FAIR has a service where questions can be submitted and they are answered by volunteers. If you have a question, you can submit it at https://dev.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact. We will occasionally publish answers here for questions that are commonly asked, or are on topics that are receiving a lot of attention.
QUESTION:
My dear friend shared with me some information suggesting Joseph Smith’s involvement in plural marriage was doctored in after the fact by Brigham Young and his associates, especially William Clayton. To support this, they refer to public speeches by Joseph and Hyrum Smith, denying participation in plural marriage. So much of what we know depends on what is in the William Clayton diaries, which they say is possibly “revised history.” I also noted that it was announced that the William Clayton Diaries would be made available a few years back, but haven’t been yet. Do you know of any further information on that?
ANSWER FROM FAIR EMPLOYEE SARAH ALLEN:
Was evidence altered to suggest Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage?
There is no evidence whatsoever that Brigham Young and William Clayton colluded to “doctor” official records to implicate Joseph in plural marriage, or that Clayton’s journals were revised after their initial recording. Joseph Smith instituted plural marriage, and no serious, credentialed historian agrees with the claims that he didn’t. There is a wealth of evidence, from journal entries, letters, affidavits, and sworn witness testimony, all backing that up. There are recorded minutes of Hyrum introducing a revelation that sounds remarkably like D&C 132 before the Nauvoo High Council a few months before his death. The Nauvoo Expositor summarized and quoted excerpts from it, showing that it was known by at least some people outside of Joseph’s inner circle in June 1844. Many of his wives and friends signed affidavits and gave deposition testimony under oath. Etc.
William Clayton did what Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, and others of the time did: he took notes which he then copied into his journal and into Joseph’s. He wouldn’t always copy his notes word for word, but sometimes rephrased them or incorporated memories he may have left out of his notes.
Sometimes, he copied them a few days or weeks later, as he was a busy man. However, these were not entries he copied years after the fact. By any historical method, they were contemporaneous entries. This practice has been labeled by some non-historians who aren’t educated in historical standards and practices as non-contemporaneous, but that’s only because they don’t know what the professional standards are. No credible historian would ever claim journal entries recorded so shortly after the events were non-contemporaneous.
William Clayton’s Nauvoo Journals
Excerpts from Clayton’s Nauvoo journals have been published in a book called An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith. The full journals will be published by some of the Joseph Smith Papers editors early next year, in 2026. I believe they’ll be published through Yale University Press, if I’m not mistaken. Yale is a respected academic press which reviews its books thoroughly before publication to ensure they meet professional scholarly standards. The volume should include introductions and other historical explanations similar to those in the Joseph Smith Papers volumes. The journals are not “revised history,” they have been professionally maintained and edited, the editing process and book’s content were put through professional review, and the book containing the journals is being published by a well-respected academic press. None of the claims made by those denying Joseph’s practice of plural marriage have undergone the same scrutiny.
Polygamy Denials
As far as denials by Hyrum and Joseph Smith go, it’s important to note that they, and those in the Anointed Quorum with Joseph, very carefully differentiated between celestial plural marriage, polygamy, adultery, and “spiritual wifery.” In their minds, they were four separate things. The eternal order of marriage was when endowed, married Saints were sealed to one another by one with authority. Polygamy was what Muslims and other foreigners practiced, a copy of divine plural marriage without the command to practice it or priesthood authority to seal the union. Adultery was, obviously, having marital relations with someone other than one’s spouse. And “spiritual wifery” was the system that John C. Bennett concocted, wherein he convinced women to commit adultery with him and some of his friends by claiming it came from God, was approved by Joseph, and that it wasn’t wrong if nobody told anyone else. The denials given by Joseph and Hyrum referred explicitly to polygamy, adultery, or spiritual wifery. They never denied practicing celestial plural marriage.
To learn more about plural marriage in general, this booklet by FAIR volunteer Greg Smith gives a fantastic overview, including the history, theology, and denials: https://dev.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smith-Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf
Sarah Allen is a Senior Researcher with FAIR, a former member of Scripture Central’s research team, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She is also the co-host of FAIR’s “Me, My Shelf, & I” podcast. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.
About the Author
Good article. I do think there should be more elaboration on the distinction between celestial marriage, polygamy, adultery, and spiritual wifery, and if there are any indications that Joseph Smith’s circle had these distinctions in mind.
This whole discussion feels like a never-ending loop of denial. Plenty of evidence points to Smith practicing polygamy, yet some folks still cling to the ‘revisionist history’ narrative. Just admit it already—it’s part of the history, like it or not.
I think it is odd that these revelations weren’t added until 30+ years after Joseph Smith died, and that they removed the original 101 that condemned any non monogamy in earthly life
@OgDC101––The original section 101 was not a revelation, but a statement of the Church’s policy on marriage in 1835. It was published so that elders of the Church could perform marriages without a license, since they were being denied licenses in the Ohio courts. Under the law, publishing a church’s policies like that meant they didn’t need to obtain preaching licenses to perform marriages. In 1835, the Church’s stance was monogamy. That didn’t change until 1841 in Nauvoo, and even then, it was only for a select few until 1852.
Today’s section 132 wasn’t added until 1876 because that was the newest edition published after the martyrdom. The 1844 edition was just a reprint of the 1835 edition with a handful of extra revelations chosen by Joseph Smith included. It was prepared for print two weeks before his death and released in August. After the martyrdom, the rest of the Twelve quickly added in what is now section 135 as a tribute to Joseph and Hyrum, but they didn’t make any other last minute changes. They didn’t update it again until 1876, when they included section 132.
There was nothing odd or nefarious about either of those things. The marriage policy changed from 1835, so the section regarding the old policy was replaced by the new policy; and it wasn’t a public policy when the 1844 edition came out. In the next edition published after the policy was announced publicly, the revelation was included. It wasn’t a massive conspiracy, it was all pretty benign.
Excellent explanations. The first formal group of polygamy deniers were Joseph’s Smiths children, which led to the RLDS church, and then claiming authority by genetics to be the next prophet. They even attempted to rewrite and debunk his plural marriages by traveling to Utah territory and talking with these women, who ended up adamantly not changing their story, much to the disappointment of the Smith sons. Any denial after the 1860s were written by that group. And as we look at the fruits of the RLDS church, we can see the fruits of polygamy deniers. To deny the history in this way, would mean to deny the next four presidents of the church, the next three presidents of the relief society, and thousands of other personal witnesses and spiritual testimonies of plural marriage for that short amount of time that it was needed to grow to church.
Isaiah 60:22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time.
@Sarah
It was my impression that occasionally the practice of sealing a man (sometimes Joseph specifically) to women for eternity only was referred to as spiritual wifery or spiritual marriage. Not sure if it was only by others or by those practicing it as well, but I seem to remember reading some account from the time that did so. Do you know anything about that? -Thanks.
William Clayton’s first journal, bridging his England and Nauvoo years, is available at BYU (Vault MSS 47,
“Clayton, William vol. 1, 1840-1842”) and online: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MMD/id/74322/rec/1