Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (notes on the LDS Gospel Topics Essay)

The word ‘commanded’ here is a bit dishonest and without any biblical support— as the Bible does not have a single instance of god ‘commanding’ polygamy. A better wording might be ‘suffered’ his people to indulge in the cultural practice plural marriage. The Bible never states that Abraham was “commanded” to take a second wife, nor with any of the other polygamous patriarchs or prophets. There is simply no evidence that the Biblical God ever commanded or even encouraged Israel to practice polygamy. It infers Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because she felt bad about being infertile, and Abraham suffered it so they could have promised children. And infers others were allowed polygamous unions because it was a common cultural practice. In fact Deut 17:17 explicitly forbids dynastic polygamy for the Jewish leader saying,

“Neither shall he [a Jewish King] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” (Deut 17:17) 

The Book of Mormon is no different, explicitly condemning David and Solomon’s use of  polygamy to multiply children and build their dynasties (see Jacob 2:23–26).  LDS leadership’s use of Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon to suggest that god might command polygamy to multiply seed or increase population is an obvious twisting of the verses intent. The verse in question says,

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise [polygamy is to be forbidden]”. (Jacob 2:30)

To “raise up seed” does not in any way infer the use of polygamy to take many wives to multiply seed or increase the population. It is a direct quote from Genesis 38:8, referring to a caveat of the Mosaic law in Deut 25:5–7 (which Christ referred to in Matt 22:24) where if a man dies without having children, his brother was to take his widow as a (second) wife in order to “raise up seed” “in the name of his brother”. Since in ancient law, property was tied exclusively to men and their children, in this way the wife could bare children who could still lay claim to her dead husband’s assets, and preserve the family name under civil law. Both the story of the early Patriarchs as well as Judah and Tamar draw on this law of birthright to illustrate how god “rose up” seed or a “righteous branch” through the folly of his servant’s gross improprieties (see Gen 38, Gen 21, Gen 29:21–35, Jer 23:5–6). To suggest that this reference meant that God might randomly command his people to start engaging in rampant dynastic polygamy in order to increase population is unfounded in scripture and frankly a bit twisted.

The chronology of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is different from the way it is presented here. His first extra-marital relationship with Fanny Alger (considered a plural marriage by some, see Bradley 2010) dates back to around 1836, the revelation mentioned above came 7 years and 27 plural wives later. Fanny was a 16-17 year old domestic, hired by Joseph to help around the house while Emma was sick during the pregnancy of her second Child . The sexual relationship happened completely without Emma’s knowledge. (see Hales: JSP)

When Joseph Smith’s wife Emma discovered this relationship, there is no evidence that he appealed to the Bible or a revelation to justify his actions. Instead, he begged his wife’s forgiveness and the relationship was ended (see McLellin Letter).

In the second half of the 1830s, the Mormon situation in Missouri as well as Illinois became increasingly unstable. Joseph Smith’s reputation and allusions to polygamy generated a lot of rumours, which were denied by both Joseph Smith individually and the church as a whole (see references here. also note 15).

This changed at the beginning of the 1840s, after the Mormons settled down in their own city of Nauvoo (Illinois). Here Joseph Smith felt safe enough to test the waters by publicly hinting at what he called the restoration of Biblical polygamy. Reactions to this were usually negative, after which he would backpedal by saying the time had not yet come (see Nauvoo teachings. Newell & Avery 1994, pp. 95-96).

In secret, though, Joseph Smith went ahead and started taking on many polygamous wives in the early 1840s. In an effort to convince his wife Emma of the practice, he finally dictated a formal revelation about polygamy on July 12, 1843.“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,” it said, “for I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice” (Doctrine and Covenants 2013, pp. 271-272).

This paragraph contains two errors:

– There were some “exact instructions” on how to practice polygamy;
– The Manifesto did not lead “to the end of plural marriage in the Church”.

To start with the latter point: on the very day church president Woodruff submitted the Manifesto to the general membership for approval, he advised Byron Harvey Allred, who had traveled to Salt Lake City to marry an additional wife, how to circumvent the Manifesto (read Allred’s journal here, search for the last mention of “Woodruff”).

In the Manifesto, president Woodruff denied “in the most solemn manner” the cases of polygamy which the Utah Commission had identified but these have since been amply documented and confirmed (see Quinn 1985, who was disciplined and later excommunicated from the Mormon church for publishing this research). One year later, president Woodruff again lied under oath about the clandestine continuation of polygamy in an attempt to regain seized church property (Wagoner 1989, p. 149) – possibly the real purpose of the Manifesto.

With regards to the “instructions on how to obey the commandment” of polygamy, there may not have been many but the ones that were there, were not followed. Leviticus 18 in the Bible, for instance, prohibits men from marrying a mother and her daughter, as well as marrying sisters, yet both practices were frequent among Mormons (see note 1 to the essay Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah).

Neither did Joseph Smith follow the instructions from his own 1843 revelation which states, for instance, that polygamous wives should be virgins. Joseph Smith, however, had relationships with at least 11 married women. Some girls, like Sarah Ann Whitney (17) and Flora Ann Woodworth (17) married other men within a few months after their polygamous unions to Joseph Smith, which, according to the revelation, constitutes adultery. And finally, the revelation stipulates that the first wife gives her husband permission to take extra wives but Joseph Smith took most of his plural wives without his wife Emma’s knowledge, let alone permission.

Throughout this essay, the authors repeatedly claim that “many details” of Mormon polygamy are unknown because the historical record is supposedly incomplete, or even “thin”. It is not clear why they would say this since the authors’ own sources disagree with that conclusion.

In endnote 29, for example, an article by apostle John A. Widtsoe is cited which reads: “The literature and existing documents dealing with plural marriage in Nauvoo in the day of Joseph Smith are very numerous. Hundreds of affidavits on the subject are in the Church Historian’s office in Salt Lake City. Most of the books and newspaper and magazine articles on the subject are found there also” (Widtsoe 1946).

In endnotes 25 and 26, the authors quote Bringhurst & Foster’s 2010 book The Persistence of Polygamy which starts with an overview of “the plethora of books articles, and essays dealing with Mormon polygamy” and speaks of a “multitude of historical documents” (p. ix). “Literally hundreds of books”, the introduction claims, “have been written on the topic of Mormon polygamy” (p. 2).

So we have hundreds of books about polygamy, hundreds of affidavits from early Mormons who were personally involved in polygamy, as well as many other historical documents like marriage records, journals, letters, newspaper articles, etc. They contain details about every aspect of the first polygamous Mormon marriages. These sources are not a matter of faith either; in fact, most of them can be consulted quite easily these days by anyone with an internet connection.

The reliability of “later reminiscences” can be determined by comparing them to the rest of the historical record. By pretending these sources do not exist, the authors exempt themselves from such methodological rigour. Instead, they ask the reader to “walk by faith”. Remarkably, the reliability of later reminiscences doesn’t seem to be an issue in the remainder of the essay when the reminiscences fit the authors’ narrative.

This is a first example of what was stated in note 4. The reliability of “later reminiscences” is never questioned when it suits the authors of this article, in this case to create a sequence of events that puts Joseph Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger in the context of polygamy.

The sources quoted with this paragraph are from 1878 and 1887. That in itself does not mean they are unreliable but in view of the absence of contemporary supporting evidence, some caution seems appropriate. See note 2 for the actual chronology.

It is not in dispute that polygamy occurs in the Bible as a cultural practice. However, the Christian world does not generally see it as a commandment from God (see also note 1). Moreover, the justification of polygamy by claiming that “God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives” was already anticipated – and unequivocally condemned – in the Book of Mormon (as already discussed).

