Joseph Smith: Failed Polygamist.

Plural Marriage in Mormon Doctrine: A Critical Theological and Historical Analysis

I. Introduction: The Origins and Motivations Behind Mormon Plural Marriage

The introduction of plural marriage into Mormon doctrine represents one of the most controversial and consequential developments in American religious history. While faithful Latter-day Saint (LDS) narratives have traditionally portrayed this practice as a divine commandment revealed to Joseph Smith through angelic visitation, a careful examination of the historical record, primary sources, and theological framework reveals a markedly different picture—one in which personal desire, opportunistic theology, and the consolidation of ecclesiastical authority played determining roles in the establishment and perpetuation of this practice.

This analysis begins from a premise that many believing members find difficult to accept: the introduction of plural marriage in Mormon doctrine came initially from an inability to control Joseph Smith’s sexual appetites, with the same pattern applying to subsequent leaders of the LDS movement. This assertion is not made lightly or without substantial historical documentation. Rather, it emerges from a synthesis of contemporary accounts, the prophet’s own recorded statements and actions, documentary evidence of his relationships, and—most significantly—the conspicuous absence of the primary theological justification for the practice: offspring from these unions.

Historical Context and Key Figures

Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844), founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and self-proclaimed prophet, translator, and revelator, stands at the center of this examination. The historical record demonstrates that between approximately 1833 and his death in 1844, Smith entered into plural marriage relationships with between 30 and 40 women, depending on which historical sources one accepts as authoritative. These relationships included marriages to women as young as fourteen years old (Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester), as well as eleven polyandrous marriages to women who were already legally married to other living men—eight of whom were married to faithful, active members of the church, including church leaders.

Brigham Young (1801-1877), Smith’s successor as president of the church, not only continued but dramatically expanded the practice of plural marriage. Young is documented to have had 55 wives and fathered 57 children through these relationships. Under his leadership in Utah Territory, plural marriage transformed from a secretive practice known only to a select group of church elders into an openly defended and widely practiced doctrine that became inseparable from Mormon identity for nearly half a century.

Other significant figures in this history include Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s brother), who initially opposed plural marriage before becoming convinced of its divine origin and who requested that Joseph produce the written revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 132; Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s first wife, whose documented opposition, grief, and ultimate resistance to plural marriage provides crucial insight into the practice’s implementation; and William Clayton, Joseph’s scribe, whose detailed journals and records give some of the most reliable contemporary documentation of events.

Key Journal Entries

Clayton’s journals from 1842–1845 detail plural marriage sealings and discussions:

On April 27, 1843: “Went to Presidents who rode with me to Brother H C. Kimballs where Sister Margt Moon was sealed up by the priesthood, by the president” (Joseph Smith sealing Margaret Moon as a plural wife).
On July 12, 1843: “This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c. After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma].” Emma reacted negatively, appearing “very rebellious,” prompting Joseph to deed property to her.

These entries align with the mention of Hyrum’s role in the revelation and Emma’s opposition.

Affidavit Testimony

In a 1874 affidavit, Clayton affirmed his role as scribe for D&C 132 and described Joseph introducing him to plural marriage in early 1843:

Joseph told him the principle was “right in the sight of our Heavenly Father” and revealed his own plural wives, including Eliza R. Snow and Louisa Beaman.
Clayton noted he married his second wife (Ruth’s sister Margaret) on April 27, 1843, after Joseph’s encouragement.

He also detailed the revelation’s dictation in Joseph’s upper office, with only Joseph, Hyrum, and himself present; Emma later destroyed the original.

Joseph Smith Papers Context

The Joseph Smith Papers project reproduces Clayton’s records, confirming he scribed the July 12, 1843, revelation on eternal and plural marriage (“law of the priesthood”). His journals use cryptic references (e.g., “m J to LW” for Joseph’s sealing to Lucy Walker) to maintain secrecy.

Relevance to Brigham Young

Clayton’s records predate Young’s Utah leadership but show the practice’s early institutionalization among elders like Young (who performed some sealings). This supports the segment’s note on its transformation from secretive to open under Young.

The Central Thesis

This analysis argues that plural marriage, as introduced and practiced by Joseph Smith and his successors, originated not from divine mandate but from personal desire clothed in religious justification. Several interconnected lines of evidence support this conclusion:

First, the historical timeline of plural marriage’s introduction demonstrates a pattern of evolution rather than revelation. Joseph Smith’s first documented plural relationship occurred in 1833 with Fanny Alger, years before he claimed to have the sealing keys necessary to perform eternal marriages, and before any formal doctrine or revelation concerning plural marriage existed. This relationship, discovered by Smith’s wife Emma and described by contemporary witnesses as “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair,” bore all the hallmarks of an extramarital affair rather than a divinely sanctioned marriage covenant.

Second, the manner in which Smith introduced and practiced plural marriage contradicts virtually every aspect of the formal revelation he eventually produced to justify it. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, dictated in July 1843, contains specific requirements for plural marriage—that men may only marry virgins, that the first wife must give her consent, and that plural wives must not have “vowed to any other man.” Smith violated all these requirements repeatedly: he married women already married to other men (polyandry), he married women without Emma’s knowledge or consent (often marrying her close friends and confidantes), and he entered into at least one sexual relationship (Fanny Alger) before he claimed to have received the sealing keys that would make such marriages valid in the eyes of God.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

2 Behold! and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory; for all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as was instituted from before the foundation of the world;

5 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, the theological justification for plural marriage—to “raise up seed unto the Lord”—is contradicted by an absence of documented offspring from Smith’s plural wives. Despite entering into sexual relationships with numerous women over more than a decade, and despite documented evidence of sexual activity in at least ten of these marriages, no children have been proven to be Joseph Smith’s biological offspring from any plural wives. This stands in stark contrast to his nine children with Emma (though several died in infancy), and to the impressive fertility demonstrated by many of his plural wives when they subsequently remarried after his death.

The following sections will examine these claims in detail, analyzing Smith’s claims of divine revelation, the numerous criticisms and controversies surrounding plural marriage, the theological rationale Smith provided, and the various apologetic explanations offered by LDS historians and theologians. The evidence, when examined comprehensively and objectively, reveals plural marriage to be an innovation born of human desire and justified through claimed divine revelation—a pattern that would characterize much of Joseph Smith’s prophetic career.

II. Divine Revelation Claims: Examining Joseph Smith’s Justifications

Joseph Smith’s claims regarding divine revelation for plural marriage evolved significantly over time, with different accounts emphasizing different aspects and timelines. This evolution itself raises important questions about the nature and reliability of his prophetic claims.

The 1831 Revelation: Problems with the Timeline

According to the current heading for Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, “evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.” The LDS Church’s Gospel Topics essay on plural marriage similarly states: “The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831.”

However, this dating appears to be a retroactive attempt to legitimize Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger, which began approximately in 1833. The actual historical evidence for an 1831 revelation is thin and problematic. The primary sources cited are:

W.W. Phelps’ Account: William W. Phelps, a friendly source, claimed that Smith received a revelation in 1831 that missionaries to the Lamanites (Native Americans) should take additional wives “that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.” This alleged revelation was rooted in the racist theology of the Book of Mormon, which taught that Native Americans were cursed with dark skin and would become “white and delightsome” when they accepted Christ. This revelation, if authentic, had nothing to do with the plural marriage system Smith would later establish in Nauvoo—it was specifically about intermarriage with Native Americans to fulfill Book of Mormon prophecy.

Ezra Booth’s Confirmation: Ezra Booth, an antagonistic source who left the church, corroborated Phelps’ account, stating that it had “been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives” to gain residence in Indian territory. This adds credibility to the claim that some form of teaching about taking multiple wives existed in 1831, but again, the context and theology were entirely different from the plural marriage system Smith would implement in the 1840s.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner’s Account: Lightner claimed that Smith told her in 1831, when she was only twelve years old, that she was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. However, this account was given decades after the events, during a period when establishing Smith’s early practice of polygamy was crucial for the Utah church’s legitimacy. The claim that Smith told a twelve-year-old girl she would be his plural wife, yet she then married another man (Adam Lightner) in 1835, strains credulity. More likely, this represents a later embellishment or reinterpretation of events to establish Smith as a polygamist from the earliest period of the church’s history.

Revelations Contradicting 1831 Polygamy Claims: Most significantly, revelations Smith produced in 1831 flatly contradict any authorization for plural marriage. Doctrine and Covenants Section 42, verse 22 (written in 1831) states: “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.” Section 49, verse 16 (also 1831) declares: “Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” These revelations, presented as the voice of God, explicitly forbid plural marriage. If Smith had received a revelation authorizing plural marriage in 1831, why would God contradict it in revelations dictated the same year?

The most parsimonious explanation is that Smith did not develop the theology of plural marriage until the early 1840s, and that the 1831 dating represents an attempt to legitimize his earlier relationship with Fanny Alger and to establish a longer prophetic pedigree for a practice that was actually a much later innovation.

The Fanny Alger Affair: Sex Without Sealing Keys

In approximately 1833, the then 27-year-old Joseph Smith began a sexual relationship with 16-year-old Fanny Alger, who worked as a live-in maid in the Smith household. This relationship is significant because it occurred before Smith claimed to have received the sealing keys that would make eternal marriages possible, rendering any purported “marriage” to Alger invalid even by Mormon theological standards.

The historical record regarding this relationship is damning:

Oliver Cowdery’s Assessment: Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon and Smith’s closest associate during the church’s founding period, characterized the relationship as “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” Cowdery’s condemnation of the relationship was one factor in his eventual excommunication from the church. Cowdery, who would have been aware if Smith claimed sealing authority, clearly did not view this as a legitimate marriage.

Emma’s Discovery and Response: According to multiple historical accounts, Emma discovered Joseph and Fanny together in the barn. William McLellin, an early church member, later reported Emma’s own words: “She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!” Emma’s response was immediate and unequivocal—she expelled Fanny from their home in the middle of the night.

Possible Pregnancy: Chauncey Webb, Fanny’s contemporary, stated that Emma “drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house.” This suggests Fanny may have been pregnant, though no definitive proof exists. If true, this would be the only documented pregnancy from any of Smith’s plural relationships, and it would have been before any claimed authority to perform such marriages.

No Contemporary Marriage Record: Despite LDS claims that this was a marriage, no contemporary record exists. The only source claiming a marriage ceremony occurred is Mosiah Hancock’s 1869 account, written 36 years after the alleged event, describing secondhand what his father Levi purportedly told him. This account claims Levi performed a marriage, but even if accepted at face value, it describes Joseph essentially trading Fanny for permission to marry Levi’s love interest: “Brother Levi I want to make a bargain with you—If you will get Fanny Alger for me for a wife you may have Clarissa Reed. I love Fanny.” This hardly depicts a prophet motivated by divine command.

The Fanny Alger relationship is crucial because it establishes a pattern: Smith engaged in sexual relationships with young women in his household, was discovered, faced consequences, and only later developed theological justifications for such relationships. This pattern would repeat itself throughout his life.

The 1835 Denial: Condemning Polygamy in Scripture

Following the Fanny Alger scandal, the church published an explicit denunciation of polygamy in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Section 101 of that edition stated:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

This statement was not merely defensive; it was placed in the church’s scriptural canon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and presented as official church doctrine. While apologists note that Smith did not personally write this statement, he presided over its inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants as prophet and approved its later publication in the Times and Seasons in 1842, well into his Nauvoo polygamy period.

The 1835 statement also included this provision: “All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.” This would later be directly contradicted by Doctrine and Covenants 132:7, which states that legal marriage contracts “are of no efficacy, virtue, or force” after death.

Todd Compton, a faithful LDS historian and author of the authoritative work “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith,” observed that the 1835 statement “clearly represented an effort to counteract scandal and perhaps to defuse rumors of Fanny Alger’s marriage, possible pregnancy, and expulsion.”

The 1836 Vision: Anachronistic Sealing Keys

In April 1836, Smith claimed to have received a vision in the Kirtland Temple in which the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elias appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery to restore priesthood keys. This vision, now canonized as Doctrine and Covenants Section 110, is typically associated by the church with the restoration of sealing keys that would allow eternal marriages.

However, several problems attend this claim:

Elijah and Elias Are the Same Person: In biblical scholarship, “Elias” is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Elijah.” They are not two separate prophets. Smith’s vision has two different versions of the same prophet appearing separately, suggesting theological confusion rather than genuine revelation.

No Mention of Sealing or Marriage: Reading Section 110 in its entirety, one finds no mention of sealings, eternal marriage, plural marriage, or celestial marriage. The vision speaks of “keys” in the most generic sense. It is only through later interpretation that these keys were understood to include sealing power.

Retroactive Justification: The association of this vision with sealing keys appears to be retroactive—a way to establish priesthood authority for a practice Smith would initiate years later. If the sealing keys were restored in 1836, why did Smith wait until 1841 to begin performing plural sealings in Nauvoo? And why did he never reference this vision when introducing plural marriage to others?

Most significantly for our analysis, whatever authority Smith may have claimed from this vision came years after his relationship with Fanny Alger. Even if we accept the vision as genuine, Smith had already engaged in sexual relationships without the purported authority to sanctify them.

The Production of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132

The written revelation on plural marriage, now known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, was not produced until July 12, 1843—nearly three years into Smith’s Nauvoo polygamy period and only one year before his death. The circumstances of its production reveal much about its true nature.

Hyrum’s Request: The revelation was produced at the request of Smith’s brother Hyrum, who hoped that a written revelation would convince Emma to accept plural marriage. According to the LDS Church’s own historical account in the book “Saints,” Hyrum told Joseph: “If you will write the revelation, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.”

Joseph’s response is telling: “You do not know Emma as well as I do.” By this point, Smith had been sealed to more than 20 women, most without Emma’s knowledge. Emma had only recently learned of some of these marriages, and her reaction had been predictably devastating.

The Dictation Process: William Clayton, Smith’s scribe, recorded important details about how the revelation was produced. Hyrum initially requested that Joseph use the Urim and Thummim (the seer stone used to translate the Book of Mormon) to receive the revelation directly from God. Joseph’s response was remarkable: “He did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.”

This claim—that Smith could recite from memory a 3,200-word revelation purportedly received years earlier—strains credibility beyond the breaking point. A typical scribe could write about 1,200 words per hour, meaning the dictation of Section 132 represented nearly three hours of work. Smith dictated this complex, legalistic revelation “on the fly,” in the distinctive voice and style of the King James Bible, without notes or the aid of his seer stone, all while claiming to recall it perfectly from years earlier.

The more plausible explanation is that Smith composed the revelation during dictation, using his considerable talent for producing scripture-like material in the voice of God. This interpretation is supported by content within the revelation itself that clearly responds to recent events and circumstances.

Content Analysis: The Revelation’s True Purpose

Reading Doctrine and Covenants 132 carefully reveals that it was not a timeless revelation preserved from years earlier, but rather a document crafted to address Smith’s current situation and to coerce Emma into acceptance:

Recent Context Embedded in “Eternal” Revelation: Verse 51 references an offer Joseph had recently made to Emma: “A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife…that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham.”

William Clayton’s journal from just three weeks before the revelation was dictated provides crucial context. On June 23, 1843, Clayton recorded: “President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me…She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too.”

The offer Smith made to Emma, referenced in verse 51 as an “Abrahamic test,” appears to have been permission for Emma to take another husband if Joseph continued taking additional wives. The revelation rescinds this offer, calling it a divine test that Emma should “partake not of.” If the revelation had been received years earlier, how could it contain a specific reference to a recent offer made by Joseph to Emma?

Threats Directed at Emma: Of the eleven warnings or threats contained in Section 132, nine are directed specifically at Emma. These include:

Verse 4: “If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned”
Verse 52: Those wives who claim to be pure but are not “shall be destroyed”
Verse 54: “If she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law”
Verse 56: “Let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses”
Verse 64: “If any man have a wife…and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood…then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed”

These verses make sense only as a document crafted specifically to overcome Emma’s resistance. A revelation purportedly given years before Smith’s plural marriages would have no reason to include such specific and repeated threats to Emma.

The Law of Sarah Loophole: Perhaps most revealing is verses 61-65, which establish and then immediately undermine the requirement for a first wife’s consent. Verse 61 states that a man may take additional wives only “if the first give her consent.” However, verse 65 creates an escape clause: “Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah.”

In other words, the revelation requires the first wife’s consent, but if she doesn’t consent, her husband can proceed anyway, and she becomes the transgressor. This “heads I win, tails you lose” logic serves only one purpose: to provide theological justification for Smith to continue plural marriages regardless of Emma’s wishes.

Emma’s Actual Response: The revelation failed in its intended purpose. Clayton recorded in his journal: “Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation…but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to…After the whole was written…Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious.”

Emma’s response was to demand property and money from Joseph—demands he met, even though verse 57 of the very revelation he had just dictated warned against putting his property out of his hands. The deed transferring substantial Nauvoo property to Emma was executed the same day Section 132 was recorded, July 12, 1843.

The Angel with the Drawn Sword Narrative

One of the most frequently cited justifications for Smith’s plural marriages is the story of an angel appearing with a drawn sword, threatening to slay Smith if he did not practice plural marriage. This account appears in multiple sources: https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf

Lorenzo Snow’s Account (1869): “He told me that the Lord had revealed it unto him and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives, that he foresaw the trouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, that an angel from heaven appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.”

Benjamin F. Johnson’s Account (1903): “He also visited my mother at her residents in Macedonia and taught her in my hearing, the doctrine of celestial marriage, declaring that an angel appeared unto him with a drawn sword, threatening to slay him of he did not proceed to fulfill the law that had been given to him.”

Mary Elizabeth Lightner’s Account (1902): “Joseph told me that he was afraid when the angel appeared to him and told him to take other wives. He hesitated, and the angel appeared to him the third time with a drawn sword in his hand and threatened his life if he did not fulfill the commandment.”

Several problems exist with these accounts:

No Contemporary Documentation: All these accounts come from decades after Smith’s death, during a period when establishing Smith as a polygamist was crucial for the Utah church’s legitimacy in its conflict with the RLDS church. No contemporary account mentions the angel with a drawn sword during Smith’s lifetime.

Inconsistent Details: The accounts vary in crucial details—when the angel appeared, how many times, whether it threatened Smith or simply warned him. This variation suggests these stories developed and were embellished over time rather than representing accurate historical memories.

Theological Problems: The narrative presents profound theological difficulties. If God sent an angel to threaten Smith’s life if he didn’t have sex with multiple women, this contradicts the fundamental Mormon principle of agency. Moreover, if an angel was willing to intervene with such direct threats to ensure plural marriage was practiced, why did no angel appear to correct the church’s teachings on race, blood atonement, or other doctrines later disavowed?

Convenient Justification: The drawn sword narrative served a crucial function: it reframed Smith’s polygamy from something he desired to something he reluctantly accepted only under divine compulsion. This portrayal contradicts Section 132:1, which states that Smith himself “inquired” about plural marriage—he initiated the question to God, not vice versa.

Most significantly for our analysis, this narrative was apparently used by Smith to convince reluctant women to marry him. Helen Mar Kimball, who was sealed to Smith at age 14, later wrote that her father told her Smith faced an angel with a drawn sword if he didn’t enter plural marriage. This places the “drawn sword” story in its proper context: not as evidence of divine compulsion, but as a tool of coercion—a way to convince young women that God Himself demanded their compliance.

Contradictions with the Book of Mormon

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the divine origin of Doctrine and Covenants 132 is its direct contradiction with the Book of Mormon, which Smith had translated just 14 years earlier. The Book of Mormon, in Jacob 2:23-24, states:

“But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

The language is unambiguous: David and Solomon’s polygamy was “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” Compare this to Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 38-39:

“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines…David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me…and in none of these things did he sin against me.”

These statements cannot be reconciled. In the Book of Mormon, David and Solomon’s polygamy is “abominable”; in Section 132, David’s wives were given to him by God, and he committed no sin in having them. Both cannot be the word of God.

Apologists attempt to resolve this contradiction by arguing that verse 39 says David sinned only “in the case of Uriah and his wife”—his adultery and murder. But this explanation fails because the Book of Mormon passage doesn’t reference Uriah; it explicitly condemns David’s “many wives and concubines.” The contradiction remains irresoluble.

This contradiction reveals something crucial about how Smith produced revelation: he adapted his theology to suit his current needs, without consistent regard for his previous revelations. The Book of Mormon condemned polygamy when Smith wrote it because he had no use for the doctrine. Years later, needing theological justification for his plural relationships, he produced a revelation that flatly contradicted his earlier scripture.

The 1841 Teaching on Sin Without Accusers

On November 7, 1841, just as Smith began ramping up plural marriages in Nauvoo, he introduced a remarkable new doctrine. William Clayton recorded Smith’s teaching in the church’s official history:

“I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said ‘if you do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down.'”

This teaching is extraordinary for several reasons:

Conditional Salvation: Smith promises salvation based not on righteousness or grace, but on mutual non-accusation. If members don’t accuse Smith of sin, he won’t accuse them, and both will enter heaven.

Redefinition of Sin: Smith claims that “what many people call sin is not sin,” explicitly redefining moral boundaries to suit his purposes.

Mutual Assured Silence: The teaching creates a system of mutual blackmail—I know your sins, you know mine, neither of us speaks, both of us are saved.

Prophetic Authority: Smith places obedience to his personal instructions on par with divine commandments: “if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me…”

This teaching makes sense only in the context of Smith’s secret plural marriages. He was beginning to be accused of adultery—the old Fanny Alger scandal resurfacing in new forms. This teaching provided theological cover: “Don’t accuse me, I won’t accuse you, and we’ll all enter heaven together.”

The parallels to other religious leaders who have used similar rhetoric to justify sexual relationships with followers are striking. David Koresh (Branch Davidians) claimed all women as “spiritual wives,” dissolving marriages and redefining pedophilic relations as messianic seed-bearing for salvation, punishing accusers as heretics. Warren Jeffs (FLDS), convicted of child rape, taught obedience as exaltation, mutual silence on “prophet’s” abuses as charity, with dissenters denied heavenly kingdoms. Keith Raniere (NXIVM) branded “slaves” in “sorority,” framing master-slave sex as “collateral” for empowerment and purity; critics were shamed as unenlightened, salvation via compliance. David Berg (Children of God/Family International) authored “Mo Letters,” redefining pedophilia/orgies as “flirty fishing” evangelism, promising eternal rewards for participants while silencing accusers. Ivon Shearing (Kabalarian Philosophy) justified rapes as “spiritual help,” with followers covering sins mutually for group salvation. Tony Alamo, David Koresh, and other self-proclaimed prophets have used nearly identical language to normalize predatory behavior: special divine permission, redefinition of sin, threats of divine punishment for non-compliance, and promises of salvation for obedience.

III. Criticisms and Controversies: The Historical Record

The implementation of plural marriage by Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS leaders generated controversy from its inception and continues to trouble both members and historians. This section examines the major criticisms, supported by historical documentation and contemporary accounts.

Secrecy and Deception: A Pattern of Concealment

One of the most troubling aspects of Smith’s practice of plural marriage is the systematic secrecy and repeated denials that accompanied it. This pattern of deception operated on multiple levels:

Public Denials While Privately Practicing: Throughout the Nauvoo period (1839-1844), Smith publicly denied practicing polygamy while privately marrying dozens of women. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants declaration against polygamy remained in place and was even republished in 1842, well into Smith’s polygamy period.

In the Times and Seasons, the church’s official newspaper, Smith published this statement on October 1, 1842:

“We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives and common property. Now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect has a greater reverence for the laws of matrimony, or the rights of private property.”

This statement was published less than six months after Smith had married multiple wives, including Emily and Eliza Partridge, in March 1842. The denial was not technically false, only through careful wordsmithing—Smith distinguished between “advocating” plural marriage publicly and practicing it privately. But the intent to deceive is clear.

Secrecy from Emma: Perhaps most troubling was the secrecy Smith maintained from his own wife. By the time Section 132 was dictated in July 1843, Smith had married more than 20 women, mostly without Emma’s knowledge. These included:

Emily and Eliza Partridge, who lived in the Smith household after their father’s death. Smith married them in March 1843, then staged a “mock” wedding ceremony with them in May when Emma chose them as plural wives for Joseph, to avoid revealing his earlier marriages.
Several of Emma’s close friends and Relief Society counselors, including Eliza R. Snow.
Women from prominent Nauvoo families whom Emma knew well and trusted.

The psychological impact on Emma cannot be overstated. William Clayton’s journal reveals Emma’s anguish: she “appeared very rebellious” and “treated him coldly and badly.” Emma was discovering that many of her closest friends had secretly married her husband, creating a web of deception that pervaded her social and religious life.

Coercing Secrecy from Plural Wives: Smith required absolute secrecy from his plural wives, often using the threat of divine punishment to ensure compliance. Joseph Lee Robinson recorded a remarkable statement from Smith:

“Joseph the Prophet…said ‘Sister Emmily will not expose me, for I will take her with me if she does.’ And if I don’t prove true to him I shall be in danger of my life.”

Several plural wives recorded being told to keep the marriage absolutely secret from Emma. Sarah Ann Whitney received a letter from Smith stating: “The only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe…burn this letter as soon as you read it.”

The requirement of secrecy extended even to the plural wives’ own families in some cases. Agnes Coolbrith Smith (Smith’s sister-in-law) apparently didn’t tell her husband William about her sealing to Joseph for years, creating a bizarre situation where she was simultaneously married to Joseph (secretly) and William (publicly), living with William but sealed eternally to Joseph.

Polyandry: The Ultimate Deception: Smith’s eleven polyandrous marriages represent perhaps the most problematic form of deception. These were marriages to women who had living husbands, eight of whom were faithful church members. In most cases, the woman continued living with her legal husband while sealed to Smith. From the legal husband’s perspective, nothing appeared to have changed. He remained married to his wife, unaware (at least initially) that she had been sealed to Smith for eternity and, in some cases, time as well.

The case of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs illustrates the human cost of this practice. Zina married Henry Jacobs, a faithful member, in March 1841. Seven months later, Smith approached her about plural marriage. After initially refusing, Zina eventually consented and was sealed to Smith on October 27, 1841, while seven months pregnant with Henry’s child.

According to the sealing theology, Zina’s children would belong to Smith, not to their biological father, Henry. Henry appears to have eventually learned of the sealing, and his letters reveal his anguish. After Smith’s death, Brigham Young “claimed” Zina as his own plural wife, despite her ongoing legal marriage to Henry. Henry wrote to Zina: “I do not blame you…but I know that I have been faithful to you and I am still…I know you care nothing for me.” Eventually, Brigham Young sent Henry on a mission to England, and during his absence, Zina left him permanently.

The deception involved in polyandrous sealings was multi-layered: the legal husband was deceived about his wife’s eternal relationship and his children’s eternal parentage; the woman was placed in the impossible position of living with one husband while sealed to another; and if any of these polyandrous wives had children with their legal husbands during the period of their sealing to Smith, those children were theologically sealed to Smith, not their biological father.

Ages of Brides: Marriages to Teenagers

Smith married at least ten teenagers as plural wives, including two who were only fourteen years old at the time of sealing. While some apologists note that such marriages were not uncommon in 19th-century America, several factors make these marriages particularly problematic:

Helen Mar Kimball: Smith’s most well-documented teenage bride was Helen Mar Kimball, who was sealed to Smith just months before her fifteenth birthday. Helen’s own account of the marriage reveals the coercive and problematic nature of the sealing. Her father, Heber C. Kimball (one of the Twelve Apostles), approached Helen and told her that Smith wanted to marry her. Helen later wrote:

“Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, [my father] offered me to him…I felt compelled to sacrifice my happiness in order to obey the commandment of God.”

The phrase “offered me to him” is telling. At fourteen, Helen had little agency in the decision. Her account continues: “I am not surprised that even after seeing a pure and holy man martyred I questioned and doubted God…I can say that until I was 15 years old I did not know what trials were.”

Helen was forbidden from attending social events with her peers because she was now considered a married woman. She wrote poignantly in her later years: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.”

Nancy Winchester: Even less is known about Nancy Winchester, who was also fourteen when sealed to Smith. The scarcity of information makes it difficult to assess her experience, but the basic fact remains: Smith married a fourteen-year-old girl.

Pattern of Young Brides: In addition to these fourteen-year-olds, Smith married eight other teenagers: Flora Ann Woodworth (sixteen), Sarah Ann Whitney (seventeen), Sarah Lawrence (seventeen), Lucy Walker (seventeen), Fanny Alger (approximately nineteen), Emily Dow Partridge (nineteen), Maria Lawrence (nineteen), and Malissa Lott (nineteen).

The concentration of young brides in Smith’s plural marriages is notable. While apologists correctly note that such marriages were not unheard of in the 1840s, they were still relatively uncommon, especially when the groom was significantly older (Smith was 37-38 when he married most of these teenagers) and especially when conducted in secret.

Evidence of Sexual Relations: The church’s current position is that some of Smith’s plural marriages were “eternity-only” sealings without sexual relations. However, evidence exists for sexual relations in at least ten of Smith’s plural marriages, though the two fourteen-year-olds (Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester) are not among those for whom clear evidence exists.

For documented evidence of sexuality, the research of Brian Hales and others identifies these cases:

Emily Partridge: Under oath in the Temple Lot case, Emily was asked, “Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?” She answered, “Yes sir.”
Lucy Walker: Lucy Walker’s niece reported that “Lucy Walker told her that she lived with Joseph Smith as a wife.”
Malissa Lott: When asked if she was the Prophet’s “wife in very deed,” she answered, “Yes.”
Eliza Partridge: Benjamin F. Johnson wrote: “The first plural wife brought to my house with whom the Prophet stayed, was Eliza Partridge.”
Louisa Beaman: When asked “Where did they sleep together?” Joseph Bates Noble responded: “Right straight across the river at my house they slept together.”
Almera Johnson: Benjamin Johnson affirmed his sister “occupied my sister Almera’s room and bed” with Joseph.

7-8. Maria and Sarah Lawrence: Lucy Walker attested that Emma “was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives.”

Fanny Alger: Multiple accounts record Emma witnessing Joseph and Fanny together, with at least one source claiming Fanny became pregnant.
Sylvia Sessions: Told her daughter she was Joseph’s biological child, naming her Josephine.

The evidence strongly suggests that Smith’s plural marriages generally included sexual relations, whether for “time and eternity” or “eternity only.” The distinction apologists draw between these types of sealings appears to be more about providing plausible deniability than reflecting actual practice.

No Evidence of Sexual Relations with Fourteen-Year-Olds: To be clear, no evidence exists of sexual relations with either Helen Mar Kimball or Nancy Winchester. Helen’s account suggests the marriage may have been unconsummated—she was not called to testify in the Temple Lot case (where plural wives testified about sexual relations), she spoke of polygamy primarily through her mother’s experience rather than her own, and her account emphasizes being forbidden from social activities rather than any intimate relationship with Smith.

However, the absence of evidence for sexual relations does not make these marriages less problematic. A 37-year-old man entering into marriage with a fourteen-year-old girl, even without sexual consummation, represents an abuse of power and violation of the girl’s childhood and social development. Helen’s own words convey the lasting impact: she was “deceived,” felt “compelled,” and “would never have been sealed to Joseph” had she understood what it meant.

Polyandrous Marriages: Theological and Moral Problems

Smith’s practice of polyandry—marrying women who were already legally married to other men—represents perhaps the most troubling aspect of his plural marriage system. According to Todd Compton’s exhaustive research, Smith entered into polyandrous sealings with eleven women, eight of whom were married to faithful, active church members.

The church’s current position on these marriages is conveyed in the Gospel Topics essay:

“Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. These sealings may have provided a way to create an eternal bond or link between Joseph’s family and other families within the Church.”

This explanation faces several insurmountable problems:

Violation of Section 132: The very revelation Smith dictated to justify plural marriage explicitly forbids polyandry. Verse 61 states men may “espouse a virgin” and that plural wives must not have “vowed to no other man.” Smith’s eleven polyandrous wives violated both requirements—they were not virgins and had vowed to other men.

More seriously, verse 41 states: “if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”

If the polyandrous wives continued living with their legal husbands after being sealed to Smith (as the church’s essay admits: “most if not all of the first husbands seem to have continued living in the same household with their wives”, then according to Section 132, these women committed adultery by continuing sexual relations with their legal husbands after being sealed to Smith. The revelation condemns them to destruction for this.

The Dynastic Sealing Theory Fails: The church suggests these sealings created eternal “dynastic” links between families. But this explanation collapses under scrutiny:

Smith married multiple pairs of sisters (Emily and Eliza Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, Patty and Sylvia Sessions) and at least one mother-daughter pair (Patty and Sylvia Sessions). If the purpose was to link families, one sealing per family would suffice.
Why not simply seal men to Smith as adopted sons through the Law of Adoption, which Smith also practiced? Why specifically marry their wives?
If these were purely “eternity-only” sealings without sexual relations, why the secrecy? Why not openly announce these dynastic linkages?
Why did Smith need to “link” himself to families of men who were already devoted apostles and leaders? Heber C. Kimball, for instance, whose daughter Helen Smith married, was one of the Twelve Apostles. In what sense did his family need to be “linked” to Smith’s through marriage rather than through existing ecclesiastical relationships?

The “Eternity-Only” Explanation: The church claims some polyandrous marriages were “eternity-only” sealings without sexual relations. The essay states:

“These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma. He may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord’s command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships.”

This explanation is contradicted by multiple factors:

If Smith was trying to minimize Emma’s sorrow, why marry so many women in secret? Why marry women in Emma’s inner circle—her friends and confidantes?
At least one polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions, told her daughter she was Smith’s biological child. This requires sexual relations.
The distinction between “time and eternity” versus “eternity only” sealings appears nowhere in contemporary documents. It seems to be a later apologetic construction.
If sexual relations weren’t part of polyandrous sealings, why the absolute secrecy, even from Emma? Platonic eternal sealings for dynastic purposes shouldn’t require deception.

Legal Husbands’ Anguish: The human cost of polyandrous sealings is evident in surviving letters and accounts from legal husbands. Beyond Henry Jacobs (discussed above), other cases reveal the pain this practice caused:

Orson Pratt: When rumors circulated that Smith had propositioned Pratt’s wife Sarah, Pratt became distraught and nearly left the church. Though Sarah apparently rejected Smith’s advances, the incident created a lasting rift.

Pratt Case Details

Background: Orson (apostle) departed Oct. 1841 for England mission; Sarah alleged Joseph proposed plural marriage ~Feb. 1842 (per her 1877 Temple Lot testimony): “Joseph said… ‘if she would consent to be his, he would build her a house.'” She refused; rumors spread via John C. Bennett scandal fallout.
Orson’s Response (Aug. 1842): Public letter in Millennial Star (Liverpool): “Brigham Young has publicly said that ‘David Patten was killed for disobeying a command of God’… Such awful stuff is enough to make ‘Christians’ stare!… I cannot & will not believe these things.” He returned to Nauvoo, separated from Joseph, wife-only publicly.
Reconciliation: Hyrum Pratt (son) mediated; Orson rebaptized Jan. 20, 1843; resumed apostleship. No Sarah sealing affirmed by Orson; debated if it occurred (Hales: yes, eternity-only).

William Law: Law broke with Smith over polygamy, particularly after learning Smith had approached Law’s wife, Jane. Law’s dissent led to the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor, the event that directly precipitated Smith’s arrest and subsequent death.

Law Case Details

Background: William (Irish convert, wealthy Nauvoo stake president) and Jane (staunch monogamist) joined Nauvoo elite. Smith propositioned Jane for plural marriage; she rejected him outright. Law confronted Smith, who allegedly threatened: “If you spit upon me… the Lord will spit upon you” (Law’s 1887 Salt Lake Tribune interview).
Law’s Response: Spring 1844, Law organized dissenters (including brother Wilson, Robert D. Foster); charged Smith May 7 council with polygamy, polyandry, theocracy. Nauvoo Expositor (June 7, 1844, Issue 1) editorial: “We believe, moreover, that J. Smith Jr. is concerned in… a secret combination… to practice… whoredoms… upon the innocent and virtuous.” City council destroyed press June 10; Smith arrested.
Aftermath: Laws fled Nauvoo; Jane affirmed in 1887: “Joseph offered me to become his; I said, ‘No.’” No sealing occurred; Laws joined anti-Mormonism, and William died in 1892.
Hiram Kimball: According to accounts, Smith approached Kimball’s wife Sarah about plural marriage. When she told her husband, Kimball confronted Smith and forbade the relationship.

Kimball Case Details

Background: Hiram (b. 1805, New York merchant, donated Nauvoo House lot to JS 1841) married Sarah ~1830s. Smith propositioned her ~1842–43 for plural marriage; Sarah rejected and informed Hiram, who “went to the Prophet and told him if he ever offered such a thing to his wife again, it would be at the peril of his life” (Mosiah Hancock reminiscence, 1896; cited in Hales).
Confrontation: Kimball’s threat halted advances; no sealing occurred. Sarah remained faithful to Hiram, who continued Nauvoo business ties despite tensions.
Documentation:
- Emily Partridge testimony (Temple Lot case, 1892): Smith approached Sarah Kimball, among others.
- Brian Hales (josephsmithspolygamy.org): Kimball “forbade Joseph from marrying his wife”; this reflects a protective response uncommon among faithful LDS husbands.

These cases reveal that polyandrous proposals created conflict even when rejected. When accepted, the cost was even higher—essentially requiring legal husbands to accept that their wives and children belonged eternally to another man.

Children of Polyandrous Marriages: Perhaps most troubling is the theological implication for children. When Smith sealed himself to a married woman, any children she subsequently bore—even from her legal husband—were sealed to Smith, not their biological father. This represents a form of spiritual child custody theft, depriving biological fathers of their eternal relationship with their own children.

Zina Huntington Jacobs bore a child to her legal husband, Henry, while sealed to Smith. Theologically, that child belonged to Smith. After Smith’s death and Zina’s remarriage to Brigham Young (while still legally married to Henry), her subsequent children were sealed to Young. Henry Jacobs’ five children by Zina were not sealed to him—they were divided between Smith and Young.

This practice continues in modified form today. When a woman who has been sealed in the temple divorces and wishes to marry another man in the temple, she must obtain a “sealing cancellation” from the First Presidency. But when a man divorces, he needs no such cancellation to marry another woman in the temple—he can be sealed to multiple women simultaneously. In essence, the church still practices polygamy in its sealing theology, with children of divorce potentially being sealed to stepfathers rather than biological fathers.

IV. Theological Rationale and Critical Assessment: The “Raising Up Seed” Doctrine

Section 132 and Book of Mormon passages provide theological justification for plural marriage: to “raise up seed unto the Lord.” This rationale is central to apologetic defenses of the practice. However, when examined critically against historical evidence, this justification collapses entirely—a failure that undermines the divine origin claims for plural marriage itself.

The “Raising Up Seed” Doctrine

Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon states: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy].”

This passage suggests God might command polygamy specifically to produce more children—to “raise up seed.” Section 132 reinforces this idea, using Abraham’s example: “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay…This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham” (v. 32, 37).

The “works of Abraham” referred to here include having multiple wives to produce children—“seed.” The revelation frames plural marriage as a commandment to increase righteous posterity, continuing the patriarchal lineage.

LDS leaders emphasized this justification repeatedly:

Brigham Young (1866): “The Lord spoke in regard to the seed of Abraham—he promised to bless him, and his seed after him. This revelation [Section 132] is to raise up a holy and righteous seed.”

Orson Pratt (1859): “We are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.”

John Taylor (1880): “God commanded Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, David, and Solomon to take many wives. Why did he do it? Because he had a great work to perform…to raise up a seed that should be righteous.”

The justification is clear: plural marriage was commanded to produce numerous righteous children. This creates a testable prediction: Joseph Smith’s plural marriages should have produced children—ideally, many children, demonstrating God’s blessing on the practice.

Critical Assessment: No Documented Children

The empirical test fails catastrophically. Despite:

30-40 plural wives (depending on which accounts one accepts).
Relationships spanning from 1841-1844 (some accounts claim from 1833).
Documented sexual relations with at least 10 of these wives.
Smith’s proven fertility (9 children with Emma).
Documented the fertility of plural wives with subsequent husbands.

Not a single child has been definitively proven to be Joseph Smith’s offspring from any plural wife.

This absence is not for lack of motivation to find such children. After the Saints reached Utah, any child of the Prophet Joseph would have been celebrated, given special status, and potentially viewed as legitimate future church leadership. In the 1860s-1870s, when RLDS missionaries emphasized lineal succession through Joseph’s sons by Emma, Utah church leaders had every incentive to produce Joseph’s children by plural wives. They never did.

Brian Hales, a faithful LDS scholar and perhaps the foremost defender of Smith’s polygamy, exhaustively researched allegations of children from plural wives. His conclusion: “No children are known to have been born to Joseph and his plural wives.”

Several children have been claimed over the years as possible offspring:

Josephine Lyon Fisher: The strongest case. Sylvia Sessions told her daughter Josephine that she was Joseph Smith’s child. DNA testing in 2015 was inconclusive due to insufficient matching DNA samples, but analysis by Ugo Perego suggests Josephine was likely not Smith’s biological daughter. The case remains unproven.

