Note:
This is a book review of only Volume 1 of Brian C. Hales’ Joseph Smith’s Polygamy. The reviews of Part 2 and 3 will come later.
_______________________________________________
“If polygamy is the most controversial story in the history of Mormonism, ‘polyandry’ must be its darkest, least understood and most troubling chapter.”
– Andrew Ehat.
The distinguishing factor of Mormonism in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were mainly two things: Its communal economic practices and polygamy. A century later, if one was to ask what are the two distinguishing factors of Mormonism that answer would probably be: Mormonism’s health-code, known as the Word of Wisdom and still…polygamy.
Although the Utah LDS church abandoned polygamy in the early twentieth century after the President Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto, it still remains the religious practice most readily associated with Mormonism. Just like novels of the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (the antagonist in the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, was provoked to murder by two Mormon polygamists), polygamy still fascinates popular culture. Just off the top of my head, I can think of three shows dealing with Mormon polygamy: Sister Wives, Polygamy USA, and Big Love.
Why the fascination? Polygamy seems to exploit humanity’s most intimate feelings: sex and religion. And, with Mormonism’s early clandestine polygamous practices, add secrecy to sex and religion. Now, we have the perfect triple threat: sex, religion, and secrecy.
“…Polygamy is an interesting thing because it serves as a Rorschach test. People project onto Joseph Smith and polygamists their own sense about human nature.” – Dr. Richard L. Bushman
I am a fully active member of the LDS Church. My personal interest in early Mormon polygamy grew out of what many have called a “faith crisis”. It was the clandestine practice of early Mormon polygamy that forced me to re-access my LDS faith and eventually reconstruct it into something that still carried meaning in my life, but also acknowledge some of Mormonism’s more difficult historical aspects.
In order for me to recommend a book about early Mormon polygamy it must address the following in a fair and open manner:
1. Joseph Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger
2. Oliver Cowdery’s famous quote regarding the Alger – Smith relationship being “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair.”
3. The account from William McLellin of Emma Smith seeing Joseph Smith alone in a barn with Fanny Alger.
4. The sexual dynamics of polygamy
5. John C. Benett and his “spiritual wifery”
6. Polyandry (a woman married to more than one man)
7. The accounts of an angel appearing with a sword and commanding Joseph Smith to practice polygamy.
8. The relationship between Orson Pratt, Sarah Pratt, Joseph Smith, and John C. Bennett
9. The relationship between Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon and Windsor Lyon and was Josephine Lyons really Joseph Smith’s daughter?
10. The “Law of Sarah”.
Hales’ not only addresses the above 10 requirements, he provides an impressive in-depth discussion on all of them.
The following are questions for which I wanted some clarification and was hoping Brian C. Hales would address in his first volume of his three-part volume dealing with early Mormon Polygamy:
1. Can one call something a “marriage” when the ceremony is done secretly and is not acknowledge by the government as being a legal contract?
2. When did the idea and teaching of “eternal marriage” first enter the mind of Joseph Smith and when was it first taught?
3. When were the first intimations, from non-hostile sources, of polygamy being practiced?
4. When did the concept of “eternal marriage” tie to polygamy?
5. When did Joseph Smith first publicly preach about polygamy?
6. Who was the second Mormon man to enter into an authorized polygamous marriage?
Once again, Hales not only addresses the above 6 questions, he provides an impressive in-depth discussion on all of them.
In my readings, I have found that either the author (or his/her audience) will find polygamy so tantalizing and scandalous that any report that paints Mormon polygamy in that light will immediately be grasped, while the historical records that paint polygamy in less sensuous light, are not considered. The other extreme is also hugely problematic. That is, the LDS apologist that downplays the sexual dynamic and secret nature of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is completely over looked.
