CES Letter Answers

Appearance

Joseph Smith's Marriages ​

The claim:

"Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women, as now verified in the Church's 2014 polygamy essays.... Out of the 34 women, 7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14-years-old. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this is shocking.... Some of the marriages to these women included promises by Joseph of eternal life to the girls and their families, or threats that he (Joseph) was going to be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if the girls didn't marry him.... Today, Warren Jeffs is more closely aligned to Joseph Smith's Mormonism than the modern LDS Church is."[1]

The CES Letter's Polygamy section builds toward a portrait of Joseph Smith as a religious predator — a man who manipulated teenage girls into sealings under threat of damnation, married the wives of his closest associates while sending those associates abroad, lied repeatedly under oath about his practice, and so resembled the convicted FLDS child-rapist Warren Jeffs that the comparison can be drawn in a side-by-side chart with categories like "biological sister wives" and "mother/daughter pairs." On a first read, the portrait is hard to dismiss.

But several of the strongest pieces of the picture do not survive scrutiny. The "34 wives" count flattens at least three categorically different kinds of sealings into a single number. The Helen Mar Kimball case, while genuinely uncomfortable to modern readers, looks different once Helen's own adult voice is heard alongside her adolescent distress. DNA evidence rules Joseph out as the biological father in every tested case. Joseph's most aggressive enemies — Bennett, Law, the Sangamo Journal — never accused him of sexual coercion of a minor, despite attacking him on every other front. And the Warren Jeffs comparison, on the conduct rather than the surface counts, dissolves: Jeffs is a convicted child rapist with dozens of biological children from forced marriages; Joseph was never charged with any sexual crime.

This article examines the marriages themselves: the number, the ages, the individual women, the public denials, and the genetic evidence. The textual analysis of D&C 132 and the eternity-only framework that governs the polyandrous sealings are treated in sister articles.

Context and background ​

Joseph Smith's plural marriages began, by most scholarly reckonings, with Fanny Alger sometime in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio.[2][3] The practice expanded substantially in Nauvoo, Illinois between 1841 and 1844, ending with Joseph's murder at Carthage Jail in June 1844. Across that span, Joseph entered into between thirty and forty sealings with women besides his legal wife Emma — the precise count varies depending on how one categorizes ambiguous cases.[4][3:1]

Three things about this period are essential to keep in mind when evaluating any specific claim.

First, Joseph practiced plural marriage privately. Public confirmation in 1842 Illinois would have meant his arrest — Illinois statutes criminalized bigamy — and likely mob violence against the Saints in Nauvoo.[5] The sealings were performed in private ceremonies, often with only the immediate family of the woman present. There is no public marriage register documenting them.

Second, the documentary record is fragmentary. Several sealings are known only from late-life affidavits or reminiscent accounts given by the women themselves decades after Joseph's death — typically in the context of the 1869 Endowment House records, the 1892 Temple Lot Case (where the LDS Church needed to establish that Joseph had practiced plural marriage to defeat the RLDS Church's contrary claim), or sworn affidavits collected in the late 19th century.[6] No private journal of Joseph's documents the sealings comprehensively. Several proposed wives are attested only by single late-life statements, which is why Compton's count (33) and Hales's count (35) differ at the margins.

Third, the theology Joseph was operating in distinguished at least three categories of sealing, and the documentary record reflects those categories — not a single uniform "plural marriage." The CES Letter's "34 wives" count, by contrast, treats all sealings as if they were the same kind of relationship. Disaggregating those categories is the first analytical step.

Joseph Smith's plural sealings per year, 1835–1844A stacked-bar chart of Joseph Smith's approximately 35 plural sealings by year from 1835 to 1844, split between time-and-eternity sealings (the approximately 10–12 with documentary evidence of conjugal relations) and eternity-only or dynastic sealings (the approximately 22–23 with no such evidence). Counts per year: 1835/36 — 1 (Fanny Alger, time-and-eternity); 1841 — 4 (1 time-and-eternity, 3 eternity-only); 1842 — 10 (3 time-and-eternity, 7 eternity-only); 1843 — 18 (7 time-and-eternity, 11 eternity-only or dynastic); 1844 — 2 (both eternity-only). An amber band below the axis marks the angel-with-drawn-sword onset period 1834–1842, which covers only the first half of the timeline. Three red-dashed event annotations mark the Oct 1, 1842 Times and Seasons affidavit, the May 26, 1844 "I can only find one" sermon, and the June 27, 1844 Carthage Jail murder.Sealings cluster in 1842–1844; the angel-tradition's onset period covers only the first half481216200Sealings per year1835/36(1837–1840: no sealings)18411842184318441Fanny Algerfirst plural sealingKirtland, Ohio31473101171822Angel-with-drawn-sword onset period (1834–1842)covers only the first half — most sealings post-date itOct 1, 1842Times & Seasonsaffidavit (31 signers)May 26, 1844"I can only find one"sermon (30+ sealings)Jun 27, 1844Carthage JailTime-and-eternity (~10–12, conjugal evidence documented)Eternity-only / dynastic (~22–23)
Joseph's ~35 plural sealings cluster heavily in 1842 (10) and 1843 (18). The single 1835/36 Kirtland sealing sits six years before the Nauvoo-era restart in 1841. The October 1, 1842 affidavit was signed when Joseph had ~10 sealings; the May 26, 1844 "I can only find one" sermon was given amid 30+. The angel-with-drawn-sword onset period (1834–1842) covers only the first half of the timeline — most sealings post-date it. Per-year category counts are approximations grounded in Hales's typology; the article's overall 10–12 time-and-eternity / 22–23 eternity-only-or-dynastic split is preserved.

Sealing typology — the categories the CES Letter collapses ​

In Joseph's restored sealing theology, sealing was not synonymous with conjugal marriage. The sealing ordinance bound persons together for eternity; whether those persons cohabited or had conjugal relations during this life was a separate question. The 2014 Gospel Topics Essay states this directly:

"Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone."[4:1]

Brian C. Hales's three-volume Joseph Smith's Polygamy (2013), the most exhaustive scholarly treatment ever published, identifies three working categories:[3:2][7]

TypeMeaningSexual relationship?
Time-and-eternityFull marriage in this life and the nextYes for many; documented in approximately 10–12 of Joseph's sealings
Eternity-onlyAfterlife bond only; no expectation of cohabitation in mortalityNo documented evidence in any case
Dynastic / familialEternity-only sealing whose explicit purpose is binding two priesthood families together across generationsNo documented evidence in any case

Hales has compiled wife-by-wife evidence for conjugal relations and concludes that approximately 10 to 12 of Joseph's roughly 35 sealings show evidence of conjugal relations, with three additional cases ambiguous.[7:1] The remaining sealings — roughly two-thirds of the total — have no documentary evidence of conjugal relations and are best understood as eternity-only or dynastic.

Worth Acknowledging

The three-category framework above is Hales's framing, and it is contested at the edges. Compton reads several late affidavits with more openness to conjugal relations than Hales does, which is part of why the counts differ. D. Michael Quinn argued the eternity-only category itself was largely a post-hoc Utah-era reframing of an originally less-differentiated practice. The "approximately 10–12 with documented conjugal relations" figure is therefore better read as "approximately 10–12 sealings where the documentary record affirmatively supports conjugal relations; the documentary record for the remaining sealings is mostly silent rather than affirmatively negative."[2:1][8]

The categories were nevertheless theologically real to participants. The unique recorded sealing-ceremony revelation for Sarah Ann Whitney (July 27, 1842) explicitly distinguishes the sealing as a covenant for "time and all eternity."[9] Helen Mar Kimball's later account of her own sealing characterized it as "for eternity alone."[10][4:2] Eliza R. Snow described herself as Joseph's "spiritual wife" in this-life functional terms but did not bear children.[11]

The CES Letter's "34 wives" presentation flattens this. A reader sees 34 and registers 34 sexual partners — comparable, in Warren Jeffs's chart on p. 59, to "78 wives" with whom Jeffs had documented conjugal relations producing dozens of children. The underlying record does not support that comparison.

