Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Yoda]

I posed a question to Bob Crockett on the Heber C. Kimball thread in the Terrestrial Forum, and would like to continue a discussion on this topic here, since it's really a separate issue.

Bob brought up the point that he suspects that Joseph's polyandrous marriages were merely dynastic sealings.

My question is, why did Joseph find it necessary to seal these women to himself rather than perform a sealing ceremony where these women were sealed to their own husbands?

When I asked about this on FAIR, Dale explained to me that Joseph was acting upon the Law of Adoption. This was actually an area of sealing that Joseph was confused about, which is why the practice was changed later. Apparently, Joseph thought that in order for everyone he loved to be together in the next life, he would have to be sealed to all of them.

I would be able to buy that IF he hadn't also taught the law of marriage and sealing, and also had other husbands and wives sealed directly to each other.

What was different about the wives that Joseph had himself sealed to? Most of these wives' husbands were active and involved in the leadership in the Church. Why would Joseph not simply have the husbands and wives sealed to each other? It really doesn't make any sense to me.

I placed this thread in the Celestial Forum because I really want to keep this as doctrinal as possible. I don't want to debate the fact that Joseph was a liar, etc.

Nonmembers and ex-members are welcome to participate on this thread, but I would really like to keep the remarks to a doctrinal standpoint.

Apologists? I'm curious as to your views on this topic.

Thanks!

[_harmony]

My question is, why did Joseph find it necessary to seal these women to himself rather than perform a sealing ceremony where these women were sealed to their own husbands?

When I asked about this on FAIR, Dale explained to me that Joseph was acting upon the Law of Adoption. This was actually an area of sealing that Joseph was confused about, which is why the practice was changed later. Apparently, Joseph thought that in order for everyone he loved to be together in the next life, he would have to be sealed to all of them.

When I'm in an exceptionally generous mood, and am willing to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt, I agree with Crock and Dale. I think Joseph misunderstood both plural marriage and the law of adoption. I think the direction was not clear and Joseph experimented with several different applications.

But then I remember Fanny and it all blows up again.

[_Yoda]

My question is, why did Joseph find it necessary to seal these women to himself rather than perform a sealing ceremony where these women were sealed to their own husbands?

When I asked about this on FAIR, Dale explained to me that Joseph was acting upon the Law of Adoption. This was actually an area of sealing that Joseph was confused about, which is why the practice was changed later. Apparently, Joseph thought that in order for everyone he loved to be together in the next life, he would have to be sealed to all of them.

When I'm in an exceptionally generous mood, and am willing to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt, I agree with Crock and Dale. I think Joseph misunderstood both plural marriage and the law of adoption. I think the direction was not clear and Joseph experimented with several different applications.

But then I remember Fanny and it all blows up again.

Thanks for addressing this, Harmony! :)

So, the doctrinal stance is that he simply misunderstood the sealing practices? This is also confusing. Why would the Lord be so specific about other ordinances, and basically make sure that Joseph didn't "get it wrong", and then leave this ordinance, which is suppose to be the most important ordinance in the gospel to chance?

It becomes more and more difficult to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt even from a doctrinal standpoint with questions like these left unanswered. And, I agree, that it looks more and more like Joseph was trying to find a way to cover up an affair with Fanny.

I'm really hoping that there are some folks here who can honestly shed some light on this issue.

I'm not trying to ask these questions in a condemning manner, and am very open to information that I can be directed to.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz,

Well, this is not what you are looking for but ... (smile)

Joseph Smith was getting regular visitations from angels, channeling the very Jesus Christ, having revelation after revelation about every little thing, declaring doctrine, commandments, and ultimate truth, claimed to know all sorts of things so amazing he could not share with others (KFD), and yet he totally misunderstood the sealing practices that were required for entrance into heaven?

Is anyone kidding?

Did Joseph Smith think he was mistaken? Did he not know that he was confused? Did he not think he was following the will and commands of Christ? Did he get it all wrong and Christ couldn't come down and help him out?

WHERE WAS GOD?

If God is restoring the one and only truth, the fullness of HIS gospel, is it possible that he would allow Joseph Smith to totally screw up like this?

Yes Joseph Smith was a man, fallible and all that but again, WHERE WAS GOD?

Is God so incompetent that He couldn't help HS get a few things straight? Things that are REQUIRED for exaltation? The ULTIMATE covenant?

It makes NO sense to me. NONE.

To be clear, I do think at some point Joseph Smith became convinced that he was as special as he told everyone he was, that he was the King of the world, the heavenly judge for this dispensation, and everyone must be sealed to him (or something), but this really has nothing to do with his sexual exploits in my opinion.

