Reluctant Polygamist: Preface

[Meg Stout]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Another issue is constructing scenarios based on memories of her research and not actual documentation.  For example, she constructs the whole Brotherton timeline based on a 22 week turnaround for gossip to move from Nauvoo to England and back again (using an 11 week travel time from England to Nauvoo, possibly by Clayton iirc) when there is no evidence cited in her work that it was being discussed during that time period and a reference to the 1842 affidavit  (I think I got it from Hales' response, will find it if asked) being discussed in both the local paper (Times and Seasons iirc) and the England one, whose name escapes me.

Hi Calm,

As discussed in the other thread, I realized after posting my original discussion of the Martha Brotherton matter that the story couldn't have possibly gone to England and back again. The reason I thought that was mention in some source that English converts were negatively impacted by the story, but obviously this would have been referring to English converts who had already arrived in Nauvoo.

As mentioned on the other thread, folks here already know when Brigham asked Martha Brotherton to be his extra-monogamous partner (in mid-December 1841).

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

 when Brigham asked Martha Brotherton to be his extra-monogamous partner (in mid-December 1841).

It's the use of ridiculous terms like this that make people question your historical approach.

The word you are looking for is WIFE.

[Meg Stout]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's the use of ridiculous terms like this that make people question your historical approach.

The word you are looking for is WIFE.

Hi JLHPROF,

Use of the term "wife" implies that certain conclusions can be confidently asserted. Though clunky, the term "extra-monogamous partner" is true no matter which version of events one cares to subscribe to.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi JLHPROF,

Use of the term "wife" implies that certain conclusions can be confidently asserted. Though clunky, the term "extra-monogamous partner" is true no matter which version of events one cares to subscribe to.

That makes no sense whatsoever.  Do you believe these were plural marriages or plural extra-monogamous partnerships?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi JLHPROF,

Use of the term "wife" implies that certain conclusions can be confidently asserted. Though clunky, the term "extra-monogamous partner" is true no matter which version of events one cares to subscribe to.

"I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity."

Sorry, your clunky term is simply not accurate and remains an ill-advised attempt to turn Joseph's marriages into something other than they were meant to be.

Edited June 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Meg Stout]

11 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi JLHPROF,

Use of the term "wife" implies that certain conclusions can be confidently asserted. Though clunky, the term "extra-monogamous partner" is true no matter which version of events one cares to subscribe to.

I am specifically talking about Brigham Young and his attempt to persuade Martha Brotherton. As this occurred in mid-December, before we have any documentation credibly demonstrating that Brigham had been brought into Joseph's confidence regarding plural marriage, in combination with the William Clayton journal entry indicating that a BY had transgressed but claimed he hadn't transgressed, there are two readings of the Martha Brotherton incident:

1) Brigham did know about plural marriage, and his attempt to persuade Martha was merely ham-handed. She and her parents flee Mormonism spreading rumors of the attempt to (as they believed) seduce Martha. Then Martha produces an affidavit that accurately describes the interaction which Bennett reproduces in his attack on Joseph Smith without modification. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham has his eternal way with her by having Martha sealed to him posthumously.

2) Brigham hadn't yet been taught about plural marriage, but had been taught that he had a responsibility to reach out to vulnerable women and make them spiritual wives. He decides Martha is the woman he'd like to assist in this manner. Martha correctly determines that this is not appropriate. After another six weeks of observing how things roll in Nauvoo and sharing her interaction with Brigham (assisted by Heber), Martha's parents take Martha away from Nauvoo. After Bennett is kicked out of Nauvoo, he asks one of his colleagues to suggest Martha document her experience, suggesting ways to make the story sound even more damning and realistic, inserting Joseph Smith into the story. Bennett then uses this gem of attempted seduction directly involving Joseph Smith in his attack on Joseph Smith. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham Young, realizing the role he played in causing Martha to reject the restored gospel, has her sealed to him posthumously so that she will not be denied the blessings of exaltation merely because of his error.

