Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 17

Chapter 16: Lamanites, Seed of Cain, and Polygamy

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership

Index of Claims made in Chapter 17: Joseph Smith

"They will circulate falsehoods to destroy your reputation, and also will seek to take your life" --Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (1823)2

This review of Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson's book, Mormonism 101, is limited to an examination of Chapter Seventeen--"Joseph Smith." It is seemingly McKeever and Johnson's most important chapter, as the first sentence in their introduction repeats the quote that "Mormonism...must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith."3

The authors' approach is typical of writings hypercritical of Mormonism. The chapter generally consists of contextually lacking quotes from the writings of others, with no consideration given to enlighten the reader as to the original authors' intentions, biases, or interpretations. The challenge in reviewing this chapter rests in the fact that the review is not so much that of McKeever and Johnson's work, but rather a review of the fragments that McKeever and Johnson selectively pieced together from other works. The fact that so many of the issues dealt with in Mormonism 101 are already addressed elsewhere in various sources, both pro and con, is an indicator that the "fresh" material the authors present is, in reality, nothing more than an outdated and stale recompilation designed to provide fresh income.

The authors attempt to add the illusion of validity to their work by calling upon an odd mix of several names that bear the label of "Mormon" or "LDS." For example, the authors readily cite:

   * "former Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn"4
   * "LDS historian Richard Van Wagoner"5
   * "LDS historian Todd Compton"6
   * "Historian Reed C. Durham"7
   * "Mormon Church historian Andrew Jenson"8
   * "LDS historian Stephen C. LeSueur"9
   * "LDS historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard"10

Such a sampling would certainly lend itself to a balanced approach from an ill-informed reader's viewpoint. Yet while McKeever and Johnson allude to Smith's "high morals" and "impeccable integrity," as described by "Mormon historians,"11 one is left to wonder why, of the seven Latter-day historians they cite, not one of the selected quotes presents a "high moral" view." While there are volumes of accounts and testimonies of the prophet's good character, the authors did not consider or mention a single one.

The authors state that the descriptions of the prophet they present may seem "unfathomable by many faithful Latter-day Saints."12 What the reader may find surprising is that such a respected faith and devoted people could be the product of the unscrupulous, drunk, lying, womanizing deceiver that the authors present. Joseph's character is found as the ultimate target of doubt as the authors rely upon contextually lacking personal interpretations of historical detail. In the end, the reader will likely be shocked by the rapid succession of emotionally charged wording. In all, there are nearly 100 such instances, many of which are repeats, in thirteen pages of reproduced speculations and misrepresentations ranging from sexual issues to the occult. This review reflects a small, representative sampling of Chapter 17 in an attempt to disabuse the public mind of the images McKeever and Johnson have portrayed of the prophet.

Abandoning Joseph

Having made regular visits to Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah, we have noticed a more subdued reference to Mormonism's founder by tour guides and various displays. In the public area, emphasis on Smith seems to be diminishing.13

McKeever and Johnson begin their critical look at the prophet with a surprising claim that the Church is publicly de-emphasizing Joseph Smith. This is a rather amazing statement to make as an introduction to a chapter on Joseph. Surely anyone who visits Temple Square can test this statement and see that it is completely false. The authors obviously took their tour of Temple Square with Steven and Charles Crane whose similar claim, in the anti-Mormon work "Ashamed of Joseph," is soundly proven false in FARMS reviewer LeIsle Jacobson's onsite test.14 Jacobson's visit, as recounted in the endnote, found interactive and readily available video displays about Joseph and guides who easily spoke about him on the "basic beliefs" tour.

If there were still any doubt as to LDS public references to Joseph Smith, consider for example, that immediately adjacent to Temple Square is found a massive structure that was formerly the Hotel Utah. It was renovated a number of years ago to what today is known as the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and has a very large nine-foot marble statue of the prophet in the lobby; this cannot be missed. This is the very building where the missionaries on Temple Square send visitors to view current Church movies.

Another example comes in the form of an official Church letter of clarification issued to religion writers and editors regarding a Newsweek report on the Latter-day Saint faith. In an excerpt from the September 7, 2001 letter, the Church wrote:

Most importantly, our Church spokesmen emphasize our position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Restoration of the ancient, biblical Church of Jesus Christ. The conviction among our Church members that this Restoration took place through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early 1800s is so central to our thinking that no understanding of the Church is complete without it. A moment spent checking the Church's media Web site http://www.lds.org/media will affirm that this message of a distinctive, restored Church, is a consistent one.15

In this media library is found a significant article on Joseph Smith. In that article, "From Farm Boy to Prophet," it clearly states:

Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning.

While McKeever and Johnson lead the reader to believe otherwise, the Church is clear and direct in telling the esteem to which Joseph is held.

The Perfect Prophet

...should people accept Smith as a prophet of God when his behavior was sometimes less than what we would expect from political leaders? Should character be ignored when it comes to men who claim to be prophets of God?16

Brigham Young once said:

The history of Joseph and Mary is given to us by their best friends, and precisely as we will give the history of the Prophet Joseph...But let his enemies give his character, and they will make him out one of the basest men that ever lived. Let the enemies of Joseph and Mary give their characters to us, and you would be strongly tempted to believe as the Jews before.17

It becomes immediately clear upon reading McKeever and Johnson's chapter that Joseph is being made out to be "one of the basest men that ever lived." Hence, the authors' position on Joseph is clear and it is should be evident that this book is really not about providing introductory or truthful information about the LDS faith or its leaders as its entry level "101" title hints.

A Boston Bee reporter wrote after interviewing Joseph:

I could not help noticing that he dressed, talked and acted like other men, and in every respect appeared exactly the opposite of what I had conjured up in my imagination a prophet [to be].18

Clearly, Joseph is not what McKeever and Johnson imagine a prophet to be either. Was Joseph perfect? No; he never said he was. What he did say of himself was, "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault."19 Confirming this statement, B.H. Roberts said that Joseph Smith:

...claimed for himself no special sanctity, no faultless life, no perfection of character, no inerrancy for every word spoken by him. And as he did not claim these things for himself, so can they not be claimed for him by others; for to claim perfection for him, or even unusual sanctity, would be to repudiate the revelations themselves which supply the evidence of his imperfections, whereof, in them, he is frequently reproved.

Joseph Smith was a man of like passions with other men; struggling with the same weaknesses; subjected to the same temptations; under the same moral law, and humiliated at times, like others, by occasionally, in word and conduct, falling below the high ideals presented in the perfect life and faultless character of the Man of Nazareth.

But though a man of like passions with other men, yet to Joseph Smith was given access to the mind of Deity, through the revelations of God to him; and likewise to him was given a divine authority to declare that mind of God to the world.20

McKeever and Johnson ask their reader if Joseph can be accepted as a prophet if his behavior was sometimes less than what we expect of our political leaders. Such a comparison is dangerously absurd, as expectations of our political leaders are often times less than they should be when that leader is seemingly doing a good job. While many political leaders are embroiled in self-created scandal and affairs that they feel forced to lie about, they yet remain in their positions and profit from their scandal long after leaving office. Joseph, in comparison, confessed his faults, was never found guilty of any crime, never profited financially from his claims, and was put to death. According to McKeever and Johnson's formula, the reader will have little trouble accepting Joseph as a prophet when compared to many such described political leaders.

