I just wrapped up an amazing interview with Dr. Turner. It was certainly an engaging discussion, even touching on unexpected controversies like the gold plates. In this episode, I’ll have a specific focus on the often-debated topic of polygamy. I’ll be tackling this subject for an upcoming presentation at Sunstone (University of Utah, Aug 1st) and the John Whitmer Historical Association (Independence, September 20th).
Let’s break down some of the key points discussed, looking at both the “problematic” and “overwhelming” evidence surrounding Joseph Smith’s polygamy.
Problematic Polygamy: Unflattering Episodes
Polygamy skeptics often say that people who promote polygamy only do so in a way that supports the LDS Church’s polygamy narrative. That simply isn’t true. There are several challenging aspects of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, as presented in Turner’s book:
- Questioned Revelations: Turner raises questions about the 1831 revelations regarding polygamy to Native Americans. This is partly based on the reaction of Ezra Booth, an early church critic, who, according to Turner, would have made a “bigger deal about polygamy” if such a revelation had been widely known and accepted at the time.
- Obscuring Polygamy: Joseph Smith took “great pains to obscure his polygamy activities,” which Turner notes makes it difficult to ascertain the full scope and nature of these practices. Polygamy skeptics often don’t acknowledge this challenge.
- Limited Sexual Relations: Turner believes that sexual relations with plural spouses were limited. I’m working on a probability model to explore how often Joseph and another wife besides Emma should have gotten pregnant. Joseph and Emma had nine children (eight pregnancies), proving Joseph’s fertility. Skeptics often jump to extremes, either no sex or sex “every night,” with “never a happy medium”.
- Denouncing Adultery: Joseph Smith publicly denounced adulteryon pages 276-277 of Turner’s book, a point skeptics often over emphasize.
- The Nancy Rigdon Incident: This incident, leading to the infamous “Happiness Letter,” is discussed on pages 277, 286, and 287. Nancy Rigdon rejected Joseph’s marriage proposal in April 1842. John C. Bennett later published the “Happiness Letter”. Turner considers Sidney Rigdon’s denial that Joseph wrotethe letter (as opposed to denying the allegationsthat Joseph propositioned Nancy) a “weak response,” especially since Joseph typically used scribes to write almost everything.
- The Sarah Pratt and John C. Bennett Incident: Also on pages 286-287, this involves Sarah Pratt (married to Orson Hyde) and John C. Bennett. When Orson Hyde discovered a potential relationship between Sarah and Joseph, he wrote a suicide note. In a subsequent meeting, Orson Pratt (Sarah’s husband) reportedly opposed Joseph Smith in a subsequent meeting due to the issue with Sarah Pratt, a well-documented story according to Turner and most historians.
- Brigham Young’s Polygamy Rejection: Brigham Young’s plural marriage proposal to Martha Brotherton was rejected, as noted on page 289. This isn’t a flattering portrayal of polygamy. These “problematic” cases often involve both pro-polygamy (like Brigham Young) and anti-polygamy (like John C. Bennett or Sarah Pratt) sources. Their agreement on key events “is pretty strong evidence that something happened”.
Overwhelming Evidence
Despite the problematic aspects, John Turner says there is “overwhelming evidence” for Joseph Smith’s involvement in polygamy.
◦ Joseph Bates Noble performed the sealing of Joseph Smith to Louisa Beaman on April 5, 1841, noted in two different journals. Noble was also plurally sealed to Sarah Alley in 1843, a sealing believed to be performed by Joseph Smith.
Divine Command
Zina Huntington (page 261) and several other women discussed Joseph Smith being commanded by an “angel with a drawn sword” for Joseph to practice polygamy. There are several accounts of this angel with a drawn sword, not just Zina’s account.
Rapid Succession of Marriages
Joseph Smith’s marriages often occurred in quick succession. Here is a sample of just a few in just the year 1842:
◦ Zina Huntington was sealed to Joseph Smith in October 1841 while six months pregnant.
◦ Agnes Coolbrith (Don Carlos’s wife) was sealed to Joseph in January 1842.
◦ Lucinda Morgan Harris, widow of William Morgan (involved in the Masonic secrets affair), was sealed to Joseph in February 1842.
◦ Miranda Hyde was sealed to Joseph on April 9, 1842.
◦ Eliza Snow was sealed on June 29, 1842 (the podcast’s anniversary of this event!).
◦ Lucy Decker was sealed to Brigham Young on June 14, 1842.
Secrecy and Deception
◦ A letter instructed to bring Sarah and Whitney and to “watch out for Emma,” which Turner believes was to keep the meeting secret from Emma, rejecting the skeptic’s idea that it was about protecting Joseph from arrest.
◦ Sarah Whitney (already secretly sealed to Joseph) entered a “sham marriage” to Joseph Kingsbury on April 1, 1843, to get her “off the market” from other suitors9.
Evidence of Sexual Relations
◦ William Clayton married Margaret Moon (his wife’s sister), and Clayton states they shared a bed.
◦ Lucy Walker married Joseph Smith on May 1, 1843.
◦ Almira Johnson shared a bed with Joseph Smith, according to her father, Benjamin Johnson, who also stated Joseph shared a bed with another wife the previous month, suggesting Joseph was sexually involved with other women.
◦ Emily Partridge, one of the Partridge sisters Emma reportedly chose for Joseph, confirmed sexual relations in later court testimony during the Temple Lot case in the 1880s. Testimony with a penalty of perjury is “hard to dismiss”.
◦ Bostwick said that Hyrum (Joseph’s brother) slept with his spiritual wives in 1844, indicating sexual relations were not exclusive to Joseph.
Sealing Power and D&C 132
The discussion touched on D&C 132 and the story of Emma and Hyrum’s conversation about it. Skeptics often claim this section is a forgery. How skeptics deal with the implications for sealing power and temple ordinances if D&C 132 (and 110) were forged, as it would invalidate “even monogamous couples together?”
Personal Struggles and Rejections:
◦ Margaret Moon (sealed to William Clayton) regretted her plural marriage, and Sarah Crooks rejected a proposal from Clayton.
◦ Lydia Moon rejected Joseph Smith (later marrying two Clayton brothers).
◦ Emma repeatedly asked Joseph to renounce polygamy, even smashing Flora Woodworth’s watch after finding Eliza Snow’s letters.
◦ Emily Partridge stated Emma wanted her and her sister Eliza to break covenants, leading to their “divorce” from Joseph.
Age Spans and Fertility
Joseph Smith was married to Melissa Lot (age 19) and Fanny Young (age 56) on the same day (September 20, 1843), highlighting the wide range of ages. Fanny Young and Eliza Snow (who never had children) were likely infertile and thus excluded from his probability models.
Legal Challenges
◦ William Law was convinced Joseph Smith had slept with Maria Lawrence. Turner believes Joseph Smith actually invented adultery allegations against William Law. Joseph Smith was opposed by William Law, Leonard Soby, and Francis Higbee, leading to the Nauvoo Expositor.
◦ Emma famously denounced polygamy in the Relief Society and the Nauvoo Neighbor.
◦ Joseph Smith excommunicated William Law, Jane Law, Wilson Law, and Foster for their opposition.
◦ In 1844, Joseph Smith was indicted on adultery charges and would have faced trial had he not died.
Some skeptics argue Joseph didn’t have sex with his plural wives even if sealed. These testimonies suggest otherwise. What do you make of the skeptics argument that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy? Is it just a personal distate for polygamy and they don’t want to “stain” Joseph with polygamy due to their own discomfort of the practice?
Wheat & Tares 
“Skeptics often jump to extremes, either no sex or sex “every night,” with “never a happy medium”.” That’s comedy gold. But it could be useful to anyone confronted by a future bishop.
“Well, as between 10% and 0%, I picked 5% tithing as a happy medium.”
“I only drink on Fridays. It’s my happy medium.”
“I only cheated on him/her once or twice. It’s my happy medium.”
Apparently a scholar’s testimony has greater weight for you than Joseph’s own testimony. It would appear that scholarship is the ultimate criteria you use to find truth.
Condemnatory piety isn’t winning you friends or influencing people. You seem to forget that condemning those with whom you disagree is not a Christian principle. “Judge not” and all that stuff you’re clearly ignoring.
Obviously you’ve got no leg to stand on with your argument so you play the same old boring note. It’s tiring. It’s not new or interesting. Move along. Are you stumping for thumbs down? If so, I see you’ve succeeded.
Ah man, I used to be a polygamy denier. Mormon Enigma did me in because it’s so well documented and the whole time I was telling myself “you want polygamy to be false and you know it’s clouding your judgement.”
The RLDS book about Joseph fighting polygamy was really well done and documented but there’s just too much evidence that he did practice it.
The author said he’s working on a probability model. Maybe while you’re at it calculate the correlation between those denying polygamy with acceptance of the moon landing, flat earth, and Jan 6.
As for skeptics’ arguments that Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy at all, the evidence is overwhelming. Even the LDS church itself acknowledges this. Are the deniers from the RLDS/COC or something?
Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy was simply really bizarre. It would be one thing if he had married just one other wife openly and said that he was simply following the model of plural marriage as practiced in the Old Testament. But he married himself to woman after woman. As to why he never had kids with other women, my belief is that he was extremely careful not to have kids with them and practiced ejaculatory restraint or engaged in non-penetrative activities. D&C 132 lays out how God will justify 10 women who are virgins. Joseph Smith married over 10 women and many of them were not virgins. The more you read the details of polygamy, the more troubling it is.
Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Michelle Stone, Gwendolyn Wayne, Jeremy Hoopes, etc all grew up LDS. I don’t understand why some LDS are embracing old RLDS arguments but they are. My guess is they are uncomfortable with polygamy and don’t want to think Joseph Smith, who they admire, could have done something they despise. But Brigham Young is easier to dislike, so blame it on him.
They are embracing old RLDS arguments (the Prices are popular) and in Michelle’s case, she is trying to bolster the arguments with newer eyes and at least attempting to impress scholars with somewhat new (but wrong) interpretations. The arguments are “forgery”, late/bad memories, character assassination, and Joseph-Hyrum-Emma denials trump everything else. In this conspiracy theory/anti vax/q anon world, they are gaining a surprising number of adherents. And yes those 3 groups are correlated. I find it all so strange. Dan Vogel is taking them on but few others are.
I think the reason why there are Joseph Smith polygamy deniers is because after Truman G. Madsen’s “Joseph Smith the Prophet” lectures were given, the church started to soften towards Emma. After that there was intentional effort to hold up Joseph and Emma’s relationship as an ideal. Which isn’t a bad thing, it’s better than hate. But like with so many things about history, people then struggle when they learn that their mental model of a past situation was primarily based on highlights. They easily react by saying, “You’re changing history” and try to reject “new” details.
Brad D. wrote: “Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy was simply really bizarre.”
Yes it was. What Smith taught and did concerning marriage was incoherent. Reality is that much of what Smith did after 1830 was one incomplete, half-baked initiative after another. And church history concerning Smith is also incoherent.
The enduring legacies of Joseph Smith are the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, Marriage doctrine and the Temple. Yet what do we know about what Smith taught about Marriage and the Temple? On Marriage we have contradictions and doctrines the modern church now rejects – such as woman are saved by their husband. On the temple we have bold statements / doctrines but we have no paper trail of the text of temple teachings.
This vacuum of details and specifics has allowed apologists for Joseph Smith to blame / credit Brigham Young for the LDS doctrines on Polygamy and the Temple. And yes, Brigham Young as church president formalized those doctrines and provides us a paper trail. But we should wonder and ask: “Why do we have such scattered and inconsistent documentation of what Joseph Smith was teaching given he was so intent on recording his work?
I think Gordon B. Hinckley had the better approach to church history. Decide on a good narrative and tell that story, picking and choosing anecdotes to support the narrative. I know people criticize this sanitization of church history and they have a point. However, the reality of the emergence of the LDS church has no cohesive story. Either we create a myth of one or we are left with a confusing mess of weirdness.
Interesting that this guy (Ojiisan) either jumps to conclusions or didn’t bother to read what I said about the gold plates. I have little patience for sloppy (at best) comments that misrepresent me and/or my guests opinions in the name of judgmental orthodoxy and/or judgmental anti-Mormonism.
Disciple, one thing John Turner said regarding Hinckley & the First Vision stuck with me. Turner recalled that President Gordon B. Hinckley said something along the lines of ‘Well if the First Vision isn’t true if it didn’t happen then this whole work is a fraud and and collapses.’
• Turner characterized this as “a bold thing for a Church president to say.”
• He noted that Hinckley’s statement contributed to the perspective that if one “can poke holes in the in the First Vision account does the whole edifice collapse.”
• As an academic historian, Turner found this standard for the truth of something—where the entire faith collapses if, for example, there wasn’t a huge revival in Palmyra in the spring of 1820 or if the vision occurred in a different year like 1821 or 1823—to be “somewhat who cares” and “an exacting standard.” He views such debates as “more faith questions than historical.”
Regarding polygamy evidence, here’s what Turner said.
“I will say in terms of the evidence that what we don’t have enough of is evidence that gets us inside Joseph Smith’s mind to help us really know what he’s thinking and experiencing and intending.”
GT: “You said [in your book Joseph] obscured the evidence a lot purposely.”
John: “Well, he takes pains to keep this quiet for sure. What we do have is a lot of evidence about his activities from his associates from a number of his plural wives. Some of that evidence is more contemporary than others. So, the William Clayton Journal is a fantastic and extensive contemporary account.”
Ojiisan, very twisted logic. It is very reasonable to be skeptical that golden plates existed since nothing remotely close to golden plates, let alone plates containing engraved prose, has ever been found among ancient American artifacts. People in Joseph Smith’s environment commonly had a magical worldview and believed in buried treasure, prophetic powers, divine prohibitions, and extraordinary miracles. When they talk of “seeing” the plates with their “spiritual eyes,” we are within reason to be skeptical.
Plural marriage, on the other hand, fits a verifiable pattern. Did Brigham Young and people around him practice plural marriage? If course. Where do you think this came from? Therefore the accounts of Joseph Smith’s practicing plural marriage are highly believable.
Why all the hand wringing about Joseph Smith? Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, JFS and Grant were all polygs. Even after the Manifesto, various prophets had dead women sealed to them. I think they could not bring themselves to fully abandon “the Principle.” Woodruff had nearly 300 wives in this fashion! The last President to marry a plural wife (albeit a single woman who had died prior to the sealing) was Ezra Taft Benson. IIRC, the woman was Ezra’s first cousin!
Ojiisan, I have lots of guests who say things I don’t necessarily agree with, but at least they don’t jump to logical fallacies and faith arguments. Sorry for wasting both our time. I’m done with you.
Much of the polygamy denial in the RLDS Church had to do with protecting the Smith family name. From 1860 to the mid-1990s the prophet-president was a direct male descendant of Joseph & Emma Smith, with numerous others (including in-laws) occupying other top leadership roles. So the basic approach was: Joseph was an honorable man, polygamy is/was a dishonorable practice, therefore Joseph could not have been involved. Seriously flawed logic, sure, but families can be very protective. As for a lot of other doctrines and practices the RLDS rejected, some folks either blamed others or thought Joseph just got a little carried away. And there have been those who took the “fallen prophet” route. In any event, Joseph Smith, Jr., simply isn’t talked about much anymore in the Community of Christ. That’s not the best way to handle this, but at least most current members appreciate the work of honest church historians. It’s probably no coincidence that the first non-Smith prophet-president, Grant McMurray, worked for many years as an assistant to church historian Dick Howard and was a frequent contributor and member of JWHA and MHA.