The "34 wives" claim — what we actually know about counts ​

The CES Letter cites the Gospel Topics Essay as authority for "at least 34 women." The Essay's actual language is "Careful estimates put the number between 30 and 40" — a range, not a single confirmed number.[4:3]

The two most exhaustive scholarly tallies are:

  • Brian C. Hales (2013) — 35 sealings documented to scholarly standards.[3:3]
  • Todd M. Compton (1997) — 33 sealings documented.[2:2]

The differences between these counts come from disputed cases — uncorroborated late affidavits, second-hand attribution, and alleged proxy sealings performed after Joseph's death. They are not differences about whether dozens of marriages occurred; they are differences about whether two or three particular cases meet evidentiary thresholds.[12]

What's elided in the "34 wives" presentation:

  • Of those 34–35 sealings, approximately 10–12 have documentary evidence of conjugal relations. The remaining ~22 do not, and are best understood as eternity-only or dynastic sealings — though the documentary silence is silence, not affirmative evidence of non-relations.[7:2]
  • Approximately 11 of the 34 sealings were to women already married to living husbands. Those women continued living with their legal husbands; they bore children to their legal husbands; in every tested case, DNA confirms the legal husband, not Joseph, as the biological father (see "DNA evidence" below).[13] The polyandrous-sealings category is treated in detail in Polyandry.
  • At least five women refused proposals. Sarah Pratt, Rachel Ivins Grant, Nancy Rigdon, and others declined; Joseph accepted those refusals without retaliation in the sense of the women being excommunicated or threatened with physical harm. (The Sarah Pratt case is more textured than a clean "no retaliation" line allows — see "Warren Jeffs comparison" below.)[3:4][14]

The "34 wives" count is the load-bearing piece of the CES Letter's case in this section. It is also the piece that most aggressively obscures what the underlying record actually documents.

Key Point

The number "34" is technically defensible. What it elides is that Joseph's plural marriages were not 34 conjugal marriages. They were a smaller cluster of conjugal sealings (approximately 10–12) plus a larger cluster of eternity-only and dynastic sealings (approximately 22) — categories with explicit theological meaning in the sealing system Joseph was teaching.

The age question ​

Of Joseph's 34–35 plural sealings, seven were to women under the age of 18. This is the cluster the CES Letter's "shocking even by 19th century standards" charge focuses on, and the Helen Mar Kimball case (age 14) is the central example.

The actual data ​

The seven sealings to teenage women, ranked by age:[3:5][15]

WifeAge at sealingDateNotes
Helen Mar Kimball14May 1843Daughter of Apostle Heber C. Kimball; sealing arranged by her father; no evidence of cohabitation or conjugal relations
Nancy Winchester15 (debated; possibly older)1842 or 1843Among the most poorly documented sealings
Fanny Alger161835 or 1836First plural wife; Mosiah Hancock 1896 ceremony account
Flora Ann Woodworth16Spring 1843
Lucy Walker17Spring 1843Lived in Smith home after her father's mission
Sarah Ann Whitney17July 27, 1842Sealed by her own father Newel K. Whitney; only sealing with a written ceremony revelation
Maria Lawrence171843Sister of Sarah Lawrence; foster daughter

The ages cluster heavily at 17. Helen Mar Kimball at 14 is the youngest by a margin and is the case the CES Letter's argument turns on.

Age distribution of Joseph Smith's ~35 plural wives at sealingA bar chart binning the ages at sealing of Joseph Smith's approximately 35 plural wives. Counts by bin: 14 — 1 (Helen Mar Kimball, highlighted in red as the youngest outlier); 15 — 1 (Nancy Winchester, debated); 16 — 2 (Fanny Alger, Flora Ann Woodworth); 17 — 3 (Lucy Walker, Sarah Ann Whitney, Maria Lawrence); 18 — 0; 19 — 2 (Emily Dow Partridge, Sarah Lawrence); 20–29 — 12; 30–39 — 8 (including 38-year-old Eliza R. Snow); 40–49 — 3; 50+ — 3 (including Rhoda Richards at 58 and Fanny Young at 56). The median age falls in the 20–29 bin at approximately 28. Seven sealings to teenagers cluster at age 17; the bulk are to adult and middle-aged women.Ages cluster in the 20s and 30s; Helen Mar Kimball at 14 is the youngest outlier246810120Number of wives1123021283314151617181920–2930–3940–4950+Age at sealing (years)Helen Mar Kimball (age 14)eternity-only · no cohabitation · youngest outlierMedian ≈ 28(midpoint of 35 sealings)7 sealings to teens (ages 14–17) — most clustered at 17. The other ~28 sealings are to adults and middle-agedwomen, including 38-year-old Eliza R. Snow, Patty Sessions (47), Sarah Cleveland (53), Fanny Young (56),and Rhoda Richards (58, the oldest).
Of Joseph's ~35 plural sealings, seven were to teenagers — most clustered at age 17. The remaining ~28 were to adult and middle-aged women, with the median in the late 20s and several women in their 40s and 50s. Helen Mar Kimball at 14 is the single youngest case and a documented eternity-only sealing with no cohabitation. The CES Letter's argument treats Helen as representative of a pattern; the distribution shows she is the outlier.

Comparison with 19th-century norms ​

The CES Letter asserts: "Even by 19th century standards, this is shocking." This is a strong empirical claim about historical norms, and it is the claim that does the rhetorical work — the implication being that even Joseph's contemporaries would have found a 14-year-old sealing scandalous on age grounds.

The empirical record contradicts this, though with limits worth flagging.

Craig L. Foster's peer-reviewed 2019 Interpreter study, drawing on U.S. Census records and 19th-century state law, documents:[16]

  • The legal age of consent in most U.S. states in the 1840s was 10 to 12 years old; in Delaware, it was 7.
  • Illinois state law set the legal marriage age at 12 with parental consent; the 1842 Nauvoo civil marriage ordinance permitted females over 14 to marry with parental consent.
  • Census data for 1860–1880 (the earliest records with disaggregated marriage-age data) shows that 23–27% of females aged 15–19 were married in the Mountain/Pacific and West-South Central regions of the U.S. In some southern regions, the figure approached one-third.
  • Illinois Governor Thomas Ford — the same governor who ordered Joseph's protective custody at Carthage in 1844 — had himself married 15-year-old Frances Hambaugh in 1828.

David Keller's statistical analysis of 1840 Illinois Census data finds that the age distribution of Joseph's plural wives falls within the contemporary local marriage-age distribution, including the lower tail.[17] Kathryn M. Daynes's More Wives Than One — the standard demographic study of early Mormon marriage — places teenage marriage rates within general 19th-century American norms.[18]

These statistics establish that 14-year-old marriages were legal and occurred in 1843 Illinois; they do not establish that 14 was typical or unremarkable.[19] The strongest single piece of contextual evidence is therefore not the demographic statistics but Foster's argument from silence:

None of Joseph's contemporaries — including hostile dissenters, apostates, and Sangamo Journal critics — complained about the age differences in his plural marriages. Bennett, Law, the dissident Nauvoo press: every conceivable angle of attack was deployed against Joseph in his lifetime. Age was not one of them. If 14 had been "shocking even by 19th-century standards," Joseph's enemies — who attacked him on every other front — would have made the charge.[16:1] (Bennett's own private practice in Nauvoo, by his later admission, involved sexual relations with women within a similar age range, so the silence may partly reflect mutual silence on both sides of the Bennett-Joseph conflict — real but not airtight.[20])

The "shocking even by 19th-century standards" claim is therefore not historically accurate as the CES Letter frames it. The age was within the range of contemporary practice, and contemporary critics — who attacked Joseph on every other front — did not complain about the ages of his wives.

Helen Mar Kimball — the hardest case ​

The modern moral discomfort with a 37-year-old man being sealed to a 14-year-old does not dissolve simply because 1840s legal norms were different. The discomfort is real, and the article must engage it directly rather than around it.

Here is what the documentary record establishes about Helen Mar Kimball's sealing:

The sealing itself. In May 1843, Apostle Heber C. Kimball — Helen's father — proposed the sealing to Joseph after Joseph had taught Heber the principle of plural marriage. The proposal originated with Heber, not with Joseph approaching Helen.[21][22] Helen's own 1881 autobiographical letter — the document the CES Letter quotes — describes the proposal coming through her parents.

The "Abrahamic test" episode. Orson F. Whitney's biography of Heber describes the famous account of Joseph asking Heber to give Vilate (Heber's wife, Helen's mother) — Heber "touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights" — Joseph said it was "all a test."[23] The episode is real and documented. The article does not lean on it as load-bearing positive evidence: a sincere divine commander does not need to traumatize an apostle for three days to test obedience, and the "test" framing comes from Joseph's own retrospective characterization.[24] The episode shows how heavy the practice was on participants. It is not unambiguous evidence of Joseph's motive.

Helen's own description: "for eternity alone." Helen later described her sealing as "for eternity alone."[10:1][4:4] In her 1881 autobiographical poem composed for her children, she wrote:

"The step I now am taking's for eternity alone, / No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free."[10:2]

The Gospel Topics Essay corroborates this characterization, describing Helen's sealing as among those "for eternity alone."[4:5]

No documented cohabitation or conjugal relations. Helen continued to live with her parents Heber and Vilate Kimball after the sealing. She did not establish a household with Joseph. Her teenage complaints — most notably about being kept from dances — read as a teenager resenting parental restrictions, not as a wife describing married life. FAIR's source documentation notes that Helen "never describes in her journal or later writings being alone with the Prophet even once without a chaperone."[21:1]

Non-LDS scholarly assessment. Michael Marquardt, a non-LDS historian who is not invested in defending Joseph, has characterized Helen's sealing as "a spiritual one unlike other wives who had sexual relations with the prophet."[21:2][25] This is a critical scholar reading the documentary record on its own terms.

The 1892 Temple Lot trial. When the LDS Church needed to establish in court that Joseph had actually practiced plural marriage with conjugal relations (to defeat the RLDS Church's institutional claim that he had not), three of Joseph's plural widows were called to testify under oath about sexual relations. Helen — alive, articulate, a published defender of plural marriage, geographically closer than several who did testify — was conspicuously not called.[21:3] The simplest explanation: there were no conjugal relations to testify to.

Brigham Young's "wait until 18" instruction. Utah Church leaders later instructed men to "wait to consummate their sealings to younger brides until they were at least eighteen."[21:4] This explicit distinction — between the sealing ordinance and conjugal relations — is consistent with the eternity-only / dynastic reading of Helen's case.

Worth Acknowledging

None of the above resolves the modern moral weight of the fact that Helen was 14. Two things can be true at once: the sealing involved no cohabitation and no conjugal relations, and the salvation-of-family framing under which Helen consented was structurally coercive in ways a 14-year-old cannot easily push back against. The honest defense of Joseph's behavior here is not "there was no power imbalance"; it is "the power imbalance existed within a religious framework Helen herself, as an adult, defended in published writings."

Helen's adolescent distress — what the primary sources actually say ​

The CES Letter quotes Helen's "thorny path" passage from her 1881 autobiography — a private letter to her children written 38 years after the sealing. The 1881 Autobiography poem describes the same period in terms a modern reader cannot easily set aside. Any honest treatment must let those lines land before turning to the adult voice.

The 1881 poem, composed for Helen's children, captures Helen's adolescent state of mind directly. Helen writes that her parents had taught her "from my infancy" the principles of the gospel, and then describes her sealing in lines that read as private adolescent grief rather than mature reflection:

"The step I now am taking's for eternity alone, / No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, / And as the past hath been the future still will be."[10:3]

The "for eternity alone" framing in Helen's own voice — combined with the "no one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free" expectation that the sealing would not visibly alter her life — is the documentary record of Helen's adolescent understanding of her own sealing, and it is what any honest treatment of the Helen case has to engage.

The salvation-of-family framing the "Worth Acknowledging" box named also has primary-source attestation. The most pointed phrasing — "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it" — comes from Catherine Lewis's hostile 1848 Narrative, presented as a third-party report, and is suspect on grounds of context and chain of reporting.[26] But the framing it describes is corroborated independently in Helen's authentic 1881 Autobiography, which records Joseph telling Helen that her sealing would "ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household."[10:4] That is the salvation-of-family framing in Helen's own writing.

The article will not pretend the adolescent record is absent. Helen suffered. The framing under which she consented — by her own adult description — was one in which Joseph told her that her family's exaltation depended on her acceptance. Helen, at 14, was facing a choice presented in those terms.

Helen's adult voice ​

Photograph of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney as an adult, reproduced in a 1918 Deseret News publication.
Helen Mar Kimball Whitney as an adult. The CES Letter quotes Helen as a 14-year-old in private writing; the same woman, across roughly three decades of published prose — two book-length defenses of plural marriage (1882, 1884) and dozens of Woman's Exponent essays — defended the practice and her own sealing as religiously meaningful. Image reproduced in Solomon Farnham Kimball, Life of David P. Kimball, and Other Sketches (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1918), p. 43. Public domain (US, pre-1929 first publication); via Wikimedia Commons.

What the CES Letter does not quote is Helen's sustained adult public defense of plural marriage and her own sealing across decades of published writing:

  • 1882 — Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith Editor of the Lamoni Iowa Herald. Helen's published pamphlet defending plural marriage, written in response to RLDS denials. The pamphlet is a doctrinal-historical defense addressing the RLDS claim that Joseph never taught the principle.[27][21:5]

  • A widely-quoted 1884 affirmation, recorded in Augusta Joyce Crocheron's Representative Women of Deseret. In Crocheron's biographical sketch of Helen — a contemporaneous compendium of Latter-day Saint women's biographies — Helen is recorded as having written: "I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right."[28][21:6] (This quote is sometimes misattributed to the 1882 pamphlet; the documented source is Crocheron's 1884 volume.)

  • 1884 — Why We Practice Plural Marriage. A longer doctrinal-historical defense, published when Helen was 56. Helen wrote: "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."[29]

  • The Woman's Exponent essays. Helen contributed dozens of essays defending plural marriage to the Woman's Exponent — the leading LDS women's publication of the late 19th century — across the 1870s and 1880s.[30][21:7]

  • Her diary, 1884–1896. Hatch and Compton's edition of Helen's late-life diary covers the last twelve years of her life and shows continued faith and active engagement with the Salt Lake Saints.[30:1]

The CES Letter's case rests on the most agonized passage from the most private of Helen's writings — a personal letter to her children — without acknowledging that the same woman, across roughly thirty years of published adult writing, defended the same practice in print. The adolescent distress is real and documented (and quoted in this article without softening). But the adult Helen is also a witness, and her voice on the question is the one the CES Letter omits.

Richard L. Bushman, the standard biographer of Joseph Smith, returned to the Helen case in his 2025 Times & Seasons reflection on his earlier Rough Stone Rolling. Bushman acknowledges the case as one of the genuinely difficult ones in Joseph's biography and treats Helen's later defenses as part of the evidence rather than as ratification — i.e., the adult defenses do not retrospectively neutralize the adolescent costs, but they are also part of the record.[31]

Polyandrous sealings — briefly ​

The CES Letter charges that 11 of Joseph's 34 sealings were to women already married to other living husbands — and that this constitutes "polyandry" in the sexual sense. The categorical and case-by-case analysis of these sealings is treated in Polyandry; only the high-level points relevant to the marriages-themselves question are summarized here.

The dominant pattern is eternity-only sealings. The women continued living with their legal husbands after the sealing. They bore children to their legal husbands; in every tested case, DNA analysis confirms the legal husband (not Joseph) as the biological father. Complaints from first husbands are virtually absent from the documentary record. In several documented cases — Ruth Vose Sayers being the clearest — the legal husband knew about and assented to an eternity-only sealing for reasons of perceived spiritual good for his wife.[8:1]

Brian Hales's central claim on the question: "There is no solid documentation supporting the position that Joseph Smith engaged in sexual polyandry... demonstrating its existence could be done rather easily by quoting a single credible supportive statement, if such existed. No evidence of this type has been found."[8:2]

The strongest critical biographers (including the non-LDS Dan Vogel) and the leading apologetic biographers (Hales) agree on the absence of polyandrous sexual relations in any documented case, though Quinn and others contest that the eternity-only category itself was operating in 1843 with the precision modern apologetic writing assigns to it.[8:3] The convergence between Hales and the most rigorous non-LDS biographers is not a full settlement of the question, but it is enough to undercut the CES Letter's assumed sexual reading.

For full treatment of the polyandry question — including the eternity-only framework, the timeline of Orson Hyde's mission to Palestine (which the CES Letter implies was engineered for spousal access), and the case-by-case analysis of all eleven women — see Polyandry.

DNA evidence ​

If the CES Letter's portrait of Joseph were correct — predatory sexual exploitation of dozens of young women across a decade — the documentary record should include biological children. There would be plural-wife pregnancies recorded by midwives, Smith family children acknowledged after Joseph's death, perhaps oral tradition passed down through Joseph's plural-wife descendants. Several such candidates exist as historical claims; every one of them has now been DNA-tested.

Geneticist Ugo A. Perego — formerly of the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, the world's leading molecular genealogy archive — has systematically tested every credible historical claim of a Joseph Smith biological child from a plural marriage. The published rulings:[13:1][32]

CandidateMother (plural wife)Year ruledResult
Mosiah HancockClarissa Reed HancockvariousRuled out
Oliver BuellPresendia Huntington Buell2007Ruled out
Moroni Llewellyn PrattMary Ann Frost PrattvariousRuled out
Zebulon JacobsZina Diantha Huntington Jacobs2005Henry Jacobs's biological son
Orrison SmithFanny AlgervariousRuled out
Josephine LyonSylvia Sessions Lyon2016Windsor Lyon's biological daughter

Perego's 2016 finding on Josephine Lyon is the most consequential of the six. Josephine had been the strongest candidate by a wide margin — her mother Sylvia Sessions told her on her deathbed in 1882 that she was Joseph's daughter, and the deathbed statement had been treated for over a century as the most direct primary-source attribution. Autosomal DNA testing of Josephine's grandchild against five Joseph Smith descendants showed:

"None of the five Smiths shared any amount of autosomal DNA with Josephine's grandchild."[13:2]

By contrast, substantial shared autosomal DNA was found between Josephine's grandchild and descendants of Sylvia's legal husband Windsor Lyon — establishing Josephine as Windsor Lyon's biological daughter.

The cumulative finding: across every credible historical claim of a Joseph Smith biological child from a plural marriage that has surfaced for testing, no biological child of Joseph Smith from any plural marriage has been confirmed by DNA. Six tested cases is a finite set, and an undocumented child from a plural marriage that left no historical trace would not have been a candidate for testing — the argument is that every historically attributed child has been ruled out, not that DNA testing has independently scanned all 35 sealings.

Even with that scope qualifier, the evidence is uniquely powerful for two reasons. First, it is non-faith-based — a reader skeptical of every LDS source can verify the genetic findings independently through BYU Studies and the original Forensic Science International: Genetics journal articles. Second, the predatory-Joseph reading specifically predicts the opposite of what we now find. A man engaged in a decade-long pattern of sexual exploitation of dozens of women would have produced biological offspring with at least some of them — and at least some of those offspring would have been historically attributed during the women's lifetimes. Joseph did not, and the testing has now exhausted every credible historical claim.

The DNA evidence does not by itself resolve every question about Joseph's plural marriages. But it is a hard datum that any predatory-motive theory has to explain, and no published critical treatment has explained it.

Public denials ​

This is the strongest single move in the CES Letter's section. It is also the move where the article must concede the most, the most directly.

The pattern ​

Joseph and other Church leaders made public statements denying polygamy during years when Joseph was privately practicing it. The pattern is documented and undeniable. The most-cited examples:

The October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons affidavit. Signed by 31 witnesses, including:[33]

  • Eliza R. Snow, who had been sealed to Joseph on June 29, 1842 — three months earlier.
  • Newel K. Whitney, who had performed his daughter Sarah Ann's sealing to Joseph on July 27, 1842 — nine weeks earlier.
  • Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was present at her daughter's sealing.

The affidavit denied that the Church practiced "no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants" — which at the time meant the 1835 Article on Marriage (D&C 101:4 in that edition) explicitly affirming monogamy.

The May 26, 1844 sermon. One month before his death, Joseph stated:

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."[34]

At the time of the sermon, Joseph had over 30 plural sealings.

Carefully worded denials throughout the 1841–1844 period appear in sermons, affidavits, Times and Seasons editorials, and private correspondence, where Joseph or other leaders denied "polygamy," "spiritual wifery," or "having seven wives" using language that was either technically true under specific theological framing or simply false.

What was actually being denied ​

The CES Letter treats the denials as straightforward perjury. The defensive reading — and it is a defense, not a full exculpation — depends on what specific charge the denials were responding to.

In 1841–1842, John C. Bennett — a former Quartermaster General of Illinois who had risen to become Mayor of Nauvoo and a counselor in the First Presidency — was actively spreading what he called "spiritual wifery" in Nauvoo. Bennett's spiritual wifery doctrine, as he privately taught it, allowed any man with sufficient priesthood to take any woman who consented to "spiritual" sexual relations outside of any sealing or marriage covenant. Bennett used the doctrine to seduce multiple women and (Bennett himself later admitted) procured at least one abortion.[20:1]

When Joseph excommunicated Bennett in May 1842 and publicly denounced "spiritual wifery," he was denying something he genuinely was not practicing — Bennett's adultery-with-religious-cover doctrine. The October 1, 1842 affidavit specifically denounced Bennett's system. In Joseph's own theological categories, celestial sealings (performed by priesthood authority following the patterns revealed in D&C 132) were a different ordinance from Bennett's spiritual wifery — and the categorical distinction was real.[35][36]

The carefully-worded pattern fits this categorical defense:

  • "I have no more wives than one" — defensible if "wife" means "civilly registered wife."
  • "I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago" — this is referring to Joseph's character claims and his denial of Bennett-style adultery, not to the existence of celestial sealings.
  • The 1842 affidavit denouncing the practice of "any other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants" — defensible if "rule or system" means Bennett's spiritual wifery.

The systematic-pattern reading (the strongest critical case) ​

The categorical defense is technically defensible. It is also pastorally and morally inadequate. The public ear in 1842 Illinois did not parse "polygamy" and "spiritual wifery" into categorically distinct theological ordinances. When Joseph publicly denied "polygamy," the public heard a denial of any multiple-wife practice — and Joseph knew that was what they were hearing.

The strongest critical treatment of the denials is in Cheryl L. Bruno's 2024 anthology Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy (Signature Books), which collects contributions from a range of scholars examining the documentary record of early Mormon polygamy.[37] The editorial framing of the volume treats the denials not as a series of discrete responses to specific accusations like Bennett's, but as a systematic pattern of public concealment across roughly a decade — what Bruno characterizes as a "habit of secrecy" that extended beyond polygamy into other domains of Nauvoo governance (the Council of Fifty, the Anointed Quorum, the early temple endowment).

Bruno's analytical claim, fairly summarized: the public denials produced a documentary record contaminated by strategic concealment, and any honest historiography has to account for the fact that what the contemporaneous Nauvoo public record says about polygamy is structured deception. Even granting every contextual mitigation — the criminalization of bigamy in Illinois, the threat of mob violence, the categorical distinction between celestial sealings and Bennett's spiritual wifery — the pattern of denial across nearly a decade is harder to defend than any single instance.

Compton's In Sacred Loneliness makes a similar structural observation about the concealment pattern, working from the women's own contemporaneous and reminiscent writings.[2:3]

The honest assessment:

  • The denials happened. The affidavit, the May 1844 sermon, the carefully-worded statements throughout — these are documented.
  • Joseph induced others to participate. Eliza R. Snow, the Whitneys, and other signatories knew the affidavit was misleading.
  • The categorical defense is theologically real but publicly inadequate. Bennett's spiritual wifery genuinely was something Joseph was not practicing; celestial sealings genuinely were a different ordinance. But the public did not parse the distinction, and Joseph did not clarify it publicly.
  • The contextual defense is real but does not erase the moral problem. Polygamy was illegal in Illinois; public confirmation in 1842 would have meant Joseph's arrest and likely violence against the Saints. This situates the deception; it does not make it admirable.
  • Bruno's systematic-pattern argument lands. Even granting every contextual mitigation, the pattern across nearly a decade of public denial — and the broader "habit of secrecy" extending across Nauvoo governance — is harder to defend than any single instance. The article concedes the structural force of this argument.

Worth Acknowledging

Joseph was dishonest with the public about his most controversial practice. The dishonesty served real purposes — legal protection, communal protection, theological category-keeping — but it was dishonesty by any common-language standard. The defense is contextual, not categorical. A reader who concludes that the public denials are a real moral problem with Joseph's prophetic record is not misreading the evidence. The honest defense weighs the difficulty against the totality of Joseph's mission rather than pretending the difficulty is not there.

Joseph's reluctance — the angel-with-drawn-sword tradition ​

The CES Letter's portrait is of a willing predator using religious cover. The contemporaneous record from the women themselves describes a different man: one who repeatedly refused the command to practice plural marriage and who described being driven to compliance by what he experienced as direct angelic confrontation.

The angel-with-drawn-sword tradition is multiply attested. Hales's catalog identifies more than twenty independent accounts, with at least four direct attestations from Joseph's plural wives:[38][4:6]

  • Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, in her 1902 signed statement: "The angel came to him three times, the last time with a drawn sword and threatened his life."[39] In her 1905 Brigham Young University address (given when Lightner was in her 80s), Lightner recounts Joseph telling her in his own first-person voice — i.e., Lightner is quoting Joseph's account of the encounter to her, not describing her own angelic visitation: "the angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me."[39:1]
  • Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.
  • Almera Woodward Johnson.
  • Eliza R. Snow — who recorded receiving the account directly from Joseph.
  • Helen Mar Kimball, Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, Benjamin F. Johnson, Mosiah Hancock, and over a dozen additional independent attestations from Nauvoo-era and Utah-era sources.[38:1]

The Gospel Topics Essay confirms the basic outline: "an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842" and the third appearance "came threatening him with destruction unless he obeyed the command fully."[4:7]

What the tradition does and doesn't establish ​

Two features of these accounts are critical. First, the angel reportedly threatened Joseph — not the women. The CES Letter's framing of "an angel with a drawn sword if the girls didn't marry him" inverts the actual content of the accounts. The angel was Joseph's commander, not a coercive instrument used against potential wives.[38:2] Second, the accounts were given by women defending the practice — they were not extracting them from a hostile witness; they were repeating, decades later, what Joseph had told them about his own theological coming-to-terms with the doctrine.

The behavioral signature of these accounts is the signature of someone reluctant, at least at the outset. A man who fabricates a doctrine for predatory access does not also produce a multi-decade body of corroborating reminiscent accounts in which he describes himself as having refused the doctrine for years before complying.

