Joseph and Fanny-Asking for Will's Opinion in Particular

[_William Schryver]

Wait--I thought that Joseph and Fanny were "discovered" in the barn by Emma in 1833.

Another example of the mythology that passes for "common knowledge" in our world.

[_DonBradley]

Touche on the Benjamin F. Johnson source, Roger! I was wondering if you'd locate it. This is the sole source of which I'm aware that claims there were rumors of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger's relationship before Fanny was booted from the house.

I'll acknowledge that it is evidence of that. I would, however, question the quality of the evidence. At the time of writing, Benjamin F. Johnson was then in his mid-80s recalling a period some 68 years earlier, when he was a teenager. All of the relevant sources reporting a marriage are closer to the event than this. Yet you reject those as motivated and contaminated.

I have sources, from the 1830s, showing that Kirtland residents and members of the church were not aware of and not responding to the Fanny Alger relationship until late 1836 and 1837--after the relationship's discovery by Emma; so, while I take Benjamin F. Johnson as a useful source, I see little reason to trust that he correctly recalled 68 years later that he heard the rumors before then.

But I won't attempt to argue that further on this thread. My time would be much better put into my actual projects, including on Fanny Alger. You can read my paper when it comes out. I expect to publish it in the Journal of Mormon History. And Brian Hales's paper on Fanny Alger (for which I did most of the research) should appear in the Journal's next issue. So, you shouldn't have to wait long for that.

by the way, it will probably come as no surprise to you that I take exception to your claim that "polygamy" is a "generic" term. There's nothing generic about it, except that it doesn't specify multiple wives or multiple husbands, only multiple marriages. The word meant just that in Joseph Smith's day:

polygamy
POLYG'AMY, n. [Gr. many, and marriage.] A plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; or the having of such plurality. When a man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy.
(Webster's Dictionary, 1st edition, 1828)

"Polygamy" simply means "many marriages,", as everyone knows and the word itself shows. So the 1835 statement responds to an incident that was understood to be one of simultaneous marriages. If you disagree with that, take it up with the authors of the statement, who chose a word they knew referred to just that.

Unlike you, I have no reason to doubt that they meant what they said, and I will no longer argue for the self-evident--that "polygamy" refers to multiple marriages. If you want to make it not really mean that in this case, good luck with that. You'll need it!

My Best,

Don

[_DonBradley]

Jason B,

Yes, I can clarify. For a few decades the Fanny Alger relationship was usually dated to 1835, based on Benjamin F. Johnson's 1903 letter and the 1835 Article on Marriage, which was presumed to respond to that relationship. In the '90s, Todd Compton employed a very late (ca. 1890) reminiscence from Mosiah Hancock saying that in early 1833 (before he was born) his father Levi Hancock had performed the marriage for Joseph and Fanny.

Some accept this account; others reject it. I will be arguing in future work that the account is useful but garbled--and I think I can show what the underlying events were and how it became garbled. I see vanishingly little reason to believe that Fanny Alger began her relationship with Joseph Smith that early, and some reason to disbelieve it. Note, however, that if one accepts Mosiah Hancock's dating of the relationship, one has every reason to accept his report on the nature of the relationship. Hancock's claim to be in the know on the matter is that his father is supposed to have performed the 1833 marriage between Joseph and Fanny, and the reason he ties their marriage to 1833 is that he believed there was a sort of marital "exchange of women" wherein Levi Hancock married Fanny Alger to Joseph in exchange for Joseph letting him (Levi) marry Clarissa Reed. So if one rejects Mosiah Hancock's claim that the relationship was a marriage, one has no reason to date the relationship as far back as 1833. In this case it would seem more likely that the relationship began closer to the time it was discovered--in 1836.

For further light on the subject, I'd suggest Brian C. Hales's forthcoming piece in the Journal of Mormon History. I did most of the research for the piece (as a paid researcher) and between the two of us we collected some 20 sources on the Fanny Alger relationship. (The most that had been used before was the 7 or 8 used by Compton.)

Don

[Guest]

[I'm waiting also. But I'm not holding my breath. We've all seen the justifications, the caveats, the excuses for people who want to keep Joseph clothed. The problem is... Joseph had a different agenda, and keeping clothed wasn't on it.

Hmmm. Sounds like an inversion of the Potiphar's wife story!

I have no interest in "keeping Joseph clothed," Harm. And I think the evidence points to a secret marriage in 1835 or 1836.

What takes "justifications, caveats, and excuses" is to maintain Mosiah Hancock's dating of the relationship while rejecting his reason for so dating it--that he believed there had been a marital exchange around the time of his parents' marriage--which was in 1833. "Justifications, caveats, and excuses" are also needed to explain how a relationship of over three years occurred under Emma's nose without her knowing of it.

This isn't about faith; it's about history. The point is, or should be, to determine what actually happened, and when, and then, if desired, to discuss its implications for faith. Until the historical evidence is well sussed out, no solid judgments can be made. I'd recommend reading Brian's piece with an open mind--since it makes use of far more evidence than has ever previously been brought to bear on the subject before. And I'd recommend my piece too, of course, but that will be a while, and I may be biased. ;-)

I'd also recommend changing your sig line.

Don

[_Ray A]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z_v2IAnMssMC&pg=PA450&lpg=PA450&dq=Joseph+Smith+Ms+Hill&source=Brian Laundrie&ots=5pa-abv-HT&sig=7wQgJIooRORyIcbtkgA293pbADk&hl=en&ei=a7w4SvzDGJ6UjAe1prCiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA450,M1

(sorry about the link Shades, I'm not sure how to condense it..)

Ah, at last something interesting in this thread for me. Here's how, Mary:

[url=insert link here]Link Title[/url].

So it looks like this: Marquardt's Account.

[_Seven]

I believe the Fanny Alger relationship was carried out under the rubric of polygamy. This is something I presented evidence on at MHA, which Nevo has alluded to.

As I went over at MHA and will also be publishing, Jenson put Fanny's name on his list of Joseph Smith's wives because Eliza R. Snow wrote the name on a list she provided him. ERS also reported to Jenson that the blow up over Fanny (Emma's discovery of the relationship) occurred while Eliza lived in the Smith's Kirtland home, which was in 1836.

Don

I look forward to reading your article.

There is very good evidence from Todd Compton that Joseph and Fanny were having a sexual relationship in 1833.
Here are the problems I have with placing the Fanny Alger marriage in 1836.

I'll start with the marital bargain and exchange of Clarissa Reed:

“Therefore Brother Joseph said ‘Brother Levi I want to make a bargain with you – If you will get Fanny Alger for me for a wife you may have Clarissa Reed. I love Fanny.’ ‘I will’ Said Father. ‘Go brother Levi and the Lord will prosper you’ Said Joseph – Father goes to the Father Samuel Alger – Father’s Brother in Law and [said] ‘Samuel the Prophet Joseph loves your Daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you’ – Uncle Sam Says – ‘Go and talk to the Old woman about it twill be as She says’ Father goes to his Sister and said ‘Clarrissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you’ Said She ‘go and talk to Fanny it will be all right with me’ – Father goes to Fanny and said ‘Fanny Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife will you be his wife?’ ‘I will Levi’ Said She – Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said ‘Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission’ – Father gave her to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.”

- Mosiah Hancock Autobiography, pp. 62-63

Todd Compton writes in "In Sacred Loneliness" page 33:

Levi Hancock received his reward. Smith sanctioned his marriage to Clarissa Reed, which took place on March 29 1833. Mosiah’s narrative suggests that the Smith-Alger marriage occurred first, so Joseph probably married Fanny in February or March 1833, when she was sixteen and he was twenty-seven.

This story is strong evidence that Smith plurally married Falger in 1833. If this story is not credible, then Mosiah's entire testimony of Levi witnessing the Alger marriage would have to be thrown out. Isn't he the only witness that a marriage took place?


My next issue is with Fanny's legal marriage to Mr. Solomon Custer:

Page25
In November 1836 a local judge in Wayne County, Indiana, performed a marriage of considerable significance for historians of Mormon Polygamy: The clerk recorded: “Dublin November 16th 1836 This day married by me Levi Eastridge a Justice of the Peace for Wayne Country and State of Indiana Mr Solomon Custer and Miss fanny Alger both of this town.”
This marriage was noteworthy because Fanny Alger was one of Joseph Smith’s earliest plural wives, probably his first, but here she abandoned that sacred union for a secular marriage with a non-Mormon, leaving polygamy to embrace monogamy.

It seems highly unlikely that Joseph and Fanny were sealed with the proper keys after April 1836. (when the sealing keys were restored by Elijah)

Levi, the main testimony of a plural marriage to Fanny Alger:

Levi was close to the Alger family, was in Kirtland in [b]1832 and 1833[/b], and was a friend of Joseph Smith. If Mosiah Hancock is trustworthy, he heard the story directly from the man who performed the wedding of Fanny and Joseph. Mosiah explains his motive as simply to “bear testimony.”

According to Mosiah Hancock, Joseph Smith introduced his father Levi to polygamy in spring 1832:

As early as Spring of 1832 Bro Joseph said “Brother Levi, the Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take Righteous women even a plurality of Wives that a Righteous race may be sent forth upon the Earth preparatory to the ushering in of the Millennial Reign of our redeemer-For the Lord has such a high respect for the nobles of his Kingdom that he is not willing for them to come through the Loins of a Careless People-Therefore; it behoves those who embrace that Principle to pay strict attention to even the Least requirement of our Heavenly Father.”

