FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Adultery before 12 July 1843
FAIR Answers—back to home page
Was plural marriage actually adultery before 12 July 1843?
Important introductory material on plural marriage available here
| Answers portal |
| Plural marriage |
|
 RESOURCES
|
|---|
|
Joseph Smith era:
Post-Joseph Smith:
Post-Manifesto–present |
 PERSPECTIVES
|
 MEDIA
|
| OTHER PORTALS
|
Questions
Doctrine and Covenants 132 was written 12 July 1843. Lorenzo Snow testified during the late nineteenth century that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy prior to this date.
- Was anyone who practiced plural marriage before that date guilty of adultery?
- Since Joseph had entered into plural marriages before that date, was Lorenzo Snow essentially admitting that Joseph was an adulterer?
(The source for this claim is Lorenzo Snow's testimony given during the late-nineteenth century Temple Lot court case between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), two groups who did not follow the leadership of Brigham Young and the Twelve after the death of Joseph Smith.) To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
Answer
Lorenzo Snow's complete testimony in the Temple Lot case demonstrates that he did not regard Joseph's marriages prior to July 1843 as adulterous. This stance is also consistent with his earlier sworn testimony, and his sister's account.
For the Tanners' reading to be accepted, we must reject all but the snippet which they quote—including an attempt by the prosecution in the Smoot case to draw the very conclusion which the Tanners advance. Yet, the witness rejected that attempt, as he would doubtless reject the Tanners' insinuations almost a century later.
Stephen H. Webb: "Evidence That Demands Our Amazement... Joseph Smith was a remarkable person"
Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:[1]
By any measurement, Joseph Smith was a remarkable person. His combination of organizational acumen with spiritual originality and personal decorum and modesty is rare in the history of religion. He was so steadfast in his ability to inspire men and women through times of great hardship that none of those who knew him could claim to fully understand him. He knew more about theology and philosophy than it was reasonable for anyone in his position to know, as if he were dipping into the deep, collective unconsciousness of Christianity with a very long pen. He read the Bible in ways so novel that he can be considered a theological innocent—he expanded and revised the biblical narrative without questioning its authority—yet he brusquely overturned ancient and impregnable metaphysical assumptions with the aplomb of an assistant professor. For someone so charismatic, he was exceptionally humble, even ordinary, and he delegated authority with the wisdom of a man looking far into the future for the well-being of his followers. It would be tempting to compare him to Mohammed—who also combined pragmatic political skill and a genius for religious innovation—if he were not so deeply Christian. [Title is Webb's.][2]:95
Detailed Analysis
(Note that the critics also err in assuming that 12 July 1843 was the day the revelation was received, whereas it is clear that Joseph had been teaching the doctrine since at least 1831. The revelation was merely put into writing in 1843 at the instigation of Hyrum Smith.)
The testimony - part #1
The relevant testimony from Lorenzo Snow reads:
- Up to the time of the presentation of that revelation to the church and its acceptance by the church, the law of the church on marriage was the same as you have read, and which I referred to in the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Exhibit E. That was the law of the church up to the time of the purported revelation and its acceptance by the church; yes, sir, that is true.
- And a man that violated this law in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes, sir, he would have been cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.
- Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the State, too. [3]
Lorenzo Snow is clearly explaining that the Church's marital standard was monogamy until they had received and accepted the plural marriage revelation.
Does this mean, then, that even if Joseph—the prophet—contracted a marriage before 13 July 1843, it would necessarily be adulterous? There are two possibilities:
- Lorenzo Snow is making a blanket statement about any and all plural marriages, including Joseph's.
- Lorenzo Snow is speaking about any member doing so without Joseph's instruction and approval, since there was nothing in LDS scripture to permit it until the revelation was written on 13 July 1843. But, Joseph could potentially contract such a marriage without being adulterous, since he had already received the command from God to do so. Other members, however, had not been so commanded, and so they would not have been justified.
As we will now see, Lorenzo's other testimony shows that he clearly did not regard Joseph as an adulterer, even for plural marriages contracted before the revelation was written. Thus, the second option best captures his intent. We can be certain that the Tanners did not fairly represent the intent of Snow's testimony, or the conclusions which he drew, since the Reed Smoot hearing tried to draw the same conclusion, only to have Snow reject it a page later in his testimony.
Lorenzo Snow's testimony - part #2
Lorenzo Snow's sister, Eliza R. Snow, was married to Joseph Smith in April 1843—before the revelation was written down.
If option #1 above is the intent of Snow's testimony, then he would regard Eliza's marriage as adulterous. If, on the other hand, option #2 was his intent, then he would not be troubled by Joseph's sealing to his sister.
It is clear that the person asking the questions at the Smoot hearings wishes to draw the same conclusion as the Tanners—option #1. Let's see how Snow responds:
- Q. You state now that Joseph Smith was sealed or married to your sister in April, 1843, and this so-called revelation was given in July, 1843?
- A. [Lorenzo Snow:] Well, the time I said it, it was all right. According to my understanding of this new covenant, the woman is sealed to the man and not the man to the woman, and I stated that Joseph Smith took my sister for a wife when he had a wife living, and that was prior to the giving of this revelation.
- Q. Well, what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in?
- A. It put them in a first-rate, splendid condition for time and eternity. [4]
There is no hint that Snow regards their act as adulterous or improper. The questioner clearly hopes that when he asks "what kind of position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in?" Snow will be forced to reply, "an adulterous position." But, Snow says no such thing—he notes that their status before God is "first-rate," and "splendid" both before and after death. Given the seriousness with which adultery is and was regarded by Latter-day Saints, the Tanners' reading is implausible.
Other evidence of Lorenzo's attitude to Eliza's marriage
Furthermore, Lorenzo Snow had been taught the doctrine of plural marriage well before July 1843, as he later swore:
- In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith’s house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.
- He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think one hour or more, m which he told me many important things.
- I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true. [5]
Lorenzo gives no sign that Joseph was adulterous—indeed, he emphasizes the divine command, the revelation from God, and the angel's insistance.
Eliza also gave witness about her brother's attitude to her marriage:
- While my brother was absent on this, his first mission to Europe, changes had taken place with me, one of eternal import, of which I supposed him to be entirely ignorant. The Prophet Joseph had taught me the principle of plural, or Celestial Marriage, and I was married to him for time and eternity. In consequence of the ignorance of most of the Saints, as well as people of the world, on this subject, it was not mentioned only privately between the few whose minds were enlightened on the subject.
- Not knowing how my brother would receive it, I did not feel at liberty, and I did not wish to assume the responsibility of instructing him in the principle of plural marriage, and either maintained silence, or, to his indirect questioning, gave evasive answers, until I was forced, by his cool and distant manner, to feel that he was growing jealous of my sisterly confidence-that I could not confide in his brotherly integrity. I could not endure this-something must be done. I informed my husband of the situation, and requested him to open the subject to my brother. A favorable opportunity soon presented, and, seated together on the lone bank of the Mississippi river, they had a most interesting conversation. The Prophet afterwards told me that he found that my brother’s mind had been previously enlightened on the subject in question, and was ready to receive whatever the spirit of revelation from God should impart. That comforter which Jesus said should “lead into all truth,” had penetrated his understanding and, while in England, had given him an intimation of what at that time was, to many, a secret. This was the result of living near the Lord, and holding communion with him. [6]
Lorenzo's mind had been prepared, and so he did not reject the teaching, or frown on Eliza's marriage to Joseph as adulterous. This evidence is all consistent with option #2, but not with the Tanners' option #1.