I can’t tell you how excited I was to interview Dr. Ugo Perego, a world-class DNA researcher. Over the next few weeks, we’ll discuss basic DNA science, and his work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, possible children of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, Smith’s ancestry, and Book of Mormon DNA science. He normally lives in Rome, Italy, but I was able to talk to him a few weeks ago when he came as a visiting professor at BYU. Let me introduce him to you. (audio and video found here.)
Ugo: After my mission I went to BYU. I came here to the BYU campus. That’s where we are today. I did my bachelors, my undergrad here in health sciences, and also did some other studies in scriptures and seminary teaching. I did other things when I was here. I got married. My wife is from Missouri. I lived here all my married life up to five years ago.
I worked for a large project, a worldwide project for 12 years after my schooling, for the Sorenson companies. Our objective was to collect DNA samples and link them to family history, and build a large database of correlated genealogical and genetic information, help people trace their past, their history, connect to others through DNA whenever the paper trails would not be sufficient to provide those links.
As I did the work for them during those 12 years, a byproduct of that research was a tremendous amount of data that could be used for population studies. I’ve learned more about the origin and relationship of different populations, not just individuals. We had such a variety of data in this database. During this time I had opportunity to do Ph.D. I did with professor Torroni.
For those in the field, he’s the first person that used mitochondrial DNA to identify or differentiate a group of people, populations. In fact the first group of people that he studied were Native Americans back in the early [19]90s. So he was my graduate advisor, my mentor. I did my Ph.D. dissertation on his suggestion. It wasn’t the actual project that I had proposed to him. I had another project in mind, but he actually wanted to take the one study that he did. It was a post-doc on Native Americans because he wanted to do that using more advanced techniques. About 20 years have elapsed between the time he did the work and the time I was doing my Ph.D. So my Ph.D. dissertation was on using this model, more advanced technique to be able to trace the origin of Native Americans through DNA.
So that’s a little bit where my studies are. I have a Ph.D. in genetics and biomolecular sciences. That was my Ph.D. dissertation. My main field is a lot. Still today whenever I have a chance I work on a side project with some of my colleagues at the university, most of the time, Native American DNA ancient or modern. We have a few publications out that have made a good impact on the area of knowledge of scholarship.
As an introduction, I asked how twins could have different ancestry? He told me of a very unusual case of twins.
We say that on average, you have 25% of each of your grandparents DNA, but you could have as little as 0% and as much as 50%. What we are talking about is average, across all the grandparents, grandchildren sets that have been tested, we see the bell curve, we see a great variety but it approaches 25% on the average. That happens even within the same family.
Now if you have identical twins, you have almost 100% of similar DNA, but if you have fraternal twins, it’s the same thing as having a brother and a sister. They each get 50%. But, there is also a proven case of a woman that had twins from two different men. All you have to do is be fertile and having two mature eggs and have sexual relations within a very short amount of time with two different men and one fertilize one egg and the other fertilize the other egg.
Century Old Paternity?
In our second conversation, I asked how you determine a 150 year old paternity test?
There is a different approach that you must take genetically to answer the paternity of a son versus the paternity of a daughter when it is something that happened 150 years ago. Nowadays if you suspect your child is not your child, regardless of whether it is a girl or a boy, you do a paternity test. You test the mother, the father, and the child. There are certain markers, there are autosomal markers they are called, that are very unique, the combination of such can only be reproduced within a family. So either somebody is 100% not your child, or it is 99.99999% your child, which is just another way to say 100%. DNA is one notch stronger in excluding relationships than it is to include. There is always a little chance that DNA matches because of chance. But the markers that you test are so many that the reality that there is really a chance is [close to zero.]
Over the next few weeks, we’ll discuss more of his paternity tests on Joseph Smith. Polygamy can be a very touchy subject. Some people are happy to learn Joseph Smith didn’t father children with other wives, but others say he would have been fulfilling a commandment to raise up seed. What are your thoughts about these paternity tests, and about Joseph fathering children with his plural wives? What do you think of Ugo’s questions in the graphic above?
I never had any interest in genealogy or family history or DNA ( I am not LDS, but I love the discussions here) but a year ago my husband and I were given an Ancestry DNA gift certificate. My husband was shocked to find out that the man he always knew as his father is not a DNA match at all. Of course he started asking questions and opened a very sensitive box of secrets. At 58 years old he is learning about relatives he never knew about and treading very gently and slowly through the feelings of his parents who are in their late eighties. He is wondering now if it would have been better to never know. I was raised in an Evangelical denomination( my father was a minister ). I believe the Bible is the word of God and while I am always trying to understand the scriptures more clearly I have never felt the need to search out any history of the stories or people mentioned in its word.
Joseph Smith didn’t father any children with plural wives? This seems a bit of a reach based on some assumptions that are difficult to prove. (I can’t resist a nice bowl of mixed science and speculation soup).
First Joseph may have fathered other children but they didn’t survive and this was not recorded. I can think of many reasons for children disappearing; childhood illness, secret adoptions, and abortions to mention a few.
What was the childhood mortality rate in 1850? For every 1000 live birth over 200 children died every year according to this US census data ( https://eh.net/encyclopedia/fertility-and-mortality-in-the-united-states/ )or over 20%. That was about 40 times as high as now. Emma Smith lost most of her children, far exceeding the average of her time, likely due to hardships of her life. These presumptive secret children would have had an even more difficult time surviving.
Abortion was not uncommon at that time. Anti-abortion statues began to appear reflecting the growing problem. Dr. (cough) John C.Bennett was an abortionist, close friend and advisor. Women of that time with very much experience as midwives would soon figure out how to do it. Killing children immediately following birth was also not uncommon nor difficult.
*******
But at another level this entire discussion is problematic. It assumes we have verifiable DNA sequences of Joseph Smith. We have his presumptive descendants but what if they are not his biological descendants? All we really know reliably is that they are Emma’s children (if they were not switched at birth) What if Emma had another male partner? Its what women do when their husbands cheat on them. BY described Emma as one of the damnest liars on the earth and a child of hell, going so far as to accuse her of trying to poison Joseph . If BY accused her of this, it is not difficult for me to image she could have cheated on her husband habitually.
What if Joseph Smith was infertile? That would account for both his absence of children with other women and sort of justify Emma’s presumptive cheating. And what was the most common cause of infertility? Syphilis which is also associated with insanity, mild in its early stages. I think the devote modern Mormon might prefer that we do find evidence of biological children from other women if they like to paint pretty pictures of history over this kind of a quagmire.
Until we have a sample, from the verified bones of Joseph Smith, we have nothing definitive. I am not on the forefront of this field , do we have biological samples of Joseph Smith’s actual remains? I am under the impression we do not. Conveniently we don’t even know for sure where he was buried. The prairie Mormons (former RLDS now Cof C) have a trio of headstones over some skeletons they dug up nearly a 100 years ago they think are those of Joseph and Hyrum Smith but that was disputed for many decades . BY claims he saw Joseph Smith resurrected; so if you believe that , these bones might be gone.
*******
See this delightful history article masquerading as a pseudo-scientific piece: http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Skulls-and-Crossed-Bones-A-Forensic-Study-of-the-Remains-of-Hyrum-and-Joseph-Smith.pdf
After the double murder of the Smith brothers, their bodies were secretly buried and disinterred, perhaps as many as 5 times, that we know about. That is enough to give one doubt about identity. For several decades the actual burial site was not marked or known by any except a very few. Emma thought she knew and was buried nearby in 1873. When they built the Keokuk dam and which was destined to flood the lost graves, the RLDS hunted around until they found and dug up a group of 3 skeletons, a woman and two men. They photographed the skulls but did not do much of a scientific evaluation which at best would not have been very good at that time anyway. But they had plenty of witnesses who felt it was them based on flimsy evidence.
They moved the skeletons to higher ground and placed monuments with the names of Joseph, Hyrum and Emma Smith in 1928. More recent monuments have replaced them. When I last visited the site in the 1970’s, it was owned by the RLDS. The LDS visitor’s guides in nearby sites claimed these graves were complete fabrications, and nobody honestly knows where they eventually buried Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Emma’s propensity for lying about Joseph’s polygamy might cause one to wonder if she was lying about knowing where they were buried. .And with all of these midnight reburials it would not be difficult to pull a switchero.
Later comparisons with these photographs of the skulls and the death masks have been made. Compared to the accuracy of DNA this is like comparing the pictures of two ghosts and concluding they are the same ghost. At one point they thought they might have mixed up Joseph and Hyrum. (If they can’t tell them apart , they might not be either one). Comparing 2D photographs of curved 3D objects which can easily be distorted by slight angle variations and the death masks made in haste is anything but an accurate or reliable method. I don’t think the people involved in 1928 had enough archeological sophistication to exclude the skulls as American Indians who might have been buried on the banks of the mighty Mississippi.
Dr Perego, if you want to do science a big favor, figure out a way to dig up these bones again and have professional osteologists examine them and do DNA studies on them. You might prove they are not really the remains of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. That would lend credibility to BY claiming Emma was the damnest liar on earth and the Smith brothers were resurrected. This would warm the hearts of many orthodox believers (even more than 100 trek reenactments). Or you might demonstrate they are likely the remains of Joseph and Hyrum based on back comparisons with their presumptive descendants; all this disturbings of their graves did not result in any mix-ups. You will then have a far more valid sample with which to compare other presumptive descendants and either raise more questions or lay them to rest. (I think syphilis can sometimes be diagnosed but not excluded in skeletal remains too.)
But you realize that if you get the “wrong” answer, it could really ruffle some feathers on either side of the prairie and mountain Mormon divide. I will be surprised if you get very far. And being a graduate of USU, I was never convinced there ever was very much interest in doing real science down at BYU anyway. Just enough to fuel plausibility and speculation. Prove me wrong. 🙂
Alice, thanks for checking in, and I’m glad you enjoy this. I’m always fascinated when non-Mormon express interest in Mormonism. That must have been quite an interesting conversation for your husband!
John, I encourage you to listen to the interview. You throw out a lot of questions that Perego answers. Yes it would be nice to get Joseph’s bones, but as a person of his historical stature, there is a lot of red tape, and nearly impossible to test the bones, so that’s why he went through descendants. Since the sons all match, the DNA of Joseph is confirmed, and Perego has not only identified Joseph Jr, but Joseph Sr as well. His tests are much more thorough than your questioning implies. (I believe he has Joseph’s Jr’s grandfather as well, but of course the farther one goes back in time, the less DNA available in present descendants.)
In a future interview, Perego did get permission to dig up the bones of a Mormon boy who died just after the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and tested his DNA to confirm the identity, but it is much harder to get access to Joseph’s bones to test DNA. If you could arrange access to Joseph’s bones, I’m sure Perego would appreciate the help to test the DNA of Joseph’s bones. Perego also mentions in a future interview that there were infants who died. We don’t know where the bones are, they obviously didn’t have offspring, so those are impossible to test.
Let me also add that not only has Joseph been ruled out as father, but others, like Parley Pratt and Windsor Lyon have been ruled in as the real fathers. So Perego is able to get a positive identity of the real father in the cases he has tested so far.
Men who are undeniably descendants of Joseph through Emma have donated their DNA as samples to compare. The President of the Remnant Church has donated his DNA. He is the grandson of Frederick Madison Smith, the son of Joseph Smith III. DNA is not a perfect science, no, but at this point it’s more of a reach to say Joseph did have children with anyone other than Emma. All the situations listed above by Mike blow out the Occamd Razor. The simplest answer is that he was a monogamist.
Alex, I want to believe that. But it makes liars of the women married to him who said otherwise, and I just can’t bring myself to do that to them.
ReTx, as Rick stated, children have been testing negative for paternity for Joseph but positive for other men such as Parley and Windsor Lyon. You already are dealing with women AND general authorities who lied about where these children came from.
Rick:
Thank you for clarification. I am not aware of all or even very much of the recent research done. Making provocative remarks on a widely read blog is a easy but often embarrassing way to learn things, when people set you straight and I don’t mind. (Just don’t tell my bishop.)
I would be interested in a little more detail about the method and its limits, even though I am not a molecular biologist. Mitochondreal DNA is out since it goes through the maternal lines only? The Y chromosome does not cross over during meiosis with the female genome since it has no Y chromosone. So are we looking at Y chromosome markers passed down through the men of a family? Somatic DNA, I don’t know how that works since it involves numerous permutations each generation and it becomes like a complex mathematical puzzle and so how accurate is it?
Would the technique exclude a brother but not a twin (like Hyrum Smith) as the father of all of Emma’s children? Proving the paternity of Emma’s children is an entirely separate question from proving/eliminating the paternity of any other children. This only eliminates infertility in Joseph Smith (but not syphilis and insanity).
I have a personal question: An ancestor’s family was among the first 100 members to join the Mormon movement in New York. This ancestor lived in Nauvoo for a few years. She was in her late 20’s and of course like most of my family (but not me) possessed great physical attractiveness. She was married, had a few children there and her last name starts with G. I read in some account now lost to me (sorry) that one of the plural wives of Joseph Smith was known only as Mrs G. Back porch oral legend, never written in family history asserts that Mrs G told her daughter? granddaughter? on her death bed that Joseph Smith was her father/gr-father. My question: Can you exclude or include me as a descendant of Joseph Smith?
And suppose that there was a Mrs H. and a Mrs I. and a Mrs J. all lost to history but who had children with Joseph Smith. When or how will they show up, if at all? Not looking for them indicates strongly a confirmation bias, one of the most common and easily-to-make research mistakes.
I have 19 of 32 ancestors 5 generations back living in Nauvoo. Will you be able to tell which of the 19 it was who mated with the prophet so that my distant cousins can rejoice or weep? My wife has 12 of 32 ancestors 5 generations back in Nauvoo. How about her? This might be important in determining who wears the pants in the family. I might be less inclined to make a wife who is a descendant of Joseph Smith be obedient to me than the usual descendant of Utah pioneers or worse (snort).
I have already donated a couple of DNA samples to researchers at the U of U working on a couple of medical genetic projects (breast cancer and scoliosis) I am on a bone marrow transplant donor volunteer list. The military has (or had) my DNA. So this will happen whether I want it to or not?
I will leave it to the reader if this would make me a celebrity and if the insanity in the Smith family is manifest in my family or not, through genetics or mere coincidence.
*****
Alex:
I don’t see how you can say the famous O-razor principle cuts out all possibilities except monogamy for Joseph Smith. That is using extreme selective history (white-washing) to cut out other possibilities, not logic.
Logic: Joseph Smith was a man. He appears by all accounts to be heterosexual. Almost all men (and women) have base-line extincts that permit if not desire multiple sexual partners. Today in the US, surveys report that 80% of men and 60% of women cheat at least once on their spouses. Monogamy was a product of the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago. Before that plurality of wives and husbands for reproduction was far and away the rule during the stone age and back beyond and it might have been a matter of survival. A few thousand years of recent human evolution (with little selective pressure in that direction) is not long enough to eliminate these biological tendencies, which our culture (including religion) teaches us to bridle so that a better society is possible. Anyone who works with teenagers knows how challenging it is for them to control their lust.
I just do not think you can exclude with any veracity: that Joseph Smith really did “marry” (whatever the heck that meant at the time) dozens of women and that he didn’t bed at least a few if not many to most of them and many times. Effective contraception was not available and some pregnancies resulted. You can’t exclude that, it is far beyond possible and with the apparent number of women involved, it falls well into the realm of highly probable. From there for the woman it was either single (disgraceful) parenthood or secret adoptions or abortions. Premature baby bones don’t last very well in the ground, they are not mineralized enough. Their absence proves nothing. Throw in a 20% or higher child mortality rate. Stir this pot with generations of idealizing, semi-deification of the prophet, denial and outright lying about history. It is no wonder we are where we find ourselves. No razor cuts through this much crap.
An argument of authority and democracy (not science): The RLDS and later CofC are not stupid people and their numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, probably adding up to a few million over the span of their history. They tried as hard as humanly possible to make Joseph Smith into a monogamist. But eventually they were forced collectively (with a few hold outs) to conclude that they were wrong on this point. And now as my relatives visit these historical places in the mid west, they report the CoC tour guides are laughing their asses off at the monogamy movement emerging in their mountain Mormon cousins, who apparently they think are stupid people and incapable of comprehending the longer view of history.
Mike, I wonder if you might split up your comments a bit. (Sorry I called you John earlier!) They are so long, it is difficult to succinctly address all the issues you raise. Once again, the idea of these posts is to give you a taste so you go to the podcast to get deeper understanding. I’ll just pick a few topics you raise.
We didn’t talk Somatic DNA at all, so I can’t help you there. We talked Y Chromosome quite a bit. Since it goes father to son, it can reveal a lot and works really well when trying to find Joseph’s grandsons. The Josephine Lyon test was much more difficult (and involved many more samples) because it couldn’t use the Y-Chromosome since she was a girl. Your test you propose would be just as difficult, and very expensive. I am pretty sure it would involved autosomal DNA, rather than mitochondrial or Y-Chromosome. The Josephine portion of the interview will be released in the next week or so.
As for calling women liars, I’m not a fan of that in any way. The reality is that nearly all participants lied about their involvement before telling the truth (or vice-versa), so nobody comes off unscathed. Emma apparently assented to Joseph marrying the Partridge sisters before changing her mind and denying polygamy on her deathbed. Nearly everyone involved gave conflicting testimony, and so everyone (including Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, Brigham, Eliza Snow) etc can be branded liars on certain things they said. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to claim that because everybody lied, you can’t believe anything anybody said, and throw up your hands and say it is simply unknowable. It does seem the some people like to cherry-pick testimony to support their views, and I’m not a fan of cherry-picking quotes either.
Clearly we have evidence of some sort of relationship with Fanny and Joseph, Joseph and many others, and you have to weigh the evidence as to what to believe. Some people will be more credible than others. John C Bennett (no relation to me that I am aware of) clearly exaggerated claims. He told truths and clear falsehoods. His testimony in particular must be viewed with suspicion, but clearly he got some things right and some things wrong. The historian’s job is to figure out what to believe, and what not to believe. Certainly there’s a lot of smoke around Joseph Smith and other women.
Mike, Dr. Peregro presented his findings about Josephine Lyons at a MHA conference, and this Deseret News article addresses some of your questions:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656112/Joseph-Smith-apparently-was-not-Josephine-Lyons-father-Mormon-History-Association-speaker-says.html
Here’s a quote:
He noted that 55 DNA samples, mostly from direct descendants of Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon, with a few from Hyrum Smith and other Lyon lines used as controls, were collected for the study.
Autosomnal DNA was produced and compared to support recorded genealogical records, first within the Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon families to validate the genealogical records and biological relationships, and second between the two families to investigate a possible biological connection between Joseph Smith and Josephine Lyon.
“DNA comparison between the two families showed no genetic evidence of a biological relationship, while comparison of Josephine Lyon’s descendants with other individuals descending from Lyon’s lines bearing no apparent close relationship to the Smith family showed a significant amount of shared DNA,” Perego reported. “This information strongly supports that Joseph Smith was not the biological father of Josephine Lyon, but that she was the daughter of Windsor Lyon.”
—
So, first, other Smith descendants besides those thought to be from Joseph Smith were used as controls for that side, and other Lyon family members not descended from Windsor Lyon were used as controls on that side. DNA tests showed Josephine’s descendants were clearly related to the Lyon family, and not to the Smith family. (ETA: there was a complication in that some Lyon descendants were tied to the Smith family in a different way, so that’s why it was important to match up Josephine’s descendants’ DNA to Lyon family members who *didn’t* have any sort of crossover relation to the Smith family.)
There are indeed some children who died young who might’ve been Joseph Smith’s, but no-one has dug up those bodies. All other descendants of potential children have tested negative – Josephine was the last major question mark.
Alex, I get that available evidence leans away from Joseph having children with other wives (unfortunately, we can’t rule it out 100% without exhuming 160-year-old children’s bodies). That does not, however, come close to proving Joseph was a monogamist given contemporary historical documentation. You can maybe argue he didn’t have relations with the other wives, but he definitely had other wives. Not only that, he was approving and performing plural marriages for other men in the couple years before his death.
Thank you Mary Ann and Rick. I learn something interesting here almost every day and I don’t even have to pay tuition!
So the argument that Josephine was not a descendant is based on autosomal DNA (how many loci used? I assume many or more than enough) with a few dozen other people as controls. The statistics on that has to be pretty good. Aside from the general idea that any statistical data set can be twisted around many directions and since I have not the statistical skill to do it, I have to and do accept that conclusion.
“Josephine was the last major question mark.” Just how many question marks were there? Like a handful, dozens, hundreds?
As for the seven sons with very Mormon sounding names (Oh, that the BYU football team had a roster that sounded like that mixed in with the Polynesians- that would be awesome), they were excluded as being descendants of Joseph Smith. The DN article says that was done with Y chromosome studies. As I understand it , that would exclude these seven sons as being descendants of anyone in the entire Smith clan.
But the Y chromosome data would not exclude any of Joseph’s brothers or cousins as being the father of all the presumptive descendants of Emma and Joseph. And that would be consistent with (definitely not prove) the infertility presumption. The infertility presumption is also supported by the exclusion of Josephine and all the other “major question marks.” Especially since the circumstantial/historical evidence seems about as strong as it can get, but was wrong. DNA proves Joseph Smith did not father children that history strongly claims he did.
On the other hand the Y chromosome data would also not exclude a fertile Joseph from being the father of any or all of Hyrum’s children and any of his other brother’s children before his murder. Because they share the same Y chromosome. (That would include two of our prophets and many apostles- fulfilling the dynastic dreams of some.) This seems unlikely historically but since we place great weight on DNA, this is a weakness in the fortress of DNA evidence.
*****
I don’t see how it would be so difficult to dig up a bone or two buried under the monuments in Nauvoo. I think some of my most rascally boy scouts could do it as a prank in one night. (Hells bells, during our last camp-out four of them “got lost” and “borrowed” my van and took it for a 60-80 mile joy ride and fired a pellet hand gun at some people gangsta style and videoed it and posted it on social media – my most recent scouting tempest in a teapot). Exceptin’ if I was involved in the dig you could never prove I didn’t “plant” bones from old Indian skeletons that were plentiful at universities when I was young. (Fear not, we have no camping trips planned within hundreds of miles of the midwest).
This ease in acquiring a couple of bones presumes people actually wanting to know the truth. See collectively we really don’t want to know since we think we already do.
*****
When a group of people lie about something outrageous repeatedly, it can create an impossible quagmire of speculation no amount of objective evidence can overcome. One lie in the network creates room for another and so forth indefinitely. Then placing great weight on some of the maybe-false-maybe-true conclusions is building on a sandy foundation that will not stand. It is nearly hopeless for an objective person to step back from a close look at the tangle of lies concerning the marriages of Joseph Smith with anything approaching admiration or respect for the man.
Thank you for listening to me and answering questions- it is a good way for my mind to take a break from other more daunting stresses. (D*** scouts).
“But the Y chromosome data would not exclude any of Joseph’s brothers or cousins as being the father.” You’re still missing the point. Windsor Lyon, Parley Pratt and others are confirmed fathers, so brothers or cousins of Joseph are irrelevant to the conversation. Windsor and Parley are not cousins of Joseph anyway. Once you get a hit, you do not need to keep looking any more. You seem to be focusing on the wrong point here.
Ugo told me he has confirmed the fathers of 5 potential sons and 1 potential daughter. He is working on at least one more possibility.
Really, please listen to the podcast. It will clear up 90% of your questions. (Or buy the transcript when I get it ready in a few weeks.)
“But the Y chromosome data would not exclude any of Joseph’s brothers or cousins as being the father.”
I think Mike was talking about Joseph’s brothers or cousins being the father of Emma’s children.
Is there any evidence or hint that Emma was fooling around with JOSEPH brothers? I think this sort of speculation is beyond a ridiculous , and besmirches Emma’s reputation without any attempts of merit. And beyond that, ugo has traced lines of Samuel Hiram and JOSEPH, as well as adopted sister Murdock. the interview said William has no known descendants, so those lines have been researched very well and apparently can be distinguished from Joseph Smith. Does Mike think the Smith family was engaged in incestuous orgies or something? I think this sort of speculation is beyond ridiculous And pretty low to suggest. If you’re going to brainstorm, please do so without bringing down reputations of long dead ancestors that many revere.
Mike, here is a good summary of the possible children of Joseph from his plural wives:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives#Allegations_of_children_born_to_alleged_polygamous_wives
As far as digging up bodies goes, (1) it’s helpful to know where the bodies are (that’s not always the case with people who died on the frontier in the 1800s, especially infants). (2) Depending on the condition of the body and how it was buried, it might be difficult to extract good DNA. (3) Digging up Joseph Smith’s body (even if we knew where it was, which I’m not sure we do) just to prove whether he fathered some children is highly questionable. The church admits Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage and had relations with at least some wives. While the existence of children would confirm that point, the absence of children cannot firmly refute that point. There is little to gain from the public spectacle of exhuming the body of a spiritual hero other than satisfying intellectual curiousity.
And the idea of Emma having a long-term affair (with one of Joseph’s siblings, no less) resulting in the birth of many children strains credulity. I understand it’s just a thought exercise, but I have to agree with MH that it seems a bit distasteful given what we know Emma went through with Joseph’s marital experiments.
Can I just let this drop? Like most of my recent ancestors would do?
Or do what my 19 hearty Nauvoo ancestors who were contemporaries of Joseph Smith would do.? I have to respond. Try to smooth ruffled feathers but also let the rain fall where it will and maybe clarify what I am trying to express. I mean no personal animosity.
We do have a likely burial site. Our rival branch of Mormonism has erected large monuments proclaiming the site where they think Joseph and Hyrum Smith are buried along with Emma Smith. The article I cited before and below describes the multiple reburials. It also goes to great lengths to describe an attempt at a fascinating forensic analysis of the skulls in the 1920’s (which I think raises more questions than it answers). They are probably still in good shape.
Actually knowing where they are buried using modern DNA tools would be valuable and knowing that they are not buried there might also be useful. Obviously having their DNA sequenced would answer many of the questions I have raised- which is what I desire.
You have to realize that I am not an enemy of Mormonism and not against the search for truth. This is my tribe for generations. Those who are hostile are at least as creative/smart as I am and are going to raise these questions and more. And there is always the appeal to the youth (which is usually overrated). The more science we can bring into the discussion the better since that is what people believe today.
A certain survey indicated that plural marriage was at or near the top of the list of reasons why people leave the LDS faith. I think hints by many leaders at every level support the remark by the church historian that we are living through a time of widespread apostasy not seen since the Kirtland era. This is a serious issue for many of us, not just a matter of curiosity. Gone are the days when we can safely ignore these problems. The women’s movement is gaining momentum and these issues are going to be more closely examined. In this contest I am convinced that we have much “to gain from the public spectacle of exhuming the body of a spiritual hero” and and answering scientific questions.
I find floating my ideas on a website with a high tolerance of free-thinking (even if it is wrong) to be a way to attempt to exorcise the historical demons that haunt us. I have learned more from this discussion than in the last 5 or 10 years on this topic already. When a self described Mormon Heretic is getting mildly disturbed then maybe we are getting somewhere.Because he is among the best. I believe the only path forward to healing over the shenanigans of our founder and my ancestors is the thorny path of the ugly truth.
*****
As for Emma, bless her heart… and the children…
1. It is a historical fact beyond reasonable dispute that Joseph “married” estimated at least 30+ women.
2. It is reasonable to presume that many of these marriages included intimacy.
3. It is a proven scientific fact that intimacy results in some pregnancies, without effective contraception or infertility. It seems plausible to me to at least consider all of the possibilities. To perhaps exclude them and that includes attempting indirect proofs where the opposite is assumed and then shown to be wrong. Already this has been done on several points in this thread. Success! When we resort to appeals for respect of dead heroes we concede the battle as not winnable. But then we circle back and expect honor and respect for the heroes. Does that make sense?
If you have heard quite enough about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, that 30 wives is too many and so forth, then why does it bother you if it could be worse, a whole lot worse? Is it enough to give us enough understanding and comprehension of why so many are leaving the fold over it? And to do something about it?
(1 a.) This idea is not widely accepted and not even crucial to the big picture . But here goes. Plural marriage in Nauvoo was extremely secretive until a decade later. Therefore it is hard to determine the upper limit of the number of plural marriages for anyone. That 30+ number is what was preserved in history in spite of great efforts by many powerful people. That represents 30 failures to elude detection.
What we do not and cannot know is how successful was Joseph Smith and his associates in hiding his plural marriages. Obviously not 100%. Reasonable guesses span the range from <10 % to- I don't know, some high number? It is hard to exclude the possibility that there were perhaps closer to 40 plural marriages, maybe even 60 plural marriages (50% successful secrecy) or gasp 90 plural marriages (66% successful secrecy) or more. I just do not understand why we can causally accept 30+ plural wives- but gasp and choke that 60 or 90 are unthinkable. With more marriages the number of secret children might go up and the probability of finding them likewise increases. The inability to not find them has greater ramifications that should be considered. But if you don't like it- skip 1 a.
4.Emma Smith married two men. The first marriage she eloped. Both husbands were unfaithful to her. Since efforts towards secrecy were not as strong it is known that her second husband cheated on her and fathered a child with another woman (DNA on this one?) and later married her. He was a soldier and on average they are more promiscuous. Although not established there were rumors of infidelity by Emma, including a wife swap between Joseph/Emma and William/Jane Law. This rumor is substantial enough that I think fairmormon.org went to the trouble of refuting it. And sorry but it doesn't really settle the question for me. (They almost never do or I wouldn't be here.).
5. Joseph Smith could be at times a biblical literalist far beyond just about anyone could imagine. And yet insert his own peculiar twist. (A good example of his twisted literalism is the idea of baptism for the dead). The Book of Deuteronomy (25:5-6) mandates a certain ancient practice, called a levirate marriage. The widow of a dead man was to produce children for him with his brother. This practice was not isolated to the Hebrews and was widespread at various times and places across Asia and Africa and it actually makes evolutionary sense.
If Joseph knew or suspected he was infertile, and we all know of the importance he placed in having a large family to secure a greater kingdom in the next life, it would not surprise me if he had his older brother father children with his wife; justifying it out of a unique interpretation of the Bible. Emma was at times willing to share her husband with other women, it does not seem like much of a stretch for her to share herself with a trusted brother in order to have the children needed to build the kingdom.If one wants to describe this practice as an incestuous orgy I can't disagree with it.
6. In 1832 a mob dragged Joseph Smith out of bed and beat him senseless and covered him with tar and feathers. And they intended to castrate him in retribution for a dalliance with one of their sisters. The story goes they didn't actually do it. They took him to a doctor who supposedly wouldn't do it. These were frontier men who knew how to castrate horses, cows , sheep and pigs. (How does this doctor visit make sense?) Maybe they did more damage than anyone was willing to admit and took him to the doctor for treatment. (Family folklore claims one ancestor was in that mob and then after going to hear Joseph preach the next Sunday with the intent of finishing him off was converted and later became an effective Danite. His descendants have been smearing tar on church leaders and enemies alike ever since).
Joseph Smiths' fertility can only be established scientifically by comparison of his DNA with his suspected descendants. Same standard applies to just about every situation, why not this one?
Nothing surprises me any more about the sexual practices of respectable people and the excuses they go to justify it. Emma carried a heavy burden, no doubt, and I'm just saying it might have been even heavier than we image.
Does all of that make everyone feel any better? Probably not. I shoulda stuck with my recent ancestors who white wash, not tar and feather. Retracted all unanswered questions and bowed my head in humble admiration bordering on worship for Joseph Smith, our esteemed Prophet and …..
Rick B…Thank you for the nice comment. I did not mean to like my own post. Geez. Apologies. All of the comments here have made me wonder why I am not more curious about the personal side of the scriptures. Or of the leaders in my own denominations past. My father held a fairly high position when I was a kid and I knew many of the high level ministers personally. At one time or another there would be rumors of something or someone but my father was a firm believer in the saying” it’s between them and God” not you and me. I just accepted that as truth. Whenever I have had moments of falter in my beliefs , I have turned to that saying. It’s me that is failing not the church. But questions and searching for truth are good things. I admire all the commentators on here and truly wish I had the intellectual abilities you all share. I know we differ in some ways but we are serving the same God and we all are striving to be what God wants us to be. My apologies if my interest here is offensive to anyone. I truly just love the open discussions and the freedom you feel in searching for answers. It may be that the DNA pandoras box my husband opened has turned a much needed light on in my head.
This is one of the difficulties we get in scientific and historical discussions; people wanting to be absolutely, 100% sure. For most things, it’s just not possible. Even DNA studies try to emphasize the 99.99999% probability. Every day our knowledge expands, but expanding faster is the knowledge of what we don’t know.
The only thing left is to find your threshold. For Mike, it appears we’re going to have to make sure we have DNA samples from anyone who may have possibly been in the vicinity of Emma, so we can be sure it wasn’t them. For me, we’re already way into conspiracy theory stuff that’s best ignored.
