Don Bradley is one of the funniest Mormon historians I know. In our first conversation with Don, we’ll talk about my first memory of him, which deals with the timing of Fanny Alger’s marriage/affair with Joseph Smith. Was Fanny pregnant? Don Bradley thinks it is a strong possibility. Check out our conversation….
Don: A big part of doing history is actually just lining things up in their proper order. Once you get the sequence of events right, you can see the causation. You can watch the dominoes fall. But if you don’t have the dominoes in the right order, you can’t see what caused what or what made what to happen. Once you place Emma’s discovery of that relationship in the proper place, you can suddenly see why there are various people in Kirtland dissenting, why Joseph Smith takes off on a sudden trip and goes somewhere else for a while, why Fanny Alger suddenly takes off and goes the opposite direction to Indiana. It all lines up beautifully once you get things in the proper order. But a key piece of that evidence was actually identifying Eliza R. Snow’s contribution to Andrew Jensen’s research. It helps to show that this was a marriage that Eliza R. Snow, who was around the time was there in the house. She didn’t think that this was an affair. Her understanding was this was an early plural marriage. So it has lots of implications.
GT: This is great. Can we stay here for a minute? Because I have a lot of questions about this. As I recall, and please correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like you are making the case that this marriage to Fanny happened after the Elijah’s visit was in March or April of 1836?
Don: So that’s a possibility that I’m raising. It was pointed out to me immediately after the presentation, actually by two Community of Christ apostles who were there, that for a woman at the time of her first pregnancy, she usually starts showing a little bit later. Fanny, the reports say, was visibly pregnant at the time Emma discovered the relationship. And so the chronology there might not work for the relationship to have begun after April 3, because Fanny would have had to have had the time to get pregnant and then start showing before Emma discovered the relationship according to some of the sources.
GT: Wasn’t it discovered in the barn?
Don: Yes. But she was also said to have been visibly pregnant and the people who are saying this are actually the people whose home that Fanny moved into when she was kicked out of the Smith home. So they would know. And so a likely sequence of events is Fanny is showing signs of pregnancy, maybe morning sickness. She is starting to show, right? And that makes Emma suspicious something is going on. And so she starts following Fanny’s movements more and finds Joseph and Fanny together in the barn.
We will also talk about whether Emma Smith pushed Eliza Snow down the stairs. (Don thinks probably not.)
Oliver Cowdery has long been quoted that what happened between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger was a “dirty, filthy, nasty affair.” But are those really his words? It turns out that those are not actually Oliver’s words, but the words of his nephew! Don will tell us how he came to that conclusion!
Don: Here you’ve got Oliver Cowdery right around the time he’s excommunicated, writing to his brother, saying, something about Joseph’s dirty, nasty, filthy affair with Fanny Alger. So people are like, “Well, there you go. Oliver Cowdery at the time thought that it was adultery. So why would we think it was polygamy?”
But I noticed when I looked at the Church Archives microfilm, is that there was something funny. The word affair was written over top of another word. And I say, “What’s that word?” Because this seems to be a key, right? If Oliver originally wrote some other word, and then affair is written over it–you have to understand the letterbook was not written by Oliver. Oliver wrote the original letter to his brother. Then Oliver’s nephew took that original letter, copied it into letterbook for Oliver and the change is made in the handwriting of Oliver’s nephew. So the nephew is changing what Oliver said to something else. So the word “affair” isn’t Oliver’s word. Oliver’s original word is underneath that word and I had to know what it was, because everybody for decades cited this like, “Here you go. We’ve got the goods, it was an affair.”
So I could read some of the letters, but I wanted to be really sure. I had Chris [Smith] go look at it and he was able to read most of the word. Then we were able to get detailed images from the Huntington Library that Brian Hales has reproduced that show definitively what the word was. The original word is not affair. The word is scrape. You know S C R A P E, scrape. So if you look at what these words meant at the time, you can actually figure out what Oliver was originally saying and why his nephew changed it. So a scrape, according to the 1828 Webster’s, so just 10 years before Oliver’s letter was [written, the word scrape meant] a perplexity, a distress. It’s like a way of saying somebody got into a jam. They were in a scrape.
So, we’re talking about Joseph and Fanny Alger having gotten themselves into this jam and they need to get out of it. However, Webster indicates that this is, in his words, a low word. So this is actually not a really polite word. It’s sort of like slang. So Oliver’s nephew writes what Oliver had originally said and then he’s like, “I’m not going to leave this slang in there. This is not a great way to speak, to preserve this history.” So he just finds another word to write over it. He writes the word affair. We look at the word affair, and that word triggers all kinds of meanings.
