Tag Archives: monogamy

All Wives Matter

I’ve recently been reading the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. I know some of his descendants quite well. One, in particular, is a dear friend and is willing to go deep with me and to be “honest” about polygamy. He truly believes in the principle as one taught by Joseph Smith. He believes his grandfather was only doing as he was taught and commanded by Joseph.

Yet, as I have now read and analyzed the whole book, I have found NOTHING in Parley’s account that links the teaching of polygamy to Joseph Smith.

I was struck, I must say, by the many accounts Parley shares of healings and miracles and baptisms. He was truly a fierce and loyal force for good at the time of Joseph. He converted many! In fact, some could argue that he even neglected his first wife Thankful as he served mission after mission, leaving her home, unhealthy, childless, poor, and alone for years at a time.

But, no one could argue that there was any contemporary of Joseph who was more sincere and more faithful than he was. Parley was about Joseph’s age and was one of the original twelve apostles of the Church. He was killed on May 13, 1857 by Hector McLean, at the age of 50, for having taken McLean’s wife Eleanor from him. She was Pratt’s 11th wife.

I decided to read Pratt’s autobiography in part because I thought surely if anyone would be honest about polygamy and its origins, it would be him. If anyone would have first-hand information about Joseph teaching polygamy it would be him.

I was surprised that I did not get to the topic of polygamy until page 407. Although I should mention that there is a footnote on page 369. Footnote 20. This footnote references a paragraph from pages 361 and 362 where it says:

In Philadelphia I had the happiness of once more meeting with president Smith, and of spending several days with him and others, and with the Saints in that city and vicinity. During these interviews he taught me many great and glorious principles concerning God and the heavenly order of eternity. It was at this time that I received from him the first idea of eternal family organization, and the eternal union of the sexes in those inexpressibly endearing relationships which none but the highly intellectual, the refined and pure in heart, know how to prize, and which are at the very foundation of everything worthy to be called happiness. Til then I had learned to esteem kindred affections and sympathies as appertaining solely to this transitory state, as something from which the heart must be entirely weaned, in order to be fitted for its heavenly state. It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter. It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love. It was from him that I learned that we might cultivate these affections, and grow and increase in the same to all eternity; while the result of our endless union would be an offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, or the sands of the sea shore. It was from him that I learned the true dignity and destiny of a son of God, clothed with an eternal priesthood, as the patriarch and sovereign of his countless offspring. It was from him that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was, to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring. I had loved before, but I knew not why. But now I loved — with a pureness and intensity of elevated, exalted feeling, which would lift my soul from the transitory things of this grovelling sphere and expand it as the ocean. I felt that God was my heavenly Father indeed; that Jesus was my brother, and that the wife of my bosom was an immortal, eternal companion; a kind of ministering angel, given to me as a comfort, and a crown of glory for ever and ever. In short, I could now love with the spirit and with the understanding also. (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 361-362.)

Notice, not a mention of polygamy. And this is in 1839 and 1840. The footnote, however, which was added by either Parley P. Pratt Jr. many years later, or more likely by Scot and Maurine Proctor, the most recent LDS editors, tells a very different story. They conclude that in the above paragraph:

Parley is referring to marriage for time and all eternity and to what would be later referred to as “the principle,” or plural marriage. As in all things in the gospel, Parley was obedient to this teaching. Less than three years later, he married the first of his ten plural wives. (Page 369)

Did you read the preceding paragraph on page 361 and 362 as the teaching of polygamy from Joseph Smith? I did not.

I am amazed that someone so close to the original source of this foundational eternal teaching is in need of 20th-century assistance in making sure the attributions and definitions are correct.

And so we go to page 407, footnote 9:

…We learn of Parley’s first plural marriage at this period from the family record: “Elizabeth Brotherton, daughter of Thomas and Sarah Brotherton, born March 27, 1816 in Machester, England, sealed to Parley P. Pratt for time and all eternity, June (then overwritten with July) 24, 1843. Done at the house of Brigham Young in Nauvoo, by the hand of Patriarch Hyrum Smith… (Pratt, Family Record, my emphasis added).

Why would the Family Record have written over the date of Parley P. Pratt’s first plural wife? Especially given that Parley’s own record in his autobiography that this footnote is created from says nothing of any marriage with anyone. In fact, it simply says:

My time, from arrival until the last of the year, was spent in the ministry, and in building, travelling, etc. (Page 406).

And yet, the footnote added over one hundred years later seems to want to establish the precise date of Parley’s first plural marriage although he himself, an ardent believer and later preacher of the polygamy, does not think it important to mention when he actually begins to practice the Celestial Law in his own autobiographical account. In fact, he was so busy in the ministry and in building and in traveling that he literally did not even have 30 minutes to return a letter:

Although it may seem strange to you I have not seen 1/2 hour which it was in my power to devote to that purpose (returning a letter) till now on account of business, building, visiting and receiving company etc. (page 407, footnote 9).

And yet we’re to believe that during this time he HAD time to court a woman in addition to his wife and propose marriage to her.

Furthermore, why write over Parley’s original date of June 24, 1843? (Or whoever’s…) Well, it’s important to note that Joseph Smith did not receive the revelation on polygamy until July 12, 1843, according to the LDS Church. So, if Parley did in fact enter into plural marriage before that date (i.e. in June) then he would have done so before the actual revelation was even received, let alone taught by Joseph.

Another relevant question is why is it important that Hyrum performed the ceremony, rather than say Brigham Young, IF it was in July of 1843, when it was “approved”? That’s also an important and interesting detail. The appendix of Parley’s autobiography spells out why. According to this appendix (added by who we cannot be sure) the “Twelve” did not receive the Keys from Joseph until April of 1844. So Brigham would not have had the authority to seal and to bind or to perform this plural marriage.

So although it was conveniently at Brigham’s home, the attribution of who married them, needed to be Hyrum or Joseph. Both of whom were prophets and co-presidents of the Church.

As important as this event would be in Church History, I can find nothing in the actual Joseph Smith Papers or in the History of the Church regarding the plural marriage of this prominent apostle during Joseph’s lifetime. This, however, is conveniently added to the footnotes of the JSP during that timeframe:

Less than a month before this revelation was dictated, Hyrum Smith sealedParley P. Pratt to his wife, Mary Ann Frost Pratt, without authorization from JS. Upon finding out about this sealing, JS criticized Hyrum and reaffirmed his sole authority to perform or to grant authority to others to perform such sealings. Following the dictation of this revelation and with JS’s approval, Hyrum Smith sealed Pratt to his deceased first wife, Thankful Halsey Pratt; his second wife, Mary Ann; and a third wife, Elizabeth Brotherton. Since 1832, JS had dictated revelations that identified himself as the person holding the “keys of the Kingdom.” (Givens and Grow, Parley P. Pratt, 204–205; Mary Ann Frost Pratt, Life Sketch of Olive Frost, ca. May 1887, in “Miscellaneous,” Historical Record, May 1887, 6:234–235; Revelation, 15 Mar. 1832 [D&C 81:2].)  

How strange indeed that Hyrum would perform an eternal sealing without Joseph’s consent.

Like many of these footnotes, they don’t lead to any solid sources. Look at the last link above — it’s to a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1832. Yet, we’re in 1843 supposedly. No actual corroborating sources to verify JS’s anger, either… The Church and its apologists yet again, wish to stack the footnote narrative to fit their story.

I find it amazing that in one of the few autobiographies of one of the original LDS apostles, Parley Pratt does not help the LDS Church clear up the issue of whether Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy or not. Without footnotes in Parley’s record, Joseph cannot be tied to the teaching.

“Truth Claims”

Written by LDS author Brian Hales (anesthesiologist) who clearly wants Polygamy to be true.

More young people are leaving the Church.  I’m not sure anyone knows the exact number, but it’s safe to say that most people know someone under the age of 40 who has left in the last year.  There’s a common theme for those leaving—Concerns over the Church’s “truth claims.”  In large part, these concerns begin with or are made worse by what the Church teaches about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

The Church’s claims about their founding prophet are incompatible.  On one hand, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”

On the other hand, he was secretly practicing polygamy, which included having sex with other women, some as young as age 14, some of which were married to other men, ALL while simultaneously openly teaching that polygamy is an abomination and while excommunicating others for doing the same.

This flagrant contradiction makes it very hard for an honest and moral person to believe Joseph was worthy to do God’s work and to be His servant.

After all, the scriptures teach that adultery is wrong; that polygamy is wrong, that pedophilia is wrong; that orgies and whoredoms are wrong.  These are all things, ironically, the Church today teaches as wrong and unlawful.  Our youth today are taught to not even watch rated R movies or to wear immodest clothing, but somehow whoredoms were commanded by God for almost 100 years in the Church.  It’s a hard idea for most to reconcile.  (If you think whoredoms is too strong of a word, then I would cite you to Jacob chapter 2.)

No wonder, based on the Church’s claim that polygamy was started by Joseph Smith, so many conclude the Church simply cannot be true and that he cannot be a true prophet.

Consider how you might feel today about Warren Jeffs and his followers.  Many of us will conclude by their fruits that he is not a true prophet and that his people are deceived.  If we who are active LDS feel so biased against today’s polygamists, then how can we expect that some of our own will not come to the same conclusions about our polygamous history?  Do you feel inclined for example, to read Warren Jeff’s revelations he’s getting in prison?  Why not?  “Because his fruits are evil.  He’s a pedophile. He’s a womanizer.  So why even insult God by considering his teachings…”  Right?

Hence the Church’s great dilemma.  This is how many of our youth are now seeing this issue of the Church’s claim that Joseph started and practiced polygamy.  And why wouldn’t they?  After all, can good fruit come from a bad seed or from a completely immoral and unworthy man?

But was Joseph really practicing polygamy?

I know for some that sounds like a silly question because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many other historians have been so “clear” on this subject.  Why would the Church say Joseph Smith did practice polygamy if he in fact didn’t?  Why be dishonest about something so unflattering?  These are good questions, but let’s start with the obvious:

If Joseph did not practice Polygamy as did Brigham his successor, then the LDS Church’s claim of being “true” and of having the Keys, is seriously undermined. 

It’s a curious idea—If the Church had evidence that showed Joseph never actually practiced polygamy and was always faithful to Emma and cleaved to none other, what would become of the Church?

I posed this question to a young man who left the Church recently who had just read the CES Letter.  His initial response was: “The Church and its leaders would be so relieved!”  I gave him an inquisitive look.  Being a very smart young man he corrected his response to: “The Church would be ruined.”  That’s exactly right sadly.  Why would it be ruined?  Because where a jury may not be able to convict Joseph of polygamy on evidence, it clearly can convict all the Church leaders after him up to 1945.  And if polygamy was wrongly practiced after Joseph’s death, then today’s LDS Church has a much harder argument proving it was worthy to procure or keep the all important Keys it claims to have from Joseph.

Let’s pause at 1945 for a moment.  As a missionary I was instructed to tell people that polygamy was outlawed in 1890 and Mormons stopped practicing it abruptly, then.  This is one of the Church’s “truth claims.”  But is it completely accurate?  I won’t turn you to the many troubling stories of what happened after the Manifesto in 1890, but anyone who has delved even a little will find that Mormons were winking and nodding for many years thereafter.  Members and leaders alike were going to Mexico to be married to plural wives.  One elderly prophet engaged in a plural marriage to a woman several decades younger than himself off the West coast, on a boat (international waters), many years after 1890.  And then there’s President Heber J. Grant, the last polygamist prophet of the Church who died in 1945.  He had been married to 3 women at the same time, but all of them died before he became the leader of the Church.  So technically, the last prophet of the Church who actually believed in and taught AND practiced polygamy died when my dad was 2 years old.

When a young missionary or young Mormon person is led to believe that polygamy came to a hard stop without resistance because it was made illegal in 1890 and because President Woodruff had a revelation, and because “we believe in honoring the laws of the land,” they are often confused when they find that technically a man who was prophet of the Church until 1945 was an avowed polygamist and that many so-called law abiding Church leaders before him were disobeying the laws of the land that they swore to honor.

The other truth claim aforementioned is that polygamy only ended because a prophet received a revelation or had a vision.  This truth claim is also troubling to many honest thinkers.  On one hand we have Brigham Young who prophesied that Polygamy was the only way for a man to enter the Celestial Kingdom and unequivocally stated that if the Church ever abandoned the practice, it would lose its Priesthood and be destroyed as a Church.  On the other hand, we have Wilford Woodruff receiving a “revelation” contradicting Brigham’s teachings and prophesies.  Which is it?  Again, an honest person recognizes the dilemma.  And then we add to the dilemma of prophets contradicting one another, the historical facts that strongly point to Mormons being forced by governmental pressure to abandon polygamy all the way down to the Manifesto being written by a non-LDS lawyer and the requirement that his words (the Manifesto) be added to the Doctrine and Covenants so that Church members would be more inclined to take it seriously.  Do you not find it strange that such an important revelation is only a footnote in the back of the D&C rather than its own section?  Same for blacks and the Priesthood?

So here’s the second question I posed to my young friend who just left the Church: “What if Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and never had sex with anyone but Emma and was telling the truth about the abomination of polygamy?  Would that change how you feel about the other concerns you have?”  His response was predictable.  “That’s impossible.  History proves Joseph was a polygamist.  It’s not even a question.”  So I asked a follow up question.  “But, where does this most of this ‘unquestioned history’ come from?”  The answer of course is that it largely comes from the Church itself.  I continued, “Did you know that not only did Emma not believe Joseph was ever a polygamist and gave that testimony until her death, but neither did Joseph’s mother or Joseph’s children believe it?  In fact, none of the believers of the future RLDS Church seemed to believe that Joseph was a polygamist nor did they believe polygamy was a revelation from God.”

As members of this Church we are generally unaware of the great schisms that existed upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum.  Brighamites, Josephites, Strangites, Cochranites, Rigdonites, etc.  This hints at another truth claim regarding succession that we won’t go into completely now, but that is often troubling for those hearing it for the first time.  Many have no idea that Brigham Young was never ordained by the 12 (or anyone) for example, and was not unanimously sustained by them either.  Nor do many know that the Church was 3-1/2 years without a President.  Or that Brigham campaigned on the promise that he’d never be the prophet and would only act as the Church’s custodian until Joseph III was old enough to be the Church’s rightful leader.  Or that Brigham all but abolished the Relief Society during this time, because he saw Emma and her organization as a threat.  He actually blamed the Relief Society for the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, in part because she was advocating for monogamy and morality.  Or that Brigham’s first thought by his own words upon hearing that Joseph was gone was “We’ve lost the keys…”  The succession crisis was just that– a succession crisis– but the Church does not offer a lot of transparency on this topic thus causing some honest and often young minds to see the Church as dishonest about its history.

This crisis led to the formation of several new branches of Mormonism.  Emma, Lucy and much of the Joseph Smith family refused to follow Brigham.  Emma confronted Brigham on the topic of polygamy and reaffirmed that Joseph had told Brigham in her presence that it was not of God.  To say that Brigham and Emma did not like each other would be an understatement.  What divided them?  Polygamy among other things.

In fact, an argument could be made that Joseph lost his life because of the charges of polygamy being leveled against him and subsequently the Church split into fragments largely based on the differing beliefs surrounding polygamy.

And yet, as I mentioned earlier, Joseph cannot be convicted of polygamy.  Consider the following facts and ideas:

  1. There is zero DNA that links any child or descendant to Joseph Smith.
  2. This despite the teaching that the Lord commands polygamy (see Jacob 2 and case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in order to raise up seed.
  3. There is nothing but hearsay evidence, often decades later from less credible, uncorroborated sources.  If you don’t think people won’t lie for what they think is for the greater good then I cite you to the recent Justice Kavanaugh hearings where at least one woman literally lied about events that never took place.  Perjury in order to advance a narrative and agenda.  Lawyers and a propaganda machine funded her and stood by her side because they needed her story to be true.  Why would it have been any different in Brigham’s day?  Their religion, their society, and their very way of life were dependent upon being able to pin polygamy to Joseph, the founder of their religion.
  4. There is no eye witness that caught Joseph in the act of being unfaithful.  No bath house, group massage, group-anything experience.  No hotel owner or inn keeper.  No setting in which Joseph is seen with a woman in a sexual or unfaithful situation.  Never seen walking down the streets of Nauvoo with some other woman inappropriately or in some back alley.  All this while male secretaries are following him and recording his history.
  5. Even Joseph’s own wife is positive Joseph was not a polygamist.  Why would she lie?  Especially if she wasn’t going to be a part of Brigham’s group?  In her mind she was going East and would likely never see Brigham and the LDS Church again.
  6. Why would Emma as the Church’s most prominent female leader, edit and publish the Voices of Innocence, a publication bashing polygamy, adultery, and fornication, and have that document sustained by 8,000 members of the Church in 1844—a document Joseph wrote?
  7. Why would Joseph be tried in Far West by the Stake for “the girl business” in 1838 only to be exonerated by that Council?  If he was guilty and there were witnesses, then why was he not convicted?
  8. Why was section 132, which is the Church’s only document from Joseph on polygamy, not published in the D&C until 1852, years after Joseph’s death?  Why is it not all in Joseph’s handwriting?  Why did the Church edit it?  Add to it?  Subtract from it?
  9. When in the history of the world has the Lord commanded an entire people to practice polygamy?  (See Brigham Young’s teachings)  Will Nephi not be exalted because he was not practicing polygamy?  Paul?  Peter?  Isaiah?  Others?
  10. If polygamy was intended to be the Church’s new law and was the only way into the Highest heavens, then why would Joseph receive section 49 that teaches a man must have only one wife?
  11. Why would Joseph point to the former D&C section 101 that teaches against fornication and polygamy when defending himself against John C. Bennet? For that matter why did Brigham Young remove section 101?
  12. Did the LDS Church have pure motives in the Temple Lot case when it provided affidavits against Joseph as a polygamist in order to try to prevent the RLDS Church from getting the Independence Temple Lot?
  13. Why doesn’t the Church release the William Clayton diaries?  Or other records that might shed light on the subject?  If the William Clayton diaries convict Joseph, that would only help the Church’s narrative.

Interestingly, Joseph’s own grandson Israel Smith says the following on the subject:

“Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify … Utah Mormon polygamy.”

Is it possible that Joseph was in fact a victim of fraud and conspiracy?  Is it possible he was telling the truth the whole time?  Was there motive from the polygamist Cochranites and those they persuaded that spiritual wifery was of God, to push this system on Joseph and on the Church?  Are there holes in the testimonies of those who followed Brigham?  Can we really trust the witnesses of women who were supposedly once married to Joseph but then who subsequently became Brigham’s wives?  Would they not have an agenda to pin polygamy on Joseph?  For the “greater good” and to preserve their way of life?

If Joseph is exonerated of being a dishonest and immoral man, then the Church sadly has the most to lose.  If Brigham was an adulterer and polygamy was an abomination, and Joseph was doing neither, it’s hard to argue that Keys can be transferred upon such principles of unrighteousness.  But, if Joseph is exonerated, it’s also far more likely that people will not be so quick to throw away the Book of Mormon, the teachings of Joseph Smith, the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, and most importantly, the restoration itself.

Sadly, the LDS Church needs Joseph to be as guilty of polygamy as was Brigham and the Church needs to continue to push the teaching that polygamy came to Joseph as a revelation from God.  If they lose that argument, they may just lose the Church.  Yet, by holding onto it, they lose great people whose consciences no longer allow them to believe that an immoral man is one of God’s true messengers.

For those interested in reading more on this topic, I’d recommend strongly the following links, which provide far better research than what’s contained in this short blog post.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html

http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Plural-Marriage.pdf

http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2z_BoaWNc-DZoZJcLNOceHWLpXuwGTdy5kTH02TNZVjOkd6r96aqG_bZc

https://theexonerationofemmajosephandhyrum.com/

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm