This paper argues that Joseph Smith’s plural marriage system did not emerge in isolation but belongs to a longer American lineage of perfectionist and prophet-controlled spiritual marriage. Early American religious experimentation created environments in which the traditional Christian ideal of monogamous marriage could be modified, especially where revivalism, antinomianism, and communal authority weakened ordinary legal and ecclesiastical constraints.
First Great Awakening (1730s-1760s)
The upheavals of the First Great Awakening set Old Lights, who defended traditional clergy and restrained piety, against New Lights, who embraced revivalism, intense conversion, lay testimony, and emotional preaching. Some New Lights broke away entirely as “Separates,” deliberately distancing themselves from the colonial religious establishment. Antinomian ideas—that inward spiritual experience could override external law— gave religious feeling precedence over legal and ecclesiastical norms and fed directly into later revivalism.
Wesleyan Holiness and Perfectionism
John Wesley’s teaching on Christian perfection, developed in
mid‑eighteenth‑century Methodist revivals, held that after conversion a
believer might receive a distinct “second blessing” or entire sanctification,
cleansing the heart from inward sin. Over the nineteenth century this
perfectionist ideal was taken up and radicalized in various Holiness and
perfectionist circles, turning Wesley’s pastoral theology into a
platform for bolder social and marital experiments.
Blackstone Valley Perfectionism
Religious experimentation
flourished in the Blackstone Valley, a roughly fifty‑mile corridor through
central Massachusetts and northern Rhode Island. Here some Separates intensified
perfectionist themes by tying them to decisive, quasi‑mystical conversions and
even expectations of literal immortality, rather than the quieter
Wesleyan model of deepened holiness within ordinary life. In some groups a
single leader claimed perfected status; in others, several individuals or even
the whole fellowship were regarded as perfected.
The earliest well‑documented
case is the Cumberland, Rhode Island, Separates (c. 1740s), where
antinomian and New Light influences led some to reevaluate their marriages.
Emphasis on “marriage in the Lord” sharpened the conviction that both
spouses should be wholly converted saints.
Some believers concluded that
true spiritual marriage should unite only perfected Christians, calling
legal unions with “unperfected” spouses into question. The Cumberland
perfectionists appear to be the first known American group to practice
spiritual marriage, with some adherents leaving legal spouses for higher,
spiritual unions. Civil authorities reacted: Rhode Island passed legislation
targeting “breaches of marriage covenants,” signaling the perceived threat
these experiments posed to marital norms.
Similar perfectionist circles
emerged elsewhere in the Blackstone Valley region, including Immortalist groups.
Drawing on scriptural texts such as “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall
never die,”[1]
they argued that true believers might not die in the ordinary way.
The followers of Shadrach
Ireland’s Immortalist movement (c. 1750–1780) were urged to practice
celibacy under Ireland’s direction until they became a “new creation” and thus
perfected. Once perfected, believers could acquire spiritual spouses, whose
bonds superseded their legal marriages. Ireland believed himself immortal and
took at least one “spiritual wife” as well as a “spiritual consort” despite
remaining legally married. Eventually he claimed to be the “second Messiah.”
Ireland represents the first well‑documented instance of spiritual polygyny in
American religious history. And he introduced the idea that a charismatic
leader could claim authority over the sexuality and marital arrangements of his
followers.
Second Great Awakening (1790s-1830s)
The marital experimentation that had emerged in the
Blackstone Valley, together with broader influences of Separatism,
antinomianism, and perfectionism, created a religious platform on which later
groups could build. As perfectionist ideas spread beyond the valley in
the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, they appeared in new
settings that extended this ferment.
One such group was the Dorrellites of Leyden, Massachusetts,
in the 1790s. Their leader, William Dorrell, was a self‑proclaimed messiah who
practiced strict vegetarianism and rejected civil marriage as lacking true
spiritual authority. Contemporary reports attributed to him the claim that
those who had experienced an inward resurrection from sin “had a right to a
promiscuous intercourse,” offering a religious rationale for what later
observers described as free‑love behavior, and hostile neighbors portrayed
Dorrellite meetings as drunken and sexually disorderly.
Scattered Holiness and perfectionist circles (1800s-1860s)
Perfectionism also fed into a
broader field of scattered holiness circles across greater New England and
upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. These were usually small
bands organized around a local exhorter, though some survived as prayer groups
within existing denominations while others developed semi‑separate movements or
near‑communal settlements. They commonly adopted stricter discipline, intense
fellowship, and sharper separation from “worldly” Christians, and some pushed
perfectionist logic toward social and marital innovation.
Prophet‑controlled Spiritual Marriage
Beginning in the mid-1810s, prophet-controlled groups
emerged in which charismatic leaders claimed authority to assign and reassign
spouses. These systems could include polygyny, polyandry, or reconfigured forms
of monogamy, but their unifying feature was not a single marital form so much
as the claim that prophetic authority could override ordinary civil marriage.
Although the perfectionist prophet Shadrach Ireland had earlier influenced the
sexuality of his followers in limited ways, these later leaders pushed
antinomian and spiritualized marriage much further.
Isaac Bullard
Arising from Lower Canada and Woodstock, Vermont, Isaac
Bullard’s Pilgrims (1817–1818) were a short-lived wandering millenarian
sect. Bullard styled himself as the prophet Elijah and drew on restorationist,
perfectionist, and communalist ideas to create an authoritarian religious
movement. According to hostile observers and later reconstructions, Bullard
rejected conventional marriage, dissolved existing unions, and reassigned
sexual partners under his authority. The surviving evidence is unclear whether
members could have more than one spouse at the same time, whether new unions
were ritually declared, or whether the system was monogamous, polygynous, or a
rudimentary form of complex marriage. But certainly, Bullard controlled the marriage
and sexuality of his followers.
Jacob Cochran
The Cochranites (c. 1818–1830s) combined religious
enthusiasm, restorationism, perfectionism, and communalism into a
prophet-centered system where legal marriages could be subordinated to
spiritually designated unions. Cochran claimed special divine anointing and
exercised sweeping influence over the religious and domestic lives of his
followers with his interpretations functioning as binding revelation.
In practice, Cochran’s doctrine of spiritual wives included
both spiritual polygyny and monogamy with partner reassignment.
Legal marriages could be set aside, supplemented, or displaced by spiritual
pairings. Assignments were not always permanent and women could be reassigned
to other men, making Cochranism not merely polygynous but a dynamically
redistributive system.