GT: We think sex.
Don: We think sex. I’d invite listeners to like explore this for yourself. Go on to Google Books or some other database of 19th century texts and look at all the uses you can find of the word affair around this time, early to mid 19th century. Then look at later uses like late 19th century, 20th century. The connotation of a romantic affair, from just the word affair does not appear until around the end of the 19th century and it doesn’t come to mean pretty much talking about people having sex outside of marriage until even later than that. The word affair, actually, at the time, is a very general word rather than a very specific word. I’m trying to remember his wording there, but Webster defines affair and he actually says a word, a very broad word, a very general and indefinite signification. It’s just a really super broad word. Basically, as Webster defines it, the word just means anything that people do. It’s like using the word thing, right? Joseph and Fanny Alger had this dirty, nasty, filthy thing. There’s something that happened. Now, Oliver is pretty clear that it’s dirty, nasty and filthy. He’s very much against it. However, if you look at Oliver Cowdery’s known views on polygamy, he’s against it. He doesn’t think it’s a clean thing. He thinks it’s a filthy thing. So there’s nothing in Oliver’s wording that would preclude him referring to polygamy there, just referring to it in a very negative way. He says..
GT: He would normally think it was negative no matter what.
Don: Yeah. Joseph and Fanny had a dirty, nasty, filthy scrape. Or, they had a dirty, nasty, filthy thing going on between them. What was that thing? Sure, maybe it’s adultery here. Or maybe it’s illicit polygamy as far as Oliver is concerned.
GT: So Oliver wouldn’t have made the distinction between polygamy and adultery. Is that what you’re saying?
Don: Not necessarily. So we know that even when Oliver returns to the Church in the late 1840s, people are telling him about polygamy. He’s having a hard time believing it. He says, “I can’t imagine.” This shows a little naivety here when you hear this. But he says, “I can’t imagine that Brigham would condone such a thing.” {Chuckling}
GT: So it sounds like Eliza [R. Snow] believed that the relationship with Fanny and Joseph was a marriage.
Don: Yes.
What do you think of Don’s research? Check out our conversation….
Wheat & Tares 
Rick, I would recommend Brian Hales’ (Don mentions him above) interview with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast on this topic. Whatever your opinions of either Hales or Dehlin, the interview provides a lot of information on what is actually written down about Joseph and polygamy (and in a digestable presentation). I readily admit listeners may disagree with either Hales’ or Dehlin’s anaylsis of that information, but I at least found it helpful for trying to wrestle with an aspect of Church history I find extremely troubling.
My personal opinion is that Joseph struggled with controlling his libido, saw a pattern in the Old Testament, and found an outlet for it he believed was approved by God (whether that was actually directed by God, I’ll leave alone since the historical evidence will never definitively tell us one way or the other and leaves us to form our own conclusions). In saying that, I’m not arguing that sex was THE or even A primary motivator for the sealing doctrine he later revealed (again laying aside whether the sealing doctrine and accompanying plural marriage was a revelation from God).
Again, whether or not Joseph’s relationship with Fanny was okay with God, I feel terrible for her. It was an inappropriate relationship (at best it was statutory rape in spirit if not in law – a 14 year old cannot and should not he able to consent to a sexual relationship, especially with a 30-year old) with extreme power differences in the relationship. There’s a reason we have sexual harassment laws. Workers have a tough time saying no if it means losing their jobs and everything I read indicates she was a household servant.
This of course says nothing about Emma and Oliver, both of whom should have our deep sympathy. Just a rotten situation for all involved.
I failed to mention that it’s kind of telling that Church leadership left out Fanny’s age in Vol. 1 of the Saints history released in 2018. She is merely referred to as a “young woman.” Even faithful members find this to be a rough topic.
Just a correction for “Not a Cougar”:
According to Wikipedia (which would surely have a correct birth date by now at the very least), Fanny Alger was born September 30, 1816 and that would make her not quite 19 years of age during the summer of 1836 when all of these events were taking place. The age of 14 was probably erroneously referred to because of the famous case involving Heber and Vilate’s you daughter, Helen Mar Kimball who was between 14 and 15 years of age. But of course, that took place in Nauvoo several years later.
“According to Wikipedia (which would surely have a correct birth date by now at the very least)”
Ummmm. That’s not how Wikipedia works. It is continually being updated with both accurate and misleading and sometimes outright false information. It doesn’t necessarily get more accurate with time.
But I’m not going to argue with the rest of the comment. People frequently confuse Fanny Alger and Helen Mar Kimball, for whatever reason.
My apologies for the error and if I could edit my post I would. I did indeed mix Alger and Kimball up. However, my sentiment about the power imbalance between Joseph and Fanny stands.
For “Not a Cougar” and “Rockwell”
So, I only went to Wikipedia for convenience and I still stand by the reality check that her birthdate has a high probability of being accurate. However, my apologies to both of you for not taking the time to dig just a little deeper. Assuming Richard Bushman surely would have verified accuracy on this paragraph I’ll provide below, I think it will show the challenge with pinpointing Fanny’s age since the timing of her actual relationship with Joseph is ambiguous. On page 325 of “Rough Stone Rolling” we read the following from Bushman:
“Alger was fourteen when her family joined the Church in Mayfield, near Kirtland, in 1830. In 1836, after a time as a serving girl in the Smith household, she left Kirtland and soon married. Between those two dates, perhaps as early as 1831, she and Joseph were reportedly involved, but conflicting accounts make it difficult to establish the facts–much less to understand Joseph’s thoughts. Was he a blackguard covering his lusts with religious pretensions, or a prophet doggedly adhering to instructions from heaven, or something in between?”
So, perhaps I was too hasty, questioning the fourteen year-old claim on the one hand and yet, if the summer of 1836 is the focal point, then nineteen years of age is also very reasonable. Since I haven’t researched when Joseph and Emma actually had Fanny living in their home, I’ll leave it up to Rick and Don to throw in their expertise regarding the issue of her age.
Worth noting that the power disparity existed between Joseph Smith and every single woman he married. Sure, it seems more troubling with children like Helen Mar Kimball, but they all thought he was a prophet of God and relayed the expectations of that God to his children. This dynamic creates a challenging scenario for those evaluating Smith’s legacy, as it’s difficult to argue that he was always aware of this awesome power and responsibility. Indeed, he seems to have taken advantage of that dynamic.
@Richard no worries, I just couldn’t pass up there opportunity to dis Wikipedia. I don’t doubt your facts.
Richard, fair enough. It’s been at least a few months since I reviewed that section of Rough Stone Rolling and the reference to her age in 1831 may have stuck in my mind. I withdraw my statutory rape comment, but I can’t approve of the circumstances under which the relationship was formed, angel-directed or not.
No matter her age, she was employed in the Smith home, that make for a power differential, which makes Joseph’s behavior despicable. After all, isn’t Harvey Weinstein on trial starting today for essentially telling young women, “sleep with me or you’re fired.”
And you men are discussing if the word which is slang for “affair” is more sexual in nature than the actual word “affair.” Usually, the slang for a word has more ugly sexual connotations than the more proper word, so, yes, it was slightly uglier than an affair.
As to if they were “married” which would make it just cushy for Joseph to be taking advantage of her position as an employee, marriage is to let people in their community know they are a proper couple and that if she gets pregnant, he is the father and that he will be responsible for the care and support of his wife and child. Sending her off, pregnant, in shame because apparently she was not married and he had no intention of acknowledging the child as his let alone supporting her and the child. Marriage is more than just permission from the woman and permission form God. It is a commitment to take responsibility for the child. Joseph had no intention of doing that, so, no they were NOT married. An affair by any other word is still an affair. Did Joseph treat Fanny as his wife? No. Therefore she was not a wife.
Don has the chronology down on this and has researched it better than anyone. I interviewed Brian Hales a few years ago, so if anyone wants to review my interview with Brian, we talk about Fanny: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/06/18/fanny-alger-polygamy-1/
and
https://gospeltangents.com/2017/06/21/fanny-alger-part-2-plural-marriage-adultery/
Brian notes there is some conflict in the dating of the Alger affair, but I believe 1831 is way too early. I think Don gives a pretty good case for late 1835-early 1836, putting Fanny in the 18-19 year old range (which doesn’t excuse the relationship at all. I’m with Oliver on this.) As I mentioned in the interview, Brian hired Don to find sources for his 3 polygamy volumes. Brian and Don are good friends, but Don told me that the conclusions in the 3 volumes are clearly Brian’s, not Don’s. Don played an integral role in those 3 volumes though.
I also want to mention my interview with Dr. Bill Smith, who feels Oliver Cowdery was unfairly maligned over accusations of polygamy. See https://gospeltangents.com/2018/03/25/was-oliver-cowdery-polygamist/
I had never thought about what motivated people to be suspicious and check the barn. If anything, the mere fact that Oliver Cowdery talked of the incident in the barn shows that people around Joseph Smith had been suspicious of him for some time. The tar and feathering of 1832 was, according to accounts, due to JS’s alleged advances on Nancy Marinda Johnson (then 16), whom he would later be sealed to in 1842. He clearly had done things that caused people around him to scratch their heads from the get-go. I gather that many of Joseph Smith’s actions were guided by a strong libido, which he attempted to satisfy with at first subtle and then later not-so-subtle advancements on women. Knowing well that these violated social norms of his time, he began claiming revelation and basing his actions in an Old Testament precedent. Finding that that worked (to some extent) he kept at it, accelerating his quests during the Nauvoo years. However, he probably got overconfident as polygamy was one of the main reasons that angry mobs attacked and eventually killed him.
I often find many members who are aware of all of the facts related to JS’s polygamy attributing Joseph Smith’s actions to God’s will. However, few stop to think about what this says about God and the Mormon conception of God. I once asked Laura Hales this in an email, and she actually responded to me but with a sort of non-response of just trust in God, we don’t know everything, and pray and the like. And this leads to a somewhat tangential, yet still relevant, note, which I’ll briefly add, that I find it interesting how the average Mormon believer, including intellectuals capable of lengthy apologetics, are mostly equipped to sort of regurgitate age-old responses to earlier evangelical critiques, albeit with some variation, nuance, and added detail. However, I often find many believers dumbfounded and unable to respond when it comes to questions of theology and the nature of God, particularly when these questions are coming from atheist critics (here I think that many Protestant and Catholic apologists who have rooted their belief in a deeper theological/philosophical framework are better equipped to deal with these questions). On polygamy, the question of why God would let this happen, I think, is quite valid, yet I rarely hear it asked. But the response often seems to be, “well, God did have it happen, and we just need to accept that.” For if this all God’s will, then wouldn’t God appear to be a sort of tricky goal-post changer who is testing people’s faith in the Mormon prophets, and particularly Joseph Smith, in rather extraordinary and bizarre ways?
Yes, John W, it would say that God is a merry prankster who likes to keep us dancing. Also, I’m perfectly fine with the concept of a non-interventionist God who watches us stumble around but doesn’t actually act, but I really doubt that same God with be interventionist and isolationist depending on mood, and that’s essentially how the Mormonism of “we don’t know why, we just need to have faith” portrays the deity–as a fickle, unreliable meddler we just have to obey and endure.
Where are the CHILDREN ?? The accepted narrative ( including the Church Essay ) has a lying, libidinous Joseph pursuing nubile teenage girls for his own sexual gratification. However Joseph was fertile ( Emma was pregnant when the martyrdom occurred),most of the women were subsequently married to others and bore them numerous children but none of them bore any of Josephs offspring . Joseph was sealed to approximately 35 women but had NO ISSUE with any of them. Hyrum was sealed to two women but there were no children bore to those relationships either. 15 of Brigham’s wives bore him at least 55 children. Dela with the evidence not speculation . If you are opened minded you can only conclude that what Joseph was doing was qualitatively different than what his successors did
Regardless of whether Fanny Alger was 14 (gag), or a somewhat more acceptable 18-19, my modern sensibilities coincide with Not a Cougar about a young woman that age being in a relationship with a 30-year-old: I don’t like it.
But ours are modern sensibilities, which I happen to think are an improvement over the past, but are still modern. In doing research on my own non-Mormon family history, which I do not think is at all atypical of the time, I have the following three marriages in my direct line: (1) 29 year-old man marries 17 year-old woman, Upstate New York, in 1894, and 11 children follow; (2) 32 year-old man marries 17 year-old woman in Scotland in 1856 and 11 children follow; and (3) 32 year-old man marries 17 year-old woman in Upstate New York in 1838 and 12 children follow.
If my 14 or 18-19 year-old daughter got involved with a 30 year-old man in 2020, I would be very upset. But 17 year-old girls were considered as marriageable women in the 1800s.
For me, the issue is, as pointed out by Not a Cougar, is a young, impressionable girl and a 30 year-old man of religious authority who presents himself as a prophet.
I also dislike the secrecy involved, and Joseph’s existing marriage to Emma. This is what bothers me.I agree with the thought that Joseph had a strong libido, and needed to find an “acceptable” outlet for it. Some people, mostly men, just can’t keep their pants zipped. Like my grandfather, a Baptist minister, who had numerous affairs.
Although we have a right to expect higher standards from religious leaders, we will only be frustrated if we insist on them. Right and wrong unfortunately do not enter into it. If God is going to let us keep our agency, He has to work through fallible men to accomplish His purposes—which leaves us with the difficult job of trying to figure out what is from God and what is from man.
