One of the most anticipated questions of the new Church history series Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days is the treatment of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. It turns out there is much to commend in how Saints deals with this issue, but there is also something left to be desired. Here are the pros and cons I saw in the book regarding Joseph Smith’s plural marriages.
Before we begin…
First, a disclaimer. I am a big fan of this new series. One reason is this effort signifies a monumental shift in how the Church is writing about its history. Another is that the Church has invested heavily in marketing this less white-washed version to regular members via Newsroom releases, Church News articles, Church magazine articles, Mormon Channel podcasts, a worldwide Face to Face devotional, and even a FamilySearch campaign. The Church actually wants members to read this book.
It should also be noted quickly that the Church has created a Church History Topics database to supplement Saints. Although not as long as the Gospel Topics essays on lds.org, the 110+ essays in this database similarly add historical context and detail to specific issues. The Church History Topics sections usually list further reading resources, and sometime contain associated video explanations. Such is the case for the topic “Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage.”
Okay, now we can start.
Pro: More of a general polygamy thing, it is stated early on (p. 121) that polygamy is an exception to God’s rule of monogamy for the purpose of raising up “righteous children.” Later, we get plural marriage as “a way to extend [Abrahamic] blessings to more individuals and raise a covenant people to the Lord.” (p. 433) Further in the book it says that Joseph taught the principle to some of the apostles, instructing “them to obey it as a commandment of the Lord.6 While plural marriage was not necessary for exaltation or the greater endowment of power, obedience to the Lord and a willingness to dedicate one’s life to Him were.” (p. 443) Themes of raising up seed, sacrifice, obedience, and extending blessings appear to be the current preferred explanations for the temporary historic practice. I like them using justifications that hold up better in the historic record,[1] and I’m really liking the emphasis on temporary.[2] Heck, even Elder Cook in the Face to Face broadcast stressed, “In the senior councils of the Church, there is a feeling that polygamy, as it was practiced, served its purpose and we should honor those Saints, but that purpose has been accomplished.”
Pro: We get a more in-depth description of Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger than is found in the early plural marriage Gospel Topics essay, and we get to hear from Fanny herself (p. 291-292). Occasionally in the book we hear about Joseph being accused of adultery with Fanny, so the relationship is an important thread. There is even a Church History Topics section for Fanny Alger, and it provides some additional details on her life. (Minor qualm: No age range was given for Fanny in the book, just that she was a “young woman.” The marriage must’ve happened between 1831, when Joseph first started asking about plural marriage, and 1836, when Fanny’s family left Kirtland. Fanny was thus in her late teens, between 15 and 20 years old. I’ve already seen some people on Facebook assume she was Joseph’s 14-year-old plural wife.)
Con: In an extended discussion on plural marriage, the book states “not every woman accepted [Joseph’s] invitation, but several did” (p. 444). Throughout the book it’s easy to pick up that Joseph Smith had multiple plural wives, but at no point is the scale revealed unless you look at note 6 of Chapter 46 (p. 657 in the hard copy). It is there we get the “careful” estimate of 30-40 wives. The early plural marriage Gospel Topics essay does the same thing, referring to the 30-40 wives estimate only in footnote 24. Hiding the scale in footnotes is BY FAR my biggest pet peeve when it comes to Church publications dealing with Joseph’s polygamy.
Pro: Another general polygamy thing, I love this two-paragraph summary of Nauvoo plural marriage (p. 444). It covers almost all the points succinctly, even polyandry.
In Nauvoo, some Saints entered plural marriages for time and eternity, which meant their sealing would last through this life and the next. Like monogamous marriages, these marriages could involve sexual relations and having children. Other plural marriages were for eternity only, and the participants understood that their sealing would take effect in the next life.9
In some cases, a woman who was married for time to a disaffected Saint, or to a man who was not a member of the church, or even to a church member in good standing, could be sealed for eternity to another man. After the sealing ceremony, the woman continued to live with her current husband while anticipating the blessings of an eternal marriage and exaltation in the life to come.10
Con: Even though that description indicates plural marriages could involve “sexual relations and having children,” you have to look up note 9 of Chapter 37 (p. 640 in the hard copy) to find out if that applied to Joseph’s situation. “Though it is possible Joseph Smith fathered children within plural marriage, genetic testing of potential descendants has so far been negative.”
Pro: Polyandry is covered more in-depth in Saints than it is in the early plural marriage Gospel Topics essay. A polyandrous marriage between Joseph Smith and Mary Rollins Lightner is highlighted in Chapter 37, with lots of quotes from Mary’s perspective.
