Church Essays on Polygamy

[Col. Flagg]

Thank you for the responses.
I'm still not sure they signed off on these essays.
They signed off on the Family Proclamation, but these essays do not amount to the same thing in my view.
Anyhow, I believe Joseph was a truthful man even if they don't.

I agree with you Robin Hood. How do you reconcile your opinion with sustaining the brethren?

If a person believes that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, how do you reconcile Brigham Young and others practicing polygamy?

We know that Abraham "lied" about Sarah being his sister, and the reason for doing it (God told him to). Might this not apply to Joseph also? Might this also explain President Hinckley's response?

Abraham later marries Keturah and has six more sons, but on his death, when he is buried beside Sarah, it is Isaac who receives "all Abraham's goods", while the other sons receive only "gifts".[2]

President Nelson and Elder Oaks have both married in the temple after their first spouses passed away. President Hunter also remarried after his first wife passed away, with President Hinckley doing the sealing.

While we do not practice "live" polygamy today, the concept is still in play.

Our Savior taught that God made one man for one woman, indicating He did not intend for either to marry anyone else. He said they should cleave to one another and the two become one - there is no room in God's plan for a third party. God joins the man and woman, no human has the right to break that bond.

I still can't help but wonder where polygamy would be today if: A) both men and women were allowed to have more than one spouse and B) if women were allowed to have more than one husband, but men could only have one wife. The product of that would be D&C Section 132.5, a new revelation forbidding the practice forever! =))

[Fiannan]

I still can't help but wonder where polygamy would be today if: A) both men and women were allowed to have more than one spouse and B) if women were allowed to have more than one husband, but men could only have one wife.

It is called polyamory and there are many people practicing it. Generally a woman will have a male and a female partner. If polyamory were mainstreamed I believe this would be the norm, not a woman with two men.

[Melissa]

I still can't help but wonder where polygamy would be today if: A) both men and women were allowed to have more than one spouse and B) if women were allowed to have more than one husband, but men could only have one wife.

It is called polyamory and there are many people practicing it. Generally a woman will have a male and a female partner. If polyamory were mainstreamed I believe this would be the norm, not a woman with two men.

Your generalizations of women being bi-sexual is a bit offensive. Why wouldn't a woman want more than one husband? I can think of many reasons how that could be useful and desired! But to have a wife and a husband....no thanks! Not all women are bi or otherwise interested in their own gender.

I also would dare say that a woman could better handle two husbands than a man could handle two wives.

[Fiannan]

I still can't help but wonder where polygamy would be today if: A) both men and women were allowed to have more than one spouse and B) if women were allowed to have more than one husband, but men could only have one wife.

It is called polyamory and there are many people practicing it. Generally a woman will have a male and a female partner. If polyamory were mainstreamed I believe this would be the norm, not a woman with two men.

Your generalizations of women being bi-sexual is a bit offensive. Why wouldn't a woman want more than one husband? I can think of many reasons how that could be useful and desired! But to have a wife and a husband....no thanks! Not all women are bi or otherwise interested in their own gender.

I also would dare say that a woman could better handle two husbands than a man could handle two wives.

How common is bisexual and homosexual orientation, today? Researchers at Cornell University, examining data collected from a representative sampling of young Americans which included more than 20,000 individuals in 80 communities across the United States, found that 85.1% of the young women identified as heterosexual; 0.5% reported no sexual identity; and the remaining 14.4% were sexual but not strictly heterosexual, i.e. either lesbian or bisexual. Among young men, 94.0% identified themselves as heterosexual; 0.4% of the men reported no sexual identity; and the remaining 5.6% identified as gay or bisexual. See Ritch Savin-Williams and Geoffrey L. Ream, "Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood," Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 36, pp. 385 - 394, 2007. The proportions in Europe might be higher. For example, in Norway, more than 20% of girls and young women identified as lesbian or bisexual: see L. Wichstrøm and K. Hegna, "Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, volume 112, pp. 144-151, 2003. In a study from New Zealand, 16.4% of young women identified as lesbian or bisexual, compared with 5.6% of men who identified as gay or bisexual: see N. Dickson and colleagues, "Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood", Social Science and Medicine, volume 56, pp. 1607 - 1615, 2003.

First, I made a comment about how most polyamorous relationships are today. Also, in regards to the growing trend of young women abandoning the label of being heterosexual please check the above data. Here is the source:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sa ... r-bisexual" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gallup did a poll a while back that also demonstrated that, while other demographics tended not to be changing in regards to sexual orientation, young women's lebaling of themselves as bi or lesbian had taken a huge upswing.

[Fiannan]

By the way, I have active teen daughters. You would be surprised how many of the girls they have met at youth conferences admit to being bisexuals.

[Melissa]

By the way, I have active teen daughters. You would be surprised how many of the girls they have met at youth conferences admit to being bisexuals.

Yes, I would. It's honestly a sickness of society and trying to accommodate it would also be unwell. The trend I have noticed is men starting to act more vain like females by wearing tighter clothing and trying to look more "pretty" and attractive. I have also noticed an upswing in homosexual men.

I presume that the increase in young women proclaiming to be bi sexual, is also related to the increase and overall acceptance of people being influenced by society and "believing" because they are being programmed to believe it or allowed to explore it with acceptance. Hence the transgender issues and gender fluidity that's so popular. We have kids under the age of accountability being allowed to self proclaim their gender irregardless of their biology. And it's accepted and encouraged. So the upswing in young women proclaiming to be bi-sexual could just be the same thing. We live in a nearly free swinging society these days, no expectation of gender or gender roles.

It's affecting both genders and regardless of the stats, we know it is a perversion and it's not in harmony with the plan of salvation. Not to be judgemental over it or uber religious - I just can see that implementing polygamy or polyamory would not fix an immoral society. We are living in the last days, we need to see all this stuff for what it is. Stats won't ever make it right.

[Robin Hood]

By the way, I have active teen daughters. You would be surprised how many of the girls they have met at youth conferences admit to being bisexuals.

Yes, I would. It's honestly a sickness of society and trying to accommodate it would also be unwell. The trend I have noticed is men starting to act more vain like females by wearing tighter clothing and trying to look more "pretty" and attractive. I have also noticed an upswing in homosexual men.

I presume that the increase in young women proclaiming to be bi sexual, is also related to the increase and overall acceptance of people being influenced by society and "believing" because they are being programmed to believe it or allowed to explore it with acceptance. Hence the transgender issues and gender fluidity that's so popular. We have kids under the age of accountability being allowed to self proclaim their gender irregardless of their biology. And it's accepted and encouraged. So the upswing in young women proclaiming to be bi-sexual could just be the same thing. We live in a nearly free swinging society these days, no expectation of gender or gender roles.

It's affecting both genders and regardless of the stats, we know it is a perversion and it's not in harmony with the plan of salvation. Not to be judgemental over it or uber religious - I just can see that implementing polygamy or polyamory would not fix an immoral society. We are living in the last days, we need to see all this stuff for what it is. Stats won't ever make it right.

Well said Melissa.
You're absolutely spot on.

[rewcox]

Interesting. In today's world, polygamy seems mild. My how things change.

[Fiannan]

It's affecting both genders and regardless of the stats, we know it is a perversion and it's not in harmony with the plan of salvation. Not to be judgemental over it or uber religious - I just can see that implementing polygamy or polyamory would not fix an immoral society. We are living in the last days, we need to see all this stuff for what it is. Stats won't ever make it right.

Polygamy would at least allow young women who are wishing to start families the chance of doing so. And remember, the longer one is single the more apt they are to finally give in to whatever sexual temptations may come their way. Of course, as we live in a society that has replaced God with consumerism, there will be those who will prefer glitz and superficiality to a more Gospel way of living, but at least there will be less of the righteous women unable who have to live as Mormon nuns, marry non-members, or finally just give up and join the society and indulge their appitites.

[skmo]

Your generalizations of women being bi-sexual is a bit offensive.

I agree, and I'd agree even more so if it wasn't a position backed up more and more in our increasingly corrupt society. In young people today many more females are being convinced that same sex activity is beneficial than men are. The sickness known as liberalization is having more difficulty convincing young men that they can still be manly while being intimate with another man than in convincing young women that female intimacy is more easily accepted from same sex activity. Males are more brutish, females are more refined.

[Fiannan]

Your generalizations of women being bi-sexual is a bit offensive.

I agree, and I'd agree even more so if it wasn't a position backed up more and more in our increasingly corrupt society. In young people today many more females are being convinced that same sex activity is beneficial than men are. The sickness known as liberalization is having more difficulty convincing young men that they can still be manly while being intimate with another man than in convincing young women that female intimacy is more easily accepted from same sex activity. Males are more brutish, females are more refined.

You are on to something there. Our society no longer needs brute strength in regards to economics. Also, many homosexuals work in media and they have found an excellent means to communicate acceptance of homosexuality through mainstream TV. Ironically, the only place that one will see alpha-males presented in a positive sense are violent action films, and, as most are R-rated, or get the V warning if on TV, many Mormons (and others) do not let thier kids watch such programs. So young males are raised to see metro-sexual role models.

Women still want males who stand up for themselves physically or intellectually though. Yet such males are a minority in today's culture. Again, a reason polygamy might be the only solution.

[Melissa]

Your generalizations of women being bi-sexual is a bit offensive.

I agree, and I'd agree even more so if it wasn't a position backed up more and more in our increasingly corrupt society. In young people today many more females are being convinced that same sex activity is beneficial than men are. The sickness known as liberalization is having more difficulty convincing young men that they can still be manly while being intimate with another man than in convincing young women that female intimacy is more easily accepted from same sex activity. Males are more brutish, females are more refined.

You are on to something there. Our society no longer needs brute strength in regards to economics. Also, many homosexuals work in media and they have found an excellent means to communicate acceptance of homosexuality through mainstream TV. Ironically, the only place that one will see alpha-males presented in a positive sense are violent action films, and, as most are R-rated, or get the V warning if on TV, many Mormons (and others) do not let thier kids watch such programs. So young males are raised to see metro-sexual role models.

Women still want males who stand up for themselves physically or intellectually though. Yet such males are a minority in today's culture. Again, a reason polygamy might be the only solution.

Mormons need to let their kids watch action/violence movies to see a male role model? Surely there must be a real man boys can emulate instead of a fake movie character. I understand media rules the masses but members have no excuse to fall victim to it. We need to raise kids not tv.

There are plenty of men who are just great and make good providers and husbands and father's without having to be alpha (ie better than).

[skmo]

Mormons need to let their kids watch action/violence movies to see a male role model?

No, but overall that's the way many of our societal norms are going. Fiannan was correct in noting that Hollyweird is largely staffed and many of their major projects are produced by people who suffer from that liberal disease of destroying the eternal gender roles.

Surely there must be a real man boys can emulate instead of a fake movie character.

Admittedly, I'm an old man (if 52 doesn't seem old to you, take it up with my knees - they're old) but I have several figures I grew up with admiring, but none more than my own father. I have never met a smarter person in my life, and that includes all of my college and university professors. However, don't knock media heroes. I don't feel cheated to believe that John Wayne was a good idol to have, same with Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, and James Stewart. Heck, a couple of my idols I got from literature: Aragorn son of Arathorn, and guys like Teancum and Helaman.

I understand media rules the masses but members have no excuse to fall victim to it. We need to raise kids not tv.

Which is one of the reasons I so strongly encourage parents to read with their kids from a young age, and to encourage them to read good materials (often the classics.)

[bbsion]

Is there anyone on this board who concurs with me that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?

Rock Waterman is on this forum, he agrees with you about that.

Here an essay he wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have not read through this whole thread so I don't know what all has been said. However, I read that blogspot link from Rock and I disagree with his conclusion entirely. The whole article felt like he didn't want to believe so he found some information that confirmed what he wanted to hear. Too many unreliable second hand accounts and not once did he say in that article if he prayed about it. Oh well I guess, it is his opinion after all.

[Melissa]

I don't think we will have a clear picture of understanding until we receive some additional information. Even the apostles don't have a clear understanding of our past, and if anyone should it would be them. We're all (most of us anyways) are in the same boat. Some chose to research and draw conclusions and others have found peace in either letting it be as the "past" or relying on their faith to know that what happened was to some degree God's will and leaving it at that.

I agree with others in the idea that polygamy discussions seem to never have an end.

[Robin Hood]

Is there anyone on this board who concurs with me that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?

Rock Waterman is on this forum, he agrees with you about that.

Here an essay he wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have not read through this whole thread so I don't know what all has been said. However, I read that blogspot link from Rock and I disagree with his conclusion entirely. The whole article felt like he didn't want to believe so he found some information that confirmed what he wanted to hear. Too many unreliable second hand accounts and not once did he say in that article if he prayed about it. Oh well I guess, it is his opinion after all.

The problem is that the entire pro-polygamy position, where Joseph is concerned, is based on second hand accounts at best. Rock (who draws heavily on the work of Richard and Pamela Price) acknowledges that the contemporary evidence points overwhelmingly to Joseph's innocence.

[Serragon]

Is there anyone on this board who concurs with me that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?

Rock Waterman is on this forum, he agrees with you about that.

Here an essay he wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have not read through this whole thread so I don't know what all has been said. However, I read that blogspot link from Rock and I disagree with his conclusion entirely. The whole article felt like he didn't want to believe so he found some information that confirmed what he wanted to hear. Too many unreliable second hand accounts and not once did he say in that article if he prayed about it. Oh well I guess, it is his opinion after all.

The problem is that the entire pro-polygamy position, where Joseph is concerned, is based on second hand accounts at best. Rock (who draws heavily on the work of Richard and Pamela Price) acknowledges that the contemporary evidence points overwhelmingly to Joseph's innocence.

I am another on this board that does not believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

[Fiannan]

Islam: The prophets of old practiced polygamy because Allah gave it as a blessing.
Judaism: The prophets of old practiced polygamy but we have no clue why God gave it.
Catholicism: Who would want more than one wife? One is icky enough.
Protestantism: Covers ears when polygamy comes up, utters the noise, "nananananananananananananana."
Mormonism: God gave polygamy, maybe, but kinda gives it here and there as a test, no, as a blessing, no, as a trial, no, as a deep principle, no...

[freedomforall]

Another polygamy thread? #-O (-| :-@

[freedomforall]

I forward a reminder concerning something BrianM wrote:

I just wanted to make some clarifications regarding the rules of this forum. It is a violation of the rules to promote ideas that are anti-Mormon and not inline with the doctrine and scriptures of the LDS Church. This more recently includes some discussions on polygamy / plural marriage.

"Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman. By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President."
Source: Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The LDS Church accepts D&C section 132 as a revelation from the Lord to the prophet Joseph Smith. That revelation includes instructions on plural marriage. Nearly half of the presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were polygamists. While the LDS Church does not currently allow the practice of plural marriage, it is still a part of the doctrine/scriptures and a big part of our history. Also, see Official Declaration 1

Official LDS Church articles on plural marriage:

Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

This is around the 74th thread dealing with polygamy.

[bbsion]

Is there anyone on this board who concurs with me that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?

Rock Waterman is on this forum, he agrees with you about that.

Here an essay he wrote: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have not read through this whole thread so I don't know what all has been said. However, I read that blogspot link from Rock and I disagree with his conclusion entirely. The whole article felt like he didn't want to believe so he found some information that confirmed what he wanted to hear. Too many unreliable second hand accounts and not once did he say in that article if he prayed about it. Oh well I guess, it is his opinion after all.

The problem is that the entire pro-polygamy position, where Joseph is concerned, is based on second hand accounts at best. Rock (who draws heavily on the work of Richard and Pamela Price) acknowledges that the contemporary evidence points overwhelmingly to Joseph's innocence.

