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

[_DonBradley]

Hi Roger,

You're welcome. And I appreciate your politeness.

Roger:
And you might be correct about that. At the same time, I doubt that you propose that Smith being discovered with Fanny was their first encounter?

I fail to see the relevance. I've already offered reasons for thinking the relationship that was being denied was well known. And if it was well enough known to require a denial in the church's scripture, I'd bet you dollars to dimes that it was known in the Smith household. If you'd bet the other way, you and I need to play poker!

Don:
The Article on Marriage states that the church had been "reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy" and then proceeds to deny that the church believes in polygamy, without denying the incidents which brough reproach on the church actually occurred. This, and the fact that they felt such a public, canonical statement necessary in the first place, evidence that there had been some incident or incidents that were well enough known that they had to be dealt with and that it would be futile to deny them.

Roger:
Only well enough known by the authors of the article.

A public, canonical statement would not have been necessary if the relationship being discussed were known only privately to a few, such as those issuing the statement. And the Article clearly states that the church itself had been reproached because of the misdeeds. This clearly indicates a broad knowledge of something amiss, and not merely knowledge on the part of those writing the statement. Without that broad knowledge, those issuing the statement would not have had cause to do so.

Roger:
There is plenty of testimony that rumors were circulating.

If you think the Article responded to rumors about Joseph and Fanny, what evidence can you produce of rumors of Joseph and Fanny being circulated in 1835? The Article doesn't count as such evidence here, because that would be circular reasoning. So, what evidence can you put forward here?

Roger:
If that is true, then why would the church have felt "reproach" to such an extent as to feel compelled to canonize a statement that should otherwise be self-evident? So to me it doesn't rise to the level it did unless it was in response to Smith himself.

The church could have been brought into disrepute by the actions of ordinary members. We're talking about a church of just a few thousand members, and one which the public was inclined to find fault with in the first place.

for what it's worth, it strikes me as odd that you would think only Smith could have brought reproach on the church, but you think he could do so without his blameworthy actions being widely known. Private actions known to a select few don't bring public reproach.

However, it's worth noting again that I'm not arguing the statement responded to others' behavior, and not Smith's. I'm just leaving that door open. And you haven't presented good reason to shut it.

Roger:
I'm referring to his [Oliver's] accusation of an affair. [...] He was either mistaken, or there was no revelation on plural marriage in 1835.

Nonsense!

Joseph could have claimed a revelation on polygamy and Oliver simply disbelieved it. It wouldn't be the first or last time Oliver dissented from Joseph's revelations.

by the way, I've already shown that more evidence would be needed to show that Oliver understood the relationship of Joseph and Fanny to be an "affair" in the modern sense. Have you located this evidence?

Also, if you think the Article on Marriage, apparently written in part by Cowdery, responds to Joseph and Fanny, you have to consider that Cowdery would there be referring to it, not as adultery, but as polygamy. Perhaps Oliver thought polygamy was dirty, nasty, and filthy.

In making these arguments, you don't seem to be keeping consistent with yourself.

Roger:
At the very least, we can state that if it appeared to Oliver Cowdery as though an affair was going on between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger in 1835, then it is little wonder it appears the same way to modern LDS critics.

Yes, particularly if they make no attempt whatsoever to determine whether the term "affair" carried the connotation of extramarital dalliance in its 1838 context. I would be genuinely interested in any evidence you can find on the meaning of this term in its contemporaneous context.

Roger:
In this discussion with you, all I'm arguing is that the Article on Marriage didn't respond to stories about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

And yet you seem to still hold that possibility open:

Don:
I'm not an apologist, and I'm not saying that the Article on Marriage wasn't issued because of polygamous marrying by Joseph Smith.

No! I'm saying the Article almost certainly does not respond to Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger, but may well respond to an earlier polygamous relationship on his part--or to the behavior others besides Joseph. There is nothing at all that directly links the Fanny Alger relationship with the Article, and there is evidence that the Fanny Alger relationship becomes known too late to prompt the Article. So why not seriously consider other possibilities? This isn't an issue of faith, but of history. The point is--one would hope--neither to defend Joseph Smith or to attack him, but to seek an accurate understanding of what really happened.

Apparently the only difference is you are holding open the possibility of someone preceeding Fanny.

Ah, okay. We're not as far apart here as I thought.

8-)

Don

[_DonBradley]

Don:

Yes, there was an 1835 statement indicating that the church had been reproached with "polygamy." Do you realize what this means? It means that polygamy was already in the air. If, as you claim, this statement was responding to the relationship of Josehp Smith and Fanny Alger, then the statement itself treats the relationship as a marriage, albeit an illicit one. Where there is no marriage, there can be no polygamy. You can't have this one both ways.

Don

With all due respect, Don, not it doesn't. The statement is ambiguous and generic, which is precisely why you can claim it is not refering to anything specific. Beyond that it condemns both fornication and polygamy! Curious, isn't it? Why take the time to condemn something that is already condemned in the Bible? It's as though the writers weren't exactly sure which rumors they were responding to or which rumors to believe and which not to believe, so let's just cover all our options here and condemn both polygamy and fornication.

Roger, you're misreading the document. The statement doesn't indicate that the authors are not sure whether what has happened is polygamy or fornication. They think both has occurred, which is why they say directly that the church "has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy." While it may not be specific regarding who is at fault, it is quite clear on what has been done. And one of those things is "polygamy", plain and simple, which meant then what it means now--having more than one wife. So, the statement certainly indicates that there was a polygamous marriage, because the term polygamous marriage is redundant--polygamy just is multiple marriages of one person, existing at the same time.

