The most exciting, newsworthy event at the 2016 Mormon History Association meetings was the announcement of the DNA test of Josephine Lyons. As the story goes, Joseph Smith had more than 30 polygamist wives. Except for Emma, none of these wives had children via Joseph. There had been a few rumored children but John Reed Hancock was ruled the child of Levi Hancock back in 2011. By 2007, genetic researcher Ugo Perego had ruled out 5 other children rumored to have been fathered by Smith: Mosiah Hancock, Oliver Buell, Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, Zebulon Jacobs, and Orrison Smith.
Despite these reports, Brian Hales believed that Josephine Lyon was the genetic offspring of Joseph Smith and Sylvia Lyons. The association is rather convoluted. Many have claimed that Sylvia had 2 husbands at the same time. The reality is that her husband Windsor Lyon was excommunicated from the LDS Church. Hales claimed that this excommunication was a spiritual divorce in the eyes of Joseph, though there was no legal divorce. Here is how it is worded on the FAIR website.
Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on 21 April 1838. Joseph Smith performed the ceremony. She was sealed to Joseph Smith on 8 February 1842. Her husband Windsor’s reaction is not recorded, but he was a faithful, active member of the Church at the time.
Windsor was excommunicated on 7 November 1842 because he sued stake president William Marks for repayment of a loan (Church members frowned on using secular courts to settle disputes between themselves).[54] Despite his excommunication, Windsor remained on close terms with Joseph; tradition holds that he was “a true friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
Sylvia gave birth to a daughter, Josephine, on 8 February 1844, and there is evidence that Joseph was the father (see here). Regardless, Windsor Lyon remained a close friend and ally of Joseph’s—he was called as a witness at the trial of Joseph and Hyrum’s assassins.
Brian Hales has recently published work demonstrating that Todd Compton likely worked with incomplete data on Session’s first marriage. In Hales’ view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions’ marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous, and the evidence for Josephine Lyons being Joseph’s child is even stronger.[55]
Windsor was rebaptized on 18 January 1846, and Sylvia was sealed to Joseph by proxy with her husband’s permission. She was then sealed to Heber Kimball for time, though she continued to cohabitate with Windsor, who also took a plural wife.[56]
Apparently on Sylvia’s deathbed, she told Josephine that she was the offspring of Joseph, and told her “In conclusion, mother told me not to make her statement public, as it might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity.” You can see the family history published in this book, and Josephine’s sister Phebe also believed she was offspring of Joseph, even though she was born after Joseph died. Hale’s co-author Don Bradley notes that the history written in that book is problematic because it was published after Phebe’s death.
The origin of the Phebe Jane Clark ‘autobiography’ is under some question, since it uses a source that post-dates Phebe’s death. Since the source was significantly expanded, if not entirely composed, after Phebe’s death, its account doesn’t tell us with any certainty whether Phebe was really present at Sylvia Lyon Clark’s deathbed confession or whether Phebe saw herself as a child of Joseph Smith in the same sense as Josephine. What we _can_ tell, however, from the Myron Carr blessing, is that the next generation of Phebe’s family (her son-in-law Myron Carr, and presumably her daughter Sylvia Ellis Carr) understood Phebe’s female descendants as “granddaughters of the Prophet.”
Enter Ugo Perego, the genetic researcher who has ruled out Joseph as father to the other 6 children mentioned above. Once again, he has ruled out Joseph, and ruled in Windsor as the father of Josephine. This calls into question Hales’ interpretation of events. Hales postulated that in Sylvia’s mind, the spiritual sealing was more important than the physical heritage, and Josephine may have simply misunderstood Sylvia, thinking she was physical offspring when Sylvia meant spiritual offspring. (Or perhaps Sylvia had sex with both men and didn’t know who the father really was.)
Following Perego’s presentation, Hales said there are four options to explain the sealing of Sylvia with Joseph.
- The sealing between Joseph and Sylvia was a non sexual eternity only.
- Polyandry-Sylvia really did have 2 husbands simultaneously (Joseph Smith and Windsor Lyon)
- There was a short separation from Windsor, subsequent sealing to Joseph, and then she resumed her marriage with Windsor.
- Sylvia was in transgression because she had sex with Windsor while sealed to Joseph.
When I told my wife about the DNA test, she was happy that the test was negative for Joseph. It is possible that Sylvia didn’t know who the father really was because of sexual relations with both men in a short window of time. Obviously if Joseph was the father that would confirm sex, but without paternity, we’ll never be able to prove that Joseph had sex with Sylvia. Apparently there is a letter claiming that Sylvia may have had sexual relations with another man by the name of Markham. If that’s true, it almost seems like a free-love movement of the 1960s and she was sleeping around with a number of men. And what’s up with Heber Kimball’s sealing while she continued to live with Windsor? That sure sounds like a second case of polyandry.
I spoke with one conference attender who believes that Joseph didn’t have sex with anyone except Emma. If that’s the case, it seems that Joseph wasn’t following that admonition that polygamy was to “raise up seed unto me” (Jacob 2:30.) I’m not sure which option Hales’s favors, but I’m pretty sure it’s not option 2. If you’d like more detail, here’s Ugo Perego’s website, and Brian Hales website. Here’s also a short video of Brian and his wife Laura Hales explaining their position.
What do you think happened? Why would Joseph be sealed to other men’s wives? What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting stuff — it illustrates how much of what we think on this topic is a constructed narrative — our choosing which conclusions to draw from the evidence.
This statement was interesting to me:
“When I told my wife about the DNA test, she was happy that the test was negative for Joseph.”
We will never know everything about Mormon history. Some things are just beyond the ability of evidence to prove or disprove. But it’s interesting to know what people want to prove or disprove or leave unproven. Years ago I would have wanted this result: for Joseph to be proven to be not the father. I feel differently now, but it’s complicated.
Rockwall –it is complicated, isn’t it b
I dunno. It could have something to do with the equality that there is among the gods. In the top levels of the celestial kingdom there is nothing but love right? Would not that love include allowing a spouse equal access to another ‘god’ if Heavenly Father wanted it so for His purposes? Work with me on this.
When I became a convert and started studying D&C 132, there was one verse, to this day I still throw around in these conversations: 41.
vs. 41:….and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing…
To me that says there is a “possibility” that Heavenly Father COULD command and appoint her to be with another man either for a specific time or one time or all time, etc… Otherwise, why would He have said, “and I have not appointed her…”if there wasn’t a possibility that He COULD appoint her if He wanted it?
Most men I bring this up to in class really get uncomfortable with the idea that somewhere later in the eternities they might actually be called upon to share their wife.
If that is the case, then it means all women who had to deal with sharing a husband, will now have some comfort that in knowing that their husband may one day have to share in those same feelings of loss, awkwardness, hurt and jealousy as she could be called upon to be with another man at some point. It also means that maybe Joseph Smith wasn’t as crazy as some paint him out to be (at least on this particular topic). It also means that if that is truly the order of heaven…that one day we will all realize Heavenly Father’s will is supreme and we won’t have a problem with sharing spouses if that is what Heavenly Father wants. We will have attained that level of love for each other and for His will and therefore not feeling the jealousy, the pain or the loss.
Therefore the whole gambit of polygamy and polyandry practiced now (back then) could have been a type and shadow, a symbol of what is yet to come.
Like I said, I dunno. This is my perspective on the possibilities and being able to “explain” it all. No matter what the rebuttal of how things were then or how they are now, the fact that vs 41 is there and written as such is still there. It leaves room for this interpretation (and others).
I would think most Mormons unfamiliar with this story would have the same reaction as my wife–relief that Joseph wasn’t fathering children with other women.
However, some people think that the DNA test result is bad for Brian Hales position. As mentioned above, Hales contends “that Todd Compton likely worked with incomplete data on Session’s first marriage. In Hales’ view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions’ marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous, and the evidence for Josephine Lyons being Joseph’s child is even stronger.”
The idea is that if Hales is wrong, then Compton’s original position of polyandry is strengthened because it proves that Sylvia went back and lived as wife with her original husband after her time with Joseph – and there was no divorce from Joseph or re-marriage to the old husband. So this is bad news for Hales because Syvia evidently thought Josephine was JS’s because they were having sex near the time of conception. However, the negative DNA results shows that she was also having sex with her legal husband and didn’t consider herself divorced. According to Hales a real prophet doesn’t do that!
In a back and forth between commenters, one person said that a way out of this is since Joseph had the power to bind and unbind things in heaven and on earth – he could have just done and un-done that sealing before and after every episode of sex. The other person responded that As silly as that sounds, it’s better than the apologetic Hales has created.
With regards to other ways to resolve this, there is a scripture in D&C that seems to imply that it was ok for Emma to be sealed to another man (presumably William Marks, if memory serves) but that because she didn’t act on it, the commandment was rescinded.
Now Hales doesn’t like that interpretation, but I believe one can make the case that D&C 132 provides limited polyandry support.
But it is also interesting to note that in the 1960s, Howard W. Hunter noted that some women have multiple marriages and it is impossible to know which one she should be sealed to. He persuaded David O. McKay to change the policy to seal the woman to every previous husband with the idea that “God will sort it out.” Of course a living woman can only be sealed to one man, but after all are dead, they’re going to be sealed anyway. So it does seem that we practice polyandry even church leaders won’t permit it in this life.
Shai H. – “It also means that if that is truly the order of heaven…that one day we will all realize Heavenly Father’s will is supreme and we won’t have a problem with sharing spouses if that is what Heavenly Father wants.”
Maybe. But I’m losing confidence in a church leadership that is (apparently?) encouraging experts testing, writing, and coming together at meetings to discuss the sexual conduct of a tiny group of people. This is how we choose to salvage and protect the image of Joseph Smith instead of focusing on the current fruits of the church he founded? When I step back a bit, the whole thing looks so silly, and clashes full force with the regular Sunday message of: nuclear family, traditional family, gender roles, strict chastity.
Pounded over and over .
@Ruth
I was just about to comment, and you expressed it better than I could. Why is everybody so goldern obsessed with proving Joseph Smith was pure as the driven snow. It is absolutely silly and a huge waste of time and resources. The general theme in this and other topics seems to be preserving an impossible image of perfection and coherence that just ain’t gonna happen. Personally, I find that these endless debates about nothing only serve to make Mormonism look shallow and brittle.
Joseph Smith taught he was flawed.
I think it helps to believe him.
Shai – it’s a plausible theory consistent with a few other “free love” movements in the mid-1800s, but our doctrine on sealing specific individuals together (as spouses or parent/child) doesn’t currently support that level of flexibility. Even in the cases of polyandry or polygyny, specific partnerships are sealed together. It is never left open-ended.
Ruth and Cathy – as long as the church actively pushes nuclear families (one man-one woman) as God’s ideal, they will have to answer for the early church practices of polygamy/polyandry. They *have* to address the surface hypocrisy of “defending the family” with faith in relatively recent prophets who deviated from monogamy. Just waving their hands and saying, “Those guys in the past were wrong” eliminates any sort of credibility for declaring themselves God’s authoritative voice on marriage today.
I like this comment, but don’t know if this presentation describes anything Joseph did here (or anywhere else in his practice of plural marriage) as flawed. But maybe it does, and since I haven’t been willing to delve into the minutiae, I shouldn’t say.
In general, if the church was willing to chalk polygamy up as flawed experiment conducted by many well-intentioned (and some not so well-intentioned) saints, I would be thrilled. Instead, those working and writing on the issue seem committed to a never-wavering bottom line: God commanded this, and who are we to criticize.
All I want is for my daughters to not be taught that monogamy is God’s standard “unless” He commands otherwise. Right now they’re taught, Go ahead, live a modern life but you could be in Sarah’s or Leah’s or Emma’s shoes any minute. Our girls pay the steep price of keeping Joseph unflawed.
I must conclude that I am clueless regarding the post’s and all the commenters’ use of such terms as “DNA test,” “the test was negative,” “genetics,” or any other reference to DNA. There is no mention of anyone actually testing biological material to determine its DNA profile.
While I know there is commonly a widely used slang language among devotees of any particular area/subject/hobby, etc., this seems an extremely loose application of real, scientific, terms. Or, did I miss something, besides being clueless?
So, my just-posted snarky comment may not get posted. (Regarding all the Post and all the comments referring to “DNA” and “tests” with no mention of actual relevant biological material being obtained.)
But, I just searched and found that researchers gather testing samples from descendants still living–which I assumed was the case, but NO ONE here referred to. Insular much? Mormon Heretic should have made a least a passing reference to this methodology for those of us not devotees of this field (researching JS’ offspring)
Wow. Binding and unbinding the sealing before and after intercourse? Craziness! Is this really what we want – world-class mental gymnasts combing through the sexual histories and gestation charts of the long-dead?
“Insular much?”
Sorry, I don’t understand your question at all.
“Mormon Heretic should have made a least a passing reference to this methodology for those of us not devotees of this field (researching JS’ offspring)”
fbisti, I did link to Ugo’s website for those who want to understand the technical details of the test, so there’s your “passing reference.” Ugo did a great job explaining this to lay people, but it was a highly technical presentation. I decided to simply report the results “Was Joseph the father?” instead of getting into the weeds of the test results. By all means, check out the link to Ugo’s website. It’s got lots of details.
I’m not a geneticist, so I’m going to explain this the best I understand. A child has half of each parent’s DNA. A grandchild has 1/4, great grand child 1/8, so finding genetic material gets diluted pretty fast. The best test for paternity is autosomal DNA. There are something like 6800 centiMorgans of DNA material. A centiMorgan (named after a geneticist Morgan who invented the method) is something like 100 pairs of DNA. Given that Joseph has no known DNA left from 200 years ago, known descendants of him, Sylvia, and Windsor Lyon were compared.
Lyon descendants had no genetic material from Joseph; however, 0 is within the margin of error. However, there was some genetic Material from Windsor through Josephine’s descendants, so it is nearly certain that Windsor was Josephine’s father.
So that’s your Reader’s Digest version of Ugo’s test.
Fbisti, MH linked to news articles describing the methodology of population geneticist Ugo Perego in previous studies. This post was a followup on a recent session at the Mormon History Association conference a week ago. Kevin Barney submitted notes of the session to a thread on By Common Consent while he was listening to it. He went deeper into the methodology Perego used in those comments if you were curious – https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/09/mha-snowbird-2016/#comment-372316.
@Mary Ann
I get your point. It just I don’t see Catholics going on and on about the Crusades and Inquisition, and they were way worse than a little fornication here and there.
Cathy, Catholics don’t derive authority from the Crusades or Inquisition. They derive authority from Peter himself, and they hold the weight of a couple thousand years of tradition on their side. They’ve been a major force to reckon with in the history of Western civilization. Sure there were popes who entertained prostitutes and many morally questionable events, but the core authoritative line from Peter still stood. And no-one questions Peter as an authoritative figure in Christianity.
