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

[_Brackite]

Do I believe that Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger were Married in a Religious Ceremony?

Yes, I do.


Do I believe that Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger were Married Legally.

No. The were Not Legally Married. Joseph Smith was Legally Married to just one wife, Emma Hale Smith. And this is a fact, not just opinion.


Do I believe that Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger had sex together?

Yes, I do. And that is why I have Posted that Oliver Cowdery Quote here before. I Posted that before here as evidence that they had sex together, but not as evidence that they were not Religiously Married. I do believe that Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger were Religiously Married, However they were Not Legally Married.


I hope that clears that up.

[_Gazelam]

What tickles my funny bone is the idea that we are discussing this as if God really came down and told Joseph Smith to screw his sixteen year old "adopted daughter"; as if there really were some sort of invisible, magical key that allowed Joseph Smith to have numerous sexual partners without suffering the consequences of other men who engage in similar behavior; as if Joseph Smith really had some mysterious power that gave him the right to have all the girls and women he wanted for eternity.



~td~

[_Danna]

And yet another question: How can Joseph's polyandry be reconciled with D & C 132? I seem to recall D & C 132 refering only to "virgins".

Verse 41 contains an "out" for that:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

In other words, if God "appoints" the woman "by the holy anointing", she can be with another man without committing adultery.

The implications of this are interesting. This verse is effectively stating that a woman who is eternally married to one man can be appointed to some other bloke as well. So who gets the keys of anointing wives for extramarital relations? This is starting to look like sacred prostitution.

[_Roger]

truth dancer wrote:

What tickles my funny bone is the idea that we are discussing this as if God really came down and told Joseph Smith to screw his sixteen year old "adopted daughter"; as if there really were some sort of invisible, magical key that allowed Joseph Smith to have numerous sexual partners without suffering the consequences of other men who engage in similar behavior; as if Joseph Smith really had some mysterious power that gave him the right to have all the girls and women he wanted for eternity.

You do have a way with words. I was thinking the same thing but in more polite terms. I think your description is better. It is actually bizarre when you really stop and think about it, isn't it?! What gets me is that a LOT of people see him as a bona-fide prophet and--even worse--the kind of straight (but reasonable) talk you just offered is somehow seen as an egregious affront to something sacred. Now there's the real twist! We are heathens because we just can't see the blessing in all this multiple women thing!

[_truth dancer]

Hi Roger,

truth dancer wrote:

What tickles my funny bone is the idea that we are discussing this as if God really came down and told Joseph Smith to screw his sixteen year old "adopted daughter"; as if there really were some sort of invisible, magical key that allowed Joseph Smith to have numerous sexual partners without suffering the consequences of other men who engage in similar behavior; as if Joseph Smith really had some mysterious power that gave him the right to have all the girls and women he wanted for eternity.

You do have a way with words. I was thinking the same thing but in more polite terms. I think your description is better. It is actually bizarre when you really stop and think about it, isn't it?! What gets me is that a LOT of people see him as a bona-fide prophet and--even worse--the kind of straight (but reasonable) talk you just offered is somehow seen as an egregious affront to something sacred. Now there's the real twist! We are heathens because we just can't see the blessing in all this multiple women thing!

I wasn't trying to be rude and used the term 'screw' because it is the nicer of the words I could use. Let me explain...

When an older, powerful man (not to mention married) uses his authority and position and power to sexually use a girl, it is not about love, or care, or concern, or anything lovely or of good report. It is a "dirty, filthy, nasty affair," no matter how one tries to make it otherwise. Period.

I have a difficult time believing God, (you know the one who created the galaxies, energy, stars, and life), would truly demand any man to sexually use a girl, (and for what purpose)? This claim just seems more like something a powerful misogynist (not to mentioned unenlightened), male would fabricate to have his way with a girl rather than anything from the divine creator of the universe.

As I have stated many times on this board, I have a difficult time with men blaming God for their inappropriate (not to mention down right disgusting) behavior.

