Babies Born In Nauvoo To Polygamous Wives

[ALarson]

I saw this question posted on another forum where I occasionally read and I thought it was an interesting topic.  I honestly had not really ever thought much about this (or researched it).  I am going to try to look up how many children were born (especially prior to when Joseph Smith was killed as that detail interests me as well).

One response is that Heber C. Kimball's 2nd wife, Sarah Noon, gave birth to his child in 1842 (I haven't looked that up for accuracy).  

Were there others and how were these pregnancies or births explained since many were not aware that plural marriage was being lived?  

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

In trying to look up more information on Sarah Noon, I read that she was already legally married to another man at the time she married Heber.  But it appears she was separated from him.  I would imagine that with some, it was stated that the baby was the 1st husbands, but I don't know if that was possible in this case.

Sarah and Heber's child was named and date of birth estimated (this is from wiki, so take that into account):  

• Adelbert Kimball (1842–1843)

[JLHPROF]

William Clayton's second wife Margaret had a son Daniel Adelbert Clayton on Feb 18, 1844 (10 months after they were married).
She was the sister of his first wife Ruth.

Joseph Smith told him:
 He said that it was her advice that I should keep M at home and it was also his council. Says he just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging & probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you & set you ahead as good as ever.

 

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

William Clayton's second wife Margaret had a son Daniel Adelbert Clayton on Feb 18, 1844 (10 months after they were married).
She was the sister of his first wife Ruth.

Joseph Smith told him:
 He said that it was her advice that I should keep M at home and it was also his council. Says he just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging & probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you & set you ahead as good as ever.

 

Yes, I remember reading that now in William Clayton's Nauvoo diary.  So, a "fake" excommunication to cover the pregnancy?

 

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I remember reading that now in William Clayton's Nauvoo diary.  So, a "fake" excommunication to cover the pregnancy?

 

Excommunication didn't seem so serious in the early days.
The old joke goes that Brigham would excommunicate you in the morning and rebaptize you in the afternoon.

My understanding is that the same thing was occasionally seen between 1890 and 1904, and even on occasion after 1904.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Excommunication didn't seem so serious in the early days.
The old joke goes that Brigham would excommunicate you in the morning and rebaptize you in the afternoon.

My understanding is that the same thing was occasionally seen between 1890 and 1904, and even on occasion after 1904.

Interesting, thanks.  William Clayton's diary was the only reference I'd seen regarding this possibly happening.

Do you know how Heber and Vilate handled Sarah Noon's pregnancy and child?  Is there anything written about this?

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

All this sounds so deceitful in a way.  Smells funny..not to mention that anyone should be hidden with child.  Shaming child?  Ugh...hope I am misunderstanding all this.  But, I too, have heard of the quote above.  I love American and Church History so this is so interesting.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Interesting, thanks.  William Clayton's diary was the only reference I'd seen regarding this possibly happening.

Do you know how Heber and Vilate handled Sarah Noon's pregnancy and child?  Is there anything written about this?

.

No idea - but here is another polygamous pregnancy in Nauvoo, in which Sarah Noon was a confidant but told her sister wife Vilate.

Two years later to the day after Louisa's sealing to Smith, Noble married Sarah B. Alley as his first plural wife. Their child, George, was born ten months later. "I have a secret to tell you but I am almost afrade," Vilate Kimball wrote to her husband, Heber C , on June 29, 1843, of Alley's pregnancy. "It was committed to Sarah [Noon, whom Heber had married in 1842 and she was requested not to tell me, but she said she considered me a part of her self and she would tell me, and I might tell you for it was just what you had prophesied would come to pass. Now if you know what you have said about sarah Abby [i.e., Sarah B. Alleyl then you have got the secret, for it is even so and she is tickled about it and they all appear in better spirits than they did before. How they will carry it out, is more than I know. I hope they have got more faith than I have."

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All this sounds so deceitful in a way.  Smells funny..not to mention that anyone should be hidden with child.  Shaming child?  Ugh...hope I am misunderstanding all this.  But, I too, have heard of the quote above.  I love American and Church History so this is so interesting.

Considering how people even today act on this board at the realities of polygamy, imagine the reaction in the more puritan Nauvoo era.
If members on this board have such hatred towards polygamy, if polygamy were restored among the leaders of the Church today I don't see that a polygamous child today would be any more celebratory than it might have been back then.

Hiding a pregnancy and shaming a child is a result of the society in which they lived, not the fault of those who conceived a child within a God given relationship.

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No idea - but here is another polygamous pregnancy in Nauvoo, in which Sarah Noon was a confidant but told her sister wife Vilate.

Two years later to the day after Louisa's sealing to Smith, Noble married Sarah B. Alley as his first plural wife. Their child, George, was born ten months later. "I have a secret to tell you but I am almost afrade," Vilate Kimball wrote to her husband, Heber C , on June 29, 1843, of Alley's pregnancy. "It was committed to Sarah [Noon, whom Heber had married in 1842 and she was requested not to tell me, but she said she considered me a part of her self and she would tell me, and I might tell you for it was just what you had prophesied would come to pass. Now if you know what you have said about sarah Abby [i.e., Sarah B. Alleyl then you have got the secret, for it is even so and she is tickled about it and they all appear in better spirits than they did before. How they will carry it out, is more than I know. I hope they have got more faith than I have."

Thanks (as always) for all the information and sources you post.

The obvious question here (for me at least ) is what does this mean for all those arguing or wanting to believe that Joseph Smith did not have relations with his plural wives?  I don't know what you believe here, but many still state that "no children" for Joseph meant "no relations" for him with his plural wives.

But, we can see the evidence here that the men who Joseph had taught the principle to were indeed having relations with their plural wives (even when their new wives legally married to another man which seems to be the most contested marriages regarding Joseph). 

So, do some members simply believe that Joseph lived polygamy differently than those he taught the principle to in Nauvoo?

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Considering how people even today act on this board at the realities of polygamy, imagine the reaction in the more puritan Nauvoo era.
If members on this board have such hatred towards polygamy, if polygamy were restored among the leaders of the Church today I don't see that a polygamous child today would be any more celebratory than it might have been back then.

Hiding a pregnancy and shaming a child is a result of the society in which they lived, not the fault of those who conceived a child within a God given relationship.

Appreciate your response.  Thank you.  Society has changed a lot.  I aim for a more compassionate world where children are welcome no matter what.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Thanks (as always) for all the information and sources you post.

The obvious question here (for me at least ) is what does this mean for all those arguing or wanting to believe that Joseph Smith did not have relations with his plural wives?  I don't know what you believe here, but many still state that "no children" for Joseph meant "no relations" for him with his plural wives.

But, we can see the evidence here that the men who Joseph had taught the principle to were indeed having relations with their plural wives (even when their new wives legally married to another man which seems to be the most contested marriages regarding Joseph). 

So, do some members simply believe that Joseph lived polygamy differently than those he taught the principle to in Nauvoo?

.

That never made sense to me.  It would also mean that Brigham Young (and other leaders and men in Nauvoo and later in Utah) lived polygamy differently than Joseph did.

It's like some feel Joseph should be held to a higher (or at least a different) standard when talking about marital relations with his plural wives.

Members and some apologists are just fine that other Prophets had relations with women who were still married to other men (legally) and with their other plural wives, but strenuously argue or fight against admitting that Joseph did. 

Why do you think there is this double standard? They were all living the same principle, correct?

Edited March 21, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I saw this question posted on another forum where I occasionally read and I thought it was an interesting topic.  I honestly had not really ever thought much about this (or researched it).  I am going to try to look up how many children were born (especially prior to when Joseph Smith was killed as that detail interests me as well).

One response is that Heber C. Kimball's 2nd wife, Sarah Noon, gave birth to his child in 1842 (I haven't looked that up for accuracy).  

Were there others and how were these pregnancies or births explained since many were not aware that plural marriage was being lived?  

.

While encamped at Locust Creek, Iowa, in 1846 with the first group of pioneers to  depart from Nauvoo for the West, William Clayton left the following journal entry regarding his writing of the song "Come, Come, Ye Saints":

Quote

"This morning Ellen Kimball came to me and wishes me much joy. She said Diantha has a son. I told her I was afraid it was not so, but she said Brother Pond had received a letter. I went over to Pond's and he read that she had a fine fat boy on the 30th ult., but she was very sick with ague and mumps. Truly I feel to rejoice at this intelligence but feel sorry to hear of her sickness. . . . In the evening . . . [several] persons retired to my tent to have a social christening. . . . We named him William Adriel Benoni Clayton. . . . This morning I composed a new song—'All is well.' I feel to thank my heavenly father for my boy and pray that he will spare and preserve his life and that of his mother and so order it so that we may soon meet again" (William Clayton's Journal [1921], 19).

What is not stated here is that Diantha was one of William Clayton's plural wives.

I offer this in response to your question as one account of a baby being born to a plural wife during the Nauvoo period of Church history.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That never made sense to me.  It would also mean that Brigham Young (and other leaders and men in Nauvoo and later in Utah) lived polygamy differently than Joseph did.

It's like some feel Joseph should be held to a higher (or at least a different) standard when talking about marital relations with his plural wives.

Members and some apologists are just fine that other Prophets had relations with women who were still married to other men (legally) and with their other plural wives, but strenuously argue or fight against admitting that Joseph did.

Why do you think there is this double standard? They were all living the same principle, correct?

I think there is a double standard.
I have no issue with Joseph having relations with his wives.  However, I truly believe the lack of children was simply a lack of opportunity.
Basic biology.  How often do we really think Joseph was able to spend the night with a wife other than Emma?  Did it happen?  Yes.  Did it happen repeatedly?  Doubtful.

We are talking about 30 marriages in the space of about 2 years (1842-1844).  It's not like he was going off on honeymoons.  We have his journals from that time period.  He was as busy as anyone I've ever heard of - temple ordinances, political campaigns, travelling, mayoral meetings, the list is endless.
If Joseph more than consummated many of his marriages I'd be surprised, which is why the lack of children argument never held much concern for me.

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While encamped at Locust Creek, Iowa, in 1846 with the first group of pioneers to leave depart from Nauvoo for the West, William Clayton left the following journal entry regarding his writing of the song "Come, Come, Ye Saints":

What is not stated here is that Diantha was one of William Clayton's plural wives.

I offer this in response to your question as one account of a baby being born to a plural wife during the Nauvoo period of Church history.

Thanks for posting this.  I remember the story of Diantha Farr (and her brother, Aaron).  I do wonder how well known it was (back then) that she was actually William's wife?  I guess all we can do is read what is available to us (as it seems that at least some members knew and congratulated him on the birth and helped with the "social christening"). So, maybe it was completely out in the open?  This is all very interesting to read.

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That never made sense to me.  It would also mean that Brigham Young (and other leaders and men in Nauvoo and later in Utah) lived polygamy differently than Joseph did.

It's like some feel Joseph should be held to a higher (or at least a different) standard when talking about marital relations with his plural wives.

Members and some apologists are just fine that other Prophets had relations with women who were still married to other men (legally) and with their other plural wives, but strenuously argue or fight against admitting that Joseph did. 

Why do you think there is this double standard? They were all living the same principle, correct?

I agree.  It makes no sense to me when I see some fight so strongly that Joseph didn't consummate at least some of his plural marriages.  

I do feel that many fight against it because of Emma and because of how much was hidden from her, where Brigham Young's (and others) polygamy was openly lived and accepted.  

However, if it was the same principle with the same guidelines, there is no reason for Joseph to have lived it any differently in Nauvoo than others did at the same time or for years afterwards.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

However, if it was the same principle with the same guidelines, there is no reason for Joseph to have lived it any differently in Nauvoo than others did at the same time or for years afterwards.

That's all part of the "blame Brother Brigham" mentality that has become so popular in the Church today.

Brigham systemized the temple ordinances, the United Order/Consecration, polygamy, and numerous other doctrinal precepts, and people like to claim that he did differently than Brother Joseph.  He did NOT.
Brigham was easily Joseph's most devoted and devout follower.  Nobody was more loyal to Joseph and his doctrines.  I don't believe Brigham took it upon himself to run off with Joseph's teachings and change them.  Nothing I have ever read in history leans in that direction.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this.  I remember the story of Diantha Farr (and her brother, Aaron).  I do wonder how well know it was (back then) that she was actually William's wife?  I guess all we can do is read what is available to us (as it seems that at least some members knew and congratulated him on the birth and helped with the "social christening"). So, maybe it was completely out in the open?  This is all very interesting to read.

I don't see anything in the journal entry to foster the conclusion that it was not well known that she was William's wife. William, who had a responsible position as clerk of the Camp of Israel, was already on the plains of Iowa with other members of his family. Diantha had been left in Nauvoo, because of her delicate condition, with the understanding that she would join him later when strong enough to do so.

You use the phrase "back then." This was a contemporaneous record. William Clayton was one of the best -- if not the best -- and most faithful journal keepers of the early period of Church history.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see anything in the journal entry to foster the conclusion that it was not well known that she was William's wife.

You use the phrase "back then." This was a contemporaneous record. William Clayton was one of the best -- if not the best -- and most faithful journal keepers of the early period of Church history.

I agree and I have read his diaries.  They are full of very valuable information.

I agree that from what Clayton wrote (that you quoted), it seems most seemed to know that Diantha was his wife.  That's interesting to me because some seem to believe polygamy was a well kept secret until Brigham Young made it public out in Utah (by announcing the revelation).  I tend to believe that most (if not all?) members knew it was being lived before then.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree and I have read his diaries.  They are full of very valuable information.

I agree that from what Clayton wrote (that you quoted), it seems many if not all seemed to know that Diantha was his wife.  That's interesting to me because some seem to believe polygamy was a well kept secret until Brigham Young made it public out in Utah (by announcing the revelation).  I tend to believe that most (if not all?) members knew it was being lived before then.

By the time of the Nauvoo exodus, I doubt it was much of a secret within the Church, although it was not openly acknowledged to the world before the Utah period.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the time of the Nauvoo exodus, I doubt it was much of a secret within the Church, although it was not openly acknowledged to the world before the Utah period.

I agree.  However, I do believe much of  "the world" also knew (or at least had heard the rumors), but many didn't know for sure until it was publicly announced in 1852 (iirc).

Do you believe that the members in Utah knew that Joseph Smith had lived polygamy to the extent he did in Nauvoo?

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  However, I do believe much of  "the world" also knew (or at least had heard the rumors), but many didn't know for sure until it was publicly announced in 1852 (iirc).

Granted. Rumors, real and exaggerated, about polygamy were one of the issues present in the matter of the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the time of the Nauvoo exodus, I doubt it was much of a secret within the Church, although it was not openly acknowledged to the world before the Utah period.

I believe,too, that things were just different when crossing the plains before getting to Utah.  Things would have almost had to have been more open..people had to share..it was a community on the trail.  Hard to keep secrets there.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Granted. Rumors, real and exaggerated, about polygamy were one of the issues present in the matter of the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor.

Well, that's probably another topic for another thread.  I think I remember a thread on that actually.  I don't remember there being any lies in the Expositor, but I may be mistaken (I do have a copy of it and read it at one time).  I understand why Joseph didn't want all revealed at that time.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe that the members in Utah knew that Joseph Smith had lived polygamy to the extent he did in Nauvoo?

.

I think it would be unlikely for alert and intelligent members not to know this. Didn't Brigham Young and other Church leaders assert it in order to combat the verbal attacks of splinter groups of members that had not joined in the exodus to the West?