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

[_truth dancer]

Hey Roger,

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.

What I have found is that True Believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word), will defend their guru/prophet/leader regardless of the behavior. ANYTHING can be dismissed, defended, ignored, minimized, or rationalized away. in my opinion, it demonstrates the fascinating workings of our human brains

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.

Yep! You state this phenomenon very well. Again, I think the LDS True Believers are no different than others; whether FLDS, Scientologist, Ralian, Peoples Temple, JW, etc. etc. etc., it seems virtually impossible for some people to even begin to contemplate the idea that their guru/prophet/leader is not what he/she claims.

Having said this, I do know a few believing members who admit Joseph Smith made up the whole polygamy idea to cover his bases (smile), but they go with "the prophet is not perfect and God works with what "he" has, and so what if Joseph Smith made a few mistakes along the way" excuse.

I hold to the belief that few men who applaud Joseph Smith, would come up with the same excuses if it were their wives and young daughters, or mothers and sisters who were being told by a thirty something year old married neighbor that God sent an angel demanding these girls and women "marry" him.

In other words, the excuses given to Joseph Smith only work for Joseph Smith... anyone else who engaged in similar behavior would not get a free pass; they would probably be in jail (or worse ).

~td~

BYW, welcome to the board and I apologize for my mistake which I edited.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Roger,

Perhaps I'm not being clear, because it doesn't seem you've gotten the point I'm intending to convey. I'm not an apologist, and I'm not saying that the Article on Marriage wasn't issued because of polygamous marrying by Joseph Smith. What I am saying is that it appears that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger becomes known too late to have necessitated an August 1835 statement.

The Article on Marriage states that the church had been "reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy" and then proceeds to deny that the church believes in polygamy, without denying the incidents which brough reproach on the church actually occurred. This, and the fact that they felt such a public, canonical statement necessary in the first place, evidence that there had been some incident or incidents that were well enough known that they had to be dealt with and that it would be futile to deny them.

This does not well match your hypothesis that it was Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger that prompted the statement, since that relationship was not discovered until several months after the statement. The hypothesis is further undermined by evidence that certain well connected members (e.g., apostles) did not know about the Fanny Alger relationship until the weeks following Fanny's expulsion from the Smith home. (I won't go into the detail here, but you may want to hold off judgment until you see my paper on the timing of the Fanny Alger relationship.)

This doesn't mean the Article wasn't prompted by something Joseph Smith did. It leaves that door completely open, while acknowledging that there may be other possibilities as well. (See below.)

Don:
And it would be poor reasoning to argue that because you don't know of any other relationships or incidents that would necessitate such a denial, no others occurred.

Roger:
I agree but at the same time I am reluctant to claim omniscience.

Then you'll see precisely why being unaware of other relationships and incidents doesn't mean such things didn't occur.

Don:
Just how much do you know about this period in Mormon history, including who was accused of what?

Roger:
Probably not enough and very likely not as much as you do. That's precisely why I asked:

So then if this article is not refering to Joseph's then current relationship with Fanny, what is it refering to? Who besides Joseph Smith had any business entering into plural marriages in 1835 and why would any other aberrant member's action bring such "reproach" to the church as a whole to necessitate an article condemning "fornication and polygamy" to be voted on and ratified?

Really? It looked like those questions weren't genuine requests for information at all, but rhetorical questions to make an argument that the Article had to be referring to Fanny.

Roger:
Am I correct in concluding you also have no answer? From this, it appears so:

Don:
I agree, by the way, that something must have sparked the 1835 statement--some sort of polygamous relationship. Brian Hales is publishing a piece with the Journal of Mormon History showing, among other things, that Joseph's relationship with Fanny was not the only talk of polygamy in Kirtland--that others were attempting to enter the practice independent of Joseph Smith. And I have my own ideas on what prompted the 1835 Article, which are still in the works.

No, you misunderstood my point. I do know of other persons entering and attempting to enter polygamy during this period. I could name a few people, from contemporaneous sources, but I'll leave this to Brian Hales in his forthcoming Journal of Mormon History paper. (I believe it will be in the next issue.)

