I think the most common question regarding the relationship between Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith is this: was it adultery or a real plural marriage? In answering that question, Brian Hales brought up a fascinating point.
What we understand is that more or less, the people that Joseph Smith told about Fanny Alger as a plural wife, they didn’t believe him….
Joseph, according to one of the accounts gets Oliver and says in the middle of the night. ‘Oliver, come help me with this.’ Oliver hears the story and sides with Emma and thinks Joseph is having an adulterous affair. That was his opinion, probably right up until his death, that Joseph was not authorized to marry her. It wasn’t a marriage. He made hints to members of the high council that Joseph had been guilty of adultery. He did not accept any story of a marriage ceremony as being valid, and neither did Emma.
On the other hand, Fanny’s family seemed to believe that it was a legitimate marriage.
But most of the people that learned it from Fanny did believe which is interesting. Fanny’s family believed. The family that Fanny went to live with was Chauncey Webb and Eliza Jane Webb, they believed that this was an actual marriage
Fanny eventually married a non-Mormon man in Indiana, but her family came to Utah, and her brother was a polygamist!
Brian: Whatever actually happened between Joseph and Fanny did not bother their faith of these people who knew the details, same with Eliza Snow.
GT: Was it true that her parents came all the way to Utah?
Brian: Her brother did and I don’t know if they died or all, but they didn’t leave the church. It’s interesting that John Alger in 1891, this is right after the 1890 Manifesto, he left the church over the Manifesto. He had a polygamist wife and he could not accept that. So again some irony.
GT: Fanny’s brother was a polygamist?
Brian: Uh huh, and he left the church over the Manifesto of 1890.
GT: Wow I did not know that. That’s interesting.
But the other important thing to remember is the fact that this marriage (if it occurred), happened BEFORE the sealing power was restored, although I should point out that dating the marriage is disputed. From part 1 of our Fanny Alger interview,
Brian: You’ve already talked to Mark Staker and he’s the one I’m dependent upon to try to identify when Fanny actually arrived in Kirtland, because some people want to pair Joseph and Fanny as early as 1831 and all. Mark told me that he thinks it couldn’t have been any, that Fanny did not joined the Smith family as a domestic in their household until at the earliest late 1833 and probably it was 1834.
We have one witness, one testimonial, only one so do with it as you please that remembers Joseph saying the angel came in July of 1834, Mary Elizabeth Rollins years later, many years later remembering this, but for me I believe Joseph would not have entered into plural marriage prior to that time, so I place the Fanny Alger-Joseph Smith union, and I believe it was a plural marriage for a couple of reasons like I’ll explain in 1835, probably late 1835, maybe early 1836. I don’t think they would have been able to keep it secret from Emma for very long. To me it’s implausible that they could have been married and actually having relations which may have occurred. There’s some evidence supporting that. We just don’t know, but they couldn’t have done this for very long without Emma figuring it out. She’s a smart lady.
I put the marriage late 1835, early 1836 discovered a few weeks or months later, but that timeline is completely controversial. People are willing to pick dates earlier, weeks/months earlier than that timeline but I don’t think that it actually would have been much earlier than that.
…
Don Bradley’s done some really good research and he dates the discovery to I think it’s June, May-June of 1836, so if the marriage occurred in say late April, May-June and lasted just a few months before Emma found out, which is entirely plausible, I don’t know that I embrace that, but Don at least we know when it broke up. We can date that pretty well, then it could have been a sealing. The authority could have been sealing authority that Joseph would have given to Levi.
Most scholars believe the marriage/affair occurred prior to the restoration of the sealing keys in April 1836. The question arises: was this a time-only sealing, or for eternity? By what authority was Joseph married to Fanny if it was prior to 1836 as most scholars believe?
The state wasn’t going to allow Joseph to marry a second wife, so the only authority that it could have been would be priesthood authority and Joseph was already using that authority to marry people just for time there in Kirtland. So one interpretation is Joseph gave that authority to Levi and this would have been strictly a priesthood marriage that Joseph would have argued God recognized and so if he recognized it and Fanny and her family apparently recognized it as did others who were involved, but not Oliver [Cowdery] and not Emma.
…
It wouldn’t have been a sealing, it wouldn’t have been an eternal marriage, but the authority that was used by Joseph to marry people for the church but just for time in Kirtland, that authority certainly could have been used here, and that’s my theory. Again these are unanswerable questions and critics are quick to rush in with other alternative interpretations. It’s just insoluble.
I did not know that Fanny’s family believed it was a real marriage. I have long questioned the legitimacy of this as a marriage, but this fact does give me pause and gives rise to several questions.
- Does this information make you less likely to accuse Joseph of adultery?
- Did you know Fanny seems to be the more believable witness?
- Why do you think Fanny was the more believable witness than Joseph?
- Why do you think Joseph wasn’t believed?
- If this marriage wasn’t a sealing, why would God command Joseph to marry for time when he was already married?
I’ll try to invite Brian again if this post generates comments. What questions would you ask him?
(Check out the audio or video of the interview here.) Don’t forget to Subscribe: iTunes | Android
Wheat & Tares 
Sorry, not convinced. Saying he use priesthood authority to perform the “marriage” doesn’t excuse or explain why he kept it from Emma. If there is such a thing as a smell test, this doesn’t pass.
Does this information make you less likely to accuse Joseph of adultery? No, but I am not the accuser.
Did you know Fanny seems to be the more believable witness? She may have been more believed, but not necessarily more believable. She may herself have believed it was a marriage — a gullible teenager, persuaded by a powerful, charismatic man, accepted as a prophet of God.
Why do you think Fanny was the more believable witness than Joseph? I suspect her family wanted to believe her to preserve their opinion of her and to preserve their faith in Joseph (conflating some kind of moral perfection with being used by God as a prophet — not at all an unusual approach). She may also have presented as one who believed what she was saying. As the dominant partner by age, gender, power, and position, Joseph’s claim was immediately suspect, particularly in view of the radical departure from accepted morality and the infidelity to Emma. He may have felt guilty about how he went about it, even if he believed it was God’s command to marry polygamously. Any such internal conflict might well have been discernible to those who knew him well — Oliver and Emma. If so, it would suggest scepticism.
Why do you think Joseph wasn’t believed? See above. In view of the secrecy and the disloyalty to Emma (infidelity, including untrustworthiness as to his covenant with Emma), why should anyone believe his after-the-fact excuse? If the alleged angel with a sword event occurred earlier, why not discuss it with Emma before taking action? There seems to be no record of Emma having even the opportunity to consent or not.
If this marriage wasn’t a sealing, why would God command Joseph to marry for time when he was already married? It makes no sense to me. Maybe the event derived from biblical literalism as well as lust – God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute, commanding Isaiah to preach naked, etc. – and an attempt to justify or excuse seduction and adultery. (Think David and Bathsheba.) However, the whole thing might also be seen as an Abrahamic test, in the minority view that Abraham failed the test which was to discern correctly whether the instruction contrary to his covenant came from God or from his own background and imagination. If so Joseph failed that test as did Abraham.
Perhaps there was some influence from the polygamous Cochranites who had joined the Church. Perhaps, even before the early Saints’ polygyny and polyandry, there was in some minds a more flexible understanding of marriage, and therefore adultery, than in others, e.g., female converts leaving their husbands to join the Church and marrying again without benefit of divorce. Perhaps the concept of authority to perform a marriage doesn’t enter into it. Common law marriage was allegedly common at the time (no ceremony, officiator necessary) and remains legal in some states. Our current “legally and lawfully” standard has not always been the LDS or others’ standard of what constituted a marriage. I have heard of, but cannot now find, reports of early LDS leaders claiming that marriages performed by other than LDS priesthood authority were not valid. If so, I suppose that would mean Joseph was not married to Emma prior to any sealing between them and the adultery was with her rather than Fanny! Serious historians may know something about documents relative to some of these possibilities. I don’t feel impelled to look for them.
Seems like it was in the best interest of Fanny and her family to claim there was a marriage. The other option is that she was Joseph’s mistress and it seems unlikely the family would want anyone to know that. And being a wife and tied to ‘believing blood’ would over time be considered social capital.
There’s one other issue that needs to be addressed. Even though Joseph reportedly received the “sealing power” from Elijah in April of 1836, all the evidence appears to indicate that he really didn’t know what on earth Elijah had brought at the time. It took several years for Joseph to figure out baptism for the dead and sealings and such. There are also puzzling quotes from Joseph after 1836 that seem to indicate that he was still anticipating the visit from Elijah. Others have written about this, particularly William V. Smith and Greg Prince, but there are some strange things about the Elijah visitation. It’s particularly odd that this marvelous manifestation shows up only once, in Joseph’s journal, but written in third person by Warren Cowdery. It was never published during Joseph’s lifetime. Later it was converted by Willard Richards to first person and canonized as we now have it. We have no evidence that either Joseph or Oliver ever spoke of this visitation in public. A few individuals seem to have had limited knowledge of it, but not in detail. And Joseph never really connected the dots between the Elijah visitation and the temple ordinances. The whole Elijah matter is fraught with questions, such as why Elijah. There is no indication that Elijah in mortality sealed people together for eternity, or that this was even a concept in the Old Testament. And if, as the Mormon explanation goes, Elijah brought the sealing power to Peter, James, and John at the Mount of Transfiguration, why was that necessary? Jesus had all power. It’s his priesthood after all, not Elijah’s or Melchizedek’s. He could have given the sealing power to his Apostles. And likewise, why, when Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver, did they not give them this power also. They undoubtedly held it (according to Mormon doctrine). There was no need for Elijah to bring any special priesthood authority, except to fulfill some vague prophecy in Malachi. At any rate, for the current discussion, we need to simply point out that in 1836 Joseph apparently had made no connection between the visitation of Elijah and any sealing power he would need to marry Fanny Alger. The concept of sealing husband and wife together came later. So the Alger affair is, in my opinion, hard to reconcile with any sort of reasonable historical or doctrinal explanation. Most explanations are full of anachronistic thinking.
