Possibly the most problematic aspect of the cynical explanation of Joseph Smith's polygamy deals with the lack of credible evidence supporting the interpretation. It is true that numerous accusations of sexual improprieties against Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints are available in historical literature. However, the important consideration is whether the allegations are credible. Many of the accusations are non-specific, that is, they are too generalized to be investigated regarding accuracy and reliability.
A comprehensive investigation into available evidence also reveals many specific charges against Joseph Smith. They allege various sorts of sexual misconduct.
My research of historical data has identified 54 specific allegations of immoral behavior leveled directly at the Prophet. These accusation-narratives provide sufficient details to allow investigation of the reliability and credibility of each individual charge.
Four separate categories of Joseph Smith's alleged sexual transgression are identified. Twenty-five assert sexual involvement with women to whom he was not married, to non-wives, which in the Prophet's theology would constitute adultery. Nine more charges affirm Joseph's participation with sexual polyandry where one woman has two husbands and has conjugal relations with both during the same time period. The Prophet taught that such would constitute adultery as well (D&C 132:63). The third group includes sixteen allegations of improper or immoral proposals to engage in sexual improprieties. The last set is comprised of four charges of adultery in conjunction with the mid-1830s relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.
Regarding the fifty-four allegations of sexual impropriety directed at Joseph Smith between 1834 and 2002, several observations can be made:
1. Only seven of the fifty-four accusations were published during the Prophet’s lifetime, one in 1834 and the other six by John C. Bennett in 1842. Jerald and Sandra Tanner's asserted: “The charge of sexual immorality was probably one of the most frequent charges made against Joseph Smith” (Joseph Smith and Polygamy. Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, n.d., 76). A closer look at the available historical data demonstrates that this is not true. Assertions that prior to 1842, Joseph Smith possessed a reputation as a womanizer are not supported by published accounts that reference him and his behaviors during that period, even those written by avowed enemies of the Mormons.
2. The fifty-four accusations are from twenty-seven different accusers. Most of those who leveled multiple complaints against Joseph Smith can be shown to have asserted demonstrable falsehoods in their writings, thus raising questions about any of their allegations. In addition, their personal statements published elsewhere establish that most of them possessed strong anti-Mormon biases. Such observations do not categorically eliminate the possibility that they were telling the truth, which is why none of their claims has been ignored.
Every allegation I have been able to identify in the historical record from any accuser is included here. However, it is curious that more objective manuscript sources are not available to corroborate any of the allegations.
3. With one exception from the controversial John C. Bennett, all of these accusations are at least second-hand in that none of the alleged victims left an account of being sexually involved with Joseph Smith. No woman left a record stating (literally or in content): “Joseph Smith seduced me to have sexual relations with him.” Some of the allegations are based strictly upon "tradition" or assumption.
4. In every case contradictory evidence is available providing an opposing view to the given allegation.
5. Very few of the allegations have a second witness even though many of the charges reportedly involved multiple reported indiscretions that could have easily been witnessed by other interested parties. The claims with more than one supporting witness also have other witnesses that contradict the given testimony.
6. Many of the accusations contain implausible claims. Admittedly, implausibility is not equal to impossibility. However, I argue that in every case, the inherent implausibilities lessen the likelihood that the alleged behavior actually occurred.
While none of the accusations is strongly supported by associated historical data, it might be argued that the raw number of charges is significant. Reviewers may readily acknowledge that some of the allegations are weak, but then suspect that at least one is true and conclude that it is likely that Joseph Smith was an adulterer and hypocrite. Nevertheless, another process may be functioning. The adage, “if you throw enough mud at the wall, some will stick,” may describe the phenomenon.
As a smear technique, accumulating as many criticisms and accusations as possible has been employed by political and religious opponents throughout history. And importantly, adversaries may not strictly promote verifiable truths in their antagonism. For example, Jewish leaders sought Christ's death, labeling Him a Sabbath breaker and blasphemer. Also, the Republican National Committee might not be the best source to obtain an objective views of a Democratic President of the United States.
Perhaps even more telling is to observe that virtually ever religious leader who did not embrace Joseph Smith's teachings may have felt a God-given responsibility to warn their followers and expose him as a fraud. The Prophet had many religious opponents determined to destroy his character and stop his religion from spreading to their flocks. It appears that spreading derogatory gossip was acceptable, even if the accuracy of the rumors was not verified. Preachers may have felt that the "ends" justified the "means" when the souls of mankind were at stake.
Observing that forty-seven of the accusations were formed by writers after Joseph Smith's death, some written over a hundred years later, is curious, unless the authors were specifically seeking to disparage his reputation. Agenda -driven historical reconstructions, like Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, may struggle to maintain objectivity, if that is their goal.
In addition, Latter-day Saints will likely sense a parallel within the antagonistic accounts penned since the martyrdom denigrating the Prophet. They may detect a similar spirit and drive in the anti-Joseph Smith rhetoric as that which created oppression and persecution of religious peoples in past ages as described in the Scriptures.
Many authors have accused Joseph Smith of being a "womanizer" whose libido motivated him to introduce plural marriage because he wanted to expand his sexual opportunities. Through intense research I have identified fifty-three specific allegations, which are charted below. Most are from anti-Mormon sources, but not all. Each has been analyzed for plausibility and reliability.
I conclude that none of the accusations are credible. However, readers are free to review the evidence for themselves.
Click on woman's name for detailed analysis of the accusation:
Click on accuser's name for information regarding accuser's credibility:
