FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?

2025-11-16T18:28:06Z

SarahAllen: /* Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?==
===Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will one day receive a body===
In a trio of discourses, Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will eventually receive a body and become resurrected.

On January 30, 1842, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>Jan 30[th] [1842] Joseph the Seer taught the following principles that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the Holy Ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 124 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory All Spirits that have bodies have power over those that have not hence men have power over Devils &c<ref>Discourse, 30 January 1842, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-30-january-1842/</ref></blockquote>

On August 27, 1843, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has<ref> Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 25, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

And finally, on June 16, 1844, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual Body. and waiting to take to himself a body as the saviour did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies. for the Saviour says the works that my father did do I also and these are the works; he took himself a body and then Laid down his Life that he might take it up again<ref> Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by George Laub, p. 30, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/2. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

===We have no canonized revelation on this topic===

Because nothing has been canonized on this topic, leaders of the Church have consequently discouraged pronouncements or speculation on this subject.

===Joseph Fielding Smith: "I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation"===
Before he was president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

<blockquote>
AVOID SPECULATING ON DESTINY OF THE SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost is not a personage with a body of flesh and bones, and in this respect differs from the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is not a woman, as some have declared, and therefore is not the mother of Jesus Christ.

It is a waste of time to speculate in relation to his jurisdiction. We know what has been revealed and that the Holy Ghost, sometimes spoken of as the Holy Spirit, and Comforter, is the third member of the Godhead, and that he, being in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son, reveals to man by the spirit of revelation and prophecy the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our great duty is so to live that we may be led constantly in light and truth by this Comforter so that we may not be deceived by the many false spirits that are in the world.

I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation. He is a member of the Godhead, with great power and authority, with a most wonderful mission which must be performed by a spirit. This has satisfied me without delving into mysteries that would be of no particular benefit.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Bruce R. McConkie: "expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless"===

In the same vein, though this comment was made before the quotations from Joseph Smith were discovered by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

<blockquote>
In this dispensation, at least, nothing has been revealed as to [The Holy Ghost's] origin or destiny; expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Mormon Doctrine|pages=359}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

[[de:Frage: Wer ist der Heilige Geist und hat oder wird er jemals einen physischen Körper haben?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?

2025-11-16T18:26:50Z

SarahAllen: /* Bruce R. McConkie: "expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless" */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?==
===Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body===
In a trio of discourses, Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body.

On January 30, 1842, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>Jan 30[th] [1842] Joseph the Seer taught the following principles that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the Holy Ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 124 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory All Spirits that have bodies have power over those that have not hence men have power over Devils &c<ref>Discourse, 30 January 1842, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-30-january-1842/</ref></blockquote>

On August 27, 1843, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has<ref> Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 25, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

And finally, on June 16, 1844, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual Body. and waiting to take to himself a body as the saviour did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies. for the Saviour says the works that my father did do I also and these are the works; he took himself a body and then Laid down his Life that he might take it up again<ref> Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by George Laub, p. 30, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/2. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

===We have no canonized revelation on this topic===

Because nothing has been canonized on this topic, leaders of the Church have consequently discouraged pronouncements or speculation on this subject.

===Joseph Fielding Smith: "I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation"===
Before he was president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

<blockquote>
AVOID SPECULATING ON DESTINY OF THE SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost is not a personage with a body of flesh and bones, and in this respect differs from the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is not a woman, as some have declared, and therefore is not the mother of Jesus Christ.

It is a waste of time to speculate in relation to his jurisdiction. We know what has been revealed and that the Holy Ghost, sometimes spoken of as the Holy Spirit, and Comforter, is the third member of the Godhead, and that he, being in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son, reveals to man by the spirit of revelation and prophecy the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our great duty is so to live that we may be led constantly in light and truth by this Comforter so that we may not be deceived by the many false spirits that are in the world.

I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation. He is a member of the Godhead, with great power and authority, with a most wonderful mission which must be performed by a spirit. This has satisfied me without delving into mysteries that would be of no particular benefit.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Bruce R. McConkie: "expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless"===

In the same vein, though this comment was made before the quotations from Joseph Smith were discovered by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

<blockquote>
In this dispensation, at least, nothing has been revealed as to [The Holy Ghost's] origin or destiny; expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Mormon Doctrine|pages=359}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

[[de:Frage: Wer ist der Heilige Geist und hat oder wird er jemals einen physischen Körper haben?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?

2025-11-16T18:25:11Z

SarahAllen: /* Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?==
===Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body===
In a trio of discourses, Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body.

On January 30, 1842, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>Jan 30[th] [1842] Joseph the Seer taught the following principles that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the Holy Ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 124 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory All Spirits that have bodies have power over those that have not hence men have power over Devils &c<ref>Discourse, 30 January 1842, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-30-january-1842/</ref></blockquote>

On August 27, 1843, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has<ref> Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 25, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

And finally, on June 16, 1844, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual Body. and waiting to take to himself a body as the saviour did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies. for the Saviour says the works that my father did do I also and these are the works; he took himself a body and then Laid down his Life that he might take it up again<ref> Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by George Laub, p. 30, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/2. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

===We have no canonized revelation on this topic===

Because nothing has been canonized on this topic, leaders of the Church have consequently discouraged pronouncements or speculation on this subject.

===Joseph Fielding Smith: "I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation"===
Before he was president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

<blockquote>
AVOID SPECULATING ON DESTINY OF THE SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost is not a personage with a body of flesh and bones, and in this respect differs from the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is not a woman, as some have declared, and therefore is not the mother of Jesus Christ.

It is a waste of time to speculate in relation to his jurisdiction. We know what has been revealed and that the Holy Ghost, sometimes spoken of as the Holy Spirit, and Comforter, is the third member of the Godhead, and that he, being in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son, reveals to man by the spirit of revelation and prophecy the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our great duty is so to live that we may be led constantly in light and truth by this Comforter so that we may not be deceived by the many false spirits that are in the world.

I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation. He is a member of the Godhead, with great power and authority, with a most wonderful mission which must be performed by a spirit. This has satisfied me without delving into mysteries that would be of no particular benefit.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Bruce R. McConkie: "expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless"===

In the same vein, Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

<blockquote>
In this dispensation, at least, nothing has been revealed as to [The Holy Ghost's] origin or destiny; expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Mormon Doctrine|pages=359}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

[[de:Frage: Wer ist der Heilige Geist und hat oder wird er jemals einen physischen Körper haben?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?

2025-11-16T18:22:43Z

SarahAllen: /* We have no revelation on this topic */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?==
===Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body===
In a trio of discourses, Joseph Smith appears to have taught that the Holy Ghost will get a body.

On January 30, 1842, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>Jan 30[th] [1842] Joseph the Seer taught the following principles that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having1 redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the Holy Ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints2 [p. [3]] who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many3 their were many mansions even 124 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory5 All Spirits that have bodies have power over those that have not hence men have power over Devils &c<ref>Discourse, 30 January 1842, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-30-january-1842/</ref></blockquote>

On August 27, 1843, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has<ref> Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 25, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

And finally, on June 16, 1844, Joseph Smith taught:

<blockquote>But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual Body. and waiting to take to himself a body as the saviour did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies. for the Saviour says the works that my father did do I also and these are the works; he took himself a body and then Laid down his Life that he might take it up again<ref> Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by George Laub, p. 30, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/2. Punctuation and capitalization retained from original.</ref></blockquote>

===We have no canonized revelation on this topic===

Because nothing has been canonized on this topic, leaders of the Church have consequently discouraged pronouncements or speculation on this subject.

===Joseph Fielding Smith: "I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation"===
Before he was president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

<blockquote>
AVOID SPECULATING ON DESTINY OF THE SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost is not a personage with a body of flesh and bones, and in this respect differs from the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is not a woman, as some have declared, and therefore is not the mother of Jesus Christ.

It is a waste of time to speculate in relation to his jurisdiction. We know what has been revealed and that the Holy Ghost, sometimes spoken of as the Holy Spirit, and Comforter, is the third member of the Godhead, and that he, being in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son, reveals to man by the spirit of revelation and prophecy the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our great duty is so to live that we may be led constantly in light and truth by this Comforter so that we may not be deceived by the many false spirits that are in the world.

I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation. He is a member of the Godhead, with great power and authority, with a most wonderful mission which must be performed by a spirit. This has satisfied me without delving into mysteries that would be of no particular benefit.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Bruce R. McConkie: "expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless"===

In the same vein, Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

<blockquote>
In this dispensation, at least, nothing has been revealed as to [The Holy Ghost's] origin or destiny; expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Mormon Doctrine|pages=359}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

[[de:Frage: Wer ist der Heilige Geist und hat oder wird er jemals einen physischen Körper haben?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands

2025-11-15T17:41:58Z

SarahAllen: /* Sylvia Sessions Lyon */

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}

=What do we know about Joseph Smith's "polyandrous" sealings or plural marriages?=
=Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings=

Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history. This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors. To complicate the issue further, we understand little about how Joseph and his contemporaries saw these relationships. Mary Elizabeth Rollins seemed to recognize that later students of the period would not have the necessary information to understand her choices as a polyandrous wife: "[I] could explain some things in regard to my living with [my first husband] after becoming the Wife of Another [i.e., Joseph], which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious—and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to John A. Young (1892); cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," ''Sunstone'' 10/ 9 (Issue #32 / January 1986): 32; also cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 43; Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''18/ 3 (Fall 1985): 77. (Need more citation info here {{nc}}).</ref>

Lacking such perfect satisfaction, we can still offer some tentative observations and conclusions.

=The doctrine of sealing and adoption=

Plural marriage was one means by which Joseph implemented the broader doctrine of sealing. Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole. "Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship," observed Richard Bushman, "but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."<ref>{{Book:Bushman:RSR|pages=440}}</ref> Alma Allred agrees with Todd Compton that "[m]arriage, sealing and adoption, in fact, were nearly interchangeable concepts,"<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL|pages=637}}</ref> for Joseph's followers, but criticizes Compton because this principle is "much too important to be relegated to, or lost in a footnote" when discussing Joseph's plural marriages.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

Sealing creates new, eternal families, and "[a]s each new family came into being, it became another link in the chain of families stretching back to Adam, who was linked to God. Thus the 'family of God' became more than metaphor."<ref>{{BYUS|author=Gordon Irving|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/articleDownload.aspx?title=5123&linkURL=14.3IrvingLaw-40221750-48c0-4eef-b628-423a4648ba70.pdf The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900]|vol=14|num=3|date=Spring 1974|pages=294}}</ref> It is but a short step from sealing existing families to extending that privilege outward. Since many, if not most, of the saints would have family outside the church, there was an understandable anxiety that they be included in the new, eternal family being forged by Joseph.

Later in Church history, this was accomplished by adoption, where faithful members would serve as surrogate parents in the divine order. This practice was not without its problems, as some surrogates began to look on their adoption of others as a route to glory and power, both spiritual and temporal, rather than as a service for the family of heaven.<ref>Irving, "The Law of Adoption," 299–304.</ref> Adoption by living non-relatives was eventually replaced by the present practice of sealing members to deceased ancestors, with the expectation that definitive resolution of such matters can await the millennial years.

This expanded understanding, however, was decades in the future. In Joseph's day, the necessity of sealing was clear, and most members did not anticipate having faithful family to whom they could be sealed. The Mormons' anticipation of an imminent end to the world may have heightened the sense of urgency.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

The role of sealing in marriages was clear—as we will see, Joseph may have extended the role of marriage to binding not just his partners, but their spouses and family as well, into the divine family.

=Evaluating each polyandrous marriage=

Because we know little or nothing about some of Joseph's marriages, some authors succumb to the temptation to treat evidence in one marriage as evidence for them all.<ref>See {{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives|pages=83–84}} They criticize Compton's ''In Sacred Loneliness'' on these grounds.</ref> Each marriage, however, involved unique individuals and situations; we cannot turn them into carbon copies. For ease of discussion, however, we will divide the polyandrous marriages into three groups:

# Spouse is a non-member
# Spouse is a non-faithful LDS
# Spouse is faithful LDS
# Separated/divorced from their spouse at the time of their sealing to Joseph (i.e., ''pseudo''polyandry)

=Group 1: Women with non-member spouses=
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Ruth Vose Sayers|Ruth Vose Sayers]]=

Three of Joseph's plural marriages involved women who were married to non-member spouses. Of one, Ruth Vose Sayers, we know very little. She married Edward Sayers in 1841, and they had no children. Her husband remained friendly to Joseph Smith, as far as we know, to the end of Joseph's life.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=383}}</ref> Brian Hales notes that Church Historian Andrew Jensen's documents "regarding Ruth Vose Sayers demonstrate that her marriage was for 'eternity only,' without conjugal relations on earth,"<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 2/Full title|pages=362}}</ref> pointing out that Jenson wrote of Sayer's non-believing husband:

<blockquote>
[he] not attaching much important to \the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife \Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim her in this life. She \was/ accordingly <strike>the</strike> sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith's presence and thus <strike>were</strike> became numbered among the Prophets plural wives. <strike>She however</strike> \though she/ \continued to live with Mr. Sayers/ <strike>remained with her husband</strike>\ until his death.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1/Full title|pages=423}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]=

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner was among the earliest converts to the Church. She had married Adam Lightner on 11 August 1835.<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (July 1926): 197.</ref> Following the Haun's Mill massacre, Mary could have escaped General Clark's siege of Far West, since Governor Boggs had ordered the clandestine evacuation of his friend Adam Lightner and family prior to an anticipated assault on Far West. Mary, her husband, and sister-in-law refused the offer to leave, even though Clark insisted that all remaining men, women, and children "were to be destroyed."<ref>Lightner, 198–199.</ref>

Later in life, Mary reported that at age twelve, Joseph Smith "told me [in 1831] about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives; cited by {{Book:Newell Avery:Mormon Engima 2|pages=65}}</ref> She also described how
:God had Commanded him in July 1834 to take me for a Wife, but he had not dared to make it known to me, for when he received the Revelation; I was in Missouri and when he did see me, I was married. But he was again commanded, to fulfil the first revelation; or Suffer condemnation…<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Autobiography, Susa Young Gates Collection, UHI, 18–22, 24–24-25; cited {{Book:Hardy:Doing the Works of Abraham/Full title|pages=47}}</ref>
Mary described how "[t]he Prophet Joseph tried hard to get Mr. Lightner to go into the water, but he said he did not feel worthy, but would, some other time. Joseph said to me that he never would be baptized, unless it was a few moments before he died."<ref>Lightner: 202–203.</ref> Despite not being a member, Lightner was a loyal friend to the Saints and to Joseph, and died in Utah.

Of her sealing to Joseph, Mary wrote: "I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would have to contend with."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to Emeline B. Wells (1880); cited in {{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=43}} ; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 77; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland|Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]=

There is considerable debate as to whether Sarah Kingsley was sealed to Joseph Smith.<ref>{{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives/Short|pages=76}} They argue against her inclusion.</ref> Danel Bachman's pioneering study on plural marriage argued that there was "little supporting evidence for [her]…inclusion" on a list of Joseph's wives.<ref>{{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=108}}</ref> Todd Compton argues for Sarah's inclusion, since she is included on Andrew Jenson's list of plural wives, had a proxy marriage to Joseph Smith in the temple following the martyrdom, and because Eliza R. Snow is known to have been sealed to Joseph at Sarah's home. Compton holds—and I find his reasoning persuasive—that Joseph's decision to marry Eliza in front of Sarah makes little sense if Sarah had not already been introduced to plural marriage. (Though it must be admitted that Sarah could have been aware of plural marriage, but not practicing it.) Compton's argument is strengthened by the fact that Andrew Jenson also had access to Eliza R. Snow as a witness, so she could have confirmed Sarah's sealing.<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation/Full title}}</ref>

Sarah married John Cleveland, her second husband, on 10 June 1826, and she joined the Church in 1835. Her husband never joined the Church, but was a close friend of Joseph's. While Joseph was in Liberty Jail, Emma and her children were welcomed into the Cleveland's Quincy, Illinois home. Following his release in May 1839, Joseph rejoined his family and they remained in Sarah and John's home for three weeks.

While Joseph and most of the Church migrated to the Nauvoo region, the Clevelands remained in Illinois for a time. Though not a member, John continued to provide shelter and help to members of the Church who were victims of persecution. This aid given to the beleaguered Saints led to persecution against John and Sarah, and they eventually moved to Nauvoo.

Sarah served as a counselor to Emma Smith in the Nauvoo Relief Society, and at age 54 was probably sealed to Joseph Smith prior to Eliza R. Snow's marriage on 29 June 1842. It is not known if her husband knew of the sealing, but he remained friendly to Joseph and the Saints.<ref>Biographical information from {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=273–283}}</ref>

When Brigham Young and the Saints made plans to move west, Sarah remained behind with her husband. Various explanations for this decision exist, but in one account says that:

<blockquote>
Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…<ref>{{NC}}; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=283}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=Observations about the first group=

Though little is known of one woman, and it is debated whether another ought to be counted as a wife, these histories share some significant elements. All were faithful women who had sacrificed a great deal for the Church. All had a long association with Joseph Smith—he knew them and their families well. All were married to men who were good friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. We know little about Edward Sayers, but the other two husbands had made enormous sacrifices for the Saints. Both were willing to risk persecution and death for a religion of which they were not a part.

Given the importance which Joseph placed upon the sealing ordinances, it is not surprising that he wished to assure the salvation of such faithful women. We have only glimpses of Joseph's theology of sealing; it may even be that he hoped that by marrying/sealing these wives, their non-member husbands might also benefit from the blessings of sealing. Lightner and Cleveland were certainly two non-members whom Joseph and the Saints would have hoped to see saved with them.

=Group 2: Women with non-faithful LDS spouses=

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell|Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]=

Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell and her husband Norman joined the Church in 1836. By 1839, Norman had left the Church, and Prescindia noted that "the Lord gave me strength to Stand alone & keep the faith amid heavy persecution."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

"[I]n 1841 I entered into the New Everlasting Covenant," said Prescindia, "[I] was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, and to the best of my ability I have honored plural marriage, never speaking one word against the principle… Never in my life, in this kingdom, which is 44 years, have I doubted the truth of this great work."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Roots of ''Mormon Polygamy'', 1841–46: A Preliminary Demographic Report," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''27/ 1 (Spring 1994): 21; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref> Her motivation for the sealing to Joseph is alluded to by Emeline B. Wells:

She knew Joseph to be a man of God, and she had received many manifestations in proof of this, and consequently when he explained to her clearly the knowledge which he had obtained from the Lord, she accepted the sealing ordinance with Joseph as a sacred and holy confirmation.<ref>Emeline B. Wells (Need more citation info here).; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref>

Two of Prescinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, though DNA evidence has ruled one child out, and the claim for the other is extremely shaky (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

=Observations about the second group=

According to Emeline, this sealing served as a "holy confirmation," a completion or capstone on a life of faithfulness. As with the wives having non-member spouses, Prescindia's acceptance of sealing seems motivated by a desire to bind her into the family of faithful Saints, destined for exaltation even if her first husband did not continue faithful.