Very interesting — I didn’t know anything about Fanny’s family. To me, she was always just that girl that Oliver caught Joseph with who eventually fled and married a non-Mormon. I didn’t know anything about her context.
I don’t see how the Fanny Alger affair (heh) can possibly pass the smell test, because no matter what, it seems like a betrayal of Emma. But on the other hand, I can’t see Elijah bestowing the sealing power on a man in the middle of an affair. I just don’t see how that could happen to a man who knew he was doing wrong. Maybe the sealing power could be bestowed on a man who was doing wrong but thought he was doing right, but definitely not a man who knew he was doing wrong and just kept doing it. Consequently, because I believe in the sealing power (from my own personal experiences), I have to believe that Joseph wasn’t just indulging his lust.
Wally, you ask some good questions, similar to ones I asked Brian.
“why, when Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver, did they not give them this power also. They undoubtedly held it (according to Mormon doctrine). There was no need for Elijah to bring any special priesthood authority, except to fulfill some vague prophecy in Malachi. ”
Mark Staker says that Peter, James, and John gave Joseph the sealing power in 1830, but Elijah was needed to restore the keys in 1836. Keys are different than priesthood. See Mark’s interview at https://gospeltangents.com/2017/03/07/kirtland-era-polygamy/ However, Brian doesn’t agree with Mark on this. (Brian’s response is in Part 2 of my Fanny Alger interview.)
“At any rate, for the current discussion, we need to simply point out that in 1836 Joseph apparently had made no connection between the visitation of Elijah and any sealing power he would need to marry Fanny Alger. The concept of sealing husband and wife together came later. So the Alger affair is, in my opinion, hard to reconcile with any sort of reasonable historical or doctrinal explanation.”
I agree with you on this. I think it’s a bit shocking that the sealing power was not used in the marriage to Fanny. Brian says this is a time-only marriage, but to me that contradicts D&C 132, and I find that explanation a bit odd. Why is God restoring polygamy if it is not the New and Everlasting Covenant? It simply doesn’t make sense to me.
I just interviewed Anne Wilde, a practicing polygamist and I asked her about King David and Solomon’s concubines. (I wish I had asked Brian that question!) I noted that many of these marriages were to idolatrous women and were for political convenience. She responded that they were probably time-only marriages, and that God was ok with that. Are we saying that it is acceptable to God to marry women not of our faith, and outside the New & Everlasting covenant? That’s not how I read D&C 132.
One of my ancestors, already a widow, apparently married Joseph Smith for time only (her eternal marriage was to her first husband, who was friends with Joseph Smith). Not all of Joseph Smith’s wives were sealed to him for eternity.
I think Fanny was more believable because Fanny believed Joseph. She wanted to believe that she was so important that God had revealed new doctrine directly for her.
I’m troubled that many of the explanations here include phrasing that basically means “I can’t believe that God would X, so I choose Y set of facts.” As someone who literally teaches how to do history for a living, that sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. The cardinal sin in historical research and analysis is cherry picking evidence to support a preferred narrative. Our analysis process can’t be “God wouldn’t do *that*, so *this* must be what happened.” It has to be “these are all the facts we’ve uncovered, so here are possible narratives consistent with the evidence.”
The answer to the question, was Joseph married to Fanny, swings on the definition of marriage.
To the anthropologist marriage is a custom defined by culture and the exact definition varies by culture to the point it might be difficult to make any universal definitions. That begs the question, does Joseph Smith have the moral authority to define culture or is he subject to the cultural expectations of his day? Obviously the cultural expectations of early Victorian America, enshrined by law, defined every plural “marriage” as illegal and immoral. Every single last one of them! But we are asked to accept that the conventional definitions and rules don’t apply to Joseph Smith.
Genetic studies indicate that polygamy was the order of the day before the invention of the plow which would be for over 99% of human history. The transition from hunter-gather culture to farming (agricultural revolution) was associated with more widespread monogamy but never completely. Marriage was not about love or lust but about family alliances and inheritance of property. It is a recent invention to emphasis the sexual relationship as the basis of marriage over the social implications. Joseph Smith can’t have it both ways; his plural marriages being so secret had little social meaning in the old fashion sense and only gave license to secret sexual activity.
Marriage at one time was a sacrament of the church but the church gave registration (marriage licenses) and thereby definition of it over to the state. This happened centuries before Joseph Smith. As a religious leader he was violating a long established arrangement between church and state and clearly without the consent of the state and apparently without comprehension of this history.
The LDS church speaks out of both sides of its mouth today when it requires extreme cultural flexibility to justify the behavior of its founder and then insists on absolute conventional or legal or love-based modern marriage as a requirement of membership cross the globe in every culture anywhere our missionaries may go. The Proclamation on the Family is thoroughly modern in its expectations sans the pre- and extra-marital sexual activity characteristic of the very recent age of oral contraception and the even more recent elimination of traditional roles with feminism and equality.