Mike, do some reading – Mary Ann, in particular, has been very helpful in pointing you to good sources and Rick’s original podcast shouldn’t be missed – and then come back. Wild speculation doesn’t help.
I suppose it’s possible that the love child of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Joseph Smith later had a grandchild who assassinated JFK, but without some real evidence, I’m cataloguing that one in the “Fiction” shelves.
Thank you for your feed back. You are right (especially Frank) , I have a very low degree of tolerance of what seems like to me to be speculation IN OTHER PEOPLE! As for myself, I indulge, wallow and relish in it. Just so we know where we stand, or would it be, where we fall.
We might divide the process of historical/scientific inquiry into two stages: a) proposing questions, theories, experiments, etc., b) proving or disproving them. I much prefer to be on the first committee.
History does have a way of bubbling up the strangest twists and turns. When I was young, the story was that Joseph Smith only married a few old widows to take care of them financially with the complete approval of his wife. Many of the historical events we now agree upon (or most of us anyway) would be considered much more unbelievable than anything I have proposed and would be quickly relegated to the shelf of fiction or perhaps pornography. Experts wrote thick books to demonstrate that archeology had pretty much proven the historicity of the Book of Mormon on every point and the proposal that those fascimilies in the Book of Abraham can be dated to Roman times would be dismissed immediately as preposterous. The magic world view and white salamanders would be viewed as straight out of the cartoons with Paddy the Pelican. Who knows what our grandchildren will be discussing?
I appreciate your consideration of my thoughts even if you don’t agree and you turn out to be right.
******
Way back in the early portion of this discussion, it was mentioned that the DNA of a MMM victim was evaluated This brings up another of my favorite topics: Did John D. Lee escape his assassination? I don’t have time today to trot out a long explanation why I think that it is possible (maybe not likely). But if anyone ever gets around to digging people up, I would put his grave high on the list. One bone would not be enough, we would need to find many gunshot wounds/bullets and not very much arthritis. Just look at this picture objectively. Did that man in the coffin suffer 12 gunshot wounds from 50 caliber buffalo guns a few minutes before? What happened to all of the blood?
Alice, your comments are extremely welcome here and I can’t imagine why anyone would take offense. Welcome and I hope you feel free to participate. Membership in the LDS Church is certainly not a prerequisite to comment here, and you are welcome to participate in any and all discussions. Please join in. Mike on the other hand seems to watch too many Oliver Stone movies…. (just kidding Mike!!!) 😉
The idea of levirate marriages has been brought up before by Don Bradley (he was referring to the “ideologically levirate marriage” between Joseph, Emma, and Alvin– seems a little far-fetched to me, but I’m spotty on the details, so you’d have to ask him), but a month after Joseph’s death, all of his brothers had passed away except William. By all accounts, Emma had a testy relationship with William, refusing to join his church and essentially avoiding him for the rest of her life after the martyrdom.
Based on the above information, it seems unlikely that any of Joseph’s brothers could be candidates for a levirate marriage, at least after his death.
If you’re specifically referring to older brothers, the only possible candidate would be Hyrum (other than Alvin which, again, seems unlikely). Although he later practiced polygamy, Hyrum initially recoiled at it, so the added indiscretion of consummating a marriage with his sister-in-law seems a stretch as well.
If the mob castrated him, this means his purported descendants after Joseph III are illegitimate, including miscarriages. I realize this is simply speculation, but that doesn’t seem plausible either.
Just some scrambled thoughts in response to your comment, Mike.
Dylan.
I agree with you about the testy relationship between Emma and her brothers-in law . Historic plausibility goes out the window when DNA tests prove otherwise. This is why I would like to see them done. To prove contraries.
The paternity of Joseph Smith III is fascinating. If he was a full -term baby, he was conceived about a month before the most well-known possible castration event of Joseph Smith. But if he was premature by a month or so, he could have been conceived after this possible castration. Did they file birth certificates them? Did they record birth weights? Accurately or just guesses? If a premie, he could then share the same father as his younger brothers and it not be Joseph Smith Jr due to the castration. A very thin but not-excluded possibility. The children of Emma before him all died, although the first at least has a monument pictured on the internet. Whether he is buried there and whether his remains survived this long are open questions.
I am vaguely aware of massive genetic studies in progress attempting to find genes associated with various cancers in the unparalleled enormous Mormon lineages recorded in our ancestral files. I have one cousin so far and one great aunt who died from breast cancer and most disturbing, a cousin’s daughter who died at age 31 from breast cancer. I would probably not know about breast cancers detected early and surgically removed for cure in other relatives. This is in a large family lineage and probably represents less than 10% of the women. But many of us donated a DNA sample for the study. So another question I have: Are these sort of comprehensive scientific studies going to eventually answer all these questions I pose anyway?
If so why not get out in front of the game?
This was interesting for how tenacious it was.