Historian’s Claim:
“Several Latter-day Saints who lived in Kirtland in the 1830's later reported that Fanny Alger married Joseph Smith, becoming his first plural wife.”
Citation in Support of that Claim:
(Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myres, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith: Genealogical Applications,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 31, no. 2 [Fall 2005], 42–60.)
With regard to Fanny Alger that source only states; “an alleged child born to Fanny Alger during the Kirtland period,” and it cites as a sub source; Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 345.
Unreliable:
This claim is not only unreliable but it demonstrates the propensity of historians to make sweeping conclusions supported by sources that support nothing of the sort. For example, even the main source cited says nothing about “several latter-day saints reporting that fanny Alger was Joseph’s first plural wife.” It assumes facts not in evidence.
While the sub source (Brodie) may support the historians claim, there is a reason it was not cited as the original source. That is that Fawn Brodie was an adamant anti-Mormon, who had been excommunicate from the church. Her book ‘No Man knows My history” is so biased and flagrantly non-scholarly, that the LDS Scholar Hugh Nibley actually wrote a response to the book entitled “No Ma’am That’s Not History” in which he states:
“Brodie begins her study with the observation that though there is no lack of documents for the history of Joseph Smith, these documents are "fiercely contradictory."4 In that case, it is
necessary for a writer to pick and choose his evidence. Now, by the simple process of picking and choosing one's evidence, one may prove absolutely anything. For which reason it is important to ask what principle Mrs. Brodie follows in making her choice. This is not hard to discover. Our guide first makes up her mind about Joseph Smith and then proceeds to accept any and all evidence, from whatever source, that supports her theory.5 The uncritical acceptance of evidence from all sources gives her work at first glance an air of great impartiality. At the same time she rejects any and all evidence, from whatever source, that refutes her settled ideas”.
This link is to his whole critique:
http://www.sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/No%20Ma'am%20That's%20Not%20History.pdf
There is no credible evidence to support this claim.
Reliable:
John Taylor testified about Joseph Smith, and the spirit has born witness to my soul of this truth…..
”I have seen him, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man—that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome—that his precepts were such as became a man of God—that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony.”
It is important to note that the article cited as the original supporting source was a DNA study which excluded two children others had alleged were Joseph’s children by plural wives, indicating that in those two cases the claims of Joseph’s paternity were apparently fraudulent. That establishes the possibility that other such claims may also be fraudulent. The Holy Spirit is the only way to know the truth concerning the matter and any claims of history which contradict John Taylor’s testimony to the prophets virtue may be set aside as unreliable.