Con: We don’t hear specifics about any of the other polyandrous marriages (names, ages, or numbers). From that description on p. 444, though, we know that other husbands could be non-members like Adam Lightner, disaffected members, and even church members in good standing. According to Brian and Laura Harris Hales, Joseph Smith was sealed to 14 women who were legally married to other men.
Pro: We hear Emily Partridge’s perspective often throughout Saints, including the circumstances surrounding her marriage to Joseph within days after her 19th birthday (p. 482-484). Emily’s marriage illustrates Joseph marrying women without Emma’s knowledge (p. 490). Emily’s perspective also helps us see Emma’s struggles with the practice. Emma eventually gave permission for Joseph to marry Emily (after he’d already done so), but Emma later kicked Emily and her sister, another of Joseph’s plural wives, out of the Smith household (p. 507). Even though Emily was furious at the time, it’s through her that we get advice to reserve judgment on Emma. Touchingly, we see the two reconcile (p. 585) after Joseph’s death.
Con: As far as I can tell, only five of Joseph’s 30-40 plural wives are identified as such in the book: Fanny Alger, Louisa Beaman (p. 435), Mary Rollins Lightner, Emily Partridge, and Eliza Partridge (p. 484).[3] Helen Mar Kimball is a glaring omission. Helen is famous for being Joseph’s youngest known plural wife at the age of 14, or “several months before her 15th birthday” as a Gospel Topics essay puts it. On p. 449, at least 3 women mentioned as part of the Relief Society also became Joseph’s plural wives, but those relationships are not noted in the book (Desdemona Fuller, Eliza Snow, and Elvira Cowles).
That’s all I got for this post. What do you guys think? Have you read Saints Volume 1? If so, what do you think about the depiction of Joseph Smith’s polygamy? Are you more surprised by what was included about Joseph Smith’s polygamy in Saints, or by what was left out?
Lead image from the Church’s Newsroom.
[1] Have you ever read the Revelations in Context essay for D&C 132? In the essay “Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage” by Church historian Jed Woodworth, plural marriage is stated as a commandment (same as in Saints), but then explained within the context of deceased spouses. Hyrum Smith “was ultimately converted to the principle when he realized that he had married two women on earth whom he could not bear to part with in eternity.” (In Saints, Hyrum obtains a testimony of the principle while speaking with Brigham Young prior to learning he could be sealed to both Jerusha and Mary – p. 492). Mercy Fielding Thompson became converted to plural marriage after Joseph Smith testified her deceased husband had appeared to him in vision. Robert Thompson expressed his desire for Mercy to become the plural wife of Hyrum because he wanted Mercy to be taken care of. It’s literally a “taking care of widows” argument for polygamy.
[2] I don’t know that many 19th century leaders would’ve agreed with viewing polygamy as a temporary thing.
[3] Let me know in the comments if I missed any other women noted in Saints as plural wives of Joseph Smith.
You’re much farther along than me. I have been reading the electronic version in the Gospel Library app. I wish the footnotes were printed on the bottom of the page. While there is a hyperlink, it’s a hassle to click on to view.
This quote was in your pro column: “While plural marriage was not necessary for exaltation or the greater endowment of power, obedience to the Lord and a willingness to dedicate one’s life to Him were.”
I would put it in a “con” list as there is no way to reconcile it with this statement of Brigham Young “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)
Bishop Bill, that’s why I put in my Footnote 2. Honestly, there’s no way to reconcile a lot of 19th century statements with current positions. The Church pushing the idea that polygamy is not essential for exaltation is a positive for me because it affects my mental health now. I get why someone would put it in the “con” category, though.
MH, if you read it electronically, I’d recommend going through the website. It was easier for me to work with the footnotes that way. I did like the audio option in the app, though. I used it for a few chapters in the middle when I was having a hard time justifying sitting down with a book. Still find a physical book the most satisfying though.
This comment is about the Elder Cook quote. “In the senior councils of the Church, there is a feeling that polygamy, as it was practiced, served its purpose and we should honor those Saints, but that purpose has been accomplished.”
There is “a feeling.” We need general authority stand up and flatly state that polygamy is done.
There are women and girls who still hear the men in their lives – teachers, husbands, fathers – talk as though it could come back. To some this sounds unbelievable, but it’s happening.
Elder Cook commenting in a fireside is not enough.
Needs more Eliza R. Snow.
Ruth –
Amen and amen. “A feeling” isn’t even a non-denial denial, and we need a full on decannonizing bits of 132 denial.
I have found the most comfortable reading experience to be the ebook from Amazon. It was free when I downloaded it.
But what about the eternal polygamy still practiced whereby men can get sealed to more than one wife in the temple?
Haven’t read the book. But I would like a book that tells what Joseph Smith says about polygamy—reasons—-separate and apart from what other leaders are now guessing is the reason? I dislike how we try to explain/justify practices aka Bruce R McConkie and the priesthood ban. Just lay the facts out….
@Mary Ann As a history of the church, Saints could be more encompassing, but it also would have to be a much larger volume. It definitely has more than the original versions. I know there will be a lot of people that will find things they wish had been included. I, myself would have liked a more comprehensive effort but am fine with what is included. I do appreciate your insights and thoughts.
@Bishop Bill. The Journal of Discourses is not the best resource for quotes by Brigham Young or any other person for that matter. There are so many ways that errors can creep into a transcript of an extemporaneous speech, one of which is intentional editing by the transcriber. George D. Watt was the recorder for those speeches that are contained in the Journal of Discourses and LaJean Purcell Carruth has shown that Watt made extensive changes in the published speeches as compared to his shorthand records. This just may be one of them. Consider an entry in Willford Woodruff’s Journal:
“February 12, 1870: I spent the day in the Council House until noon. I attended the School of the Prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of polygamy. He contended that no person could have a celestial glory unless he had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made by L. E. Harrington, O. Pratt, Erastus Snow, D. Evans, J. F. Smith, Lorenzo Y., President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife, with many wives and with no wife at all.”
Two contradictory statements, n’est-ce pas? I know that the Priesthood/Relief Society manual on the teachings of Brigham Young were culled from the Journal of Discourses, but those teachings were vetted to ensure they conformed to established doctrines.
Glenn
Glenn—it is interesting to read things that you have and then compare them to contrary assertions.
But Brigham Young often did not agree with Brigham Young. Partially because be believed that public speculation was a path to knowledge.
…and section 132 is painfully clear in telling us that there is no exaltation without polygamy.
If this statement has been misunderstood, it would be easy to say so. Problem solved for our kids.
Pity our poor seminary teachers, all this at 6am.
Glenn, maybe BY was referring to “exaltation”? Three levels in the Celestial Kingdom. He believed you needed polygamy for the top level, but not for the other levels. This goes along with single people being in the lower levels of the CK.
Mary Ann, yes, it is a pro that the church is stepping away from “eternal polygamy”. It is a con that they can’t be forthright in acknowledging that it was not always taught that way.
@Handlewithcare,
Section 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant. Plural wives come under it.
@Bishop Bill, Possibly. But Brigham also may have meant that men must be polygamists at least in their faith, that it had come down from God through the prophet Joseph Smith. I could quote the JoD for support, but then I don’t know that Brigham actually said it as such. Since Brigham isn’t here to clarify and it has never been promulgated as a doctrine much less canonized, I am content to go with what current prophets are teaching.
Glenn
What is lost in all the polygamy discussion is the concept that it was introduced as a CURSING to the Saints who had rejected the Lord’s Law of consecration and monogamy see D&C 42. The Lord promised that he would turn the Saints over to Satan for a period of chastisement if they failed to live His Gospel. The Saints failed to establish Zion and this brought upon themselves the curse. We have also lost sight in our entrenched prophet worship that prophets can be used to test the Lord’s people and even introduce false principles “according to their idols”. See Ezekiel 14. We need to stop trying to justify polygamy and recognize it for what it was—a curse.
Book of Commandments 4:5-6 is where one can find the Lord’s promise to turn the Saints over to Satan if they failed to live His Law. By the time the D&C was published the Saints had already failed to live the Law of Consecretion which is why Joseph took the warning out. The Saints has already failed so there was no reason to confuse them by keeping those words in the revelation.
The New and Everlasting Covenant is the 3 part baptismal covenant. This was well known up until it was changed in Nauvoo to a marriage covenant. We have lost sight of the simplicity of the Gospel and like the ancient Jews have looked beyond the mark. According to Jesus in the BoM anything “more or less” than the 3-part baptismal covenant “cometh of evil.”
The Polyandry thing sickens me. I can cut Brother Joeseph a lot of slack….but getting “sealed” to the wives of men who were non-members or who were disaffected? That is a bridge too far. If anything polyandry helps me have more empathy for the anger and disgust that was likely felt by those who took Smith’s life in the Carthage Jail.
Fred, I’ve heard several guys talk about their struggles with polyandry. It’s the closest I’ve ever seen to guys understanding why women might struggle with polygyny.
Ruth, “We need general authority stand up and flatly state that polygamy is done.” I would love that as well. The fireside is really the first time I’ve seen an apostle directly address polygamy, so even if it’s a “feeling,” it’s a big improvement for me.
