José Smith/Poligamia/Los hijos de los matrimonios polígamos/Tenía alguna

Tabla de Contenidos

¿Qué se sabe acerca de los posibles hijos a través de los matrimonios polígamos de Joseph Smith?

Saltar a subtema:

• Pregunta: ¿José Smith produjo hijos a través de matrimonios polígamos?
• Pregunta: ¿Qué dijo el esposo de Sylvia Sesiones sabe acerca de su sellado a José Smith para la eternidad?
• Pregunta: ¿Prescindia Buell (o Sarah Pratt, o la señora Hyde) no sabía quién era el padre de su hijo?
• Pregunta: ¿José Smith produjo hijos por la esposa plurianual plural Prescindia Buell?

Pregunta: ¿José Smith produjo hijos a través de matrimonios polígamos?

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Science has eliminated all of the possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith

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 all of the possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

The available evidence does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women

There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought “might” be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

Mother	Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)	Modern evidence
Buell	Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”	Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr. DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell. "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related."
Alger	Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”	DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Hancock	”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”	Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage John Reed Hancock. John Reed's brother Mosiah is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr. DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock. "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III."
Lightner	The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”	George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
Hyde	Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”	Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
Pratt	Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”	Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr. DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.
Snow	”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.	Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza. 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."
Jacobs	Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”	Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr. DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.

Josephine Lyon

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "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 was out of fellowship with the Church." For many years, it was not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. However, DNA research ultimately proved that Josephine was not a descendant of Joseph Smith.

In an article published in Mormon Historical Studies, Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the book chapter on this subject.

Pregunta: ¿Qué dijo el esposo de Sylvia Sesiones sabe acerca de su sellado a José Smith para la eternidad?

Sylvia se casó con Windsor Lyon por José Smith en Nauvoo, y fue sellada a José Smith en algún momento después de que ella estaba casada

Sylvia se casó con Windsor Lyon por José Smith en Nauvoo. Ella fue sellada a José Smith en algún momento después de que ella estaba casada. Brian Hales señala que, "Este triángulo matrimonio es único entre todos los matrimonios plurales del Profeta porque no hay pruebas sólidas de que Sylvia llevaba a los niños a los dos hombres. Ella quedó embarazada de Windsor Lyon en octubre de 1838, septiembre de 1840 y abril de 1842 . a continuación, un año después quedó embarazada con una hija (llamada Josephine nacido en 08 de febrero 1844), que fue supuestamente engendrado por el Profeta ". La hija de Sylvia, que tenía el nombre intrigante "Josephine", hizo la siguiente declaración:

Justo antes de mi madre [Sylvia Sesiones Lyon] muerte en 1882 ella me llamó a su lado de la cama y me dijo que sus días en la tierra se acerca numeradas y antes de que ella falleció de mortalidad que deseaba decirme algo que había mantenido como un todo secreto vaivén mí y de los demás hasta que no, pero que ahora desea comunicarse conmigo. Ella entonces me dijo que yo era la hija del profeta José Smith, que habiendo sido sellado con el Profeta en el momento en que su esposo el señor Lyon tenía estaba fuera de la comunión con la Iglesia.

Sylvia puede haber considerado divorciada de Windsor después de que fue excomulgado de la Iglesia

Parece, sin embargo, que Sylvia puede haber considerado a sí misma divorciada de Windsor después de que fue excomulgado de la Iglesia y dejó Nauvoo. Hales señala que "En la actualidad, después de haber encontrado su excomunión ninguna documentación de un divorcio legal entre Windsor y Sylvia Sin embargo, en la mitad del siglo XIX, las leyes religiosas menudo trumped procedimientos legales Stanley B. Kimball observó:.. 'Algunos líderes de la iglesia en ese tiempo considerado el matrimonio civil por los clérigos no mormones de ser lo más unbinding como sus bautismos. Algunos matrimonios anteriores... se anuló simplemente ignorarlos. '" El sellado de José se produjo después de la excomunión de Windor. Andrew Jenson, en su récord histórico, se refirió a Sylvia como un "ex esposa de Windsor Lyons." No hay evidencia conocida que Windsor vivió con Sylvia después de su regreso a Nauvoo, pero Sylvia no "reunirse" Windsor después de que fue rebautizado en 1846. Hales dice: "No hay detalles disponibles para aclarar qué autoridad se utilizó para confirmar la relación matrimonial entre Sylvia y Windsor después de su separación matrimonial anterior. lo más probable es que la pareja consultado con Brigham Young o Heber C. Kimball, quien autorizó su reincorporación. Ya sea que se llevó a cabo una ceremonia de matrimonio religioso privado por el tiempo o la pareja reanudó observando su matrimonio legal es desconocido. es importante destacar que , incluso con la conyugalidad renovada entre Sylvia Windsor y después de la muerte de José Smith, no se ha encontrado evidencia para apoyar su participación en la poliandria sexual en cualquier momento ".

Pregunta: ¿Prescindia Buell (o Sarah Pratt, o la señora Hyde) no sabía quién era el padre de su hijo?

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

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. Others sometimes mention Orson Hyde's wife as the source of this rumor.

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.

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.

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.

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. This would suggest that there were no grounds for Mrs. Buell—or a modern reader—to conclude that Joseph might have been the father.

Pregunta: ¿José Smith produjo hijos por la esposa plurianual plural Prescindia Buell?

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

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

Nota: Esta sección wiki se basó en parte en una revisión del libro de G.D. Smith Nauvoo Polygamy. Como tal, se centra en la presentación de ese autor de los datos. Para leer la revisión completa, siga el enlace. 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)

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. 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)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).

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. Travel to Far West would also require them to travel near the virulently anti-Mormon area of Haun’s Mill, along Shoal Creek. Yet by April 22 Joseph was in Illinois, having been slowed by traveling “off from the main road as much as possible” “both by night and by day.” 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. As Compton notes, such an admission is implausible, given the mores of the time.

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. 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,” and a good example of how “the autobiographies of supposed Mormon women were [as] unreliable” as other Gentile accounts, given her tendency to “mingl[e] facts and fiction” “in a startling and sensational manner.”

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. 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.