There is no good evidence that Joseph Smith received a revelation about polygamy in the 1830s, nor that “he taught a few associates about it”. Curiously, the sources that are quoted with this paragraph do not support this either.

The first source concerns a hypothetical question asked to Lorenzo Snow in 1892: “Could Joseph Smith receive a revelation (…)”. There is nothing in Snow’s testimony to suggest that Joseph Smith received a revelation about polygamy in the 1830s.

The second source is an 1869 sermon by Orson Pratt which actually states the opposite of what is implied in the paragraph above, namely that Joseph Smith indicated in 1832 that the time for polygamy had not yet come and that, therefore, the revelation on polygamy was only given in 1843.

The third source is not about polygamy at all but about disseminating Mormonism among Native Americans by “forming a matrimonial alliance with the Natives”. Although this letter is critical of Joseph Smith and his associates, no mention is made of polygamy. Rather, in the matter of an unnamed man from New York (possibly Martin Harris) marrying a Native American woman, the letter states that “before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the State of N. Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal” (Marquardt 2008; read this source online here, see the second to last paragraph of the December 6, 1831 letter).

A last source cited in other sources is from a second-hand account written in 1896 by Mosiah Hancock, who was not even born until 1834.

This is not a correct representation of the facts. The only source which indicates that an angel appeared three times to Joseph Smith in that period, was Mary Rollins Lightner in 1905 (Hales 2010). However, Joseph Smith did not tell this to “his associates” but to her, in an ultimate effort to convince her to enter into a relationship with him (he had been pursuing her since at least 1834, and some sources even say 1831, when Mary was only 16 or 12 years old respectively, see Newell & Avery 1994, p. 65. Read Mary’s affidavits here).

All sources for the angel-with-the-drawn-sword-story are relatively late (the earliest one is likely from 1853. possibly 1843), appear to be depending on each other and lack  supporting evidence from Joseph Smith’s lifetime. It’s possible, then, that the story was made up later to create the impression that Joseph Smith engaged in polygamy under divine duress – a concept that doesn’t really sit well with Mormon theology.

Either way, one must look suspiciously at the narrative this church Essay is trying to sell church members here. This paragraph is suggesting God sent and angel with a drawn sword to go against Joseph’s agency in commanding him take to his 16 year old house servant as his first plural bride. And that god sanctioned this “union” even though it occurred completely behind Emma’s back— Joseph having sex with her in secret, while his wife was likely pregnant with their second child Frederick (born June 1836). All this with supposed partial unwritten revelation, and no public disclosure, only to have Joseph’s first plural wife to be kicked out of the house by Emma when she finds out about it (like Hagar and Sarah right?!). “God” then says nothing about polygamy again until 5 years later when Joseph would take a second plural wife, (likely Lucinda Pendleton while her husband was away on a mission. see here for information on Lucinda and her marriage to Joseph and connection to early American anti-Masonry). Other sources suggest his second was 26 year old Louisa Beaman.

.

It is true that a lot of information about Fanny Alger stems from “decades later”, starting with the sources cited for this paragraph, which are from 1886-87, 1903 and 1896 respectively. Of all the historical sources that mention Fanny Alger, these are the most recent. A surprising choice, in view of the concern the authors of this article have expressed about the reliability of “later reminiscences” (see note 4).

Then again, maybe not so surprising, considering that the earlier sources (until 1842) do not speak of a marriage with the blessing of Fanny’s parents but of “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair” (Oliver Cowdery), “adultery” (Far West High Council minutes), “girl business” (Joseph Smith himself), “unlawful intercourse” (Fanny Brewer) and “improper proposals” (Martin Harris).

Other aspects of the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger that can be gleaned from the sources are that Emma Smith was initially unaware of it, that she caught her husband having sex with Fanny Alger (or found out about it when Fanny’s pregnancy became visible), that Joseph Smith asked his wife for forgiveness, that the relationship ended there, and that Fanny left the Smith household (or was sent away by Emma). And that she left Joseph and the church, was later married and refused to talk about it later in life.

None of the sources mention a commandment or an angel with a drawn sword in this connection. A secondary 1896 source by Mosiah Hancock states that Fanny’s parents may have consented. They remained in the church and followed the Saints to settle in St George, Utah

The distinction between “eternal marriage” and “plural marriage” is a modern interpretation that does not necessarily follow from the text of Joseph Smith’s revelation, which only mentions “this law”, “my law” and “the new and everlasting covenant” throughout the entire text.

The only distinction drawn in this revelation is between a traditional, non-Mormon marriage which ends with death and a marriage “by God’s word” which is remains valid in the afterlife.

This paragraph confirms the issues with chronology that were pointed out in note 2: Fanny Alger cannot have been “sealed” to Joseph Smith if the sealing of husband and wife for eternity was only made possible three years later.

Moreover, the connection between the events of April 1836 and the “sealing power” is of later origin. No new ordinances were introduced as a result of the appearance of Elijah. The first sealings between men and women were performed in 1843 and the sealing of children to their parents only started after Joseph Smith’s death (Buerger 1994, p. 61; Prince 1995, pp. 155-172).

The sealing of men and women, then, did not originate as a result of the appearance of Elijah but in the context of Joseph Smith’s 1843 revelation on polygamy. To early Mormons, sealing and polygamy were one and the same.

Love may not have been Joseph Smith’s only motivation for marrying Emma Hale. For years he had been trying to retrieve golden plates which he claimed to have found in a hill near his home. He said they were guarded by a spirit who eventually stipulated that he could take the plates on the condition that he got married. The spirit did not inform him who he should marry but in his seer stone he saw it was to be Emma (for Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones, see this article about the translation of the Book of Mormon).

Earlier attempts to take the plates home had failed and this was to be Joseph Smith’s last chance before they would sink into the earth forever. That is why he wanted to marry quickly; eloping may have been necessary because Emma’s parents weren’t too keen on their daughter marrying a young treasure hunter without a respectable, steady job (Quinn 1998, pp. 163-164; Marquardt & Walters 1994, pp. 89-94).

The statement that the hope of living in God’s presence with family members was a strong incentive to participate in polygamy contradicts the distinction proposed earlier between eternal and plural marriage (see note 10). If the Mormons of Kirtland and Nauvoo had made this distinction, polygamy would not have been required to live in God’s presence with family members.

Incidentally, most non-Mormons who believe in an afterlife believe they will be together with their loved ones anyway. The conditions and restrictions which the Mormon church imposes can be considered impediments rather than enablers.

Between Fanny Alger (1833) and Louisa Beaman, there was also a relationship between Joseph Smith and Lucinda Pendleton Harris (Compton 1997, pp. 43-54). It is unclear why this union isn’t mentioned here, maybe because it didn’t occur in Kirtland or Nauvoo but in Missouri.

Rumours had been spreading since the days of Fanny Alger and had already caused problems and denials in Ohio and Missouri. The term rumour, however, doesn’t apply since Joseph Smith did indeed have relations with many women. They were only rumours because Joseph Smith and other church leaders kept publicly denying their involvement in polygamy (including in court).

From the very beginning, lying has been an integral part of Mormon polygamy (Hardy 1992). Joseph Smith lied to his wife, his associates, his followers and his community. His successors lied to the authorities, the courts and to Congress. Today, the Mormon church lies about polygamy to prospective members in its missionary program, to current members in its curriculum and to non-members in its media statements (such as this essay).

Whether these statements are called lies or “carefully worded denials”, it seems clear that they were – and are – primarily meant to mislead others from knowing the truth.

There is no evidence that the Mormons from “the era in which plural marriage was practiced” made this distinction. As stated in note 10, the text of Joseph Smith’s 1843 revelation only distinguishes between marriages “for time” and “for time and eternity” – to this day the only two forms of marriage in the Mormon church. Marriage “for eternity only” is an apologetic term which does not appear in any primary 19th-century source (Quinn 1997, pp. 183-84; Compton 1997, pp. 12-15, 500).

The reason why the authors of this essay use the “eternity only” category may be to introduce the idea that some of Joseph Smith’s polygamous unions did not have a sexual aspect, and might be perceived as less controversial that way.
Since the “eternity only” category does not exist, however, there is no reason to suppose that Joseph Smith’s relationships did not have a sexual component, all the more so because sexual relations can be established with reasonable certainty in about half the cases – which is quite a lot for a time in which sexuality was not openly discussed.

The endnote to this paragraph reports that the best estimates put the number of wives of Joseph Smith between 30 and 40. Mormonism101.com mostly relies on the research of Todd Compton, who lists 33 women (excluding Emma). Quinn (2012) proposes that there is also sufficient evidence that Esther Dutcher, Hannah Ann Dubois, Mary Heron Snyder and Lydia Kenyon Carter were sealed to Joseph Smith, which puts the tally at 37. Based on extensive demographic research, Smith (1994) puts in an even higher estimate of 42.

There is no evidence that any of these women ever “indicated that their relationships were for eternity alone” (see note 16, but see also Quinn 2012 for one possible exception).

While it is technically true that most of those sealed to Joseph Smith (18 out of the 33 women) were between 20 and 40, this grouping seems arbitrary and clouds the actual age distribution of Joseph Smith’s wives:

The chart above shows that Joseph Smith had a strong preference for women who were younger to much younger than himself. To use another arbitrary grouping: most of those sealed to Joseph Smith (also 18 out of 33) were between 10 and 30. The older women, like Patty Bartlett (47) and Elizabeth Davis (50) were actively involved in recruiting the younger women and girls for plural marriage (Smith 1994; Compton 1997, pp. 179, 254-55, 260, 262).

Plural marriage was never legal in the US, so the question of age is moot from a judicial point of view. “Some women” did indeed marry “in their mid-teens” but they were few and far between. The chart below (from Foster et al. 2010) shows that in Joseph Smith’s time (1840), less than 2% of the women were married in their mid-teens, at 15 or younger:
The data for the above chart are for the entire United States. Zooming in on the Northeastern states where Joseph Smith lived, the rate of mid-teen marriages drops to 0.4 percent. Nine out of ten women who married in their teens did so at 18 or 19 (Compton 2010). Only three of Joseph Smith’s teenage wives were in this latter age range, the other seven (including Fanny Alger) were all younger:
Another issue is the age gap between Joseph Smith and his polygamous wiwes. Without claiming any statistical sophistication, Mormonism101 has prepared the following chart based on the ages of Joseph Smith and his wives as given by Foster et al. (2010, p. 154) and a sample from the IPUMS-USA database (Ruggles et al. 2010).
The vertical bars represent Joseph Smith’s wives at the age he married them, in order of age; the orange line represents Joseph Smith’s age at the time. The green line represents the age gap between 3,475 women of the same age and in the same area as Joseph Smith’s wives and their husbands as recorded in the 1850 US census (no earlier census data are available). The green area covers one standard deviation plus and minus from the average age gap in the sample.

Thus, whenever the orange line crosses into the green area, the age gap between Joseph Smith and that wife is within what could be considered a normal range. This is the case for 15 out of Joseph Smith’s 33 plural wives (the lighter coloured bars in the chart). The age gaps with his teenage wives and with his elderly wives generally fall outside the green area.

Click here to take a closer look at the 1850 census data.

In summary, then, we can conclude that Joseph Smith’s marital practices were well outside the bounds of normal behaviour in the time and place where he lived with regard to (1) the number of his wives, (2) their age at marriage and (3) the age gaps between them.