I believe that after everything I've read that the evidence points overwhelmingly to Joseph's innocence as well. Just because he was a polygamist that does not mean he was guilty of any wrong doing. I still disagree with Rock's conclusion in that blog.

This is a tough topic. There are many individuals willing and able to debate this topic to death. Many will share their opinions, quotes, and references to explain how right their opinion is and how wrong someone else is. Many come to threads just like this to gain some sort of acceptance or justification for why they believe the way they do. If they love or hate Polygamy, then they will find like minded individuals to converse with so they feel validated. I'll bet most of us will likely never change our minds. This again is why we all have access to the Holy Ghost to gain personal revelation on any given subject.

[skmo]

This is a tough topic. There are many individuals willing and able to debate this topic to death. Many will share their opinions, quotes, and references to explain how right their opinion is and how wrong someone else is. Many come to threads just like this to gain some sort of acceptance or justification for why they believe the way they do. If they love or hate Polygamy, then they will find like minded individuals to converse with so they feel validated. I'll bet most of us will likely never change our minds. This again is why we all have access to the Holy Ghost to gain personal revelation on any given subject .

Yes. This is probably about the 63rd billionth time polygamy has come up here, and it's as useless as the prior 62,999,999,999 other times. While I understand it's generally simplified, men come here to snicker with each other and scheme about how they're going to be able to score lots of eternal babes throughout forever. Women are going to come hoping to make some sense of why men are pigs. Neither will be enlightened.

Either God gave the saints polygamy to help the kingdom grow and they couldn't live it righteously so it was taken, or selfish men figured they'd try to convince women to accept their nature as pigs, and it failed. The bottom line for us is that we are told we may have one spouse in this existence, and if you disobey that you'll be excommunicated. Using convoluted stories from history to condemn others or justify your own selfishness is going to fail, and there's no good to come from it. It comes down to this:

Unless God changes the directives to us in this lifetime we live according to gospel rules with a husband and a wife and such family as we can righteously maintain, or we break the rules and suffer the consequences. Whether polygamy was properly used in the past or not is now a moot point other than to historians, and trust me, a good many of them are goobers who can't tie their shoes correctly. If God wants us to have polygamy He will direct it. Otherwise, shut your cakeholes and just live the gospel.

[Joel]

Joseph Smith, Sarah Ann Whitney, and the Familial Dynamics of Nauvoo Polygamy

[The great people at the Joseph Smith Papers Project keep rolling out newly digitized documents onto the website. Last year they uploaded several new caches from 1843. Included in that bunch was a blessing for Sarah Ann Whitney, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, dated March 23 and written in Smith’s own hand. Very few people were aware that this document existed. This post seeks to briefly explain and partially contextualize the circumstances that led to the blessing’s creation.]

Sarah Ann Whitney grew up knowing and revering Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet. Her parents, Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney, were some of Smith’s earliest converts; Newel soon became the second bishop in the church, and Elizabeth was one of the founders of the Female Relief Society. In Nauvoo, the Whitneys were royalty.

It was logical, then, that Newel and Elizabeth were some of the first people Smith told about a new doctrine allowing polygamy. They were at first shocked, but eventually accepting. And then, “laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage,” Elizabeth later wrote, they consented “to give our eldest daughter, then seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the order of plural marriage.” Sarah Ann, their second child and first daughter, was to be wed to the prophet of her youth, a man twenty years her senior.

The sealing between Joseph Smith and Sarah Ann Whitney took place in secret on July 27th, 1842. It is the only polygamous sealing from Nauvoo where participants left a written record of the ritual. This document, framed as a revelation, is perhaps the best insight into the dynastic theology upon which polygamy was based. It was written in the voice of God and directed to Newell Whitney, and instructed him on how to perform the quixotic nuptials between his daughter and Smith. “They shall take each other by the hand,” it explained, “and you shall say you both mutually agree calling them by name to be each others companion so long as you both shall live.” The sealing promised “honor and immortality and eternal life” to the entire Whitney household. Sarah Ann was merely a link in a chain that bound the Smith and Whitney families, an assurance of salvation for Newell and Elizabeth, their ancestors, and even their progenitors. By attaching themselves to the royal lineage of Mormonism’s prophet, the Whitney family found eternal stability.

Smith, in turn, relished the new association. It was a period where he needed moral support. The next month, while he was in hiding to escape extradition charges, Smith wrote a letter pleading for Newel, Elizabeth, and Sarah to come visit him at his secret hideout. Yet he knew the scandal involved, especially if his wife Emma found out. “The only thing to be careful of,” Smith cautioned, “is to find out when Emma comes,” because it “cannot be safe” if she were present. Clandestine relationships during tense situations required secret rendezvous. Smith often wore his emotions on his sleeves, and this letter demonstrated that his lust for kin extended to polygamous families. He certainly knew it was scandalous: Smith urged the Whitneys to “burn this letter as soon as you read it.” Besieged from all sides, Smith was earnest enough to take risks.

But the Whitney family had its own struggles. The decision to seal their daughter to Smith caused Elizabeth great agony. Not only was she Sarah’s mother, but she was a good friend to Emma, with whom she helped organize the Relief Society only a few months previous. Now she was helping orchestrate covert meetings between her daughter and her prophet. She later admitted “how bad she felt when Joseph Smith first broched [sic] the subject to her,” and “how she cried about it but the Prophet at last obtained her consent.” This was an anguishing ordeal. Nor was Elizabeth the only family member to have doubts: Smith asked the Whitney parents to keep the marriage secret from their son Horace, whom Joseph feared would cause “serious trouble.” This was a hard strain on a family that had already sacrificed much for the faith.

But then, of course, there was Sarah herself. Only seventeen years old at the time, and by all accounts well liked by her peers, this was an event that would change the course for her whole life. Even while she was initiated into the Mormon church’s inner circle, and linked forever to the faith’s prophet, she must have known that she risked alienation from everyday life. Could she survive as the secret wife of an already much-married man? There had to be compensation. Six weeks after the secret sealing, and two weeks after Smith’s request for a clandestine meeting, Smith deeded to Sarah a lot of land only one block from his own. It was rare for a woman to own land in Nauvoo, especially a woman as young as Sarah; indeed, it was so rare that whoever filled out the deed had to strike out “his” and write in “hers” to match the inheritor’s gender.[1]

But land would not be enough. Financial security, however tenuous, was one thing, but Sarah’s social life was now exceptionally more complicated. As a secret bride of the prophet, she was not available for courtship on the very eve of entering womanhood. Beyond the disappointment of having no future marital prospects, her single status coupled with a refusal to consider suitors was bound to raise suspicions.

A solution was struck the following spring. Her sister, Caroline, died while giving birth that October, leaving her husband, Joseph Kingsbury, a widower. He was crestfallen and left to raise their young son. But Joseph Smith made the most of the situation: he proposed a civil union between Sarah and Kingsbury. This would officially take Sarah off the market, and in return Smith promised Kingsbury the chance to be sealed to his deceased wife. “Thy companion Caroline who is now dead,” the prophet blessed Kingsbury in late March, “thou shalt have in the first Reserection [sic].” By helping Smith handle a difficult situation, Kingsbury was rewarded by being one of the very first Mormons to be sealed to a deceased spouse. Smith officiated over what Kingsbury later called a “pretended marriage” between him and Sarah the following month.

Kingsbury was not the only person to receive assurances from Joseph Smith, as Sarah also required extensive support. It had been seven months since she had been sealed to the prophet. Perhaps the young bride felt regrets, especially when she turned eighteen on March 22nd. Though just entering adulthood, in many ways she had already sacrificed much of her future life on behalf of her family. Was she destined to live her life as a sacerdotal martyr? The day after her birthday, therefore, at the same meeting where Smith and the extended Whitney family agreed upon the “pretended marriage,” Sarah received a blessing that reaffirmed the significance of her ritual the previous summer.[2]

The blessing promised Sarah that, due to her attachment to the prophet, God would “crown her with a diadem of glory in the Eternal worlds.” But the promises were not restricted to herself. If she remained committed to the new covenant, “all her Father[‘]s house Shall be Saved.” This was a heavy assurance. Perhaps taking into account her brother Horace, whom they were still worried would be enraged with the clandestine union, the blessing promised that “if any [of the family] Shall wander from the foald [sic] of the Lord they shall not perish but Shall return.” Due to her sealing to Smith, Sarah’s entire family was guaranteed salvation, including those who fell away from the faith. In an era where Americans of all denominations worried about the state of their own soul, the whole Whitney dynasty was promised a heavenly reward. Perhaps Sarah’s sacrifice was worth the cost.[3]


Joseph Smith’s blessing of Sarah Ann Whitney, in Joseph Smith’s handwriting. Please click here to see a high-resolution scan on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Hearing the blessing was not enough–Sarah wanted it in writing. Perhaps that would make it feel more real. Early Mormons believed in a literal Book of the Lord, after all, where written records inaugurated eternal heavenly rewards. Whether by his own volition or at Sarah’s request, Smith penned the blessing on a intricate stationary that included an ornamental shape and subtle yet defined borders. Given the prophet rarely wrote anything in his own hand, this was indeed a rare document. For Sarah, it was likely sacred–the only tangible evidence she had for the many metaphysical promises.[4]

Sarah cherished the document enough that it remained within her family’s possession for nearly a century. To the Whitneys, both those in Nauvoo as well as those who came after, it was prophetic and authoritative proof of their family’s election. To Sarah, though, it must have felt bittersweet: it represented both the life she gave up, as well as the many lives she might have saved.

Polygamy in Nauvoo was a harrowing ordeal. Especially for those women who risked their reputation, stability, and future in order to secretly enter these secretive plural unions, it must have seemed impossible to find a sense of strength. To a large extent, they lacked both power and control over their own lives. Sarah Ann Whitney’s blessing document, however, represents the type of assurance they fought for in return. Sarah made sure she had a receipt for her sacrifice. As such, her blessing is a document imbued with the deep tensions that pervaded the culture in which it was constructed.

_____________________________
[1] While the land deed states that the property cost one thousand dollars, a figure slightly higher than most plots sold that year, it is very unlikely that Sarah herself paid that amount. It is possible that Sarah’s parents provided the money, or that Smith merely covered it himself but desired not to leave a paper trail.

[2] I conclude that it was at a meeting on March 23, 1843, that Joseph Kingsbury and Sarah Ann Whitney agreed to be civilly wed based on the fact that both received significant blessings that day. In response to their concession, they were each promised what they desired: Joseph would be sealed to his deceased wife, and Sarah was assured salvation for her whole family. This meeting, in other words, reaffirmed the promises made to the Whitney family during the marriage ritual the previous summer.

[3] This blessing likely served the basis for the famous refrain of Orson F. Whitney, Sarah Whitney’s nephew: “The Prophet Joseph Smith declared-and he never taught more comforting doctrine-that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant sevice int he Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or in the life to come, they will return.” This passage was frequently quoted by LDS leaders for decades, but has recently been challenged by Apostle David A. Bednar, who claims it does not accurately reflect Joseph Smith’s thinking. Perhaps the release of this 1843 document, which ties the idea to Joseph Smith’s own hand, will lead to a resurgence of the theory.

[4] Without examining it in person, and until the great JSP editors do more work, I can’t tell whether the paper on which the blessing was written was originally designed that way or if someone, like Sarah, carefully trimmed the page and sketched the borders. I look forward to someone performing a deep analysis of this just-released document, hopefully drawing from the tools of material culture. Though not nearly as ornate, the blessing slightly reflected Wilford Woodruff’s journal entry detailing his own family’s salvation when his parents and siblings were baptized:


Entry from Wilford Woodruff’s diary detailing his family’s conversion and baptism. This image comes from the frontispiece of Laurel Ulrich’s new book, A House Full of Females.

[EmmaLee]

^^ That's one of the saddest things I've ever read.

[Arenera]

^^ That's one of the saddest things I've ever read.

Wuv, tru wuv.