I agree that the 1835 article on marriage was referring to more than the Fanny Alger relationship. Joseph was already teaching the doctrine of polygamy to his inner circle as early as 1831:

W.W. Phelps, in 1861, recorded that Smith received a revelation in Missouri on July 17, 1831, that directed Mormon men to intermarry with “Lamanite” (Native American) women. When Phelps later asked how the group in question, mostly married men, could take other wives, Smith immediately answered, “In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; that Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah; by revelation-the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelations.” A December 1831 letter by anti-Mormon Ezra Booth supports Phelps: “It had been made known by revelation” that God wanted “a matrimonial alliance with the natives” and that God would bless them “abundantly” if they obeyed. They would also “gain a residence” in Indian lands, despite the Indian agent’s opposition. “It has been made known to one who has left his wife in the State of New York that he is entirely free from his wife, and is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

Again, the problem here is that D & C 132 REQUIRES sealing keys to enter plural marriage. It's clear that Joseph was teaching and practicing polygamy before 1836, in violation of the revelation that instructed him on the conditions of the law.
Using the proper Priesthood keys for ordinances is a very serious doctrine in Mormonism.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Seven,

These would be my (brief) answers to your questions:

Yes, there's evidence that Joseph Smith was talking about polygamy as early as 1831.

Yes, Mosiah Hancock's testimony of a marriage performed by his father probably should be rejected if his dating of the incident is rejected; and, yes, this would take away what has been put forward as the best argument that Joseph and Fanny were married. However, since my interest isn't apologetic, but historical, I'm not going to weigh a source by its apologetic (or critical) usefulness, but by its evidentiary merit. However, it happens that, fortunately for apologetics, the case for a marriage doesn't rest on Hancock.

And, finally, in that vein, no, rejecting the Hancock account doesn't undo the other, very real evidence for the practice of polygamy in Kirtland.

Don

[_Jason Bourne]

What absolutely mystifies me are modern day LDS who know about Joseph Smith's "marriages" and yet still defend him. I've debated this issue several times with quite a few LDS (at least the ones who have enough guts to even go down this road) and when the discussion reaches this point they will nearly always fall back on: You don't understand sacred things, the Helen Kimball marriage was purely dynastic, Fanny was married to the prophet, there was no sex with his polyandrous wives, etc. etc. Instead of looking at the situation for what it is, they attempt (valiantly) to defend Joseph Smith and blame God for LDS polygamy.

You can point to the Manifesto and ask why would God back down to the U.S. Government... they don't have an answer. You can point out that Smith denied having more than one wife and it doesn't bother them. You can point to the 1835 D & C 101 and it appears to be no big deal to them that Smith either had at least one plural wife at the time or was having an affair--both of which are condemned. You can show them that Emma denied Smith's plural marriages and they will show you convincing evidence that she's lying. You can point out that John Taylor secretly sent envoys to places like AZ, Mexico & Canada in order to keep the "New & Everlasting Covenant" everlasting and now that same church considers the resulting "Fundamentalists" apostates(!) and still... they have no answer for the larger question: WHY? God did it.

I guess at least on this issue you summarize the tipping point for me. I used to defend this issue exactly like this. But as I explored it more I realized that if this were any other person than Joseph Smith I would not defend it but rather would condemn it. I realized that the only way I could justify is if God really commanded it. And as I explored more it just did not seem the way this all came to be as godly, at least the way I believe godly should be based on what the LDS Church has taught me about God.

I wish I could conclude some other way. But the defenses of this seem to border on absurdity. Let's assume that Joseph did marry Fanny first. Let's assume that the marriages to Helen Mar was dynastic and no sex happened. Let's assume the polyandrous relationships were all platonic and dynastic. We still end up with many, many wives and a system that seems frankly abusive to women and to favor men that are powerful. It just does not seem to taste good as Joseph once stated about truths from God.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

Well said.

As a believer I struggled with polygamy for three main reasons:

First, polygamy was in opposition to the Golden Rule. I'm pretty sure few men would be quite so eager to participate in polygamy (or defend it with such force), if it were their wives who had multiple husbands and they were left with a smidgen of care, concern, and intimacy, while the woman they loved was sleeping around with five or ten more powerful men. Ya know? Most men I know are not too cool with the idea of getting little to no sex or love from the woman they marry.

Secondly, of course the Book of Mormon clearly states that God says polygamy "breaks the hearts of his daughters." So, what? God requires men to break the hearts of girls and women? It is a commandment essential to exaltation to break the hearts of girls and women?

While the passages may be interpreted to say that if God commands otherwise they can engage in polygamy, nowhere does it say the daughter's hearts will not be broken.

Finally, the thirteenth article of faith states, "... if there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Yet, the inner circle, had to lie to members, the government, and the community because their behavior was considered so disgusting and immoral? God says, polygamy breaks the hearts of his daughters, something clearly not virtuous and praiseworthy.

It is what it is.

~td~

[_BishopRic]

It is what it is.

~td~

Yes...and defenders wonder why we talk about cog-dis!