The authority of LDS church leaders hinges on Joseph Smith. If Joseph was a fraud, the church has no authority. Anything that puts Joseph’s character in question is a potential threat, and the possibility of adultery seriously puts his character in question. If the secret plural marriages were purely spiritual, it proves he wasn’t just looking for sex. Biological children prove sexual relations, which looks very bad in secret relationships. Church leaders *have* to somehow justify Joseph’s secret plural marriages as divinely inspired as well as any related sexual encounters to keep Joseph’s character untarnished. Their own credibility depends on it.
Got it. In that case, the LDS church is in a heap of trouble. Based on what I’ve read about Joseph Smith, he would have scored pretty high on the Hare test for psychopathy.
Anyone claiming heavenly visitations would score poorly on modern psychological evaluations, regardless of other symptoms.
@Mary Ann
True, but that’s more along the lines of psychotic. By psychopathy, I meant things like conning people, trail of broken relationships, constant trouble with the law, on the run from trouble a lot, getting shot in jail, and just generally leading a messed up life. Here’s the first Google hit I got for Hare Test. How many of these items remind you of Joseph Smith: http://vistriai.com/psychopathtest/
The evidence was strong before, but now is even stronger that Joseph had spiritual relationships only with the already married women he was sealed to. With no other ‘wives’ giving birth, it looks like the rationale for Joseph’s polygamous relationships is probably not just his libido. Emma has 9 kids, including one after Joseph’s death, and all 20+ other women have none. It sounds like many or all of those other wives had a different kind of relationship with him.
Compton’s conclusions are looking quite suspect.
I disagree that Joseph would qualify as a psychopath. Many of the characteristics I saw associated with the simplistic test (that itself is not without controversy) could easily be due to personality or other mental illnesses (thinking specifically of mania or something with narcissism). Difficulties with the law in later years were due almost exclusively to church activities. He did not have many run-ins with the law as a kid – only one related to a treasure-seeking expedition if I remember correctly. His mom said he was generally a rule follower. Most people claimed he had a pleasant personality – no hint that I could recall that he’d suddenly snap and treat people differently. He had no known romantic relationships prior to Emma, and that relationship stuck throughout his life. Although you could point to the plural marriages as consecutive short relationships, very few ended badly – most were still on-going at his death. The conning aspect depends heavily on your view – if he truly believed his claims as a prophet, he wasn’t really conning people. A con requires someone to knowingly pass themselves off as something they are not. If you don’t believe the religious claims, then you’d have to make a judgment call between him having delusions of grandeur versus a con. That’s gonna depend heavily on personal bias. Each option (delusion or con) has associated psychiatric disorders.
El oso, assuming these are spiritual sealings, and weren’t sexual (which is not what Brian Hales believes, BTW), why would God command Joseph to be sealed to other men’s wives? And if these were merely spiritual sealings, how come Brigham Young and everyone else had sex with their polygamist wives? Brigham always claimed he was following Joseph’s example on doctrine. It makes zero sense to claim Brigham Young was rogue on sex with polygamist wives.
Furthermore, el oso, why did all these women claimed they had sex with Joseph? Why would these women lie? I mean if they were liars, it would sure be easy for non believers to claim they were whores. I can’t imagine being a woman and opening myself up to that kind of accusation and humiliation. Why should we disbelieve these women?
@Mary Ann
So, you’d have no problem with Joseph Smith marrying your daughter? I’d tell mine to run like heck.
@Mary Ann
It seems that I’m not the only person who’s come to this conclusion. I Googled Joseph Smith psychopath and had a remarkable number of hits. Here’s the first on the list of hits:
https://chriscarlino.com/2013/01/07/was-mormonism-founder-joseph-smith-a-sociopath/
I’m not prepared to offer a confirmed diagnosis just on the basis of historical accounts, but I stand by my opinion.
If they were so very different, why was Emma so heartbroken and threatened by them?
I just wanted to pick up on what Shai Hadassah mentioned earlier about D&C 132, which I think deserves closer inspection. It seems to me that there are several illusions to polyandry and some conflicting instruction:
Verses: 41-42
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
(This is a confusing verse. Does it mean its OK for a woman to sexually be with another man or husband if that man was ‘appointed unto her by the holy anointing,’ or does it mean that IF she has a holy anointing [calling and election made sure], then she won’t be destroyed, even though the adultery was wrong?)
42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
(Again, does this mean that its OK to be with another man IN “the new and everlasting covenant?”)
Then later there is this mysterious verse:
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
(Does this refer to an Abrahamic test similar to the one Joseph Smith gave to Heber C. Kimball, asking for Vilate’s hand in marriage? Did Joseph ask Emma to become the wife of another husband?)
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
(Does this verse mean Emma was being tempted to be with another man, and Emma needs to shape up, or is this intended for Joseph, that he was trying to get Emma to practice polyandry with another man, his “Abrahamic test” and the Lord was explaining to Joseph that this would make Emma an adulteress?)
