New Book!

----------------------------






Books by Brian C. Hales dealing with "Mormon fundamentalist" polygamy:

Did Joseph Smith Practice Sexual Polyandry?

Historical evidence indicates that Joseph Smith was sealed to several women who had legal husbands.  Generally called “polyandry,” numerous authors, including Fawn Brodie and more recently, George D. Smith, have assured their readers that the Prophet practiced sexual polyandry and that somehow such behavior was sanctioned by the doctrines he was teaching. 

In 1854, First Presidency Counselor Jedediah M. Grant instructed:  “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…  A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no trouble about such matters.”[1] 

Todd Compton identified twelve women who were civilly married to another man at the same time they were sealed to Joseph Smith. Included are Sylvia Sessions, Ruth Vose, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Sarah Kingsley, Presendia Lathrop Huntington, Sarah Ann Whitney, Zina Diantha Huntington, Patty Bartlett, Marinda Nancy Johnson, Elivira Annie Cowles, Elizabeth Davis, and Lucinda Pendleton.[2]

Lawrence Foster wrote:  “Perhaps the most puzzling and difficult-to-interpret behavior of Joseph Smith during this period [of Nauvoo polygamy] is the evidence that he asked some of his closest associates to give their wives to him.”[3]  “How are such actions to be explained?  Of course, one easily could make the assumption that most non-Mormons and anti-Mormons have that Smith simply was letting his sexual impulses get away with him in these or other cases.  Or, as most Mormon writers have done, one could ignore the evidence entirely and hope that it would be forgotten.”[4]  Kathryn Daynes echoed:  “Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith’s sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations.”[5]

“Ceremonial Polyandry” versus “Sexual Polyandry”

Before looking specifically at Joseph Smith’s “polyandrous” marriages, we must determine the meaning of “polyandry.”  Todd Compton defines “marriage as any relationship solemnized by a marriage ceremony of some sort.”[6]  Therefore a woman married in a civil ceremony, who is subsequently married in a religious ceremony, would be considered to be practicing ceremonial polyandry.  A legal divorce would be necessary to prevent ceremonial polyandry because it would nullify the actions of the civil ceremony (the legal marriage).

While defining “polyandry” as ceremonial polyandry might have a few advantages, overall it seems to generate confusion, because it does not address the issue of sexuality.  Theologically, there is a huge difference between ceremonial polyandry and sexual polyandry.  If in the case above, the woman ceases to sleep with her legal spouse because of the religious marriage, even without a legal divorce, she would not be practicing sexual polyandry.  Proving the presence of ceremonial polyandry does not prove the presence of sexual polyandry.  Specific evidence of sexual polyandry is required.[7]

Too often readers assume sexual relations are included when they hear the term “polyandry.”  However, they may or may not be present depending upon the meanings of the words employed.  One could argue that practically speaking, a marriage without sexuality is not a marriage and the woman would not be truthfully married to two men at the same time.  With respect to Joseph Smith’s “polyandry,” antagonists sometimes show that he practiced ceremonial polyandry and then imply he was also practicing sexual polyandry.  For several reasons, such assumptions may never be warranted.

If sexual relations were absent in “polyandrous” marriages as defined by Compton, they might be more accurately characterized as “pseudo-polyandrous.”[8]  LDS scholar Andrew Ehat agreed that Joseph’s sealings to married women were, in fact, “pseudo-polyandrous,” because of the absence of physical relations.[9] 

Perhaps a more useful definition of marriage is “a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners.”[10]  Using this classification, polyandry would require the presence of sexual relations with both husbands during the same time period.  While Joseph Smith undoubtedly practiced “ceremonial polyandry,” the question remains did he also practice “sexual polyandry?”  Was he sleeping with other men’s wives during the same season those women were also experiencing connubial relations with their legal husbands?

Evidence of Sexual Polyandry

I have identified nine allegations of sexual polyandry and find none of the charges to be convincing.  Readers may review the nine accusations for themselves.

Reviewing these alleged quotations raises important questions including problems with credibility and plausibility.  In the nineteenth century, for a woman to mention her personal sexual involvement was rare.  To admit to a polyandrous relationship would be rarer, but to openly refer to a polyandrous sexual involvement would be very extraordinary.  The listeners to such admissions would have had no context to evaluate the declarations except to consider the behaviors plainly immoral.  Even in the secret teachings of plurality in Nauvoo, there is no evidence that a doctrinal foundation for sexual polyandry was ever discussed.  Hence, the women would be essentially declaring themselves to be unchaste.  Zina, Lucinda, and Presendia all partook of the conservative Victorian standards of the time and were devout Latter-day Saints.  It seems highly unlikely that these women would make such comments.  A review of other allegations suggests that none rises above the level of tabloid reporting.

Other acknowledged anti-Mormon authors made similar claims.  John Bowes quoted William Arrowsmith in a confusing narrative that alleged sexual polyandry between Joseph Smith and Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde.[14] William Hall accused the Prophet of impregnating Zina Huntington Jacobs in an account that contains factual errors and has been recently shown to be false through DNA testing.[15]  John Hyde paired Joseph Smith with Hannah Ann Dubois Smith Dibble in a story of based upon hearsay evidence.[16] 

No Complaints from Any of the Alleged Participants 

 Despite several allegations, research fails to identify complaints of sexual polyandry from any of the described participants, including the women or their legal husbands.  Todd Compton acknowledges that true polyandrous relationships would be difficult for the men involved:  “One wonders why these ‘first husbands’ apparently acquiesced to their wives’ marriages to Smith.”[17] He recognized that “If polygyny offended against the American cult of true womanhood, polyandry offended even more.”[18]  In addressing the legal husbands’ reactions, we are confronted with the question, “Did they know of their wives’ sealings to Joseph?”  Richard Van Wagoner wrote in 1985:  “The legal husband did not usually know about the extralegal husband.”[19]  Richard L. Bushman penned in 2005:  “In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved.”[20] 

Unfortunately, we have no reliable evidence describing the husbands’ knowledge of or immediate response to their wives’ sealings to the Prophet in eleven cases.  The twelfth “polyandrous” sealing occurred before the legal marriage.

 

Reviewing these twelve “polyandrous” husbands, we find great diversity respecting their relationships to the Church and its leaders.  There are friendly non-members (Cleveland, Lightner, and Sayers), antagonistic (Buell), unpredictable (Jacobs),[21] active (Durfee, Harris, and Sessions), cyclic (Hyde), and stalwart (Kingsbury and Holmes).

Despite their differences, research suggests that these men shared two things in common.  First, their legal wives were sealed to Joseph Smith during the Prophet’s lifetime.  The second is that they all seem to have reacted to the relationship with the exact same response:  nothing. 

After evaluating the available evidence regarding conjugal relations in Joseph Smith’s polyandrous sealings, Todd Compton wrote that “theoretically” it might be argued that in eleven cases of polyandry “there is no evidence for sexuality.  In only one case do we have evidence.”[22]  That “one case” is routinely referenced as an undeniable example of polyandrous sexual relations with the implication that conjugality was probably present in some or all of the rest.

Josephine Rosetta Lyon – Biological Daughter of Joseph Smith?

 Todd Compton asserted that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry with Sylvia Sessions Lyon  (see In Sacred Loneliness, 178-86). Sylvia's  daughter, Josephine Rosetta Lyon, signed the following statement in 1915:

Just prior to my mother’s 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 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...  [23]

All researchers do not agree this statement clearly declares Josephine to be the biological daughter of the Prophet.[24]  It is true that words reflect some ambiguity and could possibly be interpreted to mean that Josephine was to be Joseph Smith’s daughter only in eternity, without implying an actual paternal physical connection.[25]   However, other details support that Sylvia was the literal offspring of the Prophet.  For example, if no biological connection existed between Josephine and Joseph Smith, it is strange that Sylvia would dramatically wait until her deathbed to divulge to her that the Prophet was her father only in eternity.  If Josephine “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” only because of a sealing ordinance, rather than through physical siring, all of Sylvia’s children would be equally his offspring.  However, none of them reported any similar divulgences from their dying mother, nor would there be any compelling reason to keep such knowledge secret.[26]  Josephine’s name also supports the relationship.

In addition, other sources, beyond the 1915 affidavit, corroborate the story.  In 1886, future BYU president George H. Brimhall recorded:  “Went to Spanish Fork…   Evening had a talk with Father Hales, who told me that it was said that Joseph Smith had a daughter named Josephine living in Bountiful, Utah… Soon the contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph will be all gone.”[27]  The Hales and Fisher families both emigrated from Kent, England and may have known each other prior to their arrival in the United States.  In 1905, Stake President Angus Cannon had an interview with Joseph Smith III, wherein he stated:

I will now refer you to 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.  She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions.  That girl, I believe, is living today in Bountiful, north of this city.  I heard Prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report and remark that he had never seen the girl, but he would like to see her for himself, that he might determine if she bore any likeness to your father.”[28]

Since Sylvia said she had never told anyone prior to revealing Josephine’s paternity to her, theses accounts suggest that rumors of Josephine’s true biological father arose from other sources that received limited private circulation prior to Sylvia Sessions’ death.  In other words, several historical documents support a genetic relationship between the Prophet and Josephine, besides Sylvia’s affidavit.

Joseph Smith and Sylvia Sessions – Polyandry or Polygyny?

Sylvia Sessions wedded Windsor Lyon in a civil ceremony on April 21, 1838.  Together they moved to Nauvoo and were comfortably established there by July 1840.  At some point thereafter, Sylvia was sealed to the Prophet.  The question is when did that sealing occur and what was the status of her marriage to Windsor at that moment.  If they had experienced a religious divorce prior to her sealing to Joseph Smith, a religious divorce that would have curtailed sexual relations between the two, then Sylvia would be guilty of ceremonial polyandry, but not sexual polyandry.

Todd Compton wrote: “On February 8, 1842, when Sylvia was twenty-three, she was sealed to Joseph Smith.”[29]  Other authors have agreed with this date.[30]  The source of this information is an unsigned document written in 1869 in an affidavit book.[31] 

Importantly, within that same collection of affidavit books is a second unsigned document that specifies a February 8, 1843 date, a full year later.[32] 

Research shows that neither of the documents is more reliable than the other and therefore, should not be treated preferentially.  In addition, February 8 was Josephine’s birthday (in 1844).  Taken together, it appears that the documents present conflicting years and suspicious dates that are unconfirmed.  Consequently, they provide contradictory information regarding the timing of Joseph Smith’s and Sylvia Session sealing ceremony.  

Without the assistance of the affidavit books, other sources must be consulted.  In a document undoubtedly used to write his 1887 Historical Record article on plural marriage, independent historian Andrew Jenson referred to Sylvia as “formerly the wife of Windsor Lyon.”[33]  He also penned:  “Sessions, Sylvia Porter, wife of Winsor [sic] Palmer Lyon, was bon July 31, 1818… [She] Became a convent to ‘Mormonism’ and was married to Mr. Lyons When he left the Church she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[34]   A second corroboration is found in the 1915 statement from Josephine.  She remembered her mother also “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.”[35] Accordingly, these documents place the sealing after Windsor’s excommunication.

Windsor had a falling out with Stake President William Marks over a financial negotiation in the fall of 1842.  In the end Windsor sued Marks in the civil courts – a violation of Church standards since such matters were to be resolved between members within the Church.  In response, Marks brought Windsor up for a Church court.  On November 19, 1842, Windsor was excommunicated.[36]  One question arises: “Did Windsor and Sylvia obtain a civil divorce after his excommunication?”

Currently, no documentation of a legal divorce between Windsor and Sylvia after his excommunication has been found.  Such divorces required a hearing before the circuit court in Carthage.  In fact, it is doubtful that Joseph Smith or Sylvia Sessions seriously considered the need prior to her sealing to the Prophet.  After introducing celestial marriage in Nauvoo, the validity of civil ceremonies in comparison to eternal sealings was often questioned. Stanley B. Kimball penned:  “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.”[37]

There is no question that in special circumstances, Joseph Smith, as President of the Church, believed himself capable of granting permission to ignore legal unions (constituting a religious divorce).  In October of 1835, the Prophet was consulted regarding the status of Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey’s marriage to her abusive husband, Calvin Bailey, who had deserted her three years earlier.  At that time, Lydia had received a marriage proposal from Newel Knight and didn’t know what to do, since a formal divorce had not occurred.  Hyrum Smith was acting as an intermediary.  Newel Knight recorded: 

Bro Hiram came to me said he had laid the affair before Bro Joseph, who at the time was with his council.  Broth Joseph after p[ray]or & reflecting a little or in other words enquiring [of the] Lord Said it is all right, She is his & the sooner they [are] married the better. Tell them no law shall hurt [them]. They need not fear either the law of God or man for [it] shall not touch them; & the Lord bless them. This [is the] will of the Lord concerning that matter…  I told her all that had transpired, & we lifted our hearts with gratitude to our heavenly Father for his goodness towards us, & that we live in this mometuous age, & as did the ancients, so we have the privilege of enquireing through the prophet, & receiveing the word of the Lord concern\ing/ us.[38] 

After prayer and reflection, Joseph declared that Lydia was capable of remarrying.  Interwoven within his directive was the acknowledgement that Lydia was, from a religious standpoint, divorced from Calvin Bailey.[39]  Given that the Prophet’s jurisdiction concerned only religious laws, the separation or divorce granted could only be considered ecclesiastical.  However, Joseph instructed that thereafter they needed to no longer “fear either the law of God or man.”  Joseph Smith evidently considered his judgment in that matter to satisfy all pertinent concerns including state and federal laws, so far as the participants were concerned.  Throughout the proceedings, there is no hint of approved polyandry, sexual or otherwise.  On occasion, the Nauvoo High Council also assumed authority to allow a new matrimony to a man still legally married.[40] 

In addition, it appears that for most Latter-day Saints, the sealing ceremony constituted a matrimonial upgrade sufficient to dissolve previously contracted earthly matrimonies.  For them, priesthood authority was so superior as to trump any marriage ceremony sanctioned only by worldly powers.  The eternal union authorized conjugality in the sealed marriage and eliminated permission for sexual relations in the previous union.  The need for a legal divorce was ignored in the wake of an eternal nuptial, but the religious divorce was binding, prohibiting sexual relations.

Several evidences indicate that some sort of divorce or termination was inherent in Windsor Lyon’s excommunication or at least accompanied it chronologically.  Andrew Jenson’s notes reflect this perspective as he referred to Sylvia a “formerly the wife of Windsor Lyons,”[41] also writing that Sylvia “was married to Mr. Lyon.  When he left the Church she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[42] 

Josephine Lyon’s 1915 statement also implies that the excommunication invalidated her marriage to Windsor, allowing her to be legitimately sealed to Joseph Smith and bare a child with him.  Sylvia told Josephine that she was “sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.”[43] 

Researchers who accept Josephine’s 1915 statement as evidence that she was Joseph’s offspring cannot easily reject the timeline presented or the implication that Windsor’s Church estrangement was interpreted by Josephine as an official separation or divorce, thus legitimizing her mother’s ability to be sealed to the Prophet.  Neither is there any indication that Josephine thought her mother was simultaneously married to two men polyandrously or that Sylvia continued to cohabit with Windsor after his excommunication. Importantly, there is no evidence of sexual polyandry in this relationship.[44]

LDS Theology:  Sexual Polyandry is Non-Doctrinal and Anti-Doctrinal

Besides the lack of credible evidence of sexual polyandry, other observations make such a practice less likely among the Latter-day Saints.  Foremost is that from the standpoint of LDS theology, sexual polyandry is easily classified as non-doctrinal and anti-doctrinal.  An evaluation of scriptures and Joseph Smith’s teachings fails to identify any statements that would authorize its practice.  No ceremonies are described that would solemnize a true polyandrous relationship wherein a woman was authorized to be sexually involved with both husbands.

The revelation on eternal marriage, LDS Doctrine and Covenants section 132: 63 defines sexual polyandry as adultery saying that if a woman: “after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed” (see also v. 42).  

Early Utah Church leaders condemned polyandry. Brigham Young stated in 1852:  “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?  This is not known to the law.”[45]  On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong.”[46]   Six years later Orson Pratt instructed:  “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.”[47]  Pratt further explained: 

Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture. The object of marriage is to multiply the species, according to the command of God. A woman with one husband can fulfill this command, with greater facilities, than if she had a plurality; indeed, this would, in all probability, frustrate the great design of marriage, and prevent her from raising up a family. As a plurality of husbands, would not facilitate the increase of posterity, such a principle never was tolerated in scripture.[48] 

Bathsheba Smith, wife of Apostle George A. Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would “be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time…”  She replied:  “I think it would.”[49] 

Importantly, all of these individuals were involved with Nauvoo polygamy and several were undoubtedly aware of Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women. There is also evidence that he may have discussed eternal plural marriage with Orson Pratt’s legal wife, Sarah. 

Hyrum Smith’s son, Joseph F. Smith, wrote in 1889:  “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order.  It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage.”[50] 

One of the ways sexual polyandry is anti-doctrinal comes as it creates confusion regarding the paternity of the wife’s offspring.  Charles W. Penrose wrote in the Utah Church’s publication, the Millennial Star, in 1867:  “Polyandry is contrary to nature, that it strikes at the foundation of the object of marriage – the propagation of the race, that, if it be productive of any increase whatever, the paternal identity is destroyed, or made so doubtful, as to annihilate those natural sympathies which properly should exist between the father and his offspring.”[51]

Mormon theology assigns specific responsibilities to parents regarding their own children.  “And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents” (Utah D&C 68:25).  Correspondingly, a father is not held accountable for teaching and disciplining his neighbor’s children.  Instead, “great things” are expected from fathers concerning their own offspring (Utah D&C 29:48).  Polyandry would unavoidably introduce confusion into this strict injunction.  How could either husband be held stringently responsible for the mandated fatherly duties in a polyandrous family?

In light of these doctrinal difficulties, it appears that foisting a new moral standard of sexual polyandry upon LDS women in Nauvoo might have been difficult, even for Joseph Smith.  As observed, no religious precedent could be recruited to use as an example.  There were no Biblical prophetesses and priestesses who practiced it who could be used as examples.  No scriptures were available to justify it.  Joseph Smith would have been starting from scratch to defend such a principle to women who possessed an understanding of the Old Testament and a devout dedication to Biblical standards.

Joseph’s eternal sealings involved witnesses and officiators, often family members of the women involved.  They too would have needed to be convinced of the propriety of sexual polyandry.  Dimick Huntington performed the ceremony as two of his already married sisters, Zina and Presendia, were sealed to Joseph, while his wife, Fanny, willingly served as a witness.[52]  How readily would these individuals have accepted and participated in a process that they could have viewed only as adultery, except their natural inclinations had been turned 180 degrees?  Importantly, there is no credible documentation that any of these women saw themselves as practicing practical polyandry or that sexual polyandry was acceptable to them. 

Eternal Sealings in the New and Everlasting Covenant

If Joseph Smith lived his theology, then why did he engage in ceremonial polyandry?  Historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith taught of eternal marriages called the “new and everlasting covenant.”[53]  It allows two forms of eternal marriage.  One is for “time and eternity,” which comprises earth life and beyond.  The second is for “eternity” only, meaning a marriage that exists only after death.

For reasons that are unclear, a few authors have taken the position that none of the sealings in Nauvoo including any of the Prophet’s could have been exclusively for “eternity.”[54]  Todd Compton explained: “There are no known instances of marriages for ‘eternity only’ in the nineteenth century.”[55]  D. Michael Quinn agreed:  “If the phrase “eternity” only ever appeared in an original record of LDS sealing in the nineteenth century, I have not discovered it while examining thousands of such manuscript entries.”[56] 

While these observations may be technically true, they probably have little application to sealings solemnized in Joseph Smith’s time.  Prior to his death, several dozen plural sealing ceremonies were performed for approximately thirty men and their polygamous wives.[57]  Unfortunately, only one contemporary document is available that recorded the terminology that was used.[58]  The ceremonial prayer uniting Joseph to previously unmarried Sarah Ann Whitney was dictated by written revelation stating: “You both mutually agree calling them by name to be each others companion so long as you both shall live… and also through out all eternity.”[59]  Otherwise, it does not appear that the terminology employed in the dozens of plural sealing ceremonies during Joseph Smith’s lifetime was written down, either at the time they were performed or shortly thereafter.  If any such original records were kept, they apparently have not been preserved.  In short, we do not have a record of the specific language used in the rest of these sealings. 

It is true that some later reminiscences state that their sealings in Nauvoo were for “time and eternity.”  However, to assume that the women were remembering the exact language may not be warranted.  When asked in 1892 if she could remember the words used to seal her to Joseph Smith, Malissa Lott replied:  “I don’t know that I can go and tell it right over as it was… I don’t remember the words that were used.”[60]  Similarly, Emily Partridge testified:  “I can’t remember the exact words, that he said.”[61]  Most late recollections were recorded at a time when sealing ceremonial language had been standardized utilizing the phrase “time and eternity.”  Whether individuals would have recalled early variations in the wording of the prayers is unclear.  Furthermore, to presuppose that sexual relations were present based solely on a late memoir that declared a Nauvoo marriage (“polyandrous” or not) was for “time and eternity” would be unjustified by the documents alone.  More specific evidence would be required.

Evidence for “Eternity” Only Sealings in Joseph Smith’s “Polyandrous” Marriages

Manuscript documentation has been identified supporting that “eternity” only sealings occurred during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and even within his own “polyandrous” marriages.  Nauvooan Justus Morse recounted in an affidavit dated March 23, 1887: 

In the year 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois, Elder Amasa Lyman, taught me the doctrine of sealing, or marrying for eternity, called spiritual wifery,[62] and that within one year from that date my own wife and another woman were sealed to me for eternity in Macedonia, by father John Smith, uncle to the Prophet.  This woman was the wife of another man, but was to be mine in eternity and the said father John Smith, also taught me that if an unmarried woman was sealed to me that she was mine for time as well as eternity and that I was not limited as to number.”[63] 

 In an 1895 letter to his Aunt, Joseph Riley Morse wrote of his father, Justus Morse:  “He was a good man.  His word was as good as his note any place we ever lived.”[64]  Nevertheless, Gary Bergera discounts the accuracy of Justus’ memory by observing: “John Smith did not take his first plural wife until August 1843, and Lyman not until September 1844.”[65]  While Bergera’s observations appear to be correct, the historical record demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not require men to be polygamists in order to teach the principle to others or to perform plural sealings.  Joseph B. Noble, Dimick B. Huntington, Brigham Young, Willard Richards, Newel K. Whitney, and William Clayton all performed plural marriages for others prior to becoming polygamists themselves.[66]  Brigham Young, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve, learned of restoration of plural marriage in 1841 and shared that information with others before individually entering into plurality.

Specific evidence exists supporting that Joseph Smith personally experienced sealings for “eternity,” not “time and eternity” and therefore without sexual relations.[67]  Within the research papers of Andrew Jenson, author of the 1887 Historical Record article on Joseph Smith’s plural wives, is the following statement:   

            \Sister Ruth/ Mrs. Sayers was married in her youth to Mr. Edward Sayers, a thoroughly practical horticulturist and florist, and though he was not a member of the Church, yet he willingly joined his fortune with her and they reached Nauvoo together some time in the year 1841;

            While there the strongest affection sprang up between the Prophet Joseph and Mr. Sayers.  The latter not attaching much importance to \the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife \Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim [page2—the first 3 lines of which are written over illegible erasures] her in this life.  She \was/ accordingly the sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith's presence and thus were became numbered among the Prophets plural wives.  She however \though she/ \continued to live with Mr. Sayers / remained with her husband \until his death.[68]

Another document from Jenson’s hand corroborated that concerning Joseph’s plural sealing to Ruth Sayers: “Joseph did not pick that woman.  She went to see whether she should marry her husband for eternity.”[69]  Other documents from Zina Huntington, Patty Bartlett, and Mary Elizabeth Rollins indicate their marriages may also have been “eternity” only sealings as well.[70]

Summary

A review of Joseph Smith’s alleged “polyandrous” marriages demonstrates the importance of clarifying the meaning of “polyandry.”  The Prophet unquestionably participated in “ceremonial polyandry,” whereby a woman was married to him in a second marriage ceremony, without securing a legal divorce from her first husband.  However, to assume Joseph also was involved with “sexual polyandry” requires specific evidence because the second nuptial may have been for “eternity” only (without a sexual union) or may have accompanied a religious divorce from the woman’s civil husband (prohibiting further sexual relations with the legal spouse). 

In light of all available evidence, authors who continue to assert that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry must accept four assumptions:

1. That credible evidence exists beyond the tabloid level accusations supporting it.  Most serious researchers would not draw strict conclusions based upon the sensationalized claims that are currently available. 

2. That Joseph Smith would blithely disobey a commandment he had dictated, a commandment that labels such behavior as “adultery,” stating that women so involved would be “destroyed” (D&C 132:63).

3. That the plural wives and other participants, those who performed and witnessed the sealings, would have condoned the relationships, by ignoring Biblical teachings and Joseph Smith’s instructions condemning such relations.

4. That all participants would have easily overlooked Joseph Smith’s hypocrisy on this point, continuing to follow him as a prophet without apparent complaint.

For decades, anti-Mormon writers have apparently been comfortable with these assumptions, accusing Joseph Smith of sexual polyandry.  Doubtless this phenomenon will continue. 

---

[1] Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.14, February 19, 1854.

[2] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 4-7.

[3] Lawrence Foster, “Sex and Prophetic Power: A Comparison of John Humphrey Noyes, Founder of the Oneida Community, with Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon Prophet,” Dialogue, 31 (Winter 1998) 4:76-77 [65-83]

[4] W. Lawrence Foster, “Between Two Worlds: The Origins of Shaker Celibacy, Onedia Community Complex Marriage, and Mormon Polygamy,” Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1976, 256.

[5]  Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001, 29.

[6] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 632.

[7] Documenting the presence of sexual relations between two people is often difficult.  Even more challenging is proving that such relations occurred over one-hundred-and-sixty years ago.  Accordingly, verifying the presence of polyandrous sexuality (of one woman sexual relations with two husbands during the same period of time) in the 1840s will be even more formidable.  The lack of evidence does not prove that absence of sexual polyandry as it is impossible to prove a negative.  However, without such evidence, caution must be exercised when making assumptions and conjectures. 

[8] See Andrew F. Ehat, “Pseudo-Polyandry: Explaining Mormon Polygyny’s Paradoxical Companion, Sunstone Symposium, August 22, 1986, 1-29.

[9] Andrew Ehat, “Pseudo-Polyandry: Explaining Mormon Polygyny’s Paradoxical Companion.,” presented at the 1986 Sunstone Salt Lake Symposium; copy of typescript in possession of the author, pages 4-12 .   SL86300.  Available for download at http://www.sunstoneonline.com/symposium/symp-mp3s.asp (SL86300).

[10] Royal Anthropological Institute, Notes and Queries on Anthropology (1951), 110.  Quoted in Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage, New York: Viking, 2005, 27.

[11] Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote in her expose, Wife No. 19, (Hartford, Conn: Dustin, Gilman & Co., 1875, 71).  In 1887, Zina referred to Ann Eliza’s claims stating flatly:  “She was not truthful… she has convicted herself out of her own mouth…  Ann Eliza knew she was misrepresenting the facts…”  (“J.J.J.”, “Two Prophet’s Widows,” August 8, 1887, Globe Democrat).  See also Eliza Jane Churchill Webb Letter of Aug. 27, 1876, Myron H. Bond Papers, Community of Christ Archives.

[12] Wilhelm Wyl quoting Sarah Pratt in Mormon Portraits, Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886, 60. Several problems exist with Pratt’s recollection. In 1842, she reported that Joseph’s proposal (later called a “dastardly attempt”) occurred prior to her husband’s return from his mission to England.  (John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints: Or an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism. Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842, 230-31.)  Orson Pratt arrived in Nauvoo on July 19, 1841.  (History of the Church, 4:389.)  Hence, Sarah’s alleged conversation with “Mrs. Harris” must have occurred prior to that date.  Counting back four years establishes the described mistress-hood as beginning in the first half of the year 1837.  However, Joseph Smith did not meet Lucinda until March 14, 1838, when the Smith family moved permanently from Ohio to Missouri (History of the Church, 3:8-9). Accordingly, the beginning of a four year adulterous relationship in 1837 between Joseph Smith and Lucinda Harris was a geographic impossibility.

[13] Nelson Winch Green quoting Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith in, Fifteen Years Among the Mormons: Being the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, New York: D.W. Evans, 1860, 35. Anti-Mormon writer Fanny Stenhouse described Ettie Smith in 1875 as “a lady who wrote very many years ago and in her writings, so mixed up fiction with what was true, that I was difficult to determine where the one ended and the other began.”  (Fanny Stenhouse, "Tell It All": The Story of a Life's Experiences in Mormonism, Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Co., 1875, 618.)  Fawn Brodie theorized that the child was Oliver Buell (Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2nd rev. ed. New York, 1971, 301-02).  However, genetics researcher Ugo A. Perego, has shown through DNA testing that Oliver was not Joseph Smith’s son.  (Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, “Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, vol. 28 [2008], 128-36.)  Further research shows Mary Ettie Smith could only  have been referring to John Hiram, who was born July 13, 1843 at Adams, Illinois, over sixty miles south of Nauvoo. Other than speculation, nothing has been found to support a connection between Joseph and Presendia during that period.

[14] John Bowes, Mormonism Exposed, London: R. Bulman, 1850, 63.

[15] William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati: I. Hart, 1851, 43; Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myres, and Scott R. Woodward. “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith: Genealogical Applications.” Journal of Mormon History 31 (Fall 2005): 59-60 [42-60].

[16] John Hyde, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs, New York: W.P. Petridge, 1857, 84-85.  I have found no evidence to corroborate Hyde’s assertion.  Hyde was capable of extreme claims, asserting that proxy marriages for the dead had “to be consummated in the same manner as that of the living… And as a marriage ceremony is not valid till completed, there is practice in consequence more abomination.”  (Ibid. 88-89.)  This claim is unfounded and contradicted by more reliable evidence.

[17] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 21.

[18] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 80.

[19] Richard S. Van Wagoner,  "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Fall 1985): 81.  [67-83.]

[20] Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005, 439.

[a] “Death of Presendia Kimball,” Deseret News Weekly, Feb 6, 1892, vol. XLIV, no. 7, page 14.

[b] Exposé author Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote claimed that upon learning of his legal wife’s sealing to the Prophet, Orson Hyde was “in a furious passion” (Ann Eliza Webb Young, Wife Number 19, Hartford: Dustin, Gilman, and Co., 1876, 325-26.)  The account is singular and questionable in many ways.  Regardless, whatever misgivings Orson Hyde might have possessed, if any, must have been assuaged soon.  Within months, Orson appealed to Joseph to perform his own plural marriage.

[c] A letter from John L. Smith to First Presidency, Mar 8, 1895 supports that Sarah was sealed to Joseph for only “eternity”:  “In the days of Joseph.  Mother [Sarah M. Kingsley (Howe)] Cleveland by advice, was sealed to the prophet in Nauvoo but lived with her husband John Cleveland…”  (D. Michael Quinn Papers—Addition—Uncat WA MS 244 [Accession:19990209-c] bx 1.)  The author of this letter is likely John Lyman Smith (1823-1898), who was both a son-in-law to Sarah Kingsley Cleveland and a first cousin to Joseph Smith, Jr.  John L. married Sarah's daughter Augusta Bowen Cleveland; and he was a son of John Smith, and brother to George A.

[d] Andrew Jenson’s personal notes state Edward was not a member. (Andrew Jenson Papers [ca. 1871-1942], MS 17956; CHL, Box 49, Folder 16, fifth document.)

[e] Church member William Wright wrote ca. May 1931, “I was well acquainted with two of Joseph's wives, LaVina and Eliza.  I cam to Utah in '69, and rented LaVina [Elvira Cowles?] Holmes farm.  Before Joseph was shot, He asked Jonathan Holmes if he would marry and take care of LaVina.” (Undated holograph letter of William Wright, stampted as received in the First Presidency Office on June 2, 1931, in Box 65, CR 1/44, Misc. Corresp. Of 1st Pres., at CHL; copy in D. Michael Quinn Papers, Yale University, Special Collections, Uncat WA MS Uncat. WA MS. 98, 881028, bx3, fd 2.)  See chapter fourteen.681 

[21] Jacobs experienced several failed marriages, besides his union to Zina.  Caroline Barnes Crosby wrote of one in her diary:  January 11, 1852:  “There were two couples married in our chamber.  Mr. John M Horner officiated.  Henry B. Jacobs to Mary Clawson...”  March 20, 1852:  “Mary Clawson called.  She looked very sad, said she had been weeping, gave us an account of her late husband Henry B. Jacobs leaving her in consequence of his old wife [Asenath Babcock married n 1848] coming and claiming her previous right.”  (Diary of Caroline Barnes Crosly, USHS, pp. 17-30, Dec. 1852 to March, 1853.)

[22] Todd Compton, “Truth, Honesty and Moderation in Mormon History: A Response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman’s Reviews of In Sacred Loneliness, section “Sexuality in the Polyandrous Marriages, (accessed February 11, 2007) .http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/7207/rev.html .  Todd deals with eleven cases of “polyandry,” having eliminated one, the marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney.  See discussion below.

[23] Affidavit of Josephine F. Fisher, February 24, 1915, LDS Archives, Ms 3423, folder 1, images 48-49; see also Danel W. Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 141. See discussion in Richard S. Van Wagoner observed:  “Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo,” Dialogue, Vol.18, No.3, (Fall 1985) p.78fn12.

[24] For an alternate view see, “Sylva Porter Session Lyon Kimball,” in Our Pioneer Heritage,  Salt Lake City: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1967, vol. 10, p. 415.

[25] Historian Rex E. Cooper writes:  “I find the evidence to be less convincing on three different grounds.  First, although the possibility that Josephine was a daughter of Joseph Smith was being discussed as early as 1905, the statement reports a conversation that took place twenty-three years before in 1882.  Second, since the statement is transmitted through Andrew Jenson, it is a third-had account of Sylvia P. Session’s statement.  And third, the statement is unclear about what it meant to be ‘a daughter of Joseph Smith.’  For example, because of his mother’s matrimonial sealing to Joseph Smith, Heber J. Grant was regarded as a ‘son of Joseph Smith’ even though he was born twelve years after the prophet’s death.”  (Rex E. Cooper, Promises Made to the Fathers: Mormon Covenant Organization. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990, 144, fn1.)

[26] Windsor and Sylvia reunited after his January 1846 rebaptism.  Byron Windsor Lyon was born September 4, 1847 and David Carlos Lyon on August 8, 1848.  However, these children would be part of Joseph Smith’s family in eternity.

[27] George H. Brimhall,  Diary of George H. Brimhall, Volume 1, Bound typescript, undated, no publisher; edited by Jennie H. Groberg, copy in Harold B. Lee Library, Special Collections, for date; George H. Brimhall Journal, Jan 1, 1888, CA, MS d 1902.  The most likely identity of “Father Hales” is Charles Henry Hales (1817-1889), Brian C. Hales’ great-great grandfather. 

[28] Angus Munn Cannon, “Statement of an interview with Joseph Smith, III, 1905,” regarding conversation on October 12, 1905, MS 3166, LDS Church Archives.

[29] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 179, 681-82; Todd Compton, “Remember Me in My Affliction”: Louisa Beaman and Eliza R. Snow Letters, 1849,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 2, (Fall 1999), 60, [46-69]. 

[30] Gary J. Bergera, “Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-1844,” Dialogue, 38, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 66; Michael Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844, Longwood, Florida: Xulon Press, 2005, 561; George D. Smith, “The Summer of 1842: Joseph Smith’s relationships with the 12 Wives He Married After His First Wife, Emma,” Sunstone Symposium presentation, Salt Lake Community College, July 31, 1998, 5; Danel W. Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 350, #77; D. Michael Quinn lists on the year, 1842 in The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994, 587.

[31] Todd Compton, “A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith’s Thirty-Three Plural Wives,” Dialogue, Vol.29, (Summer 1996) No.2, p.34.

[32] See discussion in Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith—Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies, Spring 2008, Vol. 9, No. 1, 41-57.

[33] Andrew Jenson Papers, LDS Archives.

[34] Biographical Information on Windsor and Sylvia Lyon, undated sheet in Andrew Jenson Collection, LDS Archives.

[35] Josephine R. Fisher, certificate, February 24, 1915.  Original in Vault Folder LDS Archives, Ms 3423, folder 1, images 48-49; see also Danel Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 141, 350, #77.

[36] Fred C. Collier, the Nauvoo High Council Minute Books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Hanna, Utah: Collier’s Publishing Co., 2005, 74.

[37] Stanely B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981, 95.

[38] Newel Knight, “Autobiography and journal [ca. 1846];” MS 767, Folder 1, item 4, pages 57-58; LDS Archives.

[39] Evidence shows that the Latter-day Saints never considered full marital polyandry to be acceptable to God.  Nor is their any manuscript documentation to suggest that any Church members ever viewed themselves as being polyandrously marriage.  Accordingly, there is no doubt that a divorce from her first husband was acknowledged by Latter-day Saints.

[40] See the case of Henry H. Wilson tried on January 21, 1843.  Even without a legal divorce, “it was decided by President Hyrum Smith and William Marks, that if he feels himself justified and can sustain himself against the laws of the land, that he is clear as far as they were concerned (i.e. the jurisdiction of the High Council) and was at liberty to marry again on the aforesaid conditions.”  Fred C. Collier, the Nauvoo High Council Minute Books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Hanna, Utah: Collier’s Publishing Co., 2005, 80.

[41] Andrew Jenson Papers,LDS Archives.

[42] Biographical Information on Windsor and Sylvia Lyon, undated sheet in Andrew Jenson Collection, LDS Archives.

[43] Josephine R. Fisher, certificate, February 24, 1915.  Original in Vault Folder LDS Archives, Ms 3423, folder 1, images 48-49.