Now, if the whole polygamy/plural marriage idea was truly about sealing families or people as one big eternal happy family, and sex was not involved this would be a whole other discussion, but if this were the case there would be absolutely no need for the secrecy, deception, and flat out lies. And, of course we know from the D&C that polygamy, in the LDS world was about spreading the seed, and virgin girls, and having a harem as did the prophets of old.

For me, the problems with the LDS church are not really about church history, the extraordinary claims, the convoluted doctrine, or any of the other problems we discuss; it is really about what these issues/teachings/doctrines say about the Divine.


~td~

[_beastie]

The implications of this are interesting. This verse is effectively stating that a woman who is eternally married to one man can be appointed to some other bloke as well. So who gets the keys of anointing wives for extramarital relations? This is starting to look like sacred prostitution.

I’ve always been interested in concubinage, partly because it receives so little attention, and yet, it’s sanctioned by God, by his direction. It must be something qualitatively different than regular marriage, ie, “wives”, else “God” would not identify it in addition to marriage/wives.

There are a couple of possible definitions of concubinage. One is that these women are still “wives” but of a lower caste. They don’t have the same rights that a “wife” would. The other is that it’s really a long-term, recognized mistress. Marriage was never performed, but there is a long term relationship and the male supports the children. I think it’s possible that the early LDS idea of concubinage was a combination of the two. Given the statements I cited above about “common-law” marriage, I suspect that concubines were women that were never married to the male, but there was a long-term relationship in which the male supported the children.

What’s interesting about this is the polemic John C. Bennett mentioned a caste system among LDS polygamy. Of course, due to his own behavior and his tendencies to polemic extremes, his statements are often ignored in these discussions. Yet he clearly had intimate knowledge of the practice in Nauvoo, as he accurately identified several elements about the practice, including Joseph Smith’s wives and the wording of the sealing. So perhaps we ought to also consider what he had to say about the caste system. The following citation is from Religion and sexuality, by Lawrence Foster, page 172, and can be read through a google search. I have not read his book, but was familiar with the content through other readings:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aPrEwT ... #PPA172,M1

Possibly Bennett’s most controversial and frequently cited allegation was that the marriage system developing sub rosa in Nauvoo divided the women involved into three separate classes. It may be significant that this particular claim did not appear in Bennett’s original series of exposes in the Sangamo Journal, but was first mentioned in a letter to the Louisville Journal from Cleveland, Ohio, dated July 30, 1842. At that point, Bennett’s personal indiscretions were being thoroughly aired in the Mormon press. As elaborated in his still later History of the Saints, Bennett claimed that the Mormon “Seraglio” consisted of three levels of depravity. From lowest to highest, women in this “Seraglio” were called “Cyprian Saints,” “Chambered Sisters of Charity,” and “Consecrates of the Cloister” or “Cloistered Saints.” Such women were also said to be known as “Saints of the White, Green, or Black Veils,” respectively. Bennett is the sole source for the allegation that these terms were used by the Mormons, although other critical contemporary accounts also alleged that some sort of a degree organization for women existed in the Church. Probably these terms were simply invented by Bennett, like the secret “Order of the Illuminati” which he first accused Smith of trying to introduce, but which he himself later introduced under that very name in the schismatic Strangite Mormon sect.

If Bennett’s terminology is discounted, however, his concrete allegations demand serious consideration. His basic assertion was that the Mormons had established “a very strictly and systematically organized” secret marriage system “divided into three distinct orders or degrees.” At the highest level were women who were married to Smith and a few of his most trusted followers under the ceremony cited above as “secret, spiritual wives.” All such marriages had to be approved by Smith himself. A second category of women were married under almost identical provisions, including Smith’s necessary approval, but without the benefit of any formal ceremony. The lowest level, which Bennett himself stated was very small and in effect unofficial, was a sort of tolerated prostitution. Probably this last category could best be seen as Bennett’s backhanded way of attempting to justify his own irregular behavior. However, some evidence does exist for a two-fold division of plural wives in Nauvoo. The revelation on plural and celestial marriage begins with Smith’s inquiry concerning the taking of “wives and concubines” by Old Testament figures. Throughout the revelation “wives and concubines” are again mentioned together. A “concubine” is a wife of lower status and sometimes may be taken without any formal ceremony. The “wives and concubines” could well correspond to Bennett’s two upper levels of plural wives.

I remember reading a statement by an early church leader stating that the “sin” wasn’t so much the sexual act, but the subsequent abandonment of children. I can’t recall, off hand, the origin of that quote so take it with a grain of salt. I’m pretty sure I read it in Mormon Polygamy and will try to find it later. But that sentiment correlates with the statements I cited above about concubinage.

Despite the uncertainty behind some of Bennett’s claims, I think that there is good reason to accept his assertion that there were at least two levels of plural marriage, and one didn’t involve a formal ceremony at all. One more evidence that demonstrates plural marriage, as practiced in the days of Joseph Smith, was quite different than most modern LDS imagine.


TD:

I have a difficult time believing God, (you know the one who created the galaxies, energy, stars, and life), would truly demand any man to sexually use a girl, (and for what purpose)? This claim just seems more like something a powerful misogynist (not to mentioned unenlightened), male would fabricate to have his way with a girl rather than anything from the divine creator of the universe.

We should also add that this God cared SOOOOO much that Joseph Smith engage in this behavior that he sent a sword-bearing angel to ensure cooperation. Was Joseph Smith threatened with a sword in any other instance? So not only does “God” want the men to behave in this fashion, God seems to care more about that than any other practice he commanded.

I think we can safely call that a "little clue."

[_harmony]

I previously mentioned that some early LDS church leaders thought that the act of intercourse itself could count as some sort of marital covenant. I was correct that I had read this information in Mormon Polygamy, pages 10, and then the footnote on page 16.

Page 10

Confusion over the exact nature and extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement with Fanny Alger has remained to this day. That there was a sexual relationship seems probable. But was Smith’s association with his house servant adulterous, as Cowdery charged? Or was she Smith’s first plural wife? Apostle Heber C Kimball, many years later, introduced Fanny’s brother John Alger in the Saint George Temple as “brother of the Prophet Josephs first Plural Wife”. And in 1899 church leaders performed a proxy marriage for the couple. “The sealings of those named,” a temple recorder noted of Alger and the then other women listed, “were performed during the life of the Prophet Joseph but there is no record thereof. President Lorenzo Snow decided that they be repeated in order that a record might exist; and that this explanation be made.”

If Smith and Alger were sealed in a plural marriage as 1899 church leaders were persuaded, who stood as witness for the ordinance? Who performed the ceremony? In the absence of an officiator or witness, did God himself seal the couple, or did Smith, as God’s only legitimate earthly agent marry himself to Alger? Smith did not claim publicly the power to “bind on earth and seal eternally in the heavens” until 3 April 1836, perhaps one year after the Alger incident (D&C 110: 13-16). Could he have viewed her as his common law wife, married by connubial relationship rather than by wedding ceremony?

No church record of a ceremony. No legal record of a ceremony. No witnesses of a ceremony. And we're supposed to believe it was legit?

[_Nevo]

No church record of a ceremony. No legal record of a ceremony. No witnesses of a ceremony. And we're supposed to believe it was legit?

There was at least one witness of the ceremony: Levi Hancock.

[_why me]

No church record of a ceremony. No legal record of a ceremony. No witnesses of a ceremony. And we're supposed to believe it was legit?

AHHHHHHHH.......yea! Next question....

[_harmony]

No church record of a ceremony. No legal record of a ceremony. No witnesses of a ceremony. And we're supposed to believe it was legit?

There was at least one witness of the ceremony: Levi Hancock.

surely you jest, Nevo. If there was no record of a ceremony, there could have been no witnesses to a ceremony, because the ceremony didn't take place. If there were witnesses, then, by definition, there was a record. But we have it from the highest authority that there was no record.

Are you saying you know more than Lorenzo Snow?