Brian Hales points out right at the beginning the problem with writing about early Mormon polygamy. And that is the primary contemporary documentation. There were no documents written during the early years of polygamy except for two, one of them being Section 132 of The Doctrine and Covenants. The other difficulties are:
1. We are only given opposing views.
2. There is no defense of polygamy for the first decade of its practice.
3. Nothing in the historical record is clear about the unfolding of its practice.
The strength of Hales’ book is that, for most of the book, he hits the sweet spot. He presents so much of the primary documents as well as the different conclusions from previous historians who have written about Joseph Smith’s polygamy. I appreciated him bringing up the respected and often controversial, Dr. Michael Quinn’s work as well as Dr. Todd Compton’s and Richard Van Wagoner’s scholarly works. He honestly presents their conclusions and then points out why he disagrees. He does this in a very respectful way, avoiding any ad-hominem attacks. Hales even goes so far as to provide primary documentation of some of Quinn’s presentations, papers, and emails to Hales where Quinn out-right disagrees with Hales’ conclusions. Although the reader may disagree with Hales’ conclusions, he/she is able to do so only because Hales has presented enough primary documentation and alternative conclusions, that allows the reader to do so.
Of all the different books I’ve read about Mormon polygamy, Brian Hales has done the best job of handling Fawn Brodie’s allegations in her land mark book, No Man Knows My History, of Joseph Smith having sired multiple children through polygamous relationships. Hales once again goes back to the primary documents and points out the difficulties of painting a clear picture of what happened, but more importantly, points out the sloppy historical reconstruction that Brodie attempts. He clearly shows where Brodie is clearly wrong and where she might be correct. Once again, Hales does this respectfully and in a scholarly manner. Hales does not hide anything.
Regarding primary documents, Hales provides actual photos of some of the historical records. I was excited to see photos of Andrew Jenson’s handwritten manuscripts that were collected as he was traveling through Utah in the 19th century interviewing some of Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives and trying to gather the names of others that were then deceased. One document, that really excited me was a Jenson manuscript that had Eliza R. Snow’s handwriting where Snow had written down the name of Fanny Alger being one of Joseph’s polygamous wives.
Hales’ charts were probably the thing I found most helpful. For example, on a two-page spread, Hales has documented in table form the names of children attributed to Joseph Smith’s polygamous relationships, the mother, the birth date of the child, the probability that the child is Joseph Smith’s based on either statements of the mother or others, genetic testing, etc. Instead of having to go back over chapters and chapters, the information is right there and is easy to compare. He does the same with dating the reports of the “angel with the drawn sword” accounts, documenting the conjegual visits between Joseph Smith and his polygamous/polyandrous wives, and with the primary documentations of the Fanny Alger – Joseph Smith relationship.
When I read a historical book, I am one of those nerds that actually looks at the foot-notes to see from where the author is drawing their conclusions. With most books, that requires me having a book mark at the back of the book where the footnotes are; so I am constantly flipping back-and-forth in the book. With Hales’ book, the footnotes are at the bottom of each page. I loved that. In speaking with the main editor at Kofford Books, this was not an easy task to do, which made me appreciate this even more.
The other part of the book that I appreciated was at the end of every chapter, Hales summarized the chapter. After reading primary documents, differing conclusions, and arguments for the different conclusions, it is easy to forget what you had read. The summaries were extremely helpful in bringing all these complicated issues together in a nice and tight package.
Now there were a few problems with the book.
With some of Hales’ conclusions, there were at times too much conjecture (see page 207); to many “perhaps”. At times Hales’ seems to equivocate with the word “marriage” as it relates to Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The biggest problem I had was how Hales’ used Doctrine and Covenants section 132 to proof text that sexual polyandry was no part of Joseph Smiths theology, leading to the conclusion that Joseph Smith did not practice it (sexual polyandry).
So, to whom would I recommend this book? To truly appreciate what this book is and has done, one has to have some background of early Mormon polygamy. This book is not an introduction; it is an advanced course. I had a non-LDS friend at work ask me what I was reading one day and I told him. He said, “Oh, my wife would like that book.” I told him probably not, but perhaps she should start with a scholarly book that deals with Mormonism in general and then work her way up to this book and I would be happy to recommend a reading list for her. I know, it sounds a bit snobbish.
I can’t wait to dig into Volume 2…
Miguel Barker-Valdez
Miguel is a Guatemalan-American Mormon living in the Northwest with his family. He is one of the proprietors of the Rational Faiths blog.