[44] Some researchers may dismiss the two Jenson accounts and Josephine Fisher’s recollection indicating that an official separation or religious divorce occurred between Windsor and Sylvia as simply attempts to cover-up sexual polyandry.  They might also assume that since they had children together, both before his November 1842 excommunication and after his January 1846 rebaptism, that they continued to cohabit while Windsor was out of the Church.  However, no evidence exists to support continued conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor after his excommunication and prior to Joseph Smith’s death. 

[45] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:361, August 1, 1852.

[46] George Albert Smith, Journal of Discourses, 13:41, October 8, 1869. 

[47] Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 18:55-56, July 11, 1875.

[48] Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer, 1:4 (April 1853) 60.

[49] Bathsheba Smith, Testimony given in the Temple Lot Case, part 3, page 347, question 1142.

[50] Joseph F. Smith to Zenos H. Gurley, June 19, 1889, CA.  Richard E. Turley, Jr. Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, vol. 1, DVD #29.

[51] Charles W. Penrose, “Why We Practice Plural Marriage,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, N. 37 (September 14, 1867) XXIX, 578. [577-80]

[52] Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, LDS Archives, 1:5, 1:7.

[53] See D&C 131:2, 132:6 and George D. Smith, ed. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995, 102, 110, 111, 115, 119, 123, 151, etc.

[54] See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 298 (see also 295) for Delcena’s “time only” marriage to Joseph Smith, although no evidence exists to verify it.  Contrast pages 14 and 500 for an argument citing the lack of evidence as showing “eternity” only sealings may never have occurred.  See also Gary James Bergera, “The Earliest Eternal Sealings of Civilly Married Couples Living and Dead,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 51, 59.

[55] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 14; see also 500.

[56] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 183; italics in original. See also D. Michael Quinn, "Organizational Development and Social Origins of the Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-1932. A Prosopographical Study." University of Utah, 1973, 154-55; D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-1932: An American Elite." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976, 64.

[57] Thirty-four were for Joseph Smith (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 4-7) and fifty-one for an additional twenty-nine men (See Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History, chapter one, Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011.)

[58] The words are found in a revelation given through Joseph Smith to Newel K. Whitney specifying the language of the sealing ceremony he was to use in solemnizing the plural marriage of his daughter, Sarah Ann to Joseph Smith.  Quoted in Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999, 315-16; see also Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the D&C on New Mormon Studies: A Comprehensive Resource Library. CD-ROM. Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1998.

[59] Quoted in Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999, 315-16; see also Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the D&C on New Mormon Studies: A Comprehensive Resource Library. CD-ROM. Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1998.

[60] Malissa Lott, Testimony in the Temple Lot Case, part 3, pages 95-96, questions 54, 70.

[61] Emily Partridge, Testimony in the Temple Lot Case, part 3, page 359, question 198.

[62] Lawrence Foster observed:  “This author has never encountered the term ‘plural marriage,’ and almost never encountered the term ‘celestial marriage,’ in Mormon or non-Mormon accounts from the Nauvoo period.”  (W. Lawrence Foster, “Between Two Worlds: The Origins of Shaker Celibacy, Onedia Community Complex Marriage, and Mormon Polygamy. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1976, 277, fn3 continued.)

[63] Affidavit, March 23, 1887, in Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1914, 169-70; italics in original.  Morse served as an Elder, a Seventy, and a High Priest under Joseph Smith and joined the RLDS Church in 1870.

[64] Quoted in Michael S. Riggs “’His Word Was as Good as His Note’” The Impact of Justus Morse’s Mormonism(s) on His Families,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 17 (1997): 80 [49-80.]

[65] Gary James Bergera, “’Illicit Intercourse,’ Plural Marriage, and the Nauvoo Stake High Council, 1840-1844,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, 23, 2003, 74fn73. [59-91]

[66] All of the men listed performed plural marriages for Joseph Smith and perhaps others.  See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, 59, 81, 122, 179, 213, 298, 348 for marriage performance dates and sealer identities.  Cross reference this with George D. Smith, “Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46: A Preliminary Demographic Report.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 52-74 and Gary James Bergera, “Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-1844,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 1-74, for the dates the sealers themselves became polygamists.

[67] Recognizing that Joseph Smith’s marriages could have been for either “time and eternity” or just “eternity,” P.P. Kelley questioned Malissa Lott in 1892 regarding the type of sealing ceremony that she experienced with the him:  “Did you live with Joseph Smith as his wife, or were you just simply sealed to him for eternity?”  (Temple Lot Case, complete transcript, part 3, pages 97, questions 94.)  Malissa, who was single at the time of her sealing to the Prophet, had earlier stated:  “I was married to him for time and all eternity.”  (Ibid., page 95, question 56.) 

[68] Andrew Jenson Papers [ca. 1871-1942], LDS Archives.  It appears that the documents in these folders were used to compile Jenson’s 1887 Historical Record article on plural marriage.  See Joseph F. Smith affidavit books, LDS Archives, 1:9 for date of this sealing “February A.D. 1843.”  However the affidavit states that the sealing was performed by Hyrum Smith, which is unlikely because Hyrum did not accept plural marriage until May of that year.

[69] Recorded by D. Michael Quinn Papers, Yale University, Addition—Uncat WA MS 244 (Accession:19990209-c) bx 1.  I have been unable to identify the primary document to verify this quotation.

[70] See Zina Huntington in Wight interview, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young," Saints Herald, January 11, 1905, 29: Patty Bartlett in Donna Toland Smart, ed., Mormon Midwife: The 1846-1888 Diaries of Patty Bartlett Sessions, Logan, Utah: Utah State University, 1997, 276; and Mary Elizabeth Rollins in “Remarks” at B.Y.U April 14, 1905, copy of original signed typescript, Vault Mss 363, fd 6, HBLL, BYU, 7.