Nowhere in the autobiographical writings cited as sources for this paragraph does Helen Mar Kimball state that her sealing to Joseph Smith was “for eternity alone”; this quote is completely taken out of context here. What she does say, is the following:

Helen’s marriage was arranged by her father: “Having a great desire to be connected with the prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one ewe lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar; how cruel this seemed to my mother whose heartstrings were already stretched until they were ready to snap asunder” (Compton 1997, p. 498).

Helen supposed the marriage would be for eternity only but, according to one source, soon learned otherwise: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it” (Wagoner 1989, p. 53).

Helen was promised salvation in exchange for her marriage to the prophet: “If you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward” (Compton 1997, p. 499).

Helen was put under severe time pressure to make her decision: her father left her“to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas. I was skeptical–one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions” (Compton 1997, pp. 498-499).

Regardless of Helen Mar Kimball’s eloquence in defending Joseph Smith and polygamy at a much later age, she was under no illusion that polygamy had anything to offer her or her fellow female participants: “No earthly inducement could be held forth to the women who entered this order. It was to be a life sacrifice for the sake of an everlasting glory and exaltation” (Compton 1997 p. 349).

The authors of this article correctly assess that such relationships are deemed “inappropriate by today’s standards”. It is unlikely, however, that this was any different in the 1840s.

These married women (12 to 14 according to the endnote to this paragraph) have said and written just as much about their relationships with Joseph Smith as the others (see note 4) and there is just as little (meaning no) evidence that these relations were “for eternity alone”(see note 16). On the contrary, as is the case for Joseph Smith’s other wives, there is ample primary evidence for sexual relations with a significant number of these married women as well (Quinn 2012).

This and the next two “possible explanations” are pure speculation for which there is no supporting evidence. Based on sources that actually exist – as opposed to the imagined feelings and thoughts of Joseph Smith and unnamed “faithful women” – only two explanations have any basis in fact:

Posterity: the stated purpose of Mormon polygamy was procreation. For a long time, Joseph Smith was thought to have fathered a handful of children with several of his polygamous wives, at least four of which were already married (Quinn 2012). By now, most of these claims have been disproved using modern DNA techniques (Groote 2011). As Quinn points out, however, the relevant fact here is not whether these children actually were Joseph Smith’s but whether their mothers thought they might be. This strongly suggests that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with these (married) women and that “raising up seed” should be considered as a possible explanation for his behaviour – which the authors of this essay don’t do.

Loyalty: Joseph Smith tested the loyalty of his closest associates by asking to marry their wives and daughters. Men who passed the test, entered a small, trusted inner circle, received leadership positions and were encouraged to start relations with other women themselves (Wagoner 1989, p. 41).

That few complaints are known about Joseph Smith’s sealings to married women is, again, not an accurate representation of all the relevant facts:

Firstly, not all legal husbands were aware that Joseph Smith initiated relations with their wives (although most men knew afterwards). This was certainly true for Orson Hyde (on a mission) and Adam Lightner (out of town) and possibly for George Harris, Windsor Lyon, David Sessions and Jonathan Holmes as well.

Secondly, by focusing on “these [12 to 14]sealings”, a large group of people is left out of the picture who did not appreciate Joseph Smith’s proposals and who did have complaints about them. One of them, William Law, founded a newspaper with other Nauvoo dissidents in which they wanted to expose polygamy and other misconduct. As the mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith allowed the printing press and the first edition to be destroyed. For this unlawful act, he was arrested and while awaiting judicial proceedings in prison, was murdered by an angry mob. The attempted suppression of complaints about polygamy directly led to Joseph Smith’s death.

