Did Joseph Smith marry for love?

[_ludwigm]

Runtu wrote:
> > >Did Joseph Smith marry for love? LOVE? Tut tut!
> > I think this just about sums it up.
> I deliberately used the word "love" because it was the least-loaded way I could say what I wanted to say. And his own use of the word made it a natural choice.

We, hungarians have two different word for love.
One is reserved for marrieds, man-woman, boy-girl (gay, lesbian) connections. (amorous ??)
The other is referenced to children, parents, other relatives, fellow-people, even pets.
Without other clarification, I interpreted the word "love" as the first definition says.

[_why me]

Isn't it interesting how Fanny Alger has become the favorite bedbug for countermos. For the record the LDS church recognizes Fanny on one of its sponsored websites:

http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145


Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.

Fanny was an interesting case and to hear critics tell it, Joseph was a lustful man. But this is far from the truth. Fanny herself had opportunities to tell her side of the story but chose not to. When her brother asked her about it after Joseph Smith died she replied: "That is all a matter of my----own. And I have nothing to Communicate"'. It is obvious she did not consider it a harmful experience. She married a non-Mormon and had nine children. She got married very young in 1836 or 37 I believe. And she stayed in Indiana when her parents stopped there only for a season to marry Solomon Custer. (See Bushman page 326-327) There was no reason for her to remain silent and she could have done much harm if the story is like the critics claim.

But she comes across as a happy woman in her marriage to Solomon much to the critics' chagrin.

But hey, I think that it is wonderful that there are so many critics willing to defend someone who needs no defence. And yet, I also know that most critics could not care a fig leaf for Fanny. It is only to cast poo on Joseph Smith that is most cared for.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Why me...

Evidence for the practice of

plural marriage during the 1830s is scant.

Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.

What? The only knowns plural marriage? Scant evidence? You have got to be kidding me?

Fanny was an interesting case and to hear critics tell it, Joseph was a lustful man. But this is far from the truth.

Oh really? Far from the truth? Come on Why me. Are other guys who have a history of seducing girls and young women doing it for some other reason?

Fanny herself had opportunities to tell her side of the story but chose not to.

Yep... most girls and women who have been taken advantage of sexually are quiet about it. It is humiliating, devastating, degrading, and most feel quite sick about it. Just look what happens to women who openly share sexual misconduct of powerful men? Look what Joseph Smith and others did to those women and men who didn't go along with his plan.

While doing crisis intevention work for sexual assault survivors, the first words out of their mouths was often... "Please don't tell anyone." They want to forget and put the incident behind them.

When her brother asked her about it after Joseph Smith died she replied: "That is all a matter of my----own. And I have nothing to Communicate"'. It is obvious she did not consider it a harmful experience.

Why me... think about this. If your wife were raped do you think she is going to want to tell the world? I mean seriously, this line of argument is one of complete lack of compassion, care, understanding, and concern for women or girls who have been taken advantage of sexually.

Has it ever crossed your mind that she didn't want to talk about it because it was a painful, sick, experience? Most people like to discuss great experiences and shy away from openly discussing painful memories.

She married a non-Mormon and had nine children. She got married very young in 1836 or 37 I believe. And she stayed in Indiana when her parents stopped there only for a season to marry Solomon Custer. (See Bushman page 326-327) There was no reason for her to remain silent and she could have done much harm if the story is like the critics claim. She comes across as a happy woman in her marriage to Solomon.

Many girls go on to have nice lives.

But hey, I think that it is wonderful that there are so many critics willing to defend someone who needs no defence.

How about people who are not tolerant of married men manipulating and coercing girls and young women to be their "wives."

And yet, I also know that most critics could not care a fig leaf for Fanny.

I disagree. I think those who think the behavior of Joseph Smith toward girls and women was despicable do so out of care and concern for girls and women. Just like they would find the behavior of all men who engage in such behavior towards girls and women despicable.

My guess is you would not appreciate your married thirty something neighbor picking up your fourteen year old girl... right along with other middle and high school girls in the neighborhood... and your wife.

But for whatever reason you seem to be OK with Joseph Smith doing so with other girls and young women.

