New Book!
----------------------------
Books by Brian C. Hales dealing with "Mormon
fundamentalist" polygamy:
Most nineteenth-century histories of Joseph Smith assume the Latter-day Saints were very gullible, contributing to a common stereotype that is often embraced by naturalistic reconstructions of Mormon polygamy.
Leonard J. Arrington, and Jon Haupt observed that the common stereotype of the Mormons in the nineteenth century included: “the wily, insincere leaders, and the rabble of ignorant, fanatical followers. The plots [in nineteenth century literature] are designed to reveal numerous examples of cunning deceit and deluded obedience.”[1]
For example, Robert Baird wrote in 1844: “The annals of modern time furnish few more remarkable examples of cunning in the leaders, and delusion in their dupes, than is presented by what is called Mormonism… Their leaders are evidently atrocious impostors, who have deceived a great many weak minded but well-meaning persons… The Mormons are a body of ignorant dupes, collected from almost all parts of the United States, and also from the British islands.”[2] Concerning Church members in Nauvoo, visitor George T. M. Davis penned that same year: “From personal observation, I am convinced that there are many poor, unfortunate, deluded being there, who are naturally honest, and who, under the influence of good example and upright leaders, would ‘act well their part’ in society. That class, however, are, generally speaking, of weak intellect, to a great extent uneducated, and easily made the dupes of the vicious.”[3]
Similarly, Mrs. B. G. Ferris asserted in 1856: “Anyone with half an eye can see the object of the prophet Smith, in promulgating such a doctrine [of plural marriage]; and the wonder is, that its transparency is not obvious to all… The effect of the Mormon creed is, evidently, to gather together a low class of villains, and a still lower class of dupes.”[4] The following year Fred Gerhard penned: “They [LDS Church members] were deluded followers [and] were principally men of a weak and unstable character; this made them easily subjected to the power of designing machinators; and of a dreamy and wandering disposition, and a ready belief in wonderful and supernatural matters.”[5]
A later author, Joseph Johnson, penned similarly: “He [Joseph Smith] was a licentious ignorant humbug. He found large numbers of silly and ignorant people ready to receive any nonsense in the name of religion and duped them to his heart’s content.”[6] Jennie Anderson Froiseth quoted Sarah Pratt in 1882 saying: “There are only two classes of Mormon women, devils and fools.”[7]
These excerpts are a small sample of the numerous similar reports that can be found in printed literature.
Non-LDS observers have composed supportive observations at the same time the quotes above were written. One author, who believed Joseph to be a “great imposter,” visited Nauvoo for four days in late 1843 or early 1844, provided this account:
I found many of the calumnious stories told of the Mormons in different parts of the country utterly false when I arrived at Nauvoo; such as the drunken and disorderly character of the people, Joe Smith keeping a number of virgins for his own use, &c. There were not above three or four public houses that I could hear of in the city. We did not see one person drunk, one idle person lurking about, or one instance of strife or disorderly conduct among the populace during the four days we were there; and there was no other foundation to the report of Joe's kept virgins but that he, as guardian to several orphan girls supported and employed them as servants to do work at his hotel; and no man could be more attentive than he was to his wife, who lay ill in bed at that time: a great portion of his time was spent with her, and her doctor was there several times every day; and from what we saw of those orphan girls—and we sat at tea with them every meal—they were, I believe, as modest, chaste, and virtuous girls as can be found.[8]
Another non-Mormon visitor to Nauvoo a few months later characterized the city and its inhabitants in positive terms: “In one respect Nauvoo was the most model community imaginable. There were no public-houses, no drinking places, no purchasing of liquor, no theatres, and no places of public amusement or immorality. They were literally a people without amusements, and the police [policing] of the place was perfect. I never heard of a crime during the period of our stay there, or even of a police report.”[9] A summer 1843 visitor reported: “The inhabitants seem to be a wonderfully enterprising people… Peace and harmony reigns in the city. The drunkard is scarcely ever seen, as in other cities, neither does the awful imprecation or profane oath strike upon your ear.”[10]