Thirdly, complaints from legal husbands are not as absent from the documentary record as the authors of this essay suggest, especially in view of the limited scope of this practice. Church leader Daniel H. Wells, for instance, wrote about Albert Smith (no relation), Esther Dutcher’s legal husband: “He is much afflicted with the loss of his first wife. It seems that she was sealed to Joseph the Prophet in the days of Nauvoo, though she still remained his wife, and afterwards nearly broke his heart by telling him of it, and expressing her intention of adhering to that relationship” (Hales 2010a)

Another example is Henry Jacobs, whose wife Zina Huntington first married Joseph Smith but remained with Henry, then left her husband altogether for Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death. Although he remained a loyal Mormon, his letters reveal a deeply hurt husband and father:

“I have written so many letters to you and the children from first to last and got no letters, that I almost feel discouraged. I never have received but one from you since I left Salt Lake. O, how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, I would like to see the little babe.

Zina, I wish you to prosper. I wish you knew what I have to bear, my feelings are indescribable. I am unhappy, there is no peace for poor me. My pleasure is you, my comfort has vanished.

I have had many a good dream about you and the little ones. I have imagined myself at home with you and the little boys upon my knees, singing and playing with them. What a comfort, what a joy, to think upon those days that are gone by, o heaven bless me, even poor me, shall I ever see them again?

I think of you very often, Zina. Are you happy? Do you enjoy your life as pleasant as you did with me when I was home with you and the children, when we could say our prayers together and speak together in tongues and bless each other in the name of the Lord?

O, I think of those happy days that are past. When I sleep the sleep of death then I will not forget you and my little lambs. I love my affections, I love my children. O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again?” (minor editing for legibility by mormonism101.com, for more extensive quotations, see Compton 1997, pp. 98-100).

As stated in note 21, this explanation is purely speculative. It is based on reading Joseph Smith’s mind, a dubious story about an angel (see note 8) and a fabricated concept of marriage without “normal marriage relationships” (see note 16).

This explanation is not only pure speculation; it is also based on an incorrect portrayal of the facts. Of the eleven already married women on Compton’s list, only one had a former Mormon husband (Presendia Lathrop) while three had non-Mormon husbands (Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Sarah Kingsley and Ruth Vose).

Nor was divorce difficult to obtain, given the loose Mormon marriage morals. Of Joseph Smith’s 11 married wives (again according to Compton 1997), five divorced or simply left their prior husband (Lucinda Pendleton between 1846-1850, Zina Huntington in 1847, Presendia Lathrop in 1845, Marinda Johnson in 1870 and Elizabeth Davis in 1846).

Regardless of these factual inaccuracies, it has been explained already in note 11 that the idea of sealing originated in the context of polygamy, not the other way around. Sealing and polygamy were synonyms to early Mormons. Saying that “faithful women felt an urgency to be sealed” would be akin to saying that these women felt an urgency to engage in polygamy – an implication which is contradicted by all available sources.

The women who did not unite with Joseph Smith or his associates in plural marriage also risked their good name. If they continued to refuse polygamous proposals, their reputation might get publicly tarnished to preemptively divert attention away from the proposals themselves, which would be perceived as inappropriate and scandalous should they become known to the general public. Sarah Pratt was accused of adultery, Martha Brotherton was called a “mean harlot” descended from “old Jezebel” in a newspaper, and 19-year old Nancy Rigdon was deemed “little, if any, better than a public prostitute” (Wagoner 1986).

After Joseph’s death, his wives were redistributed among other church leaders. Brigham Young took 7 to 9 of them, his counselor Heber C. Kimball 11. The other women were divided among other church leaders such as George A. Smith, Amasa Lyman, Ezra T. Benson and others (Compton 1997, p. 83).

This practice would be the foundation of the way in which the Mormons practiced polygamy in the second half of the nineteenth century: as “a symbol of status and inclusion in the inner Mormon circle of power” (Zeitzen 2008, p. 99; see also note 11 to the article Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah).

This is the third time the authors incorrectly claim that little is known about a certain aspect of Joseph Smith’s polygamy (see notes 4 and 20). The reason why most Mormons do not know a lot about Emma Smith is that she has been largely ignored in Mormon history ever since she chose to remain in Nauvoo after her husband was murdered, and not join the body of Mormons who emigrated to Utah.

