FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2a"
(title) |
m (bot use legacy Detail template) |
||
| (56 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
| − | {{ | + | {{H1 |
| − | |title=[ | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2a |
| − | |author= | + | |H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 81-158) |
| − | | | + | |S= |
| − | | | + | |L1= |
| − | | | + | |T=[[../../|Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage"]] |
| − | | | + | |A=George D. Smith |
| − | | | + | |<=[[../Chapter 2|Chapter 2 (pp. 52-80)]] |
| + | |>=[[../Chapter 3|Chapter 3 (pp. 81-155)]] | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | <!-- INSERT CHART HERE --> | ||
| + | <onlyinclude> | ||
| + | {{H2 | ||
| + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2a | ||
| + | |H=Response to claims made in Nauvoo Polygamy, "Chapter 2" (pp. 81-158) | ||
| + | |S= | ||
| + | |L1=Response to claim: 81 - "Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband ... away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower" | ||
| + | |L2=Response to claim: 81 - "This" sending away of the husband on a mission "applied to Zina" | ||
| + | |L3=Response to claim: 82 - The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with wording that "hints that it might have been Smith’s child" | ||
| + | |L4=Response to claim: 84 - "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle" | ||
| + | |L5=Response to claim: 85 - Joseph Smith "evidently adapted and redefined" elements from the Masonic in the Mormon temple ceremonies" | ||
| + | |L6=Response to claim: 85 - "The vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage" | ||
| + | |L7=Response to claim: 92 - Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842 that she was Joseph Smith's mistress "since four years" | ||
| + | |L8=Response to claim: 100 - "During these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844" | ||
| + | |L9=Response to claim: 106 - "Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven" | ||
| + | |L10=Response to claim: 106 - "Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons'" | ||
| + | |L11=Response to claim: 106 - other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church | ||
| + | |L12=Response to claim: 108 - "Sarah Pratt told…Wyl…'There was an old Woman called Durfee…to keep her quiet, he admitted her to the secret blessings of celestial bliss" | ||
| + | |L13=Response to claim: 110-111 - "When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 and exposed the world to then-indecipherable ancient writings...The...rental library, within five miles of the Smith family farm, had acquired a volume on Napoleon" | ||
| + | |L14=Response to claim: 111 - "This is not to suggest that Smith necessarily visited the library" | ||
| + | |L15=Response to claim: 111 - "when he began dictating the Book of Mormon, published accounts of Napoleon and his foray into Egypt would have been available" | ||
| + | |L16=Response to claim: 110 – 111 n. 150—Joseph "translated some of the hieroglyphics by means of his white seer stone to produce 'an alphabet…grammar of the Egyptian language'" | ||
| + | |L17=Response to claim: 112 - "a scholar" in 1823 "rightly concluded that these American symbols 'appear to have had little or nothing in common with those of the Egyptians'" | ||
| + | |L18=Response to claim: 112- we should review what was known of the language of ancient Egyptian, not only in 1823 when Smith began to anticipate the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian records'" | ||
| + | |L19=Response to claim: 112 - Joseph Smith made an association of Native American pictographs with 'reformed Egyptian' | ||
| + | |L20=Response to claim: 112 - "Smith's association" of the cultures of Egypt and the New World "simply reflected the prevailing misperceptions of the pre- to mid-nineteenth century" | ||
| + | |L21=Response to claim: 113 - "The first ancient scripture Smith presented since the Book of Mormon was the Book of Abraham" | ||
| + | |L22=Response to claim: 113 n. 157 - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is claimed to have "altered over 3,400 verses but left the deities singular and in a Trinitarian format" | ||
| + | |L23=Response to claim: 114 - Joseph "coalesced astronomy, biblical mystery, ancient Egyptian writing, and Masonic ritual into portentous ceremony for his followers" | ||
| + | |L24=Response to claim: 114 - "The spring of 1842 was also the time when John C. Bennett began to separate himself from Smith" | ||
| + | |L25=Response to claim: 116 - Marinda Johnson "met Joseph while he was retranslating the Bible with Sidney Rigdon in her parents' home in 1831" | ||
| + | |L26=Response to claim: 117-118 - Orson Hyde "was reportedly 'furious'" with Joseph's plural marriage doctrine | ||
| + | |L27=Response to claim: 119 - "after John C. Bennett's disagreement with Smith, the record of his celestial marriages was apparently expunged" | ||
| + | |L28=Response to claim: 119 - "This apparent backdating was an attempt to discredit Bennett" | ||
| + | |L29=Response to claim: 129-134 - Emma Smith pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs | ||
| + | |L30=Response to claim: 131 n. 195 - The author cites BYU Studies on Emma and Eliza, but does not disclose that those authors find that the story is not plausible | ||
| + | |L31=Response to claim: 132 - The author cites Newel and Avery, Mormon Enigma without acknowledging or engaging their arguments against the story of Emma and Eliza | ||
| + | |L32=Response to claim; 133 - "Most convincing of all is to think that these stories were circulating widely and Eliza never bothered to clarify or refute them" | ||
| + | |L33=Response to claim: 138 - The author talks about Joseph's letter to the Whitneys ''again'': "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride" | ||
| + | |L34=Response to claim: 142 - "he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney" | ||
| + | |L35=Response to claim: 142-143 - "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him" | ||
| + | |L36=Response to claim: 147 - "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted" | ||
| + | |L37=Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was in many ways a mentor to Joseph" | ||
| + | |L38=Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was not someone Joseph felt comfortable approaching to ask for his daughter's hand in polygamy" | ||
| + | |L39=Response to claim: 149 - Marinda Johnson Hyde stayed in the same house as "Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife, Jennetta, was in Massachusetts….their living arrangements seemed to be an open scandal" | ||
| + | |L40=Response to claim: 154 - Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton were "isolated in a locked room during the persuasive effort" | ||
| + | |L41=Response to claim: 155 - The author refers to Joseph's visit by the Whitneys as a "liaison" with Sarah Ann | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | </onlyinclude> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 81 - "Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband ... away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."}} | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 81 - "This" sending away of the husband on a mission "applied to Zina"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim="This [see above] applied to Zina…." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{disinformation|Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing to Zina. Henry knew of Joseph's plural proposal to Joseph before their marriage. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 75}} | ||
| + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]] | ||
| + | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
| + | <!-- ====82==== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author notes that the History of the Church "makes no mention of the second Huntington nuptial…." | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
| + | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| + | }} --> | ||
| + | ==Response to claim: 82 - The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with wording that "hints that it might have been Smith’s child"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *Oliver Huntington Journal, Nov 14, 1884, USHS; see Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 140, 673. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|There is no evidence that this child was Joseph's. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 84 - "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author notes: "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle." | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #''History of the Church'' 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{information}} | ||
| + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy#Hiding the Truth?|Joseph Smith and polygamy—Hiding the truth?]] | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lying}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 85 - Joseph Smith "evidently adapted and redefined" elements from the Masonic in the Mormon temple ceremonies"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author assumes that Joseph "evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies." | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #No source given. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Temples/Endowment/Freemasonry]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 85 - "The vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."}} | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #Author's opinion. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|There were no "blood penalties" associated with plural marriage. Note the prejudicial language, in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Temples/Endowment/Penalties]] | ||
| + | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- ====88==== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author notes that there is no mention of Joseph's sealing to Agnes Smith in the History of the Church. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
| + | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| + | }} --> | ||
| + | ==Response to claim: 92 - Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842 that she was Joseph Smith's mistress "since four years"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |claim=Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits'', 60. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (''In Sacred Loneliness'', 650). It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress." Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl." The author provides none of this perspective. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lucinda Harris}} | ||
| + | <!-- ==Response to claim: 99 - "the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842"==== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim= | ||
| + | The author notes that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | No source provided. | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
| + | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | --> | ||
| + | ==Response to claim: 100 - "During these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author claims that "[d]uring these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=180–81}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|DNA testing has proven that Josephine Sessions in ''not'' a descendant of Joseph Smith. Moreover, the author ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” ''Mormon Historical Studies'' 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages]] | ||
| + | {{:Question: What did the husband of Sylvia Sessions know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?}} | ||
| + | <!-- ====103==== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Typically, [Joseph] never mentioned his marriage to Patty [Sessions] on paper…."}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
| + | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| + | }} --> | ||
| + | <!-- ==Response to claim: 105 -Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=It is claimed that Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons." | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *These needs more argument than the author gives it. It is not clear how being a Swedenborgian would predispose Cleveland to accept a modern prophet, new scripture, and restored priesthood authority (for example). | ||
| + | *Surely any world-view was somewhat compatible with the Mormons', but what about Cleveland's views were more compatible than, say, other Christians? | ||
| + | *[[Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg]] | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *Biography of Sarah Maryetta Kingsley, LDS Archives. | ||
| + | }} --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 106 - "Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"John Cleveland's Swedenborgian faith might have helped prepare Sarah for some of Joseph's teachings. Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven that required marriage for admission to the highest level."}} | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #Author's speculation. | ||
| + | #Emanuel Swedenborg, ''Heaven and Hell'', trans. George F. Dole (West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|Three degrees in heaven is a Biblical notion, it did not originate with Swedenborg or Joseph Smith. It is not clear what Swedenborg's "affinity" between spouses has to do with LDS plural marriage. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Swedenborg]] | ||
| + | <!-- ====106==== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author notes that John Cleveland's continued willingness to host LDS events "indicated a likely compatibility of beliefs." | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *There are other options: | ||
| + | **Perhaps Cleveland was simply a tolerant man? | ||
| + | **Perhaps he respected the Mormons for what he had seen of them personally? | ||
| + | **Perhaps he respected his wife's desire to practice her own faith, despite not sharing it. | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | * No source provided. | ||