Fair enough. You may indeed be able to take the blame for D & C 101 off of Smith's shoulders. I will wait and see. Now if only Cowdery would have just written out an apology....

Huh, Roger? Oliver Cowdery wouldn't have needed to write out an apology for anything in this case, because the Article on Marriage would have nothing to do with Fanny Alger or with Oliver's 1838 accusations against Joseph.

In this discussion with you, all I'm arguing is that the Article on Marriage didn't respond to stories about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. What it did respond to is a question that is wide open, but there are multiple possibilities. It may have responded to actions by others in Kirtland who were secretly entering polygamy. Or it may have responded to stories circulating regarding an earlier polygamous relationship on the part of Joseph Smith.

So, here's work that needs to be done.

Don

[_DarkHelmet]

Does anyone know why Joseph Smith asked God about polygamy? He said he was wondering how come David and Solomon got to have lots of wives and concubines. But why would god come back and say, "Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You need to practice polygamy just like those other guys did."

[_Roger]

Don:

Really? It looked like those questions weren't genuine requests for information at all, but rhetorical questions to make an argument that the Article had to be referring to Fanny.

I don't know you very well and you don't know me, so I completely understand your uncertainty. Just so you know, I am indeed a critic of Joseph Smith. I do not believe he was a prophet. I have never been LDS but I briefly considered what the missionaires were telling me after they knocked on my door in 2001. That prompted an "investigation" on my part at that time that still continues.

So yes, I ask both rhetorical and non-rhetorical questions at times. Nevertheless, even my rhetorical questions are sincere and, regardless, if I ask something that has an answer you can supply, I welcome your input. My mind is always open to new information and I certainly don't claim omniscience. What I do know, however, leads me to be highly critical of Joseph Smith.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, because it doesn't seem you've gotten the point I'm intending to convey. I'm not an apologist, and I'm not saying that the Article on Marriage wasn't issued because of polygamous marrying by Joseph Smith. What I am saying is that it appears that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger becomes known too late to have necessitated an August 1835 statement.

And you might be correct about that. At the same time, I doubt that you propose that Smith being discovered with Fanny was their first encounter? We would have to consider when Fanny first moved into the Smith home--or even when she first had contact with Joseph Smith. Do you have that information?

The Article on Marriage states that the church had been "reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy" and then proceeds to deny that the church believes in polygamy, without denying the incidents which brough reproach on the church actually occurred. This, and the fact that they felt such a public, canonical statement necessary in the first place, evidence that there had been some incident or incidents that were well enough known that they had to be dealt with and that it would be futile to deny them.

This does not well match your hypothesis that it was Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger that prompted the statement, since that relationship was not discovered until several months after the statement. The hypothesis is further undermined by evidence that certain well connected members (e.g., apostles) did not know about the Fanny Alger relationship until the weeks following Fanny's expulsion from the Smith home. (I won't go into the detail here, but you may want to hold off judgment until you see my paper on the timing of the Fanny Alger relationship.)

This doesn't mean the Article wasn't prompted by something Joseph Smith did. It leaves that door completely open, while acknowledging that there may be other possibilities as well. (See below.)

Only well enough known by the authors of the article. There is plenty of testimony that rumors were circulating. You state that you know of people who were entering into polygamy at the time besides Joseph Smith. I am certainly interested in that, however I highly doubt that you can show that Smith sanctioned such polygamy at the time. If that is true, then why would the church have felt "reproach" to such an extent as to feel compelled to canonize a statement that should otherwise be self-evident? To my knowledge their is no canonized Protestant or Catholic equivalent condemning "fornication and polygamy" beyond what one can argue from the Bible itself.

So to me it doesn't rise to the level it did unless it was in response to Smith himself. But, maybe that's just my bias talking.

Huh, Roger? Oliver Cowdery wouldn't have needed to write out an apology for anything in this case, because the Article on Marriage would have nothing to do with Fanny Alger or with Oliver's 1838 accusations against Joseph.