The statement also indicates--without saying it's referring to the same person or persons--that "fornication" had been committed. This could refer to separate actions. But it could also refer to one and the same action, if polygamy itself were seen as a species of sexual sin--as seems to be the case here.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Do you exclude the possibility that there was no marriage ceremony, but that the sexual act itself bound them as "married" in a similar fashion as a common-law marriage?

Hi Beastie!

No, I don't exclude that possibility. But I doubt it. I'm not sure whether there was a third-party officiator or not. Perhaps it was just a mutual covenant. But in either case I think the understanding between the two would have been that they were married.

That said, the fact that the relationship was not discovered until at least spring 1836 means it could have started after Joseph Smith began claiming authority to perform marriages in fall 1835. If Joseph Smith claimed authority to perform marriages publicly at this time, why not privately as well? He could have performed a ceremony himself or deputized someone else to do it for them.

Don

[_Yoda]

Wait--I thought that Joseph and Fanny were "discovered" in the barn by Emma in 1833.

[_Yoda]

Wait--I thought that Joseph and Fanny were "discovered" in the barn by Emma in 1833.

[_DonBradley]

Wait--I thought that Joseph and Fanny were "discovered" in the barn by Emma in 1833.

Nope. Todd Compton argued that they were married in 1833--which I think is much too early. And there is a story from William McLellin about Joseph being discovered in the barn with a "Miss Hill," who is often thought to be Fanny Alger. But McLellin tells the story of Emma's discovery of Joseph with Fanny Alger as a separate event--and this is an event we can now date to 1836. Or at least I think I can date the event very precisely in 1836 and have a paper in the works to present my case.

Don

[_Gazelam]

Institution of Polygamy(reminiscence - 1880)

Elder Joseph B. Noble. It was my lot to be reared almost on the spot where the Plates of the Book of Mormon were found - In June 1832 I embraced the Gospel and in the Spring of 1833 I went to Ohio where I saw the Prophet Joseph for the first time - spent 9 days with him 6 of which I worked with him in the field - He (Bro. Noble) spoke of Joseph unfolding to him the Eternity of the Marriage covenant to convince him of the truth of which was no small matter - Joseph bore testimony that he had received a revelation on this principle in Kirtland but the Lord then told him "not yet." The Angel of the Lord came to him in Nauvoo and told him the time had come - and his Joseph’s obedience should be followed by blessing - St. George Stake Minutes, vol. 6, Dec. 23, 1880 (LDS Archives).

[_Gazelam]

Monogamy Unless Commanded

Source: Apostle Orson Pratt, Seer (February, 1853) p. 29-30. Elder Pratt was called upon by Brigham to present explanations and arguements for the Church's endorsement and practice of polygamy. He was sent to Washington to publish the Seer monthly (January 1853 - August 1854, a total of 320 pages). The purpose was to elucidate the doctrines of the Church. Of those doctrines addressed, "Celestial Marriage" received the most attention. Brigham Young commended Pratt's treatment of basic principles, but denounced some of his speculative ideas. See James R. Clark, ed. Messages of the First Presidency (Bookcraft: Salt Lake City, 1965) 2:222-223.

...do you not really think that it is contrary to the will of God for a man, in these days, to take a plurality of wives? Yes, unless God shall give them to him by a revelation through a holy prophet. (Seer, 29-30)

Does that book teach the doctrine of plurality of wives? It does not. Does the lord in that book forbid the plurality doctrine? He forbid the ancient Nephites to have any more than one wife. What does the Book of Mormon say on this subject? ... hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife: and concubines he shall have none." (Book of Jacob, 2: 6.) ...the Lord, Himself, informs them, in the same connection with the quotation which I have just made, that if He would have them practice differently from what He had previously taught them, it must be by his command. It reads as follows:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things."

Thus we see, that a man among the Nephites, by the law of God, had no right to take more than one wife, unless the Lord should command for the purpose of raising up seed unto Himself. Without such a command, they were strictly limited to the one wife doctrine: "otherwise," says the Lord, "they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, without an express command, they should hearken to the law, limiting them to one wife. So it is in this church of Latter Day Saints, every man is strictly limited to one wife, unless the Lord, through the President and Prophet of the Church, gives a revelation permitting him to take more.

[_Gazelam]

H.C. Kimball's wives and children

Source: Stanley B. Kimball Heber C. Kimball Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1981) 307-316. Kimball lists Heber C. Kimball's known wives and children and summarizes some of his findings. I gathered a number of facts he provides into several different categories and draw several conclusions.

First marriage: 1822
Last marriage: 1857

First child: 1823
Last child: 1868

Last child to die: 1950

Child bearing wives: 17
Non-child bearing wives: 26

He had 65 Children (45 sons & 20 daughters) with 17 of his 43 wives; 10 with his first wife Vilate, and 55 children with 16 of his plural wives. This fact suggests that most of his marriages were non-sexual.

He had 10 children with his first wife Vilate who was 16 years old when they married. They had children in 1823 (8 months and 1 week after their marriage), 1826, 1828, 1831, 1835, 1839, 1843, 1845, 1847, 1850.

Of his 65 children, 39 children lived past the age of 23, but only 3 of his sons and 2 of his daughters entered plural marriage - about 13%. This suggests that their was not a strict insistence by Heber C. Kimball that his children accept and practice polygamy.

Of his 17 wives who bore children, nine did not give birth for more than 4 years after their marriage suggesting that sex was not immediate; that it was postponed until these wives and Heber C. Kimball were prepared to have children.

Teenage Wives
Nine of his plural wives were in their teens. 15, 16(3), 18(2), 19(3).

Of these 9, he had children with only 5. This suