Joseph Smith’s plural wives
One of the most frequent arguments raised by skeptics of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is the “fertility paradox.” While Joseph Smith fathered 9 biological children with his first wife, Emma, there are zero verified offspring from his estimated 30 to 40 plural marriages. Many have used this fact to claim Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy, or at least had no sexual relations with his plural wives. DNA testing on suspected plural children has continuously ruled out Joseph as the father in every known case. Does this lack of physical evidence prove his plural marriages were non-sexual? Using statistical analysis, I argue that the absence of children is not a biological impossibility, but rather a predictable outcome of history, biology, and law.
Statistical Models of Probability
This is an update to my previous presentation. I worked with Dr. Joseph Stanford (OB/GYN-U of Utah), Mark Tensmeyer (JD), Dr John Kidd (Utah Valley Univ), & Dr Amanda Hendrix-Komoto (Montana State.) We built four statistical models to determine the mathematical probability of Joseph Smith having zero children with his plural wives. These models factored in female ovulation cycles and historical documentation of Smith’s whereabouts, assuming no birth control was used:
- Restricted & Low Models: Assuming very infrequent relations and excluding teenagers and already-married women, the probability of zero children sits between 22% and 47%. The Restricted model equates this to a coin flip. The medium model is like rolling a double on a pair of dice. This are not uncommon outcomes, making zero children a statistically unsurprising outcome.
- Medium (Consensus) Model: Assuming one or two encounters around the time of the sealing for a broader group of wives, the probability of zero children drops to roughly 9% to 13%. This equates to rolling a 4, 5, or 6
- High Model: Only when assuming large possible historical encounters across 37 women does the probability of zero children become statistically microscopic (around 0.03%).
Biological Factors and 19th-Century Demographics
A significant reason for the lack of children stems from the demographic makeup of Joseph’s plural wives. Historian Dan Vogel released a video earlier in the day, and noted that at least five women were post-menopausal (over age 47) and 11 were “polyandrous” wives already married to other men. It makes sense that their legal husband had more frequent access than Joseph Smith did, so it shouldn’t be surprising when these DNA tests came up negative for Joseph Smith’s paterniity.
Furthermore, several brides were teenagers. Poorer nutrition and rigorous physical labor in the 19th century delayed a woman’s first period (menarche) until an average age of 17, meaning many of the youngest wives were likely prepubescent and physically infertile at the time of their sealings (See Dan Vogel’s presentation.)
Contraception and the Concept of “Quickening”
Whlie the restricted, low, and medium models show that 0 children is not surprising, if the High Model is accurate and sexual relations were frequent, pregnancies should have happened. It is clear that the Nauvoo community had widespread access to birth control. Popular texts from the 1830s heavily circulated knowledge about methods like the sponge, withdrawal, and highly acidic douching to prevent pregnancies. Additionally, 19th-century medical and Mormon theological consensus believed that a soul did not enter a fetus until “quickening” (around 20 weeks.) Because of this, early herbal interventions used to “restore the menses” were viewed simply as regulating the female body, rather than as abortion or sin. Abortion was known to exist in Nauvoo with rumors of John C Bennett able to perform them. Fellow blogger Mary Ann Clements noted a story in Secret Covenents where Gustavus Hills offered a tea to Mary Clift to induce an abortion in Nauvoo. She declined. This shows Nauvoo resiidents were well aware of birth control and abortion practices were known, available, and likely used.
Legal and Theological Survival
Ultimately, concealing pregnancies was an absolute necessity for Joseph Smith and those practicing polygamy. In Illinois, bigamy and adultery were felonies heavily penalized by fines, whipping, and imprisonment. Under the law, a child would serve as incontrovertible physical proof of illicit cohabitation, inviting immediate legal prosecution and mob violence.
To avoid exposure, the theology of plural marriage subtly shifted. Many polygamy skeptics cite Jacob 2:30 and claim the only reason for polygamy was to raiise up righteous seed. If Joseph wasn’t doing that, he was violating this scriptural principle. While originally grounded in an “Abrahamic” mandate to multiply and raise up seed on earth, the practice pivoted to a “Melchizedek” order. This new paradigm was focused on creating secret, dynastic priestly linkages for eternal salvation in the afterlife, entirely bypassing the legal dangers of earthly procreation. Williiam V. Smith discusses this in his chapter of Secret Covenents.
