Emma Smith

Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s wife since 1827, stands in this account as both a deeply personal opponent of his plural marriages and a consequential voice in the struggle over who would lead the church after his death. She rejected the doctrine that Joseph was secretly teaching, challenged him directly, and refused to accept a revelation that demanded her submission while granting him authority to marry other women. Her resistance was not resolved by the document intended to persuade her; it instead became part of the larger succession conflict over whether plural marriage would survive Joseph.

Marriage and the dispute over plural marriage

By 1844, some members of Joseph Smith’s inner circle knew about his plural marriages and the secret revelation of July 12, 1843, concerning celestial marriage. Emma, however, was not persuaded to accept the practice. She had been married to Joseph since 1827 and, at thirty-nine, objected to sharing her husband with much younger women. The account emphasizes the contrast between Joseph’s wedding promise of fidelity and the plural relationships he defended as religiously commanded.

Emma was outspoken in her opposition and repeatedly confronted Joseph about his relationships with other women. At one point, she threatened to take a plural husband herself if Joseph continued his plural marriages. His complaint to his secretary about this threat presents the dispute as a direct challenge within their marriage, not simply a private disagreement over doctrine. Emma’s position made visible the unequal terms on which the teaching operated: Joseph claimed religious authorization for taking additional wives, while Emma was expected to remain exclusively bound to him.

The revelation and its intended effect

The account presents the revelation later canonized as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as an intervention in this marital conflict. Its immediate purpose, as the narrative interprets it, was to persuade Emma to accept Joseph’s plural wives while forbidding her from seeking sexual relationships outside the marriage. The revelation repeatedly named her and framed her obedience as a religious obligation. It also threatened destruction if she did not comply, placing divine authority behind Joseph’s demand.

Hyrum Smith helped bring about the writing of the revelation. He believed that a written explanation of celestial marriage could convince Emma of the doctrine and restore peace between her and Joseph. On the morning of July 12, 1843, he urged Joseph to record it; Joseph expressed doubt that Hyrum understood Emma well enough to persuade her. Hyrum nevertheless maintained that the doctrine could be shown to be true and heavenly in origin. Joseph then dictated the revelation to his secretary, and Hyrum delivered the resulting ten-page document to Emma.

The revelation also set out the authorization it offered men: a man could take additional women under its law and remain justified, while a woman who entered a relationship with another man could be condemned. Its terms therefore did more than describe a religious practice. They asserted control over women’s marital choices and treated wives as belonging to the husband who had received them under the doctrine. The account makes the revelation’s gendered asymmetry central to understanding why it failed to resolve Emma’s opposition.

Refusal and the rupture of trust

Emma rejected the document. Hyrum reported that she responded with anger and resentment and did not believe its claims. Her refusal did not persuade Joseph to give up his plural marriages, but after this attempt he made no further effort to win her consent. The revelation thus marks a failed effort at reconciliation: it formalized Joseph’s religious justification without changing Emma’s view or securing her agreement.

Emma sought support from William Law, Joseph’s close friend and second counselor, who shared her opposition to plural marriage. In January 1844, Law pleaded with Joseph to withdraw the doctrine. Joseph answered that he could not do so because he believed God had commanded him to teach it. The account connects the breakdown between the men to both Law’s opposition and his support for Emma; their friendship ended after Joseph made proposals to Law’s wife. In April, Law demanded that Joseph publicly acknowledge his conduct and cease it. Emma’s conflict with Joseph had therefore widened into a division among people who had been close to the prophet and his household.

Influence after Joseph’s death

Joseph’s death made the question Emma had contested a question of church succession. During the ensuing struggle, Emma, Samuel Smith, Sidney Rigdon, William Law, and others who opposed plural marriage wanted a successor who would revoke the doctrine before it became established. The competing group, which included apostles who had themselves taken plural wives, sought a leader who would uphold it. What had been known only to a limited circle remained concealed from most members: the account estimates that 95 percent of Mormons still did not know Joseph had married more than one wife or taught plural marriage as essential to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.

On July 13, Emma warned that if the next leader were not someone she approved of, she would work to injure the church. The warning conveys the force of her opposition and the leverage she understood herself to possess at a moment when Joseph’s successor had not been settled. It does not establish that she controlled the outcome, but it places her among the people actively trying to shape it. Her concern was not merely whom the church would recognize as leader: succession would also determine whether the doctrine she had resisted would be repudiated or sustained.

Emma’s significance in this account comes from the collision between intimate authority and institutional authority. Joseph used revelation to demand her acceptance of plural marriage; Emma refused, and the document did not reconcile them. After his death, that same doctrine divided potential successors and their supporters. Her resistance therefore remains both a marital conflict and a political position in the church’s struggle over its future.