Joseph Smith And Mary Elizabeth Lightner

[helix]

I've seen a timeline about Joseph and Mary Elizabeth Rollins a few times by critics of the church regarding the relationship between these two. Some of it also shows up (not surprisingly) on Wikipedia as well. But as I get deeper into the evidence, their timeline isn't straightforward at all, and another timeline seems far more likely. I thought I'd start a discussion here to get other insights.

Here is the commonly argued timeline (well summarized here http://www.wivesofjo...insLightner.htm.)

1. Mary (12 years old) meets Joseph Smith for the first time in 1831. Joseph Smith tells her she is going to be her plural wife.
   
2. Joseph Smith again tells her in 1834 regarding this.
   
3. Perhaps thinking Joseph Smith changed his mind, she marries Adam Lightner instead of 1835.
   
4. In 1842, Joseph says he is commanded to marry her or else an angel would destroy him. She relents and does so.
   

But, so much of this seems to be carefully interpreted from just a few short statements. Here's all evidence I can find from Mary:

becoming

From her autobiography (http://www.boap.org/.../MLightner.html):

• [in 1831] Brother Whitney brought the Prophet Joseph to our house and introduced him to the older ones of the family (I was not in at the time.) In looking around he saw the Book of Mormon on the shelf, and asked how that book came to be there. He said, "I sent that book to Brother Morley." Uncle told him how his niece had obtained it. He asked, "Where is your niece?" I was sent for; when he saw me he looked at me so earnestly, I felt almost afraid. After a moment or two he came and put his hands on my head and gave me a great blessing, the first I ever received, and made me a present of the book, and said he would give Brother Morley another. He came in time to rebuke the evil spirits, and set the church in order. We all felt that he was a man of God, for he spoke with power, and as one having authority in very deed.
  

In 1902 Mary signed a statement concerning this (http://www.josephsmi...xperiences.html):

• I was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by commandment, in the spring of 1831. The Savior appeared and commanded him to seal me up to everlasting life, gave me to Joseph to be with him in his kingdom even as he is in the Father’s Kingdom. In 1834, [Joseph] was commanded to take me for a wife. I was a thousand miles from him. He got afraid. The angel came to him three times, the last time with a drawn sword and threatened his life. I did not believe. If God told him so, why did he not come and tell me? The angel told him I should have a witness. An angel came to me – it went through me like lightning – I was afraid. Joseph Said he came with more revelation and knowledge than Joseph ever dare reveal. (Brigham Young sealed me to him, for time and all eternity – Feb. 1842.)
  

In 1905 in a speech at BYU to prospective missionaries (http://thefrees.com/...hamblin.TXT.txt), she said:

• [Quoting Joseph Smith regarding the 1831 visit] Brethern and Sisters, the Spirit of God has been here. The Savior has been in your midst this night and I want you to remember it. There is a veil over your eyes for you could not endure to look upon Him. You must be fed with milk not with strong meat. I want you to remember this as if it were the last thing that escaped my lips. He has given all of you to me and has sealed you up to everlasting life that where he is you may be also.
  
• [in 1842] I asked him if Emma knew about me, and he said, "Emma thinks the world of you." I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Well" said I, "don't you think it was an angel of the Devil that told you these things?" Said he, "No, It was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of Light and Satan's angels." The angel came to me three times between the years of ‘34 and ‘42 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me." "But" said he "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie, all that He gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me." Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him I would never be sealed to him until I had a witness. Said he "You shall have a witness," Said I, "If God told you that why does he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such a talk from a married man." said I. "Well", said he, "pray earnestly for the angel said to me you should have a witness". [she then describes a powerful witness for herself, which many critical sources either leave out or cherry pick to make the situation look nefarious.]
  

In 1905 in a reply letter to Emmeline B. Wells, she gives this (http://thefrees.com/history/node/42):

• As for Sister Whitney, Bishop Whitney's wife, I shall never forget her. It was at their house that the Prophet Joseph first told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. That was in 1831. He was very much frightened, the angel appeared to him three times. It was in the early part of Feb. 1842 that he was compelled to reveal it to me personally, by the Angel threatening him. I said I would not accept it until I had seen an immortal being myself. I could tell you about this, but cannot write any more in regard to this subject.
  

Within these there are some interesting statements that need careful reading. I'll start with the last quote, the letter to Emmeline B. Wells. A quick glance seems to imply she is saying Joseph Smith told her at an early age (likely 13 years old, possibly 12) that she would become a plural wife. However, Mary makes a key statement, "It was in the early part of Feb. 1842 that he was compelled to reveal it to me personally." That alone suggests the first time she learned of this was in 1842. So now her quote makes for ambiguous reading, no matter what angle it is approached from. The problem is that at some point in that paragraph, she is switching concepts. Initially she discusses Bishop Whitney's wife, and how she first met her the same time she first met Joseph and received a blessing from him. Then she switches to 1842 and how Joseph Smith revealed to her the concept of plural marriage. It's just ambiguous because the first part of the letter makes it seem plural marriage was revealed to her in 1831. Then the second half makes it seem as if plural marriage was revealed to her in 1842. If we take the second situation, then it seems to read as events when Joseph Smith learned about them. I admit this statement is ambiguous, and it would be very hard to argue that this alternate reading alone is correct.

But looking at the other quotes on the matter, a clearer picture emerges. In 1831, she received a blessing. She was to be sealed to Joseph in everlasting life. But, she phrases it carefully, "...gave me to Joseph to be with him in his kingdom even as he is in the Father’s Kingdom." And quoting Joseph Smith that day speaking to a room with a handful of men and women "He has given all of you to me and has sealed you up to everlasting life that where he is you may be also." She isn't talking about being sealed in terms of marriage. She is talking about her being sealed in terms of everlasting life to reach heaven. Just as others in the room (brothers and sisters) would be sealed to Joseph as well. That is definitely a great vision concerning her.

In the 1902 quote, she discusses this sealing to everlasting life in 1831. Plural marriage is NOT mentioned in 1831. She then describes Joseph Smith recollecting back in 1834 how he is told is told of an upcoming plural marriage relationship between the two of them (she is not told about this in 1834, but learns of this in 1842).

Further, she says she had been receiving spiritual witnesses in the form of dreams that eventually she would be sealed to Joseph Smith as a wife. She felt these dreams were impure, from Satan, and prayed to God that they would be taken away. But they continued. When she had a conversation with Joseph Smith in 1842, she mentioned these dreams to him. She says "don't you think it was an angel of the Devil that told you these things?". Now a question for critics. Why would she feel these dreams are from Satan and was hesitant until 1842 to reveal them to Joseph Smith if Joseph Smith told her this would happen in 1831? It doesn't make sense. If Joseph Smith told her this would be her future in 1831, surely she wouldn't think such dreams are from Satan. From a believer's perspective, she received promptings this would happen in the years prior to 1842. And likewise Joseph Smith received revelations concerning this. She was troubled by hers and she thought the concept was wrong. She quotes Joseph as being troubled as well. And neither revealed it to each other until 1842.

Also, the timeline regarding 1834 is off. I can find no recorded conversation between her and Joseph Smith in 1834, especially one regarding becoming a wife. (And such a concept doesn't square at all with the prior point made in the preceding paragraph).

Finally, we have very few hints regarding any instance of the doctrine of plural marriage in the church in 1831. It would seem historically out of place for Mary to have received such a specific blessing regarding it (a blessing done likely in front of others).

Based on all this, I would propose a different timeline:

1. Mary meets Joseph Smith in 1831. She received a powerful blessing from him. She and others are told they would be sealed to Joseph unto everlasting life.
   
2. A few times between 1831 and 1842, Joseph Smith receives revelation concerning plural marriage. At 1834, he is first told of his upcoming relationship with her, but doesn't let Mary know.
   
3. Mary has dreams regarding her being married to Joseph. She feels the concept impure. That these dreams are sunful, and are from an "angel of the Devil". She prays to God that these dreams go away. They do not.
   
4. She marries Adam Lightner in 1835 and has many children with him.
   
5. In 1842, Joseph Smith has another vision regarding plural marriage. He sends for Mary. They converse on the subject. Each reveals to the other the spiritual witnesses they received prior.
   
6. Mary initially declines and insists on a witness of an angel for herself. Joseph encourages her to receive her own witness. She prays for days and then said an angel visited her, but didn't give her the witness. Joseph Smith said if she had talked to the angel, she would have received her witness. Joseph Smith then prophesies further signs that would happen as a deeper witness. Mary hints that these signs were unusually specific and sounded unrealistic. She says all the signs happened.
   
7. Mary is "sealed" (in her own words) as a wife to Joseph.
   
8. There is no record or quote from her of any cohabitation between her and Joseph. She refers instead to Adam as her "husband", and continues to cohabit and have children with Adam Lightner.
   

Edited July 16, 2013 by helix

[Alan]

Joseph did not marry this woman. He only married Emma.

[jim_mason]

Joseph did not marry this woman. He only married Emma.

Is a plural wife a wife?

[Questing Beast]

Nope, not here. That didn't prevent many children being born in and around Nauvoo to polygamous "wives"....

[iamse7en]

Give it a rest Rock. It's historical fact.

[canard78]

Thanks for the detailed OP. I'll come back and re-read it in more detail later.

Alan's already got two threads on evidence for polygamy/polyandry - maybe you guys could continue that conversation over there and we can focus on Mary Elizabeth here.

[cdowis]

Here is that part that you left out:

Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him I would never be sealed to him until I had a witness. Said he, "You shall have a witness." Said I, "If God told you that, why does he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such a talk from a married man," said I. "Well," said he, "pray earnestly for the angel said to me you should have a witness." Well, Brigham Young was with me. He said if I had a witness he wanted to know it. "Why should I tell you?" said I. "Well," said he, "I want to know for myself." Said he, "Do you know what Joseph said? Since we left the office the angel appeared to him and told him he was well pleased with him and that you should have a witness."

I made it a subject of prayer and I worried about it because I did not dare to speak to a living being except Brigham Young. I went out and got between three haystacks where no one could see me. As I knelt down I thought, why not pray as Moses did? He prayed with his hands raised. When his hands were raised, Israel was victorious, but when they were not raised, the Philistines were victorious. I lifted my hands and I have heard Joseph say the angels covered their faces. I knelt down and if ever a poor mortal prayed, I did. A few nights after that an angel of the Lord came to me and if ever a thrill went through a mortal, it went through me. I gazed upon the clothes and figure but the eyes were like lightning. They pierced me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. I was frightened almost to death for a moment. I tried to waken my aunt, but I could not. The angel leaned over me and the light was very great, although it was night. When my aunt woke up she said she had seen a figure in white robes pass from our bed to my mother's bed and pass out of the window.

Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?" "No." "Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did you think to say, `Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that, your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever dared to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted." Said I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not the same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." And then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although my husband was far away from me at the time. Every work came true. I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber C. Kimball the blessing. I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.

+++++++++++++++++

She then goes on with a normal life with her husband.

Edited July 17, 2013 by cdowis

[Alan]

Give it a rest Rock. It's historical fact.

Who's Rock?

[Questing Beast]

Odd. More fulsome than the versions I have read before. Angels in the nighttime are the stuff of very realistic dreams. Metaphysical. Mormons in the near presence of JS experienced some "rub off" of his religious world view, and as has been said by other observers/students, JS seems to have existed at least as much, if not more so, in the metaphysical world than this one. His belief capacity must have been quite irresistible to many of his disciples. I reckon Jesus Christ had a similar and far more powerful effect upon those near him. Muhammad, not so much, similar. "They" are all alike that way. I wonder how I'd react to a genuine mystic who KNOWS what he says is real....

edit to add: I know how I'd react, skeptically. Most people around JS did not respond to his charisma to that extent, where they too experienced "angels" and suchlike metaphysical visitations. Those who refused JS's offers of plural marriage were pragmatic and distrustful too. I don't see a consistency in their subsequent lives where "refusing the Lord's prophet" brought about darkness and misery and cursing. They simply broke away and lived normal lives of ups and downs like everybody else....

Edited July 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[cdowis]

I adore Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. In case you don't know, she was the gutsy teenager who saved the pages from the Book of Commandments when the mob was destroying the press.

I love the way she told the prophet, "Thanks but no thanks."

It is well worth reading her journal.

Edited July 17, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

"One day Mary Elizabeth and her younger sister Caroline were near Brother Phelps’s printing office when a mob began destroying the press and dumping large piles of printed paper out the window. Mary Elizabeth recognized the paper right away. The men were destroying the Book of Commandments!

“Caroline, we must save those papers,” Mary Elizabeth whispered. “Follow me.”

“They will kill us,” Caroline said. “But I will come.”

Waiting until the men had turned away from the girls, each sister grabbed a large armful of papers and began running toward a cornfield. The men saw the girls and began to chase them, yelling at them to stop. The girls ran into the tall corn, laid the papers on the ground, and lay on top of them to protect them. The sisters could hear the men crashing through the corn stalks nearby. Mary Elizabeth and Caroline’s hearts pounded, but to their relief, the girls were not found.

After waiting in the corn for a long time, the sisters carried the papers back to the printing office. They were grateful to be safe and that they had helped the Lord’s work."

We discussed this story in Primary recently, I had forgotten she was one of JS's wives. To bad we couldn't be totally honest and be able to say that she ended up being his wife. Instead, it remains the untold story.

[cdowis]

While waiting in the cornfield, she heard a voice which sang a verse from "How Firm a Foundation". Sorry, forget which verse, but it was one that is not usually sung.

Edited July 17, 2013 by cdowis

[cinepro]

We discussed this story in Primary recently, I had forgotten she was one of JS's wives. To bad we couldn't be totally honest and be able to say that she ended up being his wife. Instead, it remains the untold story.

I'm all for full-disclosure, but the part about her eventually being a plural wife isn't relevant to the story of the Book of Commandments at all.

It's an interesting bit of trivia, and if I were teaching it in Elder's Quorum I might include it, but it's hardly dishonest to not mention it.

[why me]

We discussed this story in Primary recently, I had forgotten she was one of JS's wives. To bad we couldn't be totally honest and be able to say that she ended up being his wife. Instead, it remains the untold story.

Why couldn't you be honest and say that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith? Who would have prevented you from doing so? I see nothing wrong in telling them this fact.

[why me]

I'm all for full-disclosure, but the part about her eventually being a plural wife isn't relevant to the story of the Book of Commandments at all.

It's an interesting bit of trivia, and if I were teaching it in Elder's Quorum I might include it, but it's hardly dishonest to not mention it.

This may be true. But at times we are our own worst censors for reasons that should not apply. There would have been nothing wrong with her bringing it up in class. However, they may be a little young for such details.

[cinepro]

This may be true. But at times we are our own worst censors for reasons that should not apply. There would have been nothing wrong with her bringing it up in class. However, they may be a little young for such details.

Sometimes it's weird not to bring it up, and sometimes it's weird to bring it up.

[Tacenda]

Sometimes it's weird not to bring it up, and sometimes it's weird to bring it up.

Why couldn't you be honest and say that she was a plural wife of Joseph Smith? Who would have prevented you from doing so? I see nothing wrong in telling them this fact.

Like Cinepro mentioned, it would be weird. You know I already brought up that he looked in a hat, right? But I love your air of openness WhyMe! Btw, the teacher doesn't know about his wives either. And something funny to go along, she always does a question and answer portion in her lessons. The boys (all boy class) were missing questions and feeling frustrated so she gave an easy one she thought, and asked what JS's wife's name was, and the boy the question was directed to said "Elizabeth!", and it took great restraint for me not to say, "you're right bud!".

[bear]

The whole polygamy theology has always been very hard for me. I can accept peepstones, kinderhook plates, books of Abraham, loose translations etc etc. But polygamy is so hard. I just cant write it off as a church leaders own interpretation on a given subject in theology, since its at the core of the whole gospel with "eternal families", "eternal marriage" etc shooting out from it. I love the "shoot outs" but I have great problems with the core. How do you still maintain a sound belief in the church (if you do). I personally do, but some days i can feel my faith foundation cracking (again and again) because of polygamy. I just cant say to myself "Joseph just got that wrong" - because that in essence would mean that the temple marriage and other things would be fake..

Guess im just having one of those days..

Thanks!

[Tacenda]

The whole polygamy theology has always been very hard for me. I can accept peepstones, kinderhook plates, books of Abraham, loose translations etc etc. But polygamy is so hard. I just cant write it off as a church leaders own interpretation on a given subject in theology, since its at the core of the whole gospel with "eternal families", "eternal marriage" etc shooting out from it. I love the "shoot outs" but I have great problems with the core. How do you still maintain a sound belief in the church (if you do). I personally do, but some days i can feel my faith foundation cracking (again and again) because of polygamy. I just cant say to myself "Joseph just got that wrong" - because that in essence would mean that the temple marriage and other things would be fake..

Guess im just having one of those days..

Thanks!

I agree this is a difficult subject, no wonder it has been kept under wraps, whether some on here agree or not. Don't feel bad, members like us just keep trudging along trying to make it work. I know of people that left the church rather quickly without studying it out or making sure it's the right thing to do. It's not so simple throwing away a belief, especially since you've been told it came straight from God and is the only true church. So that puts the burden on us to search, pray or whatever. Have a good day Bear!

[ALarson]

Thanks for the detailed OP. I'll come back and re-read it in more detail later.

Alan's already got two threads on evidence for polygamy/polyandry - maybe you guys could continue that conversation over there and we can focus on Mary Elizabeth here.

Yeah....we're still waiting for answers from him but he disappears when asked to provide them and doesn't return to the thread.

I'm still waiting to hear his evidence that William Clayton's journals were somehow all rewritten or altered (to include details about Joseph Smith's polygamy in Nauvoo). So far, he's only promised the proof but has not returned to provide it (that I have seen).

[webbles]

The whole polygamy theology has always been very hard for me. I can accept peepstones, kinderhook plates, books of Abraham, loose translations etc etc. But polygamy is so hard. I just cant write it off as a church leaders own interpretation on a given subject in theology, since its at the core of the whole gospel with "eternal families", "eternal marriage" etc shooting out from it. I love the "shoot outs" but I have great problems with the core. How do you still maintain a sound belief in the church (if you do). I personally do, but some days i can feel my faith foundation cracking (again and again) because of polygamy. I just cant say to myself "Joseph just got that wrong" - because that in essence would mean that the temple marriage and other things would be fake..

Guess im just having one of those days..

Thanks!

I guess I've never had a problem with polygamy because many of my ancestors (I haven't actually counted but I'm guessing 50-75% during that time) were polygamists. I can read their journals and I can see what they felt. And all the ones I've read had decent experiences while some have had excellent experiences.

[USU78]

The whole polygamy theology has always been very hard for me. I can accept peepstones, kinderhook plates, books of Abraham, loose translations etc etc. But polygamy is so hard. I just cant write it off as a church leaders own interpretation on a given subject in theology, since its at the core of the whole gospel with "eternal families", "eternal marriage" etc shooting out from it. I love the "shoot outs" but I have great problems with the core. How do you still maintain a sound belief in the church (if you do). I personally do, but some days i can feel my faith foundation cracking (again and again) because of polygamy. I just cant say to myself "Joseph just got that wrong" - because that in essence would mean that the temple marriage and other things would be fake..

Guess im just having one of those days..

Thanks!

There are just some things that don't make sense to us. We are required to do things that break our hearts and/or ruin our lives, but we must do them nevertheless. Some are just plain weird. I leave to you whether polygamy, especially as practiced by JSJr, is one or the other.

Adam and Eve were promised the world, and all they had to do was not touch the fruit of one tree. It makes no sense.

Abraham was promised land, prosperity, posterity, priesthood, fame . . . and all he had to do was forsake the g-ds of his ancestors . . . oh, and cut off the end of his manhood. It makes no sense.

Some couples in JSJr's day were promised eternal life, exaltation, kingdoms, principalities and powers . . . and all they had to do was agree that the woman would become JSJr's wife in some ill-defined way. It makes no sense.

Why should we expect things to make sense to us all the time? Nobody else was either promised or was delivered such clarity.

[Calm]

I just cant say to myself "Joseph just got that wrong" - because that in essence would mean that the temple marriage and other things would be fake..

What about just some aspects of it wrong? Like the (folk?) belief (that may be more BY's time than JS's) that more wives means more glory? And instead of being an aspect of one's glory, it is about being able to eternally and fully express a loving relationship that was established in mortality (thus not requiring men...and maybe women as well...to choose between women that they loved whether at the same time as in plural marriage or serially as in having multiple spouses over one's lifetime due to the death of a spouse)? Or that some of JS's actions were not the best choices of how to fulfill the commandment, that he may have not been quite valiant enough due to trying to spare Emma's feelings or avoid conflict in the home? Or that instead of coming up with his own way of doing it, he should have gone back to the Lord to receive more detailed instructions? Or that in being sealed to other men's wives he misunderstood the sealing process much as apparently they did when they were sealing themselves to leaders as their 'fathers' rather than their own fathers, which was correct by WW much later?

[bear]

Well i guess it's just the plain thing that one man should have more than one wife that really bothers me. So I cant really go any further than that. I completely understand that Joseph smith only got a "rough cut" about principles and then worked his way from there, and in that process he made a lot of mistakes but that the doctrine or principal was true. - This i say about other principles - not polygamy. (Even though i completely respect that other people may believe in polygamy as a true principle). I just cant really get it to fit inside my brain as doctrine from God. As a social thing that was "in" during different ages/areas in the world is fine by me. But not constituted by God. I could even accept it (I think) more if it was equal (multiple husbands as well as wives).

Thanks a lot for taking your time to write, and what an awesome forum:)

[cdowis]

Well i guess it's just the plain thing that one man should have more than one wife that really bothers me.

In case you didn't notice, it also bothered JS a great deal.