The double standard is what I find most odd when it comes to discussions on this topic.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Isn't it interesting how Fanny Alger has become the favorite bedbug for countermos. For the record the LDS church recognizes Fanny on one of its sponsored websites:

http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

[b]Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come. [/b

Fanny was an interesting case

Fanny is interesting because she doesn't fit the church's party line: she wasn't sealed to Joseph, and there was no talk of commandment. Just "love." In case you hadn't noticed, that's what we're talking about.

to hear critics tell it, Joseph was a lustful man. But this is far from the truth.

And you know this how? For the record, I think the story is much more complicated than "lust," but if you're putting words in my mouth, that's as good as any, I suppose.

Fanny herself had opportunities to tell her side of the story but chose not to. When her brother asked her about it after Joseph Smith died she replied: "That is all a matter of my----own. And I have nothing to Communicate"'. It is obvious she did not consider it a harmful experience. She married a non-Mormon and had nine children. She got married very young in 1836 or 37 I believe.

A couple of things. She got married very young in 1833, if you accept Mosiah Hancock's account. It's fascinating that you believe that her not wishing to talk about it means that she thought it was not "a harmful experience." We have no idea how she felt about it, and she apparently preferred it that way. Considering that she left Joseph and the church and married another man, we might just as easily say that she didn't feel good about it. But nobody knows.

And she stayed in Indiana when her parents stopped there only for a season to marry Solomon Custer. (See Bushman page 326-327) There was no reason for her to remain silent and she could have done much harm if the story is like the critics claim.

For someone who disdains speculation, you're doing an awful lot of speculation here.

But she comes across as a happy woman in her marriage to Solomon much to the critics' chagrin.

Why would we be upset that she was happy in her marriage?

But hey, I think that it is wonderful that there are so many critics willing to defend someone who needs no defence. And yet, I also know that most critics could not care a fig leaf for Fanny. It is only to cast poo on Joseph Smith that is most cared for.

Are you serious? This is what I don't get. I started a thread about Fanny Alger precisely because Joseph's stated motivation was "love." Suddenly, I'm engaged in "character assassination" and "casting poo on Joseph Smith." Unbelievable. Are you guys that defensive about Joseph Smith that you can't even talk about the man without making unwarranted accusations?

[_Pokatator]

Isn't it interesting how Fanny Alger has become the favorite bedbug for countermos. For the record the LDS church recognizes Fanny on one of its sponsored websites:

http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145


Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.

Fanny was an interesting case and to hear critics tell it, Joseph was a lustful man. But this is far from the truth. Fanny herself had opportunities to tell her side of the story but chose not to. When her brother asked her about it after Joseph Smith died she replied: "That is all a matter of my----own. And I have nothing to Communicate"'. It is obvious she did not consider it a harmful experience. She married a non-Mormon and had nine children. She got married very young in 1836 or 37 I believe. And she stayed in Indiana when her parents stopped there only for a season to marry Solomon Custer. (See Bushman page 326-327) There was no reason for her to remain silent and she could have done much harm if the story is like the critics claim.

But she comes across as a happy woman in her marriage to Solomon much to the critics' chagrin.

But hey, I think that it is wonderful that there are so many critics willing to defend someone who needs no defence. And yet, I also know that most critics could not care a fig leaf for Fanny. It is only to cast poo on Joseph Smith that is most cared for.

You never seem you run out of stupid arguments.

I think TD and Runtu responded to you very well and kinder than I would like to. You seem to be a narcissist the same as I see Joseph. Neither have any emotion or care or concern or compassion for a victim.

At the minimum Fanny was a victim by age alone.

Victims don't tell their story if they are afraid. Afraid of Danites or angels with flaming swords. It is most likely she wanted to put the past in the past and "come across as a happy woman in her marriage to Solomon" that is what victims do.

Her silence is not evidence.

[Guest]

When her brother asked her about it after Joseph Smith died she replied: "That is all a matter of my----own. And I have nothing to Communicate"'. It is obvious she did not consider it a harmful experience.

Why do you think a woman saying an experience is something she would rather NOT talk about means it was not a harmful experience?

Shame, embarrassment, etc.. are the usual suspects when women choose to not talk about past marriages, relationships, or any other experience in their life that they'd rather not think of or share with others.

Now I don't know if that's the case with this woman or not. But surely you recognize that victims OFTEN hide their shame and victimization. I mean, don't you know this whyme?

[_ludwigm]

Isn't it interesting how Fanny Alger has become the favorite bedbug for countermos. For the record the LDS church recognizes Fanny on one of its sponsored websites:
http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145
Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.
...

Consequently, "why me" forgets again to cite the next paragraph:
"Though the revelation was first committed to writing on July 12, 1843, considerable evidence suggests that the principle of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith more than a decade before in connection with his study of the Bible (see Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), probably in early 1831."
(- as I wrote it at 2007.10.29 06:20:46 GMT+1.)

Is this paragraph inconvenient?

___ Ludwig from Hungary

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ludwigm... (welcome to the board by the way) :-)

Consequently, "why me" forgets again to cite the next paragraph:
"Though the revelation was first committed to writing on July 12, 1843, considerable evidence suggests that the principle of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith more than a decade before in connection with his study of the Bible (see Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), probably in early 1831."
(- as I wrote it at 2007.10.29 06:20:46 GMT+1.)

This is what I find so unbelievable.

A "revelation" is written in 1843 and since there is all sorts of proof that Joseph Smith engaged in his, ummm, "behavior," for years before this, some just assume it must have been the case that Joseph Smith received the revelation 10 or so years before.

This is just nuts!

I mean seriously!

A grown, married man is caught with his sixteen year old housekeeper and the excuse is, he had a revelation about which he forgot to tell anyone?

What guy gets away with this sort of stuff, and elicits these sorts of excuses other than Joseph Smith?


~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

..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.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:Heading)

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you
have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my
servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants,
as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which
I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them
must obey the same.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:1 - 3)

You heard brother Pratt state, this morning, that a revelation would
be read this afternoon, which was given previous to Joseph's death. It
contains a doctrine a small portion of the world is opposed to; but I can
deliver a prophecy upon it. Though that doctrine has not been practised
by the Elders, this people have believed in it for years.

The original copy of this revelation was burned up. William Clayton
was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime,
it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy
it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The
reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the
revelation suppose it is not now in existence.

The revelation will be read to you..

..Many others are of the same mind: they are not ignorant of what we
are doing in our social capacity. They have cried out, "Proclaim it." But
it would not do, a few years ago: everything must come in its time, as
there is a time to all things. I am now ready to proclaim it.

Journal of Discourses l Volume 6, Page 281 August 29, 1852

Fuzzy Math, Probably due to a time warp. What a mess.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'll tell you what I find wrong in that situation. Helen Mar Kimball got but one husband for eternity. That husband was not of her choosing. It was an arrangement between her father and the prophet. Her words were - paraphrasing - my father had but one ewe lamb to give. Had I known it was anything but a ceremony I would have never agreed.

In my opinion many of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith probably had their true loves elsewhere. They are not with their true loves in the eternities but with Joseph Smith.

I say all the above hypothetically because I don't believe they are with Joseph Smith. If there is indeed an afterlife I'd like to believe they are with their true loves.

I was reading about Zina Huntington Jacobs last night. She was being courted by Henry Jacobs when Joseph Smith approached her. She turned him down and married Henry. But Joseph refused to take no for an answer and told both of them it was God's will that Zina belong to him. Her marriage was of no consequence to him. She married Joseph out of religious duty, but she married Henry out of love and affection. But Henry won't be with her in the eternities.

Zina is very difficult. Not only did she marry Henry then later get sealed to Joseph (with Henry standing by) when Joseph was killed she was re-sealed to Joseph with BY as proxy and married to BY for time-with Henry standing by. Later BY basically told Henry that that which was Joseph's was now Brigham's and sent Henry away telling him to find another of his own level or class. This included Henry's children by the way. BY took over both Zina and Henry and Zina's kids. Henry was heart broken when away on a mission he learned Zina had move in with BY. What a strange tale.