Given the conflicts inherent in the revelation, I wonder if D&C 132 was some kind of spiritual attempt for Joseph Smith to try and understand the polygamous and polyandrous relationships he’d gotten himself into. Was Joseph unsure about polyandry? Was polyandry the initial commandment, and only later did it become an “Abrahamic test” to be withdrawn?
MH, as I haven’t read any of Hales, Compton or others, I’d be interested to hear from you on whether or not these particular verses have been analysed in light of the question of polyandry…
I would note that it was long held by many of the Kimballs that they were part of Joseph Smith’s lineage (by spiritual adoption, not blood) — and that could have well been the implicit message of the Josephine Lyons statements at one point.
@Nate:
Thank you for pointing those things out. I’ve never seen it from that perspective. There is room for that interpretation as well when trying to “explain” it all. Now that you point it out, it’s all so very much more confusing. 🙂
Unless we start nailing down definition of phrases. Verified references mind you. But that would lead to a deep study and no place for that in the comments. I’m not volunteering.
One thing I take comfort is: “God is not the author of confusion.” So why is D&C 132 so confusing? Lots of room for interpretation for sure. Glad we can focus on our faith in Christ and the rest of His words to see what matches up and what doesn’t.
I appreciated your perspective.
@Mary Ann
Couple more, one by a psychiatrist.
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/inside-the-mind-of-joseph-smith/
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smith-the-making-of-a-prophet/
Shai, I wonder if D&C 132 is a discussion that Joseph Smith is having with himself about the nature of sexual relations, written in the language of a revelation.
The revelation seems to indicate that Joseph didn’t know his polyandrous invitations to Emma and others were supposed to be “Abrahamic tests.” (“don’t partake of that which I commanded you to offer”). If it truly was an Abrahamic test, Joseph would have had no idea that God would rescind the commandment. Joseph may have embarked upon them with an idealistic notion that polyandry could actually work. When he encountered such terrible opposition, He might have had second thoughts and those led to a new revelation. Yet in verses 41-42, there is still a hint that polyandry could exist in theory.
Paul talks about “being fully persuaded in our own minds” regarding various commandments, whether to practice them or not, to those for whom it is sin, it is sin, for those for whom it is not sin, it is not sin.
This revelation seems to come from a prophet who is not fully “persuaded in his own mind” about the heavenly legalities of sexual relations. I think he is right to question our puritanical mores in light of the heavenly principles of consecration and eternal progression. But some questions we ask at our own peril. There are dangerous questions that can bring down civilisations and societies. Questioning monogamy could be one of these. Polyandry, or sexual freedom in general, COULD be a heavenly principle, but a dangerous one if practiced by mortals, like Icarus and his wings.
I am cautious with conclusions by Hale because he tends to view everything through the prism of an apologist. There is nothing that Joseph could do that Hales would not look to defend. Compton’s book is the best I have read on polygamy in my opinion.
As to joseph and his practice of polygamy, adultery, or polyandry. I see manipulation on his part and do not believe the practice came from the Lord.
Like many things in church history, I was a true believer at one point but a little study confirms that so much in the church was conceived in the mind of a man and the practice was codified to fit into the gospel either at the start or later on. Feel free to disagree on any point, but this is how I see the church’s position on polygamy.
Cathy, if you think I’m okay with my daughters in polygamy, you must have missed my first comment on this thread.
Several of Joseph’s male descendants supposedly had mental illnesses (among them were bipolar disorder and schizophrenia – both associated with heredity). They are noted in this article which argues for Joseph having bipolar disorder (see Footnote 20 for the descendants): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N04_19.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiV757WwbnNAhWp3YMKHYCeCeAQFggzMAg&usg=AFQjCNEmACpVw8I3TrTfevUCOVtsGZBt8g
You will find if you Google “Joseph Smith” and any number of psych terms (mania, narcissism, sociopath, paranoia, etc) you’ll get plenty of hits. Assigning mental illness to Joseph Smith is not something new.
I should apologize to 14. Mormon Heretic. I am too snarky in general, in person, and online.
My knee-jerk reaction was to what I have long perceived as a high degree of in group/out group, or cliquish posts and comments on most of the LDS blogs I follow–the “perma-bloggers” and their community of commenters. While I learn a great deal from what I read, I often have to “Google” acronyms and slang terms to learn their meaning. There are many comments that indicate personal relationships between bloggers and commenters–leading to less explanatory content. Again, “that don’t make you a bad guy.” But it sometimes irritates.
The “passing reference” that would have saved me the time of researching this topic would have been something like a parenthetical statement that “Ugo compares DNA from living descendants of Joseph and from living descendants of his polygamous wives.”
But this issue is mostly my problem, not yours. Thanks for your gracious response and explanation.
@Mary Ann
Daughter: I wasn’t referring to polygamy. I was asking whether, with what you know about Joseph Smith, would you want your daughter to marry him? Emma’s father refused. They had to elope.
Diagnosis: Exactly my point. It’s nothing new. It seems to be a common assertion that Smith had psychiatric problems, just as I said. One source [linked above] by a psychiatrist (an MD) came up with narcissism and sociopathy, exactly for the reasons I stated. He also gives a detailed account of Smith’s life backing up his opinions–again, in line with what I’ve read about Smith.
In essence, the modern prophets get their authority, such as it is, from a narcissistic sociopath, whose life was a mess from start to finish. There’s no way to spin or whitewash that.
@Mary Ann
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/inside-the-mind-of-joseph-smith-06-2/
“…nothing Joseph could do that Hales would not look to defend.”
I get that feeling from him, too. He does not exude anything like impartiality. I remember thinking, “at least he’s honest about it,” when he remarked that he doesn’t read journals of polygamist wives because they’re too sad.
While we’re at it, I owe Mary Ann an apology. MA, I am sorry for beating a dead horse for so long. I got carried away. I should be more sensitive to other people’s sincerely held beliefs and their culture. Really, everything I said about Smith is pure conjecture on my part. For all I know, you could be correct in all respects. I’ve learned from my mistakes. Next time I will not be so stubborn and show more grace and understanding.
So why is D&C 132 so confusing?
It’s worth remembering that the provenance of D&C 132 isn’t exactly rock solid. The Joseph Smith Papers Project has a quick run down,
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132
Kingsbury and Clayton have been accused of producing the extant copy in the 1850s in a effort to lend legitimacy to the practice of polygamy. I’m not sure if there has been more recent research that supports the claims they make in their respective affidavits, but I’m not inclined to take their word as unbiased and disinterested parties.
Sorry, impartiality is not the right word. He just seems to operate with a lot of forgone conclusions.
Cathy, I have no problem with this debate. Your sources are not very strong. Carlino is a master’s student, not an MD, and he bases his sociopath diagnosis on a description of Joseph Smith in a book by Christopher Hitchens, a known critic of religion in general. Anderson is an MD, but his diagnosis is narcissism, which is a far cry from a psychopath or sociopath (associated with criminal behavior like serial killers). Vogel is an amateur historian, and offers no official psychiatric diagnosis that I can see. Would I trust my daughter in the presence of Joseph Smith? Based on the accounts of my ancestors who personally knew him, yes. It doesn’t mean I would have wanted her to marry him.
fbisti,
I think we’re more open on this blog to other opinions than other LDS blogs are, and if you’d like to be part of the in-group, you’re more than welcome to submit a guest post. Heck, if you want to post regularly, we might even invite you to become a perma.
No harm, no foul on the insular comment, though I am still confused why you felt this post had “indicate[d] personal relationships between bloggers and commenters.” Yes, I probably should have had more scientific info on the test, but not understanding it well myself, that’s why I didn’t concentrate on the technical aspects. I felt the readers here would be more interested in the church implications than whether Ugo could be trusted with his scientific approach. (I trust him, but I wouldn’t have any idea how to challenge his results anyway.)
Can anyone give me some bona fide titles for journals of wives of polygamists? I’m very interested in their lives and experience, I’d love to know how family worked for them, and what it was that kept them hanging in there over two or three generations.I’d also love to know how their children interpreted their experience.
I’m assuming marriage becomes dynastic rather than intimate, and that an internal life becomes essentially a redundant consideration.
Mormon heretic,
First, I think that God commanded Joseph to be sealed to other men’s wives so that the women could partake of the sealing ordinance.
For the women who claimed sexual relationships with Joseph after their marriage, I am not alleging all non-sexual relationships, I am just looking at the facts that there is no good evidence of any children from any of Joseph’s plural wives during the time of their marriage. This negative evidence proves little but strongly suggests that Joseph was rarely engaged sexually with any of his other wives.
el oso, “I think that God commanded Joseph to be sealed to other men’s wives so that the women could partake of the sealing ordinance.”
Yes, I know you think that, but you didn’t answer why would God command Joseph to be sealed to other men’s wives? Why not let them be sealed to their legal husbands instead of Joseph? Certainly Windsor was sealed to other women, why not Sylvia?
(Incidentally, I don’t think Brian Hales has a satisfactory answer to that question either.)
“This negative evidence proves little but strongly suggests that Joseph was rarely engaged sexually with any of his other wives.”
How do you explain away all the rumors of Joseph having sex at the time? Just a bunch of lies? Once again, I think where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I don’t think this issue can be chalked up to rare sexual behavior–I think it was more common than you suggest.
Wayfarer, I think Todd Compton has the best collection of biographical info on Joseph’s wives, and the title suggests exactly how the women felt “In Sacred Loneliness”. I think most polygamist women were lonely because they had to share the husband and when persecution got tough, they spent even less time with him.
With regards to Brian Hales, I don’t always agree with him. I know he gets a bad rap as an apologist, and to some degree I do agree that he tries to paint Joseph in as good a light as possible. With that said, however, he is VERY open with his sources, and is willing to admit where he was wrong (as in the case of Josephine’s paternity.) I have always been impressed with how thorough he is, and he has admitted that many of these situations are strange. He has also said he feels polygyny is unfair to women, so I think he doesn’t whitewash everything.
With regards to this issue, I think he tries to hard to justify bad behavior by Joseph, but he has also put a lot more emphasis into the theology of polygamy than any other authors. While I do not agree with everything he writes, he has done a valuable service in putting together his 3 volume set, and he should get a few more pats on the back than he gets, IMO.
