Did Joseph Smith violate marriage laws in Ohio by performing marriages?

Joseph did not knowingly violate marriage laws in Ohio, and seems to have used his prophetic gifts to spare victims of the nineteenth-century's legal and bureaucratic immaturity unnecessary suffering

Joseph did not knowingly violate marriage laws in Ohio, and seems to have used his prophetic gifts to spare victims of the nineteenth-century's legal and bureaucratic immaturity unnecessary suffering. The secular powers honored Joseph's marriages, and provided documentation to ratify his acts. As happens so often, critics condemn Joseph Smith and the early Saints without providing the proper context for their legal choices or moral actions. As we consider the wider implementation of plural marriage in Nauvoo, such context will become increasingly important.

Plural marriage would eventually involve a complex collision of religious belief, secular law, and personal conscience. Many historians have presumed that Joseph Smith always had a cavalier attitude toward civil laws which conflicted with his marital concepts. Even before the broad implementation of plural marriage, critics point to marriages performed by Joseph in Ohio as evidence that he would readily violate secular laws.

As John Brooke put it:

Specifically prohibited from performing the marriage ceremony by the local county court, Smith brushed aside a state-licensed church elder to perform the rites of marriage between Newel [Knight] and Lydia [Bailey] himself. She was not divorced from her non-Mormon husband, so this technically bigamous marriage also challenged a broader moral code…Over the next two months Joseph Smith performed five more illegal marriages.^[4]

Brooke claims Joseph was forbidden to perform marriages, that he performed a bigamous marriage, and that he repeatedly disobeyed state marriage laws.

Michael Quinn makes the same type of claim when he opines that

in November 1835 [Joseph] announced a doctrine I call "theocratic ethics." He used this theology of justify his violation of Ohio’s marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaite without legal authority to do so…Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.^[5]

Quinn's introduction of the expression "theocratic ethics" is an excellent example of his regrettable tendency to coin an expression, and then proceed as if his act of definition proves that the phenomenon he has labeled actually exists.^[6] In another context, one non-LDS reviewer of Quinn regretted this use of "rather artificial categories that acquire an aura of scholarly respectability through the magic of 'Quinnspeak.'"^[7]

Quinn's vocabulary implies that Joseph was using a different sort of ethical standard as most people—and, the term "theocratic" is loaded, since it generally has negative associations. Quinn also makes the entirely unwarranted conclusion "by extension" that Joseph's supposed irregular actions meant that a "regular Mormon" would be likewise justified in following a novel ethical scheme.

Despite such confident claims, the historical record regarding Ohio marriages disagrees with this portrait in almost every particular.^[8] Newel Knight, a young widower, wished to marry Lydia Bailey. Lydia was married to an abusive drunkard, who had abandoned her years before. Sidney Rigdon had been refused a license to marry as a Mormon minister, and so many concluded that Mormon elders would not receive state sanction to perform marriages.

Because Seymour Brunson had been a preacher prior to being a Mormon, he held a license to solemnize marriages. Brunson was thus about to perform the Knight-Bailey wedding. In what Van Wagoner calls "a bold display of civil disobedience,"^[9] Joseph Smith stepped forward and announced that he would perform the marriage.

The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities

On the surface, it appears that the critics are justified in arguing that Joseph had no right to perform marriages, and chose to do so anyway. Scott Bradshaw's research, however, found that refusing Rigdon permission to marry was "not justifiable from a legal point of view." Such a legal decision in Ohio "was rare in the 1830s, perhaps even unheard of."^[10] The court's refusal to grant Rigdon a license to marry as a Mormon minister likely stemmed from religious prejudice.

The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities. The state of Ohio did not contest Joseph's performance of the marriage, since it then issued a marriage certificate for the Knights' marriage. Joseph later performed other marriages in Ohio, and these couples likewise received marriage certificates after Joseph submitted the necessary paperwork.

A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to perform marriages was correct

A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to marry—and his prophesy that he had the right to marry, and that his enemies would never prosecute him for marrying—was correct. Ohio's 1824 marriage law stated that "a religious society…could perform marriages without a license so long as the ceremony was done ‘agreeable to the rules and regulations of their respective churches.’"^[11]

The "rules and regulations" regarding marriage for the Church had been established since the publication of what was then D&C 101 in September 1835.^[12] The Knight-Bailey wedding did not occur until 24 November 1835, and Joseph Smith surely had the authority to perform weddings in the Church if anyone did, especially since D&C 101 declared that marriage "should be performed by a presiding high priest, bishop, elder, or priest."^[13]

When applying to the county clerk for marriage certificates of other marriages which he performed, Joseph specifically noted that they were solemnized "agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Church…on matrimony," a clear reference to the 1824 Ohio statute.

When Joseph Smith performed the marriage of Newel Knight and Lydia Bailey, were they guilty of bigamy since Lydia had not been formally divorced from her previous husband?

Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel

Joseph's decision to solemnize marriages was in accord with Ohio state law. Because Lydia Bailey was not divorced, however, the critics have also charged Joseph with permitting a bigamous marriage, and thus flaunting the law.

Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel:

Broth[er] Joseph after p[ray]or & reflecting a little or in other words enquiring [of the] Lord Said it is all right, She is his & the sooner they [are] married the better. Tell them no law shall hurt [them]. They need not fear either the law of God or man for [it] shall not touch them; & the Lord bless them. This [is the] will of the Lord concerning the matter.^[14]

Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years

Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years. This described Lydia's case, and Newel tried to so persuade her before speaking with Joseph. Lydia's concern about remarriage seems to have been motivated mainly by spiritual worries that it was wrong in the sight of God to remarry, even if the law might allow it.^[15]

It was doubtless because of abandonment that Newel obtained the marriage license.^[16] He was likely unaware—as, perhaps, were those who granted the license—that the law had recently changed the abandonment period to five years, and so the marriage might have been illegal on those grounds.

The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore

The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore. Communication in this period was difficult, travel was slow, and record keeping requirements varied widely across the United States. As a result, technical "bigamy" was a common state of affairs for all social classes at this period in American history.^[17] This made the prosecution of bigamy rare, and in cases of abandonment some spouses had to simply remarry since obtaining a formal divorce was difficult or impossible:

Since bigamy was only prosecuted on the complaint of a spouse (one whose honor had been offended or for whom the loss of support was irremediable) and when the offending spouse could be found by summons, most bigamists were probably never arrested...From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.^[18]

Ohio law also required that persons seeking a divorce apply to the state supreme court, and be state residents for two years—so, on these terms Lydia would have been in violation of the law. But, it is not clear that she, Newel, or those who granted the marriage license were aware of this technicality.

Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy since her previous husband had died

Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy. Shortly after the Knights' marriage, she learned that her wastrel husband had died. The Knights viewed this as vindication of Joseph's prophetic gifts, since he had promised them that there was no moral or legal impediment to their marriage—and, he was right.^[19]

M. Scott Bradshaw: "Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844"

M. Scott Bradshaw:

Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.^[1]:402

Was Joseph Smith ever charged with adultery under Illinois law?

William and Wilson Law charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence

Joseph Smith was, in fact, once charged with adultery under Illinois Law. This occurred shortly before his death, when Robert Foster, William Law (Joseph's former counselor in the First Presidency) and Law's brother Wilson charged Joseph with adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence.^[1]:403,414 Joseph took an aggressive stance in the defense of himself and Maria, which would be surprising if Illinois law was as detrimental to his case as many have assumed.

For example, as soon as Joseph was charged, two days later he and his supporters "rode to Carthage, intent on having" the charge "'investigated.'"^[1]:404

Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open"

It is vital to understand, however, that:

Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.^[1]:402

Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition

The same author emphasized:

The term "open" in [the Illinois Criminal Code of the day^[20]] is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is "notorious," "exposed to public view," or "visible," and which is "not clandestine." Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition.^[1]:408

Were there any similar cases under Illinois adultery statute which demonstrate that Joseph was not breaking the law?

Two cases decided after Joseph's death demonstrate that there was nothing which would have permitted conviction

Two cases decided after Joseph's death but under the same legal regime likewise demonstrate that there was nothing about Maria and Joseph's relationship (regardless of whether or not they had sexual relations) which would have permitted conviction under the Illinois adultery statute. Additionally, Stephen R. Douglas (the famed Illinois judge and later candidate for the presidency of the United States) and Thomas Ford (the governor of Illinois at the time of Joseph's murder) prosecuted adultery cases during their legal careers and both were definitive that an "open" and "notorious" aspect to the cohabitation had to be proven under the statute.^[1]:408-411

If Joseph been charged by his wife Emma with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce under Illinois law

By contrast, had Joseph been charged by his wife Emma with adultery, this could have served as grounds for divorce, and did not require the stringent requirements of being "open" or "notorious."^[21]

It was later realized that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, so they changed the wording of the law

Even Joseph's near-contemporaries would later realize that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, perhaps even if done so openly.

Recognizing the breadth of [the] state constitutional provision [for religious freedom] as it stood in 1844, Illinois adopted a new constitution in 1869 that introduced a number of changes in the clause governing religious liberty, including wording specifically intended to give the state authority to prohibit Mormon polygamy or other religiously-based practices that might be deemed offensive. Comments by certain delegates to the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention show taht there was a concern that the Mormon practice of plural marriage could be protected under the state constitution....

Several delegates expressed support for changes in the wording of the Illinois constitution in order to protect the state from what they viewed as extreme forms of worship, including Mormon polygamy. These delegates feared that the more liberal wording of the earlier constitution (in force in Joseph's day) might actually protected practices such as polygamy. One such delegate was Thomas J. Turner...[who] stated:"...Mormonism is a form of religion 'grant it, a false religion' nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion...[d]o we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?"^{[1]:416, 416n45}

Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Critics charge that Joseph Smith and his successors made repeated public statements in which they hid or frankly denied the practice of polygamy, despite knowledge to the contrary. It is argued that this dishonesty is morally dubious and inconsistent with the Church’s purported principles.

The concept of "civil disobedience" is essential to understanding those occasions in which Joseph Smith or other Church members were not forthright about the practice of polygamy.
Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

Click here to view the complete article

Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "1840—Plural Marriage Secretly Introduced", by Brian C. Hales

Summary: Sometime in 1840 Joseph Smith first broached the topic of plural marriage privately to trusted friends. Most of the apostles were in England and thus were unavailable for an introduction to the practice.

(Click here for full article)

Was there ever a consummation of the sealing between Maria Lawrence and Joseph Smith?

Although under law, Joseph Smith and Maria Lawrence were not guilty of adultery, this does not mean that they had not consummated their plural marriage

A side issue raised by some relates to what the legal strategy can tell us about the status of Joseph and Maria's sealing. Under law, Joseph and Maria were clearly not guilty of adultery. This does not mean, however, that they had not consummated their plural marriage.

Most authors have concluded that their marriage was one which was consummated. This is due to relatively late, second-hand testimony, which Brian Hales has explored in detail.^[22]

Bradshaw suggests:

Joseph instructed John Taylor on June 4, [1844] to initiate legal action against the Laws and Foster for perjury and slander against Maria [for charging her and Joseph with adultery]. No such suit is known to have been filed, since Joseph was killed three weeks later; however, the mere fact that Joseph planned to bring such a suit suggests that, in Joseph's mind, there was nothing to hide in his relationship with Maria. If there had been a sexual dimension to this particular plural marriage, it is almost unimaginable that Joseph would have wanted to file a lawsuit, knowing that Maria might be put on the witness stand—or even subjected to a gynecological examination [to determine whether or not she was a virgin]. The possibility that Joseph's relationship with Maria Lawrence did not involve intimacy is also plausible given his comments regarding the publication of the Expositor: "They make it a criminality for a man to have one wife on earth while he has one wife in heaven."^[23] Since the only specific allegation of "criminality" (the adultery indictment) with respect to Joseph's plural marriages concerned Maria Lawrence, this statement by Joseph could be understood as a reference to his spiritual connection, or sealing, with Maria, but perhaps no more.^[1]:414

In the same vein, Madsen argues:

The consequences of such an indictment [for adultery with Maria] were both legally and socially scandalous. Maria Lawrence's reputation would have been publicly damaged, independent of what the reputational consequences might have been to Joseph. She and her sister had been sealed to Joseph on May 11, 1843...with Emma's initial consent but later repudiation. Even if this celestial marriage could have been made [publicly] known, it would not have alleviated the scandal—it would have just turned it to another, even more flamboyant, direction....

This plan to counter-sue against the Laws and others has some interesting legal aspects. William Law had supplied testimony under oath that led to Joseph's indictment. If the adultery case had gone to trial and the jury had found Joseph not guilty, then Law would have been liable to a criminal charge of perjury and civil liability for slander. Possibly Joseph planned to prove his innocence, not only by his and Maria's denial of sexual intercourse but also by the testimony of a reputable physician who had conducted a physical examination and found that Maria was still a virgin. It would have been both foolhardy and fruitless for Joseph to have even imagined countersuing without something of such weight to present at trial.^[24]

Hales, however, feels that the scenario offered by Madsen and Bradshaw is less likely:

This speculation is problematic because, since Maria was sealed to Joseph in a "time and eternity" sealing, then sexual relations would be permitted. In addition, virginity cannot always be proven by physical exam even if the woman has never experienced intercourse.^[25]

Gregory L. Smith, M.D., "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Critics charge that the Church and its members participated in polygamy in violation of both state and federal laws. It is therefore argued that the Church abandoned its commitment to “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Critics, however, make such arguments without a full understanding of the legal considerations of the day and without understanding how civil disobedience plays into the picture.

Click here to view the complete article

Notes

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8} M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 401–426.
2. ↑ James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd edition revised and enlarged, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992[1976]), 401. ISBN 087579565X. GospeLink
3. ↑ James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981[1899]),382–383.
4. ↑ John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire : The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 212.
5. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 88.
6. ↑ For a critique of Quinn's concept of "theocratic ethics," see Dean C. Jessee, "Review of D. Michael Quinn's the Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," Journal of Mormon History 22/2 (Fall 1996): 163–165. Jessee also treats the matter of Joseph Smith performing marriages in Ohio on pp. 166–167.
7. ↑ Klaus J. Hansen, "Quinnspeak (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 132–140. off-site
8. ↑ Unless otherwise indicated, the facts in this chapter are drawn from M. Scott Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," Brigham Young University Studies 39 no. 4 (2000), 7–22. See also William G. Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," Brigham Young University Studies 39 no. 4 (2000), 22–69.
9. ↑ Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 7.
10. ↑ Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," 43, 45.
11. ↑ Ohio's "Act Regulating Marriages," (1824); cited in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
12. ↑ See Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI. . (In 1876, this section was eventually removed, and replaced with the plural marriage revelation as D&C 132.) We must remember that at this point in Church history, the concept of a "temple sealing" or "eternal" marriage was certainly not being taught, and may well not have even been known to Joseph Smith. All Church marriages at the time were what modern members would call "civil marriages," such as those performed by an LDS bishop today.
13. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI [D&C 101꞉1].
14. ↑ Newel Knight, Autobiography and Journal, Church Archives, folder one, [45] in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
15. ↑ Lydia's history says that Newel "endeavour[ed] to show her that according to the law she was a free woman, having been deserted for three years with nothing provided for her support." – See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 15; citing Susa Young Gates [as "Homespun"], Lydia Knight's History: The First Book of the Noble Women's Lives Series (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 28.
16. ↑ See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," page ^{[citation needed]}
17. ↑ See Hendrik Harlog, Man & Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87; cited in Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2006 FAIR Conference).
18. ↑ Beverly J. Schwartzberg, Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America (Santa Barbara, California: University of California at Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation, 2001), 51–52; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
19. ↑ Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
20. ↑ Bradshaw cites Criminal Code, section 123, Revised Laws of Illinois: "Any man or woman who shall live together in an open state of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted...." (Bradshaw, 407, emphasis added).
21. ↑ "Compare [the strict criteria for statutory adultery] to Illinois divorce law which allowed adultery as a grounds for divorce; however, the cases that involved divorce petitions on this basis do not seemed [sic] to have followed any clear standard defining what constituted adultery, focusing rather on proving individual acts of adultery. Divorce law did not require that the conduct be "open" or "notorious." - Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery," 407–408n21.
22. ↑ See link to Hales' materials at the bottom of this essay. The material about sexuality in the Maria Lawrence relationship is here.
23. ↑ History of the Church. Volume 6 link
24. ↑ Gordon A. Madsen, "Serving as Guardian under the Lawrence Estate, 1842–1844," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 329–356(p. 348-350).
25. ↑ Brian C. Hales, "Maria Lawrence–Evidences of Sexuality," josephsmithspolygamy.org website (accessed 21 June 2014).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was an acceptable way to rapidly increase the Church membership....This doesn't make any sense because a group of women can have far more children if they each have their own husband instead of sharing one man.

FairMormon commentary

• In Utah, there were always more women worthy of temple marriage than there were men. So, plural marriage might not increase the number of children born, but it could very easily increase the number of children born to active families with dedicated parents. Given a choice between not marrying at all, or marrying a man who was not as active or dedicated, do you think it surprising that some dedicated LDS women preferred a plural relationship with a believing, temple-worthy man?
• How many of you are descendants of polygamists? If there had been no polygamy, would you be here?
• The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals. Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault?

Quotes to consider

• "Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women." - John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (1943), p. 390.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
For example Brigham Young reportedly had 55 children by some 29 child-bearing capable wives but had those women had their own husbands they may have had 150 or more children in total.

FairMormon commentary

• Why does MormonThink use the example of Brigham Young, who is the most extreme example available? He had more plural marriages than anyone else, ever.
• Why aren't we told that 66% of all polygamists had only two wives? Or that 87% had no more than 3? Or that at most 15-20% of LDS families ever practiced plural marriage? Do you think they might being trying to create an inaccurate picture here?
• Why aren't we told that under plural marriage, more women were married than the national norm in the United States? Why don't they consider the fact that women who do not marry won't have any children?^[1]
• Why doesn't MormonThink point these things out?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Polygamy was always illegal whenever and wherever the Mormons practiced it. It was even illegal in Canada and Mexico as they only recognize marriages that are legal in the person's home country.

Author's source(s)

• The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833
• The 1862 federal Morrill Act

FairMormon commentary

• Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.
• Doesn't MormonThink think that Mormons at the time understood the laws of the land? Wouldn't they know about the legal status of polygamy? And, didn't they know about Article of Faith #12?
• So, why doesn't MormonThink try to help us think about and understand how the 19th century Saints understood the matter? They must have had an understanding that helped them feel comfortable with what they were doing.
• Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that the Church spent decades challenging the constitutionality of these laws?
• Why doesn't MormonThink help us understand those members and their choices, instead of just trying to condemn them?

Additional information

• Illegal to practice polygamy?—Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. The Saints understood the law and believed they should obey it--except where that law infringed upon their religious liberty in ways that did not harm others. (Link)

LDS scriptures condemn polygamy

MormonThink states...

"The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy: "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 the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)"

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy

Polygamy was started by Joseph Smith not Brigham Young

MormonThink states...

"The Sunday School lesson manuals, priesthood manuals, seminary books, etc almost never mention Joseph's polygamy. There are some references to the other prophet's plural marriages but not for Joseph. By rarely mentioning Joseph's polygamous marriages in lessons taught in church, talks given at conferences, etc. many church members, especially converts, naturally believe that Brigham Young started polygamy."

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT Initiation of the practice of plural marriage/Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Note: If we take the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements so seriously, shouldn't we also accept other things that they reportedly witnessed just as powerfully? For example, Oliver Cowdery called it "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair..."

FairMormon commentary

• That's what Oliver thought that it was. He didn't accept the idea of plural marriage. In his eyes, it was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Has someone claimed that Oliver did not believe this?
• Oliver didn't claim that an angel had come down and told him this--as he continued to insist to his dying day it had with the plates and other instruments.
• Does MormonThink really think that being a witness of one thing makes opinions on other subjects equally certain to be true? If I see a car accident and can tell about it, does my opinion about what caused my neighbor's divorce have the same weight?
• Oliver was already alienated from the Church and some members over other issues before plural marriage--could this have affected his reaction?
• Oliver later learned more about plural marriage and accepted the doctrine--why doesn't MormonThink tell us this?
• Oliver came back to the Church afterward--he must have resolved any concerns he had about it.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph's first polygamous marriage was before the sealing authority was given....The "sealing" power was not restored under LDS belief until April 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph and conferred the sealing keys upon him.

FairMormon commentary

• Why aren't they asking whether Joseph's first marriage was regarded as a "sealing?" Because it wasn't. Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, was sealed to Joseph by proxy in the temple after Joseph was murdered.
• In the modern Church, we think of sealing = marriage, but before 1836, the idea of sealing was not part of LDS doctrine. They still knew about marriage, though, and so Joseph and Fanny were married. Why isn't this explained? The idea is simple--what are they trying to get you to believe?
• Even hostile anti-Mormon sources agreed that Fanny and Joseph were married. Why would these sources claim that if it wasn't well-understood by those who knew about it? Wouldn't they take any opportunity to make Joseph look bad? Why say it was a "marriage" if it wasn't?

Quotes to consider

• Mosiah Hancock autobiography, in which Hancock reports that "Father gave her [Fanny] to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him."^[2] This is a marriage ceremony.
• Ann Eliza Young, a hostile anti-Mormon source, reported later that Fanny's "parents . . . considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the Prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time."^[3]
• Ann Eliza else where wrote: "I do not know that 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgement is principally formed from what Fanny Algers [sic] told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'sister Emma.' "^[4] (emphasis added)

Additional information

• Fanny Alger and William McLellin—With a lone exception, there is no account after Joseph’s death of Emma admitting Joseph’s plural marriages in any source. The reported exception is recorded in a newspaper article and two letters written by excommunicated Latter-day Saint apostle William E. McLellin. The former apostle claimed to have visited Emma in 1847 and to have discussed Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger in which they were allegedly observed by Emma together in the barn. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Comment: Although Henry eventually remarried, after Brigham Young told him that his wife and children belonged to Brigham and not to Henry, he continued to yearn for Zina and their children. There doesn't seem to be any good, logical reason why Joseph and then Brigham Young would take Henry Jacob's wife Zina from him and force him to abandon his children and find another wife.

FairMormon commentary

• Henry didn't seem to think so--he supported the process.
• Joseph and Brigham didn't "take" Henry's wife and children. Zina chose to be sealed to them. Doesn't MormonThink think Zina and Henry can make their own decisions?
• Henry consented to the sealing, and was present to give his consent.

Additional information

• Zina and polyandry—In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.
• Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (FAIR 2006 Conference). (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
LDS apologists admit Joseph married other men's wives.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  LDS apologists are stating historical facts confirmed by sources. Why imply that they are "admitting" something as if they are reluctant to do so?
• More accurately, LDS apologists state that Joseph was sealed to other men's wives for the next life, while they remained married to their current husbands and continued living with them. Why not point this out?

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If you believe the concept of eternal marriage, then Joseph Smith literally stole other men's wives and their children, regardless of whether he had sex with them or not. What right did he have to do that - because he was the prophet?

FairMormon commentary

• To "steal" means to "take the property of another without right or permission." These women continued to live with, and have relations with, their earthly husbands.
• Did you know that Joseph had the permission of these women to be sealed to them, and in all cases where we are told about the husband's reaction, the men also gave permission? Polyandrous sealings appear to have been designed to bind members into one great family. This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.
• Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "polyandrous" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry applied only the the next life and was probably designed to link families together.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The following is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly married without Emma's knowledge.

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink originally posted an edited version of this letter copied from a critical website that left out important information. They only corrected it when someone on an ex-Mormon message board pointed out that FAIR showed the text of the full letter, but they continue to refer to is as a "love letter."
• Read the whole letter, and ask yourself: who writes a love letter to his wife and her parents? Who asks his bride and her parents to come to a single private room for carnal relations?

Additional information

• Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?—It is claimed that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. The letter invites the Whitney family to come see Joseph; three days later Joseph sealed the Whitneys together. Why doesn't MormonThink tell you that? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
No one denies that Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. He had over 50 children. So why question whether or not Joseph had sex with his wives, even the ones who were already married to other men?

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• Lets follow this logic: Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. We know this because he had 50 children. Joseph Smith had no known children by his many wives, even the ones that were "married to other men." Therefore, this means.....oh, wait.
• Of course, as the site notes, 13 of Joseph's plural wives testified that they did have relations with him, but not any of the ones that were "married to other men."
• Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "polyandrous" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry was probably designed to link families together.
• Did you know that Brigham Young had no polyandrous marriages? Instead, the members of his era used "adoption" sealings to bind families together. A person would be "adopted" by a Church leader, rather than "married" to a Church leader. This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If Joseph was commanded to marry these women for the express purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, he would have been breaking the "commandment" from God if he did not try to procreate with his wives.

FairMormon commentary

• Well, if that was the only reason, then it seems that Joseph did a pretty lousy job of it then.
• Perhaps that wasn't the only reason Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage?

Additional information

• Purpose of plural marriage—Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

Author's source(s)

• Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that in an article published in Mormon Historical Studies, Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously? [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

Additional information

• Sylvia Sessions Lyon—Some have thought that Sylvia Lyon was a polyandrous wife. However, Sylvia considered herself divorced at her sealing to Joseph, and there are documents which support this interpretation. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
When Joseph supposedly propositioned (or actually had sex with) fifteen year old Nancy Marinda Johnson, Dr. Dennison, with the encouragement of a neighborhood mob, nearly castrated him. Why would the mob try to castrate him? Castration is used as a penalty for sexual crimes only.

FairMormon commentary

• Van Wagoner describes the charge against Joseph: "One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack 'because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, … was screaming for Joseph's castration.'"
• Did you know that Van Wagoner's source is Fawn Brodie? Brodie's source, Clark Braden, also got his information second-hand 52 years after this incident occurred, and is clearly antagonistic, since he is a member of the Church of Christ, the “Disciples,” seeking to attack the Reorganized (RLDS) Church.
• Did you know that Brodie, Van Wagoner and MormonThink also gets the woman's name wrong—it is "Marinda Nancy," not "Nancy Marinda."
• Did you know that Marinda had no brother named Eli?

Quotes to consider

• Did you know that Van Wagoner and others admit in the footnotes that the story is probably false?

"That an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing is unlikely. Sidney Rigdon was attacked just as viciously by the group as was Smith." - Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 4, endnote.

• Did you know that members of the mob later discussed why they attacked Joseph, and it had nothing to do with immoral acts?^[5]
  • "And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder, later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith” (Hill 1977, 146)." - Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 4, endnote.
• Did you know that Marinda Nancy Johnson remained a member of the Church, and was not a fan of plural marriage? Yet, she said this about Joseph's time there:
  • "Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission." - Marinda (Johnson) Hyde, Interview, cited in Edward Tullidge, Women of Mormondom (1877), 404.
• Why doesn't MormonThink provide this information? Even historians who use the story admit that it has major problems.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some critics believe that Joseph may have gotten some of his wives pregnant but had them get abortions. This is what Sarah Pratt, whom Joseph excommunicated for refusing to have sex with him, said to Smith's son.

FairMormon commentary

• We're not surprised that "some critics" believe this—they have to account for the lack of children somehow.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
From the FAIR apologist web site discussing Joseph's marriages to women already married to other living men: "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."

FairMormon commentary

• What's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every other Church president and leader who practiced plural marriage had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
FARMS also admits Joseph likely had sex with his plural wives FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "…but we called it celestial marriage" ("George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20:2, 2008), that Joseph Smith had "conjugal relations" with at least eight women in addition to his first wife, Emma.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  How does FARMS (actually the Maxwell Institute) "admit" something that is a well-documented fact from the Temple Lot case? Was someone hiding this?
•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  We get it, "apologists" have "admitted" this.
• But, this kind of "admission" is not new--another FARMS reviewer discussed the same matter years earlier in 1998. (See Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring, "The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith)," FARMS Review of Books 10/2 (1998): 67–104. off-site).
• A CES teacher, Danel Bachman, discussed these matters in the 1970s. (Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Polygamy Before the Death of Joseph Smith,” (1975) (unpublished M.A. thesis, Purdue University).)
• MormonThink does not, however, include any of the other data which Smith cites in his review above. Much of the material that would debunk MormonThink's claims is found in that review--why don't they include those facts on their page about plural marriage?
• MormonThink is simply not paying attention if they think this "admission" is new.
• Do you get the feeling that MormonThink is simply looking for negative material, and is not really interested in telling the whole story?
• And, what's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every other Church president and leader had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If even the FARMS apologists, FAIR apologists and faithful LDS historians acknowledge that Joseph may have had sex with his polygamous wives (including the ones already married) then why should any LDS members dispute that Joseph likely did have sex with those wives?

FairMormon commentary
  Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
Why do they keep making sure to lump in "the ones already married" multiple times in the article. Where is the data?

• There is no evidence that Joseph's polyandrous sealings involved marital relations. This is not surprising, since the polyandrous sealings were likely designed to bind families together with Joseph.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's often taught that concerning the marriage of Joseph to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, it was Helen's father that initiated and arranged the marriage. This is not true. Before Smith approached Heber to have 14 year-old Helen as his bride, Smith called on Heber to turn over his wife, Vilate, to be Smith's wife....So after Joseph Smith went so far as to "test" Heber C. Kimball to see if he would turn over his wife, Smith then asked for his only daughter, 14 year-old Helen.

FairMormon commentary

• Wait a minute—Helen is the one that said that her father initiated and arranged the marriage. These quotes are included on MormonThink's own page! Here it is again:
  • "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he [Heber] offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth." - Helen, cited in Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 498.
• Note that again this sealing was designed to bind families in the Church together.
• Joseph did test Heber and Vilate, and after they consented to give Vilate to Joseph as his wife, Joseph said that it was not required, and sealed them instead. So where are we supposed to make the leap of logic that "Smith then asked for his only daughter?" Can MormonThink produce some data indicating that the Heber/Vilate "proposal" was all a setup for Joseph to ask for their "only daughter?"
• To be precise, Helen was born on August 20, 1828 and sealed to Joseph in May 1843, three months short of her 15th birthday.

Quotes to consider

• Helen Mar Kimball: ""Without any preliminaries, my father asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives."
• Helen was upset when she first heard about plural marriage, because she thought her father was questioning her virtue:
  • Helen Mar Kimball: “My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph's wife" (Whitney, Helen Mar Kimball (1880–1883), Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1828-1896, Autobiography (c. 1839-1846), "Life Incidents," Woman's Exponent 9-10 (1880-1882) and "Scenes and Incidents in Nauvoo,") off-site (emphasis added)
• During the summer of 1843, Heber tried to explain plural marriage to Helen, who was then nearly fifteen. Of this experience she later wrote, "I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe--the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father . . . in the summer of 1843. . . ." Helen was very disturbed and skeptical. "The next day, the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it . . . ." - Stanley B. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball and Family, the Nauvoo Years," Brigham Young University Studies 15/4 (Summer 1975): 465; citing H. M. Whitney, "Scenes and Incidents," 11(15 July 1882): 39.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Comments: Like many polygamous wives, Helen likely hated the very idea of polygamy when first introduced to it and for many years afterward as she said in many of her writings. The negative writings by Helen seem to greatly outweigh the positive writings. This is similar to Emma Smith, who at times accepted polygamy, but most of the time was bitterly opposed to the practice. As time went on Helen may have accepted it and even felt special by being known as one of the wives of the most revered prophet. Perhaps she decided to make the best of it as she had no choice at that point. No one but Helen herself can say for sure if she really enjoyed being a polygamous wife of Joseph Smith. However, one thing we can say with conviction is that a 14 year-old girl should never have been put in that position in the first place by Joseph and by her own parents.

FairMormon commentary

• How does one "weigh" the negative writings against the positive ones?
• Helen has already told us that she believed the doctrine when it was taught to her. Helen made the choice to be sealed to Joseph: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, 30 March 1881, LDS archives; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 49.
• She realized, in retrospect, that she did not understand the trials that would result: "in [my mother's] mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me."
• Helen was one of the most vocal and persistent defenders of plural marriage among all nineteenth-century LDS women. MormonThink does not fairly represent her experience or her opinions.
• Let's let Helen speak for herself.

Quotes to consider

• [William Clayton spoke about plural marriage]…"his subject was polygamy, showing why it was so necessary, & the great loss of those that did not practice it; proving it by scripture, that what seemed to be theirs would be taken and given to another, that men with only one wife would be nothing but angels in the next world, it was very interesting; & I confess I understood things that night that I never did before, & saw not only the necessity but the beauty of polygamy our trials here look so small, when I look at the great glory that is in store for the few that will hold out faithfull to the end." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney to Horace K. Whitney, 17 December 1869, Whitney Family Papers, Box 1, fd 1, ULA; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 162.
• I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise." – Helen Mar Kimball, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, 23-24.
• I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right. At various times I have been healed by the washing and annointing, administered by the mothers in Israel. I am still spared to testify to the truth and Godliness of this work; and though my happiness once consisted in laboring for those I love, the Lord has seen fit to deprive me of bodily strength, and taught me to 'cast my bread upon the waters' and after many days my longing spirit was cheered with the knowledge that He had a work for me to do, and with Him, I know that all things are possible… - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, cited in Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884).

Helen's greatest trial occurred when she lost her newborn child at Winter Quarters:

• No one but God and the angels to whom I owe my life and all I have, could know the tenth part of what I suffered. I never told anybody and I never could. A keener taste of misery and woe, no mortal, I think, could endure. For three months I lay a portion of the time like one dead, they told me; but that did not last long. I was alive to my spiritual condition and dead to the world. I tasted of the punishment which is prepared for those who reject any of the principles of this Gospel. Then I learned that plural marriage was a celestial principle, and saw the difference between the power of God's priesthood and that of Satan's and the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord's annointed.

"I had, in hours of temptation, when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart, I had loved my baby more than my God, and mourned for it unreasonably. All my sins and shortcomings were magnified before my eyes till I believed I had sinned beyond redemption. Some may call it the fruits of a diseased brain. There is nothing without a cause, be that as it may, it was a keen reality to me. During that season I lost my speech, forgot the names of everybody and everything, and was living in another sphere, learning lessons that would serve me in future times to keep mein the narrow way. I was left a poor wreck of what I had been, but the Devil with all his cunning, little thought that he was fitting and preparing my heart to fulfill its destiny…

I fasted for one week, and every day I gained till I had won the victory and I was just as sensible of the presence of holy spirits around my bedside as I had been of the evil ones. It would take up too much room to relate my experience with the spirits, but New Year's eve, after spending one of the happiest days of my life I was moved upon to talk to my mother. I knew her heart was weighed down in sorrow and I was full of the holy Ghost. I talked as I never did before, I was too weak to talk with such a voice (of my own strength), beside, I never before spoke with such eloquence, and she knew that it was not myself. She was so affected that she sobbed till I ceased. I assured her that father loved her, but he had a work to do, she must rise above her feelings and seek for the Holy Comforter, and though it rent her heart she must uphold him, for he in taking other wives had done it only in obedience to a holy principle. Much more I said, and when I ceased, she wiped her eyes and told me to rest. I had not felt tired till she said this, but commenced then to feel myself sinking away. I silently prayed to be renewed, when my strength returned that instant… - Representative Women of Deseret

• Helen is clear that plural marriage caused trials to her mother, but is also equally clear that it was a commandment. Her conviction and knowledge was the product of revelation.
• Why doesn't MormonThink let Helen speak for herself--which she does eloquently--instead of claiming it's "hard" to balance her statements? She doesn't seem to think it's hard at all.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Smith was killed 13 months after his sealing to Helen, so he simply may not have had the opportunity to consummate their relationship before his death. However, it's a virtual certainty that he would have if he had lived. The bottom line being that it's futile for Mormon apologists to argue that Smith's sealing to Helen was "dynastic" or "spiritual" only, in an effort to show that Smith's plural marriages to young girls were proper.

FairMormon commentary

• Isn't 13 months (a little over one year) enough time to consummate a marriage if one is really determined to do so?
• In other words, despite the total lack of evidence, and the fact that Helen herself wrote about plural marriage years later and never claimed such a thing, you simply want this to be true. It is a "virtual certainty."
• The word "virtual" is defined as "a condition without boundaries or constraints. It is often used to define a feature or state that is simulated in some manner." So, if you can't actually show any documented evidence in this case, you will simply simulate it. MormonThink has decided upon the answer it wants, and so it doesn't matter to them what the evidence shows.
• Is it really "futile" to argue a position based upon evidence against a "virtual" position? Think about it.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
1844 Sermon given by Joseph. It is clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite claims to the contrary.

Author's source(s)
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411
FairMormon commentary

• Joseph tried to teach plural marriage publicly to Church members, but many rejected it.
• Did Joseph have any duty to protect the Saints from the mobbing and deaths that would surely follow if plural marriage became widely known?
• Joseph showed himself willing to die to prevent attacks on the Saints—but, should he have been willing to risk the death of others because of what he was teaching?
• It is easy to criticize from the safety of the twenty-first century, when police protection is strong, and unpopular groups are not always at risk of vigilante justice.
• It seems like MormonThink would prefer that Joseph tell everything, and have the Saints slaughtered as a result. Polygamy was revealed as soon as it was safe to do so, even though the Church and its leaders knew that they would suffer political disadvantage.

Quotes to consider

• "What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did." - Orson Hyde, "The Marriage Relations," (6 October 1854) Journal of Discourses 2:75-75.

Additional information

• Hiding the truth about polygamy—It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints. (Link)

"The Church continued to practice polygamy after 1890"

MormonThink states...

"The Church continued to practice polygamy after 1890"

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critics' Comment: Today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous Father-in-law living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy???

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink should remember that we "can't pick our families."
• If an apostle's father-in-law in the 1950s is the best they can come up with to try to link "fundamentalist" groups to the Church, what does that say about the quality of the argument?
• Most "fundamentalists" have never been members of the LDS Church.
• The Church does not now preach or sanction the practice of polygamy. If MormonThink has any evidence proving otherwise, they ought to provide it.

Gordon B. Hinckley

MormonThink states...

"The website notes the following from an interview with Larry King on September 8, 1998:

Larry King: You condemn it (polygamy)?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

The site then responds with the following "Critic's comments":

Why did the prophet of the church just lie and say that polygamy was not doctrinal? It is still in our scriptural canon, D&C 132. Hinckley makes it sound as if it was either a mistake or practiced for reasons unrelated to religion. Surely he knows why it was practiced. Also he makes an issue that polygamy is not legal today (as practiced by the fundamentalists). That's correct but it was not legal when the LDS practiced it in the 1800s either. He wants everyone to believe that polygamy was legal when the Latter-day Saints practiced it in the 1800s but is illegal now as practiced by the fundamentalists. As shown above, this is completely untrue. It was always illegal - from Joseph's first plural wife in 1833 through the 2nd manifesto in 1904.

"

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECTThe Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today#Did Gordon B. Hinckley claim that polygamy was "not doctrinal" on Larry King Live?

Parley P. Pratt and polygamy

MormonThink states...

"The website states,

The April 2007 Ensign had a lengthy article on the amazing life of Parley P. Pratt, one of the prominent apostles of the restoration. In the article they actually made a brief mention of a second wife. At they end of the article it says that Brother Pratt was murdered. That's all that was said. Other LDS books we've read merely say Parley was killed by a foe. What most LDS people don't know is why he was murdered. Parley had 12 polygamous wives. The last one was already married to another man, and he wasn't very happy that Parley added his wife and his children to his harem.

and

While in San Francisco, Pratt induced the wife of Hector H. McLean, the former Elenor J. McComb, to accept the Mormon faith and to elope with him to Utah as his 12th wife.

and concludes with this sarcastic response:

Critic's note:The Church Almanac lists Parley P Pratt as assassinated while on a mission but he was really murdered by the irate existing husband of his latest fancy. Technically therefore, she was polyandrous also. Practically, she was adulterous and then when she married Parley, bigamous. She was never divorced from her first husband. She had just abducted one of her children. Her husband took the child back after a court hearing and then killed Parley. I don't think he was ever tried for the murder which was in Arkansas. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was one later result of the ensuing hatred by Brigham et al of people from that area. The brethren did not recognize any marriage they did not perform as being legal, so they took whom they pleased. Missions were often wife gathering expeditions. Moral of the story: Better be careful whose family you try to steal...you might just get yourself killed!

"

FairMormon Response

Parley P. Pratt's marriage and murder

Summary: It is claimed that Parley P. Pratt's practice of polygamy was responsible for his murder, partly because he married a woman who hadn't been divorced from her first husband.

Jump to details:

• Question: Was Parley P. Pratt murdered because he stole another man's wife?
• Question: Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many LDS are under the impression that shortly before Joseph Smith was killed, he was put in jail unjustly by anti-Mormons using trumped-up charges. In reality, the circumstances surrounding Joseph's assassination was a result of the actions he took to prevent his being exposed as a polygamist.

Author's source(s)

• From the "neutral" site wikipedia (from June 2008)

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink needs to get their history straight.
• Joseph and Hyrum were brought to Carthage to answer charges regarding the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. Let us assume that they were completely in the wrong in ordering the paper's destruction--it was not something for which they would have been jailed, even if found guilty. (They had already been acquitted twice, once by an LDS judge and once by a non-LDS.)
• At most, Joseph and Hyrum would have been liable for financial damages to the owners of the press. They posted bail, and would have been tried in court when the circuit court judge next arrived. They were free to leave and go home.
• The "trumped up charges" were charges of treason, which were then lodged against Joseph and Hyrum once they had posted bail. These new charges were intended to keep them in custody, where they could be assassinated. (It is no coincidence that the leader of the Carthage Greys militia--the group which assassinated Joseph--was the justice of the peace who jailed them on the treason charge, without a hearing.)
• Notice the contradiction: MormonThink criticizes Joseph for hiding plural marriage, but then says Joseph was murdered because of plural marriage. So, if he would have announced to everyone that the Saints were teaching and practicing plural marriage, are we supposed to believe everything would have gone well? Does MormonThink approve of vigilante justice and mob rule?

Quotes to consider

• "The court business of the day was to hearthe charge of riot against Nauvoo's town officers [including Joseph and Hyrum]. The defendants were released on bail of $500 each and bound over to the next term of the circuit court. Before the hearing, however, another charge, this one for treason, was brought against Joseph and Hyrum. Not the government, but dissenter Augustine Spencer accused them of calling out the legion to resist the state militia. The Mormons could see the dissenters were determined to keep Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage on one pretext or other. [Illinois Governor] Ford considered the treason charge groundless since the city had had reason to fear a mob invasion, but he refused to intervene in a judicial proceeding. The justice of the peace, Robert Smith [captain of the Carthage Greys who would murder them], committed Joseph and Hyrum to prison without a hearing, claiming he did so for their safety." — Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 547.

Does Heavenly Father practice polygamy also?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Editor comment: The concept of a Heavenly Mother can be a bit strange for some people to accept but the idea of Heavenly Mothers (plural) is very unnerving. Logically, if God has multiple wives then although everyone has the same Father-in-Heaven, most people would have different 'Mothers-in-Heaven'. Perhaps that's one reason we're told not to pray to our Mother-in-Heaven as we wouldn't know which one.

FairMormon commentary

• Logically? When a child is in a room full of mothers and calls his own mother, wouldn't you think that she can hear that child and knows his or her voice? Do you think that she would be able to respond to him or her?
• This is the first time we've seen someone try to combine the concept of praying to a Heavenly Mother with the idea that God is a polygamist.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We have to wonder why an angel didn't appear to Emma to convince her that polygamy was commanded by God. The Bible talks of Mary being visited by the angel Gabriel. Mary's soon-to-be husband Joseph was going to put her away until he had a visit in a dream explaining the virgin birth. Wouldn't it make sense that Emma would have been given the same information from God as Joseph did about polygamy, so that Emma would have gone along and not fought Joseph as she did? This is another reason to think that polygamy may have originated with Joseph Smith rather than from God or an angel.

FairMormon commentary

• Are we to compare Mary's angelic visit to announce the upcoming birth of the savior of all mankind to Emma accepting polygamy? Really?
• It was certainly difficult for Emma, but how about those that were asked to be plural wives? They reported divine manifestations.
• Since Emma would later lie and say Joseph never taught plural marriage, it's hard to know what she did or didn't experience in relation to it.

Quotes to consider
There are at least two accounts in which Emma expresses her belief in plural marriage and Joseph's call as a prophet:

• Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.^[6]
• Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet’s wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. “What I said I have got [to] repent of,” lamented Emma. “The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that[principle[;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.”^[7]

And, what did Emma say about Joseph after all that had happened?: I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.^[8]

• MormonThink wants us to believe everything that Oliver Cowdery says about plural marriage if we accept what he says about his role as one of the three witnesses. So, shouldn't we believe Emma on this matter?
• Doesn't it seem that no matter what the evidence, MormonThink is determined to come to a "negative" verdict?

Additional information

• Divine manifestations to plural wives and families—Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
With the admission that these justifications for polygamy are simply not true, by such LDS leaders as apostle John A. Widtsoe and FAIR Chairman John Lynch, we must turn to the only possible remaining answer - God commanded the early saints to take multiple wives for some reason. But we can't think of any earthly reason for practicing polygamy. Why would God command this? Even if there were women that needed help, why would the men have to marry the women in order to help them. We certainly don't advocate marrying a homeless person to help them financially or otherwise. And why have polygamy at all since it could only be practiced by maybe 30% of its members?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  
• If you can't think of any earthly reason for practicing polygamy, then perhaps the reason was not earthly at all—perhaps God had His own reasons for commanding it.
• But, MormonThink is not thinking very hard if they cannot see some of the advantages that accrued to the early Church because of plural marriage.

Additional information

• Possible benefits of plural marriage to the early Church—We have little revealed knowledge about the purpose of plural marriage, but it did have some important sociologic and economic benefits to the early restored Church. (Link)

"although polygamy was practiced somewhat in Old Testament times, it was more of a social custom and not a religious commandment"

MormonThink states...

"And although polygamy was practiced somewhat in Old Testament times, it was more of a social custom and not a religious commandment....Yes, polygamy was practiced in the OT, but God never commanded it to be practiced. The model was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jane and Sally .... God seems to have accepted their practicing it for cultural reasons."

FairMormon Response