DiscussMormonism.com

On another thread, Seven brought up some excellent points relating to the revelation of the sealing power in relation to Joseph Smith's marriage to Fanny:

William Schryver wrote:seven:

Section 132 was given to Joseph with the intent to explain under what circumstances Prophets were allowed to practice polygamy with God's sanction. It is only under these very strict LAWS of God, that a person may practice polygamy. The marriage must be sealed by the holy spirit of promise by a person annointed with those keys. Joseph Smith is not exempt from that law and those keys were not administered to him until 1836.

Joseph's alleged marriage to Fanny Alger was in direct violation of the conditions of the law given to him.

I’m not going to facilitate the derailing of this thread, nor do I even have any intention of debating this issue with anyone here, but I will say this: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Will didn't wish to derail that particular thread, and, I agree that this topic does deserve it's own discussion.

Will, from one active Latter-Day Saint to another....asking you in all honesty here....You say that Seven doesn't know what she is talking about. Could you explain how and why?

Are you saying that Joseph received the revelation from the Lord, and was commanded to practice the law of polygamy before 1836?

And, if that is what you are saying here, are you just basing this on faith that Joseph would not have an affair, and that he must have been doing the Lord's will, or is there documentation that precedes the 1836 revelation that you are privy to?

liz3564 wrote:...is there documentation that precedes the 1836 revelation that you are privy to?

And, while we are asking such questions, why were all the other members of the Church
subject to the Law of The Church, as set forth in the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants --- but,
the LDS say Joseph was NOT subject to its jurisdiction?

Was the prohibition on plural marriage, set forth in the 1835 D&C the ONLY provision in
the Law of the Church that Joseph was exempt from, or was he exempt from the entire
D&C, so long as he professed to have received some "revelation" pertaining to himself?

UD

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".

I remember reading that some early church leaders postulated that the act of intercourse alone could count as a marital covenant. I think that was in Mormon Polygamy. I'll try to look for it later today.

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.

Sealing Power Present in 1831

Seven's claim that that the sealing power was not restored until 1836 is incorrect.

According to the minutes of the October 1831 general conference, "Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that the order of the High-priesthood is that they have power given them to seal up the Saints unto eternal life. And said it was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the Highpriesthood." (Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1841 [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983], 20-21; cf. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman [Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008], 471, s.v. "seal").

Likewise, Gregory Prince notes in his study of the development of the priesthood:

The relationship of Elijah to sealing necessitates a postscript because of the generally accepted teaching among Latter-day Saints that Elijah restored the sealing power to Joseph Smith in 1836. As has been shown, the power to seal was bestowed upon the elders in 1831, five years before the vision of Elijah, and while the forms embodied by the concept of sealing evolved throughout the rest of Smith's ministry, all later forms were in continuity with the earliest form. . . . Furthermore, no contemporary account of the 1836 vision of Elijah used the term "seal" with reference to his mission. Indeed, Smith himself made no explicit connection between Elijah and sealing until 1843—seven years after the vision—and the connotation of sealing most commonly used today by Latter-day Saints did not develop until 1844.

— Gregory A. Price, Power From On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 171.

According to Prince, "the theology of Elijah began as early as 1830 and showed accelerated development in the mid-1830s and again in the early 1840s. The theology of sealing began in 1831 and developed on a different trajectory, with the two intersecting no earlier than 1843" (Ibid.). For more details, see Prince, Power From On High, 155-172.

The Case for Marriage

Eliza R. Snow, who knew Fanny Alger well and lived in the Smith home at the same time with her in Ohio, listed Alger as a plural wife of Joseph Smith.

Benjamin F. Johnson, an intimate acquaintance of Joseph Smith whose sisters Delcena and Almera were married to the Prophet, also averred: "Without a doubt in my mind, Fanny Alger was, at Kirtland, the Prophet's first plural wife" (Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, 1903).

Further corroboration is provided by Ann Eliza Young and her father Chauncey Webb. The Webbs took Fanny Alger into their home after she left the Smiths. According to Ann Eliza, "[Fanny's] mother has always claimed that she was sealed to Joseph" On another occasion, Ann Eliza wrote: "I do not know that 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgement is principally formed from what Fanny Algers [sic] told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'sister Emma.' " Her father, Chauncey Webb, was quoted as saying, "He [Joseph Smith] was sealed there [in Kirtland] secretly to Fanny Alger" (see Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 34-35).

William E. McLellin also regarded the Smith-Alger relationship as a marriage, calling it "the first well authenticated case of polygamy" (William E. McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri).

And then of course there is Alger relative Mosiah Hancock's autobiography, which provides a detailed account of the marriage itself ("Father gave her [Fanny] to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him. . ."). See Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 29-33.

Nevo wrote:Sealing Power Present in 1831

Seven's claim that that the sealing power was not restored until 1836 is incorrect.

According to the minutes of the October 1831 general conference, "Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that the order of the High-priesthood is that they have power given them to seal up the Saints unto eternal life. And said it was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the Highpriesthood." (Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1841 [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983], 20-21; cf. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman [Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008], 471, s.v. "seal").

Does this mean that Harmony needs to change her sig line? It would seem so.

Nevo:

Apparently Oliver Cowdery disagrees with you:

Similarly, Oliver's accusing Joseph of adultery can hardly be taken as evidence that he is not a valid witness. To the contrary, his willingness to make such an accusation while still in the church (Petersen mistakenly says he was not) reveals Oliver's independent spirit. The document in question is a letter from Oliver to his brother Warren written in January 1838, three months before Oliver's excommunication. Speaking of Joseph Smith, Oliver wrote, "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself."6 Oliver was apparently unaware that Fanny Alger had become the first plural wife of Joseph Smith.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=477

Note the apologist's bias coming through in the last sentence.... sure either Oliver was "unaware" or plural marriage was yet to be introduced... sort of depends on who's testimony one wants to accept. Of course LDS are loathe to accept that of Sarah Pratt who flatly stated as much, yet it would seem more difficult to so easily dismiss Oliver Cowdery... hence the assumption that Oliver was just not on the polygamy need-to-know list.

So if Fanny was indeed a plural wife, why did D & C 101 use the term "fornication and polygamy"?

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again"

I assume the answer is that the "reproach" brought on the church by the "crime" of "fornication" was instigated by someone other than the prophet. That likely being the response, can anyone supply us with the name(s) of the individual(s) who forced such an amazing declaration to be added to the 1835 D & C--especially in light of the fact that the argument here seems to be that Smith already had at least one plural wife by the time D & C 101 hit the presses?

why me wrote:Does this mean that Harmony needs to change her sig line? It would seem so.

No. Sealing unto eternal life is different from sealing unto marriage.

Hi Nevo,

If Gregory Prince is correct in asserting that the term seal didn't come to be associated with the idea of "sealing" now under discussion until the early to mid-1840's, how is the word's 1831 appearance in the phrase "seal up" significant? Are you arguing that Prince is incorrect and the word seal did mean what it does today as early as 1831?

Thanks!