Before They Knew

Anticipation and Revelation in Early Mormonism

Lately, I have heard people raise an interesting problem regarding the early history of Mormon polygamy. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball both left accounts suggesting that they had some kind of intimation of plural marriage before Joseph Smith actually introduced the practice to them. Brigham recalled that while he was serving a mission in England, the Lord manifested things to him through visions and the Spirit that he “did not then understand.” Heber, meanwhile, had received a blessing in 1839 promising him an extraordinary posterity, years before Joseph taught him about plural marriage. I have been thinking about what we should make of these accounts. If Brigham and Heber already knew about plural marriage through revelation, then how exactly was Joseph involved?

The question becomes even more interesting when you consider how the two apostles described their later encounters with the doctrine. Brigham remembered Joseph’s teaching as so painful that he “desired the grave.” Heber also struggled deeply when Joseph presented the principle to him. If they had already accepted some form of plural marriage, what should we make of their reactions when Joseph finally taught it to them when they returned to the United States from England? Were their earlier experiences actually about plural marriage? How did they understand them at the time? Did Joseph’s teachings differ from their earlier understandings?

In my opinion, Brigham and Heber’s accounts fit into a pattern that can be seen in other places. Religious experience does not always unfold as a single moment in which a person receives a revelation and immediately grasps it. Sometimes there are stages of understanding. A person may first acquire a longing, a promise, an impression, or a spiritual prompting that has no clear meaning at the time. Later, another experience may provide the language or context that makes the first one intelligible. Still later, the person may look back and connect the two. I think of this as layered revelation: the earlier experience does not necessarily contain a fully formed understanding of what will come. Its meaning may emerge only through subsequent experience. That possibility seems especially relevant when we read the retrospective testimonies of early Latter-day Saints, who often interpreted earlier spiritual experiences in light of revelations and events that came afterward.

There are, in fact, striking examples among early converts to Mormonism. Wilford Woodruff said that, before he had ever heard of the Latter-day Saints, he went out alone and “besought God to restore the ancient Gospel, to restore the ancient gifts, to restore the ancient power.” He received a promise that “the time would come when the true Gospel would be restored,” and that he would have the privilege of being identified with it.

Parley P. Pratt described a similar longing in his autobiography. At the beginning of 1830, before he had encountered the Book of Mormon, Parley said he felt “drawn out in an extraordinary manner to search the prophets” and pray for understanding. His prayers led him to expect “the restoration of Israel, the coming of the Messiah, and the glory that should follow.” When he subsequently read the Book of Mormon and met Hyrum Smith, Hyrum explained the restoration of the priesthood and the organization of the Church. Parley recognized the fulfillment of what he had previously understood as a restoration, writing that he had found “a new dispensation or commission, in fulfillment of prophecy.”

David W. Patten gave an even more explicit example of expecting a future church. Before hearing about Joseph Smith or the Latter-day Saints, he said that through dreams, visions, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, he was “looking for the Church of Christ to arise in its purity” and believed that he would live to see it. When his brother subsequently sent him information about the Latter-day Saint movement and described the “restoration of the Gospel,” he immediately understood the news as the fulfillment of what he had been anticipating. He reportedly told people in church that he had “at last got word of the Church of Christ.” The following day he began a journey of roughly 300 miles to investigate the new movement.

These examples demonstrate that early expectation of a doctrine does not preclude a later fulfillment. But there are still complications I don’t want to ignore. There are accounts that, if accepted, suggest that Brigham and Heber participated in something related to plural marriage before Joseph formally taught it to them. Heber’s English mission journals have been interpreted as evidence of sexually intimate encounters with women, and Brigham has been reported as teaching Sarah Crooks about a “spiritual wife” doctrine while still in England. These claims raise three different historical questions. First, did Brigham and Heber have experiences involving ideas or practices that resembled plural marriage before Joseph taught them? That possibility cannot simply be dismissed. Second, did they therefore already know what Mormon plural marriage was and understand it as a divinely authorized principle? That is a much larger claim, and the evidence does not establish it as easily. Third, did Joseph subsequently teach them the doctrine and require them to confront its implications? Their own later accounts, including Brigham’s statement that he “desired the grave,” indicate that Joseph taught them something similar, yet different from what they might have expected.

These stories suggest a relevant pattern: a person may encounter a practice, hear an idea, have a revelation, or even experiment with a religious concept before receiving a theological explanation of it. Evidence of prior encounters does not, by itself, eliminate the possibility that Joseph’s later teaching was a genuine episode and turning point for Brigham and Heber. The two apostles’ struggle when Joseph presented the principle of plurality to them is perhaps the most difficult part of the puzzle. Their earlier experiences may have prepared them for a principle whose meaning they did not yet understand, while Joseph’s later teaching gave that principle a form, a theological explanation, and a personal cost they had not anticipated.