Opposite the cover-up practices employed by those politicians guarding their careers, Joseph was open and direct, saying to his accusers:

Being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.21

Continuing this theme in a letter to Oliver Cowdery, the Prophet said,

...during this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark that, though as I have said above, 'as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,' I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation. This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfil a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and trifling conversation and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the 'Articles and Covenants,' of this Church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man 'subject to passion,' and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.22

Regardless of such ridiculous and absurd comparisons the authors seek to make, Joseph was only lacking character in the opinion of those that misunderstood him and opposed his efforts in restoring the Church. The recorded details and testimonies from firsthand accounts as to Joseph's good character cannot be ignored and certainly must be looked at by anyone serious in their study of Mormonism. What McKeever and Johnson fail to portray is a simple man who recognized the saving grace of Christ for his errors and sought to further the cause of righteousness.

If McKeever and Johnson believe a prophet must be without fault to be called as such, they no doubt have trouble with other servants of Christ. Paul for example, would not have been called to be an Apostle after his participation in the persecution of Christians and role in the martyrdom of Stephen.23 Christ never said he only wanted perfect servants to do His work. Indeed, Christ's penchant for selecting men such as this show that He came not to call saints, but sinners. The authors clearly have trouble relating to the difficult journey through which the rest of us mere mortals progress.

Good and Evil Shall Be Spoken of Your Name

...almost feel sympathetic toward the Mormon apologist who has to defend Smith's bad social behavior...24

Regardless of a token acknowledgement to the contrary, McKeever and Johnson leave the reader with the impression that not one person ever had anything good or positive to say about Joseph Smith. It is important to consider a few recorded opinions of Joseph in his day from those who knew and understood him, had the opportunity to interact with him, and ultimately finds itself in harmony with what he actually taught.

Dr. John M. Bernhisel, a man of great character himself, related his impressions of Joseph Smith to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844. He wrote:

Having been a boarder in General Smith's family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my "impressions" of him.

General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.

But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

He is a true lover of his country, and a bright and shining example of integrity and moral excellence in all the relations of life. As a religious teacher, as well as a man, he is greatly beloved by this people. It is almost superfluous to add that the numerous ridiculous and scandalous reports in circulation respecting him have not the least foundation in truth.25

Attorney John S. Reed, a life-long non-Mormon, said in May 1844:

The first acquaintance I had with Gen. Smith was about the year 1823. He came into my neighborhood, being then about eighteen years of age, and resided there two years; during which time I became intimately acquainted with him. I do know that his character was irreproachable; that he was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of the community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals, and possessing a mind susceptible of the highest intellectual attainments. I early discovered that his mind was constantly in search of truth, expressing an anxious desire to know the will of God concerning His children here below, often speaking of those things which professed Christians believe in. I have often observed to my best informed friends (those that were free from superstition and bigotry) that I thought Joseph was predestinated by his God from all eternity to be an instrument in the hands of the great Dispenser of all good, to do a great work; what it was I knew not.26

Peter H. Burnett, a former Governor of California and attorney for Joseph wrote:

He was much more than an ordinary man. He possessed the most indomitable perseverance, was a good judge of men, and deemed himself born to command, and he did command. His views were so strange and striking, and his manner was so earnest, and apparently so candid, that you could not but be interested. There was a kind, familiar look about him, that pleased you. He was very courteous in discussion, readily admitting what he did not intend to controvert, and would not oppose you abruptly, but had due deference to your feelings. He had the capacity for discussing a subject in different aspects, and for proposing many original views, even of ordinary matters. His illustrations were his own. He had great influence over others. As an evidence of this I will state that on Thursday, just before I left to return to Liberty [Missouri], I saw him out among the crowd, conversing freely with every one, and seeming to be perfectly at ease. In the short space of five days he had managed so to mollify his enemies that he could go unprotected among them without the slightest danger.27

A New York Herald writer said he was "one of the most accomplished and powerful chiefs of the age." He then described him as follows:

Joseph Smith, the president of the church, prophet, seer, and revelator, is thirty-six years of age, six feet high in pumps, weighing two hundred and twelve pounds. He is a man of the highest order of talent and great independence of character--firm in his integrity--and devoted to his religion; . . as a public speaker he is bold, powerful, and convincing; . . as a leader, wise and prudent, yet fearless as a military commander; brave and determined as a citizen, worthy, affable, and kind; bland in his manners, and of noble bearing.28

Opposite the positive views presented here and the conflicting views of Joseph which McKeever and Johnson seek to take advantage of, there is reason to pause and consider the absoluteness of one opinion of Joseph over another. Speaking of Joseph's human side, the world's expectations of him, and reconciling the two realities, Marvin S. Hill concluded:

If a look at the human side of Joseph Smith seems at times somewhat unflattering, it comes from no desire to diminish him. It comes rather from the belief that at times in the Church we tend to expect too much of him, to ask him to be more than human in everything he did. This may lead to some disillusionment, if occasionally we find that he did not measure up to all our expectations. The early Saints usually avoided that kind of mistake. Brigham Young said of Joseph: 'Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.' Brigham chose to stress the positive side.

Parley P. Pratt said that Joseph was "like other men, as the prophets and apostles of old, liable to errors and mistakes which were not inspired from heaven, but managed by...[his] own judgment."

These brethren knew Joseph as a man with human weaknesses, yet they believed in his divine calling and in his greatness. It seemed to them that what he had achieved as a prophet far outweighed his imperfections. In the long run their love of him and their faith in his calling were decisive in shaping their lives. Seeing Joseph in his various moods, they still called him a prophet of God... Those who would understand the Prophet must give consideration to his spiritual side as well as his human side. It was his strong commitment to things spiritual which made him so aware of his human failings, so desirous to overcome his weaknesses and to give his all to the work of the Lord.29

The Marrying Man

The following sections deal with issues relating to Joseph's plural marriages. In the tasteless pursuit of tabloid details, the authors have merely excerpted sensational passages from the works of Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton in an effort to deconstruct Joseph. This portion of the review will touch on the negative aspects the authors have chosen.

As a preface to McKeever and Johnson's overall theme of lust and "errant yearnings," as they so label Joseph's plural marriage pursuits, I will touch briefly upon the authors' obsession with the idea that plural marriage was ruled by carnal passion. Richard Van Wagoner, whose writings the authors make much use of, wrote what certainly applies to McKeever and Johnson's approach to Joseph's marital matters:

Contrary to popular nineteenth-century notions about polygamy, the Mormon harem, dominated by lascivious males with hyperactive libidos, did not exist. The image of unlimited lust was largely the creation of Gentile travelers to Salt Lake City more interested in titillating audiences back home than in accurately portraying plural marriage.30

McKeever and Johnson portray Joseph's plural marriages as lustful passion. This, however, is contrary to what polygamy31 was about, in reality. In what is further applicable to McKeever and Johnson's understanding of polygamy are the words of Erastus Snow, who said in 1857:

They cannot understand it, because they are governed by their passions, and not by principles; and it is the hardest thing in the world for them to be convinced that this people are governed by principle...The world of mankind may soon know that God is with us, and that he is at the helm, that he is the founder of this work, and that the women as well as the men are the best upon the earth, and that we are determined to live and be governed by principle and not passion.32

In short, plural marriage was about revelation and obedience, not lust. What McKeever and Johnson portray on the one hand as "extra-marital romantic liaisons" can be described on the other hand as instances of invitation for those selected women to inquire of the Lord and gain a testimony of the principle of plural marriage for themselves.33 Indeed, Joseph's plural marriages were not, as Kathryn Daynes notes, "preceded by a romantic relationship or physical love making. Instead, it was proposed in a religious context."34

Opposite the images of sensual appetite that McKeever and Johnson portray in relation to Joseph, plural marriage was something that Joseph himself was reluctant to practice and only did so under the threat of destruction at the hand of an angel.35 Joseph stated that "the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith."36 He was not alone in his feelings. Upon learning of plural marriage, Brigham Young said that "it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin."37

B.H. Roberts provides a concise and basic understanding on what was involved and expected in the practice of plural marriage:

The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to self-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men."..."It was indeed a principle of religion to them, a holy sacrament, and not at all designed to become a general practice under merely human laws. It is unfortunate that the world outside of the Church was not impressed with this phase of the subject; for then it would have been apparent that the things the world argued against and fought against--a general plural marriage system free for all to adopt, considered to be destructive of the monogamous system and the menace to the home itself--was not the thing upheld and contended for by the Latter-day Saints, who believed that the privilege of plural marriage is to be limited to persons of high character, approved lives, and living under the most sacred obligations to chastity, and granted this privilege of the marriage system only under the most carefully guarded permission amounting to divine sanction.38

Again, plural marriage was a matter of principle, revelation, and obedience; not lustful "errant yearnings," "extra-marital romantic liaisons," or "affairs," as portrayed by McKeever and Johnson. With this basis in mind, the following marital issues that are addressed become more clearly understood.

No Invitation For Emma

"Secret marriages" "secret plural wives" "secretly married" "amorous advances" "errant yearnings" "extra-marital romantic liaisons" "still teenagers" "affairs" "sexual relations"39

McKeever and Johnson's emotionally laced words of suggested deception are tactically employed to control their readers' perceptions of Joseph's marital engagements. Throughout the chapter they narrowly isolate emotionally charged wording while completely disregarding peripheral matters that could challenge their self-serving interpretations of history. They thereby manipulate their readers by limiting the information to which they have access.

In this case, the authors superficially gloss over Joseph's plural marriages of which Emma had limited knowledge. The authors repeatedly indicate on the one hand that Joseph's plural marriages were a secret to Emma, yet on the other hand describe her feelings as "jealously battling" something she supposedly did not know about. While there is ample evidence that shows Emma consented to at least a half-dozen wives, the authors ignore any discussion on the implications and meaning of this or her overall mixed feelings on the entire issue.

An example of what at times is Emma's receptive awareness of Joseph's marriages is found in his marriage to Melissa Lott, which occurred not in secret but in the presence of her parents and with Emma's consent and permission.40 Emma also gave permission for Joseph to marry Emily and Eliza Partridge and permitted them to live in the Smith home. While this instance was an after-the-fact approval, she not only selected them but lived with them. There is still no secret. When the Partridge sisters moved out at Emma's request, the Lawrence sisters, whose marriages to Joseph were approved by Emma, continued to live in the Smith home.41

Lucy Walker, seeing the challenges that Emma faced in accepting plural marriage, chose to remain silent about her marriage to Joseph, but she noted a number of other marriages that Emma was well aware of and consented to, saying that Emma "was well aware that [Joseph] associated with them as wives... This is proven by the fact that [Emma] herself, on several occasions, kept guard at the door to prevent disinterested persons from intruding, when these ladies were in the house."42

While Emma at times did indeed have difficulty accepting plural marriage, she did not have the authority to override what God had given and commanded. In these instances, the principle and practice of plural marriage went on in spite of her feelings to the contrary and Joseph was allowed to proceed without her consent.43 Joseph delicately balanced his obligation to fulfilling God's commands while doing his best to preserve the tender feelings of a wife whom he loved. There can be little blame for Emma's jealous guard over Joseph. Emily Partridge expressed sympathy in 1883 for the trials of plural marriage that Emma endured and noted that her feelings were no different than anyone else's had they been in a similar situation, with it ultimately being a matter for the Lord to judge.44

McKeever and Johnson categorically describe Emma's feeling on plural marriage as "adamantly opposed." While this was the case at times, she is better described as one who "vacillated between reluctant acceptance and determined opposition to the marriages."45 Orson Pratt stated that Emma would "at times fight against [Joseph] with all her heart; and then she would break down in her feelings...and would then lead forth ladies and place their hands in the hands of Joseph."46

Unfortunately, the readers' understanding of Joseph's marriages, through McKeever and Johnson, is a balancing act of affairs and divorce. In portraying such an image, the authors deceptively misrepresent the circumstances surrounding Joseph's marriages as well as the principle of plural marriage in general. In doing so, the authors also ignore the deep spiritual commitment that Emma shared with Joseph during their seventeen trial-filled years of marriage. As a notable sign of this special bond, Emma's last deathbed words were, "Joseph, Joseph, Joseph...Joseph! ...Yes, I am coming."47

Polyandry

One misconception concerning Joseph's polyandry is that it was a practice represented in only one or two unusual marriages; however, fully one-third of Joseph's plural wives, eleven of them, were polyandrous.48

In regard to polyandry, Daynes wrote: "Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations."49

McKeever and Johnson base their shallow glimpse of this subject on what at times could be described as the historical guesswork of Compton, which carries its own subsequent set of problems. The authors merely repeat one sentence from Compton's book and fail to mention or consider any of Compton's long list of theories for reasons behind polyandry which might provide some understanding for the reader.50

Regardless that Compton's dismissed theories remain long on speculation and short on fact, if McKeever and Johnson are going to base their writings on another author's research, then they ought to at least discuss the meaning of the original author's findings as defined by that author. Instead, McKeever and Johnson decide for themselves what miniscule item their readers will see of Compton's work and from there determine how their readers will interpret it. While Compton apparently sees no problem in his own self-described theorizing of uncertainties, this does not give license for McKeever and Johnson to launch their own undocumented branch of speculation. For example, McKeever and Johnson conclude from their miniscule sampling of Compton that Joseph committed adultery and wonder how Latter-day Saints can reconcile that in light of biblical prohibitions against it. Besides the fact that God at times commands men to do things that He at other times forbids them from doing,51 for Joseph, barriers to marriage were removed. Richard Van Wagoner, one of McKeever and Johnson's key sources, notes that Joseph "believed he had been given powers that transcended civil law. Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees. Whenever he deemed it appropriate he could release a woman from her earthly marriage and seal her to himself or to another with no stigma of adultery."52 Similarly, Daynes noted that with marital barriers removed, there was no need to commit acts of adultery or fornication,53 thus, Joseph's plural marriages were "not adultery because a man could not commit adultery with wives who belonged to him."54 Ultimately, the generalized and speculative characterizations regarding these unique marriages find Joseph labeled by a term (polyandry) that does not apply in the fullest sense of definition and degree of intimate involvement implied by its use.

Looking beyond McKeever and Johnson's obsession with sexual triangulation, the logical and probable conclusion to be drawn from Joseph's practice is that God inspired and commanded him to be sealed to these women as both a means to test their faith and in certain cases establish eternal links.55 Glen M. Leonard described those few that entered into the relationships as having to "endure a more severe test of their faith." He recounted Joseph's request of Heber C. Kimball to take his wife as his own eternal companion. While Heber labored extensively with "soul-searching, fasting, and prayer,"56 he finally agreed to give her to Joseph. When Heber told Joseph of his decision, the prophet simply wept at his act of faith.57 It was at this point, which is key, that Joseph informed Kimball "that the request was an Abrahamic test of his willingness to submit his will to the Lord's and that the sacrifice of his wife would not be required."58 Joseph then sealed Heber and his wife as eternal mates. John Taylor passed this test with the same results. After Taylor informed the prophet that he could have his wife, Joseph said that he did not want her, rather he simply wanted to know where he stood.59 In a limited number of other instances, of which direct detail is lacking, some did allow their wives to be sealed to Joseph for eternity. "This ordinance," notes Leonard, "ensured the woman a marriage that would be valid in the resurrection no matter what became of her temporary, civil agreement. For some, it may have seemed the only way to gain that sacred promise."60

In 1854, Jedediah M. Grant, whom Compton also cites in one of his theories, provided some unique insight into why a few early Saints had to endure the test:

What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, "Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God." Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more."

...I would ask you if Jehovah has not in all ages tried His people by the power of Lucifer and his associates; and on the other hand, has He not tried them and proved them by His Prophets? Did the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac? Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was the grand thread of the Priesthood developed. The grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives," I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got." A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no trouble about such matters.

I am talking now of the present day. There was a time when we could be tried pretty severely upon these points, but I now could pick you out hundreds of men that cannot be tried in this way, but they will hand over every thing they possess. They understand the nature of such doctrines, and the object of such requirements. They know it is to prove the people, both men and women, and to develop what they will do. How can the Priesthood judge the people, if it does not prove them.61

Speculation aside, this form of pseudo-polyandry was about God trying His people and eternal relationships. Joseph's sealings to these women highlight principles of faith and eternal marriage. These are the aspects characterized in Joseph amidst the challenging issue of understanding polyandry and its underlying true purposes.

Polyandry and Intimacy Issues

Some might argue that these relationships were strictly platonic. Compton disagrees, "Though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for such a marriage (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives). And in a significant number of Joseph's marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations."62

While McKeever and Johnson readily accept the insinuation that all of Joseph's relationships were sexual, they fail to consider or even recognize the speculative (and what at times has been described as the self-serving) nature of Compton's exploration of polyandrous marriages. Sources do not show nor is there any reliable evidence that the way Joseph practiced polyandry included sexual or familial relations. Compton's only hint of possible intimacy with a married wife is a second-hand late account in 1915 wherein a daughter of one of Joseph's married wives related a story told to her thirty-three years earlier, that she was Joseph's child. This debatable piece of evidence, taken at face value, has been plausibly interpreted as meaning either that Joseph was the biological father or that he was the father in merely a spiritual sense. Either way, if the married wife, Sylvia Sessions, meant with certainty that Joseph was the biological father, she obviously would have to have been restricting her relationship to Joseph and not her excommunicated first husband,63 thus demonstrating a faulty application of the definition of polyandry.

Although Joseph fathered some children through marriages with wives that had been single, a parallel case cannot be made which supports that type of intimacy with wives that had been married to others. While Compton finds evidence for sexual relations in some marriages, he admits the possibility that other marriages had no sexual relations, which marriages those are, he does not specifically say.64 Compton's ultimate position is that if there is no good evidence to prove a non-intimate relationship, then the union must be sexual. The broad and often speculative nature of Compton's work can be shown in his treatment of Zina Huntington Jacobs' relationship with Joseph: "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included."65 Speculation based on "probably included" hardly amounts to fact, although certain critics (such as McKeever and Johnson) seem to think it does.

Compton's treatment of polyandry, as reflected in McKeever and Johnson's subsequent use, is summarized by Richard Lloyd Anderson as

inconsistent in the standards of judgment applied to polyandry. For woman after woman in this book, the following statement or its equivalent is made: "Absolutely nothing is known of this marriage after the ceremony"... Good history is characterized by careful interpretation of reliable documents, together with disclosing what cannot be determined. But Compton reverses these responsible methods in discussing sexuality, particularly in regard to the eight sealings to women with living husbands. He begins by probing the relatively small number of statements on physical relations in all marriages. These add up to first-, second-, and third-hand statements about some eight women, about a fourth of the Prophet's polygamous wives... This uneven mixture is then characterized as "a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives"... That judgment is next intensified without further information...[refer to McKeever quote above]...Stripped of verbiage, this deduction moves in three steps: (1) About 28 percent of Joseph's marriages had full physical dimensions; (2) Evidence for the part may be taken for the whole; (3) Therefore, sexual relations characterized most of his marriages. However, the middle span of this bridge badly sags. In Sacred Loneliness does not have a factual basis for its conclusions regarding polyandry.66