| + | }} --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 106 - "Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons'"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons.'"}} | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *Sarah Cleveland to August Lyman, 1847, John Lyman Smith Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, cited by Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 284. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|The author does not tell the reader that this difficulty did not occur until after Joseph's death, and the Saints had gone west. He neglects to point out that Compton noted that even six months before Joseph's death, Sarah's husband was "very friendly and frequently visited the Prophet." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 281). Thus, the implication that Joseph's plural marriage caused problems for Cleveland is not sustained by the evidence. The author also does not tell us that one version of Sarah's decision to remain behind instead of going to Utah reads: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | "Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 283). | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Polygamy book/Polyandry#Sarah_Kingsley_Howe_Cleveland|Sarah Cleveland]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 106 - other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=Besides Cleveland (see above) other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church. | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | * No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|No other examples are given. It is not clear to whom the author is referring. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *[[Polygamy book/Polyandry]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 108 - "Sarah Pratt told…Wyl…'There was an old Woman called Durfee…to keep her quiet, he admitted her to the secret blessings of celestial bliss"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=It is claimed that "Sarah Pratt told…Wyl…'There was an old Woman called Durfee…to keep her quiet, he admitted her to the secret blessings of celestial bliss—she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph Smith's wives." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | *Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits'', 54. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|The author here follows Compton in misreading the Wyl data. Richard Anderson and Scott Faulring argue that | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | ''In Sacred Loneliness'' misleads the reader by claiming that “Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith’s wives.” But this changes the actual report of Sarah’s comments on Mrs. Durfee: “I don’t think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph’s death. . . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph’s wives.”<ref>{{FR-10-2-6}}<!--Anderson and Faulring--></ref> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | If anything these data argue that Durfee was aware of and involved in promoting and teaching plural marriage but was not necessarily sealed to Joseph in life. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*[[../../Use of sources]] {{nw}} | *[[../../Use of sources]] {{nw}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 110-111 - "When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 and exposed the world to then-indecipherable ancient writings...The...rental library, within five miles of the Smith family farm, had acquired a volume on Napoleon"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | + | {{AuthorQuote|"When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 and exposed the world to then-indecipherable ancient writings, Europe and the United States became fascinated with Egyptian artifacts. Egyptian hieroglyphics, like the origin of Native American tribes, were mysteries of the times, sometimes regarded as clues to Indian Origins."}} | |
| − | || | + | <br> |
| − | + | {{AuthorQuote|"Joseph Smith had grown up…during the time when public interest in the enigmatic Egyptians was burgeoning. The Manchester, New York, rental library, within five miles of the Smith family farm, had acquired a volume on Napoleon."}} | |
| + | |authorsources= | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Egypt}} | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Environmentalism}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|A string of speculations on the part of the author. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | *[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | ||
*{{AuthorPublisherResponse}} The publisher notes that the author was not attempting to imply that Joseph plagiarized Napoleon, but rather that both of them wrote "amorous letters" and "shared a profound fascination with Egypt." {{link|url=http://www.signaturebooks.com/pluralmarriage.htm?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234200952&sr=1-1}} | *{{AuthorPublisherResponse}} The publisher notes that the author was not attempting to imply that Joseph plagiarized Napoleon, but rather that both of them wrote "amorous letters" and "shared a profound fascination with Egypt." {{link|url=http://www.signaturebooks.com/pluralmarriage.htm?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234200952&sr=1-1}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 111 - "This is not to suggest that Smith necessarily visited the library"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=The author then continues: "This is not to suggest that Smith necessarily visited the library…." |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | |||
*Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," ''BYU Studies'' 22 (Summer 1982): 333-56. | *Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," ''BYU Studies'' 22 (Summer 1982): 333-56. | ||
| − | | | + | }} |
| − | + | {{propaganda|So why mention it if not to give that impression? If he did not, then it is irrelevant to Joseph Smith's thought or career. | |
| + | }} | ||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 111 - "when he began dictating the Book of Mormon, published accounts of Napoleon and his foray into Egypt would have been available"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim=The author then speculates: "…but from the age of ten…to about age twenty-two (December 1827) when he began dictating the Book of Mormon, published accounts of Napoleon and his foray into Egypt would have been available in books, periodicals, and possibly tracts." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|The author offers us only speculation, with no evidence that Joseph paid any attention to such matters. | ||
*This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]]. | *This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]]. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | *[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 110 – 111 n. 150—Joseph "translated some of the hieroglyphics by means of his white seer stone to produce 'an alphabet…grammar of the Egyptian language'"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=Regarding the Chandler papyri, the author claims that Joseph "translated some of the hieroglyphics by means of his white seer stone to produce 'an alphabet…[and] grammar of the Egyptian language' through July 1835." |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
*History of the Church 2:235-36, 238. | *History of the Church 2:235-36, 238. | ||
| − | |- | + | }} |
| − | | | + | {{misinformation|The author here acts as if a highly debated matter is settled. It is not at all clear that Joseph's seer stone was used "to produce" the alphabet and grammar. Rather, the alphabet and grammar may have been an attempt by some (possibly including Joseph) to 'reverse-engineer' a translation of Egyptian from the divine translation given of the Book of Abraham. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Kirtland Egyptian Papers|l1=Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers}} | ||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 112 - "a scholar" in 1823 "rightly concluded that these American symbols 'appear to have had little or nothing in common with those of the Egyptians'"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim=The author claims that "a scholar" in 1823 "rightly concluded that these American [Indian] symbols 'appear to have had little or nothing in common with those of the Egyptians.'" |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | + | #Thomas Young, ''An Account of Some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphic Literature and Egyptian Antiquities'' (London: John Murray, 1823). | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{misinformation|This is of no relevance to Joseph Smith unless we are to assume that Joseph taught that American writing could be used to illuminate ancient Egyptian. The Book of Mormon explicitly rejects any such idea, saying that "we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and ''altered by us'', according to our manner of speech…. ''none other people knoweth our language''; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof" ({{s||Mormon|9|31,34}}). | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | The author should also consider consulting scholarship more recent than 1823 if he wishes to know whether there are any links between Old World and New World languages. |
| − | | | + | }} |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Hebrew and Native American languages}} | |
| − | || | + | |
| − | + | ==Response to claim: 112- we should review what was known of the language of ancient Egyptian, not only in 1823 when Smith began to anticipate the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian records'"== | |
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"As we consider Joseph Smith's new religious texts in early 1842, we should review what was known of the language of ancient Egyptian, not only in 1823 when Smith began to anticipate the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian records,' but later in the 1830s and 1840s when he prepared his second Egyptian scripture, the Book of Abraham."}} | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|The author is again presuming that studies of ancient Egyptian would have had any relevance for the Book of Mormon records—yet the Book of Mormon explicitly says they would not. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | *[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 112 - Joseph Smith made an association of Native American pictographs with 'reformed Egyptian'== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | || | + | The author assumes that Joseph Smith made an association of Native American pictographs with 'reformed Egyptian.' |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | || | + | #No source provided. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|What evidence is there of this? | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to claim: 112 - "Smith's association" of the cultures of Egypt and the New World "simply reflected the prevailing misperceptions of the pre- to mid-nineteenth century"== | ||
| + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author speculates that "Smith's association of these unrelated cultures [Egypt and the New World] simply reflected the prevailing misperceptions of the pre- to mid-nineteenth century." | ||
| + | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{misinformation|Joseph's scriptural texts associated only a small group from the Old World with the New. His 1842 scriptures had nothing at all to do with the New World. That Joseph's own personal opinions may have reflected his time is irrelevant, unless we presume at the outset (as the author does) that the Book of Mormon was a fabrication by Joseph. If it was not, then his personal views are irrelevant. | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | | | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | *[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Environmentalism}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Environmentalism}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 113 - "The first ancient scripture Smith presented since the Book of Mormon was the Book of Abraham"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"The first ancient scripture Smith presented since the Book of Mormon was the Book of Abraham."}} |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{disinformation| Joseph had also produced a Book of Moses and a Book of Enoch (begun June 1830) as part of his revision of the King James Bible. These materials, however, did not rely on a modification of any extant Bible text.}} | ||
*See: [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=75 here], [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=71 here], and [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books.php?bookid=53 here.] | *See: [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=75 here], [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=71 here], and [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books.php?bookid=53 here.] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 113 n. 157 - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is claimed to have "altered over 3,400 verses but left the deities singular and in a Trinitarian format"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim=The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is claimed to have "altered over 3,400 verses but left the deities singular and in a Trinitarian format." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | + | #Quinn, ''Mormon Hierarchy: Origins'', 620. | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{misinformation|Since the original Bible has no Nicene Trinitarian format, it would be difficult to Joseph to leave it there. If The author does not mean a Nicene Trinity, then it would be strange for Joseph to alter it, since the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham all teach a non-Nicene trinitarianism. | |
| − | + | *[[Godhead and the Trinity]] | |
| − | + | *The Book of Moses ({{s||Moses|1|3,6,13,24,32-33}}, {{s||Moses|2|1}}, {{s||Moses|4|2-3,28}}) also described the distinction between Father and Son in non-Nicene terms, as did the Enoch material ({{s||Moses|5|57}}, {{s||Moses|6|51-52,57,59,66}}, {{s||Moses|7|27,39}}), long pre-dating the Book of Abraham (Summer-Winter 1830). | |
| − | + | Joseph was also teaching a non-Nicene Trinitarianism long before 1842: | |
| − | + | *[[1830 statement about seeing "God"]] | |
| − | + | *[[Only one Personage appears in the 1832 account]] | |
| + | *[[Lack of contemporary Father and Son vision until 1838?]] | ||
| + | The author wants to display an evolution in Joseph's views, but he has not done the necessary legwork. He merely presumes, rather than demonstrates. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | *[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 114 - Joseph "coalesced astronomy, biblical mystery, ancient Egyptian writing, and Masonic ritual into portentous ceremony for his followers"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | || | + | The author presumes that Joseph "coalesced astronomy, biblical mystery, ancient Egyptian writing, and Masonic ritual into portentous ceremony for his followers." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|The author presumes that all these were sources for the temple endowment, and that Joseph combined them. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*[[../../Mind reading]] | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
*[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | *[[../../Napoleon's Egyptian discoveries]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Environmentalism}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Environmentalism}} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Egypt}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Egypt}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 114 - "The spring of 1842 was also the time when John C. Bennett began to separate himself from Smith"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim=The author claims that "[t]he spring of 1842 was also the time when John C. Bennett began to separate himself from Smith…." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|Bennett did not separate himself, Joseph forced Bennett out because of his crimes. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 116 - Marinda Johnson "met Joseph while he was retranslating the Bible with Sidney Rigdon in her parents' home in 1831"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | || | + | Marinda Johnson "met Joseph while he was retranslating the Bible with Sidney Rigdon in her parents' home in 1831." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|The author again does not tell us that Marinda testified against the version of Joseph's mobbing which he pushes on p. 44. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 117-118 - Orson Hyde "was reportedly 'furious'" with Joseph's plural marriage doctrine== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=Orson Hyde "was reportedly 'furious'" with Joseph's plural marriage doctrine. |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{propaganda|Cites Ann Eliza Young, but fails to tell the reader there are three other versions, each of which is different and hostile. Ann Eliza’s report of anger is also suspect. Later in the same work cited by the author, she describes Hyde “in a furious passion” because “he thought it no harm for him to win the affection of another man’s wife, . . . but he did not propose having his rights interfered with even by the holy Prophet whose teachings he so implicitly followed." Yet Orson did not begin practicing plural marriage until after he knew of Marinda’s sealing to Joseph. Despite the hostile reports of Orson Hyde’s anger, there are no contemporary accounts of problems between Orson and Joseph, who repeatedly dined with the Hydes following Orson’s return from Palestine. While it is possible that his initial reaction was heated, this perspective derives entirely from authors writing scandalous exposés of the Mormons long after the fact. | |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | + | *Ann Eliza Young, ''Wife Number Nineteen'', 324–26. | |
| + | }} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 119 - "after John C. Bennett's disagreement with Smith, the record of his celestial marriages was apparently expunged"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=The author assumes censorship when he notes that "after John C. Bennett's disagreement with Smith, the record of his celestial marriages was apparently expunged." |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{propaganda|The author is arguing from negative evidence—he claims that the absence of any record of Bennett's "marriages" is proof that the Church or Joseph suppressed them! He is presuming that Bennett's "marriages" were at one time sanctioned by Joseph. All the evidence indicates that Joseph was upset whenever Bennett's behavior came to his attention. | |
| − | * | + | |authorsources=<br> |
| − | * | + | #No source provided. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision}} | ||
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 119 - "This apparent backdating was an attempt to discredit Bennett"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Smith told Bennett he could not withdraw from the church because he had been 'disfellowshipped' two weeks before on May 11. This apparent backdating was an attempt to discredit Bennett."}} |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|The author has mentioned this before. He has now adopted Bennett's version completely, with no hint that there is more to the story. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*(Already [[../Chapter_2#65|addressed above]], see pp. 65, 70, 72-73.) | *(Already [[../Chapter_2#65|addressed above]], see pp. 65, 70, 72-73.) | ||
| − | * | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ====122==== | + | <!-- ====122==== |
| − | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=The author reports that in John C. Bennett's first letter that "he reported that Smith 'attempted to seduce Miss Nany{{cs}} Rigdon,'…." |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | |||
*Bennett to ''Sangamo Journal'', June 27, 1842. | *Bennett to ''Sangamo Journal'', June 27, 1842. | ||
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | + | }} |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} | |
| − | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} --> | |
| − | ====123-125==== | + | <!-- ====123-125==== |
| − | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | + | |claim=The author recounts John C. Bennett's version of the Sarah Pratt episode. | |
| − | * | + | }} |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} | |
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 129-134 - Emma Smith pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | + | |claim=The story of Emma Smith pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs is mentioned. | |
| − | * | + | }} |
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|l1=Emma, Eliza, and the stairs}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ====131-132==== | + | <!-- ====131-132==== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | + | The author notes that "…historian Fawn M. Brodie thought the documentation was strong enough to include it in her biography of Smith." | |
| + | }} | ||
*Fawn Brodie's evidentiary standard was often depressingly low. She was certain that Oliver Buell was Joseph's son (based on photographic evidence) but DNA evidence has resoundingly refuted her. | *Fawn Brodie's evidentiary standard was often depressingly low. She was certain that Oliver Buell was Joseph's son (based on photographic evidence) but DNA evidence has resoundingly refuted her. | ||
| − | * | + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|l1=Emma, Eliza, and the stairs}} |
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=470–71}} | *{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=470–71}} | ||
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | + | *{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} |
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | + | *{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 131 n. 195 - The author cites ''BYU Studies'' on Emma and Eliza, but does not disclose that those authors find that the story is not plausible== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | | | + | The author cites ''BYU Studies'' on Emma and Eliza, but does not disclose that those authors find that the story is not plausible. |
| − | * | + | |authorsources=<br> |
| + | #Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al., “Emma and Eliza and the Stairs,” ''BYU Studies'' 22/1 (Fall 1982): 86–96. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation}} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|l1=Emma, Eliza, and the stairs}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 132 - The author cites Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'' without acknowledging or engaging their arguments against the story of Emma and Eliza== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=The author cites Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'' without acknowledging or engaging their arguments against the story of Emma and Eliza. |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | * | + | #Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 134. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation}} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|l1=Emma, Eliza, and the stairs}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim; 133 - "Most convincing of all is to think that these stories were circulating widely and Eliza never bothered to clarify or refute them"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | || | + | The author assumes rumors are evidence: "Most convincing of all is to think that these stories [about Emma] were circulating widely and Eliza never bothered to clarify or refute them." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | * | + | #No source provided. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|Uncorrected rumor or gossip is more convincing than the absence of diary or behavioral evidence for a pregnancy as outlined by Newel and Avery (see [[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|previous]])? | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Eliza R. Snow and the stairs|l1=Emma, Eliza, and the stairs}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Stairs}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ====137==== | + | <!-- ====137==== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | | | + | Censorship is again implied, when the author notes that the ''History of the Church'' "reports the day's activities…without a hint of a wedding" to Sarah Ann Whitney. |
| − | * | + | |authorsources= |
| + | *No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision}} | ||
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
| − | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} --> | |
| − | |||
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 138 - The author talks about Joseph's letter to the Whitneys ''again'': "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim= |
| − | + | The author talks about Joseph's letter to the Whitneys ''again'': "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride." | |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|Again, The author fails to acknowledge that Joseph wanted Sarah Ann '''and her parents''' to visit him. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
| Line 343: | Line 582: | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | + | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith write a "love letter" to his plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney to request a secret rendezvous?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: How do critics of the Church portray Joseph Smith's letter to the Whitney family as a "love letter"?}} | |
| − | {{ | + | {{:Question: What was the real purpose of the letter written by Joseph Smith to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney?}} |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ====139==== | + | <!-- ====139==== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | | | + | The book claims that in an "extraordinary move, the Nauvoo City Council issued an ordinance limiting the power of state courts and claiming the right to review and dismiss future writs." |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | |||
*Roberts, ''Comprehensive History'' 2:468-69. | *Roberts, ''Comprehensive History'' 2:468-69. | ||
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Nauvoo city charter}} | + | }} |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|City of Nauvoo/City charter}} | |
| − | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Nauvoo city charter}} --> | |
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 142 - "he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| + | The author really wants readers to understand Joseph's letter to the Whitneys: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
"It was the ninth night of Joseph's concealment, and Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf…For his part, Joseph's private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers 'forevermore.' Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney." | "It was the ninth night of Joseph's concealment, and Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf…For his part, Joseph's private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers 'forevermore.' Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney." | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | | | + | }} |
| − | + | {{propaganda|Yet again, the author does not acknowledge that Joseph wants all the Whitneys there. Joseph’s behavior is painted as callous toward Emma and also as evidence of an almost insatiable sexual hunger. | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | * | + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter}} |
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 142-143 - "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=Referring to the Whitney letter, the author notes: "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him—but only if Emma had not returned….Joseph judiciously addressed the letter to 'Brother, and Sister, Whitney, and &c." |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{propaganda|Despite mentioning (finally!) that the letter is addressed to all three Whitneys, the author continues to insist that Sarah Ann is the one who is to "come" and "comfort" him. He here (p. 143) reproduces the letter's full text (having used it at least four times to push his reading of Joseph needing Sarah to "comfort" him), but does not address the reason why Joseph sought a visit with his plural wife and her parents: to “tell you all my plans . . . [and] to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.” | |
| − | * | + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter}} |
| − | + | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | |
| − | + | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | |
| − | + | *[[../../Mind reading]] | |
| − | + | *[[../../Romance]] | |
| − | + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | |
| − | + | Small wonder that Joseph didn’t want a hostile Emma present while trying to administer what he and the Whitneys regarded as sacred ordinances. And, it is unsurprising that he considered a single private room sufficient for the purposes for which he summoned his plural wife and her parents. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | The author commonly exploits the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) presentist fallacy] in the matter of Joseph's wives' ages. | ||
| + | }} | ||
*[[Polygamy book/Age of wives|Age of wives]] | *[[Polygamy book/Age of wives|Age of wives]] | ||
*[[../../Presentism]] | *[[../../Presentism]] | ||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 147 - "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | || | + | Referring yet again to the Whitney letter, the author notes: "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted." |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | + | #No source provided. | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | * | + | {{propaganda|Having just reproduced the entire letter, the author again insists that Sarah Ann is the one to "comfort" Joseph, even though the letter says nothing of the sort. The author does not indicate how he knows the invitation was accepted. We do know that the Whitneys were sealed in eternal marriage three days later. But, the author does not tell us that either. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter}} | ||
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ====147–154==== | + | <!-- ====147–154==== |
| − | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | + | |claim=The book recounts the Nancy Rigdon episode | |
| − | * | + | }} |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} | |
| − | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was in many ways a mentor to Joseph"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |claim= | |
| − | | | + | The author assumes that Sidney Rigdon "was in many ways a mentor to Joseph." |
| − | + | |authorsources= | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
| − | | | + | }} |
| − | + | {{propaganda|What evidence is there of this? Joseph was always in charge and always the senior partner, though he was happy to make use of Rigdon's skills as an orator. Joseph had published the Book of Mormon and had the Church well established before Rigdon appeared. He did not need Sidney to "mentor" him at all. | |
| − | == | + | }} |
| − | | | + | |
| − | + | ==Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was not someone Joseph felt comfortable approaching to ask for his daughter's hand in polygamy"== | |
| − | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
| + | |claim=The author speculates that Sidney Rigdon "was not someone Joseph felt comfortable approaching to ask for his daughter's hand in polygamy. So Joseph appealed to the young woman directly." | ||
| + | |authorsources=<br> | ||
| + | #No source provided. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|There is no way that the author could know this.}} | ||
*[[../../Mind reading]] | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
| − | * | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} |
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 149 - Marinda Johnson Hyde stayed in the same house as "Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife, Jennetta, was in Massachusetts….their living arrangements seemed to be an open scandal"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"For some reason, Marinda [Johnson Hyde] stayed [in the same house as] Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife, Jennetta, was in Massachusetts….Although the two may have lived in separate parts of the building…their living arrangements seemed to be an open scandal."}} |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| + | #''History of the Church'' 4:467 | ||
| + | #{{CitationError}} Bennett, ''History of the Saints'', 241; [Error! The correct page is 243 for the claim of scandal.] | ||
| + | #Ebenezer Robinson, ''The Return'' (Oct 1890): 347 [Actually most is on p. 346]. | ||
| + | #(Did the author just copy these from Van Wagoner, ''Sidney Rigdon'', who uses the same page numbers, rather than check the originals? | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{misinformation|This hardly has the appearance of an "open scandal." From ''History of the Church'': | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Thursday, 2.—I received the following revelation to Nancy Marinda Hyde— | Thursday, 2.—I received the following revelation to Nancy Marinda Hyde— | ||
| Line 461: | Line 696: | ||
Verily thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have called upon me to know my will concerning my handmaid Nancy Marinda Hyde—behold it is my will that she should have a better place prepared for her, than that in which she now lives, in order that her life may be spared unto her; therefore go and say unto my servant, Ebenezer Robinson, and to my handmaid his wife—Let them open their doors and take her and her children into their house and take care of them faithfully and kindly until my servant Orson Hyde returns from his mission, or until some other provision can be made for her welfare and safety. Let them do these things and spare not, and I the Lord will bless them and heal them if they do it not grudgingly, saith the Lord God; and she shall be a blessing unto them; and let my handmaid Nancy Marinda Hyde hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph in all things whatsoever he shall teach unto her, and it shall be a blessing upon her and upon her children after her, unto her justification, saith the Lord. | Verily thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have called upon me to know my will concerning my handmaid Nancy Marinda Hyde—behold it is my will that she should have a better place prepared for her, than that in which she now lives, in order that her life may be spared unto her; therefore go and say unto my servant, Ebenezer Robinson, and to my handmaid his wife—Let them open their doors and take her and her children into their house and take care of them faithfully and kindly until my servant Orson Hyde returns from his mission, or until some other provision can be made for her welfare and safety. Let them do these things and spare not, and I the Lord will bless them and heal them if they do it not grudgingly, saith the Lord God; and she shall be a blessing unto them; and let my handmaid Nancy Marinda Hyde hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph in all things whatsoever he shall teach unto her, and it shall be a blessing upon her and upon her children after her, unto her justification, saith the Lord. | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | + | }} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 154 - Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton were "isolated in a locked room during the persuasive effort"== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | | | + | |claim=The author claims that both Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton were "isolated in a locked room during the persuasive effort." |
| − | * | + | |authorsources=<br> |
| − | * | + | #No source provided. |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Women locked in a room}} | |
| − | + | *{{Detail_old|Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|l1=John C. Bennett}} | |
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Response to claim: 155 - The author refers to Joseph's visit by the Whitneys as a "liaison" with Sarah Ann== |
| − | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
| − | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
| − | || | + | |claim=The author refers to Joseph's visit by the Whitneys as a "liaison" with Sarah Ann. |
| − | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
| − | * | + | #No source provided. |
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{propaganda|The author persists with his Sarah Ann Whitney and "liaison" fiction. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | *{{Detail_old|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter}} | ||
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
| Line 491: | Line 723: | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | {{endnotes sources}} | |
Latest revision as of 00:04, 31 May 2024
Response to claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 81-158)
| Chapter 2 (pp. 52-80) | A FAIR Analysis of: Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage", a work by author: George D. Smith
|
Chapter 3 (pp. 81-155) |
Response to claims made in Nauvoo Polygamy, "Chapter 2" (pp. 81-158)
Jump to details:
- Response to claim: 81 - "Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband ... away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower"
- Response to claim: 81 - "This" sending away of the husband on a mission "applied to Zina"
- Response to claim: 82 - The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with wording that "hints that it might have been Smith’s child"
- Response to claim: 84 - "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle"
- Response to claim: 85 - Joseph Smith "evidently adapted and redefined" elements from the Masonic in the Mormon temple ceremonies"
- Response to claim: 85 - "The vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage"
- Response to claim: 92 - Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842 that she was Joseph Smith's mistress "since four years"
- Response to claim: 100 - "During these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844"
- Response to claim: 106 - "Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven"
- Response to claim: 106 - "Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons'"
- Response to claim: 106 - other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church
- Response to claim: 108 - "Sarah Pratt told…Wyl…'There was an old Woman called Durfee…to keep her quiet, he admitted her to the secret blessings of celestial bliss"
- Response to claim: 110-111 - "When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 and exposed the world to then-indecipherable ancient writings...The...rental library, within five miles of the Smith family farm, had acquired a volume on Napoleon"
- Response to claim: 111 - "This is not to suggest that Smith necessarily visited the library"
- Response to claim: 111 - "when he began dictating the Book of Mormon, published accounts of Napoleon and his foray into Egypt would have been available"
- Response to claim: 110 – 111 n. 150—Joseph "translated some of the hieroglyphics by means of his white seer stone to produce 'an alphabet…grammar of the Egyptian language'"
- Response to claim: 112 - "a scholar" in 1823 "rightly concluded that these American symbols 'appear to have had little or nothing in common with those of the Egyptians'"
- Response to claim: 112- we should review what was known of the language of ancient Egyptian, not only in 1823 when Smith began to anticipate the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian records'"
- Response to claim: 112 - Joseph Smith made an association of Native American pictographs with 'reformed Egyptian'
- Response to claim: 112 - "Smith's association" of the cultures of Egypt and the New World "simply reflected the prevailing misperceptions of the pre- to mid-nineteenth century"
- Response to claim: 113 - "The first ancient scripture Smith presented since the Book of Mormon was the Book of Abraham"
- Response to claim: 113 n. 157 - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is claimed to have "altered over 3,400 verses but left the deities singular and in a Trinitarian format"
- Response to claim: 114 - Joseph "coalesced astronomy, biblical mystery, ancient Egyptian writing, and Masonic ritual into portentous ceremony for his followers"
- Response to claim: 114 - "The spring of 1842 was also the time when John C. Bennett began to separate himself from Smith"
- Response to claim: 116 - Marinda Johnson "met Joseph while he was retranslating the Bible with Sidney Rigdon in her parents' home in 1831"
- Response to claim: 117-118 - Orson Hyde "was reportedly 'furious'" with Joseph's plural marriage doctrine
- Response to claim: 119 - "after John C. Bennett's disagreement with Smith, the record of his celestial marriages was apparently expunged"
- Response to claim: 119 - "This apparent backdating was an attempt to discredit Bennett"
- Response to claim: 129-134 - Emma Smith pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs
- Response to claim: 131 n. 195 - The author cites BYU Studies on Emma and Eliza, but does not disclose that those authors find that the story is not plausible
- Response to claim: 132 - The author cites Newel and Avery, Mormon Enigma without acknowledging or engaging their arguments against the story of Emma and Eliza
- Response to claim; 133 - "Most convincing of all is to think that these stories were circulating widely and Eliza never bothered to clarify or refute them"
- Response to claim: 138 - The author talks about Joseph's letter to the Whitneys again: "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride"
- Response to claim: 142 - "he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney"
- Response to claim: 142-143 - "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him"
- Response to claim: 147 - "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted"
- Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was in many ways a mentor to Joseph"
- Response to claim: 149 - Sidney Rigdon "was not someone Joseph felt comfortable approaching to ask for his daughter's hand in polygamy"
- Response to claim: 149 - Marinda Johnson Hyde stayed in the same house as "Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife, Jennetta, was in Massachusetts….their living arrangements seemed to be an open scandal"
- Response to claim: 154 - Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton were "isolated in a locked room during the persuasive effort"
- Response to claim: 155 - The author refers to Joseph's visit by the Whitneys as a "liaison" with Sarah Ann
Response to claim: 81 - "Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband ... away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists.- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mind reading
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Response to claim: 81 - "This" sending away of the husband on a mission "applied to Zina"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
"This [see above] applied to Zina…."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing to Zina. Henry knew of Joseph's plural proposal to Joseph before their marriage.- Internal contradiction: compare p. 75
- Zina and Henry Jacobs
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Response to claim: 82 - The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with wording that "hints that it might have been Smith’s child"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been."Author's sources: *Oliver Huntington Journal, Nov 14, 1884, USHS; see Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 140, 673.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
There is no evidence that this child was Joseph's.- Children by Presendia Buell?
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Response to claim: 84 - "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author notes: "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle."Author's sources:
- History of the Church 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Hiding polygamy (edit)
}}
Response to claim: 85 - Joseph Smith "evidently adapted and redefined" elements from the Masonic in the Mormon temple ceremonies"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author assumes that Joseph "evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies."Author's sources:
- No source given.