“Kingsbury and Clayton have been accused of producing the extant copy in the 1850s in a effort to lend legitimacy to the practice of polygamy.”
Daniel Smith, I didn’t get that indication from the Joseph Smith Papers website. Do you have a reference that corroborates this provenance you are referring to?
Narcissitic, most definitely. To accomplish great things, he may have needed to be that. Of course, I think Bushman presents the strong notion that people around him wanted him to stop wrestling with children and be a prophet like moses, and he listened and was influenced. Joseph was constantly trying to do what he thought was expected of him.
Maybe it is what scale of narcissism that would matter. Of course, hard to tell, but he accomplished great things with compassion and love and service and devotion, but was far from perfect. There are different levels of narcissism.
I mean, Joseph seems to have accepted his lofty position, and was telling people secretly that maybe it isn’t about sex (initially), but just as disturbing is about being sealed to him specifically to assure exaltation and mansions of the grandest kind for women and their children and families because being sealed to him is better than to another man, even their husband, or future husbands. With an eternity of endless time, it is still better to be sealed to Joseph the Prophet than another person who they could develop a truly meaningful and committed relationship for eternity? Because Joseph thinks he is just better at providing exaltation than others?
I dunno…but I could easily see once a certain line is crossed and the rationale was accepted that sealing for eternity was being promised to women through him…well, I guess if married even spiritually…might as well be married. Even if that wasn’t the original motivation…at some point Harry would tell Sally that would be part of the thoughts that creep in, and one justification to mistakenly think it was ok.
But as said above, hoping for no proven children and no positive DNA tests is more palatable to me. I can hope, but ultimately, don’t know if it will ever be definitive.
You are right. The JSPP takes the affidavits at face value. William Clayton’s 1871 affidavit is prefaced by a letter in which he states that he is defending himself from accusations of hearsay and apostasy. The affidavits themselves and their late date are evidence that the Kingsbury copy was not universally accepted as being the work of Joseph Smith.
I am inclined to believe that Emma Smith, contrary to her own assertions, did read and destroy the original manuscript as Clayton claims. To include a vocal denier of polygamy in an entirely invented history seems to me to be too bold a lie. I believe the second copy was produced from memory by Clayton, Kingsbury, and possibly others who had heard the original read.
I think a close reading of Clayton’s affidavit in particular makes this the most likely scenario for several reasons. Clayton claims that Joseph was willing to let Emma destroy the original because Joseph could dictate it again. This is problematic for two reasons. First, Joseph had previously demonstrated that he could not do this (most famously with the lost 116 manuscript pages), and he had explicitly taught on the importance of keeping accurate records because of the difficulty and often impossibility of re-receiving revelation. Second, according to Clayton’s story Joseph already had authorized Newel K. Whitney to have a copy made. Clayton’s story requires that Joseph is both aware of an accurate copy and intent on dictating the revelation again rather than relying on it.
Interesting.
Daniel, that is a very interesting point of view, and worth considering. It seems rather strange for Joseph to create an exact copy just so he could give the original back to Emma to be destroyed. It does make some sense that since it wasn’t published until the 1850s that someone may have reconstructed it from memory. Certainly I can see the RLDS Church claiming this for over 100 years.
On the other hand, if memory serves, Hyrum wanted a written revelation so he could convince Emma. Joseph warned Hyrum that Emma wouldn’t accept the revelation, but also said he knew the revelation so well that it was easy for him to produce. So, unlike the lost 116 pages, (which was a “translation” rather than a “revelation”), Joseph seemed to indicate that this was so well known to him he wouldn’t have a problem reproducing it.
I did a post a while back on Denver Snuffer’s interpretation of D&C 132, and Denver believes this was 4 revelation rolled into 1 section and that essentially Brigham Young got confused. I mentioned this to Brian Hales, and he was aware of the theory of multiple revelations theory, but I think he said 3, not 4. (I could be wrong.) Are you aware of anyone else that thinks 132 is multiple revelations?
MH and Daniel, thank you for a great discussion. I wish more people would scrutinize D&C 132 and its history because so, so much of the LDS Church’s doctrinal foundations hinge on that one section.
Daniel, at least one person (Mercy Fielding Thompson) testified that she saw a copy of the section 132 revelation in 1843 and even kept it for several days while she was debating whether or not to become a plural wife. This would go against the idea that it was written in the 1850s to lend legitimacy to polygamy.
I remember your post on Snuffer’s interpretation. I’m not aware of anyone else promoting similar theories regarding D&C 132, but it’s not something I actively pursue.
I may have distracted from the point when giving the example of the 116 manuscript pages. I don’t think the translation/revelation distinction is actually meaningful in this context. Joseph doesn’t make this sort of distinction, and he often used the same means to produce things that we now try to distinguish as being one or the other.
If that were the only example I would be willing to concede the point based solely on the differences in length between the two, but that is not the case. There are multiple events in LDS church history that are inadequately attested. The charitable explanation for these lapses is poor record keeping. As far as I know, there aren’t any good examples of the kind of reconstruction that Clayton proposed was possible. This is also not just a current problem. In better attested sources, Joseph himself claimed that the opposite was true, and that receiving revelation over again to fix a gap in records was difficult to impossible even in instances where the gap is much smaller and of comparable importance to D&C 132.
I’m not aware of any other primary sources for a history of the sections provenance other than the previously mentioned affidavits, so using the official narrative or the affidavits, one in support of the other, ends up being a circular argument. I am comfortable with the possibility that the official narrative is true, but that requires an acknowledgement that D&C 132 is unique in its importance even compared to every other scripture. My own personal witnesses do not support that claim, and the internal and external inconsistencies in the affidavits lead me to suspect them.
Mary Ann, could you provide a reference or preferably a quotation for this detail? The lds.org article aobut her does not include it, and I’m not excited to read through her manuscript autobiographical sketch or hunt down her Testimony in Church of Christ in Missouri v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Daniel, it’s indeed from her 1892 testimony in the Temple Lot case. The full transcripts are digitized and available at the Church History Library website: https://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/MS%201160/
Once you get to that website, select “Pages 237-290” on the left-hand side. Once that is selected, click on “View Digital Object” on the right-hand side. One relevant page is under the first grouping “files 1-20.” The typescript image is the digital file “MS 1160_b0001_f0013_00005.jpg” (you should see the page number 240 at the top of the transcript when you pull it up).
The relevant quote on page 240:
“33 Q:-State to the reporter the fact as to whether or not you ever saw a paper or document purporting to be a revelation on that subject?
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not the best evidence.
A: Yes sir, I saw it and read it, and had it in my possession for quite a little while.”
The other relevant quote is on page 250 of the typescript (MS 1160_b0001_f0013_00015.jpg):
“244 Q:-Well how long did you keep it? A:-Some four or five days. Something like that.
245 Q:-You kept it four or five days? A:-Yes sir.
246 Q:-Then who did you give it to? A:-I kept it until it was called for,-well it was called for by Brother Hyrum himself, and he got it then when he called for it.
247 Q:-Were you his wife at this time? A:-I think that was in June or July perhaps, but that is something that I could not say positively, for I don’t remember dates very well.
248 Well were you his wife at the time that he brought this revelation to you? A:-At the time that Hyrum Smith brought it to me?
249 Q:-Yes ma’am? A:-No sir, I was not married to him at that time.
250 Q:-Where were you living at that time? A:-I was living then at my own house.
251 Q:-Why did he bring it to you in preference to anybody else? A:-Well my sister and I were like one pretty much, and whatever one had was pretty much the same as if the other owned it,-what was one’s was about the same as if it belonged to the other.”
Questions 240-243 were also quite interesting. It seems she believed she had possession of copy made by Clayton.
She said she just assumed the handwriting was Clayton’s since he usually wrote the revelations. She doesn’t seem all that positive about it. I feel kinda bad for her. She’s an 85-yr-old getting cross-examined about events that happened 50 years previous (I think that’s why she kept apologizing for not being more precise on dates).
Her testimony fits into the official narrative quite nicely If she was wrong about the scribe and right about the dates. Even though its not corroboration that the Kingsbury copy was made directly from the original manuscript as Clayton claims, I would be inclined to treat a copy made during Joseph’s lifetime as sufficient.
If she is right about the scribe, she could have had possession of the original manuscript before Emma destroyed it, and her testimony really says nothing about the date of the Kingsbury copy. In this scenario the exact date is unimportant only that Hyrum retrieved it; Clayton doesn’t make any strong claim about when Hyrum delivered the manuscript to Emma for destruction.
Unfortunately she is unsure of the dates and the hand. Either explanation is internally consistent. In the end, her testimony is important to the discussion for completeness, but it really doesn’t settle any important issues.
@Cathy: You said “I was just about to comment, and you expressed it better than I could. Why is everybody so goldern obsessed with proving Joseph Smith was pure as the driven snow. It is absolutely silly and a huge waste of time and resources. The general theme in this and other topics seems to be preserving an impossible image of perfection and coherence that just ain’t gonna happen. Personally, I find that these endless debates about nothing only serve to make Mormonism look shallow and brittle.”
Of course you are here engaging in one of those “endless debates,” but never mind that. It is also very interesting that there are just as many, if not more people who seem “golderned obsessed” with painting a black picture of Joseph.
If Joseph was a prophet, with the sealing power that he claimed, having sexual relations with a plural wife was okay. The evidence that he had sexual relations with some of his plural wives is pretty strong.
The evidence that he had sexual relations with any of the women to which he was sealed while they were already civilly married to another man is weak at best. Most everyone, prior to the recent MHA Conference had concluded that Josephine Lyon was Joseph’s biological daughter. That has been shot down.
All that is left is speculation and innuendo, but there are plenty of people left who are willing to seriously entertain the notion that Sylvia was having sex with Windsor Lyon and Joseph Smith at the same time.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and projections, whether or not they coincide with reality.
Glenn