When Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as part of a series of angelophanies in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, he told them
behold the time has fully come which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi, testifying, that he should be sent before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come, to turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse. Therefore, the Keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands, and by this ye may know that the great and the dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.[1]
These keys became deeply associated with the sealing power that Joseph Smith believed could make binding connections between family members that would last after death. The process of coming to understand how sealing created kinship networks was complicated, however, and became intertwined with the development of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because of this, it is sometimes difficult to disentangle sealings (and their promised blessings) from plural marriage, even though monogamous marriages are the official standard in the Church today.
The earliest example of the line between sealings and plural marriage being blurred may have occurred not long after Elijah visited the Prophet and Cowdery in 1836. Don Bradley and Christopher C. Smith recently published research that indicates that Smith and Cowdery were each sealed to younger women in adoptive father-daughter relationships in the late spring of 1836, which is in line with Elijah’s emphasis on the relationship between fathers and children. While Cowdery’s relationship with his teenage adoptive daughter (Adeline Fuller) remained a parent-child relationship, Joseph Smith’s adoptive daughter (Fanny Alger) was an adult and their relationship developed into a husband-wife relationship that was abruptly terminated when Emma Hales Smith found out in late June of that year. It isn’t clear how the sealing relationship transitioned from parental to romantic, but Joseph Smith’s first exploration of plural marriage seems to have been tied directly to his first exploration of sealing family relationships through priesthood authority.[2]
It is not surprising that later explorations and explanations of plural marriages and sealings were intertwined. Take, for example, Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Rather than a revelation in the voice of the Lord, the section is made up of excerpts from three discussions with Joseph Smith that his secretary, William Clayton, recorded in his journal. The portion I’m focused on here is taken from remarks Joseph Smith made to Melissa and Benjamin Johnson on May 16, 1843 (D&C 131:1–4). At that time, Joseph Smith was in the process of introducing some of his inner circle to the practice of plural marriage. William Clayton had already married Margaret Moon as a second wife a few weeks earlier (April 24, 1843) and Joseph Smith had married several women by that time. About a month beforehand, Joseph Smith had introduced the concept to the Johnsons with the intention of gaining Benjamin’s approval to marry his sister, Almera.
The discussion that took place on May 16 seems to be a follow-up to these previous discussions. Joseph wouldn’t marry Almera until August 1843, after all. While visiting the Johnsons with William Clayton, Joseph Smith “put his hand on my [Clayton’s] knee and says ‘your life is hid with Christ in God,’” then turned to Benjamin Johnson and explained his belief that since Clayton was sealed as a polygamist, “nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step which is necessary for that purpose.”[3] It was at that point that he stated:
[E]xcept a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die (i e) they will not have any children in the resurrection, but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory. …
He also said that in the celestial glory there was three heavens or degrees, and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of the priesthood and if he dont he cant obtain it. He may enter into the other but that is the end of his kingdom he cannot have an increase.[4]
It was a pointed speech aimed at selling the concept of eternal marriage and polygamy.
The key question here for discussing whether polygamy is necessary (or expected) for exaltation is what Joseph Smith meant by stating that “this order of the priesthood” is necessary for entering the highest degree of glory. Modern interpretation implies that he simply meant a marriage sealed by priesthood authority, but given the context (that he was selling the idea of plural marriage to Melissa and Benjamin Johnson), it is also very possible that the order or the priesthood he referred to was plural marriage. Both options are possible based on Clayton’s entry.
There are a few things that do make it possible to understand the statement as referring to marriage (monogamous or polygamous) sealed by priesthood authority. Earlier in the conversation, President Smith stated:
[E]xcept a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die … but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory.
The entry then includes the statement that “I feel desirous to be united in an everlasting covenant to my wife and pray that it may soon be.”[5] It is unclear whether the “I” in the latter statement refers to Joseph Smith or William Clayton. Both were polygamists at that point, though Joseph Smith would not be sealed to Emma Hale Smith by priesthood authority until May 28, 1843, about two weeks after his discussion with the Johnsons. This makes it possible that the “I” was referring to Joseph Smith and opens the possibility that the marriage sealing ordinance was the basis of the “everlasting covenant” that allowed entry into celestial glory, regardless of the number of wives that were sealed to a man.
It is difficult in that era, however, to disentangle the practice of plural marriage from celestial marriages and the sealing authority. It seems that Emma was allowed to be sealed to Joseph Smith only after she had accepted the practice of plural marriage (if only temporarily). And, while the text of D&C 131 may not have been familiar to most Latter-day Saints in the mid-nineteenth century, it was not uncommon to believe that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation. For example, Mary Ellen Harris was sealed in the Nauvoo Temple to Heber C. Kimball because “she felt that if she did not take this step her own glory would be clipt.”[6] In 1869, William Clayton would teach that “men with only one wife would be nothing but angels in the next world.”[7] Thus, it is possible to understand that Joseph Smith was referring to entering into plural marriage in his remarks.
An interesting incident with President Brigham Young, however, complicates the picture and gets closer to the heart of the issue. On February 12, 1870, Wilford Woodruff recorded that during a meeting of the School of the Prophets, “Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He contended that no person could have a celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives.” Holeman’s remarks were in line with what many others were teaching, as demonstrated above. President Brigham Young, however, countered, “President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”[8] The prophet’s statement indicates that the interpretation that only people who are sealed by priesthood authority—polygamous or monogamous—are allowed into the celestial kingdom is not the complete picture.
This was muddied even further with the publication of section 131 in the Doctrine and Covenants. When the section was first published in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, Orson Pratt added the clarifying statement that “this order of the priesthood” meant “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” The publication occurred at a time when the Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy and would likely have understood “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” to be synonymous with plural marriage. This opens up further debate about whether the section applies specifically to plural marriages or whether monogamous marriages that are sealed by priesthood authority also allow entrance to the celestial kingdom.
Other terms that we associate with marriages sealed by priesthood authority in the temples today were also seen as synonyms for polygamy, including eternal marriage and celestial marriage. It was only in the aftermath of the practice coming to a close in the 1890s and early 1900s that this was reevaluated. With some time and distance from the practice, the First Presidency would issue a statement that clarified that “Celestial marriage—that is, marriage for time and eternity—and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages.”[9]
I believe that it is fair to accept that interpretation and apply similar ones to both section 131 and section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. We have the necessary time and distance from the practice to disentangle sealings from plural marriage (as well as distance from the life-and-death struggle to defend the practice against the will of the federal government of the USA). In section 131, for example, “this order of the priesthood” and even “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are ambiguous terms that can easily be interpreted as applying to monogamous marriages that were sealed by priesthood authority. Likewise, in section 132, the term “a new and an everlasting covenant” is what is used to describe the required relationship. The intended form of marriage is described as being one where “a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood” (D&C 132:19). Again, there is nothing specifically in that wording that indicates that it was necessarily plural marriage that was the intention in describing celestial marriage.
Prophets leading the Church in the 20th century have interpreted these sections of scripture in the way that I am indicating they can and should be interpreted in the Church today. David O. McKay explained this when asked by his counselors in the First Presidency:
President McKay stated that his understanding of the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, contained in the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is as follows: That the revelations was regarding the eternity of the marriage covenant; it was not on polygamy. And the Lord revealed to the Prophet that a man who conforms to that revelations, that is, who enters into the eternity of the marriage covenant, receives every blessing pertaining to the salvation and exaltation of man. No blessing is withheld. The part of the revelation pertaining to the marriage covenant pertains only to one man and one wife; and then, after the Prophet received it, he asked the Lord what about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had more wives than one. And then follows the answer of the Lord that, if a man marry another wife and she is given to him as this wife is given to him, and he does not sin, but he does not get a higher glory. There are one or two verses which will lead one to think that this refers to the plurality of marriage.
Plural marriage is a practice is not a principle. We have not abrogated the principle of the marriage covenant and we never will, and the practice of plural marriage is contrary to the law of the Church and the law of the land.[10]
President David O. McKay’s interpretation while serving as president of the Church was that the first part of section 132 (the most essential part of the document for its discussion of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage) “pertains only to one man and one wife.”
President Spencer W. Kimball also offered statements that indicate his assumption that David O. McKay was correct in his interpretation. For example, he discussed how young couples who were married in the temple should be “planning their life together, and will continue the process as bride and groom when they sit down to chart their way through a happy, successful and spiritual life to exaltation in the kingdom of God.”[11] Since this was offered at a time when monogamy was the commandment in the Church, it is an indication that he believed that temple marriages between monogamous partners were a legitimate path to exaltation. On another occasion, he stated the following:
Now, this man and this woman were sealed for eternity, God being the sealer. He gave to Adam his wife, Eve. He intended that all men should live worthy to have performed this ordinance of marriage for time and all eternity. The Lord has said that in order to obtain the highest of the three heavens or degrees of glory in the celestial kingdom, “a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
“And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” (D&C 131:2–3.)
This is the proper way. … We know, of course, that the Lord will make ample provision and that no one will ever be condemned for something he or she could not have helped. … But, concerning marriage and the roles of man and woman, let no man defy God.[12]
Again, given that this was written by a president of the Church during a time when plural marriage was not authorized, it is apparent that he believed that section 131’s “order of the priesthood” was intended to mean any marriage sealed in the temple by priesthood authority—including monogamous marriages. Thus, the portions of sections 131 and 132 that apply to required forms of marriage for exaltation can be interpreted as including monogamous marriages sealed in the temples of the Church. Even though the contexts in which these documents emerged and were canonized were ones in which plural marriage was treated as the commandment from God, the wording is ambiguous and easily applicable to eternal monogamous marriages as well as plural ones. Modern prophets like David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball have indicated this to be the case, which should add considerable weight to this idea for practicing Latter-day Saints.
[1] Visions, 3 April 1836 [D&C 110], p. 193, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed November 14, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-3-april-1836-dc-110/2.
[2] See Don Bradley and Christopher C. Smith, “Of generations and genders: Fanny Alger and the adoptive origins of ritual sealing,” in Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy, ed. Cheryl L. Bruno (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2024), 191–224.
[3] Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, p. 14, Documents, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-16-may-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/2.
[4] Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, p. 14, Documents, The Joseph Smith Papers.
[5] Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, p. 14, Documents, The Joseph Smith Papers.
[6] Helen Mar Whitney, “Scenes in Nauvoo, and Incidents from H. C. Kimball’s Journal,” Woman’s Exponent 12, no. 10 (October 5, 1883), 74.
[7] Helen Mar Whitney to Horace Kimball Whitney, December 17, 1869, Whitney Family Papers, Milton R. Merrill Library, Utah State University, Logan, UT (box 1, folder 1).
[8] Wilford Woodruff, Journal (October 22, 1865—December 31, 1872), p. 235, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/BBBk.
[9] First Presidency letter, October 1933. See Millennial Star 95:657–659, October 12, 1933.
[10] First Presidency’s Meeting Minutes, Feb 29, 1956. David Oman McKay Papers collection, Box 36, Folder 5; Special Collections, University of Utah Marriott Library.
[11] Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 249.
[12] Spencer W. Kimball, “The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women,” Ensign, Oct. 1975, 4–5, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/10/the-lords-plan-for-men-and-women?lang=eng.
Aren’t those post-polygamy quotes just a complicated way of saying, “I want these scriptures to mean this, so now they do.”
It’s a little hard to rationalize a coherent theology when things can just be reinterpreted to more convenient meanings.
You could say the same thing about the polygamy-era quotes too. They were practicing plural marriage and wanted to justify it. What I’m saying here is that distance from the practice allows a different perspective from which we can approach the scriptures, which are ambiguous enough to allow for reinterpretation.
In any case, reinterpretation of scriptures and changes in doctrine to adjust to different paradigms and circumstances are a part of any living tradition. I would say that’s one of the most important function of ongoing revelation and inspiration to leaders of the Church.
Section 132 almost feels like two different revelations to me. The first part speaks of the covenant of marriage itself–and at the exact center of the section it switches gears and speaks of polygamy in conjunction with that covenant. And so there seem to be two separate elements that the revelation is addressing under the rubric of marriage. And the first–the covenant of marriage–stands alone as the gateway to exaltation. In other words, polygamy need not be the logical conclusion of the revelation in order to make sense of the first half.
We should also remember that the blessings of exaltation which are pronounced upon couples who are sealed in the temple come right out of the first half of section 132. And so there’s proof of the pudding–that the practice of polygamy is not required to receive those blessings.
Chad, I must say that the theory that Joseph’s relationship to Fanny was initially a parent-to-child sealing makes me feel so much worse about the later sexual relationship. If Fanny’s parents approved of a parent-to-child sealing, isn’t the subsequent sexual relationship a complete betrayal of the trust and faith they placed in Joseph? While I try to maintain a faithful approach to Church history, the theory paints Joseph as manipulative and sexually opportunistic.
It seems that there is a desire to ensure the relationship occurred after the restoration of the sealing power as a sealed plural marriage which makes the more sense in the context of Nauvoo and later plural marriage (and thus slightly more palatable to modern Latter-day Saints), but, I don’t find Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s assertion 40 years after the fact to be convincing for the primary reason that Oliver withdrew his allegations of adultery when Joseph defended himself in a church court. Would a parent-to-child sealing have been sufficient for Oliver to conclude that Joseph’s actions were merely marital sexual relations and not adultery (or worse, some form of spiritual incest)? I sincerely hope not, but, if so, Joseph spun something that should be good, an adoption into the family of God’s prophet, into something that Oliver clearly did not believe it to be at the time the sealing was performed (assuming for the sake of argument that the sealing did occur).
As an alternative, I give credence to W.W. Phelps’ recollection of an 1831 revelation about Cowdery, Phelps, Harris and a few others taking Lamanite wives and Joseph clarifying that these wives would be plural wives. If that account is accurate (and it’s certainly possible it isn’t), I don’t know that Joseph had any clear idea in 1835-6 that the sealing power was necessary to enter a plural marriage. At the very least, that alternative theory doesn’t make my stomach turn.
For what it’s worth, at the time, an adoptive relationship that later turned into a marriage was not considered a betrayal. If there was a big age difference that may have raised some eyebrows, but it was not considered abusive. See the entire plotline of The Barber of Seville, for example.
Not a cougar, there are reasons why the relationship with Fanny Alger (along with the Kirtland Safety Society) shattered the church in Kirtland and ended Joseph’s working relationship with Oliver Cowdery. I suspect there are a lot of details we will never know, so I try to hold a charitable approach (and the family seemed to be happy to be connected to the Smith family in later recollections). But the overall evidence that the authors of the chapter and interview for an initial sealing as a daughter holds up a lot better than the Phelps recollection of a revelation about plural marriage (in contemporary documentation, it was more likely Smith told the then-divorced Martin Harris to try to marry a Native American woman). But again, we don’t really know, so I’m open to different interpretations.