FAIR's Response
Response to claim: 85 - "The vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."Author's sources:
- Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
There were no "blood penalties" associated with plural marriage. Note the prejudicial language, in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.Temple (edit)
Response to claim: 92 - Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842 that she was Joseph Smith's mistress "since four years"
The author(s) make(s) the following claim:
Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years."Author's sources: *Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 60.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (In Sacred Loneliness, 650). It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress." Newel and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl." The author provides none of this perspective.Lucinda Harris (edit)
Response to claim: 100 - "During these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that "[d]uring these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…."Author's sources: *Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 180–81. ( Index of claims )
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
DNA testing has proven that Josephine Sessions in not a descendant of Joseph Smith. Moreover, the author ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton.Can you summarize what we know about whether or not Joseph Smith fathered any children by his plural wives?
The record is frustratingly incomplete regarding the question of which marriages were consummated, it is likewise spotty with regards to whether Joseph fathered children by his plural wives
The record is frustratingly incomplete regarding the question of which marriages were consummated, it is likewise spotty with regards to whether Joseph fathered children by his plural wives. Fawn Brodie was the first to consider this question in any detail, though her standard of evidence was depressingly low. Subsequent authors have returned to the problem, though unanimity has been elusive (see Table 1). Ironically, Brodie did not even mention the case of Josephine Lyon, now considered the most likely potential child of Joseph.
Table 11‑1 Possible Children of Joseph Smith, Jr., by Plural Marriage
Key:
- NM = Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 2nd edition (1971);
- Bachman, "Mormon Practice of Polygamy" (1975);
- VW=Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 2nd edition (1989);
- Fo = Foster, Religion and Sexuality (1984);
- Co = Compton, In Sacred Loneliness (1997);
- Be = Bergera, "Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists," (2005);
- Ha = Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (2013).
Notation:
- Y – indicates the author considers the child a possible child of Joseph Smith, Jr.
- N - indicates that author argues against this child being Joseph's child, or lists someone else as the father.
- Ø - indicates that author does not mention the possibility (pro or con) of this being Joseph's child.
Endnote links for above table
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
Did Joseph Smith father any children through polygamous marriages?
Science has eliminated most of the possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith. There are a couple for which DNA can tell us nothing either way and that rest on dubious historical reasoning. Thus critics cannot claim in honesty that Joseph had any children by his polygamous wives.
It is claimed that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies. It is also claimed that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.
Critics of Joseph Smith have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has eliminated most of the possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith. In the case of at least two, however, DNA cannot tell us either way. The historical reasoning for justifying that Joseph had children by these wives is dubious.
Did Joseph Smith produce any children by his plural wives?: The case for children
Josephine Fisher (Josephine Lyon)
DNA analysis has determined that Josephine Fisher is not a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr., [37] but for many years she appeared to be the strongest possibility. The resolution of this question was difficult to resolve until the appropriate DNA analysis techniques became available. These findings have been replicated in non-Latter-day Saint, peer-reviewed, reputable journals.[38]
The case of Josephine Fisher relied on a deathbed conversation:
Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith….[39]
Perhaps significantly, Josephine's name shares a clear link with Joseph's. Whether this account proved that she was his biological daughter had long been debated:
Rex Cooper…has questioned the interpretation that Smith was Fisher's biological father. He posits that because Fisher's mother was sealed to Smith, Fisher was his daughter only in a spiritual sense…More problematic is whether there is a discrepancy between what Fisher understood and what her mother meant. That is, did Fisher interpret her mother's remarks to mean she was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith and thus state that with more certitude than was warranted, when in fact her mother meant only that in the hereafter Fisher would belong to Joseph Smith's family through Session's sealing to him? Because Sessions was on her deathbed, when one's thoughts naturally turn to the hereafter, the latter is a reasonable explanation.[40]
As Danel Bachman notes, however, there seems to be relatively little doubt that
[t]he desire for secrecy as well as the delicacy of the situation assure us that Mrs. Sessions was not merely explaining to her daughter that she was Smith's child by virtue of a temple sealing. The plain inference arising from Jenson's curiosity in the matter and Mrs. Fisher's remarks is that she was, in fact, the offspring of Joseph Smith.[41]
However, DNA evidence now disproves this theory. It is possible, then, that Fisher misunderstood her mother, but this seems unlikely. Any unreliability is more likely to arise because of a dying woman's confusion than from miscommunication. No evidence exists for such confusion, though we cannot rule it out.
Josephine's account is also noteworthy because her mother emphasizes that "…she [had] been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."[42] This may explain her reasoning for being sealed to Joseph at all—her husband was out of fellowship. Todd Compton opines that "[i]t seems unlikely that Sylvia would deny [her husband] cohabitation rights after he was excommunicated," but this conclusion seems based on little but a gut reaction.[43] These women took their religion seriously; given Sylvia's deathbed remarks, this was a point she considered important enough to emphasize. She apparently believed it would provide an explanation for something that her daughter might have otherwise misunderstood.
There is also clear evidence that at least some early members of the Church would have taken a similar attitude toward sexual relations with an unbelieving spouse. My own third-great grandfather, Isaiah Moses Coombs, provides a striking illustration of this from the general membership of the Church.
Coombs had immigrated to Utah, but his non-member spouse refused to accompany him. Heartsick, he consulted Brigham Young for advice. Young "sat with one hand on my knee, looking at my face and listen[ing] attentively." Then, Young took the new arrival "by the hand in his fatherly way," and said "[Y]ou had better take a mission to the States…to preach the gospel and visit your wife…visit your wife as often as you please; preach the gospel to her, and if she is worth having she will come with you when you return to the valley. God bless and prosper you."[44]
Coombs did as instructed, but was not successful in persuading his wife. His description of his thoughts is intriguing, and worth quoting at length:
I may as well state here, however, that during all my stay in the States, [my wife and I] were nothing more to each other than friends. I never proposed or hinted for a closer intimacy only on condition of her baptism into the Church. I felt that I could not take her as a wife on any other terms and stand guiltless in the sight of God or my own conscience…I could not yield to her wishes and she would not bend to mine. And so I merely visited her as a friend. This was a source of wonder to our mutual acquaintances; and well it might be for had not my faith been founded on the eternal rock of Truth, I never could have stood such a test, I never could have withstood the temptations that assailed me, but I should have yielded and have abandoned myself to the life of carnal pleasure that awaited me in the arms of my beautiful and adored wife. She was now indeed beautiful. I had thought her lovely as a child—as a maiden she had seemed to me surpassing fair, but as a woman with a form well developed and all the charms of her persona matured, she far surpassed in womanly beauty anything I had ever dreamed of.[45]
Coombs' account is startlingly blunt and explicit for the age. Yet, if this young twenty-two-year-old male refused marital intimacy with his wife (whom he married knowing their religious differences), Compton's confidence that Sylvia Sessions would not deny marital relations to her excommunicated husband seems misplaced. Sessions may, like Coombs, have seen her faithfulness to the sealing ordinances sufficient to "eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my [spouse] to me in bands that could not be broken." Like him, she may have believed that "[My spouse] was blind then but the day would come when [he] would see."[46]
More importantly, however, is Brian Hales’ more recent work, which demonstrates that Sylvia Sessions Lyon may well have not been married to her husband when sealed to Joseph Smith, contrary to Compton’s conclusion. Thus, rather than being a case of polyandry with sexual relations with two men (Joseph and her first husband) Lyons is instead a case of straight-forward plural marriage.[47] Given that Joseph has been ruled out as Josephine's father, it may be that Sylvia's emphasis to Josephine about being Joseph's "daughter" referred to a spiritual or sealing sense, and she wished to explain to her daughter why Josephine was, then, sealed to Joseph Smith rather than her biological father.
Other possible children
Olive Gray Frost is mentioned in two sources as having a child by Joseph. Both she and the child died in Nauvoo, so no genetic evidence will ever be forthcoming.[48]
Did Joseph Smith produce any children by his plural wives? The case against children
Angus M. Cannon seems to have been aware of Fisher's claim to be a child of Joseph Smith, though only second hand. He told a sceptical Joseph Smith III of
one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions, who lived in Nauvoo and died here in the valley. Aunt Patty Sessions asserts that the girl was born within the time after your father was said to have taken the mother.[49]
Clearly, Cannon has no independent knowledge of the case, but reports a story similar to Josephine's affidavit. Cannon's statement is more important because it illustrates how the LDS Church's insistence that Joseph Smith had practiced plural marriage led some of the RLDS Church :to ask why no children by these wives existed. Lucy Walker reported [the RLDS] seem surprised that there was no issue from asserted plural marriages with their father. Could they but realize the hazardous life he lived, after that revelation was given, they would comprehend the reason. He was harassed and hounded and lived in constant fear of being betrayed by those who ought to have been true to him.[50] Thus the absence of children was something of an embarrassment to the Utah Church, which members felt a need to explain. It would have been greatly to their advantage to produce Joseph's offspring, but could not.[51]
Anxious to demonstrate that Joseph's plural marriages were marriages in the fullest sense, Lucy M. Walker (wife of Joseph's cousin, George A. Smith) reported seeing Joseph washing blood from his hands in Nauvoo. When asked about the blood, Joseph reportedly told her he had been helping Emma deliver one of his plural wives' children.[52] Yet, even this late account tells us little about the paternity of the children—Joseph was close to these women (and their husbands, in the case of polyandry), and given the Saints' belief in priesthood blessings, they may have well welcomed his involvement.
George Algernon Lightner and Florentine M. Lightner
Even by the turn of the century, the LDS Church had no solid evidence of children by Joseph. "I knew he had three children," said Mary Elizabeth Lightner, "They told me. I think two of them are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names."[53] Again, evidence for children is frustratingly vague—Lightner had only heard rumours, and could not provide any details. It would seem to me, however, that this remark of Lightner's rules out her children as possible offspring of Joseph. Her audience was clearly interested in Joseph having children, and she was happy to assert that such children existed. If her own children qualified, why did she not mention them?
Orson W. Hyde and Frank Henry Hyde
Two of Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde's children have been suggested as possible children. The first, Orson, died in infancy, making DNA testing impossible. Compton notes, however, that "Marinda had no children while Orson was on his mission to Jerusalem, then became pregnant soon after Orson returned home. (He arrived in Nauvoo on December 7, 1842, and Marinda bore Orson Washington Hyde on November 9, 1843),"[54] putting the conception date around 16 February 1843.
Frank Hyde's birth date is unclear; he was born on 23 January in either 1845 or 1846.[55] This would place his conception around 2 May, of either 1844 or 1845. In the former case, Frank was conceived less than two months prior to Joseph's martyrdom. Orson Hyde left for Washington, D.C., around 4 April 1844,[56] and did not return until 6 August 1844, making Joseph's paternity more likely than Orson's if the earlier birth date is correct.[57] The key source for this claim is Fawn Brodie, who includes no footnote or reference. Given Brodie's tendency to misread evidence on potential children, this claim should be approached with caution.
Frank's death certificate lists Orson Hyde as the father, however, and places his birth in 1846, which would require conception nearly a year after Joseph's death.[58] A child by Joseph would have brought prestige to the family and Church, and Orson and Nancy had divorced long before Frank Henry's death.[59] It seems unlikely, therefore, that Orson would be credited with paternity over Joseph if any doubt existed. Without further data, Brodie's dating should probably be regarded as an error, ruling out Joseph as a possible father.
Ruled out by DNA Evidence: Oliver Buell, Mosiah Hancock, John Reed Hancock, Zebulon Jacobs, Moroni Llewllyn Pratt, and Orrison Smith
Scientific ingenuity has also been applied to the question of Joseph's paternity. Y-chromosome studies have conclusively eliminated Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger), Mosiah Hancock, Zebulon Jacobs, John Reed Hancock, Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, and Oliver Buell as Joseph's offspring.[60]
Two additional children—George Algernon Lightner and Orson W. Hyde—died in infancy, leaving no descendants to test, though as noted above Lightner can probably be excluded on the basis of his mother's testimony.
The testing of female descendants' DNA is much move involved, but work continues and may provide the only definitive means of ruling in or out potential children.
The case of Oliver Buell is an interesting one, since Fawn Brodie was insistent that he was Joseph's son. She based part of this argument on a photograph of Buell, which revealed a face which she claimed was "overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph's paternity."[61] A conception on this date would make Oliver two to three weeks overdue at birth, which makes Brodie's theory less plausible.[62]
Furthermore, prior the DNA results, Bachman and Compton pointed out that Brodie's timeline poses serious problems for her theory—Oliver's conception would have had to occurred between 16 April 1839 (when Joseph was allowed to escape during a transfer from Liberty Jail)[63] and 18 April, when the Huntingtons left Far West.[64] Brodie would have Joseph travel west from his escape near Gallatin, Davies County, Missouri, to Far West in order to meet Lucinda, and then on to Illinois to the east. This route would require Joseph and his companions to backtrack, while fleeing from custody in the face of an active state extermination order in force.[65] Travel to Far West would also require them to travel near the virulently anti-Mormon area of Haun's Mill, along Shoal Creek.[66] Yet, by 22 April Joseph was in Illinois, having been slowed by travel "off from the main road as much as possible"[67] "both by night and by day."[68] This seems an implausible time for Joseph to be meeting a woman, much less conceiving a child. Furthermore, it is evident that Far West was evacuated by other Church leaders, "the committee on removal," and not under the prophet’s direction, who did not regain the Saints until reaching Quincy, Illinois.[69]
Brodie's inclusion of Oliver Buell is also inconsistent, since he was born prior to Joseph's sealing to Prescinda. By including Oliver as a child, Brodie wishes to paint Joseph as an indiscriminate womanizer. Yet, her theory of plural marriage argues that Joseph "had too much of the Puritan in him, and he could not rest until he had redefined the nature of sin and erected a stupendous theological edifice to support his new theories on marriage."[70] Thus, Brodie argues that Joseph created plural marriage to justify his immorality—yet, she then has him conceiving a child with Prescinda before being sealed to her. By her own argument, the paternity must therefore be seen as doubtful.[71]
Despite Brodie's enthusiasm, no other author has included Oliver on their list of possible children (see Table 1). And, DNA evidence has conclusively ruled him out. Oliver is an excellent example of Brodie's tendency to ignore and misread evidence which did not fit her preconceptions, and suggests that caution is warranted before one condemns Joseph for a pre-plural marriage "affair" or other improprieties. Since Brodie was not interested in giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt, or avoiding a rush to judgment, her decision is not surprising.
John Reed Hancock is another of Brodie's suggestions, though no other author has followed her. The evidence for Joseph having married Clarissa Reed Hancock is scant,[72] and as with Oliver Buell it is unlikely (even under Brodie's jaded theory of plural marriage as justification for adultery) that Joseph would have conceived a child with a woman to whom he was not polygamously married. DNA testing has since confirmed our justified scepticism of Brodie's claim.[73]
John Hyrum Buell, Son of Prescinda Huntington Buell
Bachman mentions a "seventh child" of Prescinda's, likely John Hyrum Buell, for whom the timeline would better accommodate conception by Joseph Smith. There is no other evidence for Joseph's paternity, however, save Ettie V. Smith's account in the anti-Mormon Fifteen Years Among the Mormons (1859), which claimed that Prescinda said she did not know whether Joseph or her first husband was John Hyrum's father.[74] As Compton notes, such an admission is implausible, given the mores of the time.[75]
Besides being implausible, Ettie gets virtually every other detail wrong—she insists that William Law, Robert Foster, and Henry Jacobs had all been sent on missions, only to return and find their wives being courted by Joseph. Ettie then has them establish the Expositor.[76] While Law and Foster were involved with the Expositor, they were not sent on missions, and their wives did not charge that Joseph had propositioned them. Jacobs had served missions, but was present during Joseph's sealing to his wife, and did not object (see Chapter 9). Jacobs was a faithful Saint unconnected to the Expositor.
Even the anti-Mormon Fanny Stenhouse considered Ettie Smith to be a writer who "so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where one ended and the other began,"[77] and a good example of how "the autobiographies of supposed Mormon women were [as] unreliable"[78] as other Gentile accounts, given her tendency to "mingl[e] facts and fiction" "in a startling and sensational manner."[79]
Brodie herself makes no mention of John Hyrum as a potential child (and carelessly misreads Ettie Smith's remarks as referring to Oliver, not John Hyrum). No other historian has even mentioned this child, much less argued that Buell was not the father (see Table 1).
Scant evidence: Sarah Elizabeth Holmes, Hannah Ann Dibble, Loren Walker Dibble, Joseph Albert Smith, and Carolyn Delight
A few other possibilities should be mentioned, though the evidence surrounding them is tenuous. Sarah Elizabeth Holmes was born to Marietta Carter, though "No evidence links her with Joseph Smith."[80] The Dibble children suffer from chronology problems, and a lack of good evidence that Joseph and their mother was associated. Loren Dibble was, however, claimed by some Mormons as a child of Joseph’s when confronted with Joseph Smith III’s skepticism.[81]
Joseph Albert Smith was born to Esther Dutcher, but the available evidence supports her polyandrous sealing to Joseph as for eternity only. Carolyn Delight has no evidence at all of a connection to Joseph—the only source is a claim to Ugo Perego, a modern DNA researcher.[82] No textual or documentary evidence is known for her at all.
Fanny Alger and Eliza R. Snow: Miscarriages?
We have elsewhere seen the tenuous basis for many conclusions about the Fanny Alger marriage (see here and here). The first mention of a pregnancy for Fanny is in an 1886 anti-Mormon work, citing Chauncey Webb, with whom Fanny reportedly lived after leaving the Smith home.[83] Webb claimed that Emma "drove" Fanny from the house because she "was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet." If Fanny was pregnant, it is curious that no one else remarked upon it at the time, though it is possible that the close quarters of a nineteenth-century household provided Emma with clues. If Fanny was pregnant by Joseph, the child never went to term, died young, or was raised under a different name.
A family tradition—repeated by anti-Mormon Wyl—holds that Eliza R. Snow was pregnant and shoved down the stairs by a jealous Emma before being required to leave the Smith home.[84] The tradition holds that Eliza, "heavy with child" subsequently miscarried. While Eliza was required to leave the home and Emma was likely upset with her, no contemporary evidence points to a pregnancy.[85] Eliza's diary says nothing about the loss of a child, which would be a strange omission given her love of children.[86] It seems unlikely that Eliza would have still been teaching school in an advanced state of pregnancy, especially given that her appearance as a pregnant "unwed mother" would have been scandalous in Nauvoo. Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."[87] Given Emma's treatment of the Partridge sisters, who were also required to leave the Smith household, Emma certainly needed no pregnancy to raise her ire against Joseph's plural wives.
Eliza repeatedly testified to the physical nature of her relationship with Joseph Smith (see Chapter 9), and was not shy about criticizing Emma on the subject of plural marriage.[88] Yet, she never reported having been pregnant, or used her failed pregnancy as evidence for the reality of plural marriage.
In the absence of further information, both of these reported pregnancies must be regarded as extremely speculative.
What did the husband of Sylvia Sessions know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Sylvia was married to Windsor Lyon by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, and was sealed to Joseph Smith at some point after she was married
Sylvia was married to Windsor Lyon by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. She was sealed to Joseph Smith at some point after she was married. Brian Hales notes that , "This marriage triangle is unique among all of the Prophet’s plural marriages because there is strong evidence that Sylvia bore children to both men. She became pregnant by Windsor Lyon in October of 1838, September of 1840, and April of 1842. Then a year later became pregnant with a daughter (named Josephine—born February 8, 1844) that was purportedly fathered by the Prophet." Sylvia's daughter, who had the intriguing name "Josephine," made the following statement:
Just prior to my mothers [Sylvia Sessions Lyon] death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret fro me and from others until no but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon had was out of fellowship with the Church.
Daughter Josephine was proven not to be a daughter of Joseph Smith, Jr. through DNA analysis
For many years, Josephine appeared to be the only viable candidate as a child of Joseph Smiths "polyandrous" sealings. However, DNA analysis ultimately disproved the paternity claim: Josephine was not a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.[89]
Sylvia may have considered herself divorced from Windsor after he was excommunicated from the Church
It appears, however, that Sylvia may have considered herself divorced from Windsor after he was excommunicated from the Church and left Nauvoo. Hales points out that "Currently, no documentation of a legal divorce between Windsor and Sylvia after his excommunication has been found. However, in the mid-nineteenth century, religious laws often trumped legal proceedings. Stanley B. Kimball observed: 'Some church leaders at that time considered civil marriage by non-Mormon clergymen to be as unbinding as their baptisms. Some previous marriages . . . were annulled simply by ignoring them.'" [90] The sealing to Joseph occurred after Windor's excommunication. Andrew Jenson, in his historical record, referred to Sylvia as a "formerly the wife of Windsor Lyons." [91] There is no known evidence that Windsor lived with Sylvia after he returned to Nauvoo, but Sylvia did "rejoin" Windsor after he was rebaptised in 1846. Hales states, "No details are available to clarify what authority was used to reconfirm the marriage relationship between Sylvia and Windsor after their previous marital separation. Most likely the couple consulted with Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball, who authorized their rejoining. Whether a private religious marriage ceremony for time was performed or the couple resumed observing their legal marriage is unknown. Importantly, even with the renewed conjugality between Windsor and Sylvia after Joseph Smith’s death, no evidence has been found to support her involvement in sexual polyandry at any time." [92]
Did Prescindia Buell (or Sarah Pratt, or Mrs. Hyde) not know who was the father of her son?
The source for this claim is a notoriously unreliable anti-Mormon work. It makes several errors of fact in the very paragraph in which the claim is made
It is claimed that Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell admitted that she did not know who was the father of her child—Joseph Smith or her first husband. Sometimes Sarah Pratt (wife of apostle Orson Pratt) is mistakenly identified as the woman in this story. [93] Others sometimes mention Orson Hyde's wife as the source of this rumor. [94]
The source for this claim is a notoriously unreliable anti-Mormon work. It makes several errors of fact in the very paragraph in which the claim is made.
It is implausible that the supposed admission upon which the claim is based would be made. There are major historical problems of geography and timeline for Joseph to have even been a potential father of Buell's child.
The claim cannot be substantiated.
Is the source reliable?
This book was written by Nelson Winch Green, who reported what estranged member Marry Ettie V. Coray Smith reportedly told him.
Even other anti-Mormon authors who had lived in Utah regarded it as nearly worthless. Fanny Stenhouse wrote:
Much has already been written on this subject much that is in accordance with facts, and much that is exaggerated and false. Hitherto, with but one exception [Mrs. Ettie V. Smith is noted in the footnote as the work referred to] that of a lady who wrote very many years ago, and who in her writings, so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where the one ended and the other began no woman who really was a Mormon and lived in Polygamy ever wrote the history of her own personal experience. Books have been published, and narratives have appeared in the magazines and journals, purporting to be written by Mormon wives; it is, however, perhaps, unnecessary for me to state that, notwithstanding such narratives may be imposed upon the Gentile world as genuine, that they were written by persons outside the Mormon faith would in a moment be detected by any intelligent Saint who took the trouble to peruse them. [95]
So, we must remember that this work is not regarded as generally reliable today, and it was not regarded as reliable even by the Church's enemies in the 19th century.
The claim
The source for this claim is an anti-Mormon book. The relevant passage reads:
The Prophet had sent some time before this, three men, Law, Foster and Jacobs, on missions, and they had just returned, and found their wives blushing under the prospective honors of spiritual wifeism; and another woman, Mrs. Buel [sic], had left her husband, a Gentile, to grace the Prophet's retinue, on horseback, when he reviewed the Nauvoo Legion. I heard the latter woman say afterwards in Utah, that she did not know whether Mr. Buel [sic] or the Prophet was the father of her son. These men [Law, Foster and Jacobs] established a press in Nauvoo, to expose his alleged vicious teachings and practices, which a revelation from Joseph destroyed. [96]
Errors of fact
As might be expected, then, there are many claims in this passage that are in error. We know that the following are false:
- Ettie Smith claims that William Law, Robert D. Foster, and Henry Jacobs were on missions and that Joseph had proposed plural marriage to them. Law and Foster, in fact, never served missions. Henry Jacobs did serve a mission, but he was not gone on a mission when Joseph discussed plural marriage.
- Foster and Law did participate in publishing the Nauvoo Expositor, but Henry Jacobs did not. He was and remained a faithful member of the Church.
- The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was undertaken by the Nauvoo city council. Some members of that council were not members of the Church--it seems implausible to think that they would bow to a "revelation" to Joseph requiring its destruction. The decision was made, instead, after 8 hours of discussion and after consulting legal references.
Thus, in the single paragraph we have several basic errors of fact. Why should we believe the gossip of what Mrs. Buell is claimed to have said?
Such an admission would be out of character for a believing Utah woman of the 19th century
Furthermore, such an admission would be out of character for a believing Utah woman of the 19th century. As Todd Compton notes:
Talk of sexuality was avoided by the Victorian, puritanical Mormons; in diaries, the word 'pregnant' or 'expecting' is never or rarely used. Women are merely 'sick' until they have a child. Polyandry was rarely discussed openly by Mormon women. [97]
It is difficult for Joseph to have even had contact with her at the proper time to conceive a child
Fawn Brodie painted a fanciful scenario in which Joseph would have been able to potentially father a Buell child. However, she misread the historical information, and it is difficult, as Todd Compton has demonstrated, for Joseph to have even had contact with her at the proper time to conceive a child. [98] This would suggest that there were no grounds for Mrs. Buell—or a modern reader—to conclude that Joseph might have been the father.
Did Joseph Smith father children by polyandrous plural wife Prescindia Buell?
All those who have been definitively DNA tested so far—Oliver Buell, Mosiah Hancock, Zebulon Jacobs, Moroni Pratt, and Orrison Smith—have been excluded as children of Joseph Smith
Nauvoo Polygamy author George D. Smith tells his readers that "until decisive DNA testing of possible [Joseph] Smith descendants—daughters as well as sons—from plural wives can be accomplished, ascertaining whether Smith fathered children with any of his plural wives remains hypothetical" (pp. 228–29, cf. p. 473). This is true, but G. D. Smith fails to tell us that all those who have been definitively tested so far—Oliver Buell, Mosiah Hancock, Zebulon Jacobs, Moroni Pratt, and Orrison Smith—have been excluded. Would he have neglected, I wonder, to mention a positive DNA test?
The consequences of George D. Smith's less-than-rigorous approach to sources becomes clear in the case of Oliver Buell, son of Presendia.[99] Huntington Buell, one of Joseph’s polyandrous plural wives. Fawn Brodie was the first to suggest that Oliver Buell was Joseph’s son, and she was so convinced (based on photographic evidence)[100]Fawn Brodie to Dale Morgan, Letter, 24 March 1945, Dale Morgan papers, Marriott Library, University of Utah; cited by Todd Compton, "Fawn Brodie on Joseph Smith's Plural Wives and Polygamy: A Critical View," in Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn M. Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1996), 166.</ref> In a footnote, G. D. Smith notes that Todd Compton "considers it improbable that Joseph and Presendia would have found time together during the brief window of opportunity after his release from prison in Missouri" (p. 80 n. 63).[101]
The geography
This slight nod toward an opposite point of view is inadequate, however. G. D. Smith does not mention and hence does not confront the strongest evidence. Compton’s argument against Joseph’s paternity does not rest just on a "narrow window" of opportunity but on the fact that Brodie seriously misread the geography required by that window. It is not merely a question of dates. Brodie would have Joseph travel west from his escape near Gallatin, Davies County, Missouri, to Far West in order to meet Lucinda, and then on to Illinois toward the east. This route would require Joseph and his companions to backtrack while fleeing from custody in the face of an active state extermination order.[102] Travel to Far West would also require them to travel near the virulently anti-Mormon area of Haun’s Mill, along Shoal Creek.[103] Yet by April 22 Joseph was in Illinois, having been slowed by traveling "off from the main road as much as possible"[104]:320-321 "both by night and by day."[104]:327 This seems an implausible time for Joseph to be conceiving a child. Furthermore, it is evident that Far West was evacuated by other church leaders, "the committee on removal," and not under the Prophet’s direction. Joseph did not regain the Saints until reaching Quincy, Illinois, contrary to Brodie’s misreading.[104]:315, 319, 322-23, 327 Timing is the least of the problems with G. D. Smith’s theory.
Despite Brodie’s enthusiasm, few other authors have included Oliver on their list of possible children.[105] With so many authors ranged against him, G. D. Smith ought not to act as if Compton’s analysis is merely about dates.
The DNA
G. D. Smith also soft-pedals the most vital evidence—the DNA.[106] He makes no mention in the main text that Oliver’s paternity has been definitively ruled out by DNA testing. This admission is confined to a footnote, and its impact is minimized by its placement. After noting Compton’s disagreement with the main text’s suggestion that Oliver might be Joseph’s son, G. D. Smith writes, "There is no DNA connection," and cites a Deseret News article. He immediately follows this obtuse phrasing with a return to Compton, who finds it "‘unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father of another Buell child,’ John Hiram, Presendia’s seventh child during her marriage to Buell and born in November 1843" (p. 80 n. 63). Thus the most salient fact—that Joseph is certainly not Oliver's father—is sandwiched between a vicarious discussion with Compton about whether Oliver or John could be Joseph’s sons. Since G. D. Smith knows there is definitive evidence against Joseph’s paternity in Oliver’s case, why mention the debate at all only to hide the answer in the midst of a long endnote? That Brodie is so resoundingly rebutted on textual, historical, and genetic grounds provides a cautionary lesson in presuming that her certainty counts for much.[107]
Maybe another Buell child?
Two pages later, G. D. Smith again tells us of a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with "wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child." "It is not clear," he tells us, "which of her children it might have been" (p. 82). In fact, what is clear is that he has not assimilated the implications of the DNA data. John Hiram, the seventh child about whom Compton is skeptical, is the only other option. Yet the only evidence for this child belonging to Joseph is Ettie V. Smith’s account in the anti-Mormon Fifteen Years among the Mormons (1859), which claimed that Presendia said she did not know whether Joseph or her first husband was John Hiram’s father.[108] As Compton notes, such an admission is implausible, given the mores of the time.[109]
Besides being implausible, Ettie’s account gets virtually every other detail wrong—insisting that William Law, Robert Foster, and Henry Jacobs had all been sent on missions only to return to find Joseph preaching plural marriage. Ettie then has them establish the Expositor.[110] While Law and Foster were involved with the Expositor, they were not sent on missions. Jacobs had served missions but was a faithful Saint unconnected to the Expositor. He was also, contrary to Ettie’s claims, present when Joseph was sealed polyandrously to his (Jacobs’s) wife.
Even the anti-Mormon Fanny Stenhouse considered Ettie Smith to be a writer who "so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where one ended and the other began,"[111]:618 and a good example of how "the autobiographies of supposed Mormon women were [as] unreliable"[111]:x as other Gentile accounts, given her tendency to "mingl[e] facts and fiction" "in a startling and sensational manner."[111]:xi-xii
Brodie herself makes no mention of John Hiram as a potential child, going so far as to carelessly misread Ettie Smith’s remarks as referring to Oliver, not John Hiram. No other historian has argued that Buell was not the father.[112] There is no good evidence whatever that any of Presendia’s children were Joseph’s. It is not clear why G. D. Smith clings to the idea.
What is the current state of the evidence for proving or disproving that Joseph Smith had children by his plural wives?
As always, we are left where we began—with more suspicions and possibilities than certitudes
Few authors agree on which children should even be considered as Joseph's potential children. Candidates which some find overwhelmingly likely are dismissed—or even left unmentioned—by others. Recent scholars have included between one to four potential children as options. Of these, Josephine Lyon was the most persuasive, until her relationship to Joseph Smith was ultimately disproven through DNA testing. Orson W. Hyde died in infancy, and so can never be definitively excluded as a possible child, though the dates of conception argue against Joseph's paternity. Olive Gray Frost is mentioned in two sources as having a child by Joseph. Both she and the child died in Nauvoo, so no genetic evidence will ever be forthcoming.[113]
Table 2
Table 11‑2 Possible Children of Joseph Smith, Jr., by Plural Marriage
This table is in the same order as Table 1.
Key:
- NM = Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 2nd edition (1971);
- Bachman, "Mormon Practice of Polygamy" (1975);
- VW=Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 2nd edition (1989);
- Fo = Foster, Religion and Sexuality (1984);
- Co = Compton, In Sacred Loneliness (1997);
- Be = Bergera, "Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists," (2005);
- Ha = Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (2013).
Notation:
- Y – indicates the author considers the child a possible child of Joseph Smith, Jr.
- N - indicates that author argues against this child being Joseph's child, or lists someone else as the father.
- Ø - indicates that author does not mention the possibility (pro or con) of this being Joseph's child.
Endnote links for above table
Brodie;[114] Bachman;[115]; and Compton.[116]
Conclusions
As always, we are left where we began—with more suspicions and possibilities than certitudes. One's attitude toward Joseph and the Saints will influence, more than anything else, how these conflicting data are interpreted.
The uncertainty surrounding Joseph's offspring is even more astonishing when we appreciate how much such a child would have been valued. The Utah Church of the 19th century was anxious to prove that Joseph had practiced full plural marriage, and that their plural families merely continued what he started. Any child of Joseph's would have been treasured, and the family honoured. There was a firm expectation that even Joseph's sons by Emma would have an exalted place in the LDS hierarchy if they were to repent and return to the Church.[117] As Alma Allred noted, "Susa Young Gates indicated that [Brigham Young] wasn’t aware of such a child when she wrote that her father and the other apostles were especially grieved that Joseph did not have any issue in the Church."[118]
In 1884, George Q. Cannon bemoaned this lack of Joseph's posterity:
There may be faithful men who will have unfaithful sons, who may not be as faithful as they might be; but faithful posterity will come, just as I believe it will be the case with the Prophet Joseph's seed. To-day he has not a soul descended from him personally, in this Church. There is not a man bearing the Holy Priesthood, to stand before our God in the Church that Joseph was the means in the hands of God, of founding—not a man to-day of his own blood,—that is, by descent,—to stand before the Lord, and represent him among these Latter-day Saints.[119]
Brigham and Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, would have known of Joseph's offspring if any of the LDS leadership did. Yet, despite the religious and public relations value which such a child would have provided, they knew of none. It is possible that Joseph had children by his plural wives, but by no means certain. The data are surprisingly ephemeral.
Was the only purpose of polygamy to "multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men"?
Doctrine and Covenants states that polygamy is for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth
Doctrine and Covenants 132꞉63 states,
But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
The institution of the practice of polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things"
Polygamy was not permitted only for the purpose of procreation. Joseph established the practice of plural marriage as part of the "restoration of all things," (D&C 132: 40, 45) and introduced it to a number of others within the Church. This alone may have been the purpose of Joseph's initiation of the practice. The establishment of the practice ultimately did have the effect of "raising up seed"...just not through Joseph Smith.
As Brian Hales writes:
Joseph Smith dictated what is now Doctrine and Covenant section 132 on July 12, 1843. This revelation, along with his other statements, provide several reasons why he believed plural marriage could be introduced among the Latter-day Saints.The earliest justification mentioned by the Prophet was as a part of the "restitution of all things" prophesied in Acts 3:19–21. Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy, so it could be a part of the restoration of "all things" (see D&C 132:40, 45).
Several members who knew Joseph Smith left accounts of him referring to a connection between the two during the Kirtland period.
Benjamin F. Johnson recalled in 1903: "In 1835 at Kirtland I learned from my Sisters Husband, Lyman R. Shirman,[120] who was close to the Prophet, and Received it from him. That the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the Church."[121]
A few years later in 1841, Joseph Smith attempted to broach the topic publicly. Helen Mar Kimball remembered: "He [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it would be again, etc."[122] Joseph Smith was a prophet-restorer, which helps to explain why the command to practice plural marriage has been labeled a "restoration," even though it is not a salvific ordinance.[123]
The institution of the practice of polygamy made available the blessings of eternal marriage to everyone
Brian Hales addresses one aspect of D&C 132 that may be overlooked in casual readings:
The fourth reason Joseph Smith gave for the practice of plural marriage dwarfs the other three explanations in significance because it deals with eternity. The message of D&C 132:16–17 states that men and women who are not sealed in eternal marriages during this life (or vicariously later) "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."In other words, "exaltation," the highest salvation, requires eternal marriage. No unmarried person can be exalted according to Joseph Smith’s teachings. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 seems to anticipate more worthy women than men as it approves a plurality of wives[124] and disallows a plurality of husbands.[125] Verse 63 states that a plurality of wives is "for their [the wives] exaltation in the eternal worlds." Section 132 supports that eternity was the primary focus of the Joseph’s marriage theology rather than plurality or sexuality. Eternal, rather than plural, marriage was his zenith doctrine. It appears that the crucial objective of polygamy on earth was to allow all worthy women to be eternally sealed to a husband and thus obtain all the ordinances needed for exaltation. According to these teachings, a plurality of wives in some form may be practiced in eternity, but not by all worthy men and women. We know that polygamy on earth is unequal and difficult, but we know nothing about how eternal marriage or eternal plural marriage might feel in eternity. Brigham Young acknowledged that eternal marriage (not plural marriage) is "the thread which runs from the beginning to the end" in God’s plan for His children:
The whole subject of the marriage [not plural marriage] relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity.[126][127]
Can this be included in the interpretation of D&C 132: 63?
Another author commenting on this verse made a compelling case for this theology being put into D&C 132: 63:
Here is the text in its entirety, from verse 62: "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men." [Emphasis added.] You want to get legalistic? Let’s get legalistic. Just for fun, let’s parse the living snot out of this.This clause begins with multiplying and replenishing as a primary justification. Then we get the word "and" thrown in there. You’re reading this as if it says "they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, in order to fulfil the promise…" But that’s not what it says.
"And" suggests we’re about to get a second reason, not a clarification of the first. In fact, a tight, strict-constructionist reading of this verse reveals three different and distinct reasons for plural marriage, not "only" the replenishment of the earth, [. . .]So let’s review the three reasons:
1. Multiply and replenish the earth.
[. . .] D&C 132 is unequivocal on this point, just as it is unequivocal on the two points that follow.
2. Fulfil [sic] "the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world."
What promise? This seems to have reference to the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21) Joseph cited the need to restore ancient practices to prepare for the Second Coming as a justification for polygamy, and this verse provides a credible scriptural context for him to do so. So just relying on this phrase – plural marriage is acceptable because it fulfills God’s promises – would be justification enough for the practice, at least according to D&C 132.
3. For "their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men."
Oh, this one’s my favorite. Notice the emphasis I added on the "that." The word appears there to create a conditional clause. You claim the bearing of souls is the same thing as multiplying and replenishing the earth, but the actual text insists that the bearing of the souls of men will only be made possible by "exaltation in the eternal worlds." This is a promise of eternal increase, of bearing souls after the earth is no longer around to be replenished. Big, big difference.
And right here, with Reason #3, we have a clear rationale and justification for Joseph being sealed to women with whom he made no attempts to multiply and replenish the earth – i.e. no sex.[128]