=Group 3: Women with faithful LDS spouses=

Six (or five, if one doubtful wife is excluded) of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were to women married to faithful LDS men.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Esther Dutcher|Esther Dutcher]]=

Daniel H. Wells wrote to Joseph F. Smith of a sealing between Joseph and Esther Dutcher. Wells' source of information was Dutcher's husband, Albert Smith (no relation to Joseph):

<blockquote>
It seems that she was sealed to Joseph the Prophet in the days of Nauvoo, though she still remained his wife, and afterwards nearly broke his heart by telling him of it, and expressing her intention of adhering to that relationship. He however got to feeling better over it, and acting for Joseph, had her sealed to him [in the temple--all of Joseph's marriages were understood to require resealing in the temple once it was completed], and to himself for time.<ref>Daniel H. Wells, Letter to Joseph F. Smith, 25 June 1888; cited in {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=424}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Patty Bartlett Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]=

Sylvia Session's mother Patty joined the Church in 1833, and was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842. The reaction of her husband David is unknown, but he remained a faithful member and diligent missionary. He later married a plural wife, which caused difficulties in their marriage.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=174–187}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde|Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]=

Nancy married future apostle Orson Hyde on 4 September 1834. He was involved briefly with apostasy at Far West in the fall of 1838, but had returned to the Church by March 1839 following a dramatic vision in which he saw the consequence of continued rebellion.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=234}}</ref>

There are [[Was Apostle Orson Hyde sent on a mission to dedicate Israel so that Joseph Smith could secretly marry his wife, Marinda Hyde, while he was away?|two sealing dates]] for Marinda— one in April 1842, while Orson was on a mission and the other May 1843, when Orson had returned. Only antagonistic accounts of this sealing exist.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238–239}}</ref> Of the four reports, two claim that Orson was aware of the sealing, and two claim that he was not.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!style="width:15%" |Author!!style="width:15%"|Date!!style="width:30%"|Claim!!style="width:40%"|Comments
|-
| Sidney Rigdon<ref>J. GI SON DIVINE [Sidney Rigdon], "To the Sisters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," ''Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate'' (Pittsburgh) 1/10 (15 March 1845): 154–158.</ref> ||1845||
*Orson unaware of marriage
*Orson refused to live with wife when he found out
||
Contrary to claim, Orson continued to live with Miranda and father children by her.
|-
| William Hall<ref>{{CriticalWork:Hall:Abominations of Mormonism/Full title|pages=113}}</ref> ||1852||
* Joseph demanded Miranda and all Orson's money to let him back in the Church
* "Many jokes were cracked at his [Hyde's] expense."
||
Very unlikely—no record of others mocking Hyde; Hall is unreliable on other marriages as well.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=239}}</ref> Orson's return to the quorum was in June 1839,<ref>See {{Book:Smith:HC/Short|pages=345|vol=3}} {{Book:Roberts:CHC|pages=24–25n12|vol=2}} {{Book:Woodruff:Journal|vol=1|pages=340|date=25 June 1839}}</ref> putting Hall's account two years too early for marriage.<ref>See {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238}}</ref>
|-
| Ann Eliza Young<ref>{{CriticalWork:Young:Wife No. 19/Full title|pages=324–326}}</ref>||1876||
* Orson did not know of marriage
* Angry when he learned of it
* Swore would not live with his wife; did so anyway.
||

Too young to have any first-hand knowledge of Nauvoo, her book's intent was clearly to titillate with stories of polygamous intrigue. Claims that Brigham told Orson that she was only to be his wife for time, and Joseph's for eternity—but this is frankly false, since sealed to Orson in early 1846.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=243}}: "Marinda was sealed to Orson Hyde, not Smith, for time and eternity on January 11, 1846."</ref> She also confuses the temporality, since she describes Hyde "in a furious passion," because "he thought it no harm for him to win the affection of another man's wife… but he did not propose having his rights interfered with even by the holy Prophet whose teachings he so implicitly followed" (326). Yet, Orson did not begin practicing plural marriage until after he knew of Miranda's sealing to Joseph.
|-
| John D. Lee<ref>{{CriticalWork:Lee:Mormonism Unvailed/Full title|pages=147}}</ref> ||1877||
* "Report said that Hyde's wife, with his consent, was sealed to Joseph for an eternal state, but I do not assert the fact."
||Lee's work was published posthumously and may have been altered by anti-Mormon editor.<ref>Need more citation info here {{NC}}</ref>
|-
|}

Unique to the Hyde's marriage is the fact that Marinda was sealed to Orson following Joseph's death. All of the Prophet's other polyandrous wives were posthumously sealed to Joseph by proxy.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=240–242}}</ref>

The Hydes were to divorce in 1870: "The precise reasons for the divorce are not known, but it appears that Orson was giving most of his attention to his younger wives at this time."<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=230–243}}</ref>

Two of Marinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, but this is very unlikely (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

{{SeeAlso|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Plural wives/Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde/Did not know father of her son|l1=Did Mrs. Hyde not know who fathered her son?|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Sent husbands on missions to steal wives|l2=Did Joseph send men on missions to steal their wives?}}

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes|Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]=

Elvira was married to Joseph at age twenty-nine. Her husband, Jonathan Holmes, was a pall-bearer at Joseph Smith's funeral. As Todd Compton remarks
<blockquote>
Though it is impossible to know for certain, the fact that Holmes was so close to Joseph Smith suggests that he knew of Smith’s marriage to his wife and permitted it…He later stood as proxy for Smith as Elvira married the prophet for eternity in the Nauvoo temple…This ‘first husband’ never wavered in his loyalty to the Mormon leader….<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=249}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee|Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]=

The inclusion of "Mrs. Durfee," as she was known, on the list of Joseph's wives is strongly contested among historians. Durfee is not found on Andrew Jenson's list of Joseph's plural wives. Todd Compton argues that Durfee's post-martyrdom proxy sealing to Joseph is evidence of a living marriage, as is the fact that she taught plural marriage to other prospective wives. Compton also holds that two hostile sources (John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt) confirm Durfee as a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=548}}</ref>

Danel Bachman's 1975 thesis does not include Durfee,<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation}}</ref> and her inclusion is contested by Anderson and Faulring, who question Compton's interpretation of the Sarah Pratt evidence:
<blockquote>
…assuming Sarah Pratt is accurately quoted, we are still in doubt about where she obtained her information. In Sacred Loneliness misleads the reader by claiming that "Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith's wives" (p. 260). But this changes the actual report of Sarah's comments on Mrs. Durfee: "I don't think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph's death. . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph's wives" (p. 701).<ref>See {{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=113–115}}</ref>
</blockquote>
I am inclined to agree that Sarah's statement argues against a marriage. I also find it strange that Andrew Jenson did not list her if she was a plural spouse. If, as in the case of Sarah Kingsley (see above) I side with Compton in agreeing that Eliza R. Snow could have confirmed Sarah's marriage for Jenson's list, then it strikes me as inconsistent to then assume that Eliza would not have likewise confirmed Mrs. Durfee's marriage for Jenson's list. Compton himself notes that Eliza and Durfee were close friends, and Jenson certainly had access to Eliza as a witness.<ref>Anderson and Faulring, "The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'')," {{NC}}</ref> There seems to me to be little doubt that Mrs. Durfee was associated with plural marriage, but I think her status as a wife during Joseph's lifetime dubious.

The only thing about which we can be certain is that Mrs. Durfee was sealed to Joseph by proxy after the martyrdom. Her LDS husband stood as proxy to Joseph. Their relationship seems to have been strained by this time—they were soon to divorce and each remarried.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=262}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs|Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]=

In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=263–264}}</ref>

Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
<blockquote>
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.<ref>Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006). I have a first draft of Wyatt’s paper that contains additional quotes and references, for which I am grateful.</ref>
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man."<ref>Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=80}}</ref>
</blockquote>
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience. These charges are examined in detail ([http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young here]). For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?

When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:

<blockquote>
Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"

A. "No, sir, I could not."

Q. "Not even the year?"

A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it."<ref> Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44.</ref>
</blockquote>

Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:

<blockquote>
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.<ref>Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young." </ref>
Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."<ref>Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," ''Saints Herald'', 52 (11 January 1905): 28 </ref>
</blockquote>

Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her sealing for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church. (See [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html here] for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.)

=Observations about the third group=

In Henry Jacob's and Albert Smith's cases, we have the clearest evidence of husbands of polyandrous wives who knew about Joseph's sealing to his spouse. Henry remained a devout member of the Church, continued to serve as a missionary, and stood proxy for Zina's sealing to Joseph. Albert Smith was initially troubled, but later felt better about the arrangement, and stood proxy for Joseph in ratifying the sealing after Joseph's death.

The faithful husbands of Joseph's other polyandrous wives likewise give no sign that they were troubled by the marriages—if they were aware of them. It is notable, however, that Joseph seemed to have a particularly close bond with these husbands, and there is no evidence that such bonds were threatened by the polyandry.

=Group 4: Women likely separated/divorced from their first husbands (i.e., pseudopolyandry)=

Two cases may represent women who did not consider themselves still married to their first husband.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sylvia Sessions Lyon|Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]=

Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on 21 April 1838. Joseph Smith performed the ceremony. She was sealed to Joseph Smith on 8 February 1842. Her husband Windsor's reaction is not recorded, but he was a faithful, active member of the Church at the time.

Windsor was excommunicated on 7 November 1842 because he sued stake president William Marks for repayment of a loan (Church members frowned on using secular courts to settle disputes between themselves).<ref>Todd Compton calls this a "church taboo … especially [with] cases involving highly visible leaders such as a stake president" (180). Compton leaves unmentioned that a caution against using non-believers' courts to settle differences between Christians goes back at least to the Pauline epistles (see {{b|1|Corinthians|6|1–8}}).</ref> Despite his excommunication, Windsor remained on close terms with Joseph; tradition holds that he was "a true friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Sylvia gave birth to a daughter, Josephine, on 8 February 1844, and there was evidence for many years that Joseph was the father (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]). In 2008, Brian Hales published work demonstrating that Todd Compton likely worked with incomplete data on Session's first marriage. In Hales's view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions's marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous.<ref>{{Paper:Hales:Sylvia Sessions 2008|pages=41–57}} See also {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=349–376}}.</ref>

Regardless, in 2016, DNA analysis ultimately disproved this speculation: Josephine was not a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.<ref>R. Scott Lloyd, "http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656112/Joseph-Smith-apparently-was-not-Josephine-Lyons-father-Mormon-History-Association-speaker-says.html?pg=all "Joseph Smith apparently was not Josephine Lyon's father, Mormon History Association speaker says,"] ''Deseret News'' (13 June 2016) </ref>Regardless, Windsor Lyon remained a close friend and ally of Joseph's—he was called as a witness at the trial of Joseph and Hyrum's assassins.

Windsor was rebaptized on 18 January 1846, and Sylvia was sealed to Joseph by proxy with her husband's permission. She was then sealed to Heber Kimball for time, though she continued to cohabitate with Windsor, who also took a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=177–186}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Heron Snider|Mary Heron Snider]]=

Mary Heron Snider's husband John died active and faithful in the Church. Further, he served a mission in England and was the first Mormon to preach there, served on the committee building the Nauvoo House, was appointed a "bodyguard" for Joseph's body following the martyrdom at Carthage.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464 467}}</ref> There is a one-sentence claim of sexual relations between her and Joseph by a son-in-law, Joseph E. Johnson.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,472}}</ref> Mary and her husband "seem to have endured significant periods of estrangement after 1833, with no pregnancies after Mary turned twenty nine. Also, the couple's marriage was never sealed, though the option was available....without addition[al] documentation, reliable conclusions are unattainable."<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,473}}</ref> It may be that Snider's marriage to Joseph parallels the case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was likely separated from her first husband prior to her plural marriage to Joseph.

{{SeeAlso|Mormon ordinances/Divorce/Nineteenth century|l1=Divorce in the 19th century}}

=A hypothesis—why so many early polyandrous marriages?=

Joseph's polyandry strikes us as a strange practice, but few have noted some of the strangest elements. Interestingly, after Joseph's resumption of plural marriage in April 1841, all of his marriages (with one exception) were polyandrous until 29 June 1842. The lone exception is the marriage to his dead brother's widow. Furthermore, of his eleven polyandrous marriages, all but two occurred before July 1843.

This early prominence, even predominance, of polyandry is counter-intuitive. Polyandrous marriages would seem to be the most risky for Joseph and his wives. With polyandry, Emma's reaction to the marriages would be the least of Joseph's worries. Unlike being sealed to single women, polyandrous sealings introduced an additional dangerous variable: the first husband! In teaching and practicing polyandry, Joseph ran the significant risk of a jealous husband learning of his arrangement with the wife, and exposing the explosive secret in hostile terms. Such a husband might also choose to threaten Joseph physically for wrongs to his wife's—and his own—honor.

The risk to Joseph is heightened when we appreciate that a single woman had no competing loyalties, while a polyandrous wife almost always had children and a husband to whom she was bound by love and loyalty. Finally, since a key justification for Mormon polygamy was the biblical model, polyandry would also have been the most difficult form to justify to potential initiates, since there is no biblical polyandry.

Yet when we examine Joseph's polyandrous marriages, none of these problems seem to surface. All of the men—member or non-member—were close friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. No wife seems to have second thoughts; none tearfully confessed all to her unsuspecting husband or Nauvoo society.

This common-sense analysis hinges, however, on the question of marital intimacy. If polyandrous sealings were not expected to involve sexual intimacy, then they were much less challenging for all involved—including Joseph and Emma. Emma would be far less troubled by a polyandrous marriage intended to seal Joseph to beloved friends than a marriage to single women living in her home. Joseph's natural—and, I suspect, profound—desire to keep the Lord's commandments and protect Emma's feelings would have been satisfied.

If the first husband was aware of the sealings, the faithful Saints would have been untroubled by a relationship which they saw as primarily binding their family to Joseph's, while non-member husbands would have seen it as a purely religious rite with a man for whom they retained great respect and affection.

=Could faithful members save the unfaithful or unbaptized?=

A skeptical reader might, at this point, suspect we are over-reaching for an explanation. There is evidence, however, that early Mormons firmly believed that a faithful spouse could help exalt a wayward or non-member spouse.

Twenty-one-year-old Isaiah Moses Coombs immigrated to Utah in 1855. To his grief, his childhood sweetheart refused to accompany him, despite their marriage the year before. Reflecting on the agonizing decision to go west without his non-member spouse, Coombs wrote:
<blockquote>
…not least was the consideration that I was obeying the voice of God and that I was taking a course that would secure my own glory and exaltation and that would eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my wife to me in bands that could not be broken. She was blind then but the day would come when she would see.<ref>Kate B. Carter, ed., ''Isaiah M[oses] Coombs from His Diary and Journal'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: published by Daughters of Utah Pioneers through Utah Printing Company, n.d.), 339, italics added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Coombs' wife was never to join the Church, and refused a later entreaty to return with him to Utah. Yet, he persisted in the conviction that his faithfulness to the sealing covenant would suffice to exalt his disbelieving, non-member wife in the hereafter, even if she did not accept the gospel in mortality.

This example is instructive, and is significant because the account was not written for public consumption. He had no polemic purpose, save to tell his life's story.

He was also not a "prominent" member of the Church—his reflections demonstrate how one rank-and-file member, living apart from the main body of saints because of poverty, understood matters in the early 1850s. Coombs' journal makes it wrenchingly clear that his decision to leave was extraordinarily difficult—if a relatively unknown young man, moving outside the hub of Church power in Nauvoo and Utah was thus convinced, it seems likely that other early members also saw their own engagement in sealing as sufficient to help save faithful, wayward, or non-member spouses.

=Further evidence against sexual polyandry=

=Nauvoo witnesses did not try to justify sexual polyandry=

Brian Hales notes that none of the members at Nauvoo attempted to justify sexual polyandry:

<blockquote>
Belinda Marden Pratt, a plural wife of Parley P. Pratt, wrote in 1854: "'Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?' To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands." On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that "a plurality of husbands is wrong." His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would "be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time." She replied, "I think it would." All of these individuals were involved with Nauvoo polygamy, and several were undoubtedly aware of Joseph Smith's sealings to legally married women, yet they made no effort to condone sexual polyandry, nor is there any evidence that any man but Joseph Smith engaged in polyandry in Nauvoo.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=393}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Nauvoo detractors likewise say nothing about sexual polyandry=

Hales remarks:

<blockquote>
A fourth group of polygamy insiders who may have left a record is comprised of the detractors. William Law, though a member of Joseph Smith's First Presidency, denounced plural marriage and accused Joseph Smith of adultery....In his split with Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844, the fact that Law did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry and never mentioned it so far as available documents indicate, is surprising. Polyandrous sexuality would have been more shocking that adultery at that time and place. So the absence of any reference to it suggests that Law was unaware of conjugality in those unions or purposefully chose to ignore them altogether. In the end, Law settled for a less explosive charge of adultery.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=396–397}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Hales also points out that John C. Bennett likewise did not invoke polyandry in his charges against Joseph:

<blockquote>
Even more impressive is the fact th[at] John C. Bennett, who claimed knowledge of seven of Joseph Smith's plural marriages to civily married women and even identified three by name...did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry. He reported polyandrous marriages without distinguishing them from nonpolyandrous polygamous unions and without recruiting the presumably offended husbands to joint his crusade against Joseph....

Bennett and Francis [Higbee] together named more than a dozen persons who they thought were likely candidates to join in denunciations of Joseph Smith's improprieties; but none of these individuals were polyandrous husbands (who, logically speaking, would have been prime candidates to protect their family's honor) nor did they mention sexual polyandry as one of Joseph's alleged numerous misdeeds.

If any of Joseph Smith's opponents had suspected the presence of sexual polyandry, their silence on the subject is puzzling. The standard of frontier justice regarding a sexually molested woman generally allowed a father, husband, brother, or son to exact revenge by beating, horsewhipping, or even killing the perpetrator.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=397–398}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Evidence from the "Temple Lot" case of non-consummation of polyandrous marriages=

Hales has identified a further line of evidence which suggests that polyandrous marriages were not consummated. In 1892, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) brought suit against the Hendrickite, or "Temple Lot" break-off group. They claimed that the Independence, Missouri temple site was rightfully RLDS property, since they were the direct heirs of Joseph Smith's original religious group.

Although not embracing plural marriage themselves, the Temple Lot group was anxious to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had taught plural marriage--for, if this was so, then the RLDS (who denied that Joseph had practiced it, and certainly did not embrace the doctrine) would have difficulty proving that they were the direct successors to the church founded by Joseph.

Hales reports:

<blockquote>
Nine of Joseph Smith's plural wives were still living when depositions started at Salt Lake City on March 14, 1892. Three were polyandrous wives ([[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Zina_Diantha_Huntington_Jacobs|Zina Huntington Jacobs Young]], [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Mary_Elizabeth_Rollins_Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]], and [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Patty_Bartlett_Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]) and six were nonpolyandrous ([[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball|Helen Mar Kimball]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Martha McBride|Martha McBride]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Almera Johnson|Almera Johnson]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Emily Partridge|Emily Partridge]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Malissa Lott|Malissa Lott]], and [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Lucy Walker|Lucy Walker]].) Factors evidently affecting the choice of witnesses involved the health and travel distances for the women, and importantly, whether their polygamous marriages to the Prophet included conjugality. Non-sexual sealings would have been treated as spiritual marriages of little importance and would have played right into the hands of RLDS attorneys....

All three of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives lived in or relatively near Salt Lake City and were apparently willing to testify but were bypassed. General Relief Society President Zina D. Huntington was in good health, living only a few blocks from the deposition room. Yet she was not summoned. Likewise, polyandrous wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins was well known to Church leaders and resided in Ogden, thirty-eight miles north of Salt Lake City. She was not requested to appear, not was Patty Bartlett Sessions, who lived in Bountiful ten miles north of Salt Lake City. Patty was ninety-seven, probably a sufficient reason to pass her by....

Among nonpolyandrous wives who were not summoned was Martha McBride who lived in Hooper, Utah (thirty-seven miles to the north). McBride's relationship with Joseph Smith is poorly documented, with no evidence of sexual relations....Also passed by was Salt Lake resident Helen Mar Kimball who had written two books defending the practice of plural marriage. Her sealing to the Prophet ocurred when she was only fourteen and the presence or absence of sexual relations in her plural marriage is debated by historians.

Throughout the length question-and-answer sessions with Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker, the details of their polygamous marriages with Joseph Smith were paramount; the physical aspect of sexuality was a core issue. If Zina and/or Mary Elizabeth could not testify to such relations, their testimonies as the Prophet's polygamous wives could hurt the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) cause.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=404–405}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Would polyandrous testimony have been harmful to the Church, and so avoided?=

Hales goes on to note that there is another possible explanation for the absence of polyandrous wives from the Temple Lot testimony:

<blockquote>
...it might be reasoned that they avoided testifying because their answers might have revealed polyandrous sexuality, which would have been embarrassing and doctrinally problematic.

This second option seems less likely because, six years later, Zina willingly engaged in a formal interview (later published) with an RLDS elder, John Wight, who at one point asked: 'Then it is a fact, Mrs. Young ,is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?" to which Zina immediately responded: "What right do you have to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity." Zina's willingness to be interviewed by an RLDS inquisitor in 1898 suggests she would have been equally willing to face RLDS attorneys in 1892. However, her 1898 responses would not have been helpful to the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) at that time, had she been asked to testify.

Similarly, in 1905, Mary Elizabeth spoke freely to missionaries at BYU and even answered a direct question "concerning her husband [Adam Lightner]." She explained: "My husband did not belong to the Church. I begged and pled with him to join but he would not. He said he did not believe in it though he thought a great deal of Joseph. He sacrificed his property rather than testify against Joseph, Hyrum, and Geo. A. Smith. After he said this I went forward and was sealed to Joseph for Eternity." In other words, she, like Zina, explained that she was "sealed to Joseph for Eternity." This testimony, which stopped short of sexual relations, would not have strengthened the Temple Lot Church's case.

In their responses, both women spoke of their polyandrous relationships with Joseph Smith without any hint of ''sexual'' polyandry or the need to justify and defend it. Also, documents indicate that if Church leaders in 1892 were worried about hiding Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages (because of sexuality or other concerns), it would have been the first time such anxieties are identifiable in the historical record. [Neither Joseph F. Smith affidavits from 1869 or Andrew Jenson's notes from 1887] seemed to treat polyandrous plural marriages as problematic.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=405–406}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Conclusion=

It may be Joseph's first polyandrous sealings were undertaken to protect his relationship with Emma, while still fulfilling the angel's command to implement plurality. Did he hope that the "less difficult" polyandrous and levirate marriages would satisfy the commandment? Or, at the very least, were the polyandrous marriages intended to prepare both Emma and the Saints for the numerous, more difficult "single woman" plural marriages that would follow?

Such a reconstruction must remain speculative, especially since relatively little is known about the polyandrous marriages. It would, however, explain why Joseph chose to enter the "most difficult" or "most risky" marriages first—they would have been, contrary to what we might first expect, the easiest.

This is not to argue that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. However, assuming full sexuality in these relationships makes less sense of the available data.<ref>Brian C. Hales has taken this stance strongly. See: {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=303–474}} He responds to the most extensive attempt to argue otherwise in {{Paper:Hales:Response to Quinn 2012}} </ref>

Is it reasonable to think that Nauvoo plural marriages had different levels of "sexual access"? Modern readers are inclined to think of marriage as mostly—or entirely—about cohabitation, but it is not clear that the early Saints saw things in this way.

For example, Utah-era polygamy had a wide range of marriage types, each of which entailed different responsibilities and degrees of sexual access. Kathryn Daynes has noted the following varieties of LDS marriages:[55]

* Civil marriages (for time only)
* Marriage for time and eternity
* Marriage for eternity only (no sexual access)
* Marriage for time only (i.e., by proxy)
* Marriages of young children (no cohabitation was permitted until the partners were older; such marriages were often never consummated, and were later cancelled when one of the partners chose to marry a different love match).
* "Convenience only" marriages: these unusual arrangements allowed for childless couples to conceive in an era which lacked assisted reproductive technology. Under prophetic approval, the couple would choose a fellow member to marry the childless wife following their own divorce. The new husband would impregnate the spouse, receive a divorce from her, and the childless couple would remarry and raise the child as their own. The "donor" husband had no on-going rights of sexual access or duties to support the wife or child.

It is clear, then, that later polygamy easily contemplated relationships which did not involve sexual access. If Joseph had implemented such variation in Nauvoo, then Brigham Young's later decision to endorse a variety of marriage forms is even more understandable.

{{SeeAlso|Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?|Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage|l2=Did Joseph have any children through polygamous marriages?}}

{{HalesLinksPolyandry}}

{{To learn more box:polygamy: polyandry}}{{blankline}}

{{Template:Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Essays/Polyandry/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué sabemos acerca de los sellos eternos de Joseph Smith para las mujeres que ya tenían un marido terrenal?]]

Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands

2025-11-15T17:41:02Z

SarahAllen: /* Sylvia Sessions Lyon */

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}

=What do we know about Joseph Smith's "polyandrous" sealings or plural marriages?=
=Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings=

Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history. This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors. To complicate the issue further, we understand little about how Joseph and his contemporaries saw these relationships. Mary Elizabeth Rollins seemed to recognize that later students of the period would not have the necessary information to understand her choices as a polyandrous wife: "[I] could explain some things in regard to my living with [my first husband] after becoming the Wife of Another [i.e., Joseph], which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious—and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to John A. Young (1892); cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," ''Sunstone'' 10/ 9 (Issue #32 / January 1986): 32; also cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 43; Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''18/ 3 (Fall 1985): 77. (Need more citation info here {{nc}}).</ref>

Lacking such perfect satisfaction, we can still offer some tentative observations and conclusions.

=The doctrine of sealing and adoption=

Plural marriage was one means by which Joseph implemented the broader doctrine of sealing. Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole. "Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship," observed Richard Bushman, "but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."<ref>{{Book:Bushman:RSR|pages=440}}</ref> Alma Allred agrees with Todd Compton that "[m]arriage, sealing and adoption, in fact, were nearly interchangeable concepts,"<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL|pages=637}}</ref> for Joseph's followers, but criticizes Compton because this principle is "much too important to be relegated to, or lost in a footnote" when discussing Joseph's plural marriages.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

Sealing creates new, eternal families, and "[a]s each new family came into being, it became another link in the chain of families stretching back to Adam, who was linked to God. Thus the 'family of God' became more than metaphor."<ref>{{BYUS|author=Gordon Irving|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/articleDownload.aspx?title=5123&linkURL=14.3IrvingLaw-40221750-48c0-4eef-b628-423a4648ba70.pdf The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900]|vol=14|num=3|date=Spring 1974|pages=294}}</ref> It is but a short step from sealing existing families to extending that privilege outward. Since many, if not most, of the saints would have family outside the church, there was an understandable anxiety that they be included in the new, eternal family being forged by Joseph.

Later in Church history, this was accomplished by adoption, where faithful members would serve as surrogate parents in the divine order. This practice was not without its problems, as some surrogates began to look on their adoption of others as a route to glory and power, both spiritual and temporal, rather than as a service for the family of heaven.<ref>Irving, "The Law of Adoption," 299–304.</ref> Adoption by living non-relatives was eventually replaced by the present practice of sealing members to deceased ancestors, with the expectation that definitive resolution of such matters can await the millennial years.

This expanded understanding, however, was decades in the future. In Joseph's day, the necessity of sealing was clear, and most members did not anticipate having faithful family to whom they could be sealed. The Mormons' anticipation of an imminent end to the world may have heightened the sense of urgency.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

The role of sealing in marriages was clear—as we will see, Joseph may have extended the role of marriage to binding not just his partners, but their spouses and family as well, into the divine family.

=Evaluating each polyandrous marriage=

Because we know little or nothing about some of Joseph's marriages, some authors succumb to the temptation to treat evidence in one marriage as evidence for them all.<ref>See {{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives|pages=83–84}} They criticize Compton's ''In Sacred Loneliness'' on these grounds.</ref> Each marriage, however, involved unique individuals and situations; we cannot turn them into carbon copies. For ease of discussion, however, we will divide the polyandrous marriages into three groups:

# Spouse is a non-member
# Spouse is a non-faithful LDS
# Spouse is faithful LDS
# Separated/divorced from their spouse at the time of their sealing to Joseph (i.e., ''pseudo''polyandry)

=Group 1: Women with non-member spouses=
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Ruth Vose Sayers|Ruth Vose Sayers]]=

Three of Joseph's plural marriages involved women who were married to non-member spouses. Of one, Ruth Vose Sayers, we know very little. She married Edward Sayers in 1841, and they had no children. Her husband remained friendly to Joseph Smith, as far as we know, to the end of Joseph's life.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=383}}</ref> Brian Hales notes that Church Historian Andrew Jensen's documents "regarding Ruth Vose Sayers demonstrate that her marriage was for 'eternity only,' without conjugal relations on earth,"<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 2/Full title|pages=362}}</ref> pointing out that Jenson wrote of Sayer's non-believing husband:

<blockquote>
[he] not attaching much important to \the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife \Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim her in this life. She \was/ accordingly <strike>the</strike> sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith's presence and thus <strike>were</strike> became numbered among the Prophets plural wives. <strike>She however</strike> \though she/ \continued to live with Mr. Sayers/ <strike>remained with her husband</strike>\ until his death.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1/Full title|pages=423}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]=

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner was among the earliest converts to the Church. She had married Adam Lightner on 11 August 1835.<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (July 1926): 197.</ref> Following the Haun's Mill massacre, Mary could have escaped General Clark's siege of Far West, since Governor Boggs had ordered the clandestine evacuation of his friend Adam Lightner and family prior to an anticipated assault on Far West. Mary, her husband, and sister-in-law refused the offer to leave, even though Clark insisted that all remaining men, women, and children "were to be destroyed."<ref>Lightner, 198–199.</ref>

Later in life, Mary reported that at age twelve, Joseph Smith "told me [in 1831] about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives; cited by {{Book:Newell Avery:Mormon Engima 2|pages=65}}</ref> She also described how
:God had Commanded him in July 1834 to take me for a Wife, but he had not dared to make it known to me, for when he received the Revelation; I was in Missouri and when he did see me, I was married. But he was again commanded, to fulfil the first revelation; or Suffer condemnation…<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Autobiography, Susa Young Gates Collection, UHI, 18–22, 24–24-25; cited {{Book:Hardy:Doing the Works of Abraham/Full title|pages=47}}</ref>
Mary described how "[t]he Prophet Joseph tried hard to get Mr. Lightner to go into the water, but he said he did not feel worthy, but would, some other time. Joseph said to me that he never would be baptized, unless it was a few moments before he died."<ref>Lightner: 202–203.</ref> Despite not being a member, Lightner was a loyal friend to the Saints and to Joseph, and died in Utah.

Of her sealing to Joseph, Mary wrote: "I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would have to contend with."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to Emeline B. Wells (1880); cited in {{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=43}} ; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 77; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland|Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]=

There is considerable debate as to whether Sarah Kingsley was sealed to Joseph Smith.<ref>{{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives/Short|pages=76}} They argue against her inclusion.</ref> Danel Bachman's pioneering study on plural marriage argued that there was "little supporting evidence for [her]…inclusion" on a list of Joseph's wives.<ref>{{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=108}}</ref> Todd Compton argues for Sarah's inclusion, since she is included on Andrew Jenson's list of plural wives, had a proxy marriage to Joseph Smith in the temple following the martyrdom, and because Eliza R. Snow is known to have been sealed to Joseph at Sarah's home. Compton holds—and I find his reasoning persuasive—that Joseph's decision to marry Eliza in front of Sarah makes little sense if Sarah had not already been introduced to plural marriage. (Though it must be admitted that Sarah could have been aware of plural marriage, but not practicing it.) Compton's argument is strengthened by the fact that Andrew Jenson also had access to Eliza R. Snow as a witness, so she could have confirmed Sarah's sealing.<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation/Full title}}</ref>

Sarah married John Cleveland, her second husband, on 10 June 1826, and she joined the Church in 1835. Her husband never joined the Church, but was a close friend of Joseph's. While Joseph was in Liberty Jail, Emma and her children were welcomed into the Cleveland's Quincy, Illinois home. Following his release in May 1839, Joseph rejoined his family and they remained in Sarah and John's home for three weeks.

While Joseph and most of the Church migrated to the Nauvoo region, the Clevelands remained in Illinois for a time. Though not a member, John continued to provide shelter and help to members of the Church who were victims of persecution. This aid given to the beleaguered Saints led to persecution against John and Sarah, and they eventually moved to Nauvoo.

Sarah served as a counselor to Emma Smith in the Nauvoo Relief Society, and at age 54 was probably sealed to Joseph Smith prior to Eliza R. Snow's marriage on 29 June 1842. It is not known if her husband knew of the sealing, but he remained friendly to Joseph and the Saints.<ref>Biographical information from {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=273–283}}</ref>

When Brigham Young and the Saints made plans to move west, Sarah remained behind with her husband. Various explanations for this decision exist, but in one account says that:

<blockquote>
Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…<ref>{{NC}}; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=283}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=Observations about the first group=

Though little is known of one woman, and it is debated whether another ought to be counted as a wife, these histories share some significant elements. All were faithful women who had sacrificed a great deal for the Church. All had a long association with Joseph Smith—he knew them and their families well. All were married to men who were good friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. We know little about Edward Sayers, but the other two husbands had made enormous sacrifices for the Saints. Both were willing to risk persecution and death for a religion of which they were not a part.

Given the importance which Joseph placed upon the sealing ordinances, it is not surprising that he wished to assure the salvation of such faithful women. We have only glimpses of Joseph's theology of sealing; it may even be that he hoped that by marrying/sealing these wives, their non-member husbands might also benefit from the blessings of sealing. Lightner and Cleveland were certainly two non-members whom Joseph and the Saints would have hoped to see saved with them.

=Group 2: Women with non-faithful LDS spouses=

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell|Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]=

Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell and her husband Norman joined the Church in 1836. By 1839, Norman had left the Church, and Prescindia noted that "the Lord gave me strength to Stand alone & keep the faith amid heavy persecution."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

"[I]n 1841 I entered into the New Everlasting Covenant," said Prescindia, "[I] was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, and to the best of my ability I have honored plural marriage, never speaking one word against the principle… Never in my life, in this kingdom, which is 44 years, have I doubted the truth of this great work."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Roots of ''Mormon Polygamy'', 1841–46: A Preliminary Demographic Report," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''27/ 1 (Spring 1994): 21; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref> Her motivation for the sealing to Joseph is alluded to by Emeline B. Wells:

She knew Joseph to be a man of God, and she had received many manifestations in proof of this, and consequently when he explained to her clearly the knowledge which he had obtained from the Lord, she accepted the sealing ordinance with Joseph as a sacred and holy confirmation.<ref>Emeline B. Wells (Need more citation info here).; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref>

Two of Prescinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, though DNA evidence has ruled one child out, and the claim for the other is extremely shaky (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

=Observations about the second group=

According to Emeline, this sealing served as a "holy confirmation," a completion or capstone on a life of faithfulness. As with the wives having non-member spouses, Prescindia's acceptance of sealing seems motivated by a desire to bind her into the family of faithful Saints, destined for exaltation even if her first husband did not continue faithful.

=Group 3: Women with faithful LDS spouses=

Six (or five, if one doubtful wife is excluded) of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were to women married to faithful LDS men.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Esther Dutcher|Esther Dutcher]]=

Daniel H. Wells wrote to Joseph F. Smith of a sealing between Joseph and Esther Dutcher. Wells' source of information was Dutcher's husband, Albert Smith (no relation to Joseph):

<blockquote>
It seems that she was sealed to Joseph the Prophet in the days of Nauvoo, though she still remained his wife, and afterwards nearly broke his heart by telling him of it, and expressing her intention of adhering to that relationship. He however got to feeling better over it, and acting for Joseph, had her sealed to him [in the temple--all of Joseph's marriages were understood to require resealing in the temple once it was completed], and to himself for time.<ref>Daniel H. Wells, Letter to Joseph F. Smith, 25 June 1888; cited in {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=424}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Patty Bartlett Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]=

Sylvia Session's mother Patty joined the Church in 1833, and was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842. The reaction of her husband David is unknown, but he remained a faithful member and diligent missionary. He later married a plural wife, which caused difficulties in their marriage.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=174–187}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde|Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]=

Nancy married future apostle Orson Hyde on 4 September 1834. He was involved briefly with apostasy at Far West in the fall of 1838, but had returned to the Church by March 1839 following a dramatic vision in which he saw the consequence of continued rebellion.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=234}}</ref>

There are [[Was Apostle Orson Hyde sent on a mission to dedicate Israel so that Joseph Smith could secretly marry his wife, Marinda Hyde, while he was away?|two sealing dates]] for Marinda— one in April 1842, while Orson was on a mission and the other May 1843, when Orson had returned. Only antagonistic accounts of this sealing exist.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238–239}}</ref> Of the four reports, two claim that Orson was aware of the sealing, and two claim that he was not.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!style="width:15%" |Author!!style="width:15%"|Date!!style="width:30%"|Claim!!style="width:40%"|Comments
|-
| Sidney Rigdon<ref>J. GI SON DIVINE [Sidney Rigdon], "To the Sisters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," ''Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate'' (Pittsburgh) 1/10 (15 March 1845): 154–158.</ref> ||1845||
*Orson unaware of marriage
*Orson refused to live with wife when he found out
||
Contrary to claim, Orson continued to live with Miranda and father children by her.
|-
| William Hall<ref>{{CriticalWork:Hall:Abominations of Mormonism/Full title|pages=113}}</ref> ||1852||
* Joseph demanded Miranda and all Orson's money to let him back in the Church
* "Many jokes were cracked at his [Hyde's] expense."
||
Very unlikely—no record of others mocking Hyde; Hall is unreliable on other marriages as well.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=239}}</ref> Orson's return to the quorum was in June 1839,<ref>See {{Book:Smith:HC/Short|pages=345|vol=3}} {{Book:Roberts:CHC|pages=24–25n12|vol=2}} {{Book:Woodruff:Journal|vol=1|pages=340|date=25 June 1839}}</ref> putting Hall's account two years too early for marriage.<ref>See {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238}}</ref>
|-
| Ann Eliza Young<ref>{{CriticalWork:Young:Wife No. 19/Full title|pages=324–326}}</ref>||1876||
* Orson did not know of marriage
* Angry when he learned of it
* Swore would not live with his wife; did so anyway.
||

Too young to have any first-hand knowledge of Nauvoo, her book's intent was clearly to titillate with stories of polygamous intrigue. Claims that Brigham told Orson that she was only to be his wife for time, and Joseph's for eternity—but this is frankly false, since sealed to Orson in early 1846.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=243}}: "Marinda was sealed to Orson Hyde, not Smith, for time and eternity on January 11, 1846."</ref> She also confuses the temporality, since she describes Hyde "in a furious passion," because "he thought it no harm for him to win the affection of another man's wife… but he did not propose having his rights interfered with even by the holy Prophet whose teachings he so implicitly followed" (326). Yet, Orson did not begin practicing plural marriage until after he knew of Miranda's sealing to Joseph.
|-
| John D. Lee<ref>{{CriticalWork:Lee:Mormonism Unvailed/Full title|pages=147}}</ref> ||1877||
* "Report said that Hyde's wife, with his consent, was sealed to Joseph for an eternal state, but I do not assert the fact."
||Lee's work was published posthumously and may have been altered by anti-Mormon editor.<ref>Need more citation info here {{NC}}</ref>
|-
|}

Unique to the Hyde's marriage is the fact that Marinda was sealed to Orson following Joseph's death. All of the Prophet's other polyandrous wives were posthumously sealed to Joseph by proxy.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=240–242}}</ref>

The Hydes were to divorce in 1870: "The precise reasons for the divorce are not known, but it appears that Orson was giving most of his attention to his younger wives at this time."<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=230–243}}</ref>

Two of Marinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, but this is very unlikely (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

{{SeeAlso|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Plural wives/Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde/Did not know father of her son|l1=Did Mrs. Hyde not know who fathered her son?|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Sent husbands on missions to steal wives|l2=Did Joseph send men on missions to steal their wives?}}

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes|Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]=

Elvira was married to Joseph at age twenty-nine. Her husband, Jonathan Holmes, was a pall-bearer at Joseph Smith's funeral. As Todd Compton remarks
<blockquote>
Though it is impossible to know for certain, the fact that Holmes was so close to Joseph Smith suggests that he knew of Smith’s marriage to his wife and permitted it…He later stood as proxy for Smith as Elvira married the prophet for eternity in the Nauvoo temple…This ‘first husband’ never wavered in his loyalty to the Mormon leader….<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=249}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee|Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]=

The inclusion of "Mrs. Durfee," as she was known, on the list of Joseph's wives is strongly contested among historians. Durfee is not found on Andrew Jenson's list of Joseph's plural wives. Todd Compton argues that Durfee's post-martyrdom proxy sealing to Joseph is evidence of a living marriage, as is the fact that she taught plural marriage to other prospective wives. Compton also holds that two hostile sources (John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt) confirm Durfee as a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=548}}</ref>

Danel Bachman's 1975 thesis does not include Durfee,<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation}}</ref> and her inclusion is contested by Anderson and Faulring, who question Compton's interpretation of the Sarah Pratt evidence:
<blockquote>
…assuming Sarah Pratt is accurately quoted, we are still in doubt about where she obtained her information. In Sacred Loneliness misleads the reader by claiming that "Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith's wives" (p. 260). But this changes the actual report of Sarah's comments on Mrs. Durfee: "I don't think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph's death. . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph's wives" (p. 701).<ref>See {{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=113–115}}</ref>
</blockquote>
I am inclined to agree that Sarah's statement argues against a marriage. I also find it strange that Andrew Jenson did not list her if she was a plural spouse. If, as in the case of Sarah Kingsley (see above) I side with Compton in agreeing that Eliza R. Snow could have confirmed Sarah's marriage for Jenson's list, then it strikes me as inconsistent to then assume that Eliza would not have likewise confirmed Mrs. Durfee's marriage for Jenson's list. Compton himself notes that Eliza and Durfee were close friends, and Jenson certainly had access to Eliza as a witness.<ref>Anderson and Faulring, "The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'')," {{NC}}</ref> There seems to me to be little doubt that Mrs. Durfee was associated with plural marriage, but I think her status as a wife during Joseph's lifetime dubious.

The only thing about which we can be certain is that Mrs. Durfee was sealed to Joseph by proxy after the martyrdom. Her LDS husband stood as proxy to Joseph. Their relationship seems to have been strained by this time—they were soon to divorce and each remarried.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=262}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs|Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]=

In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=263–264}}</ref>

Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
<blockquote>
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.<ref>Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006). I have a first draft of Wyatt’s paper that contains additional quotes and references, for which I am grateful.</ref>
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man."<ref>Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=80}}</ref>
</blockquote>
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience. These charges are examined in detail ([http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young here]). For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?

When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:

<blockquote>
Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"

A. "No, sir, I could not."

Q. "Not even the year?"

A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it."<ref> Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44.</ref>
</blockquote>

Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:

<blockquote>
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.<ref>Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young." </ref>
Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."<ref>Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," ''Saints Herald'', 52 (11 January 1905): 28 </ref>
</blockquote>

Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her sealing for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church. (See [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html here] for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.)

=Observations about the third group=

In Henry Jacob's and Albert Smith's cases, we have the clearest evidence of husbands of polyandrous wives who knew about Joseph's sealing to his spouse. Henry remained a devout member of the Church, continued to serve as a missionary, and stood proxy for Zina's sealing to Joseph. Albert Smith was initially troubled, but later felt better about the arrangement, and stood proxy for Joseph in ratifying the sealing after Joseph's death.

The faithful husbands of Joseph's other polyandrous wives likewise give no sign that they were troubled by the marriages—if they were aware of them. It is notable, however, that Joseph seemed to have a particularly close bond with these husbands, and there is no evidence that such bonds were threatened by the polyandry.

=Group 4: Women likely separated/divorced from their first husbands (i.e., pseudopolyandry)=

Two cases may represent women who did not consider themselves still married to their first husband.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sylvia Sessions Lyon|Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]=

Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on 21 April 1838. Joseph Smith performed the ceremony. She was sealed to Joseph Smith on 8 February 1842. Her husband Windsor's reaction is not recorded, but he was a faithful, active member of the Church at the time.

Windsor was excommunicated on 7 November 1842 because he sued stake president William Marks for repayment of a loan (Church members frowned on using secular courts to settle disputes between themselves).<ref>Todd Compton calls this a "church taboo … especially [with] cases involving highly visible leaders such as a stake president" (180). Compton leaves unmentioned that a caution against using non-believers' courts to settle differences between Christians goes back at least to the Pauline epistles (see {{b|1|Corinthians|6|1–8}}).</ref> Despite his excommunication, Windsor remained on close terms with Joseph; tradition holds that he was "a true friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Sylvia gave birth to a daughter, Josephine, on 8 February 1844, and there was evidence for many years that Joseph was the father (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]). In 2008, Brian Hales published work demonstrating that Todd Compton likely worked with incomplete data on Session's first marriage. In Hales's view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions' marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous.<ref>{{Paper:Hales:Sylvia Sessions 2008|pages=41–57}} See also {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=349–376}}.</ref>

Regardless, in 2016, DNA analysis ultimately disproved this speculation: Josephine was not a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.<ref>R. Scott Lloyd, "http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656112/Joseph-Smith-apparently-was-not-Josephine-Lyons-father-Mormon-History-Association-speaker-says.html?pg=all "Joseph Smith apparently was not Josephine Lyon's father, Mormon History Association speaker says,"] ''Deseret News'' (13 June 2016) </ref>Regardless, Windsor Lyon remained a close friend and ally of Joseph's—he was called as a witness at the trial of Joseph and Hyrum's assassins.

Windsor was rebaptized on 18 January 1846, and Sylvia was sealed to Joseph by proxy with her husband's permission. She was then sealed to Heber Kimball for time, though she continued to cohabitate with Windsor, who also took a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=177–186}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Heron Snider|Mary Heron Snider]]=

Mary Heron Snider's husband John died active and faithful in the Church. Further, he served a mission in England and was the first Mormon to preach there, served on the committee building the Nauvoo House, was appointed a "bodyguard" for Joseph's body following the martyrdom at Carthage.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464 467}}</ref> There is a one-sentence claim of sexual relations between her and Joseph by a son-in-law, Joseph E. Johnson.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,472}}</ref> Mary and her husband "seem to have endured significant periods of estrangement after 1833, with no pregnancies after Mary turned twenty nine. Also, the couple's marriage was never sealed, though the option was available....without addition[al] documentation, reliable conclusions are unattainable."<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,473}}</ref> It may be that Snider's marriage to Joseph parallels the case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was likely separated from her first husband prior to her plural marriage to Joseph.

{{SeeAlso|Mormon ordinances/Divorce/Nineteenth century|l1=Divorce in the 19th century}}

=A hypothesis—why so many early polyandrous marriages?=

Joseph's polyandry strikes us as a strange practice, but few have noted some of the strangest elements. Interestingly, after Joseph's resumption of plural marriage in April 1841, all of his marriages (with one exception) were polyandrous until 29 June 1842. The lone exception is the marriage to his dead brother's widow. Furthermore, of his eleven polyandrous marriages, all but two occurred before July 1843.

This early prominence, even predominance, of polyandry is counter-intuitive. Polyandrous marriages would seem to be the most risky for Joseph and his wives. With polyandry, Emma's reaction to the marriages would be the least of Joseph's worries. Unlike being sealed to single women, polyandrous sealings introduced an additional dangerous variable: the first husband! In teaching and practicing polyandry, Joseph ran the significant risk of a jealous husband learning of his arrangement with the wife, and exposing the explosive secret in hostile terms. Such a husband might also choose to threaten Joseph physically for wrongs to his wife's—and his own—honor.

The risk to Joseph is heightened when we appreciate that a single woman had no competing loyalties, while a polyandrous wife almost always had children and a husband to whom she was bound by love and loyalty. Finally, since a key justification for Mormon polygamy was the biblical model, polyandry would also have been the most difficult form to justify to potential initiates, since there is no biblical polyandry.

Yet when we examine Joseph's polyandrous marriages, none of these problems seem to surface. All of the men—member or non-member—were close friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. No wife seems to have second thoughts; none tearfully confessed all to her unsuspecting husband or Nauvoo society.

This common-sense analysis hinges, however, on the question of marital intimacy. If polyandrous sealings were not expected to involve sexual intimacy, then they were much less challenging for all involved—including Joseph and Emma. Emma would be far less troubled by a polyandrous marriage intended to seal Joseph to beloved friends than a marriage to single women living in her home. Joseph's natural—and, I suspect, profound—desire to keep the Lord's commandments and protect Emma's feelings would have been satisfied.

If the first husband was aware of the sealings, the faithful Saints would have been untroubled by a relationship which they saw as primarily binding their family to Joseph's, while non-member husbands would have seen it as a purely religious rite with a man for whom they retained great respect and affection.

=Could faithful members save the unfaithful or unbaptized?=

A skeptical reader might, at this point, suspect we are over-reaching for an explanation. There is evidence, however, that early Mormons firmly believed that a faithful spouse could help exalt a wayward or non-member spouse.

Twenty-one-year-old Isaiah Moses Coombs immigrated to Utah in 1855. To his grief, his childhood sweetheart refused to accompany him, despite their marriage the year before. Reflecting on the agonizing decision to go west without his non-member spouse, Coombs wrote:
<blockquote>
…not least was the consideration that I was obeying the voice of God and that I was taking a course that would secure my own glory and exaltation and that would eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my wife to me in bands that could not be broken. She was blind then but the day would come when she would see.<ref>Kate B. Carter, ed., ''Isaiah M[oses] Coombs from His Diary and Journal'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: published by Daughters of Utah Pioneers through Utah Printing Company, n.d.), 339, italics added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Coombs' wife was never to join the Church, and refused a later entreaty to return with him to Utah. Yet, he persisted in the conviction that his faithfulness to the sealing covenant would suffice to exalt his disbelieving, non-member wife in the hereafter, even if she did not accept the gospel in mortality.

This example is instructive, and is significant because the account was not written for public consumption. He had no polemic purpose, save to tell his life's story.

He was also not a "prominent" member of the Church—his reflections demonstrate how one rank-and-file member, living apart from the main body of saints because of poverty, understood matters in the early 1850s. Coombs' journal makes it wrenchingly clear that his decision to leave was extraordinarily difficult—if a relatively unknown young man, moving outside the hub of Church power in Nauvoo and Utah was thus convinced, it seems likely that other early members also saw their own engagement in sealing as sufficient to help save faithful, wayward, or non-member spouses.

=Further evidence against sexual polyandry=

=Nauvoo witnesses did not try to justify sexual polyandry=

Brian Hales notes that none of the members at Nauvoo attempted to justify sexual polyandry:

<blockquote>
Belinda Marden Pratt, a plural wife of Parley P. Pratt, wrote in 1854: "'Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?' To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands." On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that "a plurality of husbands is wrong." His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would "be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time." She replied, "I think it would." All of these individuals were involved with Nauvoo polygamy, and several were undoubtedly aware of Joseph Smith's sealings to legally married women, yet they made no effort to condone sexual polyandry, nor is there any evidence that any man but Joseph Smith engaged in polyandry in Nauvoo.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=393}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Nauvoo detractors likewise say nothing about sexual polyandry=

Hales remarks:

<blockquote>
A fourth group of polygamy insiders who may have left a record is comprised of the detractors. William Law, though a member of Joseph Smith's First Presidency, denounced plural marriage and accused Joseph Smith of adultery....In his split with Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844, the fact that Law did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry and never mentioned it so far as available documents indicate, is surprising. Polyandrous sexuality would have been more shocking that adultery at that time and place. So the absence of any reference to it suggests that Law was unaware of conjugality in those unions or purposefully chose to ignore them altogether. In the end, Law settled for a less explosive charge of adultery.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=396–397}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Hales also points out that John C. Bennett likewise did not invoke polyandry in his charges against Joseph:

<blockquote>
Even more impressive is the fact th[at] John C. Bennett, who claimed knowledge of seven of Joseph Smith's plural marriages to civily married women and even identified three by name...did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry. He reported polyandrous marriages without distinguishing them from nonpolyandrous polygamous unions and without recruiting the presumably offended husbands to joint his crusade against Joseph....

Bennett and Francis [Higbee] together named more than a dozen persons who they thought were likely candidates to join in denunciations of Joseph Smith's improprieties; but none of these individuals were polyandrous husbands (who, logically speaking, would have been prime candidates to protect their family's honor) nor did they mention sexual polyandry as one of Joseph's alleged numerous misdeeds.

If any of Joseph Smith's opponents had suspected the presence of sexual polyandry, their silence on the subject is puzzling. The standard of frontier justice regarding a sexually molested woman generally allowed a father, husband, brother, or son to exact revenge by beating, horsewhipping, or even killing the perpetrator.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=397–398}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Evidence from the "Temple Lot" case of non-consummation of polyandrous marriages=

Hales has identified a further line of evidence which suggests that polyandrous marriages were not consummated. In 1892, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) brought suit against the Hendrickite, or "Temple Lot" break-off group. They claimed that the Independence, Missouri temple site was rightfully RLDS property, since they were the direct heirs of Joseph Smith's original religious group.

Although not embracing plural marriage themselves, the Temple Lot group was anxious to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had taught plural marriage--for, if this was so, then the RLDS (who denied that Joseph had practiced it, and certainly did not embrace the doctrine) would have difficulty proving that they were the direct successors to the church founded by Joseph.

Hales reports:

<blockquote>
Nine of Joseph Smith's plural wives were still living when depositions started at Salt Lake City on March 14, 1892. Three were polyandrous wives ([[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Zina_Diantha_Huntington_Jacobs|Zina Huntington Jacobs Young]], [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Mary_Elizabeth_Rollins_Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]], and [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Patty_Bartlett_Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]) and six were nonpolyandrous ([[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball|Helen Mar Kimball]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Martha McBride|Martha McBride]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Almera Johnson|Almera Johnson]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Emily Partridge|Emily Partridge]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Malissa Lott|Malissa Lott]], and [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Lucy Walker|Lucy Walker]].) Factors evidently affecting the choice of witnesses involved the health and travel distances for the women, and importantly, whether their polygamous marriages to the Prophet included conjugality. Non-sexual sealings would have been treated as spiritual marriages of little importance and would have played right into the hands of RLDS attorneys....

