Joseph Smith. Why in the world would these testimonies be prioritized over Joseph’s and Hyrum’s?

55:25

Of course, if Joseph did not receive a revelation on polygamy and Hyrum therefore had no such thing to read to the high council, the obvious question is how Austin Cowles and the Laws could have seen Clayton’s spurious revelation, which they certainly seem to be quoting from. Lacking reliable witnesses, we can only hypothesize. But, interestingly, if Brian Hales is correct that there was a “polygamy inner circle” in Nauvoo, it’s very plausible that Clayton’s document may have been shown to potential candidates as tangible evidence of Joseph’s secret revelation sanctioning their covert practices. What’s fascinating about this rather far-fetched theory is that it is, ironically, the very scenario proposed by church historians: that a secret revelation on polygamy was shared with select men and women who were quietly engaged in the practice – except, in their version, Joseph is actually part of the secret circle instead of trying to root it out. In any case, the parallel language between the affidavits and Section 132 of our current Doctrine and Covenants is not proof that Hyrum read Clayton’s dubious polygamy revelation to the high council or to anyone else.

56:50

>>Scriptural Basis for Polygamy?

Not only is the provenance of Section 132 extremely problematic, as we have seen, but the internal contradictions and inconsistencies in this section should raise serious doubts all by themselves, beginning with the very first verse In Verse 1, the Lord is purportedly answering a question from Joseph, who’s asked him why he justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other biblical figures in their having many wives and concubines. But, according to the scriptures, Isaac did not have many wives; he had one. In the entire biblical narrative, there is no mention of Isaac’s having any wife but Rebekah and no mention of any other children but hers.

57:35

Next, Joseph had already translated the Book of Mormon, which strongly condemns polygamy. Here are just a few examples. Jacob 2: Hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and concubines he shall have none. Mosiah 11: [King Noah] did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart, and he had many wives and concubines. Ether 10: Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines.

58:10

Joseph had also recently finished making inspired changes to the Bible, which actually clarified and emphasized the Lord’s displeasure with both David and Solomon, so it would make no sense for Joseph to be under the impression that God justified their behavior in any way. Importantly, in verses 2 and 3 of Section 132, the Lord purportedly says that he will answer Joseph and warns, “therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you.” Yet verse 52 of the same section refers to multiple women that have supposedly already been given to Joseph: “and let mine handmaid Emma Smith receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me…” That the Lord should have already given Joseph multiple additional wives by this time – over a dozen, according to the historians – prior to counseling him to prepare his heart for what he is about to be taught is nonsensical and requires historical gymnastics to explain.

59:25

Verse 54 includes a commandment from the Lord to Emma to “cleave unto my servant Joseph and to none else,” while commanding her husband to “cleave” to any number of women. This is an abominable perversion of the commandment that God specifically directs to his sons: “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.” [D&C 42:22]

59:50

Verse 26 teaches an extraordinary doctrine that is not reflected anywhere else in holy writ – namely, that if a couple is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, they may then commit any sin or transgression and all manner of blasphemies with the exception of murder, and still enter into their exaltation. This shocking declaration is not supported by any other scripture and is completely incompatible with 3 Nephi 12, D&C 1, and, really, our entire canon of scripture.

1:00:25

In verse 39, not only does the Lord supposedly express approval of King David’s polygamy, with the exception of Bathsheba, but he explains that he himself facilitated it. “David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me by the hand of Nathan…and in none of these things did he sin against me, save in the case of Uriah and his wife.” This is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith called “the most correct of any book on earth” and wherein the Lord states, “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

1:01:10

Verse 61 is extremely problematic, beginning with, “If any man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another…” The idea of a married man desiring to ‘espouse another’ is, of course, condemned by the Savior in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart.” Verse 61 continues, “if he espoused the second, and they are virgins and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified.” This supposedly divine stipulation that the women be virgins was wholly ignored by Brigham Young and other Utah polygamists. As just one example, we have newspaper articles and court records confirming that in 1847, Augusta Cobb’s husband, Henry Cobb, sued for – and was granted – a divorce from his wife on the grounds of adultery with Brigham Young, whom she had married in 1843.

1:02:15

Verse 61 also makes a man’s marrying additional wives contingent on the first wife’s consent. Yet verses 64 and 65 clarify that if his wife does not receive this law, not only is he then exempt from the need to obtain her permission, but she will be destroyed. The idea that our Heavenly Father would threaten to destroy one of his daughters for objecting to her husband’s taking more wives after he has vowed to cleave unto her and none else, seems incomprehensibly blasphemous and should by itself be sufficient evidence that Section 132 did not come from God – or from Joseph Smith.

1:02:50

Some claim that if we don’t accept the so-called doctrine of many wives and concubines found in Section 132, then we must also discard the doctrine of eternal marriage mentioned in the same section. This does not follow. As we’ve seen, the pattern of the Utah scribes was to corrupt existing revelations and manuscripts. As noted earlier, Willard Richards’ record of Joseph’s having received a revelation in July of 1843 is bolstered by the fact that just four days later, Joseph gave a sermon in which he preached publicly for the first time on the doctrine of eternal marriage. This doctrine is entirely distinct from teachings about polygamy from Brigham Young and other Utah leaders, who repeatedly taught not only that polygamy was of God, but that it was essential to exaltation.

1:03:45

[Orson Pratt:] “This doctrine is incorporated as a part of our religion and necessary for our exaltation to the fullness of the Lord’s glory in the eternal world. We consider it an essential doctrine to glory and exaltation.”

1:04:00

[Heber C. Kimball:] “You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it as to oppose the plurality of wives. It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family.”

1:04:10

[Brigham Young:] “Without the doctrine that this revelation reveals, no man on earth ever could be exalted to be a God.” “The only men who become gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” Joseph Smith taught that eternal marriage was of God. He taught that polygamy was an abomination.

1:04:30

But what about biblical polygamy? Doesnt the story of Abraham, for example, show that God condoned polygamy at least some of the time? A closer examination of the story of Abraham – who was still known as Abram at this point – is eye-opening. On finding herself barren, Abram’s wife, Sarai, is the one to suggest that he use her slave, Hagar, as a surrogate: “I pray thee, go in unto my maid. It may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.” This was never a command from God; Hagar was never treated as a wife; and the resulting misery for all involved attests to the Lord’s displeasure at their having turned to a worldly solution to their problem instead of to him. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that God later gave Abram and Sarai new names and that Abraham and Sarah never again resorted to using concubines or handmaids, but patiently waited on the Lord until he blessed them with Isaac in their old age.

1:05:35

Abraham’s grandson Jacob did have two wives, but, again, a careful reading reveals that, far from being commanded by God, Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by his scheming father-in-law. He was deceived into this marriage, yet he kept his promise to marry Rachel, the love of his heart. Again, custom and culture allowed this, just as modern society regards many things that God has warned against, such as debt and divorce, as acceptable solutions to common problems. And again, misery and sorrow plagued Jacob’s entire family, just as it had Abram’s. During times of sterility, Leah and Rachel both turned to the same solution of using their handmaids as surrogates. How these handmaids felt in being used in this way we can only imagine. And Leah’s despair at being an unloved wife is truly heart wrenching, as after bearing her first son, she expresses hopefully, “Now therefore, my husband will love me.” This unhappy arrangement was neither commanded nor sanctioned by God.

1:06:45

Some claim that the Lord would never have made Jacob a great patriarch of the twelve tribes if he hadn’t approved of Jacob’s polygamy. But God also made powerful instruments of Paul, Zeezrom, Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah. Yet we would never conclude that he must have approved of their early behavior. Again, it seems significant that God would later change Jacob’s name to Israel. Perhaps the core message of the stories of Abraham, Jacob, and others is one the Lord has repeatedly emphasized: that as we turn our hearts to him, our sins, though they be as scarlet, may be white as snow. Whether or not this is the intended message of these biblical stories, seeking to justify polygamy because of what was done by them of old, is squarely condemned in the Book of Mormon.

1:07:40

As previously noted, Jacob condemns the polygamy of David and Solomon, calling it “abominable.” Here are Jacob’s powerful words on the subject: “Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women, and whoredoms are an abomination before me, thus saith the Lord of hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.”

1:08:35

Incredibly, as strong and unequivocal as this sermon is, the traditional polygamy narrative holds that Jacob, in the very next verse, qualifies this condemnation of a plurality of wives by cautioning that the Lord might actually command it once in a while: “For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” That Jacob would speak so powerfully and in such condemnatory language, only to undermine his entire sermon by adding that the Lord might capriciously command what he has called an abomination is baffling, to say the least. And the idea that Jacob would alert his people to a loophole that the Lord would only make brief use of over 2000 years later also seems very unlikely.

1:09:30

It’s interesting that verse 30 begins with “For…” which implies a continuation of the point being made and not an exception. In fact, the word “for” was so incompatible with the idea of this being a loophole that the authors of the Gospel Doctrine manual actually changed the wording from “For if I will…” to “[But] if I will…” in order to support the idea that this verse was meant as an exception to God’s rule of monogamy. And unfortunately, here is how many of us have probably been reading Jacob 2:30: “For if I will [sometime in the future], saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me [children], I will command my people [to practice polygamy]; otherwise [if I don’t want to raise up children at this time], they shall hearken unto these things [these commandments to have only one wife].” As we can see, this interpretation superimposes onto the verse many things that are not explicitly said. Let’s examine this more carefully and see if there’s a more plausible interpretation.

1:10:40

First, regarding the Lord’s desire to raise up seed, it’s remarkable that even at times when it would seem desirable to raise up many children quickly, God never commanded anyone to do so in polygamy. Adam had one wife, as he and Eve replenished the entire earth. When Lehi left Jerusalem to start anew in the promised land, each of his sons took one wife. There’s no indication that the Jaredites took multiple wives when they came to the promised land, and Ether 10 specifically condemns the practice. And there were a total of eight souls on the ark: Noah, his wife, and their three sons, with one wife each. In fact, right here in Jacob 2, the Lord explains that he has led the very people he’s speaking to out of Jerusalem in order to raise up a righteous branch unto him – and commands them to do so monogamously.

The apparent implication in verse 30 that God might someday want to raise up seed to himself instead of at that very time is instantly refuted in 1 Nephi 7, where the Lord explicitly tells Lehi that his sons should take wives with them to the land of promise “that they might raise up seed unto the Lord.” It’s the very reason God led Lehi’s family out of Jerusalem, and he commanded them to do this with the help of Ishmael’s perfectly suited family, providing one wife for each son and one wife for Zoram.

So why did Jacob use the phrase “If I will…” if he wasn’t referring to some future possibility? Perhaps he was using it in the same way that a father might warn his son, “If I’m working overtime to pay for your college, you’d better get good grades.” The father is already working the overtime, so “If I’m working overtime” is, in this case, equivalent to “Since I’m working overtime,” as he reminds his son to be diligent.

1:12:45

If we read the next phrase, “I will command my people,” just as it stands, without attaching anything extra onto it, we get a straightforward message: “I will give commandments to my people.” This is exactly how the Lord directs his people toward righteousness – by commanding them.

1:13:05

The verse concludes with “otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.” It’s interesting that the phrases “these things” and “such things” are used elsewhere in this same chapter, always in a negative context. [Verse 14:] “if ye persist in these things, his judgments must speedily come unto you.” [Verse 21:] “such things are abominable unto him who created all flesh.” [Verse 34:] “ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.” The same phrase as found in verse 30 would make sense if used in this way: “I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.”

1:13:45

With these thoughts in mind, let’s look at a possible alternate interpretation of Jacob 2:30: “For if [or ‘since’] I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me [righteous children], I will command my people [I’ll give them commandments]; otherwise [if I don’t give them commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [whoredoms and polygamy].”

This would also make much more sense with the following verse, in which the Lord gives his reasons for forbidding polygamy – namely, that it hurts his daughters deeply. Significantly, this verse also begins with “For…” and is clearly a continuation of the command for men to have only one wife: “For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.” How absurd and even cruel it would be for the Lord to say, “I might command polygamy at certain times, for I have seen that it causes my daughters to mourn.”

1:15:00

Incidentally, historians often claim that Jacob, like Joseph Smith, is only condemning “unauthorized” polygamy and that polygamy is actually a godly principle, as long as the man is properly authorized to practice it. This is why it’s crucial to understand the reasons the Lord gives for forbidding polygamy – that he loves his daughters and does not want their husbands to grieve them by sharing their most intimate relationship with other women. As researcher Steve Reed so eloquently puts it, “Does it seem reasonable that the Nephite women and children were so profoundly heartbroken by the men’s practice of taking multiple wives and concubines simply because they lacked ‘authorization’?” So well said.

1:15:45

And, sadly, God’s warning that polygamy causes grief and heartache is borne out by the accounts of many women in early Utah, including this heart-wrenching story from Emma Lynette Richardson Conover, describing her experience sometime after 1858: “Some old fanatics were preaching that a young man could not save a girl if he married her. That to be saved she must marry some old codger tried and true. My parents got the disease with the rest, and when one of the tried and true came our way [they said] I must marry him. I cried and begged, begged and cried, but to no avail. I was forced to marry him… I will say that up to the time I speak of my father had always been good to me. I can now see that it was the pressure of the times that caused him to act as he did.” Emma Lynette had two children by this man.

1:16:45

Historian Brittany Nash wrote a booklet for the church called “Let’s Talk About Polygamy” and gave a presentation where she recounted the 1879 story of Annie Berry Chestnut Day, calling it “horrifying.” When Annie was 14 years old, her nearly 50-year-old stepfather “essentially tricked her into marrying him under the pretext that she was receiving her temple endowment. Annie’s mother was complicit in the idea, and Annie did not realize she was married to the man she still called ‘pa’ until after they left the temple.” Annie bore three children by her stepfather before divorcing him. She later married monogamously.

1:17:25

Polygamy also caused great sorrow among willing participants. While some were outspoken supporters of the practice, Nash notes that the public statements of these women often contradicted their privately recorded sentiments, such as this 1881 journal entry from Emily Partridge, plural wife of Brigham Young: “My mind goes back to days gone by, and what do I find? Can I find anything so pleasant that I could wish to live it over again, or even to dwell upon it in thought with any degree of satisfaction? No, I cannot. My life has been like a panorama of disagreeable pictures. As I scan them over one by one, they bring no joy, and I invariably wind up with tears. I have been heart hungry all my life… Some will understand what it is to be a woman, mother, or an unloved spiritual wife.”

1:18:20

Emmeline B. Wells, plural wife of Brigham’s counselor Daniel H. Wells, wrote an article for the Woman’s Exponent in September of 1874, in which she declared, “All honor and reverence to good men, but they and their attentions are not the only sources of happiness on the earth and need not fill up every thought of woman.” Sadly, this stoic facade is belied by Emmeline’s heart-wrenching lamentation, recorded in her personal diary on the very day that the Exponent article was published: “O if my husband could only love me even a little and not seem so perfectly indifferent to any sensation of that kind, he cannot know the craving of my nature, he is surrounded with love on every side, and I am cast out. O my poor aching heart, where shall it rest its burden, only on the Lord, only to him can I look… I have no one to go to for comfort or shelter no strong arm to lean upon no bosom bared for me, no protection or comfort in my husband.”

1:19:30

Why polygamous women sometimes spoke favorably of polygamy while privately sorrowing is largely a matter of speculation. Nash raises one compelling possibility, proposed by an outside observer: “Matilda Griffing Bancroft, a prominent visitor to Utah in 1880, observed that Latter-day Saint women viewed polygamy as a religious duty and that it was a matter of pride to make everybody believe they lived happily and to persuade themselves and others that it was not a trial.” Nash adds, “Perhaps some Latter-day Saint women imagined that to be seen as truly strong and faithful, they had to steel themselves against difficulties living polygamously.” This is a very plausible explanation, especially in light of Brigham Young’s teachings such as this one: “I wish here to say to all the members of this Church and kingdom that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us… I wish to say to you and all the world that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists, at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives.”

If Nash and Bancroft are correct, this may shed light on the motivations behind the very late and often contradictory testimonies of several polygamous Utah women who, decades after the prophet’s death, claimed to have been “married or sealed” to Joseph Smith.

1:21:05

>>Supposed Wives of Joseph Smith

Most people are very surprised to learn that not one of Joseph’s supposed wives left a single contemporaneous record of any marriage to him. There are no journal entries, no marriage certificates, and no firsthand accounts from any of these women during his lifetime. It’s also very significant that Joseph had no children with anyone but Emma – yet he fathered nine with her. Brittany Nash confirms that “Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy and the doctrine he taught regarding it are two areas in which…definitive answers are most lacking.” The authors of the Gospel Topics Essays on polygamy acknowledge, “The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary.” The footnote references Brian Hales’ claim that Joseph had 30 to 40 wives, calling that a careful estimate. On his website, Hales lists 35 likely wives, noting that “…supporting evidence for each of these sealings varies, with some being highly reliable and others based upon a single attestation or sources of lesser credibility.” As we’ll see, the assertion that any of the evidence is highly reliable is questionable at best.

1:22:30

In fact, of these 35 women, 17 of them – almost half – never claimed at any time to have been married to the prophet. All claims about these marriages came from other people – and usually long after Joseph’s death. And even the women who did claim to have been married or sealed to Joseph Smith never said anything about their supposed marriages until decades after his death. It’s extremely telling that even after Brigham Young introduced the polygamy revelation in 1852, not one of Joseph’s supposed wives spoke up at that time to defend the practice and affirm that she had been a plural wife of Joseph. Any statement like that would have gone a long way toward lending credibility to Brigham’s now public doctrine. Yet, not one wife said a word at the time.

1:23:20

In fact, the bulk of the women’s claims came in 1869. The main reason for this is that in 1866, two of Joseph’s sons came as missionaries to preach to the Utah saints, and part of their message was that their father had never taught or practiced polygamy. Some believed their message and began to distance themselves from the Utah church, prompting Brigham Young to warn the saints against following them: “There are a few here that knew Joseph Smith the prophet, and some of them are apostatizing from the work…to run after young Joseph Smith… If there are any Latter-day Saints who wish to be destroyed, run after that family, and I will promise you in the name of the God of Israel, that you will be damned.”

To combat the claims of Joseph’s sons, apostle Joseph F. Smith set out to gather up all the evidence for Joseph’s polygamy and put the matter to rest. He later wrote about his efforts to do this: “When the subject first came before my mind, I must say I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject as connected with the prophet Joseph himself. There was nothing written…” Joseph F. Smith then turned to collecting affidavits from women he believed had been married to the prophet. Some of these affidavits gave no specific marriage date. One was undated, unnotarized, and unsigned, yet the woman for whom it was prepared is counted by historians as a wife of Joseph Smith, even though she herself never made any such claim.

We’ll now look at a few brief highlights for each of the alleged wives to illustrate the caliber of the evidence relied on. We’ll be quoting extensively from Brian Hales, who has written volumes in support of Joseph’s supposed polygamy and whose work has heavily influenced the church’s polygamy narrative.

1:25:15

Agnes Coolbrith
We have no record of Agnes ever claiming to have been a wife of Joseph Smith. We do have a claim from Lucy Walker Kimball saying that Agnes was married to Joseph. Lucy was one of Heber C. Kimball’s 43 wives, and she made this claim about Agnes in 1884 – eight years after Agnes’ death and 40 years after Joseph’s death.

1:25:45

Almera Johnson
We have an 1870 affidavit and other accounts from Almera’s polygamous brother, Benjamin F. Johnson, whose name will come up over and over in these claims. Almera herself said nothing about being married to Joseph until 1883, almost 40 years after his death. In her affidavit, she states that her marriage to the prophet took place “in the spring of the year 1843,” adding, “the exact date I do not now recollect.” She claimed to have lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife, but there is no evidence of Joseph’s having lived as husband and wife with anyone but Emma.

1:26:25

Delcena Johnson
We have nothing from Delcena. According to Brian Hales, “Delcena left no record of her relationship with Joseph.” Benjamin F. Johnson, her brother, provided the “sole evidence corroborating her sealing.” This was in 1903 – almost 60 years after the death of the prophet. And incidentally, “corroborating” is the wrong word here, as there was nothing to corroborate. And, by Benjamin’s own admission, his sister never even told him that she had been married to Joseph, but somehow “tacitly admitted” it.

1:27:00

Desdemona Fullmer
Desdemona signed an 1869 affidavit claiming she had married Joseph in 1843. There is no record of this marriage, but we do have a record of her having polygamously married Ezra T. Benson, great-grandfather of President Benson, in 1846. Hales cites the following account from Desdemona’s 1868 autobiography: “In the rise of polygamy, I was warned in a dream Amy Smith [presumably she meant to say Emma] was going to poison me… I told my dream to brother Joseph… He told me it was true. She would do it if she could.”

As we look at these testimonies, please keep in mind that the crucial question is not whether these improbable accounts should be believed. It’s whether they should be prioritized over the consistent, public, and repeated testimonies of Joseph, Hyrum and Emma.

1:28:00

Eliza Partridge
We have several affidavits from Eliza in 1869, one attesting to her first marriage to Joseph on March 8, 1843, and another attesting to a second marriage to him on May 11, in the presence of Emma Smith. We’ll address this as we talk about her sister’s testimony in a moment. Brian Hales notes that Eliza M. Partridge “wrote little regarding her plural marriage to the prophet” and that she made a brief mention of her own sealing in her 1877 autobiography. Interestingly, in that autobiography, Eliza makes no mention of any alleged second marriage to Joseph Smith.

1:28:45

Emily Partridge Young
We have similar affidavits from Eliza’s sister, Emily Partridge, also given in 1869 – one attesting to an initial marriage to Joseph on March 4, 1843, and another attesting to a second marriage to him two months later, on May 11, in the presence of Emma Smith. The supposed double marriages of Emily and Eliza help us put their testimonies in perspective. In 1892, Emily testified in a court of law that since Emma Smith opposed polygamy, Emily and her sister Eliza had secretly married Joseph behind Emma’s back in March of 1843. A short time later, Emily explains, Emma briefly embraced the principle of polygamy and agreed to allow Joseph to take other wives that Emma would choose for him. Serendipitously, it seems, she happened to choose both Emily and Eliza, whom the Smiths had taken into their home soon after their father’s death three years earlier.

Incidentally, the thought that Emma would dip her toe into the polygamy waters by giving Joseph not one wife but two – at once – and sisters to boot – staggers the imagination.

1:30:00

Emily further explained that since they were all afraid that Emma would be upset to find out they were already married, Emily, Eliza, and Joseph decided to keep that detail to themselves and pretend to be marrying each other for the first time two months later, on May 11, 1843, in Emma’s presence, which Emily emphatically swore to during her court testimony. The questioner then showed her a copy of Joseph Smith’s journal entry for May 11, which showed that Emma was not even in town on that day and could not have been present at the sisters’ alleged marriage to Joseph.

1:30:40

There’s an interesting postscript to this account of Emily and Eliza and their supposed marriages to the prophet. William Clayton allegedly recorded the following in his journal on August 16, 1843: “This A.M. Joseph told me that since Emma came back from St. Louis, she had resisted the principle of plural marriage in toto & he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would give him Eliza and Emily Partridge, but he knew if he took them, she would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him.” So, according to Clayton’s journal entry, by August 1843, Joseph had not yet taken Emma up on her “gift” of Emily and Eliza Partridge. Yet, this was three months after he had already supposedly married them – twice. While this entry could be interpreted as confirmation that Emily simply got her marriage date wrong by a few months and may have been married to Joseph sometime after this August entry, this is also impossible, since this same journal entry from Clayton mentions the funeral of Judge Adams – the very man that Emily claimed performed the ceremony.

1:33:50

Eliza R. Snow
On October 1, 1842, in response to accusations of polygamy by enemies of Joseph Smith, including John C. Bennett, Eliza joined several women in signing a declaration that they knew of no other system of marriage being practiced in the church except monogamy. “We, the undersigned, members of the ladies’ relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that John C. Bennett’s ‘secret wife system’ is a disclosure of his own make.”

Twenty-seven years later, however, Eliza signed an affidavit swearing that she had been sealed to Joseph Smith in June of 1842 – over three months before she signed the declaration that polygamy was not practiced in the church. So either the 1842 declaration was a deception or the 1869 affidavit was falsely sworn. In either case, Eliza cannot be considered a credible witness.

1:33:15

Elizabeth Davis
Again, we have nothing from Elizabeth. Sarah Pratt, polygamous wife of Orson Pratt, is quoted as saying that “Elizabeth boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph’s wives.” This claim from Sarah is taken from an anti-Mormon book, Mormon Portraits or the Truth About the Mormon Leaders. Hales is also puzzled as to why Elizabeth would be sealed to Joseph Smith when she was already married to an active latter-day saint. Yet, instead of rejecting the idea, he continues to support it, citing page 13 from a book called The Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo: Disclosing the Depths of Mormon Villainy. There is zero reference to Elizabeth or any other Davis in the entire book, and page 13 actually contains this claim from Joseph Jackson: “Joe Smith boasted to me that he had seduced 400 women.” Why this was included as evidence for Elizabeth Davis’ alleged sealing to the prophet is a complete mystery.

1:34:20

Elvira Ann Cowles
We have an 1869 affidavit from Elvira and nothing else from her. In 1938 – 67 years after her death – her daughter Phebe claimed, “I heard my mother testify that she was indeed the prophet’s plural wife in life and lived with him as such during his lifetime.” Hales acknowledges that none of Elvira’s other children were able to validate Phebe’s recollection or to recall similar comments.

1:34:50

Esther Dutcher
We have nothing from Esther. Hales notes, “Only one evidence refers to this sealing. However, since the single reference is from a reliable source, albeit late, she’s included here.” The “reliable source” is a letter written in 1888 – 44 years after Joseph’s death and 32 years after Esther’s death – by Utah polygamist and former counselor to Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells.

1:35:20

Fanny Alger
We have nothing from Fanny. Another late and vague recollection from Benjamin F. Johnson, given in 1903, tells of a “whispered” rumor: “In 1835 at Kirtland I learned from my sister’s husband that the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the church… There lived then with the prophet’s family a neighbor’s daughter, Fanny Alger, and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her.” Brian Hales also quotes Mosiah Hancock, who in 1890 – 14 years after his father Levi died – made this “addition” to Levi’s autobiography, which, of course, is not the point of an autobiography. “Brother Joseph said, ‘Brother Levi, I want to make a bargain with you. If you will get Fanny Alger for me, for a wife you may have Clarissa Reed.’”

The only contemporaneous evidence we have of any interaction between Joseph and Fanny Alger comes from an 1838 letter from Oliver Cowdery to his brother, in which he refers to “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair of [Joseph’s] and Fanny Alger’s.” Fanny had married a man named Solomon Custer and moved to Indiana two years before Oliver wrote this letter, and in it he does not give any specifics or say whether his complaints stemmed from firsthand knowledge or from secondhand rumors. But in late 1838, Oliver was excommunicated on a variety of charges, one of which was “seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith Jr by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery etc.” Responding to Oliver’s accusations, Joseph Smith gave a history respecting “the girl business,” after which the high council exonerated Joseph of any improper behavior and upheld the charge against Oliver of falsely accusing Joseph.

The lack of specificity in all areas of this account is frustrating, but it’s noteworthy not only that the high council was satisfied with Joseph’s account of the situation, but also that Joseph’s enemies, even at the height of their accusations against him in Nauvoo, never brought up the alleged improprieties of which Oliver had accused him. There is no other contemporaneous evidence of any relationship between Joseph and Fanny.

Strangely, Brian Hales again quotes William McLellin, the twice excommunicated enemy of Joseph Smith mentioned earlier, who adds to his story about Joseph and the mysterious Miss Hill to claim that Emma once saw Joseph and Fanny in the barn together alone: “She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” That Emma would confide such a thing to William McLellin while denying it to everyone else is unfathomable.

1:38:20

Fanny Young
We have nothing from Fanny herself. As Hales notes, “Beyond one recollection from Fanny’s brother Brigham Young, relatively little is known regarding her November 1843 sealing to the prophet.” The rather bizarre recollection referred to from Brigham Young was not given until 1870: “I recollect a sister conversing with Joseph Smith on the subject of plural marriage. She told him, ‘when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, 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.”

1:39:10

Flora Ann Woodworth
We have nothing from Flora. According to Hales, Joseph Smith’s relationship with Flora Ann Woodworth is poorly documented. “She left no records and no sealing date is available.” Yet, for some reason, Flora is still on the list of likely wives.

1:39:30

Hannah Ells
We have nothing from Hannah. We have an 1886 letter from Eliza R. Snow to President John Taylor, claiming Hannah was sealed to Joseph Smith, and an 1869 affidavit from John Benbow, who claimed that Joseph frequently visited his wife Hannah at Benbow’s house. No dates for any of the visits are given. Hales acknowledges that, other than these claims, little is known regarding her marriage and relationship with the prophet.

1:40:05

Helen Mar Kimball
Historians generally agree that Joseph married Helen when she was 14 years old, and there is much debate over whether or not Joseph and Helen had sexual relations. Yet, none of these scholars seems concerned that there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence that the pair were ever married in the first place. Helen, the daughter of polygamist Heber C. Kimball, who had 43 wives, never claimed to have been a wife of Joseph Smith until the 1880s, having become by that time not only a vociferous advocate of polygamy, but an outspoken opponent of monogamy. Here are a few quotes from Helen’s book, Why We Practice Plural Marriage: “There are some few who are honest enough to admit the superiority of our marriage system to the prevalent monogamic mode, which has led to the greatest vices and social evils that are daily increasing and degrading the human family…” (p. 4); “We have proven polygamy to be a promoter of virtue, and know that if strictly obeyed, it will produce a higher and nobler type of humanity…” (p. 54); “Though looked down upon by the world…we will yet be looked up to and regarded as the founders of a superior system of Christianity” (p. 53); “Great men are always polygamists” (p. 51).

1:41:30

Louisa Beaman
We have nothing from Louisa. Hales acknowledges, “Louisa Beaman apparently left no accounts of the sealing ceremony or of her relationship with the Prophet.” In 1869, polygamist Joseph Bates Noble signed an affidavit claiming that he had “married or sealed” Louisa to Joseph on April 5, 1841. This claim is problematic, since Joseph Bates Noble did not move to Nauvoo until the fall of 1841, and Louisa was not baptized until 1843. According to researcher Don Bradley, “Noble actually gives a variety of dates: two different days of the month, two different months, and three different years.”

1:42:15

Lucinda Pendleton
We have nothing from Lucinda. According to Hales, “Lucinda Pendleton left no records… Evidence for a sealing in Nauvoo during Joseph’s lifetime is non-existent” – leaving us to wonder why in the world she’s on his list of likely wives.

1:42:35

Lucy Walker Kimball
The first record of Lucy’s claim that she was married to the prophet appeared in 1888 – 44 years after his death. According to Lucy’s story, Joseph told her, “I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” He allegedly warned, “I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message, the gate will be closed forever against you.” She recalls that, before the next morning, she experienced a heavenly manifestation that persuaded her to marry him. In 1892, this odd exchange about the alleged polygamy revelation took place as Lucy testified in court:

Questioner: You never saw that revelation during his lifetime?
Lucy: Yes, sir, I did.
Questioner: Well, what time did you see that revelation?
Lucy: That was in 1842.
Questioner: You saw the revelation then?
Lucy: It was not written.
Questioner: It was not written, you say? What do you mean by that?
Lucy: It was not written to present to the church.
Questioner: Well, was it printed?
Lucy: No, sir, it was written later than that.
Questioner: For presentation to the church it was written later than that?
Lucy: Yes, sir.
Questioner: Well, was it written at the time you saw it in 1842?
Lucy: Of course it was. That is, it was in manuscript, you know… He told me of the revelation…the one on plural marriage.

As we’ve seen, the traditional narrative is that the alleged polygamy revelation was written down for the first time a year after Lucy claims to have seen it, making her story all the more implausible.

1:44:10

Malissa Lott
Malissa signed an affidavit in 1869. In court testimony in 1892, she claimed that she had married Joseph Smith in 1843 and that Emma “knew all about it” and gave her consent. This contradicts Emma Smith’s unwavering, lifelong testimony that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy. We also have yet another claim from Benjamin F. Johnson, who wrote in 1904, “dI do know that at Joseph Smith’s mansion home was living Maria and Sarah Lawrence and one of Cornelius P. Lott’s daughters as his plural wives, with the full knowledge of his wife Emma of their married relations to him.”

The Lott family Bible includes a purportedly contemporaneous note that Malissa Lott married an unnamed groom, as well as a later note that “Malissa Smith” married Ira Willes. The implication, of course, is that the unnamed groom must have been Joseph Smith. According to Joseph III, son of the prophet, Malissa showed this record to him in an 1885 interview but equivocated as to its authenticity. He later wrote, “The interview had convinced me that [her affidavit] was not true… and that the entry in the Bible which she showed to me was a line written by her father or some other person recording an untruth.” In this case, with little but hearsay to go on, we are left to weigh the testimonies of the Lott family and the Smith family and decide for ourselves which is the more credible.

1:45:50

Maria and Sarah Lawrence
These sisters never claimed to have been married to the prophet. Maria died in 1847, two decades before the first such claims would emerge from any of Joseph’s supposed wives, and – much to Helen Mar Kimball’s dismay – Sarah emphatically denied ever being connected to him. Two claims that these sisters lived with Joseph as his wives come from Benjamin F. Johnson, whose name should be very familiar by now, and from Emily Partridge Young – the woman who claimed that she and her sister married Joseph twice but got her marriage date wrong.

1:46:25

Marinda Johnson
Marinda signed an 1869 affidavit saying she was “married or sealed” to Joseph on the [blank] day of May 1843, in the presence of Eliza and Emily Partridge – again, the same two sisters who supposedly married Joseph twice and got their marriage date wrong. According to Brian Hales, “The relationship between Joseph Smith and Marinda Johnson is difficult to decipher due to a lack of evidence.” Historian Todd Compton notes that “apart from the partially dated affidavit, Marinda left no known reference to the marriage,” adding that she is “surprisingly under-documented.” None of this prevents Compton and Hales from asserting that Marinda, who was married to Orson Hyde in 1834, sealed to him in 1846, and having children with him until 1858, also married Joseph Smith somewhere in the middle of it all.

1:47:25

Martha McBride
Martha signed an 1869 affidavit affirming that she was “married or sealed” to Joseph by Heber C. Kimball “sometime in the summer” of the year 1842. Hales states that sometime after May 23, 1843, Joseph Smith approached Martha in a matchmaking attempt for her daughter Almira. He bases this assertion on an account from Almira, who left the church, married a bitter anti Mormon and gave the account in 1908.

1:48:00

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
Mary gave an affidavit in 1877 claiming that she had been sealed to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity in the month of February 1842 by Brigham Young. Yet, in February of 1842, Mary Elizabeth had been married to her husband, Adam Lightner, for over six years; had already borne several children with him and would continue to have more; and lived with him as his wife until his death in 1885. Interestingly, in her autobiographical sketch as published in the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, there is no mention of her having been married or sealed to the prophet. In an 1892 letter to apostle John Henry Smith, Mary acknowledges the strange situation of supposedly having married to the prophet while she was married to another man and promises to “throw light on what now seems mysterious” at some future time: “If I could have an opportunity of conversing with you, I could explain. I cannot explain things in this letter. Some day you will know all.” We have no record of any explanation that she might have given.

1:49:15

Mary Heron
We have nothing from Mary. Brian Hales states that, according to one isolated source, “Mary Heron, the legal wife of John Snider, was sexually involved with Joseph Smith in 1843.” That single source is Joseph Ellis Johnson, Mary’s son in law, who was facing church discipline for impregnating the wife of Lorenzo Snow. Hales cites the rather crass claim that Johnson “was familiar with the first frigging that was done in his house with his mother in law – by Joseph” and notes that this statement “constitutes the primary evidence of a relationship between Joseph Smith and Mary Heron Snider.”

1:50:00

Nancy Maria Winchester
In 1886, Eliza R. Snow wrote several names, including Nancy’s, on a piece of paper for historian Andrew Jenson, claiming that they were wives of the prophet. This is all the documentation we have for a marriage between Nancy and Joseph Smith.

1:50:20

Olive Grey Frost
We have nothing from Olive. As evidence for Olive’s being a wife of the prophet, Hales turns to a 1902 journal entry from church member Joseph E. Robinson: “During the afternoon I called on Aunt Lizzie. She knew Joseph Smith had more than two wives, said he married Olive Frost, who had a child by him, and that both died.” Yet, as Hales acknowledges, this appears to contradict James Whitehead’s 1885 comment that Olive died in childbirth more than ten months after Joseph’s death, showing he could not be the father.

1:51:00

Patty Bartlett Sessions
Evidence for Patty’s sealing to the prophet comes in an interesting form. Hales asserts that “a June 1860 handwritten entry in the diary of Patty sessions reported she was sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith.” An 1860 statement would be the earliest claim by far from any of the supposed wives, and that it comes from an actual diary – not a later reminiscence – should lend credibility to the entry. However, what Hales does not mention is that the two pages attesting to Patty’s sealing were not part of her daily journal but were inserted into the center of the diary, right in the middle of her June 1860 writings, actually interrupting a rather unremarkable entry about blanket making.

The first page of this random insertion is a brief, undated sketch of Patty’s life, including her marriage to David Sessions until his death in 1850 and a marriage to John Parry in 1852. It is this undated page that includes this cryptic account of Patty’s alleged sealing to Joseph Smith: “I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for eternity and if I do not live to attend to it myself when there is a place prepared I want someone to attend to it for me according to order Sylvia my daughter was present when I was sealed to Joseph Smith.” There is no explanation for why Patty would have married Joseph Smith while she was already married to David Sessions.

The second page is attached to the first with wax and dated July 3, 1867 – seven years later than the surrounding diary entries – and only mentions a proxy sealing to the prophet long after his death.

With one page of this confusing insertion dated 1867 and the other completely undated, these pages cannot legitimately be considered an 1860 entry in Patty’s diary.

1:53:10

Presendia Huntington Kimball
We have an 1869 affidavit from Presendia and an 1881 autobiographical sketch, in which she claims to have been sealed to Joseph in 1841. However, in 1841, Presendia had been married to Norman Buell for over 14 years. In her autobiography, she claimed that Norman had left the church before her marriage to Joseph, but records show that Norman and Presendia both traveled west in Heber C. Kimball’s company in 1848.

While there is no record of any marriage between Presendia and Joseph Smith, we do have a record of her polygamous marriage to Heber C. Kimball in 1845.

1:53:55

Rhoda Richards
We have an 1869 affidavit from Rhoda, Willard Richards’ sister, where she claimed to have been “married or sealed” to Joseph Smith. However, according to her 1877 reminiscence, she had no earthly companion: “In my young days I buried my first and only love [Ebenezer Damon], and true to that affiance, I have passed companionless through life; but am sure of having my proper place and standing in the resurrection, having been sealed to the prophet Joseph…” And we do have a record of Rhoda’s sealing to Joseph Smith – the year after his death, with Brigham Young standing as proxy for the prophet.

1:54:35

Ruth Vose Sayers
Ruth signed an affidavit in 1869, stating that she was “married or sealed” to Joseph Smith “on the [blank] day of February” 1843 by Hyrum Smith “in the presence of [blank].” Hales notes that this contradicts the traditional narrative that Hyrum had not yet accepted polygamy by that time, but instead of dismissing her testimony, he concludes that Ruth made a mistake as to either the date or the sealer and insists that, regardless of the error, “Ruth Vose’s sealing to Joseph Smith is important.”

1:55:15

Sarah Ann Whitney Kimball
Sarah and her mother both signed affidavits in 1869, affirming that Sarah was married polygamously to Joseph Smith on July 27, 1842, by her father, Newel K. Whitney. These claims are problematic for several reasons. Like Eliza R. Snow, Sarah’s mother, Elizabeth Whitney, signed the October 1842 statement declaring that she knew of no system of marriage besides monogamy being practiced in the church, making either that declaration or her 1869 affidavit a lie and completely undermining her credibility.

Although there is no marriage record for Joseph and Sarah, we do have a record of Sarah’s marriage to Joseph Kingsbury in April of 1843, with Joseph Smith performing the ceremony, which certainly should require an explanation if Sarah had already married Joseph Smith the previous year. In his autobiography, Joseph Kingsbury later commented on his 1843 marriage to Sarah: “I agreed to stand by Sarah Ann Whitney as supposed to be her husband and had a pretended marriage for the purpose of bringing about the purposes of God in the last days.” How a pretend marriage to Sarah would bring about the purposes of God is a mystery, and Kingsbury’s motive for this late claim that Sarah had secretly been Joseph’s wife and not his own is likewise a matter of speculation. Brian Hales does point out that in 1880, Kingsbury sought $8,000 worth of compensation from the church – that would be equivalent to over $200,000 in today’s dollars – for costs he had incurred by “keeping one of [Joseph’s] wives…”

1:57:05

Claimed as evidence for Sarah’s supposed marriage to the prophet, we have a purported revelation from Joseph in which the Lord gives Newel K. Whitney instructions for performing the ceremony between “my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. Whitney.” If authentic, this would be the only contemporaneous document explicitly linking Joseph Smith with a polygamous marriage. However, the documents supporting this claim were, again, created decades after Joseph’s death – two copies dating to the 1870s, and a typewritten copy submitted to the church by polygamist Orson F. Whitney in 1912. There is no original.

1:57:50

There’s an important piece of history involving the Whitney family that we will address here in detail, and some background is essential.

In August of 1842, an illegal warrant had been issued for Joseph’s arrest. According to the Joseph Smith Papers, in early August, the Adams county sheriff arrived in Nauvoo with a warrant to arrest Joseph Smith and extradite him to Missouri. By August 10th, he went into hiding for the next two weeks to avoid the possibility of arrest and extradition. The next day, August 11th, Joseph sent instructions for Emma, Hyrum, Newel K. Whitney, and a few others to meet him that night on a nearby island. After dark, the parties went by skiff and met up on the island, where they exchanged information and made plans for Joseph to hide at Edward Sayers’ home for a time.

Two days later, Joseph had sent word asking for Emma to visit him so they could discuss whether to take their family and leave the area for a time. As the carriage was being prepared, Emma realized that this had drawn the attention of the sheriff, who kept a vigilant watch in the hopes of following her to Joseph’s hiding place. So William Clayton and Lorin Walker instead got into the carriage, which they left uncovered to ensure that the sheriff could see that Emma was not with them. They then drove off, unfollowed, to the home of some friends, the Durphys.

Meanwhile, Emma secretly set off for the Durphys’ on foot and met up with the carriage there. They drove together for several miles and turned into the woods, at which point Emma left the carriage and traveled on foot the rest of the way to Edward Sayers’ home, where Joseph was waiting.

The prophet was extremely appreciative of the efforts of his wife, his brother, and his friends, and was very cognizant of the trouble it cost them to make these covert visits. On August 16th, overcome by gratitude for their kindness and deeply touched by his experience during their clandestine island meeting just days earlier, Joseph recorded his feelings, speaking most warmly of Emma, Hyrum, and Newel K. Whitney: “How glorious were my feelings when I met that faithful and friendly band on the island, with what unspeakable delight I took by the hand on that night my beloved Emma, she that was my wife… Oh, what a commingling of thought filled my mind for the moment. Again she is here, even in the seventh trouble, undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma. There was brother Hyrum… thought I to myself, brother Hyrum, what a faithful heart you have got. Oh, may the eternal Jehovah crown eternal blessings upon your head as a reward for the care you have had for my soul… Said I to myself, here is brother Newel K. Whitney also, how many scenes of sorrow have strewed our paths together; and yet we meet once more to share again. Thou art a faithful friend… Brother Whitney, thou knowest not how strong those ties are, that bind my soul and heart to thee.”

The following night, having heard rumors that Joseph’s location had been discovered, Emma went to see him at Edward Sayers’ home to warn him that it was no longer safe there. He left immediately and was kindly received at Carlos Granger’s.

2:01:10

This brings us to a letter that Joseph wrote the next day, which he addressed, “Dear and beloved Brother and Sister Whitney and &c. I take this opportunity to communicate some of my feelings privately at this time, which I want you three eternally to keep in your own bosoms; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has passed lately between us, that the time of my absence from you seems so long and dreary that it seems as if I could not live long in this way. And if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief of mind… I am now at Carlos Granger’s, just back of Brother Hyrum’s farm… All three of you can come and see me in the fore part of the night. Let Brother Whitney come a little ahead and knock at the southeast corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield. I have a room entirely by myself. The whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safety… The only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes. Then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. Only be careful to escape observation as much as possible… When I see you, I will tell you all my plans. I cannot write them on paper. Burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. One thing I want to see you for is to get the fullness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. You will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be. Your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me; I close my letter. I think Emma wont come to night. If she don’t, don’t fail to come tonight. I subscribe myself your most obedient and affectionate companion and friend, Joseph Smith.”

2:03:00

Historians typically present this letter with little or none of the pertinent background: the fact that Joseph was in hiding for his life; that the letter disclosed his location; the subterfuge that Emma had to employ in order to safely visit him; the sheriff’s attempts to follow her to Joseph’s secret location; Joseph’s recent experience on the island with his friends; and the heartfelt gratitude he had expressed for Newel K. Whitney, in particular, just two days earlier. Incredibly, without this essential context, Joseph’s letter is almost always presented as a request for the Whitneys to bring their daughter with them to his one room hiding place during this dangerous time for what might politely be called a “tryst.” It’s further presumed that when Joseph used the phrase “you three” in his letter, he was referring to the Whitneys’ 17-year-old daughter, Sarah, and not their adult son, Horace. This assumption is, again, based on the claim that Sarah and her less-than-credible mother would make 26 years later that Sarah had married Joseph the previous month.

Presenting the Whitney letter as evidence of a relationship between Joseph and Sarah without disclosing the essential background is careless at best, and perhaps even willfully deceptive.

Evidence for the last three women on Brian Hales’ list is as sparse as the rest.

2:04:25

Sarah Cleveland
We have nothing from Sarah Cleveland suggesting that she was ever married to Joseph Smith. Sarah did, however, join Emma and others in signing the 1842 declaration, certifying that she knew of no system of marriage being practiced in the church except monogamy. And – unlike Eliza R. Snow and Elizabeth Whitney – she never denied that declaration. The only claim that she was a plural wife of the prophet comes from a letter written by Sarah’s son-in-law in 1895, nearly 40 years after her death. Yet, based on a claim by Eliza R. Snow that Sarah had witnessed Eliza’s marriage to Joseph, Brian Hales actually suggests that Sarah Cleveland was a “polygamy insider.”

2:05:15

Sylvia Sessions Lyon
We have nothing from Sylvia. Joseph F. Smith’s affidavit book includes an undated, unnotarized, and unsigned affidavit that was prepared on Sylvia’s behalf but never completed. She’s nevertheless counted as one of Joseph’s plural wives.

In 1915, Sylvia’s daughter Josephine claimed that her mother had made a deathbed disclosure over 30 years earlier that Josephine was the daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. Taking her at her word, historians held Josephine up as proof of Joseph’s polygamy for over a century, until DNA evidence was presented which finally disproved her claim and confirmed her as the daughter of Windsor Lyon, Sylvia’s only husband.

2:06:05

Zina Huntington Young
In 1869, Zina, plural wife of Brigham Young, signed an affidavit affirming that she was “married or sealed” to Joseph Smith on October 27, 1841. Yet Zina is on record having married Henry Jacobs seven months earlier. Not only was Zina pregnant with Henry’s child at the time of her supposed marriage to the prophet, but she continued to live with Henry as his wife afterwards.

Again, we have no record of Zina’s ever being married or sealed to Joseph during his lifetime. However, we do have a record of her marriage to Brigham Young on February 2, 1846, and she really was pregnant with Henry’s child when she married Brigham, which Brian Hales calls “a strange thing.” Henry was sent on a mission to England three months after Zina’s marriage to Brigham and never lived with her again.

2:07:00

An 1869 edition of The World newspaper published an interview with several of Brigham’s wives, including Zina Huntington Young, who shared this shocking but valuable observation: “It is the duty of a first wife to learn to regard her husband…with indifference and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.”

This perspective on polygamous relationships was echoed by Pamelia Benson, first wife of Ezra T. Benson, great-grandfather of the prophet. Having suffered greatly as she watched her husband take other wives, including her own sister, Pamelia said, “My anguish was at times almost too great to be borne, and I could only regard his taking other wives calmly and without suffering when I had learned to look upon him without love and affection, and as I would regard a total stranger… A first wife must learn to cast out all love and affection from her heart if her husband takes other wives.”

Such are the fruits of polygamy.

2:08:15

>>Conclusion

In 1973, an army physician named Lester Bush wrote a scholarly article demonstrating that the race-based priesthood ban was not instituted by Joseph Smith – as had been presumed for over a hundred years – but by Brigham Young. Bush was not an accredited historian, yet his article was widely read, and scholars today believe the article played an important role in the lifting of the ban five years later, since, as President Nelson has wisely noted, “good inspiration is based on good information.”

Might we be on the verge of another such pivotal moment in our history? Church historian Ben Spackman believes that change is coming.

2:09:00

[Spackman:] This is kind of a report of my research about how do you teach better history to students when the inaccurate history has been taught to them by official sources?
[David Snell]: From the pulpit.
[Spackman:] From the pulpit… Correlation, which oversees all of these things, never said, ‘Hold up – we need to check the older sources,’ because that’s not their job. They’re not historians down in the archives… Human expertise can have an effect on how apostles preach and how they understand… Even inspired prophets and apostles are dependent on their human knowledge and traditions… Elder McConkie preached that. B. H. Roberts preached that. That’s been very clear in church preaching, but I’m not sure. It’s always filtered down to us, and we have these ideas about how prophets work and what they know… Human expertise matters. We need the best expertise we can, and we’re going to draw on it, officially and formally, and we’re going to encourage it… Context and the best information is kind of important for building lasting faith… Here’s what I think: we are now in a spot in church history where I would apply what Elder Faust called “unlearning”…things that we think we know that aren’t actually true, right? And I think we’re in a place now where the church is mature enough and established enough and confident enough that, under the direction of prophets and apostles, we are looking at the best expertise possible in a variety of fields to say, ‘What did we inherit that is not well grounded in divine truth or in the best human expertise we have?’ We saw that a little bit back in 1978. There was a famous article that came out that argued there wasn’t any evidence that the priesthood ban went back to Joseph Smith, who, in fact, ordained several black men. And there’s not hard evidence, but there’s really good circumstantial evidence that President Kimball read that article and marked it up… If so, that human expertise at least helped remove some of the tradition that said, ‘Well, this goes back to a revelation of Joseph Smith,’ which we now know was absolutely not the case… I suspect as we examine more of our inherited traditions, we’re going to move away from some of them.”

2:11:30

This would be terrific news. And, in fact, modern church leaders have already disavowed many of Brigham Young’s teachings, including, of course, the priesthood ban; the Adam-god theory; the horrific doctrine of blood atonement; and, notably, even some of his teachings on polygamy – specifically, that it’s essential for exaltation.

Could it be time to reject polygamy in its entirety as a false tradition and to reassure millions, especially faithful daughters of God, that their Heavenly Father is unchanging; that he loves all of his children deeply; and that he has never commanded – and never will command – his sons to break the hearts of their tender wives?

Isn’t it time to consider that our founding prophet may have been telling the truth all along?