Currently in Mormonism, there is a growing opposition to the LDS church’s teachings that Joseph practiced polygamy. This movement is led by some outspoken people and does make some good points. We shouldn’t automatically accept any narrative. Especially if many of the other things the church teaches are provably false. However, this anti-polygamy opposition massively fails to explain most of the foundational questions concerning polygamy. Instead, it just repeatedly says that it was one gigantic conspiracy and everything is simply misunderstood.
Overview
First, I do want to be clear. I truly don’t care whether Joseph practiced polygamy, or it was an invention of Brigham. I don’t believe polygamy is an eternal principle and I don’t need Joseph or Brigham in my life for my faith in God to work. Therefore, I am perfectly open to the possibly that it was Joseph or that it was Brigham. It really doesn’t matter at all to me in the slightest.
I have my opinions, just like everyone else, however if you have superior evidence then I would love to see it. Most of us talk about searching for truth, yet we seem to run to the safety of confirmation bias the moment that we are challenged.
In college I studied Computer Science and some of the ways we can use machines to make sense of piles of seemingly random data. One of these ways, is plotting this data in a 2D or 3D graph and finding a definable relationship between the data points. At first this may seem to make no sense at all, however by understanding the data, even a little bit and reframing our perspective, then we can make informed decisions and begin to make sense of the apparent randomness of the data. Over time, then the data itself can even begin to appear quite simple to us when we finally unlock the pattern.
There are numerous ways to do this, which a Statistical Analysis class can teach you. The number one rule though, is the answer must explain all the data. If it explains some of the data, that is good. However, if a different answer explains more of the data, then that answer is better whether you agree or not. Sometimes we are attached to a simple answer, which makes us feel good, when a different answer is actually the solution. If we are searching for truth, then shouldn’t we want a better answer to the data?
As was mentioned, in the context of the current polygamy discussion, there is a lot of push back on the standard LDS narrative. This is frankly a positive thing. If someone has a better explanation, then I think we should consider it and see if it makes sense. If it does then, fantastic, we have just taken one more step on our quest for truth. If it doesn’t make sense then, no problem, lets simply continue with the best explanation we currently have. No harm, no foul.
The problem though, is that in our desire to make our explanation fit the data, we can often ignore valuable datapoints or simply hand wave them away to make them seem unimportant. This makes it easier for us to explain the data, but it really doesn’t help anyone. If something invalidates our solution to the datapoints, then we either need to explain why the datapoint is an outlier, and should be ignored, or adjust our solution to include the datapoint.
However, if we simply declare everything that doesn’t match our conclusion as an outlier, just so we can have a clean dataset, then that really doesn’t answer the original question at all. It just shows that we can adjust the data to match our conclusion, which is incredibly easy to do.
In the context of polygamy, there are a ton of unanswered questions. The standard response to each of them is to simply say that there was a vast conspiracy by Brigham and the other apostles, or that many people simply hated Joseph and just made things up to attack him. This all may be true, however to me it all seems way too simplistic of an answer to an incredibly complicated question. I am fine with a conspiracy, if it answers the question using the available data. However, not everything is a conspiracy simply because we want it to be.
Questions
In looking at whether polygamy originated with Joseph or Brigham, then there are some simple questions that should fit with whatever the answer is. We shouldn’t need to twist or distort things to answer the question, it should fit naturally. If it doesn’t then we need to have a perfectly logical reason as to why or we need to adjust our answer to the question.
William Marks
William Marks is one of the most honest and trustworthy people in all of early Mormonism. He was the Nauvoo Stake president and was an overseer for almost the entire church. He was stalwart in his love and affection for Joseph, never speaking an unkind word about him. However, he clearly said that Joseph was involved in polygamy. In 1865, he wrote a letter to Hyrum Faulk and said that “[Joseph] thought [polygamy] would be an advantage to mankind”. He also said, in an RLDS presidency meeting, that Hyrum read a revelation concerning polygamy before the High Council, which they received, and he rejected. Was William Marks lying?
No Witnesses
In Nauvoo, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Nauvoo Stake Presidency, and the High Council were all deeply involved in running the church and the many administrative functions that were needed to keep things running smoothly. All of these men were very knowledgeable about what was happening in the church and all the salacious details. Many of these leaders ended up not even moving west with Brigham and therefore had no need to support him if he was making up the practice of polygamy and ascribing it to Joseph.
However, none of these individuals ever claimed that Brigham made up the practice. In fact, several of them are on record ascribing it to Joseph. For instance, James Allred, David Fullmer, Austin Cowles, Thomas Grover, and many others were leaders in Nauvoo, who didn’t all support Brigham, however they stated Joseph was involved in polygamy. If Brigham made up the practice of polygamy, then why didn’t these leaders simply say so? Why did they ascribe it to Joseph, when several of them didn’t even support Brigham at all? Are they all lying?
Indictment
On May 23rd, 1844, Joseph was indicted for the crime of adultery and fornication. William Law, his councilor in the First Presidency, testified before a grand jury as to the supposed crimes of Joseph and they decided to indict Joseph on those crimes. William Law testified concerning Maria Lawrence, whom he had known personally since she was a little girl in Canada. Curiously, William Marks was a member of the grand jury and would therefore have been a first-hand witness to all the details of the grand jury proceedings. He later stated that Joseph was involved in the practice. Was the grand jury wrong in believing William Law and the presented evidence?
High Council
In August 1843, Hyrum Smith reportedly read a revelation, before the High Council, concerning plural marriage. William Marks mentioned that he rejected this revelation, while most of the remaining High Council members accepted it. Several other people also testified that a revelation concerning plural marriage was read before the High Council by Hyrum. This included people that followed Brigham like James Allred, David Fullmer, Aaron Johnson, and Thomas Grover. However, this also included people that didn’t follow Brigham like Austin Cowles, William Marks, and Leonard Soby. Why did both Brigham supporters, and Brigham opponents, state that Hyrum read a revelation to the High Council that pertained to polygamy? Were they all lying?
Excommunication
On April 18th, 1844, several of the leaders met, in secret, to excommunicate William Law, R.D. Foster, and others. These meetings were held without the knowledge of the individuals themselves, and consequently they were excommunicated without an ability to defend themselves. This is of course extremely unusual, especially for a First Presidency member like William Law. Previously, trials like this were always public events, until things started pertaining to Joseph and his alleged secret activities. Why were these individuals, who sometimes were quite vocal in opposition, excommunicated in secret? Were the leaders wrong in doing this?
Testimonies
Throughout the years, numerous people have testified to various aspects of their knowledge pertaining to Joseph and his involvement with polygamy. They either testified that they were a wife of Joseph, they heard Hyrum read the revelation to the High Council, or they saw a plural marriage being performed. This list included several individuals who supported Brigham and several others who didn’t. It also included Hyrum’s own children like Lovina Smith. Did all of these people lie about their testimonies pertaining to Joseph and his involvement?
Affidavits
In addition to the testimonies, numerous people swore affidavits concerning their knowledge of Joseph and his involvement with polygamy. These affidavits were published in newspapers, books, and various periodicals. The affidavits themselves would also hold a much stronger penalty, if the individual was lying, since it was sworn before a court officer and was now legally binding. In addition, none of these individuals swore, before the court, that the practice originated with Brigham. They were quite clear that it originated with Joseph. Did all of these people lie about their knowledge concerning Joseph’s involvement?
RLDS Church
In January 1860, the RLDS church published its first edition of the Latter-day Saints’ Herald. This publication was focused on the evils of polygamy and mentioned several times as to Joseph’s involvement with the practice and his desire to repent of it right before his death. As this was only 16 years after Joseph’s death, most of the RLDS members at that time were personally acquainted with Joseph and had decided to not travel west with Brigham. They had no allegiance to Brigham and openly opposed his claim to leadership. Why would the periodical oppose polygamy so staunchly, yet be so adamant that it originated with Joseph?
Sidney Rigdon
In June 1846, Sydney Rigdon, who was a member of the First Presidency, published in the Messenger and Advocate his testimony pertaining to Joseph’s involvement with polygamy. He mentioned quite clearly that it was a corrupt practice and that it was the reason for Joseph’s destruction. Sidney also didn’t support Brigham and openly opposed his claim to leadership. Sidney was personally acquainted with Joseph, for many years, and knew all the workings of the church at that time. Was Sidney Rigdon lying when we said that polygamy originated with Joseph?
Brigham Young
Brigham Young, whom many claim was involved in a vast conspiracy behind Joseph’s back, wrote a private letter on July 8th, 1844, expressing his love for Joseph and Hyrum. He also expressed a deep desire to be reunited with the members as he was serving a mission in New England at the time. Immediately upon hearing the news of Joseph’s death, Brigham left New England and travelled back to Nauvoo and arrived a few weeks later. In this letter, and the many other private letters from Brigham, there is not a single indication of undermining Joseph or practicing things behind his back. Every single reference was supportive and loving. Was Brigham Young lying that he loved Joseph and Hyrum?
Emma Smith
Over the course of the early church, several young women stayed in Joseph and Emma’s home. This included Fanny Alger, Eliza R. Snow, the Partridge sisters, and Sarah Ann Whitney. These young women all reportedly became plural wives of Joseph however were also suddenly removed from the home as well. This sudden departure would be unusual if everything was pleasant in the Smith’s home. Several people mentioned, including the women themselves, that they were forced to live elsewhere at the behest of Emma, who struggled to cope with Joseph’s plural marriages. Were these women lying that Emma struggled to accept polygamy?
Hidden Records
Throughout the history of the church, numerous journals, diaries, newspapers, private letters, and confidential statements have been documented which describe Joseph’s involvement in polygamy. Very few of these individuals had any reason to believe that they were participating in an immense conspiracy that was orchestrated by Brigham or others. They were simply describing what they had personally witnessed and what they felt to be a true eternal principle.
Most of these documents were created, filed away, and then only discovered many years later. They certainly weren’t used as support for a complicated narrative. Why would Brigham, or the other leaders, want to document polygamy as coming from Joseph if the records themselves wouldn’t even be seen for close to 150 years? Did William Clayton, and others, write in private journals because they knew we would be discussing this several generations later, after the practice wasn’t even followed anymore?
Conclusion
In looking at whether polygamy originated with Joseph or Brigham then it can be a hard thing to really accept. This is because polygamy is such a distasteful concept in many ways. We don’t want to think that Joseph, the person who stood in God’s presence, could have revealed such an oppressive doctrine. Because of this, then the concept of polygamy becomes an emotional issue instead of a logical one.
However, if Joseph or Brigham originated the concept, then we should be able to answer all these questions in a simple logical way. If there was a vast conspiracy to undermine Joseph, or the church, then you would expect the many testimonies, affidavits, and personal accounts to reflect this. Especially after the leaders had firmly established themselves and had nothing to fear anymore. Brigham could easily have just said that he received the revelation and not Joseph. There was not a single person who would have been able to challenge him on that. He was the king of the church at the time.
However, if Joseph originated the practice instead, then you would expect the evidence to reflect that. Numerous people testified that it did. These were people who supported Brigham and many people who did not. We ultimately have to look at all the evidence and make the most informed decision that we can. If we only look at some of the evidence though, then we really aren’t looking for an answer, but simply altering the data to fit our conclusion.
