Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_rcrocket]

Now Bob

Can you kindly answer these questions I posed to you on page two of this thread. You can see the sources I referred to there:


1: What is your opinion and conclusion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith
2: If you do not think they had an affair do you thing they were married?
3: How was it valid if it was pre 1835 an prior to the sealing power.
4: If you think nothing happened do you have sources that dispute the sources we have posted?

Regarding points 1 and 2, I think the evidence is too thin to support the view that they were married or had an affair. On the affair point, we have Oliver Cowdery's statement about an "affair" (which could have meant anything in the 19th Century) as he was on his way out. He came back to the Church, which means that he got over this point.

On the marriage point, I have asked for sources. You point only to secondary sources with one exception. You refer (really, one of your secondary sources) to the journal of Benjamin F. Johnson. (Compton says Johnson is just speculating about the marriage.) Riddle me this: How old Johnson was in 1832?

Point 3: Since I do not accept that there is competent contemporeneous evidence on the affair or the marriage, perhaps you can tell me why I should accept the point? Or even give you a hypothetical answer?

Point 4: The absence of evidence is evidence that nothing happened. There is only one -- ONE -- contemporaneous reference -- Oliver Cowdery. And, it isn't enough. Not one contempary source pins them together in a sexual affair or a marriage. To one trained in evaluating evidence -- when there are hundreds of people watching him and making journal entries about him -- I am satisfied for now. I will wait for more evidence.

And then on all points: You seem to think that because your favorite secondary sources accept the facts of the marriage, then should I. Well, I don't. After examining original source material, I don't accept many of the conclusions of Bushman, Quinn, Compton, Brooks, Whitney, Joseph Smith Smith, Allen and others.

[_Jason Bourne]

Now Bob

Can you kindly answer these questions I posed to you on page two of this thread. You can see the sources I referred to there:


1: What is your opinion and conclusion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith
2: If you do not think they had an affair do you thing they were married?
3: How was it valid if it was pre 1835 an prior to the sealing power.
4: If you think nothing happened do you have sources that dispute the sources we have posted?

Regarding points 1 and 2, I think the evidence is too thin to support the view that they were married or had an affair. On the affair point, we have Oliver Cowdery's statement about an "affair" (which could have meant anything in the 19th Century) as he was on his way out. He came back to the Church, which means that he got over this point.

On the marriage point, I have asked for sources. You point only to secondary sources with one exception. You refer (really, one of your secondary sources) to the journal of Benjamin F. Johnson. (Compton says Johnson is just speculating about the marriage.) Riddle me this: How old Johnson was in 1832?

Point 3: Since I do not accept that there is competent contemporeneous evidence on the affair or the marriage, perhaps you can tell me why I should accept the point? Or even give you a hypothetical answer?

Point 4: The absence of evidence is evidence that nothing happened. There is only one -- ONE -- contemporaneous reference -- Oliver Cowdery. And, it isn't enough. Not one contempary source pins them together in a sexual affair or a marriage. To one trained in evaluating evidence -- when there are hundreds of people watching him and making journal entries about him -- I am satisfied for now. I will wait for more evidence.

And then on all points: You seem to think that because your favorite secondary sources accept the facts of the marriage, then should I. Well, I don't. After examining original source material, I don't accept many of the conclusions of Bushman, Quinn, Compton, Brooks, Whitney, Joseph Smith Smith, Allen and others.

Fair enough.

Thank you. Regarding your last paragraph, can you tell me why when these other fairly competent persons have seemed to conclude differently than you have why your conclusion should persuade me more than theirs?

Further, why do you think when the LDS Church issued the newly cross referenced D&C that Sec 132 contained in the intro that Joseph Smith may have known about plural marriage as early as 1831. Do you think that had anything to do with Fanny Alger? Last of all why do you think Familysearch lists Fanny as a ife of Joseph Smith?

Thanks

[_Jason Bourne]

A few more points on Polyandry.

Charity proposes that these wives's were only sealings. Runtu points to one instance where a polyandrous wife said she was a wife.

Here is another:

Zina does not record if she and Joseph consummated their union, although Zina later signed an affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in “very deed.”

Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 114-115

This is a secondary source and I do not know how reliable the source is.

Here is an affidavit from Zina:

Territory of Utah
County of Salt Lake

Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for said county personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington Young who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the twenty-seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in said Church, according to the laws of the same, regulating marriage; in the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington

[signed] Zina D.H. Young

Subscribed and Sworn to by
the said Zina D.H. Young, the
day and year first above written
[signed] E. Smith
Probate Judge

Affidavit of Zina D.H. Young, Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, May 1, 1869, Vol. 1:5 and 4:5, LDS Church Archives (MS 3423).

In February of 1846 Zina was sealed to BY for time:

Joseph Smith (martyred) Dec 23, 1805 Sharon, Winsor Co. Vermont
Zina Diantha Huntington Jan 31 – 1821 Watertown, Jefferson Co. N.Y. were sealed husband & wife for time & all eternity (Prest. Brigham Young acting proxy for the deceased).

Brigham Young & Zina Diantha Smith were then sealed husband & wife for time by H. C. Kimball in presence of William D. Huntington, & Henry B. Jacobs & J.D.L. Young, Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in the presence of these witnesses done at 15 m. to 6.

Franklin D. Richards Clk.

“A Book of Proxey,” No. 142. From Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages Proxy Sealings 1843-1846 (Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 2004),

[_charity]

A few more points on Polyandry.

Charity proposes that these wives's were only sealings. Runtu points to one instance where a polyandrous wife said she was a wife.

Here is another:

Zina does not record if she and Joseph consummated their union, although Zina later signed an affidavit that she was Smith’s wife in “very deed.”

Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 114-115

This is a secondary source and I do not know how reliable the source is.

Here is an affidavit from Zina:

Territory of Utah
County of Salt Lake

Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for said county personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington Young who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the twenty-seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in said Church, according to the laws of the same, regulating marriage; in the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington

[signed] Zina D.H. Young

Subscribed and Sworn to by
the said Zina D.H. Young, the
day and year first above written
[signed] E. Smith
Probate Judge

Affidavit of Zina D.H. Young, Affidavits on Celestial Marriage, May 1, 1869, Vol. 1:5 and 4:5, LDS Church Archives (MS 3423).

In February of 1846 Zina was sealed to BY for time:

Joseph Smith (martyred) Dec 23, 1805 Sharon, Winsor Co. Vermont
Zina Diantha Huntington Jan 31 – 1821 Watertown, Jefferson Co. N.Y. were sealed husband & wife for time & all eternity (Prest. Brigham Young acting proxy for the deceased).

Brigham Young & Zina Diantha Smith were then sealed husband & wife for time by H. C. Kimball in presence of William D. Huntington, & Henry B. Jacobs & J.D.L. Young, Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in the presence of these witnesses done at 15 m. to 6.

Franklin D. Richards Clk.

“A Book of Proxey,” No. 142. From Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages Proxy Sealings 1843-1846 (Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 2004),

As I have stated on many occasions, I think we do not have enough information to make any determination one way or the other. I would like to ask Zina what she meant by "very deed." A person could think that a sealing was more important than a marriage, and that no matter what the mortal circumstances, the sealing for eternity eclipsed everything else.

I have another question which has not been considered or brought up at all. The claim has been made that Joseph had offspring with plural wives, but these children were not known as his, and had other surnames. What would have been the purpose of this after the Saints were safe and established in Utah? Much of the secrecy was for matters of security while the Saints were still in the US. For obvious good reasons.

But when they were safe in the Utah Territory, why would not these children have been acknowledged as his? I would think it would be a matter of pride to be acknowledged as the child of the Prophet?

So, critics, please address this issue, if you would.

[_Yoda]

But when they were safe in the Utah Territory, why would not these children have been acknowledged as his? I would think it would be a matter of pride to be acknowledged as the child of the Prophet?

So, critics, please address this issue, if you would.

I was under the impression that some of them did? Am I wrong?

[_Yoda]

Liz, we are all given things that are hard. Some are physical. I have to be in a wheelchair. I hate being in a wheelchair. I can't walk. I can't drive. Despite ADA, there are a lot of places I can't go. People treat me like I am a child or stupid because my eye level doesn't come anywhere near theirs. BUT this is a temporary condition. Once I get my perfected, resurrected body, my knee is fixed. I wil be able to stand, walk, run

Some people are given emotional or mental challenges. In some cases, it probably is a challenge to believe a certain doctrine. Abraham was asked to sacrfice Isaac. He didn't have to do it. He just had to be willing to show that he would obey God. You aren't being asked to live plural marriage. It sounds to me as though your abhorrence at this requirement would be much what Abraham had to face.

Just as my destroyed knee is temporary and will be perfect, any ideas or attitudes we have that are not in line with God's will be perfected, IF we show an absolute desire to be obedient to God.

And in the case of plural marriage, if this is your test, you have a great consolation. You know that in this imperfect state, you will not be asked to live it. You just have to be willing to say, you would if God told you to. And you also have the knowledge that once we are on the other side, we will absolutely without a doubt know what God's mind and will is, completely.

Charity,

Thank you for your heartfelt response. I really appreciate it.

Liz

[_Jason Bourne]

I have another question which has not been considered or brought up at all. The claim has been made that Joseph had offspring with plural wives, but these children were not known as his, and had other surnames. What would have been the purpose of this after the Saints were safe and established in Utah? Much of the secrecy was for matters of security while the Saints were still in the US. For obvious good reasons.

But when they were safe in the Utah Territory, why would not these children have been acknowledged as his? I would think it would be a matter of pride to be acknowledged as the child of the Prophet?

So, critics, please address this issue, if you would.

This is a non issue to me. If we we really have limited access to information about his marriages, which I am not sure I agree with, we have none about children from these marriages.

[_charity]

I have another question which has not been considered or brought up at all. The claim has been made that Joseph had offspring with plural wives, but these children were not known as his, and had other surnames. What would have been the purpose of this after the Saints were safe and established in Utah? Much of the secrecy was for matters of security while the Saints were still in the US. For obvious good reasons.

But when they were safe in the Utah Territory, why would not these children have been acknowledged as his? I would think it would be a matter of pride to be acknowledged as the child of the Prophet?

So, critics, please address this issue, if you would.

This is a non issue to me. If we we really have limited access to information about his marriages, which I am not sure I agree with, we have none about children from these marriages.

I only mentioned it because it was brought up in this thread, using these children to prove that there were consummated relationships.

And yet, these women and children did not openly acknowledge it.

[_Runtu]

I only mentioned it because it was brought up in this thread, using these children to prove that there were consummated relationships.

And yet, these women and children did not openly acknowledge it.

The statement in question comes from Mary Lightner. I read it as her saying he had 3 children by his polyandrous wives, though one of the children did not survive (I suspect this is John Hiram Buell). The other two would have been raised as children of the first husbands, hence the "under different names" statement. I would guess that one of them is Josephine Lyons, but the other one I wouldn't have a guess at.

Speculative? Sure, but Sister Lightner was in a position to know, and she said she knew of 3 children.

[_charity]

Speculative? Sure, but Sister Lightner was in a position to know, and she said she knew of 3 children.

And WHY weren't they publicly acknowledged, do you think?