Jpv, definitely needs more Eliza R. Snow. I’m hoping we get more of her perspective in Volume 2. That’s the problem of this being a “representative” history. There’s only a relatively small number of people we hear from, but we tend to hear a lot from them.
Benjamin, good to know. I didn’t download the book on Kindle or Nook, but I know those were available. Do the citations in the notes have working hyperlinks? That was one reason I preferred the website over the Gospel Library app.
Lois, given that we have two “eternal” polygamists in the current First Presidency, I’m not sure that aspect will ever be denounced. I guess that’s why I’m liking the emphasis that polygamy is not necessary for exaltation. It allows more agency in the matter. It was also stressed by Kate Holbrook in that fireside.
Glenn, thanks for that background on the Journal of Discourses. As far as what I noted as left out, I think some of it could’ve been included without increasing the length too much. Putting those footnote sentences in the main body wouldn’t have added much to the length. Same with putting an age range for Fanny.
Handlewithcare, the Church has already redefined the “new and everlasting covenant” as marriage in general, not exclusively polygamous. That modified definition has been around for awhile, and this book reinforces that definition several times. It’s plenty of apologetics for even seminary teachers to work with it at 6am.
I agree with some of the pros. On the balance this book appears to be a step forward. And closer to the edge of the cliff. The trouble with retreating to supposedly higher ground is that it opens up more problems.
For example, the idea that polygamy was only supposed to be temporary is laughably false. The Manifesto was an insincere smoke-screen to buy time to gain statehood after which the Mormon packed state courts would hopefully not throw polygamists in jail. It didn’t work because the majority of the Mormon people wanted to move beyond it and gradually came to act as if the Manifesto was a real revelation. Meanwhile, the church leaders continued the practice for decades taking more young wives after 1890 and having dozens of children with them.
A thought experiment. Bring forward the apostles and first presidency of 1890 in a time machine to today. Show them how polygamy is now effectively legal, or not prosecuted as long as they keep their hands off the minor girls and keep the welfare fraud under control. Tell them they only needed to hold out for 120 years and tens of thousands of them managed to do it. What would be their response?
When I was young with a strong interest in the history of polygamy and living in Cache Valley, I dated a couple of different girls who introduced me to older women in their family who were married as secret plural wives to apostles 2 to 3 decades AFTER the Manifesto. The big issue for these families was we were all being strongly encouraged to turn in our 4 generation family history sheets. Claiming to be sealed as a young wife to an apostle many years after the Manifesto didn’t fly. Church officials sent the paperwork back and said it was wrong, please fix it. The alternative was a besmirched character of the matriarch for having a child or three out of wedlock when this stigma had more teeth than it does now. (Heaven forbid you found any African heritage in your 4 generations).
Another chapter in my family history that has been alternatively included and white-washed out by various family genealogists is the story of my grandfather who served as a meticulous ward clerk. He was aware of a few extra children being born, wink wink. He was offered a promotion to the office of bishop but the stake president said he needed to take a secret plural wife to demonstrate his loyalty. My grandmother would not consent. Grandfather was not happy to just letting it slide. He knew telling local law enforcement was useless, they were all inter-related. He snitched to federal authorities. Before they could make any arrests these church leaders slipped away into hiding in Southern Utah. Their last names were Jessop and Barlow among others. Their large and powerful extended families ran my grandfather out of town for his efforts. It is easy for me to remember the year this happened as my father was born at the time, which was 1926. He was a living witness until last year. (If President Nelson doesn’t know about crap like this, then he wasn’t paying attention or has selective memory loss.)
Consider another branch of the family. They went to Mexico in the 1880’s to escape the increasingly powerful arm of the US federal law. Polygamy was illegal in Catholic Mexico but law enforcement was weak. They carved a meager living out of the desert with hard work and cooperation and took more wives and had more children. They were more prosperous than their Mexican neighbors and there was friction between them. The lawlessness of Mexico eventually boiled over into several violent revolutions that swept across the country. Pancho Villa was only one of many bandit revolutionaries, but the most famous. By 1912 many Mormons left Mexico and returned to Utah with their plural wives including my ancestors. Were they welcomed as heroes? Hell no, they were treated like criminals and they had lost or left everything in Mexico. Tell them polygamy was only temporary. A few joined the fundamentalists and most of the next generation pretended to forget the sacrifices of their parents. A hypothetical woman who was married as a plural wife in Mexico at age 20 in 1910 would be in her 80’s in the 1970’s and that is a long time to pretend your marriage didn’t happen.