If it was all about his eternal dynasty and endless sealings, why the secrecy? Why the manipulation? Why the lies? Why the covert nonsense? Why the taking of girls and teenagers and women already married? Why not just adopt/seal everyone?

If his "sealings" were about the next life, why not just come out and teach the idea that everyone must be sealed to everyone else? Or everyone had to be sealed to him? Or whatever he thought at the time?

I find the excuse making for Joseph Smith, rather feeble and completely desperate.

The reason the excuses do not make sense to you is because they do not make sense! ;-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

Harmony:

Aside from the decision of the brethren to seal Fanny Alger to Joseph Smith in Salt Lake City (which is no evidence of a marriage; see Wilford Woodruff's last sealing after his death to somebody he merely admired at the behest of friends of the woman), and Andrew Jensen's inclusion of Fanny as a wife in his chronology (he had no possible first-hand knowledge), what evidence is there of Joseph Smith lawful or meretricious relationship with Fanny Alger? Are you going solely on Oliver Cowdrey's out-the-door sarcastic comment?

[_Yoda]

Harmony:

Aside from the decision of the brethren to seal Fanny Alger to Joseph Smith in Salt Lake City (which is no evidence of a marriage; see Wilford Woodruff's last sealing after his death to somebody he merely admired at the behest of friends of the woman), and Andrew Jensen's inclusion of Fanny as a wife in his chronology (he had no possible first-hand knowledge), what evidence is there of Joseph Smith lawful or meretricious relationship with Fanny Alger? Are you going solely on Oliver Cowdrey's out-the-door sarcastic comment?

What do you feel would prompt this type of decision from the brethren? Are you saying that it was just some sort of wild notion on their part? That they thought it would be a nice thing to do, and that Joseph had no relationship with Fanny other than the fact that Fanny was a maid/child care provider for Joseph and Emma?

And, wasn't Joseph's relationship with Fanny the main catalyst for the contention between Oliver and Joseph?

Edited to add--Thanks for participating in my thread, here, Bob. I look forward to your insights.

[_charity]

I don't know that there is any doctrinal exposition on this. The best we have is some very spare historical tidbits that leave room for no definite statements, only speculation.

Joseph Smith evidently was very senstiive to friendships and loyalty. See his relatinship with W.W. Phelps, after Phelps actions in Missouri led direclty to Josepyh's imprisonment in Liberty Jail. When Phelps wrote and asked to be taken back into the fellowship of the Saints, Joseph spoke forcefully for his return to those who had been subject to great tribulation as a result. And accepted Phelps back with no reservations himself.

There were also sealings of men to men in this time. I think, as you said, it was a product of a new doctrine, which had never been taught in Christianity after the apostacy, it was exciting to Joseph to think of the relationship between all his family and friends continuing on after this life. And since it was new and not fully understood, he didn't get it right.

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

[_Yoda]

There were also sealings of men to men in this time. I think, as you said, it was a product of a new doctrine, which had never been taught in Christianity after the apostacy, it was exciting to Joseph to think of the relationship between all his family and friends continuing on after this life. And since it was new and not fully understood, he didn't get it right.

TD asked a question that I have also given much pause to. Why would God allow Joseph to get the sealing revelation so completely wrong? Why wasn't there clarification?

Also, thank you for participating.

I PM'd both Bob and Charity to share their thoughts on this thread, and I appreciate their willingness to participate and share an apologetic view.

[_rcrocket]

What do you feel would prompt this type of decision from the brethren? Are you saying that it was just some sort of wild notion on their part? That they thought it would be a nice thing to do, and that Joseph had no relationship with Fanny other than the fact that Fanny was a maid/child care provider for Joseph and Emma?

And, wasn't Joseph's relationship with Fanny the main catalyst for the contention between Oliver and Joseph?

I'm waiting for Harmony to back up her claim about Alger; surely she has a basis for her claim.

Before 1894, posthumous sealings were done with little or no basis.

Was it the "main catalyst?" On whose statement?

[_moksha]

My question is, why did Joseph find it necessary to seal these women to himself rather than perform a sealing ceremony where these women were sealed to their own husbands?

When I asked about this on FAIR, Dale explained to me that Joseph was acting upon the Law of Adoption. This was actually an area of sealing that Joseph was confused about, which is why the practice was changed later. Apparently, Joseph thought that in order for everyone he loved to be together in the next life, he would have to be sealed to all of them.

Why not adopt them as daughters rather than wives? That way Joseph could have been a Celestial Godfather to young Helen Mar and would not have had to make the bargain that all of Heber C. Kimball's descendants would get a free pass to the Celestial Kingdom.

This dynastic sealing idea seems revisionist to the extent that it helps explain away the adulterous nature of polyandry, yet it seems to embellish the mythos of Joseph Smith at a time where more accurate history is called for rather than more legend.