In short, the absence of children in Nauvoo polygamy is not a historical impossibility, but a reality forcefully shaped by 19th-century logistics, biology, and the heavy anvil of American law. Don’t miss my previous presentation!
Have you tried to discuss this issue with polygamy skeptics? What has been your experience?
Wheat & Tares 
It is astonishing to me how triggered polygamy revisionists get. Insult-laden rants will get deleted. If you can’t be civil when talking about this, get a therapist.
Rick, I’m with you in your moderation decision, but I did note that the deleted comment (or rant) had more upvotes than down votes, at least at the moment I saw it. I don’t like rants either, but there may have been some validity in the message.
Anyway, I note that you speak of polygamy revisionists, but I don’t know if that’s the right label for those who see things differently than you. To be honest, I can’t tell who the revisionists are in this matter because I don’t have a firm grasp on the provenance of the arguments. Like in convoluted social upheavals, some revolutionaries start to label other revolutionaries as counter-revolutionaries, and sometimes I lose track of who was on first and in what order. So in this matter, I’m not sure if the deleted commenter is really a revisionist.
My observation is that this is a matter where people on both sides get triggered pretty easily.
I’ve been listening to the Dr. John Turner interviews on Mormon Stories. His take from research is that JS consummated these marriages, but then had very little to do with his plural wives thereafter. It also appears towards the end of his life when he read Emma into this practice, she essentially forced him to stop associating with these women. So, no children does seem like a likely outcome from that. Turner also seems to suggest, based on the Clayton diaries I think, that JS’s aim was to “get all you can” when it came to women. It was a long game thing. The more you got here, the more you possess on the other side.
It’s a fair comment ji. I’m trying to use the term revisionists instead of skeptic or denier because I am trying to be polite. It’s pretty frustrating in talking to these people because they know their position is unpopular and fly off the handle quickly. I recently had a conversation with a revisionist at the Journal of Mormon History. He started ranting so quickly (from a friendly conversation) that he started shaking. And he was a lawyer who knew better.
I joked with him that he was going to have a heart attack if he didn’t calm down.
I’m trying to lower the temperature in these fraught conversations, so it is extremely disappointing when a guy who is trying to be nice to them gets insulted right out of the gate.
As for the up votes, I’m not surprised. Revisionists travel in packs. And the outrage is usually testimony based with hell fire and brimstone promised to those who disagree with them. I find that unacceptable.
It’s really easy to tick off the anti-Mormon, Uber Mormon, and revisionist Mormon for not following the accepted (un) Orthodoxy. These groups react the same trauma filled way. I understand the pain, but I refuse to have conversations with emotionalism. Disagree better or I won’t entertain the conversation.
This is a fascinating post with interesting statistics. I agree with Rick that no reasonable person can examine the evidence and conclude that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist.
There is no doubt that each of the reasons given for the lack of children is plausible and even likely. But it is also likely that Joseph, who had no hesitation in pushing the sexual boundaries other than time, would push them even further.
It seems certain that Joseph did not want additional children. This, as the libertine that he was, he almost certainly took steps to prevent pregnancy, such as engaging in relations with women who were already pregnant, or for those who could become pregnant, engaging in activities that would not lead to pregnancy. I suspect that even some of today’s biggest celebrities would blush at the sort of activities that occurred.
And let me end by joining Rick in condemning incivility. It has no place in our society.
Ok, I decided to run the deleted comment through ChatGPT to get a summary from “Proud Believer in Christ.” This avoids the insults and perhaps the commenter should do the same. Here are the main points from the now deleted comment. I’ll respond in a different comment (or several as this was quite long, even summarized.)
The comment’s main points are roughly:
“The writer argues that some women sealed to Joseph Smith were older or past childbearing age, and they use this to support the idea that the relationships may not have been primarily sexual or intended for producing children.”
Ok, I don’t have a problem with that. I excluded women sealed to Joseph Smith precisely because due to menopause, they were likely incapable of having children. This explanation is reasonable.
“The writer argues that some women sealed to Joseph Smith were older or past childbearing age, and they use this to support the idea that the relationships may not have been primarily sexual or intended for producing children.”
I agree. I do wonder if this is a correct translation of the original comment.
“They argue that some sealings may have been connected to an “adoptive” or eternal-family theology rather than polygamy.”
I think this is reasonable. I wonder if the ChatGPT version is accurate of the writer’s original intent though.
I will call them polygamy deniers, because calling them Joseph Smith worshippers seems rude. But they put Joseph Smith up on such a pedestal that simply cannot be defended and it is no wonder they get bent out of shape over a logical discussion of Joseph Smith and polygamy. They get supper defensive because their position is indefensible. They try to bend history to reach the conclusion they want and gosh the facts get in the way. They cannot hold their own in any fact based discussion, so their only defense becomes throwing insults.
I agree with them that Brigham Young probably brought the idea of polygamy with him when he joined. So, yes, the idea may have originated with him as far as the idea getting into Mormonism.
I also agree that Joseph denied that he practiced polygamy till his death. He never openly practiced and publicly claimed only one wife. Well, legally, he had only one wife because the other women had a religious ceremony held in secret that was not legal. It was a sham ceremony that was kept secret. If we look at some of Joseph’s preaching, he taught that marriage had to be public, so that anyone who objected would know about it so they could object. You know, anyone like her husband. So, if Joseph was conducting or participating in secret marriages it did go against things that he taught.
There are valid arguments that Joseph did not practice polygamy because his public stance was always against polygamy, secret marriages, and breaking the hearts of your women folk. Such things are stated in the BoM. They were also an early part of D&C, if I am remembering correctly. He continually claimed in public statements that he had only one wife.
But, what if he lied about it?
So, let’s look at his death for a minute. He was in Jail. Why? Because he broke into a newspaper printing office and destroyed the place. Why? Because he was told what they were about to print. And what was it they were about to print. ? An exposure of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. There was enough proof in that article that Joseph knew it would destroy him and probably get him arrested for adultery, or get him tarred and feathered again. Joseph must have been sure that if his secret was exposed, that he couldn’t fight all the evidence in court.
Now I have a question for the polygamy deniers. Why are you still in the branch of Mormonism that followed the terrible corrupt Brigham Young? Why not join one of the splinter groups that split off over the practice of polygamy? It isn’t just the Church of Christ (the reorganized LDS) but there are smaller splinter groups that broke away before Joseph Smith was killed. They knew that polygamy was wrong and left because they just couldn’t stomach polygamy. Why not find and join one of those groups, because they were the ones who stuck with truth all along? Or if you think they are wrong too, then there is no group who are righteous believers in the BoM and Joseph Smith. Why stick around and argue with Brighamites. If you are right, obviously Brigham could not be the prophet who took over from Joseph Smith. Instead of trying to convince Brighamites, why not go find the true church that Really followed the teachings of Joseph Smith? Or if the groups that broke away because they did not like polygamy are wrong somehow, maybe there is no true church, but why waste your time arguing with Brighamites. They are wrong because they followed a court leader and STILL believe in polygamy. Someone like President Oaks who wants his first AND second wives with him for eternity isn’t going to believe you that polygamy was never correct. He wants this thing you think is so evil. It just strikes me that you are bashing your head against a brick wall. You are not going to convince the Brighamites who still believe in polygamy. So, maybe you are better to just leave and join us apostates.
“They point to Emma Smith’s lifelong denial that Joseph practiced polygamy as supporting evidence.”
I do not find that argument compelling.
“They argue that the lack of confirmed biological children from other women weakens claims that he had sexual relationships with multiple wives.”
I agree that this is one of the best arguments for revisionists. But I’m pretty sure you didn’t watch the video and you certainly didn’t point out any flaws in my math.
“They claim plural marriage became publicly established only after Joseph Smith’s death and suggest later accounts may have been altered or influenced by social pressure.”
Clearly Joseph’s private practice in Nauvoo and Brigham’s public practice in Utah were extremely different. But to use that as “evidence” Joseph wasn’t a polygamist is ignoring important evidence.
From the ChatGPT summary: “They feel criticism of Joseph Smith and Mormonism is often driven by bias or hostility toward the religion.” So it would appear polygamy deniers (or whatever you want to call them) incorporate their belief that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy into their “Mormon testimony” view of the Church and of LDS history. So if you talk about Joseph’s polygamy, however calmly and objectively you do so, you are *attacking* them and the Church, you are (in their eyes) an anti-Mormon. Which ignores the fact that the LDS Church acknowledges, even celebrates, Joseph’s polygamy.
That’s just how Mormons think. MAGA Mormons import their Trump worship into their Mormon testimony and view of the world, and react to Trump criticism (however objective and warranted) just like someone is attacking their testimony. Honestly, it can be hard to be around Mormons sometimes. So many things you can’t talk about without offending them.
“They argue that some sealings may have been connected to an “adoptive” or eternal-family theology rather than polygamy.”
I wanted to follow up with this comment, as I have wondered about this adoptive nature before. Years ago, I asked Brian Hales specifically why 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball was married to Joseph, rather than adoptively sealed to him. Brian responded that the adoptive sealing theology wasn’t developed yet, so it wasn’t an option.
Now, years later, Don Bradley has an AMAZING chapter in Secret Covenants in which he argues that at the time Joseph and Fanny Alger were sealed, Oliver was sealed at the same time to a 10-year-old girl named Adeline Fuller. So when Emma got angry at Joseph over Fanny, Joseph summoned Oliver to his defense. According to Bradley, when Oliver learned the Fanny relationship was romantic somehow, he termed it a “nasty, filthy affair/scrape.” In Oliver’s eyes, his sealing to a Adeline, and Joseph’s sealing to Fanny were both adoptive in nature.
Don and Christopher Smith discuss how this helped Brigham Young to introduce an adoptive sealing model. It’s not super solid evidence, but I think it’s a really interesting line of reasoning. More info is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thDum2jOD8U
Trying to argue that Joseph Smith wasn’t a polygamist is like trying to argue that Ezra Taft Benson wasn’t politically conservative. The facts just are not on your side.
Anna, can I ask where you got the idea that Brigham introduced polygamy to Joseph? I’ve read quite a bit about Joseph Smith and the origins of plural marriage, and I can’t recall anyone outside of the online “monogamy affirmers” suggesting it (and the evidence they cite for it isn’t compelling at all).
I’m not a polygamy denier–but I do believe that the evidence (or lack thereof) points to the fact that Joseph was not driven by libido. That (IMO) is the most straightforward explanation as to why he had no children by any other women.
Not a Cougar, I honestly do not remember where I got that idea. It was most certainly not from those claiming Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. I read it before I even knew there were people pretending that polygamy was not something Joseph Smith was into, but he was actually fighting this corrupt idea others were trying to pass of as coming from God.
I read it somewhere while I was doing a deep dive into Mormon History between 20-15 years ago. With the amount I read during that time and how long ago it was, things kind of run together. My best guess is that it might have been Rough Stone Rolling, but I read a few other books during the same time frame, as well as stuff on line. I do not think it was Sacred Loneliness, or Mormon Enigma. As well, No Man Knows My History just doesn’t feel like that was where it came from. There were a couple of other books that I read during that time, like the one written by Lucy Mack Smith and other than that, I can’t even remember.
I gave all my books away to my DIL, so I do not have the ability to even go back to them and check for you. Sorry.
I guess I got that idea from the same place the polygamy deniers did.
How many people do you know that invited an abortionist to live in their house? Obviously contraception was known at the time, so it’s quite logical Smith only used contraception when he had sex with women other than Emma, but Dr. Bennett the abortion doctor literally living down the hallway from Smith sounds like a pretty sound insurance policy.