According to author Jana Riess, “Emma’s disappearance from LDS history was so total that (…) an article about her for the Ensign in 1979 was the first writing about her to appear in any official church publication in 113 years” (Riess 2013). Polygamy is not discussed in this article, however, because that is another subject which Mormon church leaders have tried hard to ignore in official publications before the advent of internet.

Nevertheless, records of Emma Smith are not “sparse”. Linda King Newell and ValeenTippetts Avery’s biography Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, for example, is 394 pages long, contains a 14-page bibliography of published sources and builds on research into more than 50 historical newspapers, as well as diaries, minutes, letter and (auto)biographies from 85 archive collections. Expertly put together, these sources make crystal clear how Emma Smith felt about her husband’s extra-marital relations: betrayed, deceived, hurt, sad, angry, taunted and humiliated.

However, Newell and Avery’s groundbreaking book is not cited in this essay, once again allowing the authors to pretend that little is known about things they don’t want to write about.

The sequence of events was a bit different. These four women (Emily & Eliza Partidge and Sara & Maria Lawrence, 19, 22, 17 and 19 years old respectively) already lived in the Smith household before Emma gave her permission. The Lawrence sisters were their wards. The Partridge sisters had already married Joseph Smith two months before, without Emma’s knowledge. Nobodytold Emma this, though, but the ceremony was simply performed a second time in her presence. Even when Emma supported polygamy, she was being deceived by her husband (Newell & Avery 1994, p. 142-143).

Emma’s approval was short-lived. Apparently she did not fully realize that Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were also of a sexual nature. That same night she found her husband in a room with Eliza Partridge and “from that very hour,” Emily wrote in her journal, “Emma was our bitter enemy” (Newell & Avery 1994, p. 143-144; Smith 1994).

The speculation that Emma Smith “may have approved of other marriages as well” has no basis in fact. She didn’t even know about these unions. These four are the only ones which she approved of for a few hours, after which she immediately regretted it.

During the two months in which these events unfolded, Emma Smith’s attitude toward polygamy did indeed vacillate. The rest of her life, before and after, she was radically opposed to it. To her dying day she maintained, against better judgment, that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.

The “law of Sarah”, then, is of no consequence. The first wife must give her consent but if she doesn’t, the plural marriage can go ahead anyway.

However, Joseph Smith had already taken on 22 extra wives before he first told his wife about polygamy. There was no dilemma when the 1843 revelation was recorded. He had already made his choice without giving her the opportunity to come to a decision.

This is incorrect. Mormon polygamy led to fewer children than probably would have been born in a monogamous society (see note 6 of the article Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah).

As can be seen from the examples above, it takes most people tremendous effort to act against their natural feelings, their socialization and their conscience. Many reports of the struggle of those who first entered a polygamous relationship, therefore, mention days and nights of prayer, fasting and sleep deprivation, combined with enormous psychological pressure and emotional distress.

Contrary to what the authors of this essay seem to think, most people will not consider this “a sacred experience” to be emulated in any way. Overriding one’s natural impulses and acting against one’s conscience in the name of faith is the domain of religious fanaticism.

Also missing from this article is the message that religious leaders who, from their position of authority, extort sex from followers in exchange for promises of salvation do not necessarily need to be obeyed (Money 2014). This may be a modern message but then again, the Mormon church chose a modern medium, the internet, to release this essay to a modern audience.

Unfortunately, no sources are given on which the assumption that a substantial number of today’s Mormons descend from polygamists is based. What is known, however, is that the Mormon hierarchy has become intimately connected through dynastic and polygamous marriages (Quinn 1997, pp. 163-197). This confirms that polygamy was an important tool in establishing and expanding the power base of the Mormon church leadership (see note 25 to this article and note 11 to the article Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah).

Other traces of polygamy that can be seen in Mormon church policies today are: