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

[_DonBradley]

oops

[_Jason Bourne]

Quote:
Apostle Willard Richards in December 1845 entered into such a plural marriage with Alice Longstroth (my insert, he’s referring to “marrying” someone as a common-law wife by having sexual relations without a ceremony performed). His 23 December diary entry reads: “At 10 P.M. took Alice L[ongstroth] by the [hand] of our own free will and avow mutuall acknowledge each other husband & wife, in a covenant not to be broken in time or Eternity for time & for all Eternity & and called upon God. & all Holy angels - & Sarah Long[stro]th to witness the same.”

Apostle Abraham H. Cannon noted in his 5 April 1894 diary that both George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff approved of such arrangements. “I believe in concubinage,” George Q. is recorded as saying, “or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” Woodruff responded to Cannon’s suggestion, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”


Here’s an earlier thread discussing concubinage:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &view=next

All these explanations must be viewed as “after the fact” attempts to justify Joseph Smith’s behavior, since Joseph Smith remained silent on the topic.

How interesting. I wonder if an LDS Couple contemplating marriage could do the same thing today? Or do you think they might find themselves out of the Church or at least in hot water.

[_Jason Bourne]

The part I bolded above is how I view the meeting and section 68. What I am saying is that they were preparing for the restoration of this sealing power. It was prophesied that Elijah would restore these keys. It's not surprising if Joseph would prepare the Elders for this future sealing power. It is my understanding that Joseph was teaching the Elders that they would have this power to seal. Not that they already had the keys to do so.

The only problem with this is that the sealing power described in the October 1831 conference, and again in Section 1 and Section 68, was exercised before 1836.

Writes Gregory Prince: "Within days of the October 1831 general conference, elders holding the High Priesthood began to exercise their newly conferred authority and sealed entire congregations to eternal life." Examples are provided from the journals of Reynolds Cahoon and Jared Carter. Prince continues: "Other instances of group sealings occurred in April 1832 (performed by Joseph Smith) and in August and September 1833 (performed by Lyman Johnson). By this time the practice of sealing individuals rather than groups had begun, and while no instances group sealings have been found after 1833, individual sealings increased dramatically. The first known instance occurred in January 1833 at the opening of the School of the Prophets" (Prince, Power From On High, 162-63). Examples multiply from there—including Joseph Smith's 1842 marriage ceremony to plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney, which contained the words: "let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever" (164).

What is a problem, is the conditions of the law revealed in section 132 that required sealing keys to enter polygamy. When did Joseph receive those keys if it wasn't from Elijah in 1836?

I disagree with your claim that the sealing keys restored by Elijah were required to practice polygamy. I don't think plural marriage and eternal marriage were necessarily synonymous in Joseph's mind in the 1830s. I think Joseph felt authorized to practice polygamy whenever he was commanded to do so.

I've already pointed out that Joseph believed he had the priesthood authority to perform marriages prior to Elijah's visit and that he did so. Less than a month after he solemnized the marriage, on 24 November 1835, between Newel Knight and Lydia Bailey, he married Edwin Webb and Eliza Ann McWethy, recording in his journal: "I sealed the matrimonial ceremony in the name of God, and pronounced the blessings of heaven upon the heads of the young married couple" (13 December 1835, in The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, 121-22).

I am satisfied that Joseph Smith believed that his marriage to Fanny Alger had divine sanction. Arguing that it wasn't a valid marriage because it did not meet the requirements of Section 132 is rather like arguing that Joseph's First Vision wasn't a valid theophany because it didn't meet the requirements of D&C 84:21-22.

So Nevo

If the Fanny affair was indeed a marriage then the article on Marriage in the 1835 D&C as well as one of the three reasons given in the introduction to the 1835 for its publications ( the fact that the church was charged with believing in fornication and polygamy) was another flat out lie to the public and even to many unsuspecting church members.

How can it be any other way?

[Guest]

The only problem with this is that the sealing power described in the October 1831 conference, and again in Section 1 and Section 68, was exercised before 1836.

This thread has totally confused me. Here's how the Church teaches it. Before 1836, no keys to seal. After Elijah visits, sealing keys are restored. What am I missing? Is the Church wrong? Or was Joseph able to polygamous marry Fanny without the sealing keys?

Then, in another glorious vision, Joseph and Oliver saw the prophet Elijah (see D&C 110:13–16). The coming of Elijah was so important that the ancient prophet Malachi had prophesied of it centuries earlier, and the Savior had repeated the prophecy to the Nephites (see Malachi 4:5–6; 3 Nephi 25:5–6; 26:1–2). Elijah came to commit to Joseph and Oliver the keys of sealing—the power to bind and validate in the heavens all ordinances performed on the earth. The restoration of the sealing power was necessary to prepare the world for the Savior’s Second Coming, for without it, “the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming” (Joseph Smith—History 1:39).

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

Elijah appeared to the Prophet and Oliver testifying that “the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands” in preparation for “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” ( v. 16 ). Through the sealing keys that were restored by Elijah, Latter-day Saints could now perform saving priesthood ordinances in behalf of their kindred dead as well as for the living. These sacred ordinances for the dead were not introduced to the members of the Church until the Nauvoo era.

Church History in the Fulness of Times, CES Manual

Elijah has returned! Thanks be to God! He bestowed his keys! Work could now commence in the temples to weld eternal links between husbands and wives, between parents and children, through the sealing power of God.

It is essential to obtain the sealing power of the holy priesthood so that whatsoever an authorized officiator shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (See D&C 127:7.) For in the sacred ordinances and through this sacred power come glory and honor and eternal life. (See D&C 128:11–12.)

It is by this power that husband and wife are sealed in a never-ending bond of marriage. It is by this power that a welding link is forged between children and parents. This is the holy power that is exercised in the temple. It is the power that validates all ordinances in the Church. This is the consummate authority in the kingdom of God.

Without the authority and use of that power, in all ages of the world, none of our Heavenly Father’s children can enter His presence or ever become like Him! And if this were not so, the whole purpose of existence would be useless. That is why the Lord said “the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.” (D&C 2:3.)


The First and Last Words, Elder Tuttle, General Conference, April 1982

With this fulfillment of prophecy, all former priesthood powers were restored again to earth. Temples have been erected in which a fullness of these priesthood ordinances is made available for those who qualify themselves to receive them through faith and righteous living. Before the Savior comes again, power has been given us to proceed with a great priesthood work. We are to bind together the families of men in true patriarchal order, so that through worthiness we may have the privilege to live in the celestial kingdom as children of God, with resurrected bodies of flesh and bone, to dwell eternally in the very presence of God the Eternal Father.

The Power of Elijah, Elder Theodore M. Burton

President Faust even tells us that it was Elijah who gave the sealing power:

Those marriages performed in our temples, meant to be eternal relationships, then become the most sacred covenants we can make. The sealing power given by God through Elijah is thus invoked, and God becomes a party to the promises.

Fathers, Mothers, Marriage

So, if Joseph already had the keys and authority to perform sealings in 1836, what was it that was Elijah restored?

[_Nevo]

If the Fanny affair was indeed a marriage then the article on Marriage in the 1835 D&C as well as one of the three reasons given in the introduction to the 1835 for its publications ( the fact that the church was charged with believing in fornication and polygamy) was another flat out lie to the public and even to many unsuspecting church members. How can it be any other way?

Polygamy was always publicly denied during Joseph Smith's lifetime—although, as Don points out above, in the case of the 1835 "Article on Marriage" the denial might well be true.

[_Roger]

Don:

2) The August 1835 Article on Marriage precedes and therefore does not respond to the discovery of Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger and must therefore be referring to something else altogether.

I assume you're refering to this:

The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. 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. - D & C 101 and History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247, August 1835

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?

What you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the article pre-dates the time at which Joseph Smith actually got caught in the act and therefore can't refer to his getting caught in the act. Be that as it may, it can still refer to Joseph Smith and the then current "rumors". I don't see who else it could be refering to.

"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church." This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her."

- Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)

If it was a marriage, Oliver Cowdery should have been given a crash course in the New & Everlasting Covenant.

[_William Schryver]

I believe the Fanny Alger relationship was carried out under the rubric of polygamy. This is something I presented evidence on at MHA, which Nevo has alluded to.

As I went over at MHA and will also be publishing, Jenson put Fanny's name on his list of Joseph Smith's wives because Eliza R. Snow wrote the name on a list she provided him. ERS also reported to Jenson that the blow up over Fanny (Emma's discovery of the relationship) occurred while Eliza lived in the Smith's Kirtland home, which was in 1836.

This all has implications:

1) Eliza, who knew Fanny and was in the home at the time the relationship became known, was confident that the relationship was a marriage--so confident she was willing to give Fanny's name to the world as that of a 'sister wife.'

2) The August 1835 Article on Marriage precedes and therefore does not respond to the discovery of Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger and must therefore be referring to something else altogether.

3) The relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger was discovered after Eliza moved into the Smith home in Spring 1836 and thus likely began after Smith began performing priesthood wedding ceremonies in public in the fall of 1835 and could have even post-dated the April 1836 Elijah experience in the Kirtland temple. This timing considerably bolsters the plausibility of a marriage. (for what it's worth, I find Levi Hancock's account not entirely reliable--for one thing I can't imagine Joseph and Fanny having a relationship under Emma's nose for over three years without a pregnancy or discovery.)

I'll just drop these as thoughts here, without quotations, references, or complete arguments since the whole thing will be published by the John Whitmer Historical Association as a chapter in the forthcoming compilation Mormon Polygamy: From Joseph Smith to the Fundamentalists.

Don

Don,

Great observations! I look forward to reading your paper on this consistently controversial topic.

[_DonBradley]

Roger,

The Article on Marriage plainly refers to more than vague rumors--it acknowledges that the church has "been reproached by the crime" of fornication and polygamy. And if Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny had been circulated so widely as to require a denial to the world via the Doctrine and Covenants, it seems a tad likely that Emma would have known about it too! Yet all the accounts say that Emma kicked Fanny out when she discovered the relationship, not that she put up with it for several months first. The strong implication is that the relationship that necessitated the August 1835 denial was not that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. 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. Just how much do you know about this period in Mormon history, including who was accused of what?

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.

Don

[_William Schryver]

If the Fanny affair was indeed a marriage then the article on Marriage in the 1835 D&C as well as one of the three reasons given in the introduction to the 1835 for its publications ( the fact that the church was charged with believing in fornication and polygamy) was another flat out lie to the public and even to many unsuspecting church members. How can it be any other way?

Polygamy was always publicly denied during Joseph Smith's lifetime—although, as Don points out above, in the case of the 1835 "Article on Marriage" the denial might well be true.

I think it is apparent that Jason did not read Don's post above, otherwise he wouldn't have posed this question.
.
.
.
cynicpro:

This thread has totally confused me.

Translation: I don't much like the import of this new information with which I was previously (and blissfully) unaware.

As for your various citations, you are obviously making the assumption that Joseph Smith could not have been authorized to contract a plural marriage unless that marriage could be solemnized for time and eternity. I believe any such assumption is unwarranted. It appears that the motivation for Joseph Smith's initial inquiry concerning plural marriage was in the context of the marital arrangements of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Previous to 1836, there appears to have been no understanding that a marriage could endure into eternity. And yet Abraham (and others) had been permitted to marry multiple women without such a provision.

The authority to seal a marriage contract for eternity comes in addition to, not necessarily as an integral component of, the authorization to contract plural marriages.

[_Ray A]

Previous to 1836, there appears to have been no understanding that a marriage could endure into eternity. And yet Abraham (and others) had been permitted to marry multiple women without such a provision.

That seems to be contrary to Section 132. (by the way, I find this subject utterly boooring, but I wanted clarification on this)