The Case of Helen Mar Kimball

In May 1843 the thirty-seven-year-old prophet of Mormonism convinced fifteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball to be sealed as his plural wife. The daughter of Heber C. Kimball stated how Smith promised that if she would "take this step," it would insure the eternal salvation and exaltation of her father's household and kindred. Helen was led to believe that the relationship was more of a spiritual nature and claimed she would have never gone through with it had she known otherwise.67

At this point in McKeever and Johnson's book, their sources are intermingled between Todd Compton and Richard Van Wagoner. While both books cover this same paragraph, McKeever and Johnson chose Van Wagoner's paragraph over Compton's entire chapter on the subject. This is likely because Van Wagoner provides no hint that the source of Helen's later claim of "would have never gone through with it" comes from an anti-Mormon writer whom Compton describes as displaying "extremism," "is suspect," "not credible," "unreliable," and to be "regarded with caution."68 Oddly enough though, while Compton recognizes these problems in the source, he seems to have no problem in citing the source so long as it is qualified with his disclaimers.

McKeever and Johnson state that Joseph "convinced" Helen to be sealed to him. What the authors fail to divulge is that it was Helen's father that initiated and arranged the marriage. Helen wrote:

My father...taught me the principle of Celestial marrage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth...my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph.69

It was after this that Joseph was invited to teach and explain the principles of Celestial marriage. Upon learning of the principle for herself from Joseph, she willingly committed herself to the eternal link. Her marriage to Joseph was to ensure choice personal and family relationships. McKeever and Johnson lead the reader to believe there were other aspects to the marriage and issues with Joseph that would have caused her to take second thought on the arrangement. A non-sexual aspect to the marriage can be reasonably assumed as Helen continued to live with her parents after the sealing.70 This is in harmony with historian Stanely B. Kimball's interpretation that the marriage was unconsummated.71 Although Compton leaves this window of speculation open, even he does not indicate that Helen's initial or later perceptions were sexual in nature. It was, rather, the sacrifice of youthful interaction with her peers who now did not fully accept her that was troubling her as she was excluded from social scenes. This is made clear when she wrote, "They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold...Bar'd out from social scenes by this thy destiny."72

Opposite the suspicious anti-Mormon quote that both Compton and Van Wagoner share some odd regard towards, Helen's own words shed some light on her true retrospective feelings towards Joseph and plural marriage:

I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise."73

Helen later wrote of the unwavering faith in her union with the prophet:

I have long since learned to leave all with Him, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.74

If there were still doubt as to her convictions, following the Prophet's death, she again entered into a marriage, which became plural, with Horace Kimball Whitney. Prior to Helen and Horace's ceremony in 1846, Horace stood before Helen as proxy for Joseph Smith to have their ordinances reconfirmed.75

Regardless of any source issues raised here, McKeever and Johnson attempt to portray a scandalous scene of teenage coercion on the part of Joseph, all the while ignoring the nineteenth-century context in which teenage marriages were found typical. The authors also fail to mention that such young marriages were common practice in the Protestant polygamist past, seemingly feeling no need to condemn their own past for the same thing they see practiced in early Mormonism. While McKeever and Johnson attempt to sensationalize Helen's marriage as exploitative, Compton points to such young marriages as being dynastic in nature.76

As a final note in understanding this aspect of plural marriage, it must be realized that polygamy had aspects of societal reform contained within. Such aspects were designed to raise society to higher standards of morality and spirituality. Included in this design was to remove women from the spectrum where they could otherwise become victims of wicked men. In 1884 Elder Charles W. Penrose described this as placing women in a position "to give them the opportunity to become honored wives and mothers, so that there might be 'no margin left for lust to prey upon,' no field for the tricks of the seducer and the adulterer, the corrupt and the ungodly."77 This is in harmony with George Q. Cannon's 1881 statement that "We desire to have no margin of unmarried women among us."78 This margin ran the spectrum of maturity, from old to, in this case, the younger age of Helen Mar Kimball.