Kingdom of Matthias c. 1828—1837
A decade after Cochran introduced his doctrine of spiritual
wives and while the Cochranites were still active, the Kingdom of Matthias
emerged as another experiment in prophet‑controlled marriage and household
order. It was a small, intense household led by Robert Matthews, who called
himself Matthias and claimed prophetic and patriarchal authority in a restored
Kingdom of God. The movement combined apocalyptic expectation, household
communalism, and restorationism. Domestic, economic, and sexual relations were
reorganized under his direct rule, and Matthias concentrated authority far more
tightly than either the looser holiness circles or later communal
perfectionists.
The Kingdom of Matthias became notorious through press
coverage of scandal, violence, financial manipulation, and sexual misconduct,
helping define a public image of the dangerous prophetic “fanatic” who claimed
power over doctrine, households, property, and women. Matthews taught that “all
marriages not made by himself, were of the devil,” and that he had come to
establish “a community of property, and of wives.” He identified “match
spirits” that overrode existing legal marriages, producing a non‑monogamous
network of overlapping spiritual marriages best classified as a prophet‑controlled
system of spiritual marriage with reassignment and quasi‑complex‑marriage
features rather than straightforward spiritual polygyny.
Bible Communists and Complex Marriage ,
John Humphrey Noyes’s “Bible Communism” (c. late
1830s–1880) emerged from a network of New York and New England
perfectionist circles. In some instances, visions and dreams were read as
divine endorsements of new spiritual bonds, including spiritual marriage. Noyes
went on to build a more tightly regulated communal and marital order at Putney,
Vermont, and later Oneida, New York.
Recasting social relations around his reading of Acts 2–4,
he labeled this order “Bible Communism,” blending perfectionist,
restorationist, and primitivist impulses and positioning himself as a prophetic
authority over the sexual and communal life of a perfected people. In the early
1840s he advanced beyond monogamy to complex marriage, formally established by
the mid-1840s, in which all adult members were in principle spiritually married
to one another. Women could initiate or refuse sexual relations, and the system
was publicly framed as one of mutual consent, though Noyes and other leaders
frequently shaped pairings to prevent exclusivity and promote “useful” unions.
Later, Noyes implemented a eugenics program where selected couples reproduced
while most other sexual relations were governed by male continence to avoid
conception, helping make Oneida one of the most durable communal experiments in
American history.
Mormonism
Mormonism was a restorationist movement founded by Joseph
Smith Jr. that claimed new scripture, restored priesthood authority, continuing
revelation, and a mandate to gather believers to a New Jerusalem in preparation
for the last days. Within that system, marriage became an arena of prophetic
authority, priesthood keys, and covenantal expansion.
Before discussion Mormon plural marriage, let’s discuss
Smith’s exposure to earlier prophets who controlled spiritual marriage.
Joseph Smith’s hometown newspaper published an article on
April 26, 1826 describing Isaac Bullard’s followers as rejecting ordinary
marriage, abolishing surnames, and allowing adherents to “cohabit
promiscuously,” while Bullard was said to be “marrying and unmarrying”
according to his will and pretending to marry women “in God” to “sanctify the
flesh.” Five years later in 1831, a New York paper compared the “Mormonites” to
the Pilgrims and Joseph Smith to Isaac Bullard.
Regarding Cochranism: From February to September 1832 Joseph
Smith’s brother Samuel and future apostle Orson Hyde spent considerable time
among the Cochranites, staying in their homes and attending their meetings, and
later recalled that these people “believe in a plurality of wives which they
call spiritual wives” – relationships that were said to “dissolve, or disannul,
all former marriage connexions.” A Mormon branch was eventually organized near
a Cochranite settlement, and contemporary and later observers noted that some
Cochranite converts joined the Church and carried elements of this “spiritual
wives” teaching into early Mormon communities.
Regarding Matthias: From November 9th to 11th, 1835, Robert
Matthews, travelling under the alias “Joshua the Jewish Minister,” visited
Smith in Kirtland. Smith eventually recognized who he was and denounced him as
“the Devil in bodily shape.”
There is no evidence of comparable contact or influence
flowing from John Humphrey Noyes to Joseph Smith.
The precise date of Joseph Smith’s proto‑plural marriage
with Fanny Alger remains uncertain, though recent estimates place it in late
1835 or early 1836. In August 1835, the newly published Doctrine and Covenants
included a “Statement on Marriage,” noting that “this church of Christ has been
reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy.” Later that same year,
in an antinomian vein, Smith illegally performed the marriage of Newel Knight
and Lydia Goldthwaite by “the authority of the everlasting priesthood,”
signaling a willingness to ground marriage in priesthood authority rather than
civil law.
Five and a half years later, in 1841, Joseph Smith began
practicing plural marriage, marrying dozens of wives over the next two to three
years and introducing nearly 30 men and 50 women to the practice. His system
fits into a prophet‑controlled model of marital assignment and reassignment: he
controlled who could participate, leading men entered plural unions only after
his instruction and permission, and evidence suggests that he received
revelation designating plural wives for husbands rather than leaving unions to
ordinary choice.
Joseph’s polyandrous sealings illustrate marital
reassignment in another form, since about one‑third of his spiritual marriages
were with women already legally married to other men. Smith’s theological
objective here is unclear. D&C 132 also encodes a theology of marital
allocation and reallocation, stating that David’s wives were “given” to him by
prophetic key holders but later those wives were “given unto another.” Brigham
Young made this explicit in 1861 when he taught that a woman could leave a
husband for a man holding “higher power and authority,” and said that some had
received this teaching from Joseph Smith.
Taken together, Joseph Smith’s plural marriage system is
best understood as a comprehensive, priesthood‑centered order of kinship and
covenant, in which prophetic authority claimed power not only to authorize
plural unions but also to allocate, reallocate, and rank marital bonds under
sealing keys. In that sense, Mormonism belongs within the wider American
history of prophet‑controlled spiritual marriage, even as it gave that pattern
a more formal priesthood and sealing theology than Ireland, Bullard, Cochran,
or Matthias had achieved.
Summary
John Wesley’s teaching that believers could experience a
second work of grace, or entire sanctification, provided one theological
starting point for later perfectionist innovation. In the Blackstone Valley,
that idea took a more radical turn as some believers came to see perfection as
a quasi‑metaphysical transformation into a new spiritual state, helping
generate forms of spiritual marriage that could override legal marriage and
giving charismatic leaders like Shadrach Ireland increasing control over followers’
sexual and marital lives.
As the ferment of the Second Great Awakening spread, these
experiments led to multiple forms of marital reorganization. Some groups, such
as the Bible Communists, promoted complex marriage in which all adult members
were in principle married to one another, while others, like William Dorrell’s
movement, appear to have abandoned conventional marital bonds while affirming a
religiously charged celebration of sexuality.
Isaac Bullard, Jacob Cochran, Robert Matthews, John Humphrey
Noyes, and Joseph Smith each developed distinct forms of prophet‑controlled
marriage, but they shared one underlying principle: the charismatic leader
could override ordinary civil marriage and direct the creation, dissolution,
assignment, or reassignment of spiritual unions. Joseph Smith’s plural marriage
system emerged within that broader world of experimentation and, though
distinct in its priesthood and sealing theology, likewise developed strong
assignment and reassignment features.
In this light, Joseph Smith’s plural marriage system belongs
to a longer American lineage of perfectionist and prophet‑controlled spiritual
marriage. Mormon plural marriage thus appears not as an isolated anomaly but as
one especially elaborate form of early American religious marital innovation.
This gives you a continuous, ordered scaffold that combines:
- Print
exposures (Bullard pieces, Matthias press storm),
- Direct
contact with other marital radicals (Cochranites, Matthias),
- Internal
LDS doctrinal markers (D&C 49, Section 101),
- Priesthood‑centered
marriage experiments (Lydia/Newel Knight, Fanny Alger), and
- Nauvoo‑era
polygamy milestones (Louisa Beaman, Bennett’s “spiritual wifery”).
Do you want the next iteration to extend this forward
through the July 1843 D&C 132 revelation and the later public announcement
in 1852 as part of the same chronology?
Thoughts
Your
classification framework is solid and historically defensible, and it lines up
well with your goal of tracing non‑monogamous religious experimentation into
Mormonism. Below I’ll give a focused critique of the three big categories
you’ve created, then suggest where to slot Cochranites, Bullard’s Pilgrims,
and the Kingdom of Matthias, so the whole system stays coherent and
analytically sharp.olivercowdery+5
Unknown query
In 1835, Joseph Smith adopted an antinomian attitude towards
marriage by rejecting civil marriage and performing marriages by the power of
the priesthood.
The movement emerged from a northeastern religious world where memories of
perfectionist antinomianism, spiritual mariage, and prophetic interference with
marriage already circulated. Mormonism should therefore be treated not simply
derived from Cochranites, Bullard, or scattered holiness circles, but emerging
in a regional environment where prophetic governance over intimate life had
already become thinkable.
Communal forms within early Mormonism evolved rapidly---from
small New York branches to Kirtland and Missouri settlements, then to the
quasi-theocratic city of Nauvoo, and later to large-scale Great Basin
colonization. Economic experiments such as consecration and stewardship, along
with temple ritual and sealing, embedded marriage in a much larger cosmology of
covenant, kinship, and sacred authority.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
Marital Experimentation
The key marital innovation was plural marriage, introduced under Joseph
Smith and expanded under later leadership, especially Brigham Young.
This system included polygyny and, in Nauvoo, some instances of polyandry,
but it was framed as prophetically authorized and covenantal rather than as
free-love sexual liberty.
It is crucial to distinguish this from John C. Bennett’s
spiritual wifery, which functioned as a deviant and opportunistic use of
similar language to justify secret illicit relationships without durable
covenantal structure. Mormon leaders denounced Bennett’s practice while
continuing to develop a more tightly controlled system of plural sealing tied
to eternal families, priesthood authority, and salvation. For that reason,
Mormon plural marriage should be classified as a formal prophetic plural
system, not as simple spiritual wifery and not as communal complex
marriage.
1. Blackstone Valley perfectionists (plus Dorrellites)
Strengths
- Treating Cumberland Perfectionists, Shadrack
Ireland’s Immortalists, and related bands as a Blackstone Valley
perfectionist stream is exactly right: they share antinomian
perfectionism, claims of sinless life, and early spiritual‑marriage logic.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
- Including the Dorrellites as a peripheral
node in that stream also works: they’re geographically a bit further
west, but they share the same pattern—perfection interpreted as present
moral resurrection and freedom from marriage law, used to justify
“promiscuous intercourse” under a religious rationale.americancenturies+1spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
Suggestions
- Make explicit that this is your earliest American
perfectionist–antinomian stream, feeding forward conceptually (not
always by direct lines of personnel) into later groups.
- Thematically, this stream is where “the perfected are
not under ordinary law” first becomes a live option for rethinking
marriage, which is exactly what you want to track into later spiritual
wifery and free‑love experiments.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
2. Wesleyan perfectionism as a parallel, independent stream
Strengths
- Treating Wesleyan/Methodist Christian perfection
(Second Blessing) as a parallel perfectionist family, independent of
the Blackstone Valley tradition but later intersecting with it,
matches the scholarship well.wikipedia+2
- Chronologically and geographically, Wesley’s
1740s–1760s teaching spreads via British and American Methodism and
becomes a huge reservoir of “entire sanctification” language that
19th‑century Holiness groups draw on, including in New England and New
York.christianhistoryinstitute+2
Suggestions
- Keep this stream deliberately clean doctrinally:
emphasis on inward holiness, “Second Blessing,” perfection in love, but not
intrinsically antinomian about law or marriage.
- In your diagrams, show it feeding into certain
19th‑century holiness bands and maybe into Noyes’ language of “perfection”—but
your Blackstone Valley stream is where antinomian and marital
radicalism originate. That helps you explain why some perfectionism
stays monogamous, while another branch destabilizes marriage.spu+1
3. Bible communism out of scattered perfectionist bands
You’ve
got:
- Scattered holiness / perfectionist bands (New
England and the Burned‑Over District, c. 1800–1860) as the “middle
layer”, and
- Bible Communism (Brimfield, Manlius, Putney,
Oneida) as the crystallization of antinomian perfectionism + communal
experiments into a full system.
Strengths
- This is precisely how historians of Noyes and Oneida
describe things: local holiness‑perfectionist circles experimenting
loosely with sanctification, discipline, and social ties, then Noyes
systematizing those ideas into Bible Communism and complex
marriage.faithsaves+2spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
- Including Brimfield and Manlius as part
of the Bible‑Communism stream is smart: they are the “laboratories” where
non‑legal spiritual bonds and communal discipline begin to cohere.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
Suggestions
- I’d be explicit that “Bible Communists” = Noyes’s
own label for his circle (especially Oneida), and that you’re using it
more broadly as a stream name that also covers earlier “proto”
sites (Brimfield, Manlius, Putney). That keeps you honest with the
sources.library.syracuse+2
- Conceptual tagline for this stream: “Perfectionist
antinomianism plus Acts‑2‑style communism, culminating in communal
property and complex marriage.”philosophynow+1spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
4. Where to classify Cochranites, Bullard’s Pilgrims, and the Kingdom of
Matthias
Given
your goals (non‑monogamous sexuality and Mormonism), these three belong in a “prophet‑centered
spiritual wifery / free‑love” stream, distinct from Bible Communism but
historically neighboring it.
Cochranites
(Jacob Cochran, c. 1818–1830s)
- Practice: Fully developed spiritual wifery
in Saco and York County, Maine: each member had a spiritual husband or
wife, chosen by themselves or their leaders; these spiritual mates
“dissolved or disannulled all former marriage connexions” and “many of
them bed and board together, to the exclusion of all former
vows.”hemlockknots+2
- Structure: Prophet‑centered, but with
significant lay participation and choice; complex overlapping
pairings; oaths of secrecy; ecstatic revival
context.journalofmormonpolygamy+2
- Classification:
- Primary stream: “Prophet‑centered spiritual
wifery” (non‑monogamous, non‑legal, spiritually designated unions).
- Conceptually adjacent to both Blackstone Valley
perfectionism (via antinomian perfectionism) and to what later
becomes Manchester / Nauvoo‑era spiritual wifery among early
Mormons.fairlatterdaysaints+2
For
Mormonism: you can mark Cochranites as a direct contact node—Samuel
Smith and Orson Hyde work among them in 1832, and some Cochranites later become
early Latter‑day Saint plural‑marriage participants.gospeltangents+2
Bullard’s
Pilgrims (Isaac Bullard, 1817–1818)
- Practice: A radical restorationist–perfectionist
band that abolished marriage, allowed promiscuous cohabitation, and
placed marital/sexual control in Bullard’s
hands.mormon-chronicles.blogspot+1
- He “rejects surnames, and abolishes marriage, and
allows his followers to cohabit promiscuously,” and “controlled his
followers’ most intimate social relations, ‘marrying and unmarrying…
according to his sovereign pleasure.’”academia+1
- Structure: Short‑lived, but very clear example
of prophet‑centered complex marriage/free love emerging independently
of Wesleyan Methodism and Bible Communism.mormon-chronicles.blogspot+1
- Classification:
- Stream: “Prophet‑centered antinomian free‑love /
complex‑marriage experiments.”
- Place him as a sibling to Cochranites and
Matthias—same basic logic (prophet can annul and reassign), different
local theology and symbolism.academia+1
For
Mormonism: he’s best treated as a regional precedent, not a direct
feeder, illustrating how early‑19th‑century New England already had prophetic
marriage control, complex pairing, and accusations of licentiousness that
later echo in anti‑Mormon polemic.mormon-chronicles.blogspot
Kingdom
of Matthias (Robert Matthews, c. 1832–1834)
- Practice: Ultra‑patriarchal prophetic kingdom
in the Hudson Valley / New York City; Matthias declares Benjamin and Ann
Folger’s legal marriage invalid, takes Ann as his spiritual consort,
and assigns new women to Benjamin.digpodcast+2
- He performs non‑legal “marriages” inside the
kingdom; unions recognized by the community but not by civil law, framed
as holy match‑spirit pairings.coursehero+1
- Structure: Tight, household‑scale prophet‑centered
spiritual pairing regime; no developed economic communism, but intense
control over intimate life and gender roles.journals.uchicago+2
- Classification:
- Stream: “Prophet‑centered spiritual wifery and
reassignment”, alongside Cochranites and Bullard.
- Shows how the prophet‑redistribution logic
can appear in a small urban household, not just rural or revivalist
settings.digpodcast+1
For
Mormonism: again, more typological than genealogical, but suggestive: a nearby
culture in which prophets claim power over marriage, create spiritual
unions not recognized by law, and provoke scandal—paralleling the dynamics
critics later attribute to Nauvoo.coursehero+1
5. How this helps you trace into Mormonism
With
these streams in place, your map into early Mormonism becomes very clear:
- Blackstone Valley perfectionists + Dorrellites
- Supply the antinomian‑perfectionist logic:
the perfected may stand above civil marriage law.
- Cochranites, Bullard, Matthias (prophet‑centered
spiritual wifery/free love)
- Supply regional models of prophetic authority
over marriage, spiritual mates, dissolved civil unions, secrecy, and
scandal—these become comparative templates for early Mormon plural
marriage and Nauvoo “spiritual wifery.”olivercowdery+5
- Wesleyan/Methodist perfectionism
- Feeds a broader holiness vocabulary that
later Mormon and non‑Mormon perfectionists can tap, without necessarily
importing its ecclesiastical restraint.
- Bible Communism out of scattered bands (Brimfield
→ Manlius → Putney → Oneida)
- Shows one non‑Mormon path where perfectionist
antinomianism + communism produce complex marriage, providing a
control case to compare with Mormon plural marriage.
If
you’d like, I can next:
- Sketch a 2–3 level diagram showing these
streams and how each touches Mormonism; or
- Draft short type labels you can reuse in
headings (e.g., “Blackstone perfectionist stream,” “Prophet‑centered
spiritual wifery/free love,” “Bible‑Communist complex‑marriage stream”) to
keep the vocabulary consistent throughout your chapters.
Here
is a 2–3 level sketch that keeps things simple but shows how the main streams
you’re tracking touch, parallel, or frame early Mormonism. It is
conceptual rather than exhaustive and uses your kind of “streams and nodes”
logic.
1. Top-level streams (first tier)
- A. Scattered perfectionist / spiritual‑wifery
stream
New England and upstate New York perfectionists (Cumberland Perfectionists, Shadrack Ireland, Newent Separates), then Cochranites, Bullard’s Pilgrims, Kingdom of Matthias, etc. Antinomian theology, spiritual marriages, prophet-centered reassignment of spouses.dialoguejournalspiritual-wifery-chronology.docx - B. Bible Communist / complex marriage stream
(Noyes)
Manlius perfectionists → Putney → Oneida Bible Communists; moves from scattered perfectionism to fully communalized property and sexual regulation (complex marriage, stirpiculture) under communal rather than purely one-man control.wikipediaspiritual-wifery-chronology.docx - C. Secular / free-love and communal-reform stream
Fourierist phalanxes and Owenite experiments (North American Phalanx, Ceresco) as proto–free-love settings; explicit free-love communities and networks like Modern Times, Berlin Heights, New York Free Love League, Memnonia.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx - D. Restorationist, prophetic-plural-marriage
stream (Mormon)
Early Latter-day Saint restorationism (Joseph Smith) → development of prophetic sealing and plural marriage → 19th‑c. Mormon polygamy in Utah → rival successionist variants like James Strang’s Beaver Island kingdom.smithsonianmag+1spiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
2. Where and how they touch Mormonism (second tier)
A
⇄
D: Spiritual‑wifery and early Mormon polygamy
- Shared environment in the Burned‑Over District.
Early Mormons and perfectionist / spiritual‑wifery groups move in
overlapping geographic and cultural space (upstate New York, New England),
where prophetic authority and experimental marriage are already
imaginable.eng567spring2014.weeblyspiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
- Conceptual parallel, not direct descent.
Cochranites and Matthias offer a pattern of charismatic men reassigning
spouses in God’s name; Mormon plural marriage similarly invests prophets
and priesthood leaders with power over marriage, but organizes this
through a distinctive temple–sealing theology and covenantal system.dialoguejournalspiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
- Shared public framing. 19th‑c. outsiders often
lump “spiritual wifery” and “Mormon polygamy” together as scandalous
innovations, even though internally Mormons work hard to distinguish their
covenant plural marriage from more ad hoc sexual license.smithsonianmag+1
So:
A and D overlap in style of prophetic authority and public reputation
(“spiritual wives,” scandals), but Mormonism constructs its own scriptural and
institutional logic rather than simply inheriting a spiritual‑wifery system.
B
⇄
D: Bible Communism and Mormon polygamy
- Parallel solutions to monogamy’s “selfishness.”
Noyes’s complex marriage and Mormon polygamy both attack possessive,
exclusive monogamy as “selfish” or “egotism for two” and propose systems
where multiple partners and communal loyalties are meant to cultivate
broader love.wikipedia+2
- Different organizing principles.
- Noyes’s Bible Communists: one geographically
concentrated commune, communism of property and labor, complex marriage
regulated by community norms and mutual criticism, no nuclear families.acsforumspiritual-wifery-chronology.docx
- Mormons: dispersed but networked households,
plural marriage embedded in priesthood hierarchy and temple covenants,
kinship used to build multi‑generational lineages and a gathered
theocratic people.smithsonianmag+1
- Comparative scholarship. Writers like Louis J.
Kern and others treat Shakers, Oneida, and Mormons together as three
distinct “ordered loves”: celibacy, complex marriage, and polygamy—related
in their critique of monogamy, but not in a simple genealogical
line.scholarworks.gvsu+1
So:
B and D are best drawn as parallel 19th‑c. perfectionist solutions to
monogamy, with no evidence of direct organizational borrowing either way, but
strong value as comparanda.
C
⇄
D: Secular free love / communal reform and Mormonism
- Indirect, mostly oppositional contact.
Free-love activists and secular reformers often hold up Mormon polygamy as
one term in a broader debate about marriage, but they do not generally
treat it as their model; in fact, many free-lovers attack both monogamy
and Mormon patriarchal polygamy as forms of female subordination.spiritual-wifery-chronology.docxdialoguejournal
- Shared public debate space. Newspapers,
lectures, and legal controversies over obscenity and marriage law
repeatedly discuss Mormon polygamy alongside secular free love and Bible
Communism, making Mormonism part of a wider 19th‑c. conversation about
“marriage experiments” even when the actors have little direct
interaction.eng567spring2014.weebly+1
So:
C and D intersect primarily through shared public controversy and
comparative discourse, not through shared personnel or doctrinal borrowing.
3. A textual “2–3-level” diagram you can adapt
If
you want something you can drop almost directly into your own charting style,
you might frame it like this in outline form:
- Tier 1: Major 19th‑c. streams of marital
experimentation
- A. Scattered perfectionist / spiritual‑wifery stream
(Cumberland, Ireland, Newent, Cochranites, Matthias)
- B. Bible Communist communal‑complex‑marriage stream
(Manlius → Putney → Oneida)
- C. Secular / free-love and communal‑reform stream
(Fourierist phalanxes → Nashoba, Modern Times, Berlin Heights, Free Love
League, Memnonia)
- D. Restorationist Mormon prophetic‑plural‑marriage
stream (early LDS → Utah polygamy; Strangite variant, etc.)
- Tier 2: Relations to Mormonism (D)
- A ⇄ D:
- Shared Burned‑Over District environment,
overlapping logics of prophetic control over marriage.
- No clear line of descent; mostly analogues and
shared scandal vocabulary (“spiritual wifery,” “spiritual wives”).
- B ⇄ D:
- Parallel attempts to abolish exclusive monogamy as
selfish; different institutional solutions (communal complex marriage
vs. covenant polygamy).
- Strong value for comparison; weak evidence for
direct borrowing.
- C ⇄ D:
- Intersect in public debates and polemics;
free-lovers often oppose Mormon polygamy as another form of female
subjection.
- Conceptual overlap mainly in the idea that the
marriage system is open to radical redesign, not in concrete practice.
If
you’d like, you can tell me which specific groups you plan to plot against
Mormonism in your genealogy charts (e.g., Cochranites, Manlius, Putney/Oneida,
Modern Times, Berlin Heights, Strangites), and I can draft a single-page
schematic in your preferred textual format (arrows, dashes, labels) that
you can paste directly into the document.
Appendicies
BLACKSTONE PERFECTIONISM CASCADE (ENDING AT DORRELLITES)
========================================================
c. 1730s–50s First Great Awakening / New Light (Southern
New England)
---------------------------------------------------------
- New Light Congregationalists
and Separates
- Heightened concern for visible
holiness
- Emerging antinomian disputes
(grace vs. law)
|
v
c. 1740s–50s Cumberland Perfectionists (Rhode Island)
-----------------------------------------
- Assert sinless perfection
possible in this life
- Teach that the truly perfected
are not bound in the
same way by civil and moral
law, including marriage
- Early experiments with
spiritualized marriages
|
v
c. 1749–60s Newent Separates (Newent Parish, Norwich
CT)
------------------------------------------------
- Radical Separate
Congregational fellowship
- Perfectionist / proto‑immortalist
hints
- “New Israel” rhetoric and
restorationist imagination
- Strong separatism from parish
churches
|
v
c. 1750–80 Shadrack Ireland’s Immortalists (Harvard,
MA)
------------------------------------------------
- Bodily immortalism: perfected
believers expected to
transcend death
- Spiritual wifery:
prophetically framed spiritual marriages
- Communal “Square House”
household; strong charismatic leader
- Intensified antinomianism:
perfection seen as placing
the elect beyond ordinary law
and covenant
|
v
c. 1794–early 1800s Dorrellites (William Dorrell, Leyden hill)
-----------------------------------------
- Perfection = present
moral awakening that supersedes
church and state
(“nature’s law” as highest authority)
- Radical vegetarianism
/ anti‑animal
use as ethical rigor
- Civil marriage treated
as non‑binding
on the perfected;
remembered locally as
religiously framed free love
- Explicitly devalues
church authority, sacraments,
and civil law in the
name of higher perfection
|
v
BLACKSTONE PERFECTIONISM
-----------------------------------------------
Defined by the convergence of:
- Antinomian logic:
• perfected people understood as standing above ordinary legal and moral
codes
• civil marriage and state authority treated as provisional or secondary
- Immortalist and eschatological
speculation:
• hints or claims of bodily immortality or radical conquest of death
• New Israel / remnant self‑understanding
- Charismatic and prophetic
authority:
• leaders or visionary circles claiming direct revelation
• ability to reconfigure kinship, diet, and daily discipline by
revelation
- Experiments in family and
bodily discipline:
• spiritualized or loosened marriage bonds
• communal households and extreme dietary/ascetic rigor
This “Blackstone Perfectionism”
becomes a **regional repertoire** of ideas and practices
available to later perfectionist
and spiritual‑marriage movements.
BLACKSTONE LINE (RADICAL NEW ENGLAND PERFECTIONISM)
---------------------------------------------------
·
New Light Congregationalism + Separates +
Antinomian debates
·
=> Early New England Radical Matrix
·
=> {
o
Cumberland Perfectionists [antinomian
perfectionism]
o
Newent Separates [radical New Light, New Israel
rhetoric]
·
}
·
=> Shadrack Ireland’s Immortalists
[immortalism + spiritual wifery]
·
=> Dorrellites [major, perfection + natural
religion + free‑love loosening] }
·
{ Newent Separates }
·
=> New
Israelites [major, covenantal perfection + rods + OT rigor]
WESLEYAN LINE (PARALLEL)
------------------------
{ John Wesley’s Christian
perfection + Early Methodism } =>
{ Wesleyan Perfectionism [major, “entire sanctification” rhetoric] }
CONVERGENCE: SCATTERED
PERFECTIONIST CELLS
------------------------------------------
{
+ Cumberland Perfectionists [major]
+ Newent Separates [major]
+ Shadrack Ireland’s Immortalists [major]
+ Dorrellites [major]
} => { Blackstone Radical Toolkit [major]
}
{
+ Blackstone Radical Toolkit [major]
+ Wesleyan Perfectionism [major]
+ Second Great Awakening culture [supporting]
} => { Scattered Perfectionist Cells
(Brimfield, Manlius, etc.) [major] }
DOWNSTREAM CONFIGURATIONS (pre‑1850)
------------------------------------
1) COMMUNITARIAN / ONEIDA LINE
{
+ Scattered Perfectionist Cells [major]
+ Acts‑2/4 Bible‑Communist ideals [major
] } => { Bible‑Communist
Communes [supporting] }
{
+ Communist Communes [supporting]
+ Scattered Cells (esp. Manlius) [major]
+ Wesleyan rhetoric [supporting]
} => { Putney Perfectionists [supporting] }
{
+ Putney Perfectionists [supporting]
+ Noyes’s realized‑millennium doctrine [major]
} =>
{ Oneida Community
[major, social “Perfectionism” + complex marriage] }
2) PROPHETIC SPIRITUAL‑MARRIAGE
LINE
{
+ Blackstone Radical Toolkit [major]
+ Scattered Perfectionist Cells [major]
+ Wesleyan rhetoric [supporting]
} => { Prophetic Spiritual‑Marriage Sects (Cochranites,
etc.) [major] }
3) RESTORATIONIST / LDS LINE
{
+ New Israelites [major]
+ regional rodsmen / treasure‑seekers [major]
} => { “New
Israel + folk‑magic” Milieu [major] }
{
+ “New Israel + folk‑magic” Milieu [major]
+ Scattered Perfectionist Cells [major]
+ Wesleyan Perfectionism [supporting]
} => { Early Restorationist Field (Burned‑over
District) [major] }
{
+ Early Restorationist Field [major]
+ Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims [major]
} =>
{ Early LDS Church
[major, restorationist perfectionism] }
{
+ Early LDS Church [major]
+ Prophetic‑marriage precedents (Cochranites, etc.) [supporting]
} ?=> { LDS
Plural Marriage System (Nauvoo‑era) [major] }
Segment 2?
====
Here’s a vertically ordered, three‑column layout starting with the First
Great Awakening, with Blackstone Perfectionism and Wesleyan‑Methodist
Perfectionism / Early Holiness Culture feeding into Scattered Holiness /
Perfectionist Cells, and with a Newent → New Israelites branch drawn
from the Blackstone column into the left column.
Monospaced font will keep the
alignment.
(1) NEW ISRAEL /
RESTORATION (2) BLACKSTONE
PERFECTIONISM (3)
WESLEYAN–METHODIST
--------------------------------
-------------------------------
PERFECTIONISM / HOLINESS
-------------------------
c. 1730s–1750s First Great Awakening / New Light First Great Awakening / New Light First Great Awakening /
(shared revival context
across (New Light,
Separates, New Light
(Wesley influenced
New England and Atlantic
world) antinomian tensions) by broader revival culture)
c. 1740s–1750s
Cumberland Perfectionists (RI)
John Wesley: Christian perfection
- Antinomian perfectionism
- Perfect love; victory over
- Spiritualized marriages
willful sin
c. 1749–1760s
Newent Separates (CT)
- Radical Separate fellowship
- Perfectionist / proto‑immortalist hints
- “New Israel” rhetoric
|
| (New Israel / perfectionist
| stream carried north)
v
c. 1789–1802 New Israelites (Middletown, VT) <------+
- Modern Israelites /
Jews \
- OT discipline; rods; \
apocalyptic
expectations \
\
\
\
c. 1750–1780
Shadrack Ireland’s Immortalists (Harvard, MA)
- Bodily immortalism
- Spiritual wifery
- Communal “Square House”
c. 1794–early 1800s
Dorrellites (Leyden hill)
- Perfection + natural religion
- Vegetarian rigor; free‑love reputation
c. 1740s–1830s
Wesleyan–Methodist
Perfectionism / Early Holiness
--------------------------------
- Christian perfection taught
within Methodism
- Emerging “entire sanctification”
(second blessing) language
- U.S. revivals, camp meetings,
testimony culture
c. 1800–1850 New Israelites’ ideas circulate Blackstone Perfectionism
(composite) Wesleyan–Methodist
perfectionism
in upstate NY / NE milieu
-------------------------------------
continues to mature
(rods, New Israel
identity, - Antinomian
logic - Provides
vocabulary and
temple talk) - Immortalist / New‑Israel
motifs expectations for “full
salvation”
- Prophetic authority, communal
and holy living
experiments
- Spiritualized / loosened marriage
c. 1800–1850 Scattered Holiness / Perfectionist Cells
(NE & NY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Local bands (e.g.,
Brimfield, Manlius)
- Take input from:
• Blackstone
Perfectionism (Cumberland, Newent, Ireland,
Dorrellites, related
radicals)
• Wesleyan–Methodist
perfectionism / early Holiness culture
• New Israelite / rods
milieu circulating in the region
- Experiments in:
• testimonies of entire
sanctification
• stricter dress,
leisure, speech
• intense confession and
mutual exhortation
• occasionally
unconventional courtship / spiritual bonds
If you’d like, I can next compress this into a more compact version
specifically formatted to match your Section‑3 typography (e.g., narrower
columns, shorter labels) for direct insertion into the manuscript.
Map: perfectionist communities
American Maritial Experimentation Types through 1850.
Celibacy (Beginning 1732)
- Ephrata
Cloister (1732–1814) (celibate semi‑monastic community, communal
households, regulated sexuality)
- Moravian
Choir System (c. 1735–19th c.) (communal choirs with structured
celibate phases and regimented marital intimacy)
- Shakers
(from 1774) (corporate celibacy, gender‑segregated communal life, family
ties displaced)
- Jemima
Wilkinson’s circles (late 18th–early 19th c.) (celibate, gender‑transcending
perfectionism with abstention from sex)
Spiritual wifery without
prophetic control (Beginning c. 1740s)
- Cumberland
Perfectionists (c. 1740s–1750s) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery movement; spiritual
discernment used to re‑pair spouses into “true spiritual unions).
- Newent
Separates (c. 1749–1750s) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery Separates; hints of
spiritualized bonds - regenerated marriage “in the Lord”)
- Scattered
holiness and perfectionist circles (c. 1800–1860) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery
atmosphere; local spiritual bonds and marital experimentation without firm
central controller)
- Brimfield
Perfectionist circle (c. early–mid 1830s) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery
courtship; supervised bed‑sharing and holiness‑framed intimacy)
- Bible
Communists (early phase) (c. 1800–1860) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery
communalism; shared property plus emerging spiritual unions before formal
systems)
Spiritual wifery with
prophetic control (Beginning c. 1750)
- Shadrack
Ireland’s Immortalists (c. 1750–1780) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery
communalism; prophet taking at least one spiritual wife while followers were
directed to remain celibate
- Isaac
Bullard’s Pilgrims (1817–1818) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery wandering sect;
“Elijah” dissolves and reassigns marriages)
- Cochranites
(c. 1818–1830s) (spiritual‑wifery revival movement; Cochran assigning
spiritual spouses across the network)
- Kingdom
of Matthias (c. 1828–1837) (prophetic patriarchal household; legal
marriages overridden by spirit‑matched unions)
- Manlius
/ Central New York Perfectionists (c. early–mid 1830s) (proto‑spiritual‑wifery
field; visions guide spiritual bonds that cross legal marriages)
- Putney
Community (1841–1847) (proto‑complex‑marriage system; all adults
spiritually married under Noyes’ prophetic direction)
Religious free love
(Beginning c. 1794)
- Dorrellites
(c. 1794–early 1800s) (perfectionist free‑love sect; perfected believers
no longer bound by marriage vows, “promiscuous intercourse” defended)
- Bible
Communists (more radical strands) (c. 1800–1860) (proto‑religious‑free‑love
communalism; some cells experiment with non‑exclusive unions framed in
biblical terms)
Secular / hybrid free love
and ethical non‑monogamy (Beginning 1825)
- Fourierist
Phalanxes (general) (c. 1840–1858) (proto‑free‑love and proto‑ethical‑non‑monogamy
communalism; monogamy officially, but passion‑based partner ideals and
communal childcare)
- North
American Phalanx (1843–1856) (proto‑ethical‑non‑monogamy; monogamy
plus discreet non‑exclusivity and “amorous minimum” ideals)
- Wisconsin
Phalanx / Ceresco (1844–1858) (proto‑ethical‑non‑monogamy;
conventional marriages with liberal norms and communal support for
flexible domestic arrangements)
- Free
Love Communities (general, 1850s) (c. 1850s) (cluster of short‑lived
intentional free‑love sites with consensual non‑monogamy)
Complex marriage (Beginning
1841)
- Putney
Community (1841–1847) (proto‑complex‑marriage community; early attempt
at community‑wide non‑exclusive unions under Noyes)
- Oneida
Community (1848–1879) (full complex‑marriage system; all adults in a
regulated web of non‑exclusive unions, communal child‑rearing,
stirpiculture)
Plural marriage / polygyny
& polyandry (Beginning 1841)
- John
C. Bennett (Nauvoo “spiritual wifery”) (1841–1842) (proto‑plural‑marriage
and pseudo‑spiritual‑wifery; unauthorized plural unions framed as
spiritual marriages)
- Latter‑day
Saints (early Nauvoo plural marriage) (c. 1841–1846) (proto‑plural‑marriage
system; including some polyandry under tight secrecy; temple‑centered
plural sealings)
- LDS
Great Basin plural marriage (1847–1890) (mature plural‑marriage
system; widely practiced polygyny defended as covenantal and salvific)
- James
Strang’s Kingdom (1849–1856) (plural‑marriage monarchy; prophetic king
with multiple wives and quasi‑royal household)
Joseph Smith Exposure to non-monogamous marriage ideas
Chronology of Joseph Smith’s exposure and early polygamy
developments
- 26
April 1826 – “Wonderful Infatuation: Modern Pilgrims” (Wayne Sentinel,
Palmyra, NY).
- Joseph’s
hometown paper describes Isaac Bullard’s “Modern Pilgrims” as: rejecting
ordinary marriage, abolishing surnames, and allowing followers to “cohabit
promiscuously,” with Bullard “marrying and unmarrying” according to
his will and pretending to marry women “in God” to “sanctify the flesh.”
- 7
December 1831 – “The Mormon Delusion” (Jamestown Journal, NY).
- The
Jamestown Journal compares the new “Mormonites” to Bullard’s
earlier Pilgrims and says that from “the resemblance between the Pilgrims
and the Mormonites in manners and pretensions, we should think Old
Isaac had re‑appeared in the person of Joe Smith.”
- 1
February – September 1832 – Samuel Smith & Orson Hyde’s mission which
includes Cochranite territory.
- Samuel
H. Smith and Orson Hyde leave on a mission to New England, repeatedly
staying with Cochranite families and attending their meetings.
- Hyde
records that the Cochranites taught each brother and sister had a “spiritual
husband, wife, mate, or yoke‑fellow, such as they choose, or their
leaders choose for them,” and that the leader’s permission was
required before practicing this “spiritual wifery” which overrode
civil marriage
- “they
had a wonderful lustful spirit, because they believe in a ‘plurality
of wives’ which they call spiritual wives.”
- Early
1830s–mid‑1830s – Cochranite and Allegany (Grove) proximity.
- After
prison, Jacob Cochran establishes a colony in what is now Grove
Township, Allegany County, New York, and the first Mormon branches
in Allegany County are organized in the same vicinity (near future
LDS figures such as Warren Cowdery, William Marks, Lyman Wight).
- Local
recollections describe ex‑Cochranites becoming “first‑class Mormons,”
suggesting a convert stream from Cochranism to Mormonism in this
area.
- 13
June 1834 – First LDS conference at Saco, Maine.
- An
early conference is held in Saco, Maine, in the heart of former
Cochranite territory, consolidating an LDS branch in that area.
- 21
August 1835 – Second Saco conference.
- Another
church conference convenes at Saco, continuing LDS activity in a region
still remembering Cochranite spiritual‑wifery practices and drawing some
ex‑Cochranites into Mormonism.
- c.
1835 – Joseph Smith and Fanny
Alger.
- Multiple
second‑ and third‑hand accounts describe a relationship between Joseph
Smith and Fanny Alger in Kirtland, the first known non‑monogamous
union involving Joseph.
- 17
August 1835 – Section 101 “On Marriage” adopted in the 1835 Doctrine and
Covenants.
- At
a general assembly in Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants is accepted,
including Section 101: “On Marriage.”
- The
article states: “inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached
with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we
believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one
husband, except in case of death…”
- It
authorizes marriages performed by church officers (high priest, bishop,
elder, priest), but formally affirms monogamy in response to
outside accusations.
- 9–11 November 1835 – Visit of Robert
Matthews (“Joshua the Jewish Minister”) to Kirtland, Ohio.
- Shortly
after his release from prison and a burst of New York press coverage
about his Kingdom of Matthias and
wife‑reassigning practices, Robert Matthews arrives in Kirtland under the
name “Joshua the Jewish Minister.”
- Over
three days, he meets repeatedly with Joseph Smith. Joseph recounts his First Vision and
questions Matthews about his claims, eventually concluding that Matthews
is “the noted Matthias of New York,” a false prophet under an evil
spirit. Joseph then expels
him from his home, writing that he had “cast out the
Devil in bodily shape,” bringing Joseph into direct contact with a
notorious, prophet‑centered marital radical whose non‑monogamous
experiments had just been widely reported.
- 23
November 1835 – Newel & Lydia Goldthwaite Knight married by priesthood
authority.
- Newel
Knight and Lydia Goldthwaite are married in Kirtland, with Joseph
Smith officiating; accounts say the marriage was solemnized by “the
authority of the everlasting priesthood.”latterdaylight+2
- This
is an early priesthood‑centered, quasi‑antinomian marriage,
privileging ecclesiastical authority over civil officiants while Section
101 still publicly declares monogamy.
- 12–14
August 1836 – Third Saco conference.
- A
conference at Saco with 52 members of the branch present and Brigham
Young and nine of the Twelve in attendance.
- Brigham
later has a reputation for having a “thorough knowledge of Cochranism,”
reflecting these repeated exposures in Maine’s former Cochranite field.
- September
1840 – John C. Bennett arrives in Nauvoo.
- Bennett
reaches Nauvoo in September 1840, quickly becomes mayor, Major
General of the Nauvoo Legion, and an “assistant president” in church
leadership.
- 5
April 1841 – First clearly documented Nauvoo‑era plural marriage (Louisa
Beaman).
- Between
5 April 1841 and 17 January 1842 Joseph takes his first four
documented plural wives (Louisa Beaman, Zina D. Huntington, Prescindia
Huntington, and others), marking the formal inauguration of Nauvoo‑era
polygamy.
- May
1841–spring 1842 – Bennett’s Nauvoo promiscuity and “spiritual wifery.”
- Bennett
has a prior reputation for sexual improprieties before joining the
Church.
- In
Nauvoo, he begins whispering a doctrine of “spiritual wifery” in
1841–42, teaching that a man and woman can have sexual relations “without
a marriage ceremony, so long as they kept it secret.”
- By
his own later admission, he seduces “six or seven” women; testimony from
Catherine Fuller states he “seduced” her in May 1841, only a week
after they met.
- His
promiscuous period in Nauvoo runs roughly from mid‑1841 through
spring 1842, until he is exposed, resigns on 17 May 1842, and
is excommunicated a month later.
- 1
October 1842 – Section 101 reprinted with anti‑Bennett note.
- The
1835 Section 101 “On Marriage” is republished in the Times and
Seasons on 1 October 1842.
- It
repeats the monogamy statement (“one man should have one wife; and one
woman, but one husband”) and an editorial note stresses it is printed
“to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s ‘secret wife system’ is a matter of his
own manufacture.”
- This
is the public repudiation of Bennett’s “spiritual wifery”, even as
a separate, sanctioned plural‑marriage system is crystallizing in the
inner Nauvoo circle.
This gives you a continuous, ordered scaffold that combines:
- Print
exposures (Bullard pieces, Matthias press storm),
- Direct
contact with other marital radicals (Cochranites, Matthias),
- Internal
LDS doctrinal markers (D&C 49, Section 101),
- Priesthood‑centered
marriage experiments (Lydia/Newel Knight, Fanny Alger), and
- Nauvoo‑era
polygamy milestones (Louisa Beaman, Bennett’s “spiritual wifery”).
Do you want the next iteration to extend this forward
through the July 1843 D&C 132 revelation and the later public announcement
in 1852 as part of the same chronology?