I should have added a fourth marriage to my genealogical list: 17-year old woman marries 19-year old man in 1874 in Upstate NY. Three children follow. No radical age difference, but people married young back then, especially if they grew up on farms. Three of the four marriages I mentioned were in farm families.
T M you should look at Lorenzo Snow who as a 52 year old man pursued a 12 year old girl eventually marrying her when she was 16. Their last child was born when he was 86 and she was 46. Wilford Woodruff showed a similar propensity.
TM what if i am right and Josephs sealings didn’t involve a sexual element. Would that change your mind ?
Bellamy, it’s a fair question. Of the nine children Joseph is alleged to have fathered, seven were conclusively determined not to be so by DNA evidence. The other two died in infancy so we’ll never know. I also agree that Joseph’s plural marriages were different from his successors. He did not hold himself out publicly as married to them, he did not cohabitate with many (most if I recall correctly) of them, and several were simultaneously married to other men with whom they maintained a sexual relationship. The limited contact in these relationships certainly would have made sexual relations less frequent than say Brigham Young’s marriages. There is also the unsubstantiated allegation from Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt that John Bennett performed abortions for Joseph. As the accusation is unsubstatiated, it’s hard to judge the truth of it, but it provides at least a partial explanation as to why there weren’t more children. I also tend to believe several of Joseph’s marriages were sealings only with no physical relationship and thus no children.
Bellamy Brown:
As to changing my mind, I’m not sure that I staked out a position opposite to what you wrote—which I found helpful, BTW, and thank you.
As to Lorenzo Snow at 52 marrying a girl at 16, whom he had pursued for four years: I think that is clearly a “yuck” even by the different 19th Century standards for marriage. Ditto for similar things involving Wilford Woodruff. The quote from former SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart came to mind when I read your comment: “I can’t give you a definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Simply swap out “pornography” and replace it with “justifications for polygamy that strain belief.” Mormon Polygamy has long been an issue with me: not so much the theological justifications for it, as the excesses to which such justifications could so easily lead. Your Lorenzo Snow is an excellent (appalling?) example. And we haven’t even broached the issue of other societies still practicing polygamy in our modern day!
I found Not a Cougar’s differentiations between Joseph’s and Brigham’s pursuit of polygamy quite helpful. Thanks! But I somewhat cynically harbor a doubt, admittedly not backed by any data or analysis, that marriage will involve sex.
Another 1800s family history marriage from my wife’s family. 86 year-old widower marries 39 year-old housekeeper. I think it was for her to take care of him in old age and for her to get his property when he died, in an age when women could not independently own property. But this is an assumption on my part. And by the age of 86, I think that sexual relations were no longer possible.
I think the relationship was wrong with Fanny Alger. Period.
With regards to under-age marriages, I was surprised to hear this about Jacob Hawn (the owner of Hawn’s Mill–as in the Massacre.) Dr. Alex Baugh told me this in my interview:
*I found a marriage record where Jacob Hawn married Harriet Elizabeth Pierson on 18 Nov 1833 in New York. Jacob would have been 29 years old. It should be noted that Jacob NEVER joined the LDS Church. (He was wounded during the massacre.)
With regards to what Bellamy wrote:
**Where are the CHILDREN ?? …. Joseph was fertile ( Emma was pregnant when the martyrdom occurred),most of the women were subsequently married to others and bore them numerous children but none of them bore any of Josephs offspring …..If you are opened minded you can only conclude that what Joseph was doing was qualitatively different than what his successors did**
This is a valid point. I do think that what Joseph did was clearly different than Brigham and his followers.
I do take issue with this though: “The accepted narrative ( including the Church Essay ) has a lying, libidinous Joseph pursuing nubile teenage girls for his own sexual gratification.”
The church does NOT state, especially in the Church essay: “has a lying, libidinous Joseph pursuing nubile teenage girls for his own sexual gratification.” That is categorically false.
Brian Hales gets a lot of grief and people mis-state his position a lot. Brian does not say Joseph had no sex with his wives (as many people erroneously state.) He clearly acknowledges Joseph had sex with some of them, but he believes the sex was far less frequent than critics allege. I spoke to him before his books came out and he believed he had found 5 or 6 possible offspring of Joseph from wives other than Emma, so he clearly believes Joseph had sex with some of them. He helped support Ugo Perego on the DNA tests, and much to Brian’s chagrin, those tests have proved negative for Joseph’s paternity.
Brian does allege that some of these marriages did not include sex and uses examples of women who were much older AND much younger than Joseph. I don’t remember the name, but there was a woman that was about 52 years old that was sealed to Joseph, and Hales questions whether Joseph had sex with her as well as some of the teens. I believe Brian alleges Helen Mar Kimball did not have sex as a teen but perhaps did later. Brian’s justification is that Helen was not part of the Temple Lot case because she did not have sex with Joseph, but I think there are records that state Helen did have sex. The conflicting accounts of Helen Mar Kimball may be splitting hairs for some, but I think it is important to be accurate in stating what happened.
I think Joseph had sex with more women than Brian alleges, but he did not have sex with all of them, and we should not assume Joseph had sex with all of them. We should also not assume that he had sex with none of them. At any rate, like Oliver Cowdery, I think polygamist marriages are flat out wrong, and I question the scriptural justifications for polygamy. I just hope that when we discuss a hot topic like this, we can do speak with accuracy and avoid exaggerating the facts or historian’s views on the topic.
But I agree with Bellamy that what Joseph did with regards to sex with multiple wives is quite different than what others did.
I find it interesting that current church theology places such a strong emphasis on sexual purity and chastity, including lifelong celibacy for those who do not marry, when the founders of the church were clearly indulging in lots of…um…sexual activity…or at least trying to find a (sacred, not secret) way to do it! This in spite of Jacob’s blasting of polygamy and the BoM’s general thrashing of sexual immorality. It’s interesting to read about references to Joseph’s strong libido but it doesn’t seem he was inclined to control his desires like the social mores of the time dictated. Even by today’s standards, he would have been excommunicated. Prophetic privilege, I suppose?
I really like Anna’s point here:
“marriage is to let people in their community know they are a proper couple and that if she gets pregnant, he is the father and that he will be responsible for the care and support of his wife and child.”
I think this makes an excellent case that, regardless of what permission from God Joseph might have (thought he) had, he wasn’t married to Fanny Alger because marriage is a community thing. If we accept this definition, then really none of Joseph Smith’s wives other than Emma were actual wives because they never stood up in front of their community and solemnized them. The whole idea of a “secret marriage” is meaningless from this perspective.
The word scrape in a 19th c context actually sounds more like it refers to illegitimate pregnancy, and therefore sounds more sexual than affair which at that time sounds general enough to mean something like “matter” or “occurrence.” A scrape is also an oblique way to refer to an unwed pregnancy (“married,” my foot). It’s a scrape because it’s a bad consequence that gets one into trouble.
“Where are the CHILDREN ?”
A very valid question that I hear from apologists frequently. A couple of things to consider. 1) Marriage implies sex. By saying he married, the burden of proof would seem to be far greater on those saying he didn’t have sexual relations than those saying that he did have sexual relations. 2) The argument that he pulled out early is more plausible than the argument that he had no sex at all or that these sealings and marriages were non-sexual. Joseph Smith was trying to keep much of these relationships a secret, you would think that he would be take caution not to impregnate a woman. Now, some marriages may have been entirely non-sexual and Joseph Smith may have entered into these marriages in order to convince those involved and those who knew about them that polygamy was just some sort of non-sexual fulfillment of a divine command. But I think that these non-sexual marriages were probably just a diversion from the ones that actually were. I find it hard to believe that Joseph Smith had no sexual relations or contact with anyone apart from Emma.
Also along with “where are the children” since Joseph didn’t want the relationships known publicly, it was n his best interest for the women not to get pregnant. Not not was pulling out early a known method of birth control, but so was avoiding sex when the woman was fertile. That is one week out of the month when he shouldn’t have sex with that one wife, but when he had multiple women available, that wasn’t hard.
Also along with “I don’t consider this a marriage, “ what kind of husband sends his wife off in shame when she gets pregnant? If Joseph considered himself a husband to Fanny, that makes him an even bigger jerk than if it was adultery.
No matter how I look at this whole situation, Joseph comes out smelling like a sewer rat.
I think it was Emma, not Joseph, who sent Fanny away.
Anna do you have any contemporary evidence to support you view or is this rank speculation on your part. If you have any evidence lets hear it . I am not particularly interested in hearsay manufactured 40 years after the event. We would do well to stick to the undisputed facts when examining historical events lest to fall into the Fawn Brodie trap of letting our prejudices overwhelm our cognitive ablilities.
Bellamy, you are assuming that because there were no children, there was no sex. I am just challenging your faulty assumption with facts. Fact: there are several ways to prevent pregnancy that were available to Joseph. So, it does not follow that a lack of children proves no sex was involved in any of Joseph’s affairs. And as far as proof if someone used birth control or not, you must be joking. That is not something that was considered public information because it was usually illegal back then. But no children equals birth control is just as valid of a conclusion as no children equals no sex, especially when there are witnesses that said Fanny was visibly pregnant. I will believe witnesses in the case of Fanny over your silly blind defense of Joseph..
