More Joseph Smith Papers and Was He a Polygamist?
In this 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy episode, Michelle Stone concludes that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist. While I was familiar with some of the documents she shared, seeing all of this information together, coupled with scriptures and her insights was compelling. At the same time it was overwhelming.
So to grasp the information, I’ve attempted to follow her reasoning and link some of what she uncovered. As a disclaimer, I’ve thrown in a few of my thoughts along the way. Her YouTube presentation provides a more complete explanation.
As a further disclaimer, I have a dog in the fight over polygamy. I obviously hate it. I think it’s evil, causes harm, and is not endorsed by God. It’s disturbing to me that the church I have been part of for 50 years teaches this (even though they’re in the closet with that teaching). On the other hand, I don’t have a serious dog in the fight over Joseph’s polygamy. Like most people, I’m only interested in truth and what really happened, and this is a fascinating time when many are trying to figure it out.
Where’s the Records?
Dated September 1842, Sections 127 and 128 are letters that Joseph wrote to the Church. They were part of the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants published just before his death. He saw these sections in the 1844 edition, unlike Section 132 which didn’t appear in the Doctrine and Covenants until long after his death in 1876.
Sections 127 and 128 are addressing baptism for the dead, and as they do, they describe the sealing power—the power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth. Judging by what he wrote, Joseph believed it is required to record, or bind, on earth what will be recorded, or bound, in heaven. Without these records, he implies, the sealing power is meaningless.
In Section 128:
8 Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the ordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead.
Keeping records are literally how to seal the deal. These Doctrine and Covenants’ sections show Joseph obviously believed that the records were imperative, yet there are NO records of ANY of Joseph’s sealings. If Joseph believed in celestial plural marriage and was sealed to multiple women as part of a great, eternal plan, wouldn’t he follow his own advice and ensure there were records of his sealings so they would stick in the eternities? In fact, there are no recordings of any sealings in the Nauvoo temple. Michelle confirmed this with The Church History Library, Todd Compton, and Brian Hales (marker 23:00).
As an aside, there are recordings of Endowments that took place after Joseph’s death in 1845 and 1846 in the Nauvoo temple, but never any sealings. As a further aside, Brigham Young would have had 21 living wives on his December 10, 1845 endowment date yet only his second wife, Mary Anne Young who he married after his first wife died, is in attendance. Heber C. Kimball would have had 6 or 7 wives by that date yet only his first wife, Vilate Kimball, is in attendance.
When Joseph writes in Section 127 verse 8, that he is “about to restore many things to the earth,” one of those many things can’t be plural marriage. By the Church’s explanation, plural marriage was already restored since 127 and 128 were written in 1844, at least 10 years after plural marriage’s so-called restoration. The introductory heading to Section 132 states it was recorded in 1843, but the principles were known as early as 1831.
Reading scriptures such as Sections 127 and 128 without the usual Church lens is eye-opening. I also found the Iron Rod podcast’s perspective on these sections enlightening (marker 28:00).
Stop It With the Multiple Wives Thing!
To add more nails to Joseph’s polygamy-rumor-coffin, Michelle cites several documents showing Joseph and his brother, Hyrum, opposed multiple wives and denied that they had multiple wives.
Among them are the Article on Marriage, Section 101 , from the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and Section 109 from the 1844 edition. Both editions teach one wife only. Joseph knew what these sections said, knew they were part of the approved scriptures up until his death, and knew any multiple wives shenanigans were contrary to these canonized teachings.
In March of 1842, six months before the letters that become Sections 127 & 128, an Epistle signed by Joseph and other leaders, including Brigham Young, was read to the Relief Society:
This letter warns the sisters not to believe “any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws…& all persons pretending to be authorized by us…are & will be liars and base imposters… you are authorized on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelatory; Patriarchs, twelve apostles, Elders, Priests…”
The September 1842 edition of the Times and Seasons repeats the one-wife rule:
The Church’s editorial note: Joseph “and a small group of other church leaders who were privately practicing plural marriage” are let off the hook, while anyone else doing the same thing is condemned (i.e. John Bennett and associates).
My editorial note: God, who is no respecter of persons, doesn’t change the commandments based on the eliteness of His children, nor does He make a distinction based on a name change from spiritual wifery to plural marriage when they both entail the same sin.
The one-wife rule is repeated again in the October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons:
In addition to reprinting the wording from the 1835 Section 101, this provided a declaration signed by prominent leaders stating they “know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Doctrine and Covenants.”
The same October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons article contains a similar declaration on the next page signed by the Relief Society:
The sisters are confirming, in no uncertain terms, that the one-wife, Section 101-type marriage is the ONLY marriage authorized and practiced by the Church.
They Really Mean It, Time’s Running Out—Stop It!!
Joseph died on June 27, 1844. Up until his death, Joseph consistently denounced polygamy, as did Hyrum and Joseph’s wife, Emma.
This notice condemning Hiram Brown for “preaching Polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines” was signed by the Presidents of the Church, Joseph and Hyrum. From the February 1, 1844 Times and Seasons:
Joseph and Hyrum were excommunicating members for preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines
On March 7, 1844 in a meeting at the Nauvoo temple before an audience of about 8,000, Joseph rejected the accusations of Orsamus F. Bostwich who had accused Hyrum and women in Nauvoo, in a not very delicate manner, of participating in polygamy. William W. Phelps read his document, “The Voice of innocence from Nauvoo.” On March 9, at the first meeting of the Relief Society, Joseph read a version that Emma had slightly amended.
This paper appears on the First Fifty Years of Relief Society website and, as an apologetic arm of the Church, the introductory paragraph dishes up the usual apologies: multiple wives is okay for Joseph and his trusted associates, but not for anyone else.
“The Voice of Innocence From Nauvoo” concludes with this:
Wherefore,
Resolved unanimously that Joseph Smith, the Mayor of the City, be tendered our thanks for the able and manly manner in which he defended injured innocence in the late trial of O.F. Bostwick for slandering president Hyrum Smith “and almost all the women of the City.”
Resolved unanimously that we view with unqualified disapprobation and scorn the conduct of any man or woman, whether in word or deed, that reflects dishonor, upon the poor persecuted mothers, widows, wives and daughters of the Saints of Nauvoo: they have borne aspersions, slanders and hardships enough: forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and retaliation, like the “dagger or the bowl” ought to close the lips of such cowardly aspersions〈assassins〉—
Resolved unanimously that while we render credence to the doctrines of Paul, that neither the man is without the woman; neither is woman without the man in the Lord, yet we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s “Spiritual Wife System,” as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity: wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched and all the Saints say
Amen!
In the Times and Seasons on March 15, 1844, Hyrum addresses the many-wives false doctrine that is not taught nor sanctioned by the Church:
“some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases…”
(Sorry, whatever your priesthood, you can’t have as many wives as you please)
“..there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.”
The Minutes and Discourses, 6-9 April 1844 as reported by Thomas Bullock:
In this discourse, Hyrum says the Elders of Israel who teach of multiple wives are fools. “It is lawful for a man to marry a wife but it is unlawful to have more and God has not commanded any one to have more.”
Update June 2023: For some unknown, highly suspicious reason, the above Thomas Bullock minutes where Hyrum strongly denounces polygamy have been removed. There is another link saved by Internet Archive.
In 1855-56 Hyrum’s words were also removed while creating the Joseph Smith History. This censorship would have been about 12 years after Joseph and Hyrum’s death. Below is a screenshot of the crossed out section denouncing multiple wives.
“None but a fool teaches such stuff,” Hyrum said. Perhaps those creating the history preferred not to be called fools.
And below is Thomas Bullock’s journal referring to what Hyrum said in the April 8, 1844 discourse that is now mysteriously missing.
Bullock described Hyrum’s teachings relative to multiple wives: “spiritual wife system…he was decided against it in every form.”
At a three-day conference on May 26, 1844, probably the last time he spoke publicly, Joseph addressed the accusations of having more than one wife.
The Church tries to separate plural marriage from spiritual wifery, but Joseph never makes a distinction. He and Hyrum condemn multiple wives regardless of the label.
The May 1844 conference is also available in an easier-to-read format. Below are some statements taken from pages 408-412.
God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil—all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over!
For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.
What a thing it is for a man to be accused of commiting adultery and having seven wives, when I can only find one
According to the second point taken from this May conference, Joseph had been attempting to prove his innocence by documenting his whereabouts and what he was saying and doing from 1841 forward. Here’s an unedited journal entry dated 5 October 1843, from this time period, proving that his efficient clerks carefully kept his proceedings and what he said: plurality of wives is forbidden. Yet here’s the same journal entry dated 5 October 1843, but now altered by some other efficient clerk that apparently had a different objective. This switcheroo, made after Joseph’s death, reverses the pervious policy and now allows for plurality of wives.
Does an Affidavit Make It True?
James Whitehead, who had been Joseph’s private secretary from 1842 until Joseph’s death, testified at the Temple Lot Case. Wikipedia summarizes the case that took place in the 1890s. This is page 474 of a copy of the original document. The transcribed copy also has this information on page 474.
James Whitehead testifies that in the beginning of 1843 William Clayton was removed as Joseph’s private secretary because “there was some money disappeared and he was blamed for it.” Keep in mind that Section 132 was supposed to have been recorded on July 12, 1843.
William Clayton’s affidavit, dated February 16, 1874, details alleged events surrounding the July 12, 1843 recording of Section 132.
In this screen shot William Clayton describes his first discussion with Joseph about plural marriage. Supposedly the 1843 conversation ends with Joseph telling Clayton, “It is your privilege to have all the wives you want.”
Yet Hyrum would say, “some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases…..there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” (From the March 15, 1844 Times and Seasons cited above).
Highlights of other allegations in William Clayton’s affidavit:
He mentions the names of some of Joseph’s alleged plural wives.
On October 7, 1842, Clayton says Joseph appointed him to be the temple recorder and his private clerk (although Clayton may have been slacking because there are no temple records in Joseph’s lifetime).
Joseph told Clayton, “When I have any revelations to write, you are the one to write them,” which would conveniently account for Joseph dictating 132 to Clayton.
He relates the dramatic story of how Section 132 came to be:
July 12, 1843, at Hyrum’s urging, Joseph dictated the revelation from memory to Clayton, although according to James Whitehead, Clayton would have been fired from these secretarial duties at this time.
Hyrum took the revelation to Emma. She read it and gave Hyrum a severe talking to.
Joseph showed the revelation to others and Newel K. Whitney asked for it to be copied, which Joseph Kingsbury did flawlessly.
In the meantime, Emma pestered Joseph to give her the revelation so she could destroy it. To pacify Emma, and knowing that he had a second copy and had it memorized anyway, Joseph gave her the revelation and she destroyed it.
Remember at the three-day conference, May 26, 1844, Joseph said he had efficient clerks in constant employ that were recording his every action and whereabouts so that his enemies could not prove anything against him, such as having seven wives. On the other hand, William Clayton’s affidavit is carefully worded to prove the opposite of what Joseph required of his efficient clerks. In Michelle’s subsequent interview with historian John Hajicek, the ramifications of Joseph’s words and William Clayton’s writings are covered.
Clayton concludes his affidavit,
“He appeared to enjoy great liberty and freedom in his teachings, and also to find great relief in having a few to whom he cold unburden his feelings on that great and glorious subject. From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in Celestial glory.
Why aren’t we taught the significance of this “most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man?” After all, William Clayton’s words are trusted more than Joseph’s. Joseph continuously denied the principle of plural marriage or that he personally had multiple wives. But William Clayton, who was dismissed as a private secretary for stealing, told us that Joseph taught plural marriage, vowed that Section 132 is legit, and gave us the scoop on Joseph’s wives. Clayton’s words, not Joseph’s, became the Church’s narrative on plural marriage.
In my opinion, Clayton’s one-time affidavit seems much less trustworthy than the many statements from Joseph and Hyrum.
We Have to Believe the Women!
Actually, we don’t have to believe the women, but we have to sympathize with their plight. These women were brainwashed to believe that men were the gatekeepers to God, to believe they should sexually share their husbands (in a Victorian era!), and to believe they would be destroyed if they did not live and defend this principle. LYING FOR THE LORD was a virtuous act. A woman’s value came from OBEYING HER HUSBAND.
Michelle (marker 01:30:00) shares some of the teachings that would profoundly influence these women’s actions and beliefs.
Affidavits (and here’s another site for affidavits) affirming that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage were first collected by Joseph F. Smith in 1869. If they could prove that Joseph was a polygamist, then they could justify their polygamous lifestyle and the LDS polygamist church would most closely tie to Joseph’s original church. There was a rush to collect these affidavits and many were sloppy in the process, including claiming married women were also sealed to Joseph.
In a fascinating twist, Michelle (marker 01:44:00) describes how she was taught that because of their chivalry and love for Joseph, Brigham and Heber offered to marry Joseph’s wives after his death. Hence, several of Joseph’s supposed wives later became Brigham and Heber’s wives. However, she speculates the exact opposite was true.
Instead, years after Joseph’s death, Michelle speculates Brigham and Heber asked some of their multiple wives to lie for the Lord and claim to be Joseph’s wives. These women would have been easily convinced. After all, they looked to Heber and Brigham for their salvation and survival, they had been convinced to be plural wives and, for many, they had been willing to live in poverty. By signing an affidavit or testifying in court that they had been Joseph’s plural wives, they were obeying their husbands and furthering what they believed was a righteous cause. A convenient explanation for why many of Joseph’s wives married Brigham and Heber was invented.
What Should Happen Now?
Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum consistently spoke out against multiple wives and consistently denied participating in the practice. Even so, the Church uses the accounts of others, most reporting long after Joseph was dead, to determine that Joseph practiced plural marriage.
I don’t know—as in beyond a shadow of a doubt know—whether Joseph had multiple wives. But what I do know is my Church teaches that he did and teaches that plural marriage is an eternal principle from God. Section 132 is still part of our cannon and men can be sealed to more than one woman in our temples, as our two top leaders have done.
Living this principle causes harm and I believe including this as an eternal principle in our teachings causes harm. When the Church finally frees its members from this damaging doctrine, perhaps that will be the time to also consider the possibility that Joseph wasn’t guilty of everything they’ve pinned on him.