Ex-Mormon author of The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), T. B. H. Stenhouse was personally acquainted with many Church leaders prior to his 1870 excommunication. He admitted that regarding the early days of Mormonism, “a few of the new converts appear to have exhibited loose notions of morality. Of these, some charged with being adulterers and adulteresses were stated to have been turned away, and others were warned to beware and repent speedily.”[11] Important, after performing detailed research for his book, he conceded: “That [Joseph Smith] advocated, or in any way countenanced the promiscuous intercourse that was charged to him by such men as [John C.] Bennett, the Author has been unable to find any evidence” (italics in original).[12]
Historian Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote in his 1889 History of Utah: “It must be admitted that the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois were, as a class, a more moral, honest temperate, hard-working, self-denying, and thrifty people than the gentiles by whom they were surrounded.”[13] George Bernard Shaw explained: “Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.”[14]
More recently, non-Mormon researcher, Mario Stephen DePillis, wrote: “The Most dispassionate recent historians of Mormonism still seem to leave the impression that Joseph was a charlatan who gulled the ignorant. This almost inevitable tendency leads to curious oversimplification of early Mormon history.”[15] Lawrence Foster wrote: “The early Mormons were strong believers in the conventional monogamous standards of their day… Smith’s followers, most of them [were] reared in a strict monogamous tradition and highly critical of any sexual irregularities.”[16]
Historian Carmon Hardy observed: “Most scholars find the notion that the prophet’s sexual ardor inspired his interest in taking additional wives to be too simplistic.”[17] “Clearly, polygamy represented more to the Saints than only an opportunity to broaden their sexual experience. It was integral with their cosmology.”[18]
Evidence from first-hand accounts and contemporary records also contrasts the stereotype regarding the gullibility of the Latter-day Saints. Volume one, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History, provided dozens of personal recollections and accounts that individually and collectively indicate that Church members in Nauvoo, including those who practiced polygamy, were discerning, pious, and devout Christians.
In an October 7, 1835 letter to his wife Sally, W. W. Phelps reflected the strictness of his own moral expectations: “Sister Stout had been got with child in adultery by John J. Fanner. I didn’t call such a crime ‘adultery.’ I call it fornication! Which in my opinion can only be washed away by the water of baptism. The law does not say that such a sin is to be forgiven. It ought not to be.”[19]
John Taylor recalled that polygamy “was a very heavy thing for us to meet, for we generally professed to be and were pure men.”[20] “When Joseph Smith first made known the revelation concerning plural marriage and of having more wives than one, it made my flesh crawl.”[21]
Maureen Ursenbach Beecher recalled the difficulties Eliza R. Snow encountered espousing plural marriage: “In requiring her to accept not just mentally but spiritually, emotionally, and physically a proposition her contemporaries were condemning as licentious ‘spiritual wifery,’ Joseph was forcing her to redefine the requirements put upon her by the God she had long worshiped.”[22] Eliza R. Snow remembered that “The subject was very repugnant to my feelings.”[23]
Lucy Walker recorded: “My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me… Every feeling of my soul revolted against it.”[24] In 1892, she further explained:
[Plural marriage] was a command from God to me to receive it, and I would rather have laid down my life than disobeyed it. But it was a grand an glorious principle that was to be established, and when I was called upon, I stepped forward and gave myself up as a sacrifice to establish that principle. And I did that in the face of prejudice, of course. In this day and age of the world, we are considered fanatics, of course, more or less…
I knew it was right and [Joseph Smith] had his doubts about it for he debated it in his own mind as is shown by his language. I knew it was right sir. Do you think I would have done that – made that sacrifice and virtually given my life away if I had not know it was right?[25]
Helen Mar Kimball Whitney recalled that learning of plural marriage “had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake… [causing] an outburst of displeasure for supposed injury.”[26] “The Prophet Joseph Smith revealed the plural order to but few of the honest and pure-in-heart… He charged them not to divulge it, as he was harassed by day and by night by his enemies, and on their secrecy depended his life.”[27]
Phoebe W. Carter, wife of Wilford Woodruff, recounted: “When the principle of polygamy was first taught I thought it was the most wicked thing I ever heard of.”[28] “I opposed it to the best of my ability until I became sick and wretched.”[29] Mercy Rachel Fielding wrote: “This subject when first communicated to me tried me to the very core all my former traditions and every natural feeling of my heart rose in opposition to this principle.”[30] Jane Snyder Richards, wife of Franklin D. Richards, recalled her more moderated response. She thought it was “a strange thing and I was uncertain as to the result, but was satisfied that it was a sacred revelation and that my religion required its acceptance.”[31]
Danel Bachman summarized: “Nearly every personal or autobiographical account details moral misgivings about a marital arrangement that ran against the puritan traditions of the church’s New England-reared constituency.”[32] In looking at the behavior of these men and women, Kimball Young observed: “To introduce such radical and divergent patterns of life in so short a time, there is needed some strong motivation supported by intense emotion. Surely the monogamous system was thoroughly entrenched in the Christian mores.”[33]
These examples and many more that could be cited support the observation that most of Joseph Smith’s closest followers abided a firmly ingrained moral code that would have created significant obstacles for change.[34] Most of the believers were drawn to the restoration as a consequence of the Book of Mormon, which reiterates a constant standard of chastity throughout its pages. Historical research suggests that after an initial period of shock, some Latter-day Saints apostatized. Others members persisted after hearing discussions regarding the eternal promises associated with the new and everlasting covenant. These, accompanied by numerous personal spiritual witnesses, were necessary to expand the monogamic tunnel vision of the Nauvoo Saints.
Lawrence Foster agreed:
Most of Smith’s loyal followers appear to have been genuinely distraught when told of the new departure. Joseph Smith’s personal magnetism, the appeal of his prophetic role, and the attractiveness of the doctrines and rituals he introduced into his Church must have been frighteningly intense. Even when his followers found the new marriage beliefs and practices personally repugnant, they were even more anxious that if they did not accept them, they might forfeit their eternal salvation…
In almost all recorded cases, initial presentation of the belief in plural marriage either to men or women resulted in shock, horror, disbelief, or general emotional confusion. Those who eventually accepted the principle almost invariably went through a period of inner turmoil lasting from several days to several months on occasion. During this period, they generally would go without adequate sleep, food, or normal social contacts, fervently praying that God would reveal the truth of the new beliefs to them. Those who eventually accepted plural marriage almost invariably had a compelling personal experience of the truth of the new standards. Taking such a drastic step away from established norms demanded more than a purely intellectual assent to the new beliefs.[35]
In light of these observations, it appears that most Church members possessed a low level of gullibility especially concerning this topic. Recognizing the non-gullible characteristic of the majority of the Latter-day Saints allows us to more easily dismiss the sensationalized claims against the Prophet and Church members that involve allegations of debaucheries, harems, sex slaves, and similar licentiousness.[36] Such accusations seem to describe stereotypes and caricatures that have no genuine connection to historical reality.
It appears that Joseph Smith’s teachings of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage were generally believable and that Church members in Nauvoo in the 1840s were not very gullible. This admission might initially seem to support the theory advanced by Brodie et al that Joseph Smith was a “deceiver,” who simply developed a believable deception to cover his immoral behaviors, because anything less would have been rejected by the skeptical Church members in antebellum Nauvoo.
This interpretation declares that the Prophet knew it was all a hoax as he successfully duped his closest associates. Thereafter the deceiver and the deceived together promoted plural marriage as a legitimate command from God, but only Joseph Smith realized it was a fraud. Wilhelm Wyl, who had little good to say about Joseph, seemed to reflect this view: “Joseph Smith was shrewd enough to have a few honest men around him whom he placed in responsible positions, who filled them with fidelity and self-sacrifice, being at the same time in a great measure ignorant of the duplicity and wickedness of the imposter.”[37]
It should be pointed out that modern reviewers who claim Joseph Smith was a deceiver assert a superior discerning ability than that possessed by the Prophet's contemporaries. In other words, antagonists assure their readers that, in contrast to the Latter-day Saints in the 1840s, they can see back through a century (or more) to discover the truth, that Joseph Smith was an imposter. They assume the Prophet's friends and followers, those individuals who lived physically near, those who interacted with him in multiple situations of stress and joy, those who listened and discussed his teachings, those who knew personally of his character weaknesses and strengths, could not discern the deception he palmed off on them. It presents a paradox that they who knew him best could not see what those who know him least claim to know.
As a valid explanation, the deceiver-deceived theory has other weaknesses. First is the question of whether the believability of Joseph Smith's theology was sufficient to have fooled his followers if encountered as strictly an intellectual theory, without any "spiritual" confirmations. The Prophet was charismatic, but as observed above by several non-LDS scholars, to assume that charisma and believability were sufficient to overcome the skepticism of the Latter-day Saints seems insufficient.
Second, the complexity of Joseph’s teachings was completely unnecessary. Lawrence Foster observed: “The hypothesis of conscious fraud or rationalization founders on the complexity of Smith’s character and fails to take into account the larger social context in which he operated.”[38] "Smith, like many other men, could have found easier ways of gratifying his sexual impulses than by setting up an elaborate polygamous system. Something far more complicated than simple rationalization or conscious fraud is involved here.”[39]
L.D.S. historian Kathleen Flake observed: “Do I think [Joseph] Smith’s revelations on polygamy can be reduced to his sex drive, no I don’t… It’s too simplistic… There are so many easier ways to satisfy our sex drive than to have many marriages… Having many marriages at one time seems to me to be the least rational way to satisfy one’s sex drive.”[40] Danel Bachman wrote: “Clearly Smith’s marriages cannot be simply written off as sexual adventures. His words and actions commonly reflected less biological motivations… Smith was basically driven by a sense of duty to carry out what was perceived as the will of God.”[41]
Joseph Smith introduced a complex theology that includes plural marriage as one small component. If he had simply wanted to expand his sexual opportunities, he could have declared that he was restoring Old Testament polygamy and been done with it. Instead, he shared an expanding cosmology that required plural marriage in some instances. It contradicted accepted Christian teachings, thus diminishing the likelihood of acceptance, if that were the primary goal.
Third, if Joseph Smith was seeking more sexual experiences, it is puzzling that he would require the institution of marriage, with all its long-term obligations and responsibilities, as the only venue. Helen Mar Kimball, plural wife of Joseph Smith, recalled:
The Prophet said… that it [plural marriage] would damn more than it would have because \so many/ unprincipled men would take advantage of it, but that did not prove that it was not a pure principle. If Joseph had had any impure desires he could have gratified them in the style of the world with less danger of his life or his character, than to do as he did. The Lord commanded him to teach & to practice that principle & for a great while he dared not to face the frowns which he knew that he was sure to meet, but the threats of the Almighty made him willing to lay down his life for the truth.[42]
The cynical view fails to account for the overall lack of gullibility among the Latter-day Saints who possessed personal knowledge of the practice of polygamy at Nauvoo. To portray Church members as gullible and hoodwinked by a deceiving Joseph Smith seems to describe caricatures rather than real people living in Illinois in the early 1840s. But to ignore their responses or to dismiss them unimportant also seems insufficient.
The naturalistic view would be strengthen by acknowledging the piety and devout convictions of Joseph Smith's polygamous followers. To ignore or misrepresent the Latter-day Saint pluralists in Nauvoo prevents the creation of a credible historical reconstruction.
[1] Leonard J. Arrington and Jon Haupt. "Intolerable Zion: The Image of Mormonism in Nineteenth Century American Literature." The Western Humanities Review, XXII (Summer, 1968), 245.
[2] Robert Baird, Religion in the United States of America, Glasgow, England: Blackie and Son, 1844, 647, 649.
[3] George T. M. Davis, An Authentic Account of the Massacre of Joseph Smith, St. Louis: Chambers and Knapp, 1844, 38.
[4] Mrs. B. G. Ferris, The Mormons at Home; With some Incidents of Travel from Missouri to California, New York: Dix and Edwards, 1856, 130-31. William Harris referred to the Mormons as “dupes and fanatics” (Mormonism Portrayed, Warsaw: Sharp Gambel, 1841, 35). See also Rev. F.B. Ashley, Mormonism: An Exposure of the Impositions Adopted by the Sect Called “The Latter-day Saints”, London: John Hatchard, 1851, 8.
[5] Fred Gerhard, Illinois as It Is, Chicago: Keen and Lee, 1857, 115. Ellen Olivia Carlson assessed in 1925: “We cannot charge the whole community of Mormons with possessing hearts as vicious and depraved, as those the two Smith’s are shown to have had. There were many poor, unfortunate, deluded people there, who were naturally honest and law-abiding, and who, under the influence of good example and upright leaders, would have acted well their part in society” (“The Latter Day Saints as a Factor in Illinois History," master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1925, 77-78).
[6] Joseph Johnson, The Great Mormon Fraud, Manchester: Butterworth and Nodal, 1885, 11.
[7] Jennie Anderson Froiseth, The Women of Mormonism; Or, the Story of Polygamy as told by the Victims Themselves. Detroit, Mich.: C.G.G. Paine, 1882, 40.
[8]Anonymous, History of the Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, with an Account of their Persecutions in Missouri and Illinois. From an Authentic Source, Whitehaven [England]: William Wilson, 1844, 3.
[9] Edwin De Leon, Thirty years of My Life on Three Continents, London: Ward and Downey, 1890, 61.
[10] Charles Mackay, The Mormons, or Latter-day Saints; with memoirs of the Life and Death of Joseph Smith., the American Mahomet, fourth edition, London, 1851, 129
[11] Quoted in Historicus (pseudo.), “Sketches from the History of Polygamy,” Anti-Polygamy Standard, vol. II, no. 1, Salt Lake City, April, 1881, p. 1. The primary source for this citation is not provided and I have not been able to locate the quotation in Rocky Mountain Saints.
[12] T. B. H. Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints, New York: Appleton and Company, 1873, 145. Stenhouse goes on to refer to an unnamed “wife” in Salt Lake City who “stoutly asserted… from her own knowledge” denouncing “the immaculate purity of the Prophet.” (Ibid.) However, the informant resembles Sarah Pratt. In 1873 she was an acknowledged apostate capable of making sensationalized accusations against Joseph Smith and the Saints. As discussed in volume one, chapter nineteen, convincing evidence exists that she and John C. Bennett were involved in a sexual relationship, which she may have attempted to cover up by accusing Joseph Smith of unsubstantiated improprieties, which only Bennett would corroborate.
[13] Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah, San Francisco: History Company, 1889, 164. In 1850, non-LDS writer William Kelly sojourned to Salt Lake City and noted that “the Mormons… are, as a class, a most astute and reasoning people.” (William Kelly, Across the Rocky Mountains from New York to California, London: Simms and M’Intyre, 1852, 163fn.)
[14] George Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America. An Address by Mr. Shaw to the Academy of Political Science at the Metropolitan Opera House. New York, on the 11th of April, 1933. (Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933) 19.
[15] Mario Stephen DePillis,. "The Development of Mormon Communitarianism, 1826-1846." Yale University, 1960, 260.
[16] W. Lawrence Foster, “Between Two Worlds: The Origins of Shaker Celibacy, Onedia Community Complex Marriage, and Mormon Polygamy. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1976, 190-91.
[17] B. Carmon Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise, Norman, Oklahoma: Arthur H. Clark, 2007, 40.
[18] B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1992, 10-11.
[19] Bruce Van Orden, “Writing to Zion: The William W. Phelps Kirtland Letters (1835-1836),” BYU Studies 33 (1993) 3: 567; emphasis in original.
[20] John Taylor quoted in Deseret Evening News, December 9, 1879.
[21] John Taylor, April 9th, 1882, Journal of Discourses, 23:64.
[22] Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, ed., The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow, Logan Utah: USU press, 2000, 50.
[23] Eliza R. Snow, “Sketch of My Life,” Bancroft Library, Berkely; in Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, ed., The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow, Logan Utah: USU press, 2000, 16; see also Edward W. Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom. New York City: n.p., 1877, 295.
[24] Quoted in Lyman Omer Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience, Logan, Utah: Utah Journal Co, 1888, 46-48; see also testimony in Andrew Jenson, "Plural Marriage," Historical Record 6 (July 1887): 229-30.
[25] Lucy Walker, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), pages 450, 474, questions 29, 600.
[26] Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997, 252.
[27] Helen Mar Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni Iowa “Herald,” Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882, 16.
[28] Quoted in Edward W. Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom. New York City: n.p., 1877,413. See also Phoebe Woodruff quoted in "Mormon Ladies on Plural Marriage," Millennial Star, 40 (December 23, 1878) 51:814-15.
[29] Phoebe Woodruff, “Autobiographical Sketch of Phebe W. Woodruff,” Salt Lake City, 1880, 15; quoted in Marvin S. Hill, Quest for Refuge: The Mormon Flight from American Pluralism. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989, 115.
[30] Mercy Rachel Fielding Thompson, [Autobiographical sketch, 1880], Ms 4580, CHL, page 5.
[31] Jane Snyder Richards, “Autobiography,” CHL, Ms d 1215, 18.
[32] Danel Bachman,. "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 9.
[33] Kimball Young, Isn't One Wife Enough? New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1954, xii.
[34] Jeffrey Nichols, author of Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power: Salt Lake City, 1847-1918, wrote: “While the realities of Mormon polygamy were grim enough for some women, they were far removed from the brothel and harem stereotypes. Mormon authorities considered sexual sins – adultery, rape, incest, fornication – dangerous violations of their moral code… The LDS Church took its moral code seriously. The most common grounds for disfellowshipping in the nineteenth-century church was sexual misconduct.” (Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power, Salt Lake City, 1847-1918, Chicago: University of Illinois, 2002, 25.)
[35] W. Lawrence Foster, “Between Two Worlds: The Origins of Shaker Celibacy, Onedia Community Complex Marriage, and Mormon Polygamy. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1976, 239, 244-45.
[36] See appendix E1. Also, for example, Harry M Beardsley wrote in 1931: “With increased leisure and freedom from pursuit and worry, Joe had opportunity to extend his researches into the spiritual wife theory. By this time [early 1843] he had acquired some half-a-dozen wives, and had ‘sold’ the theory to several of the leaders who had begun to acquire celestial harems of their own.” (Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931, 268.)
[37] Wyl, W., pseud. [Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal]. Mormon Portraits, or the Truth About Mormon Leaders From 1830 to 1886. Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886, 64; italics in original. In another place Wyl wrote that Joseph Smith was “the great shark” and “the faithful were the carp.” (Ibid., 11.)
[38] W. Lawrence Foster, “Between Two Worlds : The Origins of Shaker Celibacy, Onedia Community Complex Marriage, and Mormon Polygamy. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1976, 194.
[39]Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981, 126.
[40] Kathleen Flake quoted in Helen Whitney, The Mormons, PBS Home Video, 2007
[41] Danel Bachman,. "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975, 142.
[42] Helen [Mar Kimball Whitney], to Mary Bond, n.d., Biographical Folder Collection, P21, f11 [Myron H. Bond], item 22, 23, 24, Community of Christ Archives, pp. 3-9.