All three of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives lived in or relatively near Salt Lake City and were apparently willing to testify but were bypassed. General Relief Society President Zina D. Huntington was in good health, living only a few blocks from the deposition room. Yet she was not summoned. Likewise, polyandrous wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins was well known to Church leaders and resided in Ogden, thirty-eight miles north of Salt Lake City. She was not requested to appear, not was Patty Bartlett Sessions, who lived in Bountiful ten miles north of Salt Lake City. Patty was ninety-seven, probably a sufficient reason to pass her by....

Among nonpolyandrous wives who were not summoned was Martha McBride who lived in Hooper, Utah (thirty-seven miles to the north). McBride's relationship with Joseph Smith is poorly documented, with no evidence of sexual relations....Also passed by was Salt Lake resident Helen Mar Kimball who had written two books defending the practice of plural marriage. Her sealing to the Prophet ocurred when she was only fourteen and the presence or absence of sexual relations in her plural marriage is debated by historians.

Throughout the length question-and-answer sessions with Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker, the details of their polygamous marriages with Joseph Smith were paramount; the physical aspect of sexuality was a core issue. If Zina and/or Mary Elizabeth could not testify to such relations, their testimonies as the Prophet's polygamous wives could hurt the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) cause.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=404–405}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Would polyandrous testimony have been harmful to the Church, and so avoided?=

Hales goes on to note that there is another possible explanation for the absence of polyandrous wives from the Temple Lot testimony:

<blockquote>
...it might be reasoned that they avoided testifying because their answers might have revealed polyandrous sexuality, which would have been embarrassing and doctrinally problematic.

This second option seems less likely because, six years later, Zina willingly engaged in a formal interview (later published) with an RLDS elder, John Wight, who at one point asked: 'Then it is a fact, Mrs. Young ,is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?" to which Zina immediately responded: "What right do you have to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity." Zina's willingness to be interviewed by an RLDS inquisitor in 1898 suggests she would have been equally willing to face RLDS attorneys in 1892. However, her 1898 responses would not have been helpful to the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) at that time, had she been asked to testify.

Similarly, in 1905, Mary Elizabeth spoke freely to missionaries at BYU and even answered a direct question "concerning her husband [Adam Lightner]." She explained: "My husband did not belong to the Church. I begged and pled with him to join but he would not. He said he did not believe in it though he thought a great deal of Joseph. He sacrificed his property rather than testify against Joseph, Hyrum, and Geo. A. Smith. After he said this I went forward and was sealed to Joseph for Eternity." In other words, she, like Zina, explained that she was "sealed to Joseph for Eternity." This testimony, which stopped short of sexual relations, would not have strengthened the Temple Lot Church's case.

In their responses, both women spoke of their polyandrous relationships with Joseph Smith without any hint of ''sexual'' polyandry or the need to justify and defend it. Also, documents indicate that if Church leaders in 1892 were worried about hiding Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages (because of sexuality or other concerns), it would have been the first time such anxieties are identifiable in the historical record. [Neither Joseph F. Smith affidavits from 1869 or Andrew Jenson's notes from 1887] seemed to treat polyandrous plural marriages as problematic.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=405–406}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Conclusion=

It may be Joseph's first polyandrous sealings were undertaken to protect his relationship with Emma, while still fulfilling the angel's command to implement plurality. Did he hope that the "less difficult" polyandrous and levirate marriages would satisfy the commandment? Or, at the very least, were the polyandrous marriages intended to prepare both Emma and the Saints for the numerous, more difficult "single woman" plural marriages that would follow?

Such a reconstruction must remain speculative, especially since relatively little is known about the polyandrous marriages. It would, however, explain why Joseph chose to enter the "most difficult" or "most risky" marriages first—they would have been, contrary to what we might first expect, the easiest.

This is not to argue that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. However, assuming full sexuality in these relationships makes less sense of the available data.<ref>Brian C. Hales has taken this stance strongly. See: {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=303–474}} He responds to the most extensive attempt to argue otherwise in {{Paper:Hales:Response to Quinn 2012}} </ref>

Is it reasonable to think that Nauvoo plural marriages had different levels of "sexual access"? Modern readers are inclined to think of marriage as mostly—or entirely—about cohabitation, but it is not clear that the early Saints saw things in this way.

For example, Utah-era polygamy had a wide range of marriage types, each of which entailed different responsibilities and degrees of sexual access. Kathryn Daynes has noted the following varieties of LDS marriages:[55]

* Civil marriages (for time only)
* Marriage for time and eternity
* Marriage for eternity only (no sexual access)
* Marriage for time only (i.e., by proxy)
* Marriages of young children (no cohabitation was permitted until the partners were older; such marriages were often never consummated, and were later cancelled when one of the partners chose to marry a different love match).
* "Convenience only" marriages: these unusual arrangements allowed for childless couples to conceive in an era which lacked assisted reproductive technology. Under prophetic approval, the couple would choose a fellow member to marry the childless wife following their own divorce. The new husband would impregnate the spouse, receive a divorce from her, and the childless couple would remarry and raise the child as their own. The "donor" husband had no on-going rights of sexual access or duties to support the wife or child.

It is clear, then, that later polygamy easily contemplated relationships which did not involve sexual access. If Joseph had implemented such variation in Nauvoo, then Brigham Young's later decision to endorse a variety of marriage forms is even more understandable.

{{SeeAlso|Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?|Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage|l2=Did Joseph have any children through polygamous marriages?}}

{{HalesLinksPolyandry}}

{{To learn more box:polygamy: polyandry}}{{blankline}}

{{Template:Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Essays/Polyandry/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué sabemos acerca de los sellos eternos de Joseph Smith para las mujeres que ya tenían un marido terrenal?]]

Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands

2025-11-15T17:40:12Z

SarahAllen: /* Sylvia Sessions Lyon */

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}

=What do we know about Joseph Smith's "polyandrous" sealings or plural marriages?=
=Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings=

Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history. This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors. To complicate the issue further, we understand little about how Joseph and his contemporaries saw these relationships. Mary Elizabeth Rollins seemed to recognize that later students of the period would not have the necessary information to understand her choices as a polyandrous wife: "[I] could explain some things in regard to my living with [my first husband] after becoming the Wife of Another [i.e., Joseph], which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious—and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to John A. Young (1892); cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," ''Sunstone'' 10/ 9 (Issue #32 / January 1986): 32; also cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 43; Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''18/ 3 (Fall 1985): 77. (Need more citation info here {{nc}}).</ref>

Lacking such perfect satisfaction, we can still offer some tentative observations and conclusions.

=The doctrine of sealing and adoption=

Plural marriage was one means by which Joseph implemented the broader doctrine of sealing. Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole. "Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship," observed Richard Bushman, "but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."<ref>{{Book:Bushman:RSR|pages=440}}</ref> Alma Allred agrees with Todd Compton that "[m]arriage, sealing and adoption, in fact, were nearly interchangeable concepts,"<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL|pages=637}}</ref> for Joseph's followers, but criticizes Compton because this principle is "much too important to be relegated to, or lost in a footnote" when discussing Joseph's plural marriages.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

Sealing creates new, eternal families, and "[a]s each new family came into being, it became another link in the chain of families stretching back to Adam, who was linked to God. Thus the 'family of God' became more than metaphor."<ref>{{BYUS|author=Gordon Irving|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/articleDownload.aspx?title=5123&linkURL=14.3IrvingLaw-40221750-48c0-4eef-b628-423a4648ba70.pdf The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900]|vol=14|num=3|date=Spring 1974|pages=294}}</ref> It is but a short step from sealing existing families to extending that privilege outward. Since many, if not most, of the saints would have family outside the church, there was an understandable anxiety that they be included in the new, eternal family being forged by Joseph.

Later in Church history, this was accomplished by adoption, where faithful members would serve as surrogate parents in the divine order. This practice was not without its problems, as some surrogates began to look on their adoption of others as a route to glory and power, both spiritual and temporal, rather than as a service for the family of heaven.<ref>Irving, "The Law of Adoption," 299–304.</ref> Adoption by living non-relatives was eventually replaced by the present practice of sealing members to deceased ancestors, with the expectation that definitive resolution of such matters can await the millennial years.

This expanded understanding, however, was decades in the future. In Joseph's day, the necessity of sealing was clear, and most members did not anticipate having faithful family to whom they could be sealed. The Mormons' anticipation of an imminent end to the world may have heightened the sense of urgency.<ref>{{Paper:Allred:Review of ISL}}</ref>

The role of sealing in marriages was clear—as we will see, Joseph may have extended the role of marriage to binding not just his partners, but their spouses and family as well, into the divine family.

=Evaluating each polyandrous marriage=

Because we know little or nothing about some of Joseph's marriages, some authors succumb to the temptation to treat evidence in one marriage as evidence for them all.<ref>See {{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives|pages=83–84}} They criticize Compton's ''In Sacred Loneliness'' on these grounds.</ref> Each marriage, however, involved unique individuals and situations; we cannot turn them into carbon copies. For ease of discussion, however, we will divide the polyandrous marriages into three groups:

# Spouse is a non-member
# Spouse is a non-faithful LDS
# Spouse is faithful LDS
# Separated/divorced from their spouse at the time of their sealing to Joseph (i.e., ''pseudo''polyandry)

=Group 1: Women with non-member spouses=
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Ruth Vose Sayers|Ruth Vose Sayers]]=

Three of Joseph's plural marriages involved women who were married to non-member spouses. Of one, Ruth Vose Sayers, we know very little. She married Edward Sayers in 1841, and they had no children. Her husband remained friendly to Joseph Smith, as far as we know, to the end of Joseph's life.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=383}}</ref> Brian Hales notes that Church Historian Andrew Jensen's documents "regarding Ruth Vose Sayers demonstrate that her marriage was for 'eternity only,' without conjugal relations on earth,"<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 2/Full title|pages=362}}</ref> pointing out that Jenson wrote of Sayer's non-believing husband:

<blockquote>
[he] not attaching much important to \the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife \Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim her in this life. She \was/ accordingly <strike>the</strike> sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith's presence and thus <strike>were</strike> became numbered among the Prophets plural wives. <strike>She however</strike> \though she/ \continued to live with Mr. Sayers/ <strike>remained with her husband</strike>\ until his death.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1/Full title|pages=423}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]=

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner was among the earliest converts to the Church. She had married Adam Lightner on 11 August 1835.<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (July 1926): 197.</ref> Following the Haun's Mill massacre, Mary could have escaped General Clark's siege of Far West, since Governor Boggs had ordered the clandestine evacuation of his friend Adam Lightner and family prior to an anticipated assault on Far West. Mary, her husband, and sister-in-law refused the offer to leave, even though Clark insisted that all remaining men, women, and children "were to be destroyed."<ref>Lightner, 198–199.</ref>

Later in life, Mary reported that at age twelve, Joseph Smith "told me [in 1831] about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives; cited by {{Book:Newell Avery:Mormon Engima 2|pages=65}}</ref> She also described how
:God had Commanded him in July 1834 to take me for a Wife, but he had not dared to make it known to me, for when he received the Revelation; I was in Missouri and when he did see me, I was married. But he was again commanded, to fulfil the first revelation; or Suffer condemnation…<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Autobiography, Susa Young Gates Collection, UHI, 18–22, 24–24-25; cited {{Book:Hardy:Doing the Works of Abraham/Full title|pages=47}}</ref>
Mary described how "[t]he Prophet Joseph tried hard to get Mr. Lightner to go into the water, but he said he did not feel worthy, but would, some other time. Joseph said to me that he never would be baptized, unless it was a few moments before he died."<ref>Lightner: 202–203.</ref> Despite not being a member, Lightner was a loyal friend to the Saints and to Joseph, and died in Utah.

Of her sealing to Joseph, Mary wrote: "I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would have to contend with."<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Letter to Emeline B. Wells (1880); cited in {{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=43}} ; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 77; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland|Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]=

There is considerable debate as to whether Sarah Kingsley was sealed to Joseph Smith.<ref>{{Paper:Anderson Faulring:Prophet JS and His Plural Wives/Short|pages=76}} They argue against her inclusion.</ref> Danel Bachman's pioneering study on plural marriage argued that there was "little supporting evidence for [her]…inclusion" on a list of Joseph's wives.<ref>{{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=108}}</ref> Todd Compton argues for Sarah's inclusion, since she is included on Andrew Jenson's list of plural wives, had a proxy marriage to Joseph Smith in the temple following the martyrdom, and because Eliza R. Snow is known to have been sealed to Joseph at Sarah's home. Compton holds—and I find his reasoning persuasive—that Joseph's decision to marry Eliza in front of Sarah makes little sense if Sarah had not already been introduced to plural marriage. (Though it must be admitted that Sarah could have been aware of plural marriage, but not practicing it.) Compton's argument is strengthened by the fact that Andrew Jenson also had access to Eliza R. Snow as a witness, so she could have confirmed Sarah's sealing.<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation/Full title}}</ref>

Sarah married John Cleveland, her second husband, on 10 June 1826, and she joined the Church in 1835. Her husband never joined the Church, but was a close friend of Joseph's. While Joseph was in Liberty Jail, Emma and her children were welcomed into the Cleveland's Quincy, Illinois home. Following his release in May 1839, Joseph rejoined his family and they remained in Sarah and John's home for three weeks.

While Joseph and most of the Church migrated to the Nauvoo region, the Clevelands remained in Illinois for a time. Though not a member, John continued to provide shelter and help to members of the Church who were victims of persecution. This aid given to the beleaguered Saints led to persecution against John and Sarah, and they eventually moved to Nauvoo.

Sarah served as a counselor to Emma Smith in the Nauvoo Relief Society, and at age 54 was probably sealed to Joseph Smith prior to Eliza R. Snow's marriage on 29 June 1842. It is not known if her husband knew of the sealing, but he remained friendly to Joseph and the Saints.<ref>Biographical information from {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=273–283}}</ref>

When Brigham Young and the Saints made plans to move west, Sarah remained behind with her husband. Various explanations for this decision exist, but in one account says that:

<blockquote>
Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…<ref>{{NC}}; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=283}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=Observations about the first group=

Though little is known of one woman, and it is debated whether another ought to be counted as a wife, these histories share some significant elements. All were faithful women who had sacrificed a great deal for the Church. All had a long association with Joseph Smith—he knew them and their families well. All were married to men who were good friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. We know little about Edward Sayers, but the other two husbands had made enormous sacrifices for the Saints. Both were willing to risk persecution and death for a religion of which they were not a part.

Given the importance which Joseph placed upon the sealing ordinances, it is not surprising that he wished to assure the salvation of such faithful women. We have only glimpses of Joseph's theology of sealing; it may even be that he hoped that by marrying/sealing these wives, their non-member husbands might also benefit from the blessings of sealing. Lightner and Cleveland were certainly two non-members whom Joseph and the Saints would have hoped to see saved with them.

=Group 2: Women with non-faithful LDS spouses=

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell|Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]=

Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell and her husband Norman joined the Church in 1836. By 1839, Norman had left the Church, and Prescindia noted that "the Lord gave me strength to Stand alone & keep the faith amid heavy persecution."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; Van Wagoner, "Joseph and Marriage," 32.</ref>

"[I]n 1841 I entered into the New Everlasting Covenant," said Prescindia, "[I] was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, and to the best of my ability I have honored plural marriage, never speaking one word against the principle… Never in my life, in this kingdom, which is 44 years, have I doubted the truth of this great work."<ref>{{nc}}; cited in George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Roots of ''Mormon Polygamy'', 1841–46: A Preliminary Demographic Report," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ''27/ 1 (Spring 1994): 21; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref> Her motivation for the sealing to Joseph is alluded to by Emeline B. Wells:

She knew Joseph to be a man of God, and she had received many manifestations in proof of this, and consequently when he explained to her clearly the knowledge which he had obtained from the Lord, she accepted the sealing ordinance with Joseph as a sacred and holy confirmation.<ref>Emeline B. Wells (Need more citation info here).; cited in {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=122}}</ref>

Two of Prescinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, though DNA evidence has ruled one child out, and the claim for the other is extremely shaky (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

=Observations about the second group=

According to Emeline, this sealing served as a "holy confirmation," a completion or capstone on a life of faithfulness. As with the wives having non-member spouses, Prescindia's acceptance of sealing seems motivated by a desire to bind her into the family of faithful Saints, destined for exaltation even if her first husband did not continue faithful.

