It took about 40 years for the church to canonize the Vision of Elijah, foundation for the modern temple work that we do today. I asked Dr. Richard Bennett why it took so long. (You can listen here to the full interview.) Dr. Bennett explained
This is classic case in church history of what I would call the reclamation of revelation. In 1876, under the specific direction of Orson Pratt, many earlier revelations that were given in the history of the church, including section 110 which you’re referring to, but not just 110; section 109 was the dedication of the Kirtland Temple; section 121, 122, 123 the Liberty Jail revelations; sections 2 and 13, the Moroni and John the Baptist revelations; section 132 the plural marriage/celestial marriage section, were finally put into the Doctrine & Covenants and canonized in 1876 by membership vote.
…
And that really opens up a topic in church history about why studying our history is so important is because sometimes we miss things, and I think you’re referring here to section 110 and these other revelations. It’s wonderful that Elder Bednar makes a great point of it. These sealing keys were extremely important. They were all written down by Warren Cowdery. Joseph and Oliver didn’t write it down. Warren Cowdery wrote it down. Joseph never refers to that revelation, if you want to know the truth, although he talks a lot about the substance of it. It’s not until Orson Pratt in [18]76, under the direction of the President of the Church of course, says we better get that down.
(There’s Orson Pratt again!) On the other hand, studying church history can lead to some sticky problems. I asked Dr Mark Staker why Joseph was sealed to his first plural wife before this vision restoring the sealing power (listen here.) Dr. Staker felt the sealing power had already been restored.
I believe that Joseph Smith received from Peter, James and John all the authority that he needed, including the sealing power. He holds all those through Peter, James, and John. What Elijah brings is keys; keys to enact those sealing powers on behalf of other individuals.
…
It allowed Joseph to direct his authority his authority on behalf of others because the keys provide the ability to direct priesthood on behalf of people, but they aren’t the priesthood itself. Keys are not equivalent to priesthood. Joseph held the priesthood already.
Let’s look at this argument further. Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 18:18
Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
However, I don’t think that is what we teach at church with regards to the visit of Elijah in 1836. Did Joseph receive the sealing power in 1830 from Peter, James, and John? If so, why do we refer to the vision of Elijah as so central to the sealing power?
What do you think of these explanations? Is studying church history good, bad, or both?
Wheat & Tares 
I love studying history in all its messy glory.
This makes no sense to me though. If JS needed to receive keys from Elijah so that he could give keys to others to perform sealings, then how could someone else seal him and Fanny before the keys had been given to JS? What am I missing?
ReTx, I think that’s a good question, and I tried to clarify that with Dr. Staker. You might want to listen to him describe it, but here’s another quote where I tried to make sure it was clear.
He’s really trying to make a distinction about keys. If I understand it right, an elder can ordain a teacher, but he can’t do so unless the bishop grants the elder keys to ordain (which the bishop usually does without so much as a word.) However, an elder can’t just ordain a teacher without the bishop authorizing it.
So if I’m understanding Staker correctly, he’s saying Joseph got the sealing power for himself in 1830, but wasn’t able to let anyone else be sealed until 1836. The confusing part for me is that Joseph gave a sealer, in this case Moses Hancock, the sealing power to seal Joseph and Fanny together.
Thoughts on this? Anybody listened to the interview to make sure I’m stating it correctly?
Yes, what you stated is more or less what I took from it too, but it still makes no sense. It all seems to be saying that JS had sealing authority because he had priesthood authority from P,J&J. Therefore he could give a member of the Hancock family authority to seal him and Fanny (if they were actually sealed, which is iffy anyway). But if all that is true, then why does he later need the keys at all….? What do the keys do that is different than what he already did with the Hancock person who sealed (or just married) him to Fanny?
And then my next question is why would God give this power to the Hancock’s while skipping over Oliver Cowdry (who was I believe the second elder of the church?) or one of the apostles? To me that’s like saying God is going to give a power/authority/key to a stake president before giving it to one of our current Q15. Which goes in the very face of the hierarchical view of how keys work, I’d think.
Thank you for the interview and the dialogue. It’s all super interesting.
If you read the scripture from Matthew, I do think a pretty strong case can be made for Joseph getting the sealing power in 1830.
However, it opens up other questions. If sealing was restored in 1830, of what purpose was the vision of 1836? Ability to transfer the keys? Didn’t Peter, James and John give that too? Why separate this process by 6 years? Certainly they ordained people right away in 1830. Why couldn’t marriage sealings begin in 1830 as well? Doesn’t make sense to me.
And furthermore, if Joseph had the sealing power, then Oliver with him would also have that sealing power in 1830, but in 1835 or so when Oliver confronts Joseph about Fanny, calling it a “filthy, nasty affair”, or as Don Bradley says “filthy, nasty scrape”, it sure doesn’t sound like Oliver was aware of this sealing power because he basically accused Joseph of adultery/fornication, and it sure sounds like Oliver wasn’t aware of this sealing power being granted in 1830. This is precisely the reason Oliver was excommunicated from the church; because Oliver “slandered” Joseph about Fanny.
Now I know Bushman says that Joseph didn’t consider it adultery because he was technically sealed/married to Fanny, but then why is Oliver so out in the dark on this? Oliver should have known better than anyone, having been present in 1830 for the alleged sealing authority/Melchizedek priesthood vision/visitation, and theoretically Oliver could have performed the sealing, not Moses Hancock. It certainly makes one question Joseph’s secretive actions, as well as the reasoning behind an 1830 sealing power being granted so early.
On the one hand, Staker solves the theological timing problem of sealing to Fanny, but Joseph’s actions don’t seem to square with Staker’s view. Why not get Oliver to go along with this sealing? Why keep Oliver in the dark with regards to sealing?
…how could someone else seal him and Fanny before the keys had been given to JS? Hmm, well let’s see God has all the keys and sealing power He needs to seal anyone to anyone else he wants, doesn’t he? God could have sealed JS and Fanny simply by telling JS to go ahead with the relationship. Or would you have declared that command from God legally nil and void on some these technical grounds?
It seems that we are getting all tangled up in the mortal structure here and ritual of this as if it controlled God rather than the other way around. JS and God had a personal ongoing relationship but JS needed to create a mortal version of sealing so that other mortals who weren’t enjoying that kind of a one on one with God could enjoy the blessings of sealings.
But Howard, if Oliver was there, why doesn’t he know about this?
In other words, another valid interpretation is that Oliver was right and Joseph was wrong.
Oliver was where?
Re-read comment 4.
Gee I’m sorry MH but even after rereading #4 I just don’t see how Oliver being anywhere at anytime has anything at all to do with my comment. Please explain.
Joseph communed with God. Sealing schmealing if God approved Jospeh having sex with Fanny the relationship was anointed. Period. It doesn’t matter what Oliver or anyone else thought.
Imagine that God appeared to you and commanded you to begin polygamy within your stake. Do you think that’s going to go smoothly and without scandal? Do you think you’ll pull it off well without any experience? Might you get caught?
I would think such a commandment was of the devil. This kind of duplicitous God is a counterfeit version of Satan, and I would not worship such a duplicitous god.
So one mustn’t eat the sacrificial meat?
If Oliver is to be the test of Joseph why wasn’t Oliver allowed to translate and instead was Joseph’s scribe?
Howard, your god is a god of confusion, a capricious god who changes his mind just like the greek and roman gods. I aspire to no such strange god, but the one and only true God. And your descriptions of a capricious god make me want to go to hell rather than worship such a sinful god as that, who demeans women and doesn’t care about covenants. Your god is awful, and horrible.
MH you seem to revere a God of bureaucracy.
“Hmm, well let’s see God has all the keys and sealing power He needs to seal anyone to anyone else he wants, doesn’t he? God could have sealed JS and Fanny simply by telling JS to go ahead with the relationship. Or would you have declared that command from God legally nil and void on some these technical grounds?”
So your argument is that there are no rules. Or the rules are arbitrary based on God’s will? On one hand that makes sense, but on another it totally doesn’t. In scriptural accounts of God’s interactions with man, God seems to go to great lengths to follow his own rules. Jesus couldn’t just declare himself baptized to fullfill all righteousness. He had to be baptized to do so.
I guess thinking about it, I’m with MH. In my own life, I have never felt subject to God’s whim. God is constant, so that He wouldn’t follow the exact rule he is trying to teach JS, makes no sense to me.
God’s will yes, but nothing is arbitrary about God’s will. Rules increase in number and complexity the farther were move from God. If we are spiritually communing with God or the spirit “rules” melt away, when we are more firmly in the mortal world rules help keep us on the straight and narrow but they are only complex approximations of higher spiritual laws. But God does follow natural laws but God doesn’t follow the LDS checklist or Temple recommend rules, does he? Do you think Jesus a sinless man needed to be physically baptized to be saved himself? Or might he have been setting an example for us to follow?
Why would God introduce a new set of rules like plural marriage if the rules are all set in stone?
Well, I’ve always found Oliver more credible on this matter than JS. Likewise on the “failure to translate,” my own interpretation is that JS didn’t exactly give him great instructions. People who can do a thing well often don’t understand how they do it and can’t teach it to others. JS seems particularly unaware of his own process. At times he thinks he’s literally translating when he’s not.
Is studying church history good, bad, or both?
If the alternative to an understanding of history is blissful ignorance, I choose history.
“Why would God introduce a new set of rules like plural marriage if the rules are all set in stone?”
Well that’s the whole thing though, isn’t it? Plural marriage wasn’t supposed to be new. It was supposed to be restored. The whole point of the modern church is not a new set of rules, but a restored set of rules.
You seem deeply passionate about your stance and I can respect that. It makes no sense to me, but I see that my need for underlying consistency is for you denying God. Fair enough. We experience God differently.
Ok let’s go your direction. What were the original rules for plural marriage?
I have no idea. The whole point for me is struggling to understand God knowing that we aren’t capable of doing so. But that struggle brings me closer to him. So I will continue to ask questions about history, to struggle with His interactions with His children because trying to sort out what is of God, what is not, and how any of it works teaches me more about His nature.
I’m still not buying that Joseph had sealing powers with Fanny. The quote in the NT pertains to Peter *after* Peter received keys from both Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration (MH and I have argued about this before). Just because Peter held the sealing keys doesn’t mean he was allowed to give them to Joseph per our traditional understanding – hence the necessity of Elijah (and Moses and others) coming to Joseph and Oliver in 1836 to give them their own Mount of Transfiguration experience. Plural marriages didn’t need to happen in temples, they could be performed by those holding the Melchizedek priesthood (based on my knowledge of what happened in Utah later). If Joseph’s relationship to Fanny was a plural marriage, I feel like he would have justified the authority via his mortal priesthood authority, not necessarily authority to bind relations in the eternities. At this point, I feel like his rationale would fall more under restoring ancient practices. The whole concept of “Law of Adoption” and eternal families and dynastic relations was much later. He didn’t even have the vision of Alvin till 1836, which inspired his talk of vicarious ordinances in Nauvoo years later (1840). When he was convincing Hyrum of plural marriage, vicarious sealings and eternal family relations were the key factors to Hyrum’s conversion. I just can’t go along with the idea that this was the same thought process Joseph was having with Fanny, and if it wasn’t the same thought process, it would not have been justified with the same sealing authority.
Studying church history is ultimately good, though it can be frustrating.
“Plural marriages didn’t need to happen in temples, they could be performed by those holding the Melchizedek priesthood (based on my knowledge of what happened in Utah later). If Joseph’s relationship to Fanny was a plural marriage, I feel like he would have justified the authority via his mortal priesthood authority, not necessarily authority to bind relations in the eternities.”
I agree (as many Fundamentalist Mormons do) that plural marriages don’t need to occur in temples, but that sure flies in the face of D&C 132, which refers to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage as the sealing power. I think this idea that plural marriages don’t need the sealing power, while having historical precedent, presents its own can of worms. I remember reading a quote from Wilford Woodruff I believe, about some “doe-head of an elder” telling “ignorant females” that they could be sealed by any elder. Obviously this created problems in both Kirtland and Nauvoo regarding unauthorized marriages, (like John C. Bennett, and William Smith to name a few) and that’s primarily why the ordinance was moved in temples where proper authority was done. On the other hand, when the heat started getting tough on polygamists in the 1860s-90s, temple records purposely weren’t kept, and certain mission presidents were authorized to perform sealings outside of temples, though obviously the preference was for in-temple sealings.
But I’ve never heard it said that legitimate plural marriages, and for the sake of argument let’s say that the marriage with Fanny was legit, are you saying that it was a plural marriage for time only and not eternity since the sealing power wouldn’t be revealed for another year or two? That’s not an argument I’ve heard before, especially regarding Fanny.
I doubt that Peter, James, and John gave Joseph and Oliver a long lecture on the difference between priesthood and keys. I suspect they simply placed their hands on Joseph and Oliver’s heads and ordained them to the “Priesthood, after the order of the Son of God,” and left it at that. Joseph interpreted the event (incorrectly) as conferring all necessary keys and Oliver didn’t. It was probably not until Elijah’s visit that Joseph realized that he had not had keys up to that point.
From Wikipedia: “In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.”
It seems we’re judging Joseph Smith using today’s understandings.
Oliver Cowdery used his perspective in 1835. Was Oliver wrong JI?
Was Fanny Alger sealed to Joseph, or merely married to Joseph as a plural wife? Were the sealing keys that Elijah restored the keys to the Kingdom, or the keys related to baptism for the dead and the welding link of generations gone together with current generations as explained in Section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants? In section 110, Elijah is not quoted as saying that he was committing the sealing keys, but “the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands.” What did he mean by that?
“Was Fanny Alger sealed to Joseph, or merely married to Joseph as a plural wife?”
You and MaryAnn are making a distinction I’ve never heard of. Where are you getting this question from? Because I didn’t know there was really a difference. If you read D&C 132, aren’t plural wives synonymous with the New & Everlasting covenant?
“Were the sealing keys that Elijah restored the keys to the Kingdom, or the keys related to baptism for the dead and the welding link of generations gone together with current generations as explained in Section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants?”
That seems to be the question of the post! I’m not sure that anyone here has a good answer to that question. What do you think?
I don’t think I can answer your 3rd question either. “In section 110, Elijah is not quoted as saying that he was committing the sealing keys, but “the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands.” What did he mean by that?”
Great questions. I don’t have any answers.
MH,
About Fanny Alger, plural marriage, etc. is due to the sketchy information that we have on her relationship to Joseph. I do not know if God authorized/commanded plural marriage prior to the sealing power being restored with the idea that a sealing would take place once the sealing power was restored. Or if Joseph already had the power/authority/keys for earthly sealings but not for vicarious sealings. I just don’t know the answers. But I do believe that Joseph was trying to obey God’s commands as he has stated.
I can’t argue the point because I was not there.
Glenn
Just to clarify it was Mosiah Hancock, not Moses. Mosiah’s father was Levi who was Fanny’s uncle. Mosiah was born in 1834 and wrote his autobiography in 1896, which mentions Fanny . We don’t want to be trying to figure out the theology if the history isn’t there and vice versa. Plus was it a civil marriage, sealing or an affair? Plus her age too is in question.
I can’t believe this discussion is centered around exactly when God gave the ok for Joseph to pressure a young girl in his employ (and living in his home) to secretly marry him, an already married man. I’m supposed to believe that this is how God wants his daughters to be treated.
I was thinking what Rockwell wrote above: “If the alternative to an understanding of history is blissful ignorance, I choose history.”
Studying history is often distasteful and confusing to me, it complicates things from the simple and straight forward stories that get retold to teach a principle.
To me, it seems often to be like eating vegetables or some healthy foods…it isn’t as fun or taste as good in the moment compared to the guilty pleasures I prefer…but it is good for me in the long run. Sometimes, I eat healthy (and study history) knowing it needs to be done.
I think there were baptisms performed by the proper priesthood after the restoration, but those were redone when the church was organized (also by the priesthood). It seems more about organization (use of keys), than about authenticity and authority that God will recognize.
We feel things are more “fair” when they comply to rules for all. That is about us, not really about God’s acceptance of the offering. God didn’t accept Abel’s sacrifice…not because crops are the wrong thing to sacrifice, but because of the meaning and what was in the heart. “Why” we do things seems to supersede “How” we do things to the Lord.
But it seems clear to me from history that things developed and unfolded over time, not “restored” in it’s purity and perfect from the get-go. I don’t know that God cares about the details as much as we do. Many things and oversights and things done “incorrectly” are fixed in the next life anyway.
One problem with studying history is wanting everything to make sense based on our view of how we think it should be today. But things change. It doesn’t have to be perfect from the beginning in form. Some things are perfect as they grow in grace and truth.
I go with the idea that what happened with Joseph and sealings is not going to be the same as what happened in the Kirtland Temple or what happened in the Bountiful Utah temple today. Power and authority and keys are needed, but so are procedures and guidelines and handbooks. It changes in time for good reasons, to keep it relevant to the work and glory God has in mind.
Where are the philosophies of women mingled with the philosophies of men in this discussion?
Fanny Algers: What did she think? Lets trot out some vague comment that can be twisted any which way. “That is all a matter of my own. And I have nothing to communicate.”[12] For a Victorian era woman that sounds about as guilty as it can get to me. Twenty comments later……
Actions speak louder than words! Fanny ran away when Emma found out (and probably kicked her out). She married another man, Solomon Custer (not LDS) and was his loyal WIFE for the rest of her life. She had nine of children. She never acted like a wife of Joseph. She never sought a divorce from Joseph. In every way she acted like a foolish young girl who made a mistake and repented and went on to live an honorable and productive life. If your definition of a wife is a woman who stands in a dubious and possibly contrived ceremony, how does that compare with a woman who raises a big family and stands by her husband for the rest of her life? Which is the real wife?
Is it a marriage if the woman doesn’t consider it was a marriage? Doesn’t even know it was supposed to be a marriage? (Try that one on your wife next time she catches you cheating with another young girl. Oh, honey we were actually married. But don’t ask her, she didn’t exactly know we were married.)
Talk about leaving Oliver out of the loop. How about leaving Fanny out of the loop?
I am going to yank the rug out of your Peter/James/John argument with one name- Sally Chase. She is the most obvious paramour before 1830. Evidence for this relationships is flimsy and circumstantial but accepted by our most severe critics. About as flimsy as that for Fanny Algers when I was young. There was a time when it was thought polygamy began in Nauvoo. with the lovely Louisa Beaman. The Fanny Algers affair used to be an anti-Mormon lie from which we have retreated to fight (and lose) again. Why not preempt this future battle with a better explanation?
The kind of sexual behavior we see documented in Joseph Smith usually begins when they are young men. It is quite plausible that convincing pre-1830 examples of “plural wives” will be found eventually. The mythic angel with the drawn sword* (another sorry and sick story) probably showed up around 1806 + 12 =1818, eh? Yes, wouldn’t it be more honest to admit that Joseph Smith had a serious problem with the LOC ?
Final question: Who, in the eyes of a just God is/should Fanny Algers be sealed to in the event she does merit (or is graced with) exaltation in the next life? And her many children? Are they to be sealed to Joseph Smith? Or Solomon Custer? (Before answering men, consider which church leader greater than you is going to get your wife and children in the next life?)
If this one is now to be the first sealing , it was a mighty leaky one. And a mighty stinky one too.
*Note: Why a sword? Why not a nuclear weapon? Or a falling meteorite? Or one of the plagues of Egypt .Or at least a gun? Or better yet a jolt like Laman is described to get from Nephi? Some lame angle shows up with a sword in my vision, I am going to at least demand a more convincing threat, before checking myself into a psychiatric hospital.