Helen Mar Kimball—Was She Joseph's Plural Wife?

As many are aware, in October 2014 the LDS Church posted an article to their Web site stating that Joseph Smith, Jr., was a polygamist and that one of his 30 to 40 plural wives was a 14-year-old named Helen Mar Kimball. (See my previous post, "The LDS Church's Plural Marriage Statement," as to why I believe they posted this article.) This official statement from the LDS Church created quite a media storm, in particular the part that Joseph married a 14-year-old girl. While the LDS Church may believe he married Helen Mar Kimball, after reviewing all of her available writings, I don't believe he did.

Helen Mar's Background

Helen Mar was the daughter of Heber C. Kimball (an apostle in the Quorum of Twelve at Joseph's death) and Vilate Murray. In his life, Heber admittedly married 43 women including some alleged plural wives of Joseph (Lucy Walker, Sarah Ann Whitney, Martha McBride, Prescinda Huntington, and Sarah Lawrence) as well as Hyrum Smith's second monogamous wife (after his first died), Mary Fielding Smith, mother of Joseph F. Smith. These marriages took place after Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths. Heber took his first plural wife in 1842 (see familypedia.wikia.com), which, for chronological reference, was prior to Joseph's alleged celestial marriage revelation of July 12, 1843.

According to Andrew Jenson, Helen Mar Kimball allegedly married Joseph Smith, Jr., in May 1843 (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record 6, 234). Todd Compton lists her as Joseph's 25th plural wife (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 6). When she allegedly married Joseph, she was 14 years old and was one of two 14-year-olds possibly married to Joseph, the other being Nancy Winchester (ibid., 6). These are the two girls that critics reference to accuse Joseph of pedophilia. In 1846, prior to leaving Nauvoo for the West, Helen Mar was married for time (and possibly eternity) to Horace Whitney (ibid., 504), son of Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Ann Smith. Horace was a brother to Sarah Ann Whitney (ibid., 343), who, as previously stated, was another alleged plural wife of Joseph. (See my blog post on Sarah Ann Whitney.) Sarah Ann Whitney became the plural wife of Helen Mar's father (Heber C. Kimball) on January 12, 1846, in the Nauvoo Temple (ibid., 354). In 1856 Horace Whitney married a plural wife, Mary Cravath (ibid., 513). Horace died on November 22, 1884 (ibid., 523), and Helen Mar died November 15, 1896 (ibid., 533).

Even though Helen Mar allegedly started her polygamous life with Joseph Smith, Jr., in great opposition to this principle, she later became one of its most vocal female advocates and published several writings in support of its practice. According to Todd Compton, because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," she is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (ibid., 467).

Helen Mar's Writings

According to Todd Compton, Helen Mar wrote several items pertaining to her life in the LDS Church.

Her writings can be divided into four categories: two pamphlets, both defenses of polygamy; the Woman’s Exponent memoir; editorials published in the Deseret News and Woman’s Exponent; and her diary.

The first pamphlet—a broadside response to Reorganized Latter Day Saints president Joseph Smith III’s denial of his father, Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, involvement in polygamy—was Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald.” It was published by the Juvenile Instructor Office in 1882. The second was Why We Practice Plural Marriage, published by the same office two years later. References to these pamphlets appear frequently in Helen’s diaries. She gave copies of them to her relatives and friends outside of Salt Lake City to sell, and she often received payment for sales (for example, on January 2, 1885). These two pamphlets were impassioned defenses of polygamy that almost denounced monogamy as evil per se. They garnered attention as pleas for plural marriage from the perspective of a woman, although most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt. From May 1880 to August 1886, the Woman’s Exponent published Helen’s memoirs in serial form under the titles “Scenes and Incidents at Nauvoo,” “Our Travels beyond the Mississippi,” and “Scenes and Incidents at Winter Quarters.” (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33)

Helen Mar's complete diary is contained in the book, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, edited by Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton. She began to write her diary in 1884 when her husband Horace became very ill unto death. She continued writing it until the month before her death in 1896 (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1).

The series of her recollections (memoirs) published in the Woman’s Exponent have been compiled into the publication, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History by Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds. and can be read on-line. This publication also includes her March 30, 1881, autobiographical letter to her children and her obituary. According to "The Rest of Her Story" section of this publication, "Helen Mar notes in her earliest written autobiography [1876]: 'I never wrote or kept a Diary one day in my life [(Whitney, 'Autobiography,' 9 January 1876)].'" Also, the "Introduction" states :

In addition to this series of recollections [memoirs], Helen Mar wrote letters and poems for publication in the same newspaper [Woman’s Exponent] between 1 October 1880 and 1 March 1891, adding important details of her life and activity during this period.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain digital copies of her 1876 autobiography or her editorials published in the Deseret News and Woman’s Exponent. The conclusions I have made in this article are based on her writings listed below, which to my knowledge are the only ones available in digital format:

• Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald”
• Why We Practice Plural Marriage
• A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney
• A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History

In my opinion, writers have taken quotes from her writings and have interpreted them to their prejudice, as well as interwoven them with the hearsay testimonies of others to support their position that she was Joseph's plural wife. I found that when I read her above writings without an author interpreting them for me, I received a totally different impression of her relationship with Joseph than that portrayed by other writers.

Analysis of Her Writings

Helen Mar's writings give us a true sense of who she was and whether or not she had a polygamous relationship with Joseph. Only she can tell us who she is. Only she can tell us about her relationship with Joseph. Her writings are considered primary evidence and as such are extremely important in proving whether or not she was Joseph's plural wife. If her writings, as primary evidence, don't prove they were married, in my opinion it is improbable that they actually were.

Any widow, even 35 years after her husband's death, should be able to provide enough details about her marriage ceremony and her marital relationship to convince anyone she was married to him. Since Compton said, as previously quoted, her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," make her "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 467), I was expecting her writings to clearly support the position that she was married to Joseph—including personal references to their relationship as well as a detailed account of their wedding ceremony with a date of marriage. However, her writings are almost silent about these things. And, what little she does state about being married to Joseph, is not personal or consistent. Thus, it is both what she said, as well as what she didn't say, that has convinced me she was not Joseph's plural wife.

For the sake of analyzing her writings, I am dividing them into two categories: her diary and her other writings.

Her Diary

Helen Mar's diary was written about her life from 1884–1896. In her diary, there are almost no entries pertaining to her alleged marriage to Joseph. However, scanning the diary, it appears she made a couple of references that need to be considered in determining whether she was actually married to Joseph. Her diary entry of June 27, 1887, includes the statement:

Bro. Gensen called to see me—wants me to write up incidents of my life as soon as I can. I gave him a few incidents of Flora Gove’s life who was a wife of Joseph Smith (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, transcribers and editors, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 246)

The summary of her 1887 diary entries provided by the editors on page 213 of this work indicate that this diary entry was a reference that Helen Mar was visited by Andrew Jenson, who wrote the "Plural Marriage" article of Historical Record 6.

In July 1887, Jenson published a twenty-seven page article, "Plural Marriage," in his monthly Historical Record. It identified by name twenty-seven plural wives of Joseph Smith. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 1:11)

In the "Plural Marriage" article, Jenson listed Helen Mar Kimball as a plural wife of Joseph and that they were married in May 1843. However, he didn't state the source for this information (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record 6, 234). If it is true that the "Gensen" in Helen Mar's diary is in fact Andrew Jenson, and since Jenson's article was published a month after the interview, then they may have talked about her alleged marriage to Joseph, including the date.

However, the diary entry itself doesn't support that such a conversation occurred. It is only evidence that Jenson wanted her to write about her life as soon as she could and that she told him of Flora Gove's marriage to Joseph. (Of course, this information about Flora Gove and Joseph from Helen Mar—a third party—is considered hearsay.)

It is interesting to me that she told of Gove's alleged plural marriage to Joseph—but not of her own. I would think that if she truly had been married to Joseph in 1843, she would have also mentioned it when she mentioned Gove's. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this statement by Helen Mar in her diary does not provide any evidence that she was actually married to Joseph. To conclude anything else is pure speculation.

The second diary reference that needs to be considered is a direct reference to her alleged marriage to Joseph. According to Hales,

It is obvious that Helen's sealing [to Joseph] was for both time and eternity. In 1886 Helen told a Brother Hyrum Kimball that she "was sealed to the Prophet in Nauvoo." She wrote: "He was astonished and so was I that he was ignorant of this fact." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:295; The Widows Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, July 11, 1886 entry, 169).

What is obvious from this diary entry is that in 1886 Helen Mar believed she had been married to Joseph in Nauvoo. However, her statement doesn't indicate when the alleged marriage took place. Was she referencing a sealing for time and eternity in 1843 or, as the Nauvoo Temple records state, a sealing for eternity in 1846 after Joseph's death? (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:272) This is unclear, and her statement could have referenced either one. Thus, this entry doesn't substantiate that she was in fact married to Joseph in 1843 as his plural wife.

In addition, Helen Mar's shock that Hyrum Kimball didn't know about this event possibly shows that her alleged marriage to Joseph was not a known fact among those whom she felt should have known about this event. If her diary entry was referencing her alleged marriage to Joseph in 1843, this could indicate that such a marriage was merely in her mind and not in reality. As I proceed with the analysis of her other writings, this possibility will become more apparent.

Her Other Writings

Some of her other writings, including the pamphlets, extensively discuss polygamy indicating Joseph as the author of this principle within the LDS Church. In reading these writings, both what she said about Horace and what she didn't say about Joseph has clearly convinced me that Helen Mar Kimball was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.

What She Said about Horace

What she said about her marriage to Horace Whitney (in the Nauvoo Temple in 1846 just prior to their evacuation from Nauvoo) indicates to me she was never married to Joseph. She gives two accounts of her marriage to Horace which materially conflict with one another. In "The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo" she states:

At early twilight on the 3rd of February [1846] a messenger was sent by my father, informing H. K. Whitney and myself that this day finished their work in the temple, and that we were to present ourselves there that evening. The weather being fine we preferred to walk; and as we passed through the little graveyard at the foot of the hill a solemn covenant we entered into—to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity, and this vow was solemnized at the holy altar. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History, "The Last Chapter of Scenes in Nauvoo"; Woman’s Exponent, vol. 12, no. 11, 1 November 1883, p. 81, emphasis added)

In this account, Helen Mar states that the vow ("to cling to each other through time and, if permitted, throughout all eternity") was "solemnized at the holy altar." To me, this indicates that she and Horace were married for both time and eternity on February 3, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple.

However, in Helen Mar's earlier (March 30, 1881) autobiographical letter to her children she states:

Two years after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum I loved and married your father, Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney. He stood proxy for Joseph & I stood for Elizabeth Sikes. We were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple over the alter on the 3 of Feb. 1846. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One")

To me, this account means that on February 3, 1846, Helen Mar was married for time to Horace, but she was married for eternity to Joseph, who had died in 1844. Thus, her 1881 statement materially conflicts with her 1883 statement. Compton's chapter on Helen Mar Kimball supports her 1881 statement and suggests that she was remarried to Joseph for eternity in 1846, although he gives no reason why he accepted her 1881 statement over her 1883 statement. The Nauvoo Temple Proxy Sealing records also support Helen Mar's 1881 statement that she was sealed to Joseph for eternity in 1846 (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:272).

Nevertheless, whichever statement of hers you want to believe, in my opinion they both support the position that Helen Mar was never sealed to Joseph as a plural wife during his life. If she had been sealed to Joseph in 1843 for time and eternity, she couldn't have also been sealed to Horace for eternity according to her 1883 statement. Similarly, if she had gone through a formal sealing ceremony (like the one alleged for Sarah Ann Whitney in 1842—see my blog post) with Joseph in 1843 for both time and eternity, why would she have been sealed again in 1846 to Joseph for eternity according to her 1881 statement? Wasn't the first eternal sealing to the Prophet in his presence (and probably in the presence of other church officials including her father) sufficient? Since eternity never forgets, why would an eternal sealing have to be re-done? The fact that Helen Mar was sealed for eternity in 1846 to either Horace or Joseph indicates to me she was never sealed to Joseph in 1843, and thus she was never Joseph's plural wife.

Considering her diary statement in 1886 quoted above, these discrepancies give more support to the possibility that her marriage to Joseph in 1843 was a delusion and not a reality. If she had truly been married to Joseph, her actions and memories would have been true and consistent with the event. But the gross discrepancies in her accounts show that her belief that she was married to Joseph in 1843 was just that—a belief and not a fact.

What She Didn't Say about Joseph

What Helen Mar didn't say about Joseph in her other writings makes me also believe she was not married to him in 1843. While her writings adamantly profess polygamy as truth and reference Joseph as the author of this principle, she never states anything personal about her relationship with him. She never indicates that her belief in the principle was a result of her actually living it with the Prophet himself. She never gives her date of marriage or any details about her marriage ceremony. She never states the fact of their marriage and only alludes to it once.

Others have also made similar observations. The editors of A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History in their introduction state:

She makes no mention of the sealing [to Joseph Smith, Jr.] in these articles, in the brief autobiographical chapter in Representative Women of Deseret, nor in the two important pamphlets on the subject published in 1882. Apparently, the first sympathetic public announcement of her marriage to Joseph Smith was Andrew Jenson’s listing of the Prophet’s plural wives in 1887.

Also, Spencer Fluhman, an LDS historian, stated about the writings of Helen Mar:

. . . her reminiscences convey little social interaction with Joseph Smith after the marriage, let alone an intimate physical relationship. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2:296; J. Spencer Fluhman, " 'A Subject That Can Bear Investigation': Anguish, Faith, and Joseph Smith's Youngest Plural Wife," 41-51)

In addition, the position she takes about polygamy in her other writings does not appear to have been forged by a polygamous relationship with the Prophet of the LDS Church and author of the celestial marriage doctrine. Instead, it seems to be a parroting of the positions taken on this issue by the leaders of her church in that day. I agree with Compton's statement above that "most of Helen’s arguments echoed polygamy apologetics developed by male church leaders such as Orson Pratt" (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33).

Two Examples of What She Didn't Say about Joseph

First, in her other writings, she makes some references that her father, Heber C. Kimball, explained the principle of celestial marriage to her and asked her to marry Joseph. One of these references is in her autobiographical letter to her children, March 30, 1881. According to this account, her father explained the principle and made his request to her on one day and on the next day Joseph came to her and her family to explain the principle and request her to marry him. About this event she states that her father:

asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marriage—after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me. (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One")

Her only reference in all of her other writings which could be construed that she married Joseph was her vague statement above: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." Yet, as previously stated, in all of her other writings she never mentions the date of their marriage or anything more about their marriage, even though she mentions details of many other events occurring in her life during the year of 1843.

In addition, it seems odd to me in the above letter to her children that she didn't say more about her marriage to Joseph. If she had truly been married to him in 1843, this letter would have been the perfect vehicle to tell her family about their relationship and the influence it had on her belief in the correctness of plural marriage. Helen Mar was a part of the LDS Church royalty and elite (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1, 2, 20, 34–35). This letter would have been an excellent way to pass on to her children the legacy and social status of her marriage to the Prophet so they could be proud of her as well as their own position in the LDS Church. It would have been a great opportunity to testify to them of the truth of the principle as one who lived it with the Prophet himself, setting an example for the women in her family as well as for all other women in the LDS Church. In my opinion, the fact that she did not state these things or similar ones in her letter to her children, or in her other writings, supports the position she was not married to Joseph in 1843.

Second, another instance of Helen Mar's failure to reference her personal relationship and marriage to Joseph in her other writings was her response to Joseph Smith III in her pamphlet, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith, Editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) “Herald". In both of her pamphlets, she was passionate about her belief in the truth of the principle of celestial marriage or plurality of wives (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 33). And with her ability to passionately present her belief in the truth of the principle, she should have had no difficulty in presenting herself in her writing to Joseph Smith III as his father's plural wife. Yet in her response to Joseph Smith III, the prophet and president of the RLDS Church at the time, she never once referenced herself as Joseph Smith, Jr.'s, wife or gave any detail about him or their marriage. In order to convince Joseph Smith III that his father was a polygamist, this would have been the perfect time to have provided personal references and details of her and Joseph's relationship and marriage. And she could have spoken with authority as Joseph's plural wife who had lived the principle with him. In my opinion, the fact that she did not say these things in her writing to Joseph III indicates she was not a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.

The Importance of What She Didn't Say about Joseph

According to Todd Compton,

. . . most polygamous men held elite status in Mormon society, so polygamy often offered plural wives similar status. Helen Mar had great prestige because of her marriage to Joseph Smith. Historians and visitors to Salt Lake City called on her to hear her experiences with polygamy in Nauvoo." (Charles M. Hatch and Todd M. Compton, A Widow's Tale: 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 20)

If this is true, why didn't she state in her other writings anything personal about her marriage to Joseph? The fact that she didn't do so has convinced me that she was not married to Joseph in reality, and greatly supports the possibility that she deluded herself, for whatever reason, into believing that she was married to him 1843.

Other Considerations

Was Helen Mar's "Silence" for Another Reason?

Could the argument be made that Helen Mar Kimball was so traumatized by her marital relationship with Joseph at age 14 that she buried it deep within her, refusing to bring it forth in her public writings? While I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, I understand that the details of such trauma can be hidden so deeply within the brain as a coping mechanism that they are not consciously recognized by the person as ever happening. However, this does not seem consistent with her publicly adamant support of polygamy later in life. In her writings she mentions the names of many other alleged plural wives of Joseph. In addition, she seems to have had no problem publicly defending and promoting in writing the principle of celestial marriage as allegedly taught by Joseph, even to the challenging of statements made by Joseph Smith III, as son of the Martyr and president of the RLDS Church. For these reasons I don't believe this argument could be substantiated.

Helen Mar's Signature

On her autobiographical letter to her children dated March 30, 1881, she first signed the letter "Helen Mar Kimball Whitney" and then inserted "Smith" between "Kimball" and "Whitney" (Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History; "Appendix One") as an afterthought. If she had truly been married to the Prophet according to the principle of celestial marriage—which she adamantly believed in, prolifically wrote about, defended publicly against his son Joseph III, sacrificed so much for, and pioneered with the Prophet himself—she would not have forgotten to sign her married name of "Smith." While this may be a minor point, it is just another indication to me that she was never married to Joseph during his life.

Why Didn't Helen Mar Testify in the Temple Lot Suit?

According to Hales, Helen Mar would have been a likely candidate to have testified for the Respondents (Church of Christ, Temple Lot and LDS Church) that she was a plural wife of Joseph, but she wasn't used for a specific reason.

At that time she lived in Salt Lake City where the depositions were held and had been a vocal defender of plural marriage in the 1880s. . . . I can identify no reason for Helen Mar Kimball to have been bypassed as a witness except that she could not testify of experiencing a full conjugal plural marriage with Joseph Smith, which was a primary focus of the defensive tactics of the attorneys for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). This observation provides support for my conclusion that the couple did not experience conjugality during their thirteen-month marriage. (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2:29)

I have two issues with this statement. First, if there were no sexual relations between Helen Mar and Joseph, in my opinion there was no plural marriage since one of the commonly known basic purposes of celestial marriage was to raise up righteous seed. And, if Joseph was the author of the principle of plural marriage, as prophet and leader of the Church, he would have felt the need to set the example for others to follow. Thus, in my way of thinking, if he was truly married to Helen Mar he would have had sexual relations with her. So, if he didn't have sexual relations with her, he wasn't married to her.

Second, I don't believe it was the lack of her sexual relations with Joseph that convinced the lawyers to not use her testimony in the case. I believe it was her lack of personal marriage references in her writings that would have made her a poor witness. Before the attorneys could establish that she had sexual relations with Joseph as his plural wife, they would first have to prove she had been married to him. With no personal references to their marriage in Helen Mar's public writings, it would have been impossible to establish in court with cross-examination that she had even been married to Joseph. In my opinion, she wasn't asked to testify in the Temple Lot Suit because the lawyers had no evidence to prove she was even married to Joseph.

Catherine Lewis' Statement

Hales stated about Catherine Lewis:

After leaving the Church, dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen's saying: "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony." (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, 2:296; Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities, 19)

A reader of this blog has provided me with Lewis' complete statement from her 1848 publication:

The Twelve took Joseph's wives after his death. Kimball and Young took most of them; the daughter of Kimball was one of Joseph's wives. I heard her say to her mother, "I will never be sealed to my Father, and I would never have been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it. I say again, I will never be sealed to my Father; no, I will sooner be damned and go to hell, if I must. Neither will I be sealed to Brigham Young." The Apostles said they only took Joseph's wives to raise up children, carry them through to the next world, there deliver them up to him, by so doing they should gain his approbation, &c. (Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons; Giving an Account of their Iniquities, 19)."

This work was published in 1848 and Helen Mar Kimball was alive at the time. If she was aware of the publication, she could have commented in her writings about the truth or falsity of this statement. However, in her writings, I could find no reference to Lewis' publication. With no acknowledgement from Helen Mar, Lewis' above statement has to be considered hearsay and, as such, has little to no value in proving Helen Mar was a plural wife of Joseph.

Conclusion

As stated earlier, Todd Compton believes that because of her "autobiographical writings and diaries in her later life," Helen Mar Kimball is "one of the best documented" plural wives of Joseph (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness—The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 467). However, in her writings I found very little personal reference to Joseph, to their marital relationship, or to the event of their marriage including the date. And what she did mention about the event of their marriage was vague and contradictory. In my opinion, Helen Mar Kimball presented no evidence in her writings to support her belief, or anyone else's, that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. Thus, I don't believe that she was ever married to Joseph during his life.

And if Helen Mar Kimball, who allegedly is the most documented plural wife of Joseph, was never married to him, what about all the others?

The Whitney Letter

Recently, a reader asked if I had a response to the letter written by Joseph to Newel K. Whitney indicating that Joseph was a polygamist and was hiding these relationships from Emma. The following article is my answer to this inquiry.

The Issue

On August 18, 1842, while in hiding at Carlos Granger’s, Joseph allegedly wrote a letter to the Whitneys with the salutation, “Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.”  Many say that the “&c.” in the salutation refers to the Whitneys' daughter, Sarah Ann.  Proponents of the position that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy quote excerpts from this letter to prove it was a love letter to Sarah asking her and her parents to visit him in hiding so he could see Sarah.  They allege that about three weeks prior to the letter, on July 27, 1842, Joseph gave a revelation to Newel K. Whitney that Sarah was to be his plural wife and that Newel was to marry them.  In the supposed revelation the Lord told Newel the very words to use in the marriage ceremony and on that day they were married.  So, according to the proponents of this position, the requested visit was so Joseph could be with his new plural wife. 

Joseph's critics not only point to this letter (and the alleged revelation) to prove Joseph practiced polygamy but also to show that he was a deceiver, liar, and lustful man. To them, Joseph lied to Emma when he wrote her two days previous to the Whitney letter and closed it by telling her, “Yours in haste, your affectionate husband until death, through all eternity; for evermore” (The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney, REVISED EDITION, 1982 by H. Michael Marquardt).  To them, Joseph was practicing deception against Emma when he stated in the Whitney letter, “the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty” and “I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.”  In addition, when in the letter he requested the Whitneys to burn it as soon as they read it, his critics believe that he was continuing his deception by trying to keep the meeting secret. (Fairwiki.org about the Whitney letter).  Thus, according to the supporters of this position, Joseph was requesting a secret rendezvous with his new plural wife because he needed marital companionship from her and he did not want Emma to know about it.

However, close scrutiny of the facts surrounding both the Whitney letter and the alleged revelation indicate this interpretation is not correct..

Facts About the Two Documents

According to chapter 34 of The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books, the alleged revelation from Joseph to Newel K. Whitney and the letter to Newel, Elizabeth, and Sarah Whitney are maintained in the archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. For the revelation, the Joseph Smith's Polygamy Chronology Web page states that it was recorded in the “Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2." However, in the article "Historical Perspectives on the Kirtland Revelation Book" by John A. Tvedtnes of the Maxwell Institute, this revelation is not listed as being in the book. The oldest revelation in the book was dated November, 1834, which preceded the alleged Whitney revelation by eight years.

For the Whitney letter, an image of a photograph of it is displayed on the “Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney” site. This site states the following about the photograph:

Photographs of both sides of the original letter written in the handwriting of Joseph Smith are in the George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

In chronological order, the first of the two documents is the alleged revelation given by Joseph to Newel on July 27, 1842. As previously stated, it contained the authority for Joseph to marry Sarah Ann Whitney and the words for the marriage ceremony which her father, Newel, was to conduct. The text of this document follows. Please pay particular attention to the italicized parts.

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times passed. If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S. A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in me by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Gethrow [Jethro?] and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life hereafter be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney, REVISED EDITION, 1982 by H. Michael Marquardt, italics added)

The second document, the letter allegedly from Joseph to the Whitneys, was written August 18, 1842, which was 22 days after the alleged revelation. The following text of the entire document comes from the Fairwiki.org article about the letter:

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.

Joseph Smith

The Validity of the Two Documents

I was very disappointed not to find specific information online as to how these two documents were validated as being Joseph's. (If anyone has information as to the validation of these documents, I would appreciate your responding to this blog with that information.) Before we can conclude anything about Joseph's behavior based on these documents, we must be certain that he wrote them. If he did not write them, then certainly they cannot be used to prove he was a polygamist.

Authentication of the Alleged Revelation

There seems to be discrepancies about the written source of the document even though all sources I have found, including Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, agree that the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. It would be easy to assume that if LDS officials said this revelation came through Joseph, then it did. However, this is not necessarily true. Matthew L. Jockers, Stanford University, wrote the paper “Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC Classification” which stated:

As Mormon scholar Dean Jessee makes clear in the introduction to Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Smith and Jessee 2002), Smith's speeches, letters, and even journal entries were frequently written by scribes or written in tandem with one or more of his collaborators. In another article that appears in the pages of the "Joseph Smith Papers" online archive (Jessee n.d.) Jessee writes, "only a tiny proportion of Joseph Smith’s papers were penned by Smith himself." In many of the documents Jessee collected, we see the handwriting of Smith interwoven with the handwriting of his scribes, sometimes side by side in the exact same letter, journal entry, or document.

So, unless the original document is in Joseph's handwriting, which from the above quote is highly unlikely, how do we know that it truly came from Joseph?

The other issue is the one put forth by Richard S. Van Wagoner in "The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young," Dialogue, Vol. 28, No. 4, Winter 1995, pp.2–3. He states:

The Twelve’s nineteenth-century propaganda mill was so adroit that few outside Brigham Young’s inner circle were aware of the behind-the-scenes alterations that were seamlessly stitched into church history. Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian who later left the church, was aghast at these emendations. Commenting on the many changes made in the historical work as it was being serialized, Wandell noted in his diary:

I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian’s office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph’s death his memoir was “doctored” to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards.

More than a dozen references to Brigham Young’s involvement in transposing the written history may be found in the post-martyrdom record first published in book form in 1902 as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, an 1 April 1845 citation records Young saying: “I commenced revising the History of Joseph Smith at Brother Richard’s office: Elder Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith were with me.”

That this revision, or censorship, of the official history came from Brigham Young is evidenced by an 11 July 1856 reference in Wilford Woodruff’s diary. Apostle Woodruff, working in the church historian’s office, questioned Young respecting a “p[ie]ce of History on Book E-1 page 1681-2 concerning Hyr[u]m leading this Church & tracing the [A]aronic Priesthood.” Young advised, “it was not essential to be inserted in the History & had better be omitted.” Woodruff then queried him about “Joseph[s] words on South Carolina” (see D&C 87; 130:12-13) which had recently been published in the Deseret News . Young said he “wished it not published.” Years later Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the First Presidency, admitted that after Joseph Smith’s death some changes were made in the official record “for prudential reasons.”

Because of the many scribes used to pen Joseph's works and because of the credibility problem of the LDS historians of the post-Joseph era, it is most difficult to be sure of the authenticity of this alleged revelation. And if we cannot be sure of its authenticity, how can we use it as proof that Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy?

Authentication of the Letter

Even though a photograph is available for viewing, the Whitney letter also has authentication issues. Since this letter was allegedly written by Joseph while he was in hiding, I seriously doubt that he would have dictated it to a scribe to write. Thus, if it is from Joseph, odds are that it should be in his handwriting. As indicated above, the “Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney” site states the letter is in Joseph's handwriting. However, the site gives no indication as to how they know that to be true other than the photograph of the letter is maintained by the Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Chapter 34 of The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books and Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness ( p. 719, V.) state the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. However, the writers of both of these works do not address how they know it is Joseph's handwriting. Has the handwriting of the letter from the original or the photograph been authenticated as Joseph's handwriting by outside, professional experts? In addition, how do we know the original letter is not a forgery like those produced by Mark Hofmann? Until a complete, independent, and unbiased validation of this document has been done, how can we draw any conclusions from it about Joseph's motives or behaviors?

Analyzing the Alleged Revelation

After reading both of the complete documents, it is obvious to me that the interpretation of the Whitney letter as a love letter depends on the validity of the alleged revelation and whether or not Sarah Ann was a plural wife of Joseph. Without these two events, it is a real stretch of one's imagination to interpret the Whitney letter as anything other than a letter between very good friends.

Questionable Text

Some of the text along with the circumstances of the alleged revelation make it very questionable to me. According to the Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith site, Sarah Ann Whitney was Joseph's sixteenth wife including Emma. Fourteen times previous to Sarah Ann he had allegedly entered into a plural marriage and all of these women were still living. In addition, this site indicates that in the following fifteen months he entered into an additional eighteen plural marriages after Sarah Ann. This means that after allegedly marrying Sarah Ann, he was less than half done and would continue marrying plural wives at the average rate of a little more than one a month. This scenario gives me a problem with a sentence in the alleged revelation which states "You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity..." (italics added). If this alleged revelation was given by God, He would have known that Joseph had fifteen wives previous to Sarah Ann and would have another eighteen after her. He would have known that Joseph could not (because of his previous wives) and would not (because of his future wives) preserve himself only for Sarah Ann. In addition, if God was authorizing Joseph's polygamy, He would not have made a statement which restricted his involvement to one wife and excluded his involvement with his previous and future wives. Also, since a main purpose of polygamy was to obtain a greater reward in eternity, why would God restrict Joseph to a marital relationship with only one wife "throughout eternity." On the other hand, if Joseph created this alleged revelation for his own benefit, knowing about his previous wives and his desire for future wives (averaging more than one a month) he would not have restricted his marital activities to only Sarah Ann. Therefore, from this sentence alone in the alleged revelation, I do not believe this document came from God or that it was created by Joseph.

Questionable Subject Agreement

From my reading of Joseph's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, I have never noticed the subject agreement to be incorrect. Admittedly, I have not studied each revelation for this purpose, but I have never noticed one while studying a revelation for meaning. I attribute this to God's impeccable understanding of all languages and that He always knows who He is talking to and what He is saying. However, in the above alleged revelation the subject agreement is incorrect. Through Joseph, God is supposedly telling Newel what he is to say when conducting the marriage ceremony between Joseph and Sarah Ann. In the words Newel was to use, a reference was made to Joseph as "my servant Joseph." This means that during the service Newel, by command of God, would reference Joseph as "my servant Joseph" which would communicate the meaning that Joseph was Newel's servant. God would have known that when Newel was addressing Joseph, he should state something like "God's servant Joseph" and not "my servant Joseph" as is stated in the alleged revelation. This little discrepancy is an indication that this document was not God given but was created by man.

Sarah Ann's Immediate Response is Questionable

Another issue I have with this alleged revelation is its timing in relation to the date of the marriage. Orson F. Whitney (the nephew of Sarah Ann Whitney) stated about Sarah Ann in The Contributor, Vol. 6, No. 4, January 1885, p. 131:

This girl was but seventeen years of age, but she had implicit faith in the doctrine of plural marriage, as revealed to and practiced by the Prophet, was of celestial origin. She was the first woman, in this dispensation, who was given in plural marriage by and with the consent of both parents. Her father himself officiated in the ceremony. The revelation commanding and consecrating this union, is in existence, though it has never been published. It bears the date of July 27, 1842, and was given through the Prophet to the writer's grandfather, Newel K. Whitney, whose daughter Sarah, on that day, became the wedded wife of Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney)

I find it very hard to believe that on July 17, 1842, a 17-year-old woman received a revelation that she was to become a plural wife of 36-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. and with no hesitation she married him on that same day. In Todd Compton's analysis of the above statement he indicates that her acceptant state of mind about embracing polygamy may have been a "family tradition that has idealized the story." But he goes on to say that her father and mother and Joseph had instructed her in this doctrine prior to her alleged marriage to Joseph on the date of the alleged revelation (In Sacred Loneliness, p. 348). Yet his references to support this notion are unclear. Even if she was the most serious-minded and obedient child, her thoughts at age 17 of having to marry a 36-year-old man with 15 other wives would have been very scary, if not repulsive, to her. At age 17, with her whole life ahead of her, she was being required to sacrifice all of her dreams to participate in a new doctrine, that was only taught in secret, so her family could be assured of eternal life. And this new secret doctrine would require her at 17 to embrace sexual behavior that had been previously taught to her by her parents and society as being immoral. Keeping this in mind, I find it a bit contrived that she was so convinced of the truth of this doctrine that as soon as the alleged revelation came, she obeyed it and was married on the same day.

My wife's great, great grandfather and family followed Brigham Young west to Utah after Joseph's death. In the 1860s their daughter was in love with a young man and was desirous to be married to him. However, a Bishop decided that she was to be one of his plural wives. This thought was so repulsive to her that her entire family and her fiance's family fled Salt Lake City under cover of darkness with wagon wheels and horse hooves padded so as to leave unnoticed. As the story goes, they feared being caught and killed. They risked all so that their daughter would not have to participate in polygamy. And this was after polygamy had been taught and practiced openly for years as a doctrine of God brought forth in revelation by His Prophet Joseph (LDS D&C 132). Thus, is it probable that another young woman with less instruction and exposure to this doctrine, Sarah Ann Whitney, embraced it so thoroughly that on the day the alleged revelation was given to her father, she was not only ready to obey it, but did? I just do not believe so. If the document had been received and she had been given time to come around to this position, then it would be more feasible. But to receive such a life- and morality-changing command and to completely obey it the same day, to me is way outside of normal human behavior for this circumstance and as such gives question to the validity of this event.

Elizabeth's Autobiography Omitted Reference to the Alleged Revelation

The most important issue I have with this alleged revelation is the portion of Elizabeth Whitney's autobiography printed in the The Women of Mormondom, pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. When reading her statement, it is not so much what she says that casts great doubts upon the validity of the alleged revelation, but what she does not say. Even though it is lengthy, I am including the entire quote from this book so that no one thinks I purposely left anything out. Please pay particular attention to the parts I have italicized.

A very proper one to speak here is Mother Whitney, for it was her husband, Bishop Whitney, who preserved the revelation on polygamy. Speaking of the time when her husband kept store for Joseph (1842-3), she says: "It was during this time that Joseph received the revelation concerning celestial marriage; also concerning the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He had been strictly charged, by the angel who committed these precious things into his keeping, that he should only reveal them to such ones as were pure, and full of integrity to the truth, and worthy and capable of being entrusted with divine messages; that to spread them abroad would only be like casting pearls before swine; and that the most profound secresy was to be maintained, until the Lord saw fit to make it known publicly through his servants. Joseph had the most implicit confidence in my husband's uprightness and integrity of character, and so he confided to him the principles set forth in that revelation, and also gave him the privilege of reading and making a copy of it, believing it would be perfectly safe with him. It is this same copy that was preserved in the providence of God; for Emma (Joseph's wife), afterwards becoming indignant, burned the original, thinking she had destroyed the only written document upon the subject in existence. My husband revealed these things to me. We had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon the matter continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us, revealing unto us his power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision; a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own bosoms that God heard and approved our prayers and intercedings before him. Our hearts were comforted, and our faith made so perfect that we were willing to give our eldest daughter, then seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the order of plural marriage. Laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage, we gave her with our mutual consent. She was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents. Of course these things had to be kept an inviolate secret; and as some were false to their vows and pledges of secresy, persecution arose, and caused grievous sorrow to those who had obeyed, in all purity and sincerity, the requirements of this celestial order of marriage. The Lord commanded his servants; they themselves did not comprehend what the ultimate course of action would be, but were waiting further developments from heaven. Meantime, the ordinances of the house of the Lord were given, to bless and strengthen us in our future endeavors to promulgate the principles of divine light and intelligence; but coming in contact with all preconceived notions and principles heretofore taught as the articles of religious faith, it was not strange that many could not receive it. Others doubted; and only a few remained firm and immovable."

I believe that the revelation "concerning celestial marriage" referenced by Elizabeth Whitney in her autobiography is what is known today as Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. She indicates that a copy of the document was kept in safety by her husband Newel and that the original document was burned by Emma, which events are commonly known to be associated with the document on celestial marriage that became Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Allegedly this revelation was dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. When reading Elizabeth's statement above, we must keep in mind that her daughter Sarah allegedly married Joseph a year earlier on July 27, 1842—the same date that Newel Whitney, Sarah's father, allegedly received a revelation from God through Joseph authorizing Sarah's and Joseph's plural marriage and dictating the marriage ceremony which Newel was to use to marry them that day. This alleged date of marriage is confirmed by affidavits obtained from both Sarah and Elizabeth in 1869. (I will discuss these affidavits a little later.)

I have read and re-read the above statement by Elizabeth trying to find some reference to the alleged revelation requiring Newel to perform the plural marriage ceremony between his Sarah and Joseph. However, I can find none. All references to a plural marriage revelation are to the one allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. She associates Newel's and her experience as to the validity of polygamy with this revelation and not with the one allegedly given to Newel a year earlier authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph. In addition, she associates Sarah's marriage to the 1843 revelation and not to the alleged July 27, 1842 revelation given to Newel upon which date Sarah was allegedly married to Joseph.

To me, both Elizabeth's omission of acknowledging the alleged 1842 revelation to Newel and her associating the beginning of their plural wife experience to the 1843 revelation is very strong indication that the earlier revelation to Newel, authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph, did not occur. To the Whitneys, the revelation to Newel would have been a very important revelation and worthy of inclusion in Elizabeth's autobiography. It is the one, not the "Section 132" revelation, that told them plural marriage was of God. It indicated to them that it was acceptable to God for Sarah, their beloved daughter, to obey "this new and strange doctrine" (to quote Elizabeth) and enter into a plural marriage with Joseph. Because this revelation required Newel and Elizabeth to allow their 17-year-old daughter to participate in a unorthodox system of marriage thought by society to be wicked, it is the revelation given in 1842—not the one given in 1843—that would have caused Newel and Elizabeth to seek and receive a testimony of its truth. It was the revelation given to Newel in 1842, not the one in 1843, that was the first written revelation authorizing plural marriage and setting a precedent for the marriage ceremony that was to be performed. And yet, Elizabeth did not mention this important revelation in her autobiography about the authority for the practice of polygamy and their involvement with this system of marriage. She was detailed in her account and very proud that her daughter "was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents," yet she failed to mention the 1842 revelation and associated these actions with the 1843 revelation which occurred a year after the date of Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. Because of the importance to the Whitneys of the alleged revelation to Newel, her omission of it in her above statement was a result of more than forgetful thinking. The only possible explanation is that the alleged revelation to Newel on July 27, 1842, never occurred. If it had, Elizabeth would have mentioned it in her autobiography as the basis for their belief in plural marriage. And if that revelation did not happen, neither did the marriage.

Analyzing the Letter

For the purpose of analyzing the contents of the letter, I am going to assume that Joseph wrote it even though, as discussed above, further authentication may need to be done in this area.

If you believe that Joseph was a polygamist and married Sarah Ann Whitney on July 17, 1842, then it is easy to construe some of the contents of the letter as a "love letter" requesting his new wife to visit him. Although, the entire letter is more difficult to view in this manner than many of the briefer excerpts quoted by various authors that run together the "convicting" sentences and leave the other parts out. However, if you believe Joseph was not a polygamist and did not marry Sarah Ann Whitney, then such an interpretation of the letter is a real stretch of imagination. Standing alone, the letter gives no proof that Joseph was a polygamist or that he was married to Sarah Ann Whitney.

Statements in the Letter used to Support the Position that Joseph Practiced Polygamy

The statements in the letter which authors point to as "proof" of Joseph's polygamy and marriage to Sarah are:

...my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief...

...all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...

...the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible...

...burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.

...I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.

If the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann were not true, all that can be learned from these portions of the letter is:

• Joseph's friendship with the Whitneys was very strong,
• he was lonely and anxious to see them,
• they should keep this letter secret (burn it),
• they should use utmost caution in meeting with him in secret,
• keeping the meeting secret will insure their safety, and
• for their safety they should not meet with him when Emma is there.

It is only the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann that interprets these parts as a "love letter." Without the "polygamy" issue, this is just a letter between very good friends from one who is in hiding and wants to remain hidden for both his safety and that of his friends.

Admittedly, the part about Emma is very curious. Why would Emma's presence, without the polygamy interpretation, make it unsafe for the Whitneys? Fairwiki.org gives a good answer to this question. However, they do not follow this rationale through to their conclusion because they finally interpret the letter in light of the alleged revelation and marriage. Fairwiki.org states:

The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted,

There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)

It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma. Joseph wrote the next day in his journal,

Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)

Without the predisposition that Joseph was a polygamist and had recently married Sarah Ann, this position logically explains why he wanted the Whitneys to come when Emma was not there. Both Joseph and the Whitneys would be safer if they visited when Emma was not there because she could be followed by authorities wanting to arrest Joseph. Even if Emma was not followed, her presence in addition to some of Joseph's other friends would be a certain tip-off to anyone watching the house that Joseph was indeed hiding there.

The necessity of Joseph's hiding place remaining a secret could explain why he wanted the Whitneys to burn the letter. This would prevent it from falling into the wrong hands which would allow his hiding place to be revealed. In addition, the need to protect his whereabouts would explain the secrecy he requested of Newel in contacting him at his hiding place by knocking "at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty..." Possibly, Joseph wanted Newel to be very careful in his approach to his hiding place in case it was being watched by authorities. Joseph's assurance to Newel that he had a room by himself was indication that their visit would be private and safe.

Other Problems with the "Love Letter" Theory

Even if one believes Joseph was a polygamist, brought forth the revelation to Newel, and married Sarah Ann Whitney, this letter still has problems being interpreted as a "love letter" to Sarah. Again, Fairwiki.org does a good job explaining this position. In their conclusion they state:

Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter?

The categorizing of the purpose of this letter as a "love letter" is wishful thinking on the part of those who believe Joseph was a polygamist. As indicated above, Joseph certainly would not invite his new wife's parents to come with her to a private room so he could be with her as her husband. Thus, the loneliness expressed in the letter had to be for friendship from those of like faith and not for a new plural wife. In addition, their meeting was also for another purpose as indicated in the letter:

..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads...

Joseph wanted to give his friends a spiritual blessing for which, as expressed in the letter, it was important to "have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...."

Other Evidences in the Sara Ann Whitney Case

Discrepancies in Affidavits and Statements

At the Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney site we find the following affidavits by Sarah Ann and her mother Elizabeth regarding her alleged plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr.:

AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL

Territory of Utah }
County of Salt Lake.}ss.
Be it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said county, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A.D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage, in the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.
 
Sarah A. Kimball.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the day and year first above written.
 
E. Smith, Probate Judge.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press], p. 73., italics added)

AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY

Territory of Utah }
County of Salt Lake.} ss.
Be it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Handcock, state of Illinois, she was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and all eternity, by her husband Newel K. Whitney then Presiding Bishop of the Church.
 
E. A. Whitney.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and year first above written.
 
James Jack, Notary Public.
(Andrew Jensen, Historical Record, Vol. 6, May 1887, pp. 224-226.)

However, both Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Whitney stated differently in October, 1842—just a little over two months after their daughter allegedly entered into a polygamous marriage with Joseph Smith, Jr. The Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, published the following statement signed by twelve men including Newel K. Whitney:

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939–940)

The Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, also published the following statement signed by nineteen women of the Ladies Relief Society including Elizabeth Whitney:

We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)

So, how can it be that two months after the alleged plural marriage of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith, Jr. her parents signed and published a statement in the widely circulated Times and Seasons that they "know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants" (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)? Yet, 27 years after the alleged marriage Elizabeth signs an affidavit attesting to the marriage and some 35 years after the alleged marriage she writes her thoughts about the event as published in The Women of Mormondom, pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. Even Sarah's affidavit is discrepant with her parents' statements in the Times and Seasons. In her affidavit, also made 27 years after her alleged plural marriage to Joseph, Sarah stated, "she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... according to the laws of the same regulating marriage...." Thus, Sarah stated that her marriage to Joseph was according to the marriage laws of the Church. However, her parents stated in Times and Seasons that those Church laws did not support polygamous marriages. They said that other than "J. C. Bennett's 'secret wife system,'" the only marriage system known within the Church was the one taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, which was a monogamous system of marriage. The statements published in the Times and Seasons are in direct opposition to both affidavits of marriage, Elizabeth's autobiography, and the alleged revelation itself.

With all due respect to the Whitneys, they were lying somewhere. The first scenario is that Newel and Elizabeth lied in their Times and Seasons statement to cover up the alleged revelation and Sarah's alleged marriage to Joseph. The second scenario is that they told the truth in their Times and Seasons' statement but Sarah and Elizabeth lied in their affidavits 27 years later, and Elizabeth lied in her autobiographical reflections 35 years later. Most Mormon history authors support the first scenario. I support the second. However, before I can give my reasoning, I need to discuss a little about the nature of the statements made by the Whitneys.

The Nature of Affidavits and Statements

So, are the affidavits made by Sarah and Elizabeth and Elizabeth's biography statement more reliable for telling the truth than Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the Times and Seasons? According to Todd Compton in the prologue to his book, In Sacred Loneliness, affidavits and biographies are very good evidence. He states:

What criteria can be used to evaluate whether a woman's marriage to Joseph Smith (during his lifetime) can be reliabley documented? In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him. An affidavit is very good evidence. A woman mentioning in a journal or autobiography that she married the prophet is also good evidence, as is a close family member's or friend's testimony or affidavit or reminiscence, especially if he or she supplies convincing detail, anecdotal or documentary. (page 1, italics added)

However, with all due respect to Mr. Compton, I do not necessarily consider affidavits, journals, and autobiographies very good evidence. The reason why is that they are personal statements made without penalty for lying. Unless an affidavit is part of a court proceeding, there is no penalty for perjury. The only thing official about a notarized affidavit outside of a court proceeding is that the notary verifies that the person who is making the statement has provided sufficient proof that they are the person they allege to be. The two affidavits above, as well as all the affidavits obtained by Joseph F. Smith mentioned by Mr. Compton above, fall into this category. They are merely a person's statement—true or false. Likewise, a person's journal or autobiography falls into the same category—it is their personal statement, true or false. Only a statement which is made in a court of law under penalty for perjury and which withstands cross examination can be assumed to have a high probability of truthfulness. Thus, the affidavit made by Sarah and the affidavit and biography statement made by Elizabeth have no more inherent truthfulness than the signed statements by Newel and Elizabeth in the Times and Seasons. At face value, they are on equal footing as to the probability of their truthfulness.

Evaluating the Whitneys' Affidavits and Statements

There are some considerations that I believe weigh in favor of the 1842 Times and Seasons statements being the truthful ones. First, they were made publicly with the corroboration of twenty-nine others. This lends credibility to their statements. Second, they were made very close to the time of the events they addressed. Usually statements made close in time to the event referenced are the most accurate because the person's memory has not been faded by time, and their interpretation of the events has not been influenced by other opinions. Third, the statements regarding the alleged plural marriage between Sarah and Joseph were made many years after that alleged event. In addition, they were made by those involved in polygamous activities at a time when it was important to the LDS Church to justify the doctrine of polygamy. As stated by Todd Compton above, "In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him" (ibid.). Actually, by that time, there had been a sustained three-year missionary effort to Salt Lake City and other parts of Utah by the Reorganized Church. Many LDS joined the Reorganization but soon left the area for Idaho or the Mid-West. Alexander Smith was there in 1866 and again in 1869 with his brother David. During this missionary effort, both of these sons of Joseph Smith, Jr. (and cousins of Joseph F. Smith) defended their father and spoke against polygamy to the LDS priesthood (including Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith) and members of the LDS Church (RLDS History of the Church 4:427–553). Because of their success and the high regard for Joseph Smith, Jr. in the LDS Church, this challenge from Joseph's sons must have brought considerable pressure upon the leaders of the LDS Church as well as those involved in polygamy to "prove" the position that their practice of polygamy came directly from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself. Such pressure to prove that Joseph was the originator of polygamy brings into question for me the validity of their affidavits and statements. Fourth, as previously discussed, Elizabeth's autobiographical statement in The Women of Mormondom omits reference to the alleged revelation to Newel in 1842 authorizing the plural marriage of Joseph and Sarah and associates all their celestial marriage involvement with the alleged 1843 revelation, which came one year after Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. This failure of Elizabeth to mention in her autobiography such an important event in the lives of the Whitneys indicates to me that both the revelation and the marriage did not occur. Because of these reasons, I have to give credibility to Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the Times and Seasons as being true rather than to Elizabeth's later affidavit and statement as well as to Sarah's later affidavit.

Summary

To interpret the Whitney letter as a love letter from Joseph to Sarah Ann Whitney, the validity of the previous alleged revelation to Newel K. Whitney and Joseph's plural marriage to Sarah Ann would have to be established. Without the occurrence of these two events, the letter becomes merely a request from Joseph to his good friends, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney, for a visit. As presented above, the need for validation of the author of the revelation, discrepancies within the revelation, the grammatical structure of the revelation, the immediate response of 17-year-old Sarah Ann to the revelation, the Times and Seasons statements of Newel and Elizabeth, and the discrepancies in the later affidavit and biographical statement of Elizabeth and affidavit of Sarah Ann cast serious doubts about the validity of the alleged July 27, 1842, revelation to Newel and the subsequent plural marriage on that date of Joseph and Sarah Ann Whitney. Thus, in my opinion, there was no such revelation and no such marriage, which makes the letter nothing more than just a communication between friends.