Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

All right, diving in today, folks. We're going deep, deep, deep into some, well, let's just say murky waters of Mormon history. And honestly, I'm a little hesitant, a bit intimidated even because, well, it's about polygamy.

Yeah, polygamy always a hot topic,

right? I mean, it's one of those subjects that sparks a lot of debate, a lot of strong feelings, and frankly, I'm sure a lot of you listening have already bumped into some, let's call them, differing opinions on this.

Definitely, it's loaded with history, tangled with religious beliefs, personal stories, it's no surprise people see it in different ways.

Exactly. So, our goal today isn't to hand you a neat little answer wrapped up with a bow and say, "This is the truth. End of story." No, that's not what we're about.

No, not at all.

Instead, we're going to do something a little different, a little fun. We're turning this deep dive into a debate.

Oh, a debate.

A debate.

I like where this is going.

Game.

I was born ready.

All right. So, we've both gone through the material. You know, the Mormon Stories podcast with John Hammer. for Radio Free Mormon than the Cwic Media interview with Michelle Stone.

A lot of info to unpack.

We've each picked a side, built our cases, ready to go head-to-head. One of us is arguing that, yep, the evidence points to Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. The other

the other is taking the stance that no, the evidence just doesn't back that up.

And we're bringing the receipts, evidence straight from the sources, logic, reasoning, the whole nine yards.

Absolutely. It's a debate, not a shouting match.

We're sticking to the rules. presenting our cases and letting the evidence speak for itself.

Exactly. And just to be crystal clear, folks, our job here is to lay it all out, be impartial, you know, like good referees. We're not here to push our own personal opinions or beliefs on anyone.

Nope. We're letting the sources do the talking.

All right, let's get this debate started. And just to keep things clear, I'll be taking the side that, yeah, the evidence suggests Joseph Smith was practicing polit.

And I'll be taking the opposite stance, arguing that based on what we've got that conclusion just isn't solid.

Perfect. So, to kick things off, I want to bring up Radio Free Mormon. Now, he makes a pretty darn convincing argument based on evidence that comes straight from Joseph Smith's own time.

Interesting.

He really hammers this point home. We need to focus on what was happening while Joseph Smith was alive, you know, before June 1844 to avoid getting bogged down in later interpretations or possible biases that might have popped up after his death.

Yeah, makes sense. If you want to get the truest picture, you got to stick to the source, to the time period when things actually went down. Primary sources. Right.

Exactly. And Radio Free Mormon points to this document, the Nauvoo Expositor, published June 7th, 1844. It has these three sworn affidavits, and they're pretty much the cornerstone of the argument that Joseph Smith was involved with polygamy.

The Nauvoo Expositor. That's a loaded piece of history right there. It was published by people who were once pretty tight with Joseph Smith, folks who held leadership positions, but then well things went south.

They had a falling out big time.

Big time. So yeah, their testimonies from that newspaper. They offer a unique viewpoint, but it's definitely from a critical angle

for sure. So let's look at these affidavit one by one. First up, William Law. Now, this guy was no lightweight. He was Joseph Smith's second counselor in the first presidency. In his affidavit, Law states under oath that back in the winter of 184344, Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, also a leader, read a revelation about polygamy to the high council. And guess who was on that council?

William Law himself.

William Law himself. Front row seat.

Front row seat to controversy.

And what did William Law say this alleged revelation was about? Well, according to his statement, it laid out some of the key principles that later ended up in, get this, section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. You know, the book with revelations and declarations for the church. Yeah. Some pretty weighty stuff.

Weighty is an understatement. We're talking about the foundation of celestial marriage, the whole concept of it. including the idea of polygamy.

Right? So law remembers specific points from this alleged revelation like the idea that under certain circumstances a man could have multiple wives, the performance of sealing ordinances not just for this life but for eternity and the kicker, the promise of exaltation. And it's all tied to these practices.

Eternal implications, big stakes.

Huge. Now following William Law's affidavit, we have one from his wife, Jane Law.

Husband and wife, both going on record. And what does Jane say? She backs up her husband's story. Says she also heard Hyrum Smith reading that revelation about polygamy to the high council.

Two independent witnesses claiming the same thing. That's that's significant.

So right there we have two people, William and Jane Law, both in a position to know what was going on. Both swearing under oath that Hyrum Smith presented a revelation about polygamy to a very high level group within the church. All while Joseph Smith was leading it.

And it doesn't stop there. There's a third affidavit in the Nauvoo Expositor. This one's from Austin Cowell, another member of that high council enough room,

another insider.

He states that he heard Hyrum Smith say point blank that Joseph Smith had received a revelation about polygamy. And get this, he claims Joseph already had several wives,

multiple wives. Okay, so let's recap. We have three separate individuals. These aren't just random folks on the street. They're either leaders in the church or very close to the leadership. All three give sworn statements. all within the same time frame and all before Joseph Smith's death. And what are they saying? They're saying that there was a revelation about polygamy and that Joseph Smith was practicing it.

That's a pretty compelling case on the surface, I have to admit. But of course, it's not that simple, is it? Radio Free Mormon himself acknowledges that there are counterarguments and a big one revolves around the fact that William and Jane Law as well as Austin Cows, well, they didn't exactly stay best buddies with the church, did they?

No, they didn't. Things got messy.

They became what's called disaffected. Basically, they were excommunicated for apostasy, meaning they renounced their faith. And that raises some questions. If they were so disillusioned with the church, could their testimonies be colored by bitterness? Could they be exaggerating or twisting the truth to make Joseph Smith look bad? It's something to consider.

Absolutely. And that's a common argument against the idea that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. The idea is that these folks were just disgruntled ex-members with an axe to grind,

right? Vengeful storytelling, so to speak. But there's a problem. about that theory and Radio Free Mormon highlights it brilliantly. It all comes down to timing. These statements, these sworn affidavits, they weren't made after Joseph Smith died. They were made before while he was still very much alive. And they weren't whispered in secret. They were published in a newspaper for everyone to see. June 7th, 1844. That date, that's a historical fact. It's not up for debate. So regardless of what happened later, these were their statements made and published. While Joseph Smith could have responded, could have refuted them. It's like dropping a bomb and then sticking around to watch the fallout. They made these accusations knowing full well that Joseph Smith could and likely would address them. They put themselves on the line. And I think that speaks volumes about their perceived truthfulness at the time. Why make those claims knowing the potential backlash if they weren't confident in their validity?

And here's another thought. Radio Free Mormon points out the striking similarities between what William Law describes in his affidavit. You know, the principles of that alleged revelation of what later became Doctrine and Covenant section 132. It's almost like a blueprint. If these ideas weren't coming from Joseph Smith, then where did they come from? And why would these people risk public accusations if they had no basis, nothing they'd heard or seen from the church leadership? It's a tough question to answer.

Radio Free Mormon's argument boils down to this. You have these accounts given by people in positions of authority made while Joseph Smith was alive that directly claim he received a revelation about polygamy. and was practicing it. And what's more, these claims line up with later doctrine. To dismiss all of that, you'd need some seriously strong counter evidence from the same time period. And well, that's just not there.

It's a powerful argument, no doubt. But now, let's flip the script. Let's dive into the argument against Joseph Smith initiating or practicing polygamy. And for this, we're turning to Michelle Stone and her interviews. Her main point is that Joseph Smith never started polygamy, and in fact, he was against it.

Okay, so a completely different view. point.

Oh, 180. Now, it's interesting to note that Michelle Stone comes from a family with a history of polygamy, the kind that continued after the manifesto, you know, within the Mormon tradition. So, she didn't start out opposed to the idea.

So, it's not like she's coming at this with a pre-existing bias against polygamy.

No, not at all. Her current stance is based on years of research digging into the historical evidence. And she's not denying that there are letters, affidavit, and historical accounts out there that say Joseph Smith taught about celestial marriage. and that he had plural wives. But she takes a hard look at those later accounts, s suggesting that maybe, just maybe, they aren't as reliable as they seem.

So, she's questioning the narrative that's become, well, kind of accepted by some.

Exactly. She uses this term altered records, and she suggests that maybe history was rewritten, you know, in the years and decades after Joseph Smith's death.

Rewritten? You mean like someone deliberately changed the story?

Well, that's what she's implying.

Okay, that's a pretty bold claim.

It is.

So, let's get specific. What about those Nauvoo Expositor affidavit, the ones we just talked about. How does Michelle Stone address those?

She doesn't shy away from them. In fact, she tackles them head on. She questions the reliability of William and Jane Law and Austin Cowell's and she digs into their motivations. Why were they so eager to make these accusations? What was their endgame?

So, back to the disgruntled ex-member theory

kind of, but she adds another layer to it. She points out that William Law later expressed regret for publishing the Nauvoo Expositor. There are accounts that suggest he felt he'd made a mistake, that it was a foolish and harmful act, and that he should have just walked away quietly.

Oh, interesting. So, he had second thoughts?

Yeah. So, if he later regretted his actions, does that mean everything he said in that affidavit was a lie?

Well, I wouldn't say a lie, but it definitely makes you wonder, was he speaking out of anger? Was he blinded by his disillusionment with the church? It's like anything in history, right? You have to Consider the source, their state of mind, what they might have to gain or lose.

Exactly. Human memory is a funny thing, isn't it? It can be influenced by all sorts of factors. Time, emotion, personal biases. Michelle Stone is basically saying that we need to be careful about taking these affidavit at face value.

And she doesn't stop there. She keeps hammering on this idea of altered records, this rewriting of church history after Joseph Smith died. And she goes even further suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the whole revelation on in polygamy, the one in Doctrine and Covenant section 132, that maybe it wasn't a single complete revelation from Joseph Smith's time.

Yeah. She suggests it might be more like a patchwork quilt, a mix of genuine teachings from Joseph Smith and then well, let's call them embellishments or ideas that developed later,

additions, maybe even fabrications to support a narrative that wasn't originally there.

Exactly. And she points out that while Joseph Smith might have taught about eternal marriage, which by the way he and Hyrum Smith did talk about publicly in 1844, He very publicly condemned polygamy. It was being rumored, maybe even practiced secretly in Nauvoo at the time. Yeah.

But in his public speeches, Joseph Smith made it very clear. Polygamy

not. Okay. So, she's saying that for Joseph Smith, eternal marriage and plural marriage polygamy were two separate things.

Exactly. And she uses those public sermons, the ones where Joseph and Hyrum Smith denounced polygamy, as evidence. They were speaking out against it publicly just months before they died.

That creates a big conflict, doesn't it? If Joseph Smith was secretly practicing polygamy, why would he be so vocal against it?

Okay, that's a really good point. So, if we're following Michelle Stone's line of reasoning, how do we reconcile those public condemnations with those claims in the Nauvoo Expositor?

Well, Stone's argument hinges on the idea that those public condemnations were genuine. Joseph and Hyrum Smith meant what they said when they denounced polygamy. Those statements reflected their true stance, at least publicly. As for the Nauvoo Expositor and those affidavit, well, she sees those as coming from a place of anger, of betrayal. Remember, these were people who had been pushed out, who felt wronged by the church. They had a motive to paint Joseph Smith in a negative light.

So, their claims might be true, but they're also filtered through the lens of their own experiences, their own hurt feelings.

Exactly. And then there's the whole issue of historical revisionism. Stone argues that Brigham Young and the leaders who came after Joseph Smith, they had a vested interest in making making polygamy look like it had been Joseph Smith's idea all along. It gave them legitimacy, made it easier to continue the practice after Joseph's death.

Okay, so two very different perspectives, both using the same historical events as evidence. What do we do with that?

Well, that's the fun part, isn't it? Trying to piece it all together, weigh the evidence, and come to our own conclusions. But first, it's rebuttal time.

You bet it is. And I'm going to start by saying that while Michelle Stone raises some valid points about the historical context and the possible biases of those who gave those affidavit. We can't ignore one crucial fact. Those statements were made under oath and they were published before Joseph Smith died. The Nauvoo Expositor is a real document from that time period. And that those parallels between what William Law describes in his affidavit and what ended up in Doctrine in Covenant section 132, those are pretty darn specific. To say that it's all just later revisionism, well, you'd need some pretty concrete proof that the Nauvoo Expositor itself was altered. And without that proof, we have to take the document at face value. These were contemporary claims made publicly and they carry a lot of weight, especially when there's no equally strong counter evidence from the same time period to refute them.

Fair points. I'll grant you that. But let's not forget that William Law at least did express regret later on. That casts a shadow, doesn't it? Makes you question his motives, whether he was being completely honest back then. And the whole succession crisis after Joseph Smith was killed, that adds another layer of complexity. Brigham Young and the other leaders, they had to solidify their power and they had to justify what they were doing. doing, including practicing polygamy openly. So, it's not a stretch to think that they might, shall we say, massaged the historical narrative to fit their agenda.

Sure, it's possible they wanted to control the story, but again, where's the evidence that they specifically altered those affidavit or the Nauvoo Expositor itself? We're dealing with historical possibilities here, not concrete proof. Without more specific evidence, we're left with the documents as they exist from that time period.

True enough, but the very fact that we know from historical accounts that leaders after Joseph Smith were involved in let's call it historical management. Well, that makes us look at all documents from that era with a more critical eye. It suggests a willingness to shape the past to serve the present. So, while the Nauvoo Expositor is a document from that time, we also have to consider that those who gave those affidavit might have had their own agendas, their own reasons for saying what they said. And those later expressions of regret, at least from William Law, well, they add to the uncertainty. All right, I think we've laid out the arguments pretty thoroughly. It's time for our closing statements. I'll start. Based on the evidence we have, specifically those sworn affidavits in the Nauvoo Expositor, which were made public before Joseph Smith's death, and which detail both a revelation about polygamy and Joseph Smith's alleged involvement, I maintain that the evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith did in fact practice polygamy. And when you look at the specifics, the principles described in those affidavits and how they line up with what later became doctrine section 132. That adds another layer of weight to the argument. To dismiss all of this, to say it's all fabrication or later revisionism, you'd need some hard proof that those original documents were tampered with. And without that proof, I think the contemporary nature of those claims is just too powerful to ignore.

Well argued, but I'm sticking to my position. While the Nauvoo Expositor is a fascinating piece of the puzzle, I just can't shake the doubts. William Law expressing regret later on the possibility of historical manipulation by leader who came after Joseph Smith and those very public denunciations of polygamy by Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Well, all of that creates enough reasonable doubt for me. The historical context is just too messy, too open to interpretation to say definitively based on these sources alone that Joseph Smith initiated and practiced polygamy.

Okay, so we've heard both sides and I think it's safe to say this is a complex issue with no easy answers. But according to the rules of our debate, we have to pick a winner and that winner has to be chosen on the logical consistency of the arguments and the effective use of evidence directly from the sources we've discussed. And based on that criteria, I'm giving the win to well myself. The direct contemporary claims made in the Nauvoo Expositor, corroborated by multiple individuals, hold significant weight, especially considering the specific historical context of the sources we've examined.

A worthy opponent indeed. The arguments presented, especially those based on the Nauvoo Expositor as primary source material, were both compelling and thought provoking.

So folks, what have we learned today?

Well, I think we've learned that history is rarely black and white. This isn't a simple case of he did or he didn't. It's a tangled web of claims, counter claims, and shifting perspectives.

And it shows how important it is to look at things critically, to question what we think we know, and to be open to different interpretations.

Absolutely. This deep dive has just scratched the surface. There's so much more to explore. We encourage you to dig into those sources we discussed, the Mormon Stories podcast, Cwic Media, the work of John Hamer, Radio Free Mormon, Michelle Stone. Don't just take our word for it. Do your own research. Form your own opinion.

Exactly. And as you're going through those sources, thinking about all the different perspectives, ask yourself this. What's the one piece of evidence that stands out to you? The one that really sways your opinion? What is it about that piece of evidence that you find so convincing? Wrestling with those questions, that's how we learn. That's how we grow.

It's how we engage with history in a meaningful way. And that's what the deep dive is all about.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.