In my opinion, Brigham is actually a sympathetic character in the second version of the story, where the first (and accepted) version of the story makes him seem a completely odious person, if "moral" in the incident regarding Martha.

[Meg Stout]

14 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

...the William Clayton journal entry indicating that a BY had transgressed but claimed he hadn't transgressed

On June 23, 1843, when Joseph said Emma "had treated him coldly and badly since I came... and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too. He cautioned me very kindly for which I felt thankful. He said Thompson professed great friendship for him but he gave away to temptation and had to die. Also Brother Knight he gave him one but he went to loose conduct and he could not save him. Also B Y had transgressed his covenant and he pled with the Lord to spare him to this end and he did so, otherwise he would have died. B denied having transgressed."

An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, p. 108.

George D. Smith suggests Thompson was Robert Thompson, deceased husband of Mercy Fielding and Joseph's scribe before Thompson's death in August 1841.

George D. Smith suggests Brother Knight was Newell Knight. I suggest Vinson Knight is a better fit. Vinson died in July 1842.

George D. Smith suggests B Y was Brigham Young. I concur. My husband (thorough where I am willing to just hypothesize) has verified that Brigham Young was the only B Y as a head of household in Hancock County for the 1840 federal census, and the only two individuals with the initials B Y in the 1842 Nauvoo census were Brigham Young and Brigham Young Jr.

I suggest this journal entry documents Joseph's belief that sin (and seemingly sexual sin) could cause death. This is consistent with what I said about cholera over at the other thread, which is a phenomenon other researchers into the history of cholera have also documented.

This journal entry also supports the idea that Emma may have wished to have another husband (whether in replacement for Joseph or in addition to Joseph). The accusation that Emma desired William Law as that other husband was documented in 1844 by Joseph H. Jackson as part of the attack on Joseph Smith, and has no contemporary support in the 1843 timeframe. The only man close to Emma whose wife is sealed to Joseph in June 1843 is Jonathan H. Holmes.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Meg Stout
correcting to --> two

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I am specifically talking about Brigham Young and his attempt to persuade Martha Brotherton. As this occurred in mid-December, before we have any documentation credibly demonstrating that Brigham had been brought into Joseph's confidence regarding plural marriage, in combination with the William Clayton journal entry indicating that a BY had transgressed but claimed he hadn't transgressed, there are two readings of the Martha Brotherton incident:

The problem is that Martha Brotherton says Joseph was involved in the "ham-handed" attempt by Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball to get her to agree to become Brigham's wife. So, you are faced with two options:

• Brigham was attempting to follow through with Joseph's counsel to take a plural wife (which would mean Brigham "had been brought into Joseph's confidence regarding plural marriage")
• Brigham was attempting to seduce Martha, which would mean that, when Joseph found out about it, he agreed to the seduction because he attempted to convince Martha to go through with it.

Why on earth do you ignore Joseph's involvement in this incident? 

Quote

1) Brigham did know about plural marriage, and his attempt to persuade Martha was merely ham-handed. She and her parents flee Mormonism spreading rumors of the attempt to (as they believed) seduce Martha. Then Martha produces an affidavit that accurately describes the interaction which Bennett reproduces in his attack on Joseph Smith without modification. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham has his eternal way with her by having Martha sealed to him posthumously.

 

Again, Joseph's involvement clearly indicates Brigham knew about plural marriage. And saying that "Brigham has his eternal way with her" is demeaning and insulting to the memory of Brigham Young and Martha Brotherton.

Quote

2) Brigham hadn't yet been taught about plural marriage, but had been taught that he had a responsibility to reach out to vulnerable women and make them spiritual wives. He decides Martha is the woman he'd like to assist in this manner. Martha correctly determines that this is not appropriate. After another six weeks of observing how things roll in Nauvoo and sharing her interaction with Brigham (assisted by Heber), Martha's parents take Martha away from Nauvoo. After Bennett is kicked out of Nauvoo, he asks one of his colleagues to suggest Martha document her experience, suggesting ways to make the story sound even more damning and realistic, inserting Joseph Smith into the story. Bennett then uses this gem of attempted seduction directly involving Joseph Smith in his attack on Joseph Smith. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham Young, realizing the role he played in causing Martha to reject the restored gospel, has her sealed to him posthumously so that she will not be denied the blessings of exaltation merely because of his error.

First of all, 

So, your position is that Martha is lying (at Bennett's behest) when she says Joseph Smith was involved? Based on what evidence? Given that Joseph made a similar proposal to Nancy Rigdon, there's no reason to believe he wasn't involved as Martha said. You don't get to decide that Martha's testimony is believable when it is damning to Brigham Young but not credible regarding to Joseph Smith. What you are doing is selectively editing the documentary evidence to support your "core theory." That might work for historical fiction, but it's not history. 

Quote

 

In my opinion, Brigham is actually a sympathetic character in the second version of the story, where the first (and accepted) version of the story makes him seem a completely odious person, if "moral" in the incident regarding Martha.

 

This is a rather telling statement in that it explains how you reach conclusions about the historical record. You make value judgments ("sympathetic" vs. "odious") and go with the one you find more palatable, even though it requires you to ignore pertinent information (such as the involvement of Joseph Smith in the Brotherton incident). 

Even if we didn't have documentary evidence that Joseph Smith was involved in plural marriage by the date of the Brotherton incident, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have confided in Brigham and Heber, two of his most trusted friends and apostles, who had just returned from the mission to Britain. 

Another thing to consider is the reluctance of Brigham and Heber to enter into plural marriage. Helen Mar Kimball describes her father's reaction to plural marriage:

Quote

 

In Nauvoo the Prophet’s life was in constant jeopardy, not only from outside influences and enemies, who were seeking some plea to take him back to Missouri, but from false brethren, who had crept into his bosom and then betrayed him. Therefore, when he told my father to take a second wife, he requested him to keep it a secret and not divulge it even to my mother, for fear that she would not receive the principle. Father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he felt for the Prophet was so great that he would rather have laid down his own life than have betrayed him. This was the greatest test of his faith he had ever experienced.

When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be called upon to enter into it, he thought of two Sisters Pitkin, who, as they were both elderly ladies and great friends of my mother’s, he believed would cause her little if any unhappiness. The woman he was commanded [by the Prophet] to take, however, was an English lady nearer my mother’s age. … The thought of deceiving the kind and faithful wife of his youth, whom he loved with all his heart, and who with him had borne so patiently their separation and all the trials and sacrifices they had been called to endure, was more than he felt able to bear. He realized not only the additional of trouble and perplexities that such a step must bring upon him, but his sorrow and misery were increased by the thought of my mother hearing of it from some other source which would no doubt separate them forever, and he shrank from the thought of such a thing, or of causing her any unhappiness. Finally he was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt – that he was fearful if he took such a step he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet went and inquired of the Lord; His answer was: “Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself.”

Father was heard many a time to say that he had shed bushels of tears over this order, the order of “celestial or plural marriage.”

The Prophet told him the third time before he obeyed the command. This shows that the trial must have been extraordinary, for he was a man who from the first had yielded implicit obedience to every requirement of the Prophet.

 

And here's how Brigham Young describes his introduction to plural marriage:

Quote

 

Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great  comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children, I know them not.

Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do.

You will probably wonder at this, and that such should have been my feelings upon this point, but they were even so.

 

Yet you have these two men acting on their own, without Joseph having taught them anything about plural marriage, because some unknown person had taught them they "had a responsibility to reach out to vulnerable women and make them spiritual wives."

None of this makes any sense and is contradicted by the historical record.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

I am specifically talking about Brigham Young and his attempt to persuade Martha Brotherton. As this occurred in mid-December, before we have any documentation credibly demonstrating that Brigham had been brought into Joseph's confidence regarding plural marriage, in combination with the William Clayton journal entry indicating that a BY had transgressed but claimed he hadn't transgressed, there are two readings of the Martha Brotherton incident:

1) Brigham did know about plural marriage, and his attempt to persuade Martha was merely ham-handed. She and her parents flee Mormonism spreading rumors of the attempt to (as they believed) seduce Martha. Then Martha produces an affidavit that accurately describes the interaction which Bennett reproduces in his attack on Joseph Smith without modification. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham has his eternal way with her by having Martha sealed to him posthumously.

2) Brigham hadn't yet been taught about plural marriage, but had been taught that he had a responsibility to reach out to vulnerable women and make them spiritual wives. He decides Martha is the woman he'd like to assist in this manner. Martha correctly determines that this is not appropriate. After another six weeks of observing how things roll in Nauvoo and sharing her interaction with Brigham (assisted by Heber), Martha's parents take Martha away from Nauvoo. After Bennett is kicked out of Nauvoo, he asks one of his colleagues to suggest Martha document her experience, suggesting ways to make the story sound even more damning and realistic, inserting Joseph Smith into the story. Bennett then uses this gem of attempted seduction directly involving Joseph Smith in his attack on Joseph Smith. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham Young, realizing the role he played in causing Martha to reject the restored gospel, has her sealed to him posthumously so that she will not be denied the blessings of exaltation merely because of his error.

In my opinion, Brigham is actually a sympathetic character in the second version of the story, where the first (and accepted) version of the story makes him seem a completely odious person, if "moral" in the incident regarding Martha.

None of that changes wife to "extra-monogamous partner".

[juliann]

6 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

 

I suggest this journal entry documents Joseph's belief that sin (and seemingly sexual sin) could cause death. This is consistent with what I said about cholera over at the other thread, which is a phenomenon other researchers into the history of cholera have also documented.

 

I'm fairly certain that you claimed they believed sexual intercourse caused cholera, not just sexual sin. Married people aren't sinning. So it is not consistent with what you said. I questioned that claim earlier and you have yet to provide any example of a widespread belief that sexual intercourse caused cholera. What I did find online was very common usage of "social intercourse" being a factor in transmission of the disease. Yet you now say there is research on this claim. So.... CFR.  We would love to see that research saying sexual intercourse was believed to cause cholera.

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by juliann

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

I am specifically talking about Brigham Young and his attempt to persuade Martha Brotherton. As this occurred in mid-December...

 

Might have occurred in mid December, nothing forces it that early since we don't know when her family moved from Warren to Nauvoo and her father's letter was about visiting Nauvoo the next week without any mention of looking for a home or plans tp move.

[Calm]

And of course Brigham Young, one of JS's closest friends, one of the apostles, can't be bothered to take a few minutes to pull Joseph aside and ask something along the lines of "Johhny Boy has been saying some strange things about you teaching spiritual wifery and telling us to get hooked up.  Just want to make sure I am hearing it right as I don't want to go out and damn my soul by committing adultery by mistake" before he is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to collect another wife.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Calm said:

And of course Brigham Young, one of JS's closest friends, one of the apostles, can't be bothered to take a few minutes to pull Joseph aside and ask something along the lines of "Johhny Boy has been saying some strange things about you teaching spiritual wifery and telling us to get hooked up.  Just want to make sure I am hearing it right as I don't want to go out and damn my soul by committing adultery by mistake" before he is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to collect another wife.

Her train of thought and reasoning on timelines is hard to follow as it relies on so much supposition and so little record.
In the end I find it impossible to accept her theories without insulting the memory of Joseph and the early leaders and especially the memory of their wives.
 

[Calm]

 

6 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

. After Martha dies decades later, Brigham has his eternal way with her by having Martha sealed to him posthumously.

 

Wow, seduction or rape by Celestial sealing.

You either have a very low opinion of the sealing covenant or you are way too fond of writing to make things sound as sensational and salicious as possible...except for the chosen few you have apparently sainted who somehow alone managed to so thoroughly control their carnal desires (and I am not talking about not asking for a second serving of meat at the dinner table).

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

Wow, seduction or rape by Celestial sealing.

 

It is very discouraging to see these binaries presented as the only options for women. At every turn Mormon women are victims of men's whims.  To see these words soooo overused reminds me of a bodice ripper romance novel.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is very discouraging to see these binaries presented as the only options for women. At every turn Mormon women are victims of men's whims.  To see these words soooo overused reminds me of a bodice ripper romance novel.

It's a variation on the madonna/whore dichotomy, and it's depressing to see. 

[Calm]

Yeah, her heroine isn't even allowed to have sex with either of her husbands until there can be absolutely no chance of either confusion or jealousy even though it is supposed Elvira's husband that was offered as a polyandrous husband to Emma and whose alleged romantic relationship with Fanny Alger got that young woman kicked out of the house.  So this two are the center of all the longing desires of others (Bennett only truly desires Elvira, the rest of the women he is using for his lust and power games, and Emma apparently adores Johnathan who can do no wrong in her eyes).

But everyone else just can't control themselves long enough to actually talk to the one person with actual authority on this matter to ensure there is no error in what they are doing.

Clayton's journal appears to indicate that it may have been that Joseph only thought Brigham Young had transgressed and he acted on that belief, but when confronted BY denied what had happened.  Does it make the leat sense that BY would have denied a transgression if he had bedn told he had listened to the wrong guy and not asked for forgiveness from Joseph when it would have been an easy thing to do, especially after Joseph had told him he had struggled for him and he was forgiven by the Lord?  That doesn't sound at all like the man that put his whole trust in Joseph as was demonstrated time and time agsin.

Just who has "accepted" the story that makes BY odious?  Another claim presented as if true.

[Meg Stout]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And of course Brigham Young, one of JS's closest friends, one of the apostles, can't be bothered to take a few minutes to pull Joseph aside and ask something along the lines of "Johhny Boy has been saying some strange things about you teaching spiritual wifery and telling us to get hooked up.  Just want to make sure I am hearing it right as I don't want to go out and damn my soul by committing adultery by mistake" before he is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to collect another wife.

By December the likely person conveying the information regarding spiritual wifery would have been William Smith, assuring Brigham and others that this was what Joseph taught. We see this in how the Nyman sisters were eventually persuaded to yield.

As far as affidavits appearing in Bennett's literature being twisted or created to show Joseph in a bad light, you've already discussed that amongst yourselves with respect to Mrs. Shindle.

As for Martha's later statement, we can compare it to the rumor that was refuted in April 1842 conference as reported in T&S (iirc). In the April rebuttal there is no mention of Joseph, just of Brigham, Heber, and other apostles (again, iirc).

Recall that the letter reportedly written to Nancy Rigdon comes to us via Bennett. So it is not necessarily wise to consider the text of that letter to be entirely free from suspicion.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

By December the likely person conveying the information regarding spiritual wifery would have been William Smith, assuring Brigham and others that this was what Joseph taught. We see this in how the Nyman sisters were eventually persuaded to yield.

As far as affidavits appearing in Bennett's literature being twisted or created to show Joseph in a bad light, you've already discussed that amongst yourselves with respect to Mrs. Shindle.

As for Martha's later statement, we can compare it to the rumor that was refuted in April 1842 conference as reported in T&S (iirc). In the April rebuttal there is no mention of Joseph, just of Brigham, Heber, and other apostles (again, iirc).

Recall that the letter reportedly written to Nancy Rigdon comes to us via Bennett. So it is not necessarily wise to consider the text of that letter to be entirely free from suspicion.

Brigham and Heber said it was Joseph who told them about plural marriage. You would need some strong evidence to support your assertion that they heard it from William Smith. I haven't seen it. 

[Meg Stout]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

Wow, seduction or rape by Celestial sealing.

You either have a very low opinion of the sealing covenant or you are way too fond of writing to make things sound as sensational and salicious as possible...except for the chosen few you have apparently sainted who somehow alone managed to so thoroughly control their carnal desires (and I am not talking about not asking for a second serving of meat at the dinner table).

Hi Calm,

Where you not aware that this is a common exMormon perception of Brigham's action in dealing Martha to himself after her death?

I'm not aware of an apologist stance that isn't similarly squirm-worthy, sealing a woman who rejected you so publicly to yourself when she and her family had no say in the matter.

On the other hand, if you knew you'd done her a great wrong and hoped by this means to apologize and ensure she had all the blessings your error had caused her to abandon, then yes, I think this becomes understandable and sympathetic.

Feel free to demonstrate to me why the current interpretation of Brigham's action in sealing Martha to himself posthumously isn't troubling.

[Meg Stout]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Brigham and Heber said it was Joseph who told them about plural marriage. You would need some strong evidence to support your assertion that they heard it from William Smith. I haven't seen it. 

William Smith told them about spiritual wifery, not plural marriage. After the events of 1845, there is no reason Brigham or Heber would have defiled the doctrine of plural marriage by associating it in any way with William Smith.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Meg Stout said:

William Smith told them about spiritual wifery, not plural marriage. After the events of 1845, there is no reason Brigham or Heber would have defiled the doctrine of plural marriage by associating it in any way with William Smith.

What evidence is there that they learned about spiritual wifery from William Smith? 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What evidence is there that they learned about spiritual wifery from William Smith? 

Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

There's nothing in there about Brigham and Heber learning about spiritual wifery from William Smith. Think of it this way: Both men describe their horror when Joseph Smith taught them about plural marriage. Brigham said he attended a funeral where he envied the dead man because he wished he were dead rather than have to take a plural wife. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they had earlier been told by William Smith that they could engage in spiritual wifery and basically sleep around like Bennett and Smith were doing. The next step, then, was the "ham-handed" attempted seduction of Martha Brotherton (who lied about Joseph Smith being involved). After that, what possible reason would they have had for being horrified when Joseph explained to them the real doctrine of plural marriage.

If Meg's story is to be believed:

1. Brigham and Heber lied about how they learned about plural marriage or spiritual wifery.

2. Martha told the truth about Brigham's proposal but lied about Joseph Smith being involved.

3. Brigham and Heber enthusiastically embraced extramarital sex but recoiled in horror at plural marriage.

None of it makes sense, and of course, there is no evidence that it happened that way.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There's nothing in there about Brigham and Heber learning about spiritual wifery from William Smith. Think of it this way: Both men describe their horror when Joseph Smith taught them about plural marriage. Brigham said he attended a funeral where he envied the dead man because he wished he were dead rather than have to take a plural wife. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they had earlier been told by William Smith that they could engage in spiritual wifery and basically sleep around like Bennett and Smith were doing. The next step, then, was the "ham-handed" attempted seduction of Martha Brotherton (who lied about Joseph Smith being involved). After that, what possible reason would they have had for being horrified when Joseph explained to them the real doctrine of plural marriage.

If Meg's story is to be believed:

1. Brigham and Heber lied about how they learned about plural marriage or spiritual wifery.

2. Martha told the truth about Brigham's proposal but lied about Joseph Smith being involved.

3. Brigham and Heber enthusiastically embraced extramarital sex but recoiled in horror at plural marriage.

None of it makes sense, and of course, there is no evidence that it happened that way.

C/P from the article I linked:

William Smith, youngest brother of Joseph Smith, and an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,[4][5] in or near Seneca Lake, New York on December 11, 1830, and upon his return to Painesville discovered that his wife had also become a convert.,[6] and briefly Patriarch to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), wrote a little-known pamphlet in late 1844, called The Elders' Pocket Companion, explaining his own views on the differences between "the Spiritual Wife System" and "plurality of wives". Smith explained that spiritual wifery was the practice of: (1) an Latter Day Saint woman standing as living proxy for her husband's previous civil wife (or wives) to be "sealed" to him for all eternity by the power of Latter Day Saint priesthood, and (2) unmarried Latter Day Saint women being sealed plurally to Latter Day Saint men during the "Millennium" (the post-apocalyptic thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth). The "plurality of wives doctrine" however, Smith wrote, was simply biblical polygamy as practiced by the "ancient Prophets and Patriarchs". Citing the Book of Mormon, Smith ended his pamphlet emphasizing that the Book of Mormon, while generally proscribing biblical-type polygamy, does include the caveat, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE" (emphasis is Smith's).[7]