=Group 3: Women with faithful LDS spouses=

Six (or five, if one doubtful wife is excluded) of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were to women married to faithful LDS men.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Esther Dutcher|Esther Dutcher]]=

Daniel H. Wells wrote to Joseph F. Smith of a sealing between Joseph and Esther Dutcher. Wells' source of information was Dutcher's husband, Albert Smith (no relation to Joseph):

<blockquote>
It seems that she was sealed to Joseph the Prophet in the days of Nauvoo, though she still remained his wife, and afterwards nearly broke his heart by telling him of it, and expressing her intention of adhering to that relationship. He however got to feeling better over it, and acting for Joseph, had her sealed to him [in the temple--all of Joseph's marriages were understood to require resealing in the temple once it was completed], and to himself for time.<ref>Daniel H. Wells, Letter to Joseph F. Smith, 25 June 1888; cited in {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=424}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Patty Bartlett Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]=

Sylvia Session's mother Patty joined the Church in 1833, and was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842. The reaction of her husband David is unknown, but he remained a faithful member and diligent missionary. He later married a plural wife, which caused difficulties in their marriage.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=174–187}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde|Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]=

Nancy married future apostle Orson Hyde on 4 September 1834. He was involved briefly with apostasy at Far West in the fall of 1838, but had returned to the Church by March 1839 following a dramatic vision in which he saw the consequence of continued rebellion.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=234}}</ref>

There are [[Was Apostle Orson Hyde sent on a mission to dedicate Israel so that Joseph Smith could secretly marry his wife, Marinda Hyde, while he was away?|two sealing dates]] for Marinda— one in April 1842, while Orson was on a mission and the other May 1843, when Orson had returned. Only antagonistic accounts of this sealing exist.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238–239}}</ref> Of the four reports, two claim that Orson was aware of the sealing, and two claim that he was not.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!style="width:15%" |Author!!style="width:15%"|Date!!style="width:30%"|Claim!!style="width:40%"|Comments
|-
| Sidney Rigdon<ref>J. GI SON DIVINE [Sidney Rigdon], "To the Sisters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," ''Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate'' (Pittsburgh) 1/10 (15 March 1845): 154–158.</ref> ||1845||
*Orson unaware of marriage
*Orson refused to live with wife when he found out
||
Contrary to claim, Orson continued to live with Miranda and father children by her.
|-
| William Hall<ref>{{CriticalWork:Hall:Abominations of Mormonism/Full title|pages=113}}</ref> ||1852||
* Joseph demanded Miranda and all Orson's money to let him back in the Church
* "Many jokes were cracked at his [Hyde's] expense."
||
Very unlikely—no record of others mocking Hyde; Hall is unreliable on other marriages as well.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=239}}</ref> Orson's return to the quorum was in June 1839,<ref>See {{Book:Smith:HC/Short|pages=345|vol=3}} {{Book:Roberts:CHC|pages=24–25n12|vol=2}} {{Book:Woodruff:Journal|vol=1|pages=340|date=25 June 1839}}</ref> putting Hall's account two years too early for marriage.<ref>See {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=238}}</ref>
|-
| Ann Eliza Young<ref>{{CriticalWork:Young:Wife No. 19/Full title|pages=324–326}}</ref>||1876||
* Orson did not know of marriage
* Angry when he learned of it
* Swore would not live with his wife; did so anyway.
||

Too young to have any first-hand knowledge of Nauvoo, her book's intent was clearly to titillate with stories of polygamous intrigue. Claims that Brigham told Orson that she was only to be his wife for time, and Joseph's for eternity—but this is frankly false, since sealed to Orson in early 1846.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=243}}: "Marinda was sealed to Orson Hyde, not Smith, for time and eternity on January 11, 1846."</ref> She also confuses the temporality, since she describes Hyde "in a furious passion," because "he thought it no harm for him to win the affection of another man's wife… but he did not propose having his rights interfered with even by the holy Prophet whose teachings he so implicitly followed" (326). Yet, Orson did not begin practicing plural marriage until after he knew of Miranda's sealing to Joseph.
|-
| John D. Lee<ref>{{CriticalWork:Lee:Mormonism Unvailed/Full title|pages=147}}</ref> ||1877||
* "Report said that Hyde's wife, with his consent, was sealed to Joseph for an eternal state, but I do not assert the fact."
||Lee's work was published posthumously and may have been altered by anti-Mormon editor.<ref>Need more citation info here {{NC}}</ref>
|-
|}

Unique to the Hyde's marriage is the fact that Marinda was sealed to Orson following Joseph's death. All of the Prophet's other polyandrous wives were posthumously sealed to Joseph by proxy.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=240–242}}</ref>

The Hydes were to divorce in 1870: "The precise reasons for the divorce are not known, but it appears that Orson was giving most of his attention to his younger wives at this time."<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=230–243}}</ref>

Two of Marinda's children have been suggested as potential children by Joseph, but this is very unlikely (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]).

{{SeeAlso|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Plural wives/Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde/Did not know father of her son|l1=Did Mrs. Hyde not know who fathered her son?|Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Sent husbands on missions to steal wives|l2=Did Joseph send men on missions to steal their wives?}}

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes|Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]=

Elvira was married to Joseph at age twenty-nine. Her husband, Jonathan Holmes, was a pall-bearer at Joseph Smith's funeral. As Todd Compton remarks
<blockquote>
Though it is impossible to know for certain, the fact that Holmes was so close to Joseph Smith suggests that he knew of Smith’s marriage to his wife and permitted it…He later stood as proxy for Smith as Elvira married the prophet for eternity in the Nauvoo temple…This ‘first husband’ never wavered in his loyalty to the Mormon leader….<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=249}}</ref>
</blockquote>
=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee|Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]=

The inclusion of "Mrs. Durfee," as she was known, on the list of Joseph's wives is strongly contested among historians. Durfee is not found on Andrew Jenson's list of Joseph's plural wives. Todd Compton argues that Durfee's post-martyrdom proxy sealing to Joseph is evidence of a living marriage, as is the fact that she taught plural marriage to other prospective wives. Compton also holds that two hostile sources (John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt) confirm Durfee as a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=548}}</ref>

Danel Bachman's 1975 thesis does not include Durfee,<ref>{{Book:Compton:Truth Honesty and Moderation}}</ref> and her inclusion is contested by Anderson and Faulring, who question Compton's interpretation of the Sarah Pratt evidence:
<blockquote>
…assuming Sarah Pratt is accurately quoted, we are still in doubt about where she obtained her information. In Sacred Loneliness misleads the reader by claiming that "Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith's wives" (p. 260). But this changes the actual report of Sarah's comments on Mrs. Durfee: "I don't think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph's death. . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph's wives" (p. 701).<ref>See {{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=113–115}}</ref>
</blockquote>
I am inclined to agree that Sarah's statement argues against a marriage. I also find it strange that Andrew Jenson did not list her if she was a plural spouse. If, as in the case of Sarah Kingsley (see above) I side with Compton in agreeing that Eliza R. Snow could have confirmed Sarah's marriage for Jenson's list, then it strikes me as inconsistent to then assume that Eliza would not have likewise confirmed Mrs. Durfee's marriage for Jenson's list. Compton himself notes that Eliza and Durfee were close friends, and Jenson certainly had access to Eliza as a witness.<ref>Anderson and Faulring, "The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'')," {{NC}}</ref> There seems to me to be little doubt that Mrs. Durfee was associated with plural marriage, but I think her status as a wife during Joseph's lifetime dubious.

The only thing about which we can be certain is that Mrs. Durfee was sealed to Joseph by proxy after the martyrdom. Her LDS husband stood as proxy to Joseph. Their relationship seems to have been strained by this time—they were soon to divorce and each remarried.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=262}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs|Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]=

In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=263–264}}</ref>

Zina and Henry were married by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo. They had invited Joseph to perform the ceremony, but Bennett stepped in when Joseph did not arrive:
<blockquote>
…Zina asked the Prophet to perform the marriage. They went to the Clerk’s office and the Prophet did not arrive, so they were married by John C. Bennett. When they saw Joseph they asked him why he didn’t come, and he told them the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife.<ref>Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," in FAIR Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah: FAIR, 1st draft, 2006). I have a first draft of Wyatt’s paper that contains additional quotes and references, for which I am grateful.</ref>
Family tradition holds, then, that Zina and Henry were aware of Joseph's plural marriage teachings and his proposal to Zina. While this perspective is late and after-the-fact, it is consistent with the Jacobs' behaviour thereafter. Zina's family also wrote that Henry believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man."<ref>Oa J. Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, n.d.), 1; cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (emphasis added). See also Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44; Van Wagoner, "Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo," 78; {{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=80}}</ref>
</blockquote>
On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's "mistreatment" of Henry and their "theft" of his family have received a great deal of publicity, thanks to late 19th century anti-Mormon sources, and Fawn Brodie increased their cachet for a 20th century audience. These charges are examined in detail ([http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young here]). For present purposes, we will focus on Zina. She had refused Joseph's suit three times, and chosen to marry Henry. Why did she decide to be sealed to Joseph?

When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:

<blockquote>
Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?"

A. "No, sir, I could not."

Q. "Not even the year?"

A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it."<ref> Cannon, "History of Henry Bailey Jacobs," 5; cited in Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 44.</ref>
</blockquote>

Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:

<blockquote>
…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.<ref>Interview of John Wight [RLDS] with Zina D.H. Young, October 1, 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," Saints’ Herald, 52 (11 January 1905), 29; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young." </ref>
Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."<ref>Autobiography of Zina D. Young, no date, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 17, cited by Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,"; John Wight with Zina D.H. Young, 1 October 1898, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young," ''Saints Herald'', 52 (11 January 1905): 28 </ref>
</blockquote>

Henry was to stand as proxy for Zina's post-martyrdom sealing to Joseph, and her sealing for time to Brigham Young. He and Zina separated soon thereafter, and Henry was soon gone on one of his many missions for the Church. (See [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html here] for a more in-depth analysis of attacks on Brigham and Joseph regarding Zina and Henry.)

=Observations about the third group=

In Henry Jacob's and Albert Smith's cases, we have the clearest evidence of husbands of polyandrous wives who knew about Joseph's sealing to his spouse. Henry remained a devout member of the Church, continued to serve as a missionary, and stood proxy for Zina's sealing to Joseph. Albert Smith was initially troubled, but later felt better about the arrangement, and stood proxy for Joseph in ratifying the sealing after Joseph's death.

The faithful husbands of Joseph's other polyandrous wives likewise give no sign that they were troubled by the marriages—if they were aware of them. It is notable, however, that Joseph seemed to have a particularly close bond with these husbands, and there is no evidence that such bonds were threatened by the polyandry.

=Group 4: Women likely separated/divorced from their first husbands (i.e., pseudopolyandry)=

Two cases may represent women who did not consider themselves still married to their first husband.

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Sylvia Sessions Lyon|Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]=

Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on 21 April 1838. Joseph Smith performed the ceremony. She was sealed to Joseph Smith on 8 February 1842. Her husband Windsor's reaction is not recorded, but he was a faithful, active member of the Church at the time.

Windsor was excommunicated on 7 November 1842 because he sued stake president William Marks for repayment of a loan (Church members frowned on using secular courts to settle disputes between themselves).<ref>Todd Compton calls this a "church taboo…especially [with] cases involving highly visible leaders such as a stake president" (180). Compton leaves unmentioned that a caution against using non-believers' courts to settle differences between Christians goes back at least to the Pauline epistles (see {{b|1|Corinthians|6|1–8}}).</ref> Despite his excommunication, Windsor remained on close terms with Joseph; tradition holds that he was "a true friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Sylvia gave birth to a daughter, Josephine, on 8 February 1844, and there was evidence for many years that Joseph was the father (see [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter|here]]). In 2008, Brian Hales published work demonstrating that Todd Compton likely worked with incomplete data on Session's first marriage. In Hales' view, Sessions considered herself divorced from her husband, and Joseph is the only viable father for her child. If so, Sessions' marriage to Joseph was not polyandrous.<ref>{{Paper:Hales:Sylvia Sessions 2008|pages=41–57}} See also {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=349–376}}.</ref>

Regardless, in 2016, DNA analysis ultimately disproved this speculation: Josephine was not a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.<ref>R. Scott Lloyd, "http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865656112/Joseph-Smith-apparently-was-not-Josephine-Lyons-father-Mormon-History-Association-speaker-says.html?pg=all "Joseph Smith apparently was not Josephine Lyon's father, Mormon History Association speaker says,"] ''Deseret News'' (13 June 2016) </ref>Regardless, Windsor Lyon remained a close friend and ally of Joseph's—he was called as a witness at the trial of Joseph and Hyrum's assassins.

Windsor was rebaptized on 18 January 1846, and Sylvia was sealed to Joseph by proxy with her husband's permission. She was then sealed to Heber Kimball for time, though she continued to cohabitate with Windsor, who also took a plural wife.<ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=177–186}}</ref>

=[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Mary Heron Snider|Mary Heron Snider]]=

Mary Heron Snider's husband John died active and faithful in the Church. Further, he served a mission in England and was the first Mormon to preach there, served on the committee building the Nauvoo House, was appointed a "bodyguard" for Joseph's body following the martyrdom at Carthage.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464 467}}</ref> There is a one-sentence claim of sexual relations between her and Joseph by a son-in-law, Joseph E. Johnson.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,472}}</ref> Mary and her husband "seem to have endured significant periods of estrangement after 1833, with no pregnancies after Mary turned twenty nine. Also, the couple's marriage was never sealed, though the option was available....without addition[al] documentation, reliable conclusions are unattainable."<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=464,473}}</ref> It may be that Snider's marriage to Joseph parallels the case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was likely separated from her first husband prior to her plural marriage to Joseph.

{{SeeAlso|Mormon ordinances/Divorce/Nineteenth century|l1=Divorce in the 19th century}}

=A hypothesis—why so many early polyandrous marriages?=

Joseph's polyandry strikes us as a strange practice, but few have noted some of the strangest elements. Interestingly, after Joseph's resumption of plural marriage in April 1841, all of his marriages (with one exception) were polyandrous until 29 June 1842. The lone exception is the marriage to his dead brother's widow. Furthermore, of his eleven polyandrous marriages, all but two occurred before July 1843.

This early prominence, even predominance, of polyandry is counter-intuitive. Polyandrous marriages would seem to be the most risky for Joseph and his wives. With polyandry, Emma's reaction to the marriages would be the least of Joseph's worries. Unlike being sealed to single women, polyandrous sealings introduced an additional dangerous variable: the first husband! In teaching and practicing polyandry, Joseph ran the significant risk of a jealous husband learning of his arrangement with the wife, and exposing the explosive secret in hostile terms. Such a husband might also choose to threaten Joseph physically for wrongs to his wife's—and his own—honor.

The risk to Joseph is heightened when we appreciate that a single woman had no competing loyalties, while a polyandrous wife almost always had children and a husband to whom she was bound by love and loyalty. Finally, since a key justification for Mormon polygamy was the biblical model, polyandry would also have been the most difficult form to justify to potential initiates, since there is no biblical polyandry.

Yet when we examine Joseph's polyandrous marriages, none of these problems seem to surface. All of the men—member or non-member—were close friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. No wife seems to have second thoughts; none tearfully confessed all to her unsuspecting husband or Nauvoo society.

This common-sense analysis hinges, however, on the question of marital intimacy. If polyandrous sealings were not expected to involve sexual intimacy, then they were much less challenging for all involved—including Joseph and Emma. Emma would be far less troubled by a polyandrous marriage intended to seal Joseph to beloved friends than a marriage to single women living in her home. Joseph's natural—and, I suspect, profound—desire to keep the Lord's commandments and protect Emma's feelings would have been satisfied.

If the first husband was aware of the sealings, the faithful Saints would have been untroubled by a relationship which they saw as primarily binding their family to Joseph's, while non-member husbands would have seen it as a purely religious rite with a man for whom they retained great respect and affection.

=Could faithful members save the unfaithful or unbaptized?=

A skeptical reader might, at this point, suspect we are over-reaching for an explanation. There is evidence, however, that early Mormons firmly believed that a faithful spouse could help exalt a wayward or non-member spouse.

Twenty-one-year-old Isaiah Moses Coombs immigrated to Utah in 1855. To his grief, his childhood sweetheart refused to accompany him, despite their marriage the year before. Reflecting on the agonizing decision to go west without his non-member spouse, Coombs wrote:
<blockquote>
…not least was the consideration that I was obeying the voice of God and that I was taking a course that would secure my own glory and exaltation and that would eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my wife to me in bands that could not be broken. She was blind then but the day would come when she would see.<ref>Kate B. Carter, ed., ''Isaiah M[oses] Coombs from His Diary and Journal'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: published by Daughters of Utah Pioneers through Utah Printing Company, n.d.), 339, italics added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Coombs' wife was never to join the Church, and refused a later entreaty to return with him to Utah. Yet, he persisted in the conviction that his faithfulness to the sealing covenant would suffice to exalt his disbelieving, non-member wife in the hereafter, even if she did not accept the gospel in mortality.

This example is instructive, and is significant because the account was not written for public consumption. He had no polemic purpose, save to tell his life's story.

He was also not a "prominent" member of the Church—his reflections demonstrate how one rank-and-file member, living apart from the main body of saints because of poverty, understood matters in the early 1850s. Coombs' journal makes it wrenchingly clear that his decision to leave was extraordinarily difficult—if a relatively unknown young man, moving outside the hub of Church power in Nauvoo and Utah was thus convinced, it seems likely that other early members also saw their own engagement in sealing as sufficient to help save faithful, wayward, or non-member spouses.

=Further evidence against sexual polyandry=

=Nauvoo witnesses did not try to justify sexual polyandry=

Brian Hales notes that none of the members at Nauvoo attempted to justify sexual polyandry:

<blockquote>
Belinda Marden Pratt, a plural wife of Parley P. Pratt, wrote in 1854: "'Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?' To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands." On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that "a plurality of husbands is wrong." His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would "be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time." She replied, "I think it would." All of these individuals were involved with Nauvoo polygamy, and several were undoubtedly aware of Joseph Smith's sealings to legally married women, yet they made no effort to condone sexual polyandry, nor is there any evidence that any man but Joseph Smith engaged in polyandry in Nauvoo.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=393}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Nauvoo detractors likewise say nothing about sexual polyandry=

Hales remarks:

<blockquote>
A fourth group of polygamy insiders who may have left a record is comprised of the detractors. William Law, though a member of Joseph Smith's First Presidency, denounced plural marriage and accused Joseph Smith of adultery....In his split with Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844, the fact that Law did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry and never mentioned it so far as available documents indicate, is surprising. Polyandrous sexuality would have been more shocking that adultery at that time and place. So the absence of any reference to it suggests that Law was unaware of conjugality in those unions or purposefully chose to ignore them altogether. In the end, Law settled for a less explosive charge of adultery.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=396–397}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Hales also points out that John C. Bennett likewise did not invoke polyandry in his charges against Joseph:

<blockquote>
Even more impressive is the fact th[at] John C. Bennett, who claimed knowledge of seven of Joseph Smith's plural marriages to civily married women and even identified three by name...did not accuse the Prophet of sexual polyandry. He reported polyandrous marriages without distinguishing them from nonpolyandrous polygamous unions and without recruiting the presumably offended husbands to joint his crusade against Joseph....

Bennett and Francis [Higbee] together named more than a dozen persons who they thought were likely candidates to join in denunciations of Joseph Smith's improprieties; but none of these individuals were polyandrous husbands (who, logically speaking, would have been prime candidates to protect their family's honor) nor did they mention sexual polyandry as one of Joseph's alleged numerous misdeeds.

If any of Joseph Smith's opponents had suspected the presence of sexual polyandry, their silence on the subject is puzzling. The standard of frontier justice regarding a sexually molested woman generally allowed a father, husband, brother, or son to exact revenge by beating, horsewhipping, or even killing the perpetrator.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=397–398}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Evidence from the "Temple Lot" case of non-consummation of polyandrous marriages=

Hales has identified a further line of evidence which suggests that polyandrous marriages were not consummated. In 1892, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) brought suit against the Hendrickite, or "Temple Lot" break-off group. They claimed that the Independence, Missouri temple site was rightfully RLDS property, since they were the direct heirs of Joseph Smith's original religious group.

Although not embracing plural marriage themselves, the Temple Lot group was anxious to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had taught plural marriage--for, if this was so, then the RLDS (who denied that Joseph had practiced it, and certainly did not embrace the doctrine) would have difficulty proving that they were the direct successors to the church founded by Joseph.

Hales reports:

<blockquote>
Nine of Joseph Smith's plural wives were still living when depositions started at Salt Lake City on March 14, 1892. Three were polyandrous wives ([[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Zina_Diantha_Huntington_Jacobs|Zina Huntington Jacobs Young]], [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Mary_Elizabeth_Rollins_Lightner|Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]], and [[Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Patty_Bartlett_Sessions|Patty Bartlett Sessions]]) and six were nonpolyandrous ([[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball|Helen Mar Kimball]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Martha McBride|Martha McBride]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Almera Johnson|Almera Johnson]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Emily Partridge|Emily Partridge]], [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Malissa Lott|Malissa Lott]], and [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives#Lucy Walker|Lucy Walker]].) Factors evidently affecting the choice of witnesses involved the health and travel distances for the women, and importantly, whether their polygamous marriages to the Prophet included conjugality. Non-sexual sealings would have been treated as spiritual marriages of little importance and would have played right into the hands of RLDS attorneys....

All three of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives lived in or relatively near Salt Lake City and were apparently willing to testify but were bypassed. General Relief Society President Zina D. Huntington was in good health, living only a few blocks from the deposition room. Yet she was not summoned. Likewise, polyandrous wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins was well known to Church leaders and resided in Ogden, thirty-eight miles north of Salt Lake City. She was not requested to appear, not was Patty Bartlett Sessions, who lived in Bountiful ten miles north of Salt Lake City. Patty was ninety-seven, probably a sufficient reason to pass her by....

Among nonpolyandrous wives who were not summoned was Martha McBride who lived in Hooper, Utah (thirty-seven miles to the north). McBride's relationship with Joseph Smith is poorly documented, with no evidence of sexual relations....Also passed by was Salt Lake resident Helen Mar Kimball who had written two books defending the practice of plural marriage. Her sealing to the Prophet ocurred when she was only fourteen and the presence or absence of sexual relations in her plural marriage is debated by historians.

Throughout the length question-and-answer sessions with Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker, the details of their polygamous marriages with Joseph Smith were paramount; the physical aspect of sexuality was a core issue. If Zina and/or Mary Elizabeth could not testify to such relations, their testimonies as the Prophet's polygamous wives could hurt the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) cause.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=404–405}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Would polyandrous testimony have been harmful to the Church, and so avoided?=

Hales goes on to note that there is another possible explanation for the absence of polyandrous wives from the Temple Lot testimony:

<blockquote>
...it might be reasoned that they avoided testifying because their answers might have revealed polyandrous sexuality, which would have been embarrassing and doctrinally problematic.

This second option seems less likely because, six years later, Zina willingly engaged in a formal interview (later published) with an RLDS elder, John Wight, who at one point asked: 'Then it is a fact, Mrs. Young ,is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?" to which Zina immediately responded: "What right do you have to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity." Zina's willingness to be interviewed by an RLDS inquisitor in 1898 suggests she would have been equally willing to face RLDS attorneys in 1892. However, her 1898 responses would not have been helpful to the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) at that time, had she been asked to testify.

Similarly, in 1905, Mary Elizabeth spoke freely to missionaries at BYU and even answered a direct question "concerning her husband [Adam Lightner]." She explained: "My husband did not belong to the Church. I begged and pled with him to join but he would not. He said he did not believe in it though he thought a great deal of Joseph. He sacrificed his property rather than testify against Joseph, Hyrum, and Geo. A. Smith. After he said this I went forward and was sealed to Joseph for Eternity." In other words, she, like Zina, explained that she was "sealed to Joseph for Eternity." This testimony, which stopped short of sexual relations, would not have strengthened the Temple Lot Church's case.

In their responses, both women spoke of their polyandrous relationships with Joseph Smith without any hint of ''sexual'' polyandry or the need to justify and defend it. Also, documents indicate that if Church leaders in 1892 were worried about hiding Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages (because of sexuality or other concerns), it would have been the first time such anxieties are identifiable in the historical record. [Neither Joseph F. Smith affidavits from 1869 or Andrew Jenson's notes from 1887] seemed to treat polyandrous plural marriages as problematic.<ref>{{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=405–406}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Conclusion=

It may be Joseph's first polyandrous sealings were undertaken to protect his relationship with Emma, while still fulfilling the angel's command to implement plurality. Did he hope that the "less difficult" polyandrous and levirate marriages would satisfy the commandment? Or, at the very least, were the polyandrous marriages intended to prepare both Emma and the Saints for the numerous, more difficult "single woman" plural marriages that would follow?

Such a reconstruction must remain speculative, especially since relatively little is known about the polyandrous marriages. It would, however, explain why Joseph chose to enter the "most difficult" or "most risky" marriages first—they would have been, contrary to what we might first expect, the easiest.

This is not to argue that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. However, assuming full sexuality in these relationships makes less sense of the available data.<ref>Brian C. Hales has taken this stance strongly. See: {{Book:Hales:JS Polygamy 1|pages=303–474}} He responds to the most extensive attempt to argue otherwise in {{Paper:Hales:Response to Quinn 2012}} </ref>

Is it reasonable to think that Nauvoo plural marriages had different levels of "sexual access"? Modern readers are inclined to think of marriage as mostly—or entirely—about cohabitation, but it is not clear that the early Saints saw things in this way.

For example, Utah-era polygamy had a wide range of marriage types, each of which entailed different responsibilities and degrees of sexual access. Kathryn Daynes has noted the following varieties of LDS marriages:[55]

* Civil marriages (for time only)
* Marriage for time and eternity
* Marriage for eternity only (no sexual access)
* Marriage for time only (i.e., by proxy)
* Marriages of young children (no cohabitation was permitted until the partners were older; such marriages were often never consummated, and were later cancelled when one of the partners chose to marry a different love match).
* "Convenience only" marriages: these unusual arrangements allowed for childless couples to conceive in an era which lacked assisted reproductive technology. Under prophetic approval, the couple would choose a fellow member to marry the childless wife following their own divorce. The new husband would impregnate the spouse, receive a divorce from her, and the childless couple would remarry and raise the child as their own. The "donor" husband had no on-going rights of sexual access or duties to support the wife or child.

It is clear, then, that later polygamy easily contemplated relationships which did not involve sexual access. If Joseph had implemented such variation in Nauvoo, then Brigham Young's later decision to endorse a variety of marriage forms is even more understandable.

{{SeeAlso|Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?|Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage|l2=Did Joseph have any children through polygamous marriages?}}

{{HalesLinksPolyandry}}

{{To learn more box:polygamy: polyandry}}{{blankline}}

{{Template:Critical sources box:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Essays/Polyandry/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué sabemos acerca de los sellos eternos de Joseph Smith para las mujeres que ya tenían un marido terrenal?]]

John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy

2025-10-15T18:12:41Z

SarahAllen:

{{Template:Test3}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}
{{H1
|L=John Taylor's 1886 revelation
|H=John Taylor’s September 27, 1886 Revelation
|S=John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng uploaded] to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:<ref>John Taylor, “[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27],” ''Church History Catalog'', MS 34928, accessed June 17, 2025, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Mormonr, “[https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” accessed June 17, 2025, online at mormonr.org</ref>

<blockquote>My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have not commanded men, that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen.</blockquote>
}}

===Historical Context===

The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”<ref>Ken Driggs, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-prosecutions-begin-defining-cohabitation-in-1885/ The Prosecutions Begin: Defining Cohabitation in 1885],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 21, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 109–112.</ref>

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives.<ref>David L. Bigler, ''[https://archive.org/details/forgottenkingdom0000bigl_o6o4/page/314/mode/2up Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896]'' (Utah State University Press, 1998), 314–316.</ref> Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/anti-polygamy-legislation?lang=eng Antipolygamy Legislation],” ''Church History Topics'', accessed June 26, 2025, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/0O4NVz-SX2vQb/text_of_the_1882_edmunds_act Text of the 1882 Edmunds Act],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at bhroberts.org; U-S-History.com, “[https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at u-s-history.com. Men and women were incarcerated alike under this law: men for unlawful cohabitation, and women for refusing to testify against their husbands. To read more about the women imprisoned under this law, see Lorie Winder Stromberg, “Prisoners for ‘The Principle’: The Incarceration of Mormon Plural Wives, 1882–1890,” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 2: From Joseph Smith's Martyrdom to the First Manifesto, 1844–1890'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2013), 298–325; Belle Harris, ''[https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/belle-harris?lang=eng The Prison Journal of Belle Harris]'', ed. Kenneth Adkins, Thomas C. Clark, Catherine Reese Newton, et. al (Church Historian’s Press, 2023).</ref>

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.<ref>Driggs, “Defining Cohabitation,” 109–124.</ref>

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.<ref>Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019), 24–33.</ref>

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles.<ref>Elden J. Watson, “[https://bhroberts.org/files/2NpGnj/scan-Y8y8Jd-2NpGnj.pdf?r=Y8y8Jd&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..cHXUvLOlsqWN4ZUQ.fKr2fIqFxwc7EqwVmNDg2W4Nq9IAu67W2EN0hlCwl0pIq24EBS1zPpL9C984yABDfUKrY-YENpq_4TA5_43-4jykJphY_XyFyQWLfYDLloh_pi-tQmUG-8u8Zw1eUSQ56uHAC0vHjJelExrRHrEmj-rac1yTXkRU0ELIwPGTzDqbal28wiihZPDPluJjmiWXVNNJ6Q2oNdwA5TSz-zr1_NkgTVGPM3eN-v-7EIX3QHs7cY0mLCF55kVoBikq3AkCLeD3nGXGLi3h53pNc8oi5CHBQS12VDvtB3DGJJ2IvaJeXQiwfUMmNCZ49e7qheLdMofjZcCXixqc9E4fROulkSodcEB6igNRKiJf6TmI3iK-BDGnnVCvPE0yA77lCgemMIBPKKC5OR9tu1uOq5bwTVsJJ4g.NyWAO_lvyB53WiXaDh_Y-g President John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” Different Thoughts 3 (March 1989): 4–8, as cited by bhroberts.org.</ref> Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage],” ''Gospel Topics Essays'', October 22, 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.</ref>

===Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?===

Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation.”</ref>

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives.<ref>B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) publish official statement denouncing the practice of plural marriage in the Church],” accessed June 25, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed this during John W. Taylor’s excommunication hearing in 1911, when he said, “It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian's Office, this was but a short time ago.” B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-ddMFvg/reprint_of_minutes_of_membership_trial_of_john_w_taylor_mentions_the_quorum_discussion_around_the_1886_taylor_revelation Reprint of minutes of membership trial of John W. Taylor; mentions the quorum discussion around the 1886 Taylor revelation],” accessed June 27, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another ''carefully worded denial'' like those made during the early days of plural marriage.<ref>Samuel W. Taylor, ''[https://archive.org/details/kingdomornothing0000tayl/page/368/mode/2up The Kingdom or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon]'' (Macmillan, 1976), 369–370; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt87tmi7xJQ&t=1989s The Hidden Polygamy Revelation of 1886, Explained, ft. Stephen Smoot],” June 25, 2025, 33:09–40:38, online at youtube.com; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=200s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 3:20–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders.<ref>For example, historian D. Michael Quinn was granted access to the revelation while working on a landmark article in 1985. D. Michael Quinn, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/ LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 18, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 9–105.</ref> At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation”; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=318s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 5:18–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

===The New and Everlasting Covenant===

Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”<ref>Brigham Young, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/12/47#230 The Object of Gathering––Practical Religion––The Love of God––Our Covenants],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, and D. W. Evans (Albert Carrington, 1869), 12:230.</ref>

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”<ref>Brian C. Hales, “[https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 3: Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy from 1890 to the Present'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2015), 70, 72.</ref>

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”<ref>Revelation to John Taylor, 25–26 June 1882, in ''Revelations given to John Taylor, 1882–1884'', MS 41, Church History Catalog. Digital access must be requested by the individual [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/71550f40-40e2-4f22-a513-d9efed66649a/0?view=browse here].</ref>

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the '''Law''' of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the '''principle''' of plural marriage.”<ref>John Taylor, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/24/27#229 The Work of God––The Events of the Times––Gathering––Temple Ordinances––The Object of Marriage––Plural Marriage––A Terrible Lesson––Laws of God Must Be Enforced––The Priesthood––Parties, Cliques, Rings, Murmurers––Israel],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (John Henry Smith, 1884), 24:229.</ref>

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 84:54–57.</ref>

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

====The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture====

It is common for critics to insist that '''“the new and everlasting covenant”''' can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

* The Old Testament frequently referred to the '''“everlasting covenant”''' which God had established with Noah ({{b||Genesis|9|8-16}}), and Israel ({{b||Ezekiel|37|26-28}}).
* Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the '''“everlasting covenant”''': Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... ({{b||Hebrews|13|20}}).
* In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a '''new and an everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning” ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|22|1}}).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not ''exclusively'' refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the '''covenant''', and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

;Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831): I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine '''everlasting covenant''' into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|45|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831): Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you '''mine everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831): Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving '''mine everlasting covenant''', even the fulness of my gospel... ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|66|2}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832): [Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither '''the everlasting covenant'''... ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|76|101}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832): And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the '''new covenant''', even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|84|57}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832): [In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the '''everlasting covenant'''....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|88|131-133}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833): When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and ''covenant with an everlasting covenant'', they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|101|39}}).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|}}).

The revelation on plural marriage ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|132||}}) describes a similar idea:

<blockquote>
4 For behold, I reveal unto you '''a new and an everlasting covenant'''; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to '''the new and everlasting covenant''', it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|4-6}})
</blockquote>

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

<blockquote>
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|7}}).
</blockquote>

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 64, esp. note 15. Franklin D. Richard's [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/26/37#343 use in October 1885] is the sole use in the ''Journal of Discourses,'' 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (Daniel H. Wells, 1886), 26:343.</ref> (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

===Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?===

There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Christopher C. Jones, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor ‘John the Revelator’: The Written Revelations of John Taylor],” in ''Champion of Liberty: John Taylor'', ed. Mary Jane Woodger (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 295–296. The thirteen individuals reported to have attended the eight-hour meeting were John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, Amy Woolley, Julia E. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Daniel R. Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, George Earl, and Samuel Sedden. The five men allegedly ordained to continue in plural marriage were Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and Lorin C. Woolley.</ref>

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.<ref>Reports of Joseph Smith meeting with John Taylor the night the revelation was received did some rather early, but the later elaborations did not come until much later. See Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 76–90. To read more about the post-Manifesto period and the rise of Fundamentalist Mormonism, see Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019).</ref>

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 88–89.</ref>

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 107.</ref>

{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna evidencia de importantes reuniones el 27 de septiembre de 1886, cuando el Presidente John Taylor recibió una revelación y dio a los hombres el poder del sacerdocio para continuar la poligamia fuera de la Iglesia?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿John Taylor recibió una revelación el 27 de septiembre de 1886 que prometió que la poligamia nunca sería abandonada por la Iglesia?]]

[[es:El Mormonismo y la poligamia/John Taylor]]

Template:Navigation:Plural marriage

2025-10-15T18:11:08Z

SarahAllen:

{{Navigation
|name=Plural marriage
|title = [[Plural marriage|Plural marriage]]
|group1=Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
|list1=
*[[Purpose of plural marriage]]
*[[Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation]]
*[[Plural marriage in early Christianity]]
*[[Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Plural marriage and the Bible]]

|group2=Introduction of plural marriage
|list2=
*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*[[Plural marriage and the law]]

|group3=Questions about [[Joseph Smith and plural marriage]]
|list3=

*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Joseph Smith's marriages to young women]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him?]]
*[[Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Polyandry]]
*[[Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Marrying other men's wives?]]
*[[Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma]]
*[[Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages]]
*[[Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132]]
*[[Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?]]

|group5=[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo|John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy]]
|list5=
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|Bennett before Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution|Bennett and Prostitution]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Brothel at Nauvoo|Brothel at Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Rise and Fall of Bennett|Rise and Fall of Bennett]]
*[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo/Sarah_Pratt|Sarah Pratt]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Nancy Rigdon|Nancy Rigdon]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges|Sidney Rigdon]]

|group6=[[Plural wives of Joseph Smith|Plural wives of Joseph Smith]]
|list6=
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] 
* [[Emma Smith]]
* [[Fanny Alger]]
* [[Louisa Beaman]]
* [[Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]
* [[Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]
* [[Agnes Moulton Coolbrith]]
* [[Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]
* [[Esther Dutcher]]
* [[Hannah S. Ells]]
* [[Olive Grey Frost]]
* [[Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer]]
* [[Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris]]
* [[Clarissa Reed Hancock]]
* [[Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]
* [[Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe]]
* [[Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]
* [[Vienna Jacques]]
* [[Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]
* [[Almera Johnson]]
* [[Helen Mar Kimball]]
* [[Maria Lawrence]]
* [[Sarah Lawrence]]
* [[Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]
* [[Malissa Lott]]
* [[Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]
* [[Martha McBride]]
* [[Eliza Partridge]]
* [[Emily Partridge]]
* [[Rhoda Richards]]
* [[Ruth Vose Sayers]]
* [[Patty Bartlett Sessions]]
* [[Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman]]
* [["Miss Smith"]]
* [[Mary Heron Snider]]
* [[Eliza R. Snow]]
* [[Lucy Walker]]
* [[Sarah Ann Whitney]]
* [[Nancy Maria Winchester]]
* [[Flora Ann Woodworth]]
* [[Fanny Young]]

|group7=Plural marriage in Utah
|list7=
*[[Difficulties with plural marriage]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[John Taylor's 1886 revelation]]
*[[Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century]]
*[[Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah]]

|group8=End of plural marriage
|list8=
*[[The First Manifesto]]
*[[Official Declaration Number 1]]
*[[Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today]]
}}

Template:Navigation:Plural marriage

2025-10-15T18:09:54Z

SarahAllen: Undo revision 263679 by SarahAllen (talk)

{{Navigation
|name=Plural marriage
|title = [[Plural marriage|Plural marriage]]
|group1=Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
|list1=
*[[Purpose of plural marriage]]
*[[Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation]]
*[[Plural marriage in early Christianity]]
*[[Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Plural marriage and the Bible]]

|group2=Introduction of plural marriage
|list2=
*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*[[Plural marriage and the law]]

|group3=Questions about [[Joseph Smith and plural marriage]]
|list3=

*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Joseph Smith's marriages to young women]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him?]]
*[[Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Polyandry]]
*[[Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Marrying other men's wives?]]
*[[Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma]]
*[[Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages]]
*[[Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132]]
*[[Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?]]

|group5=[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo|John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy]]
|list5=
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|Bennett before Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution|Bennett and Prostitution]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Brothel at Nauvoo|Brothel at Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Rise and Fall of Bennett|Rise and Fall of Bennett]]
*[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo/Sarah_Pratt|Sarah Pratt]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Nancy Rigdon|Nancy Rigdon]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges|Sidney Rigdon]]

|group6=[[Plural wives of Joseph Smith|Plural wives of Joseph Smith]]
|list6=
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] 
* [[Emma Smith]]
* [[Fanny Alger]]
* [[Louisa Beaman]]
* [[Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]
* [[Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]
* [[Agnes Moulton Coolbrith]]
* [[Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]
* [[Esther Dutcher]]
* [[Hannah S. Ells]]
* [[Olive Grey Frost]]
* [[Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer]]
* [[Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris]]
* [[Clarissa Reed Hancock]]
* [[Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]
* [[Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe]]
* [[Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]
* [[Vienna Jacques]]
* [[Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]
* [[Almera Johnson]]
* [[Helen Mar Kimball]]
* [[Maria Lawrence]]
* [[Sarah Lawrence]]
* [[Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]
* [[Malissa Lott]]
* [[Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]
* [[Martha McBride]]
* [[Eliza Partridge]]
* [[Emily Partridge]]
* [[Rhoda Richards]]
* [[Ruth Vose Sayers]]
* [[Patty Bartlett Sessions]]
* [[Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman]]
* [["Miss Smith"]]
* [[Mary Heron Snider]]
* [[Eliza R. Snow]]
* [[Lucy Walker]]
* [[Sarah Ann Whitney]]
* [[Nancy Maria Winchester]]
* [[Flora Ann Woodworth]]
* [[Fanny Young]]

|group7=Plural marriage in Utah
|list7=
*[[Difficulties with plural marriage]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy]]
*[[Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century]]
*[[Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah]]

|group8=End of plural marriage
|list8=
*[[The First Manifesto]]
*[[Official Declaration Number 1]]
*[[Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today]]
}}

Template:Navigation:Plural marriage

2025-10-15T18:09:37Z

SarahAllen: Undo revision 263680 by SarahAllen (talk)

{{Navigation
|name=Plural marriage
|title = [[Plural marriage|Plural marriage]]
|group1=Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
|list1=
*[[Purpose of plural marriage]]
*[[Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation]]
*[[Plural marriage in early Christianity]]
*[[Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Plural marriage and the Bible]]

|group2=Introduction of plural marriage
|list2=
*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*[[Plural marriage and the law]]

|group3=Questions about [[Joseph Smith and plural marriage]]
|list3=

*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Joseph Smith's marriages to young women]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him?]]
*[[Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Polyandry]]
*[[Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Marrying other men's wives?]]
*[[Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma]]
*[[Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages]]
*[[Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132]]
*[[Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?]]

|group5=[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo|John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy]]
|list5=
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|Bennett before Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution|Bennett and Prostitution]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Brothel at Nauvoo|Brothel at Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Rise and Fall of Bennett|Rise and Fall of Bennett]]
*[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo/Sarah_Pratt|Sarah Pratt]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Nancy Rigdon|Nancy Rigdon]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges|Sidney Rigdon]]

|group6=[[Plural wives of Joseph Smith|Plural wives of Joseph Smith]]
|list6=
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] 
* [[Emma Smith]]
* [[Fanny Alger]]
* [[Louisa Beaman]]
* [[Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]
* [[Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]
* [[Agnes Moulton Coolbrith]]
* [[Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]
* [[Esther Dutcher]]
* [[Hannah S. Ells]]
* [[Olive Grey Frost]]
* [[Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer]]
* [[Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris]]
* [[Clarissa Reed Hancock]]
* [[Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]
* [[Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe]]
* [[Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]
* [[Vienna Jacques]]
* [[Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]
* [[Almera Johnson]]
* [[Helen Mar Kimball]]
* [[Maria Lawrence]]
* [[Sarah Lawrence]]
* [[Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]
* [[Malissa Lott]]
* [[Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]
* [[Martha McBride]]
* [[Eliza Partridge]]
* [[Emily Partridge]]
* [[Rhoda Richards]]
* [[Ruth Vose Sayers]]
* [[Patty Bartlett Sessions]]
* [[Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman]]
* [["Miss Smith"]]
* [[Mary Heron Snider]]
* [[Eliza R. Snow]]
* [[Lucy Walker]]
* [[Sarah Ann Whitney]]
* [[Nancy Maria Winchester]]
* [[Flora Ann Woodworth]]
* [[Fanny Young]]

|group7=Plural marriage in Utah
|list7=
*[[Difficulties with plural marriage]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[John Taylor's 1886 Revelation]]
*[[Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century]]
*[[Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah]]

|group8=End of plural marriage
|list8=
*[[The First Manifesto]]
*[[Official Declaration Number 1]]
*[[Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today]]
}}

Template:Navigation:Plural marriage

2025-10-15T18:08:54Z

SarahAllen:

{{Navigation
|name=Plural marriage
|title = [[Plural marriage|Plural marriage]]
|group1=Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
|list1=
*[[Purpose of plural marriage]]
*[[Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation]]
*[[Plural marriage in early Christianity]]
*[[Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Plural marriage and the Bible]]

|group2=Introduction of plural marriage
|list2=
*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*[[Plural marriage and the law]]

|group3=Questions about [[Joseph Smith and plural marriage]]
|list3=

*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Joseph Smith's marriages to young women]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him?]]
*[[Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Polyandry]]
*[[Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Marrying other men's wives?]]
*[[Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma]]
*[[Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages]]
*[[Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132]]
*[[Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?]]

|group5=[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo|John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy]]
|list5=
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|Bennett before Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution|Bennett and Prostitution]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Brothel at Nauvoo|Brothel at Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Rise and Fall of Bennett|Rise and Fall of Bennett]]
*[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo/Sarah_Pratt|Sarah Pratt]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Nancy Rigdon|Nancy Rigdon]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges|Sidney Rigdon]]

|group6=[[Plural wives of Joseph Smith|Plural wives of Joseph Smith]]
|list6=
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] 
* [[Emma Smith]]
* [[Fanny Alger]]
* [[Louisa Beaman]]
* [[Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]
* [[Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]
* [[Agnes Moulton Coolbrith]]
* [[Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]
* [[Esther Dutcher]]
* [[Hannah S. Ells]]
* [[Olive Grey Frost]]
* [[Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer]]
* [[Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris]]
* [[Clarissa Reed Hancock]]
* [[Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]
* [[Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe]]
* [[Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]
* [[Vienna Jacques]]
* [[Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]
* [[Almera Johnson]]
* [[Helen Mar Kimball]]
* [[Maria Lawrence]]
* [[Sarah Lawrence]]
* [[Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]
* [[Malissa Lott]]
* [[Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]
* [[Martha McBride]]
* [[Eliza Partridge]]
* [[Emily Partridge]]
* [[Rhoda Richards]]
* [[Ruth Vose Sayers]]
* [[Patty Bartlett Sessions]]
* [[Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman]]
* [["Miss Smith"]]
* [[Mary Heron Snider]]
* [[Eliza R. Snow]]
* [[Lucy Walker]]
* [[Sarah Ann Whitney]]
* [[Nancy Maria Winchester]]
* [[Flora Ann Woodworth]]
* [[Fanny Young]]

|group7=Plural marriage in Utah
|list7=
*[[Difficulties with plural marriage]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[John Taylor's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century]]
*[[Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah]]

|group8=End of plural marriage
|list8=
*[[The First Manifesto]]
*[[Official Declaration Number 1]]
*[[Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today]]
}}

Template:Navigation:Plural marriage

2025-10-15T18:08:14Z

SarahAllen:

{{Navigation
|name=Plural marriage
|title = [[Plural marriage|Plural marriage]]
|group1=Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
|list1=
*[[Purpose of plural marriage]]
*[[Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation]]
*[[Plural marriage in early Christianity]]
*[[Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Plural marriage and the Bible]]

|group2=Introduction of plural marriage
|list2=
*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*[[Plural marriage and the law]]

|group3=Questions about [[Joseph Smith and plural marriage]]
|list3=

*[[Initiation of the practice of plural marriage]]
*[[Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife]]
*[[Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership]]
*[[Joseph Smith's marriages to young women]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him?]]
*[[Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Polyandry]]
*[[Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage]]
*[[Polyandry and Joseph Smith: sealings to women with living husbands|Marrying other men's wives?]]
*[[Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma]]
*[[Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages]]
*[[Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132]]
*[[Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives?]]
*[[Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?]]

|group5=[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo|John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy]]
|list5=
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|Bennett before Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Bennett and Prostitution|Bennett and Prostitution]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Brothel at Nauvoo|Brothel at Nauvoo]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Rise and Fall of Bennett|Rise and Fall of Bennett]]
*[[John_C._Bennett_and_plural_marriage_at_Nauvoo/Sarah_Pratt|Sarah Pratt]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Nancy Rigdon|Nancy Rigdon]]
*[[John C. Bennett and plural marriage at Nauvoo/Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges|Sidney Rigdon]]

|group6=[[Plural wives of Joseph Smith|Plural wives of Joseph Smith]]
|list6=
*[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] 
* [[Emma Smith]]
* [[Fanny Alger]]
* [[Louisa Beaman]]
* [[Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell]]
* [[Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland]]
* [[Agnes Moulton Coolbrith]]
* [[Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee]]
* [[Esther Dutcher]]
* [[Hannah S. Ells]]
* [[Olive Grey Frost]]
* [[Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer]]
* [[Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris]]
* [[Clarissa Reed Hancock]]
* [[Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes]]
* [[Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe]]
* [[Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde]]
* [[Vienna Jacques]]
* [[Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs]]
* [[Almera Johnson]]
* [[Helen Mar Kimball]]
* [[Maria Lawrence]]
* [[Sarah Lawrence]]
* [[Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner]]
* [[Malissa Lott]]
* [[Sylvia Sessions Lyon]]
* [[Martha McBride]]
* [[Eliza Partridge]]
* [[Emily Partridge]]
* [[Rhoda Richards]]
* [[Ruth Vose Sayers]]
* [[Patty Bartlett Sessions]]
* [[Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman]]
* [["Miss Smith"]]
* [[Mary Heron Snider]]
* [[Eliza R. Snow]]
* [[Lucy Walker]]
* [[Sarah Ann Whitney]]
* [[Nancy Maria Winchester]]
* [[Flora Ann Woodworth]]
* [[Fanny Young]]

|group7=Plural marriage in Utah
|list7=
*[[Difficulties with plural marriage]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage]]
*[[John Taylor's 1886 Revelation]]
*[[Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century]]
*[[Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah]]

|group8=End of plural marriage
|list8=
*[[The First Manifesto]]
*[[Official Declaration Number 1]]
*[[Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto]]
*[[The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today]]
}}

John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy

2025-10-15T18:03:15Z

SarahAllen: updating to the new information

{{Template:Test3}}
{{Navigation:Plural marriage}}
{{H1
|L=John Taylor's statements regarding polygamy
|H=John Taylor’s September 27, 1886 Revelation
|S=John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng uploaded] to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:<ref>John Taylor, “[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27],” ''Church History Catalog'', MS 34928, accessed June 17, 2025, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Mormonr, “[https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” accessed June 17, 2025, online at mormonr.org</ref>

<blockquote>My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have not commanded men, that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen.</blockquote>
}}

===Historical Context===

The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”<ref>Ken Driggs, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-prosecutions-begin-defining-cohabitation-in-1885/ The Prosecutions Begin: Defining Cohabitation in 1885],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 21, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 109–112.</ref>

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives.<ref>David L. Bigler, ''[https://archive.org/details/forgottenkingdom0000bigl_o6o4/page/314/mode/2up Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896]'' (Utah State University Press, 1998), 314–316.</ref> Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/anti-polygamy-legislation?lang=eng Antipolygamy Legislation],” ''Church History Topics'', accessed June 26, 2025, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/0O4NVz-SX2vQb/text_of_the_1882_edmunds_act Text of the 1882 Edmunds Act],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at bhroberts.org; U-S-History.com, “[https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at u-s-history.com. Men and women were incarcerated alike under this law: men for unlawful cohabitation, and women for refusing to testify against their husbands. To read more about the women imprisoned under this law, see Lorie Winder Stromberg, “Prisoners for ‘The Principle’: The Incarceration of Mormon Plural Wives, 1882–1890,” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 2: From Joseph Smith's Martyrdom to the First Manifesto, 1844–1890'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2013), 298–325; Belle Harris, ''[https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/belle-harris?lang=eng The Prison Journal of Belle Harris]'', ed. Kenneth Adkins, Thomas C. Clark, Catherine Reese Newton, et. al (Church Historian’s Press, 2023).</ref>

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.<ref>Driggs, “Defining Cohabitation,” 109–124.</ref>

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.<ref>Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019), 24–33.</ref>

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles.<ref>Elden J. Watson, “[https://bhroberts.org/files/2NpGnj/scan-Y8y8Jd-2NpGnj.pdf?r=Y8y8Jd&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..cHXUvLOlsqWN4ZUQ.fKr2fIqFxwc7EqwVmNDg2W4Nq9IAu67W2EN0hlCwl0pIq24EBS1zPpL9C984yABDfUKrY-YENpq_4TA5_43-4jykJphY_XyFyQWLfYDLloh_pi-tQmUG-8u8Zw1eUSQ56uHAC0vHjJelExrRHrEmj-rac1yTXkRU0ELIwPGTzDqbal28wiihZPDPluJjmiWXVNNJ6Q2oNdwA5TSz-zr1_NkgTVGPM3eN-v-7EIX3QHs7cY0mLCF55kVoBikq3AkCLeD3nGXGLi3h53pNc8oi5CHBQS12VDvtB3DGJJ2IvaJeXQiwfUMmNCZ49e7qheLdMofjZcCXixqc9E4fROulkSodcEB6igNRKiJf6TmI3iK-BDGnnVCvPE0yA77lCgemMIBPKKC5OR9tu1uOq5bwTVsJJ4g.NyWAO_lvyB53WiXaDh_Y-g President John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” Different Thoughts 3 (March 1989): 4–8, as cited by bhroberts.org.</ref> Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage],” ''Gospel Topics Essays'', October 22, 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.</ref>

===Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?===

Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation.”</ref>

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives.<ref>B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) publish official statement denouncing the practice of plural marriage in the Church],” accessed June 25, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed this during John W. Taylor’s excommunication hearing in 1911, when he said, “It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian's Office, this was but a short time ago.” B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-ddMFvg/reprint_of_minutes_of_membership_trial_of_john_w_taylor_mentions_the_quorum_discussion_around_the_1886_taylor_revelation Reprint of minutes of membership trial of John W. Taylor; mentions the quorum discussion around the 1886 Taylor revelation],” accessed June 27, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another ''carefully worded denial'' like those made during the early days of plural marriage.<ref>Samuel W. Taylor, ''[https://archive.org/details/kingdomornothing0000tayl/page/368/mode/2up The Kingdom or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon]'' (Macmillan, 1976), 369–370; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt87tmi7xJQ&t=1989s The Hidden Polygamy Revelation of 1886, Explained, ft. Stephen Smoot],” June 25, 2025, 33:09–40:38, online at youtube.com; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=200s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 3:20–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders.<ref>For example, historian D. Michael Quinn was granted access to the revelation while working on a landmark article in 1985. D. Michael Quinn, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/ LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 18, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 9–105.</ref> At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation”; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=318s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 5:18–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

===The New and Everlasting Covenant===

Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”<ref>Brigham Young, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/12/47#230 The Object of Gathering––Practical Religion––The Love of God––Our Covenants],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, and D. W. Evans (Albert Carrington, 1869), 12:230.</ref>

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”<ref>Brian C. Hales, “[https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 3: Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy from 1890 to the Present'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2015), 70, 72.</ref>

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”<ref>Revelation to John Taylor, 25–26 June 1882, in ''Revelations given to John Taylor, 1882–1884'', MS 41, Church History Catalog. Digital access must be requested by the individual [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/71550f40-40e2-4f22-a513-d9efed66649a/0?view=browse here].</ref>

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the '''Law''' of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the '''principle''' of plural marriage.”<ref>John Taylor, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/24/27#229 The Work of God––The Events of the Times––Gathering––Temple Ordinances––The Object of Marriage––Plural Marriage––A Terrible Lesson––Laws of God Must Be Enforced––The Priesthood––Parties, Cliques, Rings, Murmurers––Israel],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (John Henry Smith, 1884), 24:229.</ref>

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 84:54–57.</ref>

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

====The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture====

It is common for critics to insist that '''“the new and everlasting covenant”''' can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

* The Old Testament frequently referred to the '''“everlasting covenant”''' which God had established with Noah ({{b||Genesis|9|8-16}}), and Israel ({{b||Ezekiel|37|26-28}}).
* Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the '''“everlasting covenant”''': Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... ({{b||Hebrews|13|20}}).
* In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a '''new and an everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning” ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|22|1}}).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not ''exclusively'' refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the '''covenant''', and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

;Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831): I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine '''everlasting covenant''' into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|45|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831): Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you '''mine everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831): Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving '''mine everlasting covenant''', even the fulness of my gospel... ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|66|2}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832): [Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither '''the everlasting covenant'''... ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|76|101}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832): And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the '''new covenant''', even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|84|57}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832): [In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the '''everlasting covenant'''....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|88|131-133}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833): When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and ''covenant with an everlasting covenant'', they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|101|39}}).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|}}).

The revelation on plural marriage ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|132||}}) describes a similar idea:

<blockquote>
4 For behold, I reveal unto you '''a new and an everlasting covenant'''; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to '''the new and everlasting covenant''', it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|4-6}})
</blockquote>

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

<blockquote>
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|7}}).
</blockquote>

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 64, esp. note 15. Franklin D. Richard's [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/26/37#343 use in October 1885] is the sole use in the ''Journal of Discourses,'' 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (Daniel H. Wells, 1886), 26:343.</ref> (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

===Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?===

There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Christopher C. Jones, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor ‘John the Revelator’: The Written Revelations of John Taylor],” in ''Champion of Liberty: John Taylor'', ed. Mary Jane Woodger (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 295–296. The thirteen individuals reported to have attended the eight-hour meeting were John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, Amy Woolley, Julia E. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Daniel R. Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, George Earl, and Samuel Sedden. The five men allegedly ordained to continue in plural marriage were Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and Lorin C. Woolley.</ref>

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.<ref>Reports of Joseph Smith meeting with John Taylor the night the revelation was received did some rather early, but the later elaborations did not come until much later. See Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 76–90. To read more about the post-Manifesto period and the rise of Fundamentalist Mormonism, see Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019).</ref>

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 88–89.</ref>

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 107.</ref>

{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna evidencia de importantes reuniones el 27 de septiembre de 1886, cuando el Presidente John Taylor recibió una revelación y dio a los hombres el poder del sacerdocio para continuar la poligamia fuera de la Iglesia?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿John Taylor recibió una revelación el 27 de septiembre de 1886 que prometió que la poligamia nunca sería abandonada por la Iglesia?]]

[[es:El Mormonismo y la poligamia/John Taylor]]