All posts by Miguel Barker-Valdez
This sounds like a worthwhile read and I think another is Volume 1 of The Mormon Delusion – The Truth Behind Polygamy and Secret Polyandry by Jim Whitefield. https://www.facebook.com/TheMormonDelusion/photos_stream
The actual practice of polygamy was NOT the way I was taught. The D&C 132 clearly outlines that plural wives should be virgins; not widows who ‘need help’ or other mens wives, and in the Book of Mormon, the only reason the Lord will command it is to raise up seed unto Him. The church spends lots of time, money and energy in proving that Joseph Smith had no offspring by his plural wives and by so doing remove the only reason for this practice.
No point getting into a shower and forgetting to wash and become totally clean. Where is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Interesting comment. Actually, volume three deals with the theology behind plural marriage and doubtless will surprise a few people. Section 132 outlines the primary reason (in my view) and it wasn’t “multiply and replenish.” Joseph Smith taught that exaltation occurs only to married couples. Section 132 allows excess righteous women to be sealed to a man polygamously and thus be eligible for exaltation. As I read the revelation (D&C 132), it anticipates more worthy women than men at the judgement and allows those women to be sealed. Also, while it does discuss “virgins” four times in verses 61-63, those are the only verses. My favorite verse, verse 19, speaks of a man and a “wife,” and promises exaltation to the monogamous couple if they live worthily. Thanks for the post.
You say that Section 132 “anticipates more worthy women than men at the judgement.” It is also a long-standing reason given to justify the need for polygamy–that there was a shortage of women during those early beginnings of the practice. Have you looked at the demographics of Nauvoo–and before–to see if there were surplus women? I think you will find that the male/female ratio was about the same. The surplus argument is “after the fact,” made later to justify the practice and was not an actual reason for its beginning. In fact, the opposite of a surplus of worthy women eventually occurred in Utah, As men took more wives, there were fewer and fewer unattached females. Two solutions presented themselves: marry younger and younger women (girls!) and send young men on missions to (in part) convert (and marry) more women.
Hi Linda!
Thanks for the post. I think everyone agrees that your research and writing on this topic in MORMON ENIGMA makes you an expert on these things. I hope you are doing well – missed you at MHA.
I discuss the gender discrepancies in Volume 3(pp. 43-47, 149-63). It is true that some members and leaders in the past have said that an excess of women existed in some LDS communities and that is why polygamy was needed. However, I have not seen data to support that argument. I do not believe it is valid. I agree with you.
Importantly, I do not believe Joseph Smith ever stated it as a reason for plural marriage in Nauvoo (or at any other time).
Some say that because the ratio of male to female births is 1.05 to 1.00, then there will be more worthy men. I observe that the rate of response to the Christian message is more like 1.20 to 1.00 female to male. The problem with both arguments is that the data only goes back a couple of hundred years, three hundred if we wish to be generous.
Hence, I don’t think we can argue either way based upon our current data set. We can only observe that Joseph anticipated (in D&C 132) that among the billions of exaltable beings at the end of the millennium, there would be more women than men.
I expect some pushback on this, but the concept is clearly taught in section 132. I hope those that disagree will brings some historical documentation for us to consider.
Thanks again for your input.
Take care,
Brian
Linda,
It just dawned on me that you are THE Linda Newel. Thanks for visiting the blog and commenting. I am honored.
Hopefully we will get to your book soon for a review. If you ever feel like writing a blog-post for us, you have an open invitation.
Mike
I haven’t read all of the articles on this site (inexcusable, I know, since Paul is a good friend) so I apologize if this question has already been addressed…
Why doesn’t the Church teach any of this in Sunday School or even Institute instead of sweeping it under the rug? And secondly, have they ever come out and said WHY they don’t teach about it in Sunday School or other avenues?
I’ve been wondering that about several things lately. Why leave it to the production of a movie for saints (like myself, who hadn’t heard of it before) to learn about the mountain meadows massacre? Why let Big Love, Polygamy USA, and others teach the saints about polygamy? And now I have to learn about JS’s polyandry through a historian’s study instead of learning why or how it happened through the church curriculum? Have they ever said formally why they choose the route they’ve chosen, which essentially seems to be “Well, that’s in the past now, let’s talk about the present and pretend that other stuff didn’t happen”.