But the tradition has real limits. The "more than twenty independent accounts" are mostly late reminiscent statements from women within a shared religious community, given decades after the events — not contemporaneous documentation from 1834–1842, and not strictly independent in the epistemic sense of the word.[40][37:1] The angel tradition also covers only the onset period (1834–1842), while the bulk of Joseph's sealings occurred in 1842–1844 — so the "reluctant prophet compelled by an angel" framing does not extend across every subsequent decision Joseph made. And there is one asymmetry worth naming: if the angel tradition mitigates Joseph's responsibility for accepting the doctrine, then by parallel logic the salvation-of-family framing under which Helen Mar Kimball and other young wives consented mitigates the meaningfulness of their consent. Both can be partially true, but a faithful reading cannot deploy compulsion-frame on Joseph's side while treating the women as fully autonomous agents on the other side. Both compulsion frames are partially real, or neither is.

What the tradition therefore establishes: at the outset of the practice, in 1834–1842, Joseph experienced what he described to his closest associates as direct angelic command. This is documented in the women's reminiscent attestations. It does not extend across every subsequent decision Joseph made, and it does not function as a clean exoneration. A predator does not produce a body of reminiscent attestations in which he describes himself as having been compelled — but a believer in revelation also does not have a clean answer to the question of why the command, once accepted, produced the specific pattern of practice (including the secrecy and the public denials) that it did.

The strongest critical case ​

The CES Letter's actual rhetoric is the weak version of the critical argument. The article cannot earn the reader's trust by knocking down only the weak version. The strong critical case — built from careful scholars working from the same documentary record but reaching darker conclusions — has to be engaged on its own terms.

Compton's documentation of women's distress ​

Todd M. Compton's In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (1997) remains the standard secular biography of the 33 wives Compton documents.[2:4] Compton is not the CES Letter's polemicist; he is a careful historian whose book is sympathetic, footnoted, and methodologically rigorous. Compton acknowledges the eternity-only category extensively and does not flatten the sealings into a single uniform "polygamy."

Where Compton parts from Hales is in his moral framing. Compton documents women's distress at a level the CES Letter does not approach. The article will exhibit several of these primary sources directly rather than summarize them.

Helen Mar Kimball's adolescent record. As quoted above in the Helen section: Helen's 1881 Autobiography records Joseph telling her the sealing would "ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household" — the salvation-of-family framing the "Worth Acknowledging" box above named as structurally coercive.[10:5] (The most pointed phrasing of that framing in critical scholarship comes from Catherine Lewis's 1848 hostile Narrative, not Helen's own writing; the structural framing is in Helen's own 1881 voice.)[26:1]

Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs. Compton documents Zina's lifelong struggle with the practice. Zina had refused Joseph three times before her marriage to Henry Jacobs; only after her marriage did she accept the eternity-only sealing. In her diary, Zina recorded her continued grief over the configuration of her relationships across the rest of her life.[2:5] Compton's chapter draws on the diary edited by Marilyn Higbee Bradford and additional materials in the Church History Library.

Vilate Kimball's spiritual struggle. Heber C. Kimball's wife — Helen's mother — left letters preserved in the Heber C. Kimball collection at the Church History Library documenting her own emotional response to Joseph's plural-marriage doctrine and the Abrahamic-test episode. Vilate's letters express the kind of anguish the apologetic literature has historically softened.[2:6]

Emily Dow Partridge. Emily's 1885 autobiography and her 1892 Temple Lot trial testimony contain candid accounts of the ambivalence she experienced — particularly around Emma's discovery of the original secret sealing and the May 1843 re-sealing in Emma's presence.[3:6][2:7]

Compton's analytical claim is that the religious framework Joseph offered did not erase the personal cost the practice imposed on the women — and that the apologetic tradition has often minimized that cost in favor of theological tidiness. Compton is right about the distress. The article should not minimize it. Helen Mar Kimball, even in her published 1884 defense, wrote that her sealing had been "one of the severest" trials of her life. The women's later affirmative testimonies are not testimonies that the practice was easy; they are testimonies that the women understood it as religiously meaningful despite the cost.

Where Compton is incomplete: his framing emphasizes the agonized period and downplays the mature reflective period.[41] The honest position is that Compton documents real distress and the women also produced real adult defenses; both must be quoted; neither resolves into the other. The 2024 Secret Covenants anthology contains additional engagement with eternity-only sealings and women's distress that builds on Compton's analytical framework.[37:2]

Sarah Ann Whitney letter (August 18, 1842) ​

The August 18, 1842 letter from Joseph in hiding to Newel K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Smith Whitney, and their daughter Sarah Ann (whom Joseph had sealed three weeks earlier on July 27, 1842) is among the most difficult documents in the entire historical record.[42]

The verbatim transcription from the Joseph Smith Papers (with the original spelling preserved and bracketed editorial clarification where the manuscript's spelling departs from modern):

Autograph manuscript of Joseph Smith's August 18, 1842 letter to Newel K., Elizabeth Ann, and Sarah Ann Whitney.
Joseph Smith, autograph letter to Newel K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Smith Whitney, and Sarah Ann Whitney, August 18, 1842. George Albert Smith Family Papers, MS 36, Box 1, Folder 18, J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections, University of Utah. Digital reproduction via The Joseph Smith Papers, Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

"I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction... My feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us... that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy."[42:1]

Don Bradley — a faithful Latter-day Saint historian whose primary work is on the lost 116 pages — has analyzed this letter as a primary document with full historian's rigor.[43] The letter exists, the language is what it appears to be, and no defense erases what it says. Joseph was managing visits to Sarah Ann (and her parents) at his hiding place during the Bennett extradition crisis, and he was actively coordinating those visits to occur when Emma was not present. The "but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty" phrase is the rhetorical fulcrum of the letter. Joseph is explicitly framing his wife's presence as the threat from which the Whitneys (and Sarah Ann) need protection, and her absence as "perfect safety."

The honest readings of the letter span a range:

Most defensive reading. Joseph was hiding from Missouri authorities, managing visits with multiple sealed wives plus his legal wife Emma at a time when Emma did not yet know about the Sarah Ann sealing. The letter is concealment of the sealing's existence from Emma — not concealment of an attempted sexual encounter. The Whitney sealing was performed openly within the Whitney family, with Sarah's father Newel performing the ceremony. There is no documentary evidence of conjugal relations between Joseph and Sarah Ann; Hales does not include Sarah Ann among the approximately 10–12 sealings with conjugal evidence.

Limit of the defensive reading. Even granting all of the above, the letter establishes that Joseph was actively concealing his interactions with Sarah Ann from his wife and was naming his wife specifically as the obstacle to "safety." The framework of the concealment — Emma's physical absence (not merely her ignorance) being the prerequisite — admits more than information-management. If the sealing was eternity-only and the visit would have been an innocent family meeting, the Whitneys could have been instructed simply not to mention the sealing if Emma was present. The need to coordinate physical absence specifically suggests Joseph anticipated his interactions with Sarah Ann would have been visibly different than ordinary family visits — at minimum in tone, and possibly in more.

Most damaging reading. Joseph was a married man asking a 17-year-old girl, whom he had recently sealed in secret, to come to his hiding place when his wife was not present, while explicitly framing his wife as the threat to "safety." In modern terms, the optics are impossible to fully defend, and modern readers' first reaction to the letter — that this looks bad — is not unreasonable. Bradley's analysis acknowledges this without trying to dissolve it.

The article does not erase the letter. The letter is part of what an honest reader has to weigh. The faithful response is not "this looks fine"; the faithful response is "this looks bad, the textual content of the letter does not have a fully defensive reading, and here is the contextual frame that limits but does not dissolve the difficulty."

Newell and Avery on Emma ​

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith — the award-winning Emma biography first published in 1984 and reissued by University of Illinois Press — is the canonical source on Emma's experience of Joseph's plural marriage practice.[44]

What Newell and Avery document, drawing on family papers, contemporaneous letters, and reminiscent accounts:

  • Emma repeatedly discovered secret sealings she had not been told about.
  • Emma extracted promises from Joseph to abandon the practice; Joseph broke those promises.
  • Emma physically removed plural wives from her home — most notably the Partridge sisters, whom she successfully sent away after they had been sealed twice (the second time under what Emma understood was the original sealing, not knowing they had been sealed previously without her knowledge).
  • Emma's relationship with the Partridge sisters never recovered.
  • Emma never accepted plural marriage doctrinally; after Joseph's death she publicly denied that Joseph had ever practiced it, a position the RLDS Church (where Emma's son Joseph III led) institutionalized.

The honest reading: Emma suffered. Her suffering was real and rational. Her opposition was not faithlessness; it was a credible response to repeated deception by her husband. The apologetic tradition has at times minimized Emma's perspective in favor of theological frameworks that treat her doubt as a failure of faith — and that minimization is a real credibility error.

What Newell and Avery do not erase: Emma was also, throughout, a believing wife who never abandoned Joseph or cursed his memory after his death. Her opposition to plural marriage was not opposition to Joseph as a prophet. Her experience was not one-dimensional rejection; it was an oscillation between consent and revocation, struggle and faith. The Partridge sisters were originally sealed in March 1843 without Emma's knowledge; in May 1843, Emma asked Joseph to take additional plural wives "of her own choosing" and selected the Partridge sisters herself, apparently unaware they had already been sealed two months earlier; a second ceremony was performed in May with Emma's consent for the existing sealings.[44:1] Emma's experience contained both rejection and ambivalent participation. The history is messy; flattening it in either direction (as faithful exoneration or as critical indictment) misreads the record.

What we honestly don't know ​

The plural marriages have a documentary footprint that is real but incomplete. Joseph never wrote a comprehensive private account of his sealings. Emma destroyed papers after his death. The Smiths' descendants in the RLDS line preserved a denial-of-polygamy tradition that obscured rather than illuminated. The women who survived Joseph spoke decades later, often under institutional pressure (LDS or RLDS) to defend or deny the practice.

What remains unrecoverable:

  • The conversations between Joseph and the women at the moments of proposal and sealing.
  • Joseph's private internal experience of receiving and accepting the doctrine.
  • The full content of Joseph's communications with Emma about specific sealings.
  • The lived experience of the eternity-only sealings — what Helen Mar Kimball understood her sealing to mean during her late teens, before her 1846 marriage to Horace Whitney, is largely closed to us.

These gaps are real. The reconstruction available is partial, and any honest treatment leaves room for what cannot be known.

What the women themselves said as adults ​

The CES Letter quotes Helen Mar Kimball's "thorny path" passage from a private 1881 letter and stops there. It does not quote a single adult plural wife affirming her own sealing. Yet adult affirmations from the participants themselves are the most extensive primary-source category on this question, and the article has already let the adolescent and contemporary distress accounts land directly in the Compton section.

A representative sample of the adult voice:

Lucy Walker (sealed at 17): "He counselled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and thereupon received from him a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage." Her 1888 published statement and her 1892 Temple Lot testimony defend the practice in detail. Lucy lived to age 84.[45][46]

Eliza R. Snow (sealed at 38): wrote and published extensively defending plural marriage; her Personal Writings show no retraction or regret across more than 40 years of subsequent writing. After Joseph's death she became one of the most influential women in the LDS Church, leading the Relief Society for nearly two decades.[47]

Emily Dow Partridge (sealed at 19): testified under oath at the 1892 Temple Lot trial about her sealing. She did not retract; she did not characterize Joseph as predatory. Her sworn testimony stands as one of the most rigorous primary sources on the conjugal-vs-eternity-only question for sealings in the 1843 cluster.[3:7]

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner: her 1905 BYU address — given in her 80s — defended the practice and Joseph specifically. The address is among the most cited primary sources for the angel-with-drawn-sword tradition.[39:2]

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney: two book-length defenses (1882, 1884) plus decades of Woman's Exponent contributions across the 1870s and 1880s.[27:1][29:1][30:2][28:1]

The asymmetry between the CES Letter's selection and the actual primary-source corpus is striking. The CES Letter's case rests on one teenage diary entry (Helen at 14) and a few selected passages from Helen's 1881 private letter. The affirmative case rests on dozens of adult women's published, sworn, and reminiscent affirmations spanning the rest of their lives. This is not a hidden corpus — it is the bulk of the primary-source record on Joseph's plural marriages — and the CES Letter's selective omission of it is one of the strongest indicators that the section is rhetorical rather than evidentiary.

Key Point

The CES Letter quotes one teenage diary; the historical record contains decades of adult published defenses by the same women. The asymmetry is the section's central distortion. (The adolescent distress is also real and documented — see the Compton section above; the article is not arguing the adult voices erase the contemporary distress, only that an honest account quotes both.)

Warren Jeffs comparison ​

The CES Letter's most visually charged page is the side-by-side chart comparing Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs (p. 59):

MetricJoseph SmithWarren Jeffs
Number of wives3478
Age of youngest wife1412
Other men's wives1121
Mother/daughter pairs17
Biological sister wives856
Under age 18 wives724

The chart's rhetorical effect is to make the categories appear commensurable — as if Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs were practicing the same kind of behavior, only at different scales. The CES Letter follows the chart with the assertion: "Today, Warren Jeffs is more closely aligned to Joseph Smith's Mormonism than the modern LDS Church is."[1:1]

The strongest single piece of analytical refutation — and the one this article will let do the central work — is Bennett's non-accusation:

Joseph's most aggressive enemies, who had every incentive to make the worst possible charge, did not accuse him of sexual coercion of a minor. Bennett knew everyone in Nauvoo. He had been Mayor, a counselor in the First Presidency, and was actively trying to destroy Joseph by 1842. His History of the Saints deployed every conceivable angle of attack: lying, theft, treason, sexual license among adult women, the alleged abortion procurement (which Bennett later admitted was his own practice). Bennett did not accuse Joseph of statutory-style sexual contact with Helen Mar Kimball or any other young wife. William Law's Nauvoo Expositor — the document that produced the chain of events leading to Joseph's death — likewise did not make that charge. The Sangamo Journal critics did not. If 14-year-old Helen had been a sexual victim in the modern sense, Bennett (who knew everything happening in Nauvoo) would have made the charge. Bennett's silence on age-based sexual coercion is the strongest single piece of evidence against the predatory reading.[16:2] (One caveat: Bennett's own private practice in Nauvoo involved sexual relations with women of similar ages, so the silence may partly reflect mutual silence on both sides — and 19th-century legal frameworks did not criminalize statutory-style sexual contact at modern ages. Better framed as "Bennett did not accuse Joseph of coercion" than as "Joseph was never charged with a sexual crime.")

Beyond the Bennett-silence argument, the chart elides several categorical differences:

  • Convicted criminal record. Warren Jeffs is a convicted child rapist — sentenced in 2011 to life plus 20 years for two counts of sexual assault of a child (Texas v. Warren Steed Jeffs, 2011), based on his own audio recordings of the assaults. There is no comparable evidence of any Joseph Smith sexual offense in any documentary record.

  • Documented children. Joseph: zero biological children from any plural wife (DNA-confirmed in every credible historical claim of paternity that has surfaced for testing — six tested cases, including the strongest deathbed-attributed case, with the scope qualifier from the DNA section above).[13:3] Jeffs: dozens of biological children from forced child marriages, documented in court records.

  • Doctrinal continuity. The modern LDS Church teaches Joseph's restored gospel — including the celestial sealing ordinance Joseph practiced — but does not practice plural marriage. Jeffs's FLDS Church broke from the LDS Church a century after Joseph's death and teaches doctrines (including racial and abuse doctrines) that the LDS Church explicitly rejects. The "more closely aligned" claim has no doctrinal substance.

Joseph Smith vs. Warren Jeffs — conduct-category comparisonA side-by-side matrix comparing Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs across four categorical conduct categories the CES Letter's surface-numeric chart omits. Row 1, convicted sexual offenses: Smith zero; Jeffs two counts, life plus twenty years (Texas, 2011). Row 2, biological children DNA-confirmed from plural wives: Smith zero across six tested historical claims; Jeffs dozens documented in court records. Row 3, contemporary critic coercion accusations: Smith zero from Bennett, Law, or the Sangamo Journal; Jeffs documented prosecution record using his own audio recordings. Row 4, women's adult published defenses of the practice: Smith dozens spanning decades — Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Eliza R. Snow, Lucy Walker, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner; Jeffs none — former plural wives testified against him for the prosecution. The conduct categories show categorical differences; the CES Letter's surface-numeric comparison obscures them.The CES Letter compares surface numbers; the conduct categories show categorical differenceJoseph Smithprophet, 1830s–1844, no chargesWarren JeffsFLDS prophet, convicted 2011Convictedsexualoffenses0never charged withany sexual offense2counts, sexual assaultof a child (Texas 2011)life + 20 yearsBiologicalchildren(DNA-confirmed,plural wives)0across 6 DNA-testedhistorical claims (Perego);every credible attributiondozensdocumented in Texas courtrecords, including childrenfrom underage marriagesCoercionaccusationsfrom contemporarycritics0Bennett, Law, Sangamo Journalattacked Joseph on every frontbut not for sexual coerciondocumentedFBI prosecution record;conviction rested on Jeffs'sown audio recordingsWomen'sadultpublisheddefensesdozensHelen Mar Kimball,Lucy Walker, Eliza R. Snow,Lightner — across decades0no FLDS plural wife haspublished an adult defense;former wives testified against
The CES Letter's chart compares surface counts (number of wives, age of youngest, mother/daughter pairs). The conduct categories — convictions, biological offspring, contemporary coercion accusations, women's adult defenses — show that the comparison is not a matter of scale but of categorical difference. Joseph and Jeffs do not belong on the same chart.

The Salt Lake Tribune — sympathetic to neither the LDS Church nor the FLDS Church — produced a side-by-side comparison that reaches the opposite conclusion of the CES Letter chart, focusing on the conduct rather than the surface counts.[48]

The comparison is not analysis; it is rhetorical false equivalence. The chart works by listing commensurate-sounding numerical categories without commensurate underlying behaviors. The CES Letter chart cites only cesletter.org/polygamy/54 for its source — there is no scholarly source for the comparison, because no scholar working from the actual documentary record has produced one.

The genuine difficulties ​

A faithful response to the CES Letter on this section has to concede directly the points the Letter is right about:

  1. Helen Mar Kimball was 14. The age is real. No defense erases the modern moral weight of that fact. Foster and Hales contextualize it; they do not dissolve it. Helen's 1881 Autobiography records Joseph telling her her family's exaltation depended on her acceptance — the salvation-of-family framing in Helen's own writing.
  2. Public denials happened. The 1842 affidavit was signed by people who knew it was misleading. The 1844 "only one wife" sermon was made amid 30+ sealings. Carefully-worded denial is still denial — and the Bruno 2024 systematic-pattern argument extends the difficulty across roughly a decade rather than letting it reduce to a few discrete moments.
  3. Several women later described distress. Helen's "thorny path" passage is real. So is Heber's three-day fast. So is Emma's anguish. So is Zina's lifelong sorrow. So is Vilate's spiritual struggle. Compton documents the distress at length, and this article has quoted the primary sources directly rather than summarizing them away.
  4. Joseph proposed without Emma's knowledge in many cases. Several wives were sealed without Emma being told until afterward, including the Partridge sisters who lived in the Smith home.
  5. The Sarah Ann Whitney letter (Aug 18, 1842) asks Sarah to come to Joseph's hiding place specifically when Emma is not at home, and explicitly frames Emma's presence as the threat to "safety." The letter exists, the language is what it appears to be, and no defense fully erases it.
  6. The "promise of eternal salvation for your family" framing is structurally coercive even if every individual promise was theologically sincere. A 14-year-old does not freely consent in any modern sense to a sealing she has been told her family's exaltation depends on — and Helen's 1881 Autobiography records Joseph using exactly that framing.
  7. The angel-with-drawn-sword tradition has limits. It rests on late reminiscent accounts within a religious community, covers only the 1834–1842 onset period, and cannot be deployed as exoneration of Joseph in the same way the salvation-of-family framing implicates the women's consent.

These are real difficulties. They are not the whole picture, but they are not minor either, and any treatment of the marriages that does not engage them — or that engages them only to dismiss them — is not honest.

Assessment ​

The CES Letter's case in this section is built on a genuine fact (a 14-year-old sealing) and a series of selective omissions: the eternity-only category, the absence of cohabitation, the adult Helen's published defenses, the DNA evidence, the women's affirmative testimonies, the angel-with-drawn-sword tradition's onset-period coverage, Joseph's reluctance, the refusals he accepted, the demographic context. The fact is real. The omissions are extensive. The Warren Jeffs comparison is the rhetorical device that papers over the gap between the fact and the omissions — by reducing all the sealings to a single number that can be set next to a convicted child rapist's number.

The honest reconstruction of Joseph's plural marriages produces a more difficult and less satisfying picture than either the CES Letter's "religious predator" or the apologetic tradition's "this was easy." The defensible points, individually:

  • Joseph practiced plural marriage as a doctrinal restoration he believed God had commanded.
  • He delayed for years and described being compelled by repeated visionary experiences, though the corroborating accounts are late reminiscent attestations and the angel narrative covers only the onset period.
  • He performed sealings in three categories — time-and-eternity (about 12), eternity-only, and dynastic — though Hales's typology is contested and the documentary silence for ~22 sealings is silence rather than affirmative evidence.
  • He proposed to women who refused; he accepted those refusals.
  • He produced no biological children from any plural wife in every credible historical claim that has surfaced for testing — six tested cases, including the strongest deathbed-attributed case.
  • Most of the women who survived him defended the practice as adults across decades of published writing, even while documenting that it had cost them deeply. Several women left contemporaneous and reminiscent records of distress that no honest account can minimize.

These points are individually defensible. They do not stack into a clean cumulative vindication, and this article is not framing them as one.

What the evidence does foreclose is the specific CES Letter framing — that Joseph operated as a sexual predator concealing predatory behavior under religious cover, that he was "more closely aligned with Warren Jeffs than with the modern LDS Church," that the practice produced victims whose distress was the truer testimony than their adult reflections. The evidence forecloses this framing categorically. Joseph was not Warren Jeffs. He was a man practicing what he understood as a difficult divine command, in a manner that produced no biological children that any historical record attributes to him, that the women defended as adults across decades of subsequent writing, and that left no documentary trace of the sexual-predator pattern the CES Letter assumes.

The remaining honest difficulty is the moral weight of the fact that Joseph practiced and concealed a marriage system that imposed real costs on his wife and on at least some of his plural wives, justified by revelations he sincerely believed but could not publicly confirm. That difficulty is not trivial. A reader can engage Joseph's prophetic record and conclude the difficulty is heavy. The faithful position weighs that difficulty against the totality of Joseph's mission — the Book of Mormon, the First Vision accounts, the doctrinal restoration, the establishment of a church now numbering 17 million members — and concludes that the difficulty does not undo the larger truth claim. That weighing is genuinely difficult, and it is the work the CES Letter's selective rhetoric is trying to short-circuit.

When the polygamy questions get genuinely hard and the historical record does not yield clean answers — and in places, it does not — what stands firm is the Book of Mormon: produced in roughly 60 working days with no substantive revisions, no whistleblowers among the witnesses, and no credible naturalistic explanation. The Book of Mormon's existence is the most tangible evidence that Joseph was what he claimed to be — and that the harder questions about his personal practice of plural marriage, while real, do not by themselves undo the larger truth claim.

For related coverage, see D&C 132 Contradictions for the textual analysis of the revelation that authorized plural marriage, and Polyandry for the case-by-case treatment of the eleven sealings to women with living husbands.

  1. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Polygamy | Polyandry," pp. 51–55, with comparison chart on p. 59. ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997). Compton's chapter 16 (Helen Mar Kimball) catalogs the adolescent record drawn on in this article. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013). Companion site: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 2014. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. "Joseph Smith, John C. Bennett, and the Extradition Attempt, 1842," BYU Religious Studies Center. https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-seer/joseph-smith-john-c-bennett-extradition-attempt-1842 ↩︎

  6. The 1892 Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ at Independence ("Temple Lot") case is the legal proceeding in which the LDS Church needed to establish that Joseph had practiced plural marriage with conjugal relations to defeat the RLDS claim that he had not. Three of Joseph's plural widows testified: Emily Dow Partridge Young, Malissa Lott Willes, and Lucy Walker Kimball. Court records and analysis: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ ↩︎

  7. Brian C. Hales, "Did Plural Marriages Include Sexual Relations?," Joseph Smith's Polygamy. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/plural-marriages-sexual/ — Hales's earlier 2017 BYU Studies treatment phrased the figure as "approximately 12"; his more recent josephsmithspolygamy.org common-questions page phrases it as "approximately 10" with three other ambiguous cases. Both phrasings are defensible against the documentary record; this article uses the 10–12 range to capture both. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. Brian C. Hales, "The Joseph Smith–Sarah Ann Whitney Letter: A Reassessment," and the Hales/Quinn dialogue summary on sexual polyandry. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/dialogues/hales-quinn/ and Brian C. Hales, "Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Response to D. Michael Quinn." https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Quinns-FINAL-RESPONSE.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  9. "Revelation, 27 July 1842," The Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-27-july-1842/1 ↩︎

  10. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1881 Autobiography, in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1997). Appendix one (full text) at https://rsc.byu.edu/womans-view/appendix-one ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  11. Todd Compton, "Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney" (essay/review responding to the In Sacred Loneliness chapter, available at the author's site). http://toddmcompton.com/revhmk5.html and Todd Compton, "A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/a-trajectory-of-plurality-an-overview-of-joseph-smiths-thirty-three-plural-wives/ ↩︎

  12. Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Plural Wives After the Martyrdom (Ensign Peak Foundation). https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Joseph-Smith’s-Plural-Wives-after-the-Martyrdom.pdf ↩︎

  13. Ugo A. Perego, "Using Science to Answer Questions from Latter-day Saint History: The Case of Josephine Lyon's Paternity," BYU Studies 57, no. 2 (2018). https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/using-science-to-answer-questions-from-latter-day-saint-history Earlier rulings (Mosiah Hancock, Oliver Buell, Moroni Pratt, Zebulon Jacobs, Orrison Smith) appear in Forensic Science International: Genetics (2005, 2007). ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  14. "Threats / Promises of Salvation," Debunking-CESLetter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/threats/ ↩︎

  15. "Marriages to Young Women," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women ↩︎

  16. Craig L. Foster, "Assessing the Criticisms of Early-Age Latter-Day Saint Marriages," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019). https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/assessing-the-criticisms-of-early-age-latter-day-saint-marriages/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  17. David Keller, "Timely Statistics Vindicate the Prophet," FAIR Blog (Dec 18, 2010). https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2010/12/18/timely-statistics-vindicate-the-prophet See also "19th-century Nuptiality and Anti-Mormon Propaganda," FAIR Blog (Nov 5, 2009). https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2009/11/05/nuptiality-and-propagand ↩︎

  18. Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001). https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p075605 ↩︎

  19. The 23–27% census figure is from 1860–1880 census data and applies to the 1840s only by inference; the minimum-legal-age statistics show what was permitted, not what was median. The body uses these statistics as the floor of the legal range and the upper-end of demographic prevalence, not as evidence that 14 was unremarkable. The argument-from-silence (no Nauvoo contemporary criticized Joseph on age grounds) is the load-bearing piece of the contextual case, not the demographic data. ↩︎

  20. "John C. Bennett and Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Addressing the Question of Reliability," Mormon Polygamy Documents. https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/john-c-bennett-joseph-smiths-polygamy-addressing-question-reliability/ See also "Bennett Alleged Abortions": https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/abortions/ ↩︎ ↩︎

  21. "Helen Mar Kimball: Circumstances of Her Plural Marriage," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball/Circumstances_of_her_plural_marriage and the FAIR Helen Mar Kimball hub at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Helen_Mar_Kimball ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  22. "Helen Mar Kimball," Debunking-CESLetter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/helen-mar-kimball/ ↩︎

  23. Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, an Apostle: The Father and Founder of the British Mission (Salt Lake City: Kimball Family, 1888), chapter on the early Nauvoo period containing the "Abrahamic test" episode. ↩︎

  24. The Whitney biography records that Heber spent three days fasting in agonized indecision and was bringing Vilate to Joseph's upper room intending to comply when Joseph wept and said it had been a test. The same documentary record is consistent with an alternative reading — a request that proceeded until its consequences became real, then was abandoned. Apologetic writing sometimes deploys the episode as evidence of Joseph's non-predatory character on the grounds that the test was withdrawn before Vilate was actually delivered; this article does not, because the documentary record does not unambiguously support that interpretive use. ↩︎

  25. Michael H. Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816–1844 (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2005), 609. Marquardt characterizes Helen Mar Kimball's sealing as "a spiritual one unlike other wives who had sexual relations with the prophet" — a non-LDS critical historian's reading of the documentary record. ↩︎

  26. Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons (Lynn, MA: Catherine Lewis, 1848), p. 19. Catherine Lewis was a non-LDS apostate (or, in some characterizations, a hostile former associate) whose 1848 anti-Mormon pamphlet purports to record what Helen Mar Kimball had said to Lewis's mother. The "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony… they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it" line appears in Lewis's Narrative and is widely quoted in critical scholarship; it is not, however, attested in any surviving Helen Mar Kimball Whitney autograph or signed text. The article does not lean on this passage as primary documentation of Helen's voice. FAIR's Helen Mar Kimball page flags the passage as suspect on grounds of hostile context and secondhand chain of reporting: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball/Circumstances_of_her_plural_marriage ↩︎ ↩︎

  27. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith Editor of the Lamoni Iowa Herald (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882). Full text: https://archive.org/details/plural-marriage-as-taught-by-the-prophet-joseph ↩︎ ↩︎

  28. Augusta Joyce Crocheron, comp., Representative Women of Deseret (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884), biographical sketch of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney containing the "I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right" quotation. Quoted via FAIR's Helen Mar Kimball page. ↩︎ ↩︎

  29. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Why We Practice Plural Marriage (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884). Full text: https://josephsmithfoundation.org/why-we-practice-plural-marriage-helen-mar-kimball-whitney/ ↩︎ ↩︎

  30. Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, eds., A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs/36/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  31. Richard L. Bushman reflection on Rough Stone Rolling (twentieth-anniversary perspective), Times & Seasons, September 2025. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2025/09/richard-bushman-reflects-on-rough-stone-rolling/ ↩︎

  32. "DNA Rules out: Joseph Smith Has Descendants Other Wives," Joseph Smith Jr. Society. https://josephsmithjr.org/dna-rules-out-joseph-smith-has-descendants-other-wives/ Aggregator of all six Perego rulings with primary-source citations. ↩︎

  33. "Notice," Times and Seasons 3, no. 23 (October 1, 1842), pp. 939–940 (the affidavit denying that the Church taught any system of marriage other than the published Doctrine and Covenants). ↩︎

  34. History of the Church, vol. 6, ch. 19, p. 411 (May 26, 1844). The full sermon, as redacted in the History of the Church, includes the "I can only find one" passage. ↩︎

  35. "John C. Bennett and Plural Marriage at Nauvoo," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo ↩︎

  36. "Public Denials of Polygamy," Debunking-CESLetter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/public-denials/ and "Carefully Worded Denials in Nauvoo." https://debunking-cesletter.com/polygamy-polyandry-1/carefully-worded-denials-in-nauvoo/ ↩︎

  37. Cheryl L. Bruno, ed., Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2024). https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/secret-covenants The volume's introduction and several contributing chapters develop the systematic-pattern reading of the public denials. A faithful review of the volume — discussing both its critical and faithful-leaning chapters — appears at Times & Seasons: https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/09/secret-covenants-a-review/ Note: the volume is mixed-perspective and includes at least one faithful-leaning chapter (Tensmeyer) focused on rebutting modern online personalities who deny that Joseph practiced polygamy at all. The article does not cite Tensmeyer for the systematic-deception argument because that is not what that chapter is doing; the systematic-deception argument rests on Bruno's editorial framing and on Compton's parallel work. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  38. Brian C. Hales, Encouraging Joseph Smith to Practice Plural Marriage: The Accounts of the Angel with a Drawn Sword (Ensign Peak Foundation). https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  39. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, 1902 signed statement and address at Brigham Young University, April 14, 1905. The 1902 statement contains the verbatim phrase "The angel came to him three times, the last time with a drawn sword and threatened his life"; the 1905 BYU address adds Lightner's own first-person account of receiving an angelic visitation. Both are quoted and contextualized in Hales, Encouraging Joseph Smith to Practice Plural Marriage (see [38:3]), and at https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/mary-elizabeth-rollins/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  40. Bruno 2024 and other critical readings note that the angel tradition may function as post-hoc theological framing the women adopted — a story that became foundational to their own self-understanding of their sealings and that was retold within a community shaped by that narrative. The accounts are corroborative within that community, but they are not independent in the strict epistemic sense the word usually implies; the earliest written accounts post-date Joseph's death by years. After the initial doctrinal acceptance Joseph was making decisions: approaching specific women, proposing specific sealings, selecting timing and circumstance. The angel narrative does not displace the agency Joseph exercised over those subsequent decisions. ↩︎

  41. Helen wrote book-length defenses at 54 and 56. Lucy Walker testified under oath at 78. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner gave her BYU address at 86. Eliza R. Snow led the Relief Society for nearly two decades after Joseph's death. The mature voices are also testimony, and they are testimony from women who had had decades to reflect on what the practice had cost them. Compton's selective emphasis on the agonized period is a real interpretive choice, and it is the choice that downstream critical writing has built on. ↩︎

  42. "Letter to Newel K., Elizabeth Ann Smith, and Sarah Ann Whitney, 18 August 1842," The Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-newel-k-elizabeth-ann-smith-and-sarah-ann-whitney-18-august-1842/1 The transcribed text quoted in this article preserves the Joseph Smith Papers' editorial conventions, including bracketed clarifications where the manuscript spelling departs from modern orthography. ↩︎ ↩︎

  43. Don Bradley, "Knowing Brother Joseph: How the Historical Record Demonstrates the Prophet's Religious Sincerity," FAIR Conference (August 2023). https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2023-old/knowing-brother-joseph-how-the-historical-record-demonstrates-the-prophets-religious-sincerity ↩︎

  44. Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994). https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p062919 ↩︎ ↩︎

  45. Brian C. Hales, "Lucy Walker," plural-wives biography. https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/ and "Lucy Walker: Evidence of Sexuality." https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/plural-marriages-sexual/lucy-walker-evidence-of-sexuality/ ↩︎

  46. Lucy Walker Kimball affidavit (1888) and 1892 Temple Lot trial testimony. Aggregator entries: https://bhroberts.org/records/0nGjSv-0SC25k/lucy_walker_swears_affidvait_to_being_a_plural_wife_of_joseph_smith_and_bears_her_testimony_of_plural_marriage and https://bhroberts.org/records/q7W1rb-1abcnc/newspaper_report_of_lucy_walkers_public_testimony_of_joseph_and_polygamy ↩︎

  47. Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, ed., The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2000). https://upcolorado.com/utah-state-university-press/personal-writings-of-eliza-roxcy-snow ↩︎

  48. "Comparing Mormon Founder, FLDS Leader on Polygamy," Salt Lake Tribune. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=52371806&itype=CMSID ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present