Also other witnesses testified that they knew Joseph slept with his “wives”. See specifically BF Johnson who wrote in his journal that he saw Joseph and a new wife share a bedroom over night in his home. Sure, they slept over night in the same room and there was no sex.
And it doesn’t matter if Joseph told Fanny to leave or Emma told Fanny to leave. Emma believed herself to be Joseph’s only wife, because there was no public marriage. So, my point that Joseph did not treat Fanny as a wife still stands. Joseph made no attempt to go after Fanny or bring her back or support her child. Fanny was treated as a mistress by both Emma and Joseph. So, my conclusion she was not considered a wife by Joseph or the community.
Anna you make my point well . The evidence you quote is from a letter by Benjamin Johnson written more than 40 years after the event and written by someone who had a pot full of wives himself ( 7 )and was a vigorous defender of polygamy. ( as you would expect from someone who had 47 children from those 7 wives)He could not conceive ( pun intended ) of a nonsexual sealing relationship. Away with hearsay . Away with ancient 3rd party sources. Look at the contemporaneous evidence. Look at what those closest to him said. Read the multiple contemporaneous affidavits of those who knew him best. . Thee is simply no convincing evidence of Joseph having a sexual relationship with anyone other than Emma. Being sealed to them yes but nothing more. Does the fact that Brigham was sealed to John d Lee suggest that they had a sexual relationship ? Cant you see you are letting ,like so many others your paradigm dictate your interpretation of the hard evidence.
Incidentally Anna what evidence is there that Fanny was pregnant when she left Nauvou. As you know she refused to admit to a sexual relationship with Joseph
I must say I get tired of the defense that because testimony was given long after the fact, therefore it can’t be trusted.
Are we to assume that Bill Cosby and Donald Trump were virgins who never slept around because the accusations came to light decades later? JFK’s dalliances with Marilyn Monroe came after he was dead. Are we not to believe that too? I think not.
Throwing out evidence because it is late is valid in some cases, but this is not one of them. There is not a single reputable historian that thinks Joseph didn’t have sex with his wives (and that includes Brian Hales.) The only people who make that case are amateur hobbyists from the old-style RLDS Church. I’m shocked that this line of defense has infected some people in the LDS Church. There is plenty of evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with multiple women. To argue otherwise is to simply misunderstand how history is analyzed and to deny the undeniable. It is a well-known fact that women don’t get pregnant every time they have sex.
But yes, clearly something different went on with Joseph than others.
Ah paradigm shifts, as Kuhn pointed out long ago in The structure of Scientific Revolutions, are difficult aren’t they. Here we have Rick claiming there is ‘plenty of evidence of that Joseph had sexual relations with multiple women” but failing to produce any such”evidence “. Much less any that would past muster in any first year law school evidence class. Where are the witnesses.? Why with the possible exception of Mary Partridge didn’t any of the 35 women ever say they had sex with him ? Where are the children from either Josephs or Hyrums relationships ? What you have is half remembered innuendo and vague recollections that surface for the first time years after the event. I understand this is not a popular position and I suppose my point has been made ( ad nauseum in many peoples opinion ). In Bill Crosby and Donald Trumps case you have the VERY thing you lack here. Real live witnesses who offer contemporaneous testimony. Can you not tell the difference ? I will leave it at that
Oh dear, Bellamy … the study of Joseph Smith’s sexual behavior is more sport than science, so name-dropping Kuhn and saying ‘paradigm’ won’t get you anywhere. And it’s funny that you mention trials because the Temple Lot case did provide substantial testimony from women who said or intimated that they had relations with Joseph Smith. As the Temple Lot case was civil and not criminal, it’s objective was to settle a dispute, not prosecute a crime, so the rules of evidence are not the same. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Melissa Lott Willes, Emily Partridge Young, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, and Zina Huntington Young all made statements about a relationship with Joseph Smith. Some of them implied and others stated quite clearly.
So, in order to believe that Joseph Smith never had sex with any of the women he married, you’ll have to believe that all these women lied. You’ll also have to believe that Todd Compton and Brian Hales, historians who’ve spent a great deal of time studying Joseph’s polygamy, are just wrong. You will also have to argue that the LDS church’s essay is a deliberate misrepresentation. Logically, you will also have to spin a conspiracy theory since the more people required to prevaricate in support of a story, the less likely that story is.
Finally, the earliest account of Bill Cosby’s predations comes from 1965, but the accuser did not come forward until another accuser emerged in 2005. Some of the earlier accounts of Trumps predatory behavior are decades old. While the accused is alive in both cases, the testimony many of these women offer is hardly contemporaneous, yet it is still considered valid because a proliferation of similar accounts supports a pattern of behavior.
With all that and a lot more I did not mention, if you think Joseph Smith married more than 30 women and never had sex with anyone but Emma, more power to you.
Bellamy, several of his “wives” testified under oath that they did have sex with Joseph. But you are not willing to accept any evidence that does not support your position, so why should anyone here waste time trying to convince you. Check it out for yourself. They testified to it in Utah years after the fact, but they did testify under oath.
Anna other than one of the Partridge sisters who testified 40 years after the event that she had “had carnal knowledge “ with Joseph on a SINGLE occasion please name any other who specifically and unambiguously stated they had had sex with Joseph. I am not aware of any so please enlighten me. Thanks Incidentally you will forgive me if I don’t give much credence to arguments to authority like Ricks appeal to the mass of “reputable Historians “. Show me the .evidence . Explain why what Joseph and Hyrum were doing brought such different results from those obtained by Brigham and his cohorts within a year or two after Joseph’s death. Is it not only possible but likely that Joseph was being sealed to women without having “carnal knowledge “ of them. Doesn’t that theory explain the observed phenomenon better than Brian Hales . Remember Occams Razor. Thanks in advance
Bellamy, it is my understanding that one SINGLE occasion where a married man has sex with another woman constitutes adultery and is an excommunicable offense in the church. I’ve seen it happen in my own ward! You may state that a revelation was received approving the secret sealings and consummation but it was never brought before the body of the church for ratification by voice of common consent. You can call it ‘lying for the Lord’ if you want, but it was against the law and a lie is a lie and truth is truth. I do recall that Emma initially went along with the sealings to the Partridge sisters but then quickly back peddled and the sealings were annulled and the sister’s were quickly sent on their way. Otherwise, she was never in favor or approved of any sealings. So, the burden of proof has been met. Once is ALL it takes! Any first year law student can figure that out. As for Brigham Young and the others…their wives were fully aware of the polygamy and Brigham’s wives even lived together in the Lion House. And from what I read, most were not happy with the arrangement.
Bellamy, not having hard evidence that something happened is NOT considered hard evidence that it didn’t. You can’t prove a negative. Saying there is no known DNA evidence that Joseph fathered children with women other than Emma simply means there is no KNOWN DNA evidence. It doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist, just that it’s not known.
That can all weigh into the calculus of your opinion on the matter, but it does not settle the facts.
Our heroes have never been perfect. Think Jefferson (black slave mistress), Washington (slavery), JFK (M2), etc. The same with our prophets. Prez Kimball wrote an awful book about chastity; Prez Joseph Fielding Smith wrote a silly book about evolution, Prez Benson had kooky political views; Prez Young preached some strange doctrine; etc. The issue is how much kookiness can we take before we scratch them as heroes.
For me the troubling aspect of Joseph Smith’s polygamous escapades is not the amount of sex, but the lies and cover ups. Given that, what can we believe of his other stories and claims that are vital to the church’s truth claims?
Re: Roger D. Hansen’s question about how much kookiness can we tolerate in our heroes? It’s a great question, and I like his examples!
If we can’t tolerate kookiness, then we won’t have any heroes at all, IMO. When God makes some men and women great in one area, He tends to make them deficient in other areas. Some more examples:
1. Martin Luther: great religious reformer, notorious anti-Semite.
2. MLK, Jr: inspiring moral leader of the US civil rights movement, who more than anyone else, IMO, changed social views toward a more moral acceptance of minorities in what was then an overwhelmingly white-oriented culture (work still in progress). Also, adulterer and credible accusations of plagiarism in PhD dissertation.
3. Mahatma Gandhi: thank him for the concept of non-violence. Great moral leader. Treated his wife horribly.
4. Winston Churchill: more than anyone else, responsible for defeat of Nazism. Also, imperialist attitudes and abusive personality. Fought bitterly against Indian independence, contributing to the chaos that ensued, which led to Hindu-Muslim violence that killed 2 million.
5. Margaret Sanger: family planning advocate. Also racist and adhered to crackpot eugenics theories.
6. My favorite: founding father Benjamin Franklin, inventor, scientist. Great man, who shocked London by sunbathing nude in full public view on his upstairs balcony that faced the street, while representing the American colonies in England in the 1770s.
The only perfect person is Jesus Christ. For all the rest of us, God, to honor His gift of agency, has to work through fallible and often wacky or unpleasant mortals.
Go figure.