Finally, for your patient consideration; I briefly dated a girl who was raised in a polygamous family in Southern Utah. At age 15 she was married to a patriarch in his 60’s.and she beat him up on their wedding night because she didn’t know about sex and he tried to force her. She was punished and endured a couple of years of hell with him before escaping. I can’t begin to described how messed up she was and I doubt she ever did recover. How does Elder Cook plan to “honor” this ex-plural wife and hundreds like her? Is he far more interested in dead plural wives than living ones?
Here is where I lurch into the second half of this rant about the evils of modern polygamy and I am just not up for it tonight. Sorry. I’m guessing you won’t find a chapter about our “fundy” cousins and neighbors in this history either. Not relevant, that which still remains in the public eye the most interesting part of us as a people.
I am sympathetic to the mental health of good members like Mary Ann who are building our future as best as they can . But it is hard to forget the depth of suffering polygamy caused and continues to cause. It was wrong. It needs to be repudiated in the strongest terms. That is going to change how we view Joseph, Brigham, et. al.
Disclaimer: If I go back in my ancestry to 16 grandparents, 8 couples, 5 of them practiced polygamy.
Bishop Bill, “It is a con that they can’t be forthright in acknowledging that it was not always taught that way.” This is an issue, like the priesthood ban, that I suspect will be addressed in Volume 2 (1846-1893). I really think there is enough in the history of Nauvoo to justify the perception that polygamy was not required for exaltation. From what I can tell, it was BY, Orson Pratt, and others that really pushed polygamy as the order of heaven.
Onewhoissearching, I am not as familiar with that theory. Looks like I have some homework to do.
My blog talks about the various aspects of that in detail. I am also writing a book about Joseph and the hidden history of the LDS movement.
Mike, you are not the only one with family connections here. My paternal grandpa was 6 months old when they were driven out of Mexico because of Pancho Villa. My maternal grandma had grandparents that went to Afton, Wyoming, to practice plural marriage. Current fundamentalist groups are not covered in Volume 1 because it only goes to 1846. Given what I see in the post-Manifesto polygamy essay, I suspect most of the polygamous fundamentalist break offs will be covered in Volume 3, which goes from 1893 to 1955. As I am also a descendant of the Woolleys, I will be very interested to see how that is covered. I had a female ancestor who wrote about how much she despised polygamy–she said it would’ve been easier to become a widow than to see her husband take a second wife. Another ancestor kicked her husband out when he informed her that he was taking a second wife. I like her. (She was also named Mary Ann, funny enough). I have several ancestors who were involved in early Nauvoo polygamy. Make no mistake, Mike. I’m very invested in this.
Fanny Alger was the teenage bride that often gets brought up because of Oliver’s affair allegations and because the marriage happened before the restoration of sealing power. The polygamist marriages were the Lawrence sisters because Joseph was their legal guardian, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young because of poor Henry Jacobs, and Helen Mar Kimball because of her age and voiced regrets about not knowing what she was getting herself into.
The narrative style is probably the best for mass market consumption but not my preferred way to consume history.
Mike and Mary Ann, we need to hear your family stories, because what we do hear is the whitewashing of the lived experience of polygamy
and not both good and bad. It is presented as a story of selfless obedience, not one of human struggle and messiness.
“What do you guys think?”
This guy doesn’t think about it much. My father practices serial polygamy. He’s on his third wife. I’m a bit more interested in everyone else’s interest, sort of like the curiosity you feel when you see a cluster of people looking at something, you want to see it too.
Bishop Bill quotes Brigham Young: “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)
In Moses’ day it was to look upon a staff on which was wound snakes and live or refuse and die.
Rules come and go.
Choose you this day who you will serve. As for me and my household, well, that’s pretty much obeying the wife. Adam established that pattern with Eve and so it has been ever since.
Of note: LDS history scholar D Michael Quinn is currently writing a 2 volume book on post-manifesto polygamy. Perhaps his volume one will be available at the same time that volume 2 of Saints appears. Should be interesting reading and history comparisons in each narrative.
Sorry, Ruth, Elizabeth St. Dunstan, Mary Ann, but we need the Church leaders to allow polygamy again. Now I don’t say “require”, but “allow”. This will help work towards repairing the breach with our polygamous brothers and sisters, while also allowing those who feel called to polygyny to do so.
Godspecies, if the Church were to allow polygamy again, I don’t think “repairing the breach with our polygamous brothers and sisters” would be the reason.
I’m late to this conversation, but I just want to say thanks, Mary Ann, for your enthusiasm for Saints and thoughtful criticisms of it. I helped with the book, and too often the response so far has been “This is the best thing EVER!” or “This is the worst thing EVER!” Instead, you’re really digging into what Saints is doing and how it does it, and I love that.