I'm referring to his accusation of an affair. To my knowledge he never recants on it. The statement is made in a personal correspondance to his brother--so he's not out grinding axes. He was either mistaken, or there was no revelation on plural marriage in 1835. If he was mistaken, then why not apologize after he had been given an education on plural marriage?

At the very least, we can state that if it appeared to Oliver Cowdery as though an affair was going on between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger in 1835, then it is little wonder it appears the same way to modern LDS critics.

In this discussion with you, all I'm arguing is that the Article on Marriage didn't respond to stories about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

And yet you seem to still hold that possibility open:

I'm not an apologist, and I'm not saying that the Article on Marriage wasn't issued because of polygamous marrying by Joseph Smith.

Apparently the only difference is you are holding open the possibility of someone preceeding Fanny. If so I agree. Possibly Nancy Johnson.

What it did respond to is a question that is wide open, but there are multiple possibilities. It may have responded to actions by others in Kirtland who were secretly entering polygamy. Or it may have responded to stories circulating regarding an earlier polygamous relationship on the part of Joseph Smith.

So, here's work that needs to be done.

Don

Fair enough. Thank you for responding.

[_DonBradley]

No matter how you look at it there is a very fine line at play here when looking at the Fanny Alger case. For TBMs it HAD to have been a marriage, so it must have been.

I agree! Conservative LDS cannot conclude otherwise than that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger must have been a marriage, and would conclude this regardless of the state of the evidence.

It doesn't follow from this that any arguments put forward by "TBMs" are poor arguments. One might need to take a certain position for reasons of faith and be right.

There is actually a good deal of evidence that the Fanny Alger relationship was carried out under the rubric of polygamy. And there is a good deal of evidence that the idea of polygamy had already emerged in Joseph Smith's revelations.

Let's take this, for instance:

They can argue that the 1835 D &C 101 must have been referring to something other than Smith's relationship with Fanny.

Yes, there was an 1835 statement indicating that the church had been reproached with "polygamy." Do you realize what this means? It means that polygamy was already in the air. If, as you claim, this statement was responding to the relationship of Josehp Smith and Fanny Alger, then the statement itself treats the relationship as a marriage, albeit an illicit one. Where there is no marriage, there can be no polygamy. You can't have this one both ways.

Don

[_Trevor]

Also, why do you condemn (as I presume you do) Warren Jeffs?

What do you know of Jeffs other than his polygamy? I can think of lots of other reasons to condemn him, but then I know something about him outside of the polygamy issue.

[_Roger]

Don:

Yes, there was an 1835 statement indicating that the church had been reproached with "polygamy." Do you realize what this means? It means that polygamy was already in the air. If, as you claim, this statement was responding to the relationship of Josehp Smith and Fanny Alger, then the statement itself treats the relationship as a marriage, albeit an illicit one. Where there is no marriage, there can be no polygamy. You can't have this one both ways.

Don

With all due respect, Don, not it doesn't. The statement is ambiguous and generic, which is precisely why you can claim it is not refering to anything specific. Beyond that it condemns both fornication and polygamy! Curious, isn't it? Why take the time to condemn something that is already condemned in the Bible? It's as though the writers weren't exactly sure which rumors they were responding to or which rumors to believe and which not to believe, so let's just cover all our options here and condemn both polygamy and fornication.

[_Roger]

Don:

It doesn't follow from this that any arguments put forward by "TBMs" are poor arguments. One might need to take a certain position for reasons of faith and be right.

For the record, I agree with this.

[_Roger]

Trevor:

What do you know of Jeffs other than his polygamy? I can think of lots of other reasons to condemn him, but then I know something about him outside of the polygamy issue.

Admittedly not much. For me the fact that he was found guilty of aiding in a rape is more than enough.

[_beastie]

I agree! Conservative LDS cannot conclude otherwise than that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger must have been a marriage, and would conclude this regardless of the state of the evidence.

Do you exclude the possibility that there was no marriage ceremony, but that the sexual act itself bound them as "married" in a similar fashion as a common-law marriage?