Publications on Mormon History

[_Yoda]

My point is Fanny and Joseph's relationship was not a marriage; there was no way it could have been a marriage. He was already married to Emma.

According to Mosiah Hancock's autobiography, his father Levi (Fanny's uncle) married Joseph and Fanny: "Father gave her to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated it to him." That sure sounds like a marriage--or at least a semblance of one. Of course, it wasn't a legally recognized marriage, but then none of Joseph's plural marriages were.

Do we know when this ceremony occurred? If it occurred before or after Joseph was "caught" by Oliver.

[_harmony]

My point is Fanny and Joseph's relationship was not a marriage; there was no way it could have been a marriage. He was already married to Emma.

According to Mosiah Hancock's autobiography, his father Levi (Fanny's uncle) married Joseph and Fanny: "Father gave her to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated it to him." That sure sounds like a marriage--or at least a semblance of one. Of course, it wasn't a legally recognized marriage, but then none of Joseph's plural marriages were.

That's my point, Nevo. It wasn't a marriage. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It didn't even have the sealing power to sorta legitimize it.

So... Fanny.

[_Nevo]

Do we know when this ceremony occurred? If it occurred before or after Joseph was "caught" by Oliver.

The exact date isn't known. Compton places it "probably . . . in February or March 1833" (In Sacred Loneliness, 33). Quinn also gives 1833 as the date (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 45). Bushman simply says "sometime before 1836" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 437). I don't know when Oliver learned of the relationship. Benjamin Johnson's late, third-hand account seems to place it around 1835, but Oliver didn't publicly break with the Prophet until mid-1837.

[_harmony]

Do we know when this ceremony occurred? If it occurred before or after Joseph was "caught" by Oliver.

The exact date isn't known. Compton places it "probably . . . in February or March 1833" (In Sacred Loneliness, 33). Quinn also gives 1833 as the date (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 45). Bushman simply says "sometime before 1836" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 437). I don't know when Oliver learned of the relationship. Benjamin Johnson's late, third-hand account seems to place it around 1835, but Oliver didn't publicly break with the Prophet until mid-1837.

Perhaps you can tell us, Nevo, since Daniel has bailed out of the discussion: when was Joseph's divorce to Emma finalized?

Because without a divorce, and without a revelation restoring the sealing power, what we have is a man who is already married marrying a young woman (behind his first wife's back). What do we call that? Oh yeah... adultery. Bigamy. Stupid.

1833--an established witnessed relationship between Joseph and Fanny

1836--the sealing power that would give authority to allow such relationships as Joseph and Fanny, while thumbing the collective noses at legal marriage.

[_TAK]

The lack of clear orders from headquarters refers to Salt Lake City, not to Cedar City.

On the whole, it seems that you and I have read completely different books.

And I trust my own reading over yours.

Yes I am aware of that as I specified that Geo. Smith had just visted So. Utah.. that is why its was a false statemtent from the authors. Haight and others knew what "Headquarters" wanted them to do.

[_Jason Bourne]

Because without a divorce, and without a revelation restoring the sealing power, what we have is a man who is already married marrying a young woman (behind his first wife's back). What do we call that? Oh yeah... adultery. Bigamy. Stupid.

1833--an established witnessed relationship between Joseph and Fanny

1836--the sealing power that would give authority to allow such relationships as Joseph and Fanny, while thumbing the collective noses at legal marriage.

Certainly Joseph could have been told that polygamy was to be restored even though nothing had been revealed about the sealing power. The sealing power is not necessary for polygamy at all. Of course, since polygamy was later tied to eternal marriage and its importance elevated because of the sealing issue I can see why you make this argument.

But Joseph Smith could have been starting early in instituting polygamy before sealing was even though of.

Unfortunately, my personal view is that Joseph Smith had the affair and may have come up with polygamy to justify it, then he married Fanny as his second wife. The idea of sealing came much later.

If the review that Daniel mentions can shed more light on this I would me very interested in reading it.

[_Yoda]

Certainly Joseph could have been told that polygamy was to be restored even though nothing had been revealed about the sealing power. The sealing power is not necessary for polygamy at all. Of course, since polygamy was later tied to eternal marriage and its importance elevated because of the sealing issue I can see why you make this argument.

I find this a HUGE stretch. Why would the Lord reveal something like that piece meal? It doesn't make any sense. Obviously, since the laws of the land, which according to the 13 Articles of Faith, were supposed to be obeyed, prohibited the legality of taking more than one wife, we're talking about a revelation involving "spiritual" marriages, or marriages only seen in the eyes of the Lord. At least if it is combined within the context of eternal marriage and eternal families, there is some cohesiveness. Since the supposed point in restoring plural marriage was for the purpose of "raising righteous seed unto God", why would God bother with restoring plural marriage "for time only"? This other theory just doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, my personal view is that Joseph Smith had the affair and may have come up with polygamy to justify it, then he married Fanny as his second wife. The idea of sealing came much later.

This is, unfortunately, my conclusion as well.

If the review that Daniel mentions can shed more light on this I would me very interested in reading it.

I'm very curious about this as well. It will be an interesting read. Daniel mentioned to me that he might publish it online.

[_ludwigm]

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF Jesus Christ OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

A true prophet knows the revelations before they are given.
Joseph Smith was true prophet.
Q. e. d.

Fanny was wrong time in a wrong place.

[_harmony]

Certainly Joseph could have been told that polygamy was to be restored even though nothing had been revealed about the sealing power. The sealing power is not necessary for polygamy at all. Of course, since polygamy was later tied to eternal marriage and its importance elevated because of the sealing issue I can see why you make this argument.

God's house is a house of order. God knew of the need for sealing. To say God didn't know about the importance of sealing until after Fanny doesn't make sense to me.

But Joseph Smith could have been starting early in instituting polygamy before sealing was even though of.

God knew. And if he didn't, then he isn't God.

Unfortunately, my personal view is that Joseph Smith had the affair and may have come up with polygamy to justify it, then he married Fanny as his second wife. The idea of sealing came much later.

Exactly.

Interestingly enough, Fanny isn't listed on familysearch as one of Joseph's wives, although she is on the list in the Historical Record by Andrew Jensen (Vol 6, pg 223).

If the review that Daniel mentions can shed more light on this I would me very interested in reading it.

I also will be interested. Probably for a different reason, but still.. I'll be interested.