When so much of a convert’s testimony is centered around the restoration of the church, I understand why the bedrock would crack in half when someone learns about this stuff and finds it to be historically true. It only makes sense to get ahead of it, and address these issues so that splintering (or shattering) won’t occur.
Great question. I view the behavior of Church leaders as simply teaching milk before meat and not presenting meat in any congregation where there might be even one milk-drinker (a la D&C 19:22). That answer may be inadequate for some, but I can tell you that as I discuss my books and articles, it is very easy for me to generate more questions than I provide answers and hence, compromise faith. It is a difficult issue in many ways.
Brian, in your above statement you have pin pointed a big problem I have….the inability to ever provide any meat. We get a lot of milk and nothing else. Even babies start getting solids after getting nothing but milk for about 6 months. Mashed up food first…then small pieces…and then bigger chunks until they are eating what adults eat. Why can’t the church take that approach? Your book sounds interesting and one that I would like to read
I agree completely. In the past, the Church has not sponsored many venues for members to obtain gospel meat. Consequently, believers must go to the Lord directly and/or study more obscure sources like the Journal of Discourses etc.
One tactic of antagonistic writers today is to simply give meat to everyone. Much of the historical and doctrinal information they present may be true. However, it is accompanied by a lot of “spin” that is inaccurate and is greatly fragmented so that readers couldn’t possibly understand it without a great deal of previous study and spiritual preparation.
It is like giving advanced calculus equations and explanations to someone in Math 101. The neophyte will be confused and probably conclude calculus makes no sense. I worry that it is has been very effective.
I know the Brethren today are concerned about this and are working on a website that will address difficult questions. I should also say that I have received incredible support and assistance from the Church History Department and its leaders for my books. They can be ordered at DeseretBook.com and are stocked by Seagull Book and the BYU Bookstore. I think that is a huge shift and that Church leaders want the truth, even meaty truth, to be available to members who can benefit from it.
I can also say that I believe that when ALL of the historical evidences is presented regarding Joseph Smith and plural marriage, he does just fine, My convictions have been strengthened and the process brought Don Bradley back into the Church.
Take Care!
Brian Hales
A big step offering these books at Deseret!
I believe the Church has finally come to acknowledge that their previous ways of dealing with controversial topics by ignoring or “wish it away” is no longer working. I ran into this same issue as a consultant working with senior leadership (60+ crowd) at large healthcare systems. It took me over one year to convince them and acknowledge that the Internet has changed everything. Older methods of ignoring or spinning topics would NOT be in their best interest. The best way was to be honest and acknowledge issues head on. I believe we finally experienced the Church’s new reality at the October 2013 conference when President Uchtdorf stated ““To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”
Has anyone considered the dynamics of the damning implication from Jacob 2:27 and the allowance for polygamy in Jacob 2:30? Verse 30 is the scripture from where I have always thought the justification for polygamy was found, yet there is little discussion of it. The language is plain, “For if I will raise up seed unto me…I will command my people.” The language of “the Lord of Hosts” here is personal to him, denoting a kind of value judgment independent of the prophets. It seems that the Nephites in Jacob’s in time, like David and Solomon, had taken upon themselves to determine the reason for polygamy and found themselves “not wanting.” From Jacob, however, we find that the Lord found otherwise. In other words, to “raise up seed” at the Lord’s command is not some post hoc excuse for polygamy but THE justification for it being commanded in the first place.
Great observation.
Actually, the quotation is Jacob quoting his father Lehi regarding a revelation Lehi had received decades before, probably prior to their arrival in the Americas. What prompted it is not revealed.
I just wish Don Bradley would hasten his work with the lost 116 pages (and find them). They might contain some context for that revelation. 🙂
I agree that the Nephites probably didn’t worry about polygamy much. It isn’t mentioned although Moroni thought it strange enough to record that Jaredite Riplakish had “many wives” (Ether 10:5).
My position is that plural marriage is a needed component of Joseph Smith’s cosmology, but it is a minor component. Many say it was the zenith doctrine. I respectfully don’t think so.
Thanks,
Brian