I know of a now 21 year old LDS young man who got too frisky with a girl for probably about 15 minutes in the back seat of a car. He confessed to it at the time of his pre-missionary interviews and was disfellowshipped and publicly humiliated for over 2 years. He was recently cleared and allowed to serve the mission and he cried in his farewell speech about letting everyone down with this horrible mistake and was grateful he was even allowed to go. Yet Joseph Smith, the founder of the church that perpetuates this extreme reaction, illegally “married” at least 30 women and undoubtedly bedded a bunch of them mostly behind his wife’s back.
Joseph and Emma married each other. As an elopement it violated the ancient definition of marriage as a alliance between families with inheritance of land or wealth. Was this marriage about Joseph getting permission before God to have intimate relations with this woman? Or was this a covenant before God and a legal contract between a man and woman to give each other complete fidelity and exclusiveness before God? Even if God told Joseph to do it, Emma remains cheated out of the marriage she was promised to receive and promised to give. The state is cheated out of whatever social stability it expects monogamous marriages to bring. These expectations of Emma were not outrageous or false, but exactly what was dictated by her culture and her comprehension of marriage. Joseph broke sacred marital promises and a legal contract with Emma, there is no way around it; in heaven, on earth. or in hell.
Emma’s response to plural marriage was variable and at times ambiguous. But some things speak loudly. She told her children and successfully perpetuated the belief in the RLDS church that Joseph was a monogamist. What does that tell you about her acceptance of polygamy? She hated it to the point of being willing to lie repeatedly against it for 40 years.
Emma was too smart to be fooled by a Joseph and Fanny liason for very long? Therefore it had to be short? Horse hockey. Anyone with personal experience with marital infidelity knows it is easy to hide it. Often the cheated spouse is the last to know. It can go on for years and years right under your nose.
I am not comforted by any illegal Priesthood marriage. How is this any different than if I decide to marry myself to some floozy and cheat on my wife this week? As a religious leader on a frontier with lax and formative institutions, it would be perfectly acceptable for Joseph Smith to officiate in legal monogamous marriages characteristic of the culture of the time and place. This does NOT give him the legal right or even an excuse to perform illegal marriages. It is like making a legal withdrawal from a bank versus robbing a bank. In both cases money goes out of the bank vault and into your pocket, one is legal the other is not. One is honest the other is not.
As we contemplate the events of late 1835 and early 1836 when Joseph and Fanny were
screwing around, this was the pinnacle of early Mormon pentecostalism, when extravagant gifts of the spirit abounded among many. The Kirtland temple was dedicated in March of 1836, and about that time that seminal hymn, the Spirit of God like a Fire is Burning by WW Phelps was introduced. It would appear that something other than the Spirit of God like a fire was burning in Joseph’s pants throughout these numerous spiritual high lights. The Smith-Algers affair jeopardizes the credibility of the entire spiritual foundation of almost every event in the late Kirtland period.
As we read DC 132 how much of that did Joseph violate with Fanny? How much more of it with other women? The revelation he received to justify polygamy condemns him unequivocally.
I stand all amazed at the convenient forgetfulness of the defenders of the faith. For most of my life, I have been assured that the Fanny Algiers affair was completely contrived by enemies of the church. If true it proved so many unthinkable things; plural marriages before authorization, a questionable age difference, betrayal of Emma, Joseph willing to throw Oliver, the second Elder and main scribe and witness for the Book of Mormon under the wagon with false accusations of unchastity, and others. It could not happen. Now it seems the evidence is too strong that it did happen and now we are forced to defend less defensible ground as a marriage. Yes, a deer is a horse and an affair is a marriage.
I have noticed a recent trend among some of my relatives devoted to family history research to attempt to see if they can link any ancestors to being one of Joseph Smith’s secret, and yet-to-be-documented plural wives. I think this thought process is one explanation of why the family of Fanny Algers might have sugar-coated the affair into something sort of like a marriage over time as it raises their status. Like them, the discovery of a secret plural wife would bring our family special status in some circles.
For us this would raise the possibility that we are directly descended from the Prophet himself, what an honor that would be! I might be unusual but if I go back 5 generations to where I have 32 ancestors, 19 of them were in Nauvoo. So the possibility is there. What I might also note is that among some of these lines runs a tendency to depression, suicide, bipolar disorders and general craziness. I hope that was not the genetic legacy given to our family by the Prophet. (You know, Joseph Smith’s last son, David Hyrum Smith sadly went from the RLDS first presidency to the insane asylum for the last 25 years of his life).
Finally, if Joseph married Fanny, when did he divorce her? Does he remain sealed to her? Is it fair to her children and “real” husband in this life to not be sealed together if they live worthy/ repent enough to be graced with exaltation in the highest degree of the CK? Are we to believe that Solomon Custer is to be left out in the cold while Fanny and her many children (some of whom did not survive to age 8) are sealed to Joseph Smith? What kind of twisted God would make eternal and everlasting a teenage fling with an older man and annul a lifetime of respectable marriage and motherhood of 9 children?
I appreciate the valiant efforts of Bro. Brian Hales and others to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. (It is my Mormon tribe too). At some point I just can’t do the mental gymnastics to make it work. It is far more simple to call it what it obviously was. Infidelity, unchastity, lasciviousness, cheating, whatever. And try to move on from there.
Elizabeth’s sort of history ( “these are all the facts we’ve uncovered, so here are possible narratives consistent with the evidence”) is the only kind that makes much sense to me, but the “facts” are in many cases the facts of what people said happened (whether or not their perceptions or statements were true) and not what did happen. Then we must make judgment calls about the accuracy of their statements. Those calls are based on our knowledge (or assumptions) about context, reliability, consistency, etc. For many it seems those assumptions are tied to what they are willing to believe God would do or permit. E.g., some time ago when Joseph who was sold into Egypt was the subject of a Gospel Doctrine class lesson, I tried to spark some life into the discussion by suggesting that since we have no record of Joseph being authorized, let alone instructed, to repeat his offensive dreams to his older brothers, and since we have fairly good evidence that he knew, as they did, that he was daddy’s favorite, and since he may have been a teenager at the time, it could be that in repeating those dreams he was simply acting like any other 14-year-old snot. The result was an impassioned testimony from a visitor that God would never under any circumstances use anyone as a prophet who had ever acted that way. So – no discussion. Sometimes evaluating the documentary evidence is as much guess work (i.e. complete guess work) as trying to guess what a thumb up/down at Wheat & Tares is saying about what part of the comment it is attached to.
Elizabeth St. Dunstan — “I’m troubled that many of the explanations here include phrasing that basically means “I can’t believe that God would X, so I choose Y set of facts.”
I think this is a good point, and I feel it’s correct. But the problem is that the same data points, or even choosing to emphasize or de-emphasize various points based on credibility or contemporaneity, can lead to several mostly self-consistent narratives. Consequently, if you’re to come to a conclusion (even if temporary because you can always change given additional data), you have to choose from among those narratives based on whatever reasoning makes sense to you. I guess you don’t have to make a conclusion, but I don’t see why not, at least until additional data presents. If one doesn’t like polygamy, it’s easy to make a self-consistent narrative where Joseph’s simply a charismatic scoundrel. If you’re wedded to the idea that he was the prophet of the restoration, you can certainly make a self-consistent narrative where that’s true too. What’s hard is making a self-consistent narrative where Joseph is the prophet of the restoration who indulges in sexual sin and alternates between spewing authentic, God-given revelation and artificial, self-serving revelation.
JR:;
Are there no facts that are secure? No simple logic?
-Joseph married Emma in 1829.
-Joseph had an intimate relationship with Fanny. (Most agree it began before 1836)
(Some call it a marriage of various sorts, others call it an affair.
A few still claim it didn’t happen, but that seems unlikely now. Otherwise more of the intelligent defenders like Bro. Hales would jump on it.)
-Joseph illegally “married” many other women. (Debate the details and roll out the excuses.)
-Joseph had intimate relations with some if not most of them. (Hard to prove but logical).
-The years 1835 -36 were a pinnacle of LDS spiritual experiences. (Kirtland temple to mention one).
-Sealing power of Elijah, April 1836 long accepted (but flimsy) justification for polygamy.
-Plural marriage was never legal during that time.
-Emma giving informed consent for all of it is not plausible. (Some of it, maybe but….)
-Fanny married another man and raised a large family.
-Generations of secrecy and obfuscation.
-Definition of unchastity today – sexual intercourse with someone to whom you are not legally married.
-The DC 132 is on your desk and on your phone.
I doesn’t matter how you yank the more foggy details around, the Smith Algers affair is a huge problem. More than I can swallow and digest.
***
As for your story of a snotty 14 year old Joseph of Egypt; what a contrast to a protestant service I attended yesterday. A minister discussing God’s responses to our questions with examples from scripture included: silence, confusion, sarcasm, and most likely suffering. “Ask God to help you improve your marriage and He will show you what a jerk you are being to your wife.” “Ask for strength and He will give you problems.” And so forth with perhaps a dozen such paradoxical statements. You can’t rope the Almighty, True and Living God in like that.
(A one word response might have been “Jonah” then make fishy faces.)
I am getting so tired of the “happy horseshit” dished out by the superficial controllers and snuffers of thinking and worship at church. I love people like Bro. Brian Hales, who is not afraid of making a case, even if I disagree with parts of it.
Mike, You won’t get any defense of the Smith Algers affair out of me. Of course, I can’t be sure whether you were thinking my general comment on historiography implied any such defense. I’m simply not interested in making a case for or against the affair being a marriage of some sort. I rather think it was not — at least not in any way recognizable as a marriage in our current culture – general American or specifically LDS — and not recognizable as a marriage in the LDS culture of its time (except perhaps to formerly Cochranite polygamists). But, I’m too tired of the “happy horseshit” to be as passionate about it as you appear to be.
Incidentally, relative to your report of the protestant service you attended, I’ve heard all the same scriptural stuff taught in the LDS church (in addition to the contrary, happy, predictable-answers-to-prayers stuff). As to the “testimony” I reported regarding the Lord’s choice of prophets, there are a number of counter-examples in addition to Jonah. As a class member and not the instructor, I was too shocked at the level of that person’s ignorance to be able to jump back into the subject before the instructor moved on. I wasn’t speedy or clever enough to respond with fishy faces. I’ll keep your suggestion in mind in case there is ever an unfortunate repeat.
If God gave Joseph his approval it was fine no matter what form it took. Period. No authoritive pomp and circumstance necessary. End of issue.
Where’s the revelation for Joseph to marry fanny?
All I can say is that the Church will forever have men who view pornography and justify it because of polygamy and also because of the Fanny Alger episode. If those men could do it in real life, at least contemporary ones can online. No stance here, just an observation.
MH: “Where’s the revelation for Joseph to marry fanny?” Maybe in Joseph’s head? Do you suppose he committed everything God told him to writing? Must there be a revelation in writing? If so why?
Howard, I know this is your hobby horse. Give me evidence, not speculation. I frankly don’t subscribe to the notion that “God gave Joseph his approval it was fine no matter what form it took. Period.” I hold your opinions in low esteem on this topic especially.
God is not the author of confusion, and you are simply trying to justify your immoral sexual exploits. Give me a revelation, and perhaps I’ll give you the time of day. Until then, your speculations mean nothing to me–worse than nothing, if there is a thing.
Emma didn’t know; Emma didn’t agree. That’s adultery, not plural marriage. Of course, Fanny & her family have reason to paint it in the innocent light of whatever he told her to get her to comply. Did Fanny believe it was legit? From watching Fletch I know that the bigamist is the one who deceives and marries multiple women. The women are the unwitting dupes, the victims.
Agreed, Angela.
Hmm, hobby horse, hold my opinions in low esteem, I’m trying to justify my immoral sexual exploits, give me a revelation and perhaps I’ll give you the time of day, until then F U!
Ok well now, gee, why would I ask an ignorant ass hat like you for the time of day?
Joseph definitely felt strongly as though he was to take more wives no matter the cost. We can write off other prophets mistakes to there revelations being influenced by some personal bias. I tend to believe that God does not micro manage his prophets (old and new), so I give them a lot of slack. This one is not as easy because of the whole angel holding a sword part of the story. That eliminates the possibility of Joseph being mistaken or having a few wires crossed in the revelatory process. If that did not happen, that would make Joseph a liar, manipulator, adulterer, and predator. If it did happen, I wonder if the angel was specific on what exactly the marriage was to entail. Did he specifically mention that sex was a requirement? To me, a decent man in this terrible situation would have told his wife he was required by an angle to marry the women, but he would not have made a mockery of marriage by sneaking around having sex with them. Way too many holes in the story to come to any conclusion. Frustrating as hell though because I have love and respect for Joseph. More frustrating after being married and having a daughter.
I think Hales makes a good point in that much of this situation isn’t solvable. When taking into consideration known facts, too little is available to tell the whole story. From what we do know, and even more from what is lacking, I think Joseph fell prey to ideas and privileges many people do when given a little power and authority. I can understand how that could happen to one who has been hand picked by God to do a great work.
I also believe the alleged angel with a sword could very well have been from the dark side, or even the Adversary, himself. We know he can appear as a being of light and can deceive even the very elect. There’s no record of Joseph applying the test to see what kind of angel this was. It has always bothered me that when the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph, he came four times in one night, plus on the anniversary each year for four years to tutor him on the work regarding the plates. Yet something that is of eternal significance for exaltation, marriage and families had so little “revelation” and instruction. One would think the Lord would be very specific and enlightening, rather than threatening death by sword and destroying wives who don’t comply. If this form of marriage is truly godly and holy, how has there been almost nothing revealed as to its goodness and sanctity? How is it that it has brought so much grief and sorrow if it is so wonderful?
Some have said that Joseph had no children by his plural wives so sexual relations weren’t involved. Yet there are stories of abortions performed to prevent Emma and the non-members in the area from finding out about plural marriages. I tend to think Joseph just plain got carried away and was in over his head on this. I just can’t see how a man can meet the needs of one wife when he had the whole restoration on his shoulders, let alone multiple wives. None of it makes spiritual or temporal sense.
As to those who had testimonies of it, I can’t help wondering what real choice did they have–accept it as being of God or your whole testimony could go down the drain, along with your reputation and self respect. It becomes really, really hard to stay a member in good standing if you don’t comply, especially when leaders declared at general conference that those who don’t accept it will be damned. And if someone felt they had a spiritual experience that polygamy wasn’t of God, and they shared their witness, they’d be called mistaken at best and apostate at worst. So I think there may have been many who sought peace of mind and the Lord gave it to them to see things through and endure.
I believe Joseph was a prophet in many ways. But I think in this area he was mistaken.
I am reasonably convinced that Fanny and Joseph considered it a marriage. However I totally agree with the other commentators that from any cultural, social, or moral standpoint it was an affair. So how does one interpret that contradiction from a faithful point of view? I am not sure it is solvable either from an historically factual point of view, or from and intellectual or even a spiritual point of view. It calls into question many of the assumptions on which we rely on from a modern church perspective such as marriage, the family, the role of a prophet and leader. This is a hard one.
I recognize this concept challenges the currently popular and apparently comforting monogamist presentism circumstantial evidence case that argues Joseph is a fallen prophet rather than accept his various practices of polygamy. And I also realize that my speculation has caused much cognitive dissonance already for at least one reader. So I offer this for those who are willing to actually consider or even welcome a minority opposing view with an open mind.
Wasn’t this the process; God’s direct communication with Joseph was revelation. When Joseph spoke what he received from God and it was written down by a scribe, it became scripture. Isn’t this how we got the D&C? If not this way, how did this process work?
Would you imagine that Joseph spoke every word that God shared with him? And that he was followed around 24/7 by a scribe so that everything would be precisly recorded? Or is it it possible that God may have had few conversations with Joseph that Joseph didn’t share?
God is the ultimate authority, is he not.? If God commands or approves something what more is needed? Is a ritual or a paper license required? If so, why? Isn’t it possible that God approved this relationship and Joseph never spoke of it because of the controversy it stirred in the people around him? If not, why not?
Is it possible that this could have been an Abrahamic moment for Joseph?
This is why I said above If God gave Joseph his approval it was fine no matter what form it took.
Please fish my last comment our of the filter.
“Some have said that Joseph had no children by his plural wives so sexual relations weren’t involved. Yet there are stories of abortions performed to prevent Emma and the non-members in the area from finding out about plural marriages.”
Brian Hales is one of those people. Next week we will talk about polyandry and teen brides and I asked him about his failed DNA test on Josephine Lyon. I hope that’s not too much of a spoiler!
I am always impressed by how much of a solid narrative we often get from such fragmented facts–and how our certainty differs so much from that of twenty and a hundred years ago.
JT Dangerfield:
If the revelation of the angel with a sword was from the dark side, then how do we tell which of his other revelations were from the light side or the dark side or the grey side, or maybe the purple side? (I personally haven’t tested it out but shaking hands with angels seems like less than a reliable scientific test.)
For example, what about the First Vision?
Joseph Smith -History (in PGP) v15-16
“…… I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. …
…when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head…”
I have met Protestants who were careful students of Mormonism and were convinced that Joseph Smith had super-natural encounters, but they were from the devil. In their minds, God did not deliver him from destruction during the First Vision but the devil went from frightening him with his evil power to deceiving him with his (false) light and (fake) glory and then teaching him a mixture of truth and lies which became the foundation of a diabolical parody of the real gospel. I personally don’t take it nearly that far, but it does give me pause.
Other examples:
-Protestants think masonic rites are from the devil; and they appear (altered of course) in our temple ceremony. Some Protestants are so disturbed by the marginally secret rituals of the boy scout order of the arrow initiation ceremony and the very vaguely masonic connections that they will not allow their boys to join the order of the arrow. Taking them to the temple would fry their circuits.
-Necromancy is the seeking for the miraculous appearance of a dead person (as when Saul conjured up the ghost of Samuel) and is considered by Protestants to be a form of witchcraft/sorcery and of the devil. Moroni is a dead (and resurrected-doesn’t help) ancient American Indian who appeared to Joseph Smith. This account gives Protestant ministers every indication of being of the devil because it seems to them to be the very definition of necromancy.
David -Oz:
I am reasonably convinced Fanny did NOT think it was a marriage. As for Joseph, no man knows his history.
Gosh, we are on one slippery slope.
MH, Howard, while sitting here on my fanny taking a break from working on a commercial real estate purchase agreement, I could be thinking about Fanny, but instead I’m imagining you two as best buddies, brothers even, who agree on a lot of things but enjoy sparring in jarring language. Please don’t tell me I’ve let my imagination run wild again!
Well there were times I thought that was the case JR, it was my impression that’s where we began but apparently that was quite a while ago. His overreaction surprised me, funny what an opposing idea can do to a person.
It would be nice if they would post the comment that’s in the filter.
Howard
You use the words communication and conversation when talking about revelation. There is a big difference between the two. When Joseph told Hyrum about polygamy Hyrum insisted he use the rock in the hat to make sure the words flowing into Joseph’s head were right. He trusted the words appearing on a stone more than he trusted Joseph’s ability to just receive the words in his mind. Joseph said he did not need the rock. This speaks volumes to me. The revelations were also heavily edited, along with our temple ceremony, which would definitely prove that revelations are more concepts or maybe a picture trying to be described rather than word for word dictation from Jesus to his prophets. Any half hearted, moderate study of church history would prove time and time again that this is how the process happens. Yet we still have members getting up telling how Thomas Monson meets and talks with Jesus on a daily basis. The brethren could shut this nonsense down, but they choose not to. In my opinion this topic is the biggest stumbling block in the church right now.
Zach,
Thank you for your comment. You wrote: Joseph said he did not need the rock. This speaks volumes to me. Please elaborate, what do you mean? What does it speak to you?
What good came of polygamy that couldn’t have been accomplished through monogamy? Can anyone tell of even one good thing? I can list several woes, but can anyone name one goodness? Why would God forbid the Nephites from it? He said because of the sorrow of his daughters. So didn’t Emma’s sorrow count? How about my foremothers sorrows? How about many of the children’s sorrows? Righteous seed is raised up by monogamous families as history proves. So tell me what good comes of polygamy? Part time husbands do not a happy marriage make. Part time Dad’s rob their children. I’ve tried to find something to defend but I honestly can’t find anything good in this form of marriage.
One good thing that came of polygamy: J. Golden Kimball being himself and a general authority.
Of course, that’s not really what you’re getting at. But “hell,” I couldn’t resist.
I have a (you might say inspired) theory about the good that could come from polygamy but I doubt you’re ready to hear it.
Howard,
I know I’ll regret this, but here goes. We *get* that our cultural bias toward monogamy colors our view of early church history, but don’t you think your experiences with polyamory are also providing you with bias as well? Even Amasa Lyman, who firmly believed in the principle of polygamy, admitted he felt there were likely missteps in the early establishment of the practice in the church.
Mary Ann, If convenient, I’d appreciate your pointing me to where Amasa Lyman (my 3d great grandfather) admitted he felt there were likely missteps in the establishment of polygamy in the church. BTW, Amasa had missteps of his own, including, but not limited to, not supporting/inability to support some of his polygamous family.
JR, it was mentioned in his biography by Edward Leo Lyman. Might take me a little while to find the exact quote, but I’m pretty sure I have it in my files.
JR,
“It is also apparent, in late 1844 and throughout 1845, that many LDS men actively sought plural wives, motivated by their firm belief, which Lyman fully shared, that it was a commandment from God. Within a relatively short time after endowments began in mid-December, fifteen Mormon men, including Lyman, married at least 119 women.203 Lyman seldom commented directly on polygamy as a practice, but as a woman who knew him well, Louisa B. Pratt observed he consistently counseled husbands to treat their wives kindly.204 In Parowan, Utah, on January 8, 1858, Lyman chided the men who believed ‘You thought you would marry yourselves into heaven,’ assuming that the number of wives and children they possessed would influence their status in heaven, without right living on their part.205 He also, with rare and commendable candor, reflected on the beginnings of Nauvoo polygamy: ‘We obeyed the best we knew how and no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance.’ Given the secrecy and public hostility surrounding polygamy, particularly after the loss of Joseph Smith, there were few guidelines to follow, and Lyman may have been thinking, at least in part, of the three wives who left him.206” (_Amasa Mason Lyman: Mormon Apostle and Apostate_ by Edward Leo Lyman, pp. 110-111)
“Louisa B. Pratt observed he consistently counseled husbands to treat their wives kindly.” She really went out on a limb there.
Mary Ann,
I also have experience with monogamy. Are you saying one eye see as well as two?
Howard, you’re saying that your experience with both polyamory and monogamy make you a better judge of 19th century Mormon polygamy? I can see that. What I was getting at, though, is that it is strange, especially for a person who is typically the first to assume ill-intent and/or ignorance on the part of church leadership, that you give a pass to historical polygamy/polyandry Every. Single. Time.
Mary Ann,
I don’t vote a straight party ballot either, I decide candidates and issues individually based on merit. I have a personal testimony that Joseph was a great propet and that the Q15s of my life time are not, if they were we would be enjoying the equivalent of many, many D&Cs.
Thanks, Mary Ann. “‘We obeyed the best we knew how and no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance” is something that could probably also be said about many members and leaders of the Church and many issues.
I am a thoroughly active Mormon who loves church history and is constantly struggling to comprehend myriad historical LDS issues or events. Howard is on to something—there is a GIANT piece of this that we are missing and it may be that God gave Joseph some sort of permission that we can never understand or condone. We think we can reason everything out, and WE CAN’T. So many pieces missing and our spiritual understanding so totally limited by “the veil.” I usually end up realizing that without the missing pieces, we will never understand half of this stuff, and I just move on to the beautiful & good stuff of Mormonism. In general, it’s a great way to live a life. How’s that for a platitude? Well, it really works for me. As a female, you get into polygamy and you go CRAZY. So….i stick with “in general….” All our questions will be answered in a blink of an eye when we pass—and we’ll be dying & trying to explain it all to the living, but that’s another crazy rule. There is so little that is PERFECT. Good enough gets you quite far in this life and in the gospel. Without the missing pieces—you got nowhere else to go.
Dela:
On an individual level, especially for a person on the downhill side of life with little influence beyond their family, this is good advice and I try to abide by it.
On a societal level this attitude of limited understanding of missing pieces so why try any more is the path to eventual destruction and the Dark Ages. I am glad a few young, energetic people are searching, questioning and trying to improve our understanding of our history and by extension ourselves.