John Reed Hancock: Claimed to be Smith’s son through Clarissa Reed Hancock. DNA testing in 2020 excluded Smith as John’s biological father.

Oliver Buell: Alleged to be Smith’s son through Prescindia Huntington Buell. DNA testing excluded Smith.

Orrison Smith: Claimed to be Smith’s son through Fanny Alger. DNA testing excluded Smith. (This was the strongest historical claim, as Fanny was reportedly pregnant when Emma expelled her, but DNA proved it false.)

Moroni Llewellyn Pratt: Claimed to be Smith’s son through Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt. Historians generally discount this claim.

Every DNA test has either excluded Smith or been inconclusive. No definitive proof exists for any child.

The Fertility Evidence: A Devastating Contrast

The absence of children becomes more damning when we examine the fertility evidence:

Joseph Smith’s Proven Fertility with Emma: Joseph and Emma had nine children despite:

Long periods apart during Joseph’s missions and imprisonments.
Challenging circumstances (persecution, frequent moves, poverty).
Emma’s difficult pregnancies (several children died in infancy).

The couple clearly had no fertility issues. Joseph was capable of fathering children, as proven by Emma’s nine pregnancies.

Plural Wives’ Fertility with Subsequent Husbands: Many of Smith’s plural wives remarried after his death and demonstrated remarkable fertility:

Sarah Ann Whitney: Sealed to Smith for 23 months. Married Heber C. Kimball three months after Smith’s death, conceived within three months, bore seven children between 1846-1858.
Lucy Walker: Sealed to Smith for 14 months. Married Heber C. Kimball, conceived within three months, bore nine children between 1846-1864.
Malissa Lott: Sealed to Smith in September 1843. Married Ira Jones Willes in May 1849, conceived within eleven weeks, bore seven children between 1850-1863.
Emily Partridge: Bore Brigham Young seven children between 1845-1862.
Eliza Partridge: Married Amasa Lyman, bore five children between 1844-1860.
Louisa Beaman, Martha McBride, Nancy Winchester: All remarried and bore children.

The pattern is unmistakable: these women were capable of conceiving, often becoming pregnant within months of remarriage. Yet during their marriages to Smith, despite documented sexual relations, not one produced children.

Diminishing Returns and Opportunity: A Weak Defense

Apologists offer several explanations for the absence of children:

Argument: Limited Sexual Contact Brian Hales suggests sexual relations occurred infrequently due to Smith’s busy schedule and need for secrecy: “After a certain point, the addition of new plural wives did not necessarily increase Joseph’s opportunity for additional sexual encounters with each plural wife. Such a dynamic would, inevitably, have curtailed chances for conception.”

Response: This argument fails on multiple grounds:

First, even infrequent sexual contact should produce pregnancies over a multi-year period. Modern fertility studies show:

Couples having intercourse twice per month have a 15-20% chance of pregnancy per month.
Over 12 months, this represents roughly an 85% cumulative pregnancy probability.
Over 36 months (Smith’s documented polygamy period), the probability approaches near-certainty.

Smith had sexual relations with at least 10 wives over 3+ years. The mathematical probability of zero pregnancies approaches zero unless:

The women were using contraception (no evidence, and doctrinally prohibited).
The women were naturally infertile (contradicted by subsequent fertility).
Smith was infertile (contradicted by Emma’s nine children).
Sexual relations were extremely rare or non-existent (contradicted by documented accounts).

Second, the “busy schedule” defense is undermined by contemporary accounts. Benjamin F. Johnson recorded that Smith “occupied” his sister Almera’s room and bed during visits. Emily Partridge testified under oath that she slept in the same bed with Smith. These accounts don’t suggest brief, infrequent encounters but rather overnight stays—ample opportunity for conception.

Third, if sexual relations were so infrequent that pregnancy was unlikely, this contradicts the stated purpose of plural marriage—to “raise up seed.” A practice commanded by God to produce children should have resulted in children, not in carefully scheduled encounters designed to avoid conception.

Argument: Eternity-Only Sealings Some apologists argue that many of Smith’s plural marriages were “eternity-only” sealings without sexual relations on earth.

Response: This distinction appears nowhere in contemporary documents. It seems to be a later apologetic construction designed to explain the absence of children.

Moreover, documented evidence of sexual relations in at least ten marriages undermines this defense. If sexual relations occurred in ten marriages over three years without producing children, while Emma’s marriage produced nine children, we’re left with the same fertility puzzle.

The “eternity-only” argument also raises theological problems: If marriage was for eternity only, why perform it at all during mortality? Why not wait until after death? The sealing power extends beyond the veil—Smith could have sealed himself to these women after his death just as Brigham Young later performed proxy sealings for the dead.

Argument: Divine Intervention Preventing Pregnancy Some faithful members suggest God prevented pregnancies to protect plural wives from scandal.

Response: This introduces a new problem—it means God commanded plural marriage to “raise up seed” but then prevented any seed from being raised. This makes the stated justification for plural marriage false.

Additionally, if God was willing to intervene miraculously to prevent pregnancies, why not intervene to prevent the practice altogether, thereby avoiding the deception, suffering, and eventual abandonment of the doctrine?

Comparison to Emma: A Stark Contrast

Perhaps most telling is the contrast between Joseph’s fertility with Emma versus plural wives:

With Emma (1827-1844, 17 years married):

9 children conceived.
Average: one child every ~2 years.

With plural wives (1841-1844, 3+ years of documented polygamy):

30-40 wives.
Sexual relations documented with at least 10.
0 children.

Even accounting for Emma’s longer marriage and more frequent contact, the disparity is inexplicable if Smith’s relationships with plural wives included regular sexual activity.

Brian Hales concludes: “It appears that if intimate relations between Joseph and many of his wives occurred frequently, children may have been conceived.”

This is a remarkable understatement. “May have been conceived” understates the case dramatically. Barring contraception, infertility, or extremely rare sexual contact, children should have been conceived.

The Theological Implications: Complete Failure of Justification

The absence of children from plural marriages has devastating implications for the theological justification:

1. The Book of Mormon Justification Fails: Jacob 2:30 says God will command plural marriage only to “raise up seed.” No seed was raised. Therefore, by the Book of Mormon’s own standard, God did not command this practice.

2. The Doctrine & Covenants Justification Fails: Section 132 promises that through plural marriage, the faithful will have “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (v. 19). Smith had no continuation of seeds through plural marriage.

3. The Abrahamic Parallel Fails: Abraham’s polygamy produced Ishmael (through Hagar) and six sons through Keturah—multiple children demonstrating God’s blessing. Smith produced zero children through plural wives, suggesting the absence rather than presence of divine approval.

4. The Prophetic Promise Fails: Section 132:63 promises “they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things…which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” Smith’s plural marriages produced no “continuation of seeds.”

The Most Damning Evidence

If we accept that:

Plural marriage was commanded to “raise up seed.”
Smith was fertile (proved by Emma’s nine children).
The plural wives were fertile (proved by subsequent children).
Sexual relations occurred (documented in multiple cases).

Then the absence of children leads to only two possible conclusions:

Conclusion A: God commanded plural marriage to raise seed, Smith obeyed, but God miraculously prevented conception, thereby ensuring the stated purpose failed entirely.

This conclusion requires accepting that God:

Commands a practice justified by producing children.
Miraculously prevents children from being produced.
Allows massive suffering, deception, and scandal.
Ultimately requires abandonment of the practice after 60+ years.

This portrays God as capricious, deceptive, or incompetent—unworthy of worship.

Conclusion B: Plural marriage was not commanded by God but originated from human desire, and the theological justification was manufactured post-hoc to legitimate the practice.

This conclusion aligns with:

The timeline (Fanny Alger before sealing keys).
The pattern of secrecy and deception.
The contradictions with earlier scripture.
The evolution of doctrine to fit circumstances.
The absence of children despite the theological justification.

Conclusion B is vastly more probable and consistent with the evidence.

Further Problems: The “Raising Righteous Seed” Claim

Some defenders argue that plural marriage was meant to raise specifically righteous seed, not merely numerous children. This modification of the original justification faces its own problems:

1. The Book of Mormon doesn’t make this distinction: Jacob 2:30 says “raise up seed,” not “raise up righteous seed.”

2. Quality vs. quantity: If the goal was righteous rather than numerous children, monogamy would be more effective. Children from stable, loving, monogamous homes generally show better outcomes than those from polygamous families.

3. Utah polygamy outcomes: Studies of 19th-century Utah polygamy show children of plural wives often faced disadvantage:

Lower educational attainment.
Greater poverty.
Higher rates of abandonment (many plural wives were economically abandoned).
Social stigma and trauma from the practice.

These outcomes don’t suggest plural marriage produced superior righteousness.

4. Modern rejection: The church now acknowledges plural marriage caused significant suffering and was “difficult for all involved.” A practice that causes suffering is unlikely to produce optimal conditions for raising righteous children.

Conclusion: Utter Failure of the Primary Justification

The “raising seed” justification for plural marriage fails completely. After 30-40 marriages, documented sexual relationships, proven fertility of both Smith and his plural wives, and divine promises of numerous seed—Smith produced zero children through plural marriage.

This is not a minor discrepancy. It’s not explicable by “busy schedules” or “eternity-only sealings.” It represents a complete failure of the stated divine purpose.

As such, it provides powerful evidence that plural marriage was not divinely commanded but rather a human innovation justified through claimed revelation—exactly what we would expect if Joseph Smith was composing revelations rather than receiving them.

V. Apologetic Responses and Counter-Arguments

Mormon apologists have developed numerous defenses of Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage. This section examines major apologetic arguments and demonstrates why they fail to adequately explain the historical evidence or resolve the theological problems.

Apologetic Argument 1: “Joseph Made Mistakes in Implementing a True Principle”

This defense, popular among progressive Mormon scholars, suggests plural marriage was indeed revealed by God, but Joseph made “plenty of mistakes” in implementing it. The argument aims to preserve both Joseph’s prophetic status and moral sensibilities by acknowledging problematic aspects while maintaining divine origin.

Representative Quote: From the Gospel Topics essay: “These challenges [of plural marriage] tested Joseph’s followers to the core. For those who accepted plural marriage, the practice required deep and enduring sacrifice.”

This framing subtly acknowledges problems while attributing them to human weakness rather than the practice itself.

Problems with This Defense:

1. Contradiction with Prophetic Infallibility: LDS theology traditionally held that prophets cannot lead the church astray. Section 132 itself was received through prophetic authority and claims to be “verily thus saith the Lord.” If Joseph made mistakes implementing it, how do we know the revelation itself wasn’t a mistake?

Brigham Young taught: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” If prophetic statements are scripture, they cannot be mistakes.

2. What Were the “Mistakes”?: If we grant that Joseph made implementation mistakes, which aspects were correct and which were errors? Were the mistakes:

Marrying 14-year-olds?
Polyandry?
Secrecy and deception?
Marrying without Emma’s knowledge?
Using coercive language in Section 132?
The absence of children?

If we identify these as mistakes, we’re left with almost nothing defensible about how Joseph practiced plural marriage.

3. God’s Failure to Correct: If an angel appeared with a drawn sword threatening Joseph’s life to ensure he practiced plural marriage, why didn’t an angel appear to correct his “mistakes”? Why did God micromanage the initiation but not the implementation?

4. No Prophetic Correction: Joseph never claimed revelation correcting his “mistakes.” Section 132 remained unchanged. If Joseph recognized errors, why didn’t he receive corrective revelation?

5. Pattern Continued: Brigham Young and subsequent prophets continued the same “mistakes”—marrying young girls, practicing polyandry, and secrecy (until forced into public). If these were Joseph’s personal errors rather than inherent to the practice, why did every subsequent prophet repeat them?

6. Moral Relativism: This defense requires accepting that marrying 14-year-olds behind your wife’s back was just an “implementation error” rather than fundamentally wrong. It smuggles in the assumption that plural marriage itself was good, and only execution was flawed—an assumption contradicted by the practice’s complete abandonment and the suffering it caused.

Counter-Argument: The “implementation mistakes” defense is a retreat position—an attempt to maintain both Joseph’s prophetic legitimacy and modern moral sensibilities. But it fails because the “mistakes” aren’t peripheral details; they’re integral to how plural marriage was practiced from the beginning. If we remove the “mistakes,” we’re left with a hypothetical practice that never existed.

The more parsimonious explanation: plural marriage itself was the mistake, not just its implementation. It was a human innovation, not divine revelation.

Apologetic Argument 2: “Eternity-Only Sealings Were Purely Spiritual”

This defense argues that many of Joseph’s plural marriages were “eternity-only” sealings without sexual relations, making them purely spiritual rather than sexual or conjugal relationships.

Representative Statements:

Gospel Topics essay: “Some of the evidence for this complexity is incomplete. For example…it appears that about one-third were sealings for eternity alone.”
Brian Hales: “Those marriages, often called ‘sealings,’ were of two types. Some were for this life and the next (called ‘time-and-eternity’) and could include sexuality on earth. Others were limited to the next life (called ‘eternity-only’) and did not allow intimacy in mortality.”

Problems with This Defense:

1. No Contemporary Documentation: The distinction between “time-and-eternity” and “eternity-only” sealings appears nowhere in Nauvoo-period documents. Joseph Smith never made this distinction in known letters, journals, or teachings. It appears to be a later apologetic construction.

2. The Polyandry Problem: This defense is primarily invoked for polyandrous marriages—women already married to other men. The argument goes: “These women were sealed to Joseph for eternity only, so they continued living with their legal husbands without sexual relations with Joseph.”

But this creates impossible situations:

If these were eternity-only, why the absolute secrecy, even from Emma? Platonic spiritual sealings shouldn’t require deception.
By this logic, the women had sexual relations with their legal husbands (to whom they weren’t sealed for eternity) but not with Joseph (to whom they were sealed for eternity). This contradicts Section 132:41, which condemns women who are sealed to one man but “be with another.”
Several polyandrous wives bore children to their legal husbands during their sealing to Joseph. By the “eternity-only” logic, these children would be sealed to Joseph (their mother’s eternal husband), not to their biological father. This makes the practice worse, not better.

3. Evidence of Sexual Relations in “Eternity-Only” Marriages: At least one alleged “eternity-only” marriage (Sylvia Sessions) produced evidence of sexual relations—she told her daughter she was Joseph’s biological child. If “eternity-only” marriages could include sexuality, the distinction collapses.

4. Theological Incoherence: If eternity-only sealings were acceptable, why not seal Emma’s brothers or Joseph’s close male friends to him as eternal associates? Why specifically marry women? The practice only makes sense if we acknowledge a sexual/romantic component.

5. The Purpose Question: If marriages were for eternity only, why perform them during mortality? The sealing power extends beyond the veil—Joseph could have been sealed to these women posthumously. Performing platonic eternal sealings during mortality serves no purpose unless they include temporal benefits (companionship, sexual relations, dynastic linking).

6. Contradicts “Raising Seed” Justification: If plural marriages were for eternity only without children on earth, this contradicts the theological justification of “raising up seed.” The Book of Mormon says God commands polygamy specifically to raise seed in mortality (Jacob 2:30), not to create spiritual arrangements for the afterlife.

Counter-Argument: The “eternity-only” defense is an ad hoc explanation created to resolve the absence of children and the polyandry problem. But it creates more problems than it solves, contradicts the theological justification for plural marriage, and rests on a distinction without contemporary documentation.

The simpler explanation: All of Joseph’s marriages were intended to be actual marriages (including sexual relations when possible), but various factors (secrecy, scheduling, Emma’s opposition, polyandrous complications) limited opportunities for conception.

Apologetic Argument 3: “Dynastic/Kinship Sealing Theory”

This defense suggests plural marriages, especially polyandrous ones, were primarily about creating eternal family links between loyal families rather than sexual relationships.

Representative Statement: Gospel Topics essay: “These sealings may have provided a way to create an eternal bond or link between Joseph’s family and other families within the Church…Joseph Smith’s sealings to women already married may have been an early version of linking one family to another.”

Problems with This Defense:

1. Multiple Marriages to Same Family: Joseph married pairs of sisters (Emily and Eliza Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, Patty and Sylvia Sessions) and at least one mother-daughter pair (Patty and Sylvia Sessions). If the purpose was linking families, one sealing per family would suffice. Why marry multiple women from the same family?

2. Law of Adoption Alternative: Joseph practiced the Law of Adoption, sealing men to him as spiritual sons. If dynastic linking was the goal, why not seal Heber C. Kimball to him directly rather than marrying Heber’s 14-year-old daughter? Why seal fathers to Joseph through their daughters/wives rather than directly?

3. Redundant Linking: Many women Joseph sealed himself to were already wives of devoted apostles and leaders (Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Brigham Young). These men already had eternal links to Joseph through priesthood, friendship, and ecclesiastical relationships. Why create additional “links” through marriage to their daughters or wives?

4. Secrecy Undermines Dynasty: Dynastic linking typically involves public ceremonies, family celebrations, and open acknowledgment of the new relationships. The absolute secrecy surrounding Joseph’s plural marriages contradicts this purpose. How can marriages “link” families when family members don’t know about them?

5. Emma’s Opposition: If plural marriages were about linking families rather than sexuality, why did Emma oppose them so strongly? Why did she expel some plural wives from her home? Why did Section 132 threaten her with destruction if she didn’t accept? Platonic family-linking shouldn’t generate such conflict.

6. Young Brides: If the purpose was dynastic linking, why marry young teenagers (14, 16, 17)? These girls couldn’t contribute to family prestige or power. They weren’t matriarchs who could strengthen family alliances. The selection of young, vulnerable women contradicts the dynastic purpose.

7. Testimonies Contradict: Several plural wives left testimonies describing their marriages as actual marriages with expectations of companionship and fidelity. Lucy Walker wrote: “I knew that if I accepted, the consequences would be that I must obey him in all things. I knew that he must possess me in time and in all eternity, or else he could not seal me.” This describes a full marriage, not a platonic dynasty linking.

Counter-Argument: The dynastic sealing theory is another ad hoc explanation that doesn’t fit the evidence. It’s invoked to explain away problematic marriages (polyandry, young brides), but fails because:

It doesn’t explain why these specific women.
It doesn’t explain the secrecy and deception.
It doesn’t explain the sexual component documented in multiple marriages.
It doesn’t explain why dynastic purposes required marriage rather than existing linking mechanisms.
It doesn’t explain Emma’s fierce opposition.

The theory is a sophisticated attempt to sanitize plural marriage, making it seem like a religious practice rather than what the evidence suggests: a pattern of sexual relationships with young women and other men’s wives.

Apologetic Argument 4: “Old Testament Polygamy Legitimizes LDS Practice”

This defense appeals to biblical precedent, arguing that if God commanded Abraham, Jacob, and Moses to practice polygamy, then Joseph Smith’s polygamy is similarly justified.

Representative Statement: Section 132 invokes this defense: “Verily, thus saith the Lord…wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives.”

Problems with This Defense:

1. Abraham Was Not Commanded: Genesis never records God commanding Abraham to marry Hagar. Sarah initiated the arrangement herself (Genesis 16:2-3): “And Sarai said unto Abram…go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.” Section 132’s claim that God commanded this is not supported by biblical text.

2. Book of Mormon Contradicts: Jacob 2:24 explicitly states David and Solomon’s polygamy was “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” LDS scripture contradicts LDS scripture on this point—a contradiction that cannot be resolved.

3. Biblical Polygamy Was Problematic: Even accepting the Old Testament at face value, polygamy consistently caused problems:

Abraham’s polygamy created the Hagar/Ishmael crisis, leading to Ishmael’s expulsion.
Jacob’s polygamy created a rivalry between wives (Rachel and Leah) and between their sons, culminating in Joseph being sold into slavery.
David’s polygamy contributed to family dysfunction, rebellion (Absalom), and succession crises.
Solomon’s polygamy explicitly led to idolatry and God’s judgment (1 Kings 11:1-13).

The biblical examples don’t demonstrate God’s approval so much as human dysfunction.

4. Cultural Context Missing: Old Testament polygamy occurred in patriarchal societies where:

Women had few property rights.
Widows and unmarried women faced destitution.
Producing male heirs was essential for survival.
Polygamy served economic/survival functions.

19th-century America had none of these conditions. Women could own property, survive unmarried, and marry age-appropriate men. Polygamy wasn’t needed for survival—it served other purposes.

5. Jesus Restored Monogamy: Jesus explicitly taught: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh…What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:5-6). The use of “wife” (singular) and “twain” (two) indicates monogamy. Paul reinforced this: “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).

If polygamy was God’s preferred system, Jesus’ restoration of strict monogamy contradicts divine will.

6. “Apples to Oranges” Comparison: Old Testament polygamy and LDS polygamy differed fundamentally:

Biblical Polygamy:

Public, acknowledged by all parties.
Primarily involved taking unmarried women/widows.
Rarely involved teenagers.
Served survival/economic functions.
Usually, involved wives living in the same household.

LDS Polygamy:

Secret, hidden from legal wives and church members.
Included polyandry (marrying other men’s wives).
Frequently involved teenagers (including 14-year-olds).
Served no survival function in 19th-century America.
Involved wives living separately, deception, mock ceremonies.

The practices are so different that biblical precedent doesn’t justify LDS implementation.

Counter-Argument: Biblical polygamy is a weak defense because:

The Bible never presents polygamy as God’s ideal.
Jesus restored strict monogamy.
Biblical examples consistently showed negative consequences.
LDS scripture contradicts itself on this point.
The cultural/social context was completely different.
LDS polygamy included practices (polyandry, teenager marriages, secrecy) never found in biblical polygamy.

Appealing to Abraham doesn’t justify Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives in secret or marrying 14-year-olds.

Apologetic Argument 5: “We Don’t Understand God’s Ways”

This defense retreats to mystery, arguing that God’s purposes in commanding polygamy transcend human understanding, and we must accept it on faith even if we don’t understand.

Representative Statements:

“The Lord’s ways are not our ways.”
“We see through a glass darkly.”
“It will all make sense in the eternities.”
“Who are we to question God’s commands?”

Problems with This Defense:

1. Abandons Rational Discourse: This defense concedes that plural marriage cannot be justified rationally, historically, or theologically. It’s an appeal to ignorance—we don’t understand, therefore we must accept.

But this standard could justify any practice. Couldn’t Warren Jeffs or David Koresh use the same defense? “God’s ways aren’t our ways, who are we to question?” Mystery defenses abandon the ability to distinguish true prophets from false ones.

2. Contradicts LDS Epistemology: Mormonism traditionally emphasized that truth is knowable, that God wants us to understand, and that we can receive personal revelation to confirm divine commands. Section 9 teaches: “You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right.”

The “mystery” defense contradicts this—it says don’t study it out, just accept it.

3. Joseph Tried to Explain: Joseph didn’t present plural marriage as an incomprehensible mystery. He provided clear justifications:

To raise up seed.
To restore ancient practices.
To fulfill Abrahamic promises.
To link families eternally.

These are rational explanations, not appeals to mystery. We can evaluate them—and we’ve found they fail. Retreating to “mystery” after explanations fail is moving the goalposts.

4. God’s Character: The mystery defense requires accepting that God:

Commands practices that cause immense suffering.
Requires deception and secrecy.
Threatens faithful spouses (Emma) with destruction.
Commands marriage to 14-year-olds.
Approves taking other men’s wives.
Eventually abandons the practice as no longer necessary.

This portrays God as arbitrary, cruel, or capricious. If God’s ways are so far above ours that these practices seem good to Him, we cannot trust Him as loving or just by any human standard. If words like “good” and “loving” mean something entirely different to God than to us, language breaks down and revelation becomes impossible.

5. Selective Application: Mormons don’t apply the “mystery” defense uniformly. When the church receives a revelation ending the priesthood ban, members celebrate God’s justice. When apostles declare “all blessings available to all,” members don’t say “we don’t understand God’s ways.” Mystery is invoked selectively—only for practices that cause discomfort.

6. Pattern Across Religions: Every difficult doctrine in every religion can be defended by appealing to mystery. Catholics invoke mystery for transubstantiation. Muslims invoke mystery for violence in the Quran. Scientologists invoke mystery for Xenu. The defense proves nothing—it’s equally available to every belief system, true or false.

Counter-Argument: The “mystery” defense is intellectual surrender. It concedes that plural marriage cannot be rationally defended, so faith must replace reason. But this standard:

Could justify any practice by any religious leader.
Contradicts Mormon epistemology.
Portrays God as arbitrary or incomprehensible.
Is applied selectively rather than consistently.
Abandons the ability to distinguish truth from error.

If God’s ways are truly incomprehensible, revelation is impossible. If revelation is possible, plural marriage should be explicable—and when we examine it closely, the explanations fail, suggesting human origin rather than divine mystery.

VI. The Evidentiary Double Standard: Examining Modern LDS Apologetics

The apologetic defenses examined in the previous sections represent traditional LDS responses to polygamy criticism. However, contemporary Mormon scholars have developed increasingly sophisticated arguments, exemplified by Brian C. Hales’ extensive research and his presentations to organizations like FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response). Hales’ work represents the current apex of faithful scholarship on Joseph Smith’s polygamy, making it essential to examine his methodology and claims in detail.

What emerges from careful analysis is a troubling pattern: LDS apologists demand extraordinary evidence for accusations of misconduct while accepting extraordinary supernatural claims on minimal evidence. This methodological inconsistency reveals defensive rather than honest scholarship. The following examination will demonstrate how apologetic arguments systematically employ double standards, logical fallacies, and circular reasoning that would be rejected if applied to any other historical or theological controversy.

FAIR: Controversies in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

Motivation for Research on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

What I found in all of this research and discussion is that over half of the questions that people would ask me had to do with Joseph Smith’s polygamy. I didn’t know the answer. I’d tell them, “that book has not been written yet,”— but I had my own questions.

So I dove back in, doing some research, and hired a research assistant. He logged over 1,500 hours going around finding every document we could find—either transcribing it or getting me a copy—that had to do with Joseph Smith’s polygamy. And we’re putting them—I’m putting them—together into two volumes. They’ll be out early next year.

It’ll be an exhaustive look at Joseph Smith’s polygamy—over 1,200 pages between the two volumes—and it’ll be new for everybody. I’m here to share just a few of the things that we’ve observed here.

OVER 8,000 words continue at the FAIR site, if you have the time.

The “Lack of Credible Evidence” Claim and Its Fatal Flaws

Hales’ Central Argument: In his FAIR conference presentation, Hales asserts that “credible evidence supporting their view—the naturalistic view—is lacking.” He catalogues 53 specific allegations of sexual impropriety against Joseph Smith from 26 different accusers, then systematically dismisses each category based on timing, second-hand nature, and alleged implausibility. His key contentions include:

Only six of 53 accusations were published during Joseph’s lifetime.
Most accusers leveled charges years or decades after Joseph’s death.
Zero complaints exist from the 34 plural wives themselves.
No woman stated, “Joseph Smith seduced me to have sexual relations.”
All accusations are secondhand or worse.
Every case has “contradictory evidence providing an opposing view.”

Critical Analysis of the Evidentiary Standard:

Problem 1: The Spiritual Evidence Double Standard

Hales demands contemporary, firsthand documentation to credit accusations of misconduct, yet accepts the foundational claim of divine revelation on far weaker evidence. Consider the comparative evidentiary basis:

For Sexual Misconduct (Hales requires):

Contemporary, firsthand accounts.
Multiple independent witnesses.
Physical evidence.
Consistent timeline.
Public documentation.
Victim testimony.

For Angel with Sword (Hales accepts):

20 accounts from 9 individuals.
None contemporary to the event.
All recorded 20-50 years after Joseph’s death.
All secondhand (reporting what Joseph told them).
No independent verification.
No physical evidence.
Contradictory details between accounts.

If secondhand testimony disqualifies sexual misconduct allegations, it must equally disqualify the angel with a sword narrative. Yet Hales wrote an entire article for Mormon Historical Studies defending the angel story while dismissing contemporary accusations as unreliable.

This reveals the apologetic methodology: accept weak evidence for faith-promoting claims while demanding impossible standards for problematic ones. A genuinely objective historian would apply consistent evidentiary standards regardless of theological implications.

Problem 2: The John C. Bennett Dismissal Requires Impossible Credulity

Hales asserts: “There is compelling evidence this guy [John C. Bennett] was never once in Joseph Smith’s presence learning about polygamy.” He states this categorically despite Bennett’s documented positions:

Mayor of Nauvoo (1841-1842).
Assistant President of the Church (the highest position after First Presidency).
Member of the First Presidency after the 1841 reorganization.
Close personal friend who dined regularly with Joseph.
Editor of church publications.
Joseph’s personal physician.

Hales’ claim requires believing that:

Joseph’s closest administrative associate never observed plural marriage despite living in Nauvoo during its practice.
Bennett fabricated detailed, specific accusations that happened to align with what later sources confirmed.
Joseph’s inner circle was all deceived about Bennett’s level of access.
Bennett’s exposés in 1842, which prompted the church’s 1835 denial to be republished, were entirely invented despite describing practices Joseph was actually performing.

The more parsimonious explanation: Bennett was indeed an insider who witnessed plural marriage firsthand. When excommunicated, he exposed what he knew. His motivations may have been impure, but his factual claims about polygamy were largely accurate—which is why the church responded so defensively.

Dismissing Bennett’s testimony while accepting accounts from devotees creates an obvious bias: skepticism toward critics, credulity toward believers. This is advocacy, not scholarship.

Problem 3: Survivor Silence as Exculpatory Evidence

Hales emphasizes: “How many complaints do we have from those wives? Zero. The people who were participating in Joseph Smith’s polygamy are not complaining about it—even years later.”

This argument fundamentally misunderstands power dynamics, religious coercion, and 19th-century gender realities. Consider the context these women faced:

Social Realities:

Women who spoke against church leaders faced immediate excommunication and social death.
In Nauvoo and Utah, the church controlled employment, housing, and social networks.
Speaking out meant losing family (some married into polygamy to stay close to parents).
19th-century women had virtually no legal recourse against powerful men.
Society blamed women for sexual impropriety, not men.
“Fallen women” were unemployable and unmarriageable.

Theological Coercion:

Women were taught their eternal salvation depended on accepting plural marriage.
Questioning the prophet’s commands imperiled one’s soul.
The “angel with sword” narrative created divine urgency and supernatural threat.
Women who refused faced separation from family in the afterlife.
LDS theology taught that women could only reach heaven through their husbands.

Documented Resistance: Despite these pressures, we DO have complaints:

Emma Smith fought polygamy her entire life and died opposing it.
Several women initially refused proposals (Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, Jane Law).
Helen Mar Kimball later wrote she felt “deceived” and wished she’d known the full implications.
Some women left cryptic hints of unhappiness in journals.

The absence of formal, public accusations proves constraint, not consent. Comparing this to modern #MeToo revelations is instructive: why did Harvey Weinstein’s victims wait decades? Why did Catholic abuse survivors stay silent? Power, shame, institutional protection, and fear of not being believed.

Hales’ argument that silence equals approval is precisely backward. Silence is exactly what we’d expect from religiously coerced women in a patriarchal society controlled by the man they might accuse.

Problem 4: The “No Woman Said Joseph Seduced Me” Misrepresentation

Hales claims no woman stated, “Joseph Smith seduced me to have sexual relations with him.” This is technically true but deliberately misleading. What women DID say:

Melissa Lott (under oath, 1893): Asked if she was “Joseph’s wife in very deed,” answered “Yes.”

Emily Partridge (sworn testimony, Temple Lot case): Asked “Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?” answered “Yes, sir.”

Lucy Walker: Her niece testified, “Lucy Walker told her that she lived with Joseph Smith as a wife.”

Almera Johnson: Benjamin Johnson stated Joseph “occupied my sister Almera’s room and bed.”

Women didn’t use the word “seduction” because they’d been taught these were legitimate marriages commanded by God. The absence of the specific word “seduce” doesn’t negate sworn testimony of sexual relations. This is semantic sleight-of-hand.

The “Complex Theology Disproves Sexual Motivation” Fallacy

Hales’ Argument: “If Joseph simply wanted more sex, it’s curious that he devised such a complex theology to justify the practice. There was no need for a theology to justify polygamy, because there’s no theology of polygamy in the Old Testament. All he had to say was, ‘They did it. I’m restoring it.’ End of discussion.”

Fatal Flaws in This Reasoning:

Problem 1: Complexity Proves Sophistication, Not Purity

This argument confuses elaboration with validation. Throughout history, sophisticated people have created elaborate justifications for self-serving behavior:

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently about liberty while owning slaves, developing complex arguments about racial differences.
Warren Jeffs created detailed theological justifications for marrying underage girls.
David Koresh developed intricate biblical interpretations to justify sexual access to followers’ wives and daughters.
Catholic Inquisitors wrote sophisticated theological treatises justifying torture.

Theological complexity demonstrates intelligence and rhetorical skill, nothing more. If anything, more elaborate justifications suggest consciousness of wrongdoing—simple practices need simple explanations.

Problem 2: The Theology Was Necessary Precisely Because the Practice Was Indefensible

Hales misses why Joseph needed complex theology. Simple “Abraham did it” wouldn’t work because:

Polyandry: Abraham didn’t marry other men’s wives. No Old Testament precedent existed for this practice, requiring new theological justification.
Age of brides: While young marriages occurred biblically, they weren’t secret. Joseph’s teenage marriages required secrecy, demanding theological cover.
Emma’s opposition: Abraham’s wife, Sarah, initiated Hagar’s inclusion. Emma violently opposed plural marriage. Joseph needed theology to override his wife’s objections.
Secrecy requirement: Biblical polygamy was public. Joseph’s secrecy required a theological explanation for why God’s commandment must be hidden.
Book of Mormon contradiction: Jacob 2:24 calls David and Solomon’s polygamy “abominable.” Joseph needed a sophisticated argument to explain why his scripture condemns what his practice embraces.

The complexity wasn’t unnecessary—it was essential to overcome these problems. If Joseph had simply said, “Abraham did it,” members would respond: “Abraham didn’t marry other men’s wives in secret. Abraham’s wife consented. Abraham wasn’t violating his own scripture.” The elaborate theology was required to paper over contradictions.

Problem 3: The Theology Contradicts the Practice

If complex theology proves pure motives, why did Joseph violate his own theological rules?

D&C 132:61 requires:

A man marries virgins only.
First wife gives consent.
Plural wives “vowed to no other man.”

Joseph’s actual practice:

Married 11 already-married women (polyandry).
Married many women without Emma’s knowledge.
Married women previously married or engaged.

The theology was sophisticated, but Joseph ignored it. This suggests the theology was post-hoc justification, not divine prescription. He created rules for others while exempting himself—classic pattern of cult leadership.

Problem 4: Circular Reasoning

Hales’ argument structure:

Joseph created complex theology.
Complex theology is unnecessary for sexual gratification.
Therefore, Joseph wasn’t motivated by sexual gratification.
Therefore, the theology must be divinely inspired.

This is circular. It assumes the conclusion (divine inspiration) to prove the premise (complexity proves purity). An equally valid argument:

Joseph wanted multiple sexual partners.
His context (Christian America) wouldn’t permit open polygamy.
Therefore, he created complex theology to justify his desires.
The complexity proves premeditation, not divine origin.

Problem 5: Historical Parallel: The Shakers

If theological complexity proves divine origin, consider the Shakers:

Created an elaborate theology of celibacy.
Developed complex communal living structures.
Established sophisticated worship practices.
Claimed direct revelation from God.

Their theology was arguably more complex and counter-cultural than Joseph’s. Does complexity prove God commanded Shaker celibacy? Obviously not. Complexity is neutral—it can elaborate truth or error equally well.

The “No Sexual Polyandry” Defense and Its Impossibilities

Hales’ Position: “My position is that Joseph Smith did not practice sexual polyandry. And I think we’re going to be able to persuade the majority of people that that is so.” He argues that approximately six of the 13 married women were “eternity-only sealings” with no earthly sexual component.

Critical Examination:

Problem 1: The Eternity-Only Distinction Lacks Contemporary Documentation

Hales admits: “Despite what Quinn and Compton have said, there’s very good evidence that at least one eternity-only sealing occurred—and there’s no reason to believe others didn’t occur as well.”

This is extraordinarily weak reasoning. “There’s no reason to believe X didn’t happen” isn’t evidence that X happened. By this logic:

There’s no reason to believe Joseph didn’t receive revelations he never recorded.
There’s no reason to believe he didn’t perform miracles nobody witnessed.
There’s no reason to believe any number of unsubstantiated claims.

The “eternity-only” distinction appears nowhere in contemporary documents. It emerges in later apologetics to explain problematic marriages. The absence of this distinction in sources suggests it’s a modern invention, not a historical reality.

Problem 2: D&C 132 Contradicts the Eternity-Only Theory

Section 132:41 addresses women sealed to Joseph who are living with other husbands: “if she be with another man, and he is not appointed…she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”

According to Joseph’s own revelation:

Women are sealed to Joseph, who live with other men commit adultery.
The exception is if the other man is “appointed.”
No evidence suggests Joseph “appointed” the legal husbands.

If these were eternity-only sealings, why does the revelation call such arrangements adultery? The text assumes the sealed woman should be with Joseph, not her legal husband. This contradicts the eternity-only defense.

Problem 3: Zina Huntington Jacobs—The Fatal Case

Hales must explain Zina, sealed to Joseph, while:

Legally married to Henry Jacobs, a faithful member.
Pregnant with Henry’s child.
Living with Henry.
Still bearing Henry’s children.

Apologetic explanation: Eternity-only sealing to ensure Zina’s exaltation despite being married to a faithful priesthood holder.

Problems with this explanation:

If Henry was unworthy, why was he a faithful member in good standing?
If Henry was worthy, why couldn’t Zina be exalted through him?
Why seal a visibly pregnant woman in an “eternity-only” ceremony?
After Joseph’s death, Brigham Young took Zina as a wife, and she bore him children. Was that also “eternity-only”?
Zina’s children with Henry were eventually sealed to Joseph, not to their biological father—indicating these weren’t platonic arrangements.

The Zina case alone demolishes the eternity-only theory. A pregnant woman sealed to a man other than her child’s father cannot plausibly be explained as merely creating eternal links.

Problem 4: Benjamin Johnson’s Testimony Proves Sexual Relations

Hales cites Benjamin Johnson positively regarding other topics, but must address his statement about his sister Almera: “He [Joseph Smith] was at my house…where he occupied my sister Almera’s room and bed.”

“Occupied her bed” in 19th-century vernacular meant sexual relations. Johnson wasn’t describing Joseph napping in Almera’s room. This establishes:

Joseph had sexual relations with at least some plural wives.
Joseph traveled to distant locations to be with plural wives.
Host families understood these were marital visits, not platonic sealings.

If Joseph had sexual relations with unmarried plural wives at distant locations, what evidence precludes similar relations with married plural wives? The pattern of opportunity and secrecy was identical.

Problem 5: The Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence

Hales demands positive proof of sexual relations 180 years ago. This is an impossible standard that:

Could never be met for most historical sexual relationships.
Assumes couples documented intimate relations.
Ignores the specifically secretive nature of these marriages.

Hales accepts spiritual claims (angels, visions, revelations) with zero physical evidence while demanding physical proof of sexual relations. This double standard reveals the apologetic agenda.

Problem 6: Why Seal Married Women At All?

If these were eternity-only, platonic arrangements to ensure worthy women’s exaltation:

Why keep them secret from the legal husbands?
Why not wait until after the legal husbands died?
Why create marital relationships that Joseph’s own revelation calls adultery?
Why the nighttime ceremonies and deception?

Platonic eternal sealings don’t require secrecy, midnight ceremonies, or hiding from legal spouses. The secrecy itself argues against the eternity-only explanation.

The “Saints Would Have Detected Hypocrisy” Argument and Cult Dynamics

Hales’ Argument: “I also believe that if Joseph had behaved as hypocritically as the naturalists assert, Latter-day Saints like Brigham Young, John Taylor, Eliza Snow, and Zina Huntington would have exposed him.” He uses the basketball analogy: we can’t see the game, but we can watch the reactions of those who can, and their continued faith proves Joseph’s sincerity.

Fundamental Problems:

Problem 1: Intelligent People Join Cults Regularly

Hales’ argument assumes intelligence protects against deception. History proves otherwise:

NXIVM: Recruited actresses, business executives, and highly educated professionals into a sex cult. Members included a Seagram’s heiress and Emmy-winning actresses.
Heaven’s Gate: Members included computer programmers and educated professionals who believed in UFOs and mass suicide.
Scientology: Attracts celebrities, attorneys, and successful businesspeople despite bizarre theology and abusive practices.
Jonestown: Jim Jones’ followers included nurses, teachers, and educated professionals who moved to Guyana and ultimately died in mass murder-suicide.

Intelligence doesn’t protect against charismatic manipulation—it often makes rationalization more sophisticated. Highly intelligent people are better at justifying their commitments, not better at detecting deception.

Problem 2: Sunk Cost Fallacy and Cognitive Dissonance

Early Saints had sacrificed everything for Mormonism:

Left families and homes.
Endured persecution and violence.
Crossed the plains under extreme hardship.
Built cities from scratch.

The psychological cost of admitting Joseph was a fraud was unbearable. Cognitive dissonance resolution studies show that people who sacrifice more for beliefs become more committed to them, not less. The greater the investment, the greater the resistance to contradictory evidence.

When faced with evidence that Joseph was lying about polygamy (which he was—he publicly denied it while practicing it), early Saints faced two choices:

Admit their sacrifices were based on deception.
Find ways to justify or rationalize the contradictions.

Choice #2 is psychologically easier, explaining why devoted followers stayed devoted.

Problem 3: The Dissenting Witnesses Hales Ignores

Hales celebrates faithful witnesses while dismissing dissenters. But significant early church leaders DID expose Joseph:

William Law:

Member of the First Presidency.
One of Joseph’s closest associates
Eventually concluded that Joseph was a “fallen prophet.”
His opposition to polygamy led to the Nauvoo Expositor and Joseph’s death.
Remained convinced Joseph had become corrupt.

Oliver Cowdery:

One of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
Called Fanny Alger’s affair “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.”
Excommunicated partly for this accusation.
Never returned to full fellowship with the church.

Emma Smith:

Closest witness to Joseph’s life.
Fought polygamy until her death.
Denied polygamy existed when interviewed by her son.
Founded rival church (RLDS) that rejected polygamy.

John C. Bennett:

Assistant President of the church.
Mayor of Nauvoo.
Exposed plural marriage in 1842.
Though motivations were impure, his factual claims proved largely accurate.

Hales’ methodology: Faithful witnesses prove Joseph’s righteousness, dissenting witnesses are ignored or dismissed as disgruntled. This is confirmation bias, not objective analysis.

Problem 4: The Basketball Analogy Refutes Itself

Hales says we can’t see Joseph’s actions, but we can see the witnesses’ reactions. This analogy actually undermines his argument:

Basketball fans’ reactions don’t determine whether fouls occurred—referees and instant replay do.
Fans of opposing teams watching the same play often have opposite reactions—perspective matters.
Fan reactions prove what fans believe, not objective reality.
Refs sometimes make wrong calls despite being certain.

Applied to Joseph:

Witnesses’ faith proves they believed, not that belief was justified.
Different witnesses had radically different reactions (William Law vs. Brigham Young).
Belief is subjective—truth is objective.
We have the equivalent of “instant replay” in the historical record—and it shows Joseph lying.

The “Spiritual Experiences Validate Polygamy” Defense and Its Absurdity

Hales’ Argument: Multiple plural wives reported powerful spiritual experiences—visions, angels, burning in the bosom—confirming plural marriage was God’s will. Mary Elizabeth Rollins reported an angel came to her “like lightning.” Another wife said an angel told her “the principle was of God.”

Critical Analysis:

Problem 1: All Religions Report Similar Experiences

If spiritual experiences validate truth claims:

Muslims report powerful confirmations of Islam (billions of testimonies).
Catholics report miraculous experiences confirming transubstantiation.
Pentecostals report speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit.
Hindus report experiences confirming Vishnu’s reality.
Warren Jeffs’ FLDS followers report spiritual witnesses of his prophetic calling.
David Koresh’s followers reported spiritual confirmations before dying at Waco.

Every mutually contradictory religious tradition reports powerful spiritual experiences. These experiences prove subjective psychology, not objective truth. If LDS spiritual experiences validate polygamy, do FLDS experiences validate Warren Jeffs?

Problem 2: Spiritual Experiences Under Coercion

Context matters. These women received “spiritual confirmation” after:

Being told that an angel threatened Joseph’s life with a drawn sword.
Being taught their eternal salvation depended on accepting.
Being approached by the prophet himself, the highest religious authority they knew.
Facing social pressure from family already involved in polygamy.
Being told their parents’ exaltation might depend on their acceptance.

Psychological studies show that intense pressure, sleep deprivation, and fear can produce powerful emotional experiences that feel spiritual. Stockholm syndrome—where captives develop positive feelings toward captors—demonstrates that coercion can produce seemingly positive emotional responses.

“Spiritual confirmation” obtained under theological duress and power imbalances is not reliable evidence of truth.

Problem 3: Lucy Walker—The Paradigm Case of Coerced “Consent”

Lucy Walker’s story reveals the problems with claiming spiritual experiences validate polygamy:

Context:

Age 17 when Joseph proposed.
Orphaned (both parents dead).
Living in Joseph’s home as a ward/servant.
Dependent on Joseph for housing, food, and protection.
Joseph was her guardian, prophet, and employer.
Joseph told her she had one day to decide.

Her “spiritual confirmation”: After Joseph’s proposal, Lucy prayed and reported: “The Lord revealed to me that it was His will that I should become the Prophet’s wife.”

Problems:

The power imbalance makes genuine consent impossible.
A 17-year-old orphan facing homelessness if she refuses.
The prophet-guardian-employer demanding a one-day decision.
The “revelation” conveniently confirms what the authority figure demanded.
Rejection would mean questioning God’s prophet—a faith-destroying act.

This isn’t spiritual confirmation—it’s coerced compliance rationalized as divine will.

Problem 4: Confirmation Bias and Expectation Effects

When people expect spiritual experiences, they interpret ambiguous feelings as confirmation:

Elevation emotion (feeling uplifted) is universal, not unique to truth.
Frisson (chills, “spirit tingles”) occurs with fiction, music, and movies.
Crying during prayers can reflect emotion, not divine communication.
“Burning in the bosom” is described identically by members of contradictory religions.

Joseph Fielding McConkie (grandson of Bruce R. McConkie) wrote: “We do not have to feel those things to have the Spirit…The spirit of the Lord does not shake us…Those feelings you’re describing are simply the feelings of elevation, of a human heart that is recognizing something beautiful, something pure.”

Even LDS scholars acknowledge that emotional experiences don’t reliably indicate divine approval.

The “Public Denials Were Necessary” Defense Admits Systematic Deception

Hales’ Argument: Joseph faced three conflicting commandments: don’t lie, practice polygamy, and do missionary work/temple building. He couldn’t do all three, so he used “carefully worded denials” to publicly claim monogamy while privately practicing polygamy. This isn’t hypocrisy—it’s navigating impossible circumstances.

Fatal Flaws:

Problem 1: “Carefully Worded Denials” Means “Lies Designed to Deceive”

Hales’ euphemism doesn’t change reality. Joseph’s denials included:

Publishing in Times and Seasons (1842): “We declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.”
Public sermons explicitly denying polygamy while married to multiple women.
Threatening excommunication for anyone who accused him of polygamy.
Allowing others to be excommunicated for truthfully reporting his polygamy.

These aren’t “careful wordings”—they’re deliberate lies. The intent was clear: make people believe something false.

Problem 2: God Commanding Lies Contradicts Divine Character

Hales asks us to believe God commanded Joseph to:

Practice polygamy.
Publicly deny practicing polygamy.
Condemn others for truthfully reporting polygamy.
Create a culture of deception within church leadership.

This portrays God as:

Requiring systematic dishonesty.
Valuing institutional protection over truth.
Commanding prophets to bear false witness.
Creating situations requiring sin to obey commandments.

This contradicts LDS teaching that God doesn’t give commandments impossible to keep, never requires sin to accomplish righteous purposes, and values truth above institutional survival.

Problem 3: The “Law of the Land” Contradiction

Joseph’s own revelations commanded law obedience:

D&C 58:21: “Let no man break the laws of the land.”
D&C 134:1: Governments “should be maintained for the benefit of man; and that men are accountable to them for their conduct.”

Hales admits Joseph violated bigamy laws because he faced “three conflicting commandments.” But this means:

God commanded Joseph to break God’s own revealed law.
Joseph’s revelations contradicted each other.
Obedience to one revelation required disobedience to another.

This is incoherent theology. If God’s commands conflict with God’s commands, the problem isn’t with critics—it’s with the claim that both commands came from God.

Problem 4: Creating a Culture of Deception

Joseph’s lying about polygamy taught others to lie:

Apostles publicly denied polygamy in Europe while practicing it.
Wives lied to their legal husbands about sealing to Joseph.
Church published explicit denials in official periodicals.
Members were excommunicated for telling the truth about polygamy.

This systematic deception:

Led directly to the Nauvoo Expositor controversy.
Caused the Carthage mob and Joseph’s death.
Created decades of justified skepticism about Mormon truthfulness.
Undermined the church’s claim to be a restoration of Christ’s transparent truth.

True prophets don’t teach followers to lie. Joseph’s deception wasn’t an unfortunate necessity—it was instrumental to maintaining power while practicing what even he knew was socially and legally unacceptable.

Problem 5: The Danite Precedent Shows a Pattern

Joseph’s public denials while privately practicing polygamy fit a documented pattern:

Publicly denied Danite violence while privately sanctioning it.
Publicly taught “love your enemies” while organizing a paramilitary force.
Publicly claimed innocence while participants reported direct orders.

The pattern: public righteousness + private misconduct + aggressive denial. This isn’t prophetic necessity—it’s cult leader manipulation.

The “Zero Children” Argument That Refutes the Divine Command Claim

Hales’ Argument: Joseph fathered only two possible children from 30+ plural wives (Josephine Lyon and Olive Frost’s child who died). This proves sexual relations were infrequent, and Emma’s vigilance prevented access, not that Joseph was hypocritical.

How This Argument Backfires:

Problem 1: Complete Failure of Stated Divine Purpose

Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132 explicitly state plural marriage’s purpose: “raise up seed unto me.”

Zero confirmed children = 100% failure rate of divine purpose.
If God commanded it to raise up seed, why did it not raise up seed?
If sex was too infrequent to produce children, the practice failed its theological purpose.

Hales admits to infrequent sexual relations. But infrequent sex defeating God’s stated purpose is evidence against divine command, not for it.

Problem 2: The Fertility Mathematics Make Hales’ Explanation Nearly Impossible

Consider the evidence:

Joseph fathered 9 children with Emma (proven fertility).
At least 10 plural wives had documented sexual relations.
These same women bore 50+ children with subsequent husbands.
A typical 19th-century couple had a pregnancy every 2-3 years.
Joseph practiced polygamy for 10+ years.

Probability analysis: With 10 fertile women having infrequent sexual relations over 10 years:

Even quarterly sexual encounters = 400 opportunities for conception.
19th-century contraception was primitive (no reliable methods).
The withdrawal method has 22% annual failure rate.
Zero pregnancies from 400+ encounters is statistically near-impossible.

Problem 3: Alternative Explanations Hales Won’t Consider

The zero-children problem could be explained by:

Withdrawal method (coitus interruptus)—practiced to avoid Emma discovering pregnancies.
Early-stage abortions—John C. Bennett was a physician familiar with abortifacients.
Secret children—given to other families or dying unreported.
Condoms—available in Europe since the 1700s, possibly brought to America.
Very limited sexual relations, which contradicts sworn testimonies of sharing beds.

Hales selects the explanation (#5) that minimizes impropriety while ignoring alternatives that better fit the evidence.

Problem 4: Emma’s “Vigilance” Can’t Explain the Secrecy

Hales argues Emma prevented Joseph from accessing plural wives. But:

If Emma was vigilant, how did Joseph marry 30+ women without her knowledge?
Joseph traveled extensively for church business—ample opportunity for private time.
Benjamin Johnson testified that Joseph stayed at his house, occupying Almera’s “room and bed.”
Emily Partridge testified under oath to sleeping in the same bed with Joseph.
Joseph had complete freedom of movement within Nauvoo.

The “Emma prevented access” explanation contradicts the evidence of actual sexual relations. Hales can’t have it both ways: either Emma knew and couldn’t prevent relations, or she didn’t know, and Joseph had ample opportunity.

Conclusion: The Apologetic Method Exposed

Examining Brian Hales’ apologetics reveals consistent methodological problems:

Evidentiary Double Standards: Demanding impossible proof for accusations while accepting supernatural claims on minimal evidence.
Selective Source Usage: Trusting believers, dismissing dissenters.
Post-Hoc Explanations: Inventing distinctions (eternity-only sealings) absent from original sources.
Circular Reasoning: Assuming divine origin to prove divine origin.
Moving Goalposts: When one defense fails, retreating to another without acknowledging the shift.
Confirmation Bias: Interpreting ambiguous evidence to support predetermined conclusions.
Special Pleading: Invoking standards for Joseph Smith not applied to other historical figures.

The fundamental problem with Mormon apologetics regarding plural marriage is not lack of effort or intelligence—scholars like Hales are clearly dedicated and learned. The problem is that the evidence, when examined honestly and with consistent standards, contradicts the faith-promoting narrative.

No amount of sophisticated argument can overcome:

Joseph’s violation of his own revelations.
The complete failure of the “raise up seed” doctrine.
The pattern of deception and coercion.
The lack of contemporary documentation for spiritual claims.
The mathematical impossibility of zero children from documented sexual relationships.

When apologetics requires accepting that highly improbable explanations are all simultaneously true, while numerous simpler explanations are all simultaneously false, the methodology has failed. The evidence, assessed objectively, points to a conclusion that faithful scholars cannot accept: plural marriage originated in human desire and was justified through claimed revelation, following a pattern seen in numerous other religious movements led by charismatic men seeking to expand their sexual access while maintaining spiritual authority.

VII. Conclusion: Implications and Final Assessment

This analysis has examined plural marriage in Mormon doctrine through the lens of historical evidence, theological consistency, and logical reasoning. The conclusions are sobering for those who believe Joseph Smith was a divinely inspired prophet.

Summary of Findings

1. Timeline Problems: Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage began before he claimed the necessary authority, contradicted his own earlier revelations, and evolved in response to circumstances rather than following a consistent divine plan. The Fanny Alger relationship occurred before Smith claimed sealing keys; the 1831 “revelation” was about marrying Native Americans to make their children whiter; and Section 132 contradicted both the Book of Mormon and Smith’s earlier revelations.

2. Pattern of Deception: Plural marriage was characterized by systematic deception—public denials while privately practicing, marriages conducted behind Emma’s back, coercing secrecy from plural wives, mock ceremonies to hide existing marriages, and polyandrous relationships concealed from legal husbands. This pattern of deception contradicts the character expected of a true prophet.

3. Violations of Smith’s Own Rules: Section 132 established requirements for plural marriage (marry only virgins, obtain first wife’s consent, marry only women not vowed to another man). Smith violated all these requirements repeatedly—marrying non-virgins in polyandrous sealings, marrying without Emma’s knowledge, and marrying women who were civilly married to other men. If Section 132 was a revelation from God, Smith was a fallen prophet. If Smith was justified in violating these rules, Section 132 was not from God.

4. Complete Failure of the Primary Justification: The theological justification for plural marriage—to “raise up seed unto the Lord”—failed completely. Despite 30-40 plural wives, documented sexual relations with at least ten, proven fertility of both Smith and his wives, and three years of plural marriage, Smith produced no documented children through plural marriage. This absence contradicts both the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:30) and Section 132’s promises, undermining the divine origin claim.

5. Problematic Marriages: Smith’s marriages to 14-year-old girls (Helen Mar Kimball, Nancy Winchester), polyandrous marriages to women with faithful LDS husbands, marriages to women living in his household, and marriages to women who were Emma’s close friends all demonstrate a pattern inconsistent with divine command but consistent with personal desire cloaked in religious authority.

6. Coercion and Abuse of Authority: Section 132 contains eleven warnings/threats, nine directed at Emma, threatening her with destruction if she doesn’t accept plural marriage. Smith used his claimed prophetic authority to pressure young women into marriages, often invoking the “angel with a drawn sword” narrative to suggest non-compliance would result in divine punishment. This use of religious authority to coerce sexual relationships is a pattern seen across religious movements led by self-proclaimed prophets who abuse their followers.

7. Apologetic Defenses Fail: Every major apologetic defense of plural marriage fails when examined critically:

“Implementation mistakes” concedes the practice was fundamentally flawed.
“Eternity-only sealings” is an ad hoc explanation without contemporary documentation.
“Dynastic sealing theory” doesn’t explain the pattern of marriages or the secrecy.
“Old Testament precedent” ignores crucial differences and biblical problems with polygamy.
“God’s mysterious ways” abandons rational discourse and could justify any practice.

Implications for Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Claims

The evidence presented in this analysis creates an impossible situation for those defending Smith’s prophetic calling:

If plural marriage was revealed by God, then:

God contradicted His own scriptures (Book of Mormon vs. Section 132).
God commanded a practice that caused immense suffering.
God threatened faithful spouses with destruction if they resisted.
God approved marriages to 14-year-olds.
God approved taking other men’s wives in secret.
God commanded a practice to “raise seed” that produced no seed.
God eventually abandoned the practice entirely.

This portrayal of God is incompatible with divine attributes of love, consistency, justice, and wisdom.

If plural marriage was not revealed by God, then:

Joseph Smith produced a 3,200-word revelation in the voice of God to justify personal desires.
Joseph Smith used prophetic authority to manipulate young women into sexual relationships.
Joseph Smith systematically deceived his wife and followers.
Joseph Smith created a practice that caused lasting trauma across generations.
Joseph Smith’s claims to prophetic authority are fundamentally undermined.

The second explanation—human origin rather than divine command—better fits the totality of evidence. It explains:

Why does plural marriage contradict earlier revelations?
Why it was practiced in secret rather than openly?
Why did the theological justifications fail?
Why did the practice include problematic elements (underage brides, polyandry)?
Why did it cause such suffering to Emma and others?
Why was it eventually abandoned?
Why did it produce no children despite that being its stated purpose?

Physical Evidence Contradicts Spiritual Claims

Throughout this analysis, we’ve seen how physical evidence contradicts spiritual claims:

Spiritual Claim: God commanded plural marriage to “raise up seed.”
Physical Evidence: Zero documented children from 30-40 plural marriages.

Spiritual Claim: An angel with drawn sword threatened Joseph if he didn’t practice plural marriage.
Physical Evidence: No contemporary documentation; the story emerges decades later to justify the practice.

Spiritual Claim: Plural marriages were performed with proper priesthood authority after sealing keys were restored.
Physical Evidence: First plural relationship (Fanny Alger) occurred before the claimed restoration of sealing keys.

Spiritual Claim: Plural marriage was God’s law, commanded by revelation.
Physical Evidence: Joseph himself initiated the inquiry about polygamy (Section 132:1); it wasn’t God’s initiative.

Spiritual Claim: Section 132 was received years before it was written down, and Joseph knew it perfectly.
Physical Evidence: Content of Section 132 reflects recent events (offer to Emma) and contemporary circumstances, suggesting composition during dictation.

In every case, the physical, documentary evidence contradicts the spiritual narrative. This pattern suggests the spiritual narrative was constructed to justify practices that had human rather than divine origin.

Joseph Smith as a 19th-Century Religious Innovator

The most parsimonious explanation for the evidence is that Joseph Smith was not a prophet receiving revelation from God, but rather a creative religious innovator who:

Possessed remarkable linguistic ability, demonstrated in his production of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and numerous revelations in biblical style.
Used claimed divine authority to pursue personal desires, particularly sexual relationships with young women.
Developed theology adaptively, changing doctrines as circumstances required, without consistent regard for earlier teachings.
Exhibited patterns common to other self-proclaimed prophets, including:

Using religious authority to access sexual relationships.
Claiming divine mandate for practices that served personal interests.
Invoking threats of divine punishment to coerce compliance.
Practicing systematic deception and secrecy.
Eventually, being caught in contradictions that undermined credibility.

This explanation doesn’t require believing in an inconsistent, capricious God who commands suffering, threatens faithful spouses, changes his mind repeatedly, and fails to achieve his stated purposes. Instead, it recognizes Smith as a product of his time—a charismatic leader who, like many before and after, used religious innovation to serve personal ends.

The Untenable Nature of Plural Marriage

The title of this analysis asserts that plural marriage is not tenable as either a spiritual or physical practice. The evidence supports this conclusion:

Spiritually Untenable:

It contradicts scripture (Book of Mormon).
It contradicts Jesus’s teachings on marriage.
Its stated purpose (raising seed) completely failed.
It required massive deception and secrecy.
It caused immense suffering to faithful believers.
It portrayed God as capricious, cruel, or incompetent.

Physically Untenable:

It produced no children despite that being its justification.
It created impossible psychological situations (polyandry).
It damaged families and relationships.
It required unsustainable secrecy.
It eventually had to be abandoned due to legal and social pressure.
Its consequences (trauma, family disruption, loss of property through federal prosecution) outweighed any purported benefits.

Final Conclusion: Mormonism’s Most Damning Evidence

Of all the problems in Mormon history and doctrine—Book of Mormon anachronisms, Book of Abraham translation, changes to revelations, failed prophecies, priesthood restoration problems, First Vision accounts—plural marriage may be the most damning.

Why? Because, unlike issues of ancient history (Book of Mormon geography) or translation (Book of Abraham), plural marriage:

Has abundant contemporary documentation from multiple perspectives (believers, skeptics, participants, observers).
Involves testable claims (raising seed) that definitively failed.
Demonstrates clear patterns of deception and abuse that are difficult to explain as divine command.
Contradicts Mormon scripture explicitly (Book of Mormon vs. Section 132).
Was eventually abandoned by the church itself, implicitly admitting it wasn’t essential.
Caused documented suffering to thousands of participants.
Is still doctrine in current LDS sealing theology, meaning it’s not merely historical.

Plural marriage exposes the mechanism by which Joseph Smith produced revelation: he developed theology to serve immediate needs, clothed personal desires in divine language, and wielded claimed prophetic authority to overcome resistance. Once this mechanism is understood, similar patterns become visible throughout Smith’s prophetic career.

Pastoral Closing Thoughts

For believers confronting this information, the implications are profound and often devastating. Many have invested their entire lives, identities, and family structures in the LDS church. Questioning plural marriage means questioning Smith’s prophetic calling, which means questioning the church’s foundational claims. The foundation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fundamentally hinges on the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet called by God to restore the true church. Without this foundational premise, the Book of Mormon, priesthood authority, temple covenants, and the church’s doctrinal authority are generally not accepted as valid by members.

This analysis has maintained a respectful tone while firmly concluding that Joseph Smith was not a prophet as he claimed, but rather an influential leader of an alternative 19th-century religious movement. This conclusion is not reached lightly or with pleasure, but it is demanded by honest examination of the evidence.

The question each reader must answer: Does the evidence support divine origin or human invention? Does the pattern suggest prophetic calling or prophetic pretense? Can the contradictions, failures, deceptions, and suffering be reconciled with divine command?

If the answer to these questions is no—if the evidence points toward human origin—then intellectual honesty and personal integrity require acknowledging that conclusion, regardless of the cost to previous beliefs.

The truth, even when difficult, is liberating. Understanding that plural marriage was not divinely commanded means:

God did not require marriage to 14-year-olds
God did not command taking other men’s wives
God did not threaten faithful spouses with destruction
God did not establish a practice that caused generations of suffering

This is good news. It means God’s character is not as portrayed in Section 132. It implies the suffering was unnecessary, caused by human ambition rather than divine will.

For those leaving belief in Mormon truth claims, there is life after Mormonism—communities of integrity, relationships based on honesty rather than coercion, families strengthened by genuine care rather than threatened by celestial consequences, and freedom to pursue truth wherever it leads.

The evidence on plural marriage points clearly toward a conclusion that troubles the true believers but liberates those willing to follow where evidence leads: Joseph Smith was not a prophet receiving revelation from God, but a creative religious innovator who, like many before and after him, used claims of divine authority to serve human desires. Understanding this frees us from the obligation to defend the indefensible and allows us to pursue wisdom, compassion, and truth without the burden of explaining away contradictions and suffering.

May this analysis serve those seeking truth with the courage to examine evidence honestly, the wisdom to reach sound conclusions, and the integrity to act on those conclusions regardless of cost.

Works Cited and Other Recommended Reading

Compton, Todd. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Signature Books, 1997.
Hales, Brian C. Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (3 volumes). Greg Kofford Books, 2013.
Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Knopf, 2005.
Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Signature Books, 1994.
Van Wagoner, Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History. Signature Books, 1986.
LDS Church. “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.” Gospel Topics Essays. Website: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-and-plural-marriage
“Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” Website: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/
Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.
The Joseph Smith Papers Project. Website: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/
Daynes, Kathryn M. More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910. University of Illinois Press, 2001.

This article was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, which have proven to be valuable research assets across numerous academic disciplines. While AI-generated insights informed much of this work, all content has been carefully reviewed, supplemented with additional research and pertinent sources, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy, theological fidelity, and relevance to the reader.

I. Introduction: The Origins and Motivations Behind Mormon Plural Marriage

Historical Context and Key Figures

Key Journal Entries

Affidavit Testimony

Joseph Smith Papers Context

Relevance to Brigham Young

The Central Thesis

II. Divine Revelation Claims: Examining Joseph Smith’s Justifications

The 1831 Revelation: Problems with the Timeline

The Fanny Alger Affair: Sex Without Sealing Keys

The 1835 Denial: Condemning Polygamy in Scripture

The 1836 Vision: Anachronistic Sealing Keys

The Production of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132

Content Analysis: The Revelation’s True Purpose

The Angel with the Drawn Sword Narrative

Contradictions with the Book of Mormon

The 1841 Teaching on Sin Without Accusers

III. Criticisms and Controversies: The Historical Record

Secrecy and Deception: A Pattern of Concealment

Ages of Brides: Marriages to Teenagers

Polyandrous Marriages: Theological and Moral Problems

IV. Theological Rationale and Critical Assessment: The “Raising Up Seed” Doctrine

The “Raising Up Seed” Doctrine

Critical Assessment: No Documented Children

The Fertility Evidence: A Devastating Contrast

Diminishing Returns and Opportunity: A Weak Defense

Comparison to Emma: A Stark Contrast

The Theological Implications: Complete Failure of Justification

The Most Damning Evidence

Further Problems: The “Raising Righteous Seed” Claim

Conclusion: Utter Failure of the Primary Justification

V. Apologetic Responses and Counter-Arguments

Apologetic Argument 1: “Joseph Made Mistakes in Implementing a True Principle”

Apologetic Argument 2: “Eternity-Only Sealings Were Purely Spiritual”

Apologetic Argument 3: “Dynastic/Kinship Sealing Theory”

Apologetic Argument 4: “Old Testament Polygamy Legitimizes LDS Practice”

Apologetic Argument 5: “We Don’t Understand God’s Ways”

VI. The Evidentiary Double Standard: Examining Modern LDS Apologetics

Motivation for Research on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

The “Lack of Credible Evidence” Claim and Its Fatal Flaws

The “Complex Theology Disproves Sexual Motivation” Fallacy

The “No Sexual Polyandry” Defense and Its Impossibilities

The “Saints Would Have Detected Hypocrisy” Argument and Cult Dynamics

The “Spiritual Experiences Validate Polygamy” Defense and Its Absurdity

The “Public Denials Were Necessary” Defense Admits Systematic Deception

The “Zero Children” Argument That Refutes the Divine Command Claim

Conclusion: The Apologetic Method Exposed

VII. Conclusion: Implications and Final Assessment

Summary of Findings

Implications for Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Claims

Physical Evidence Contradicts Spiritual Claims

Joseph Smith as a 19th-Century Religious Innovator

The Untenable Nature of Plural Marriage

Final Conclusion: Mormonism’s Most Damning Evidence

Pastoral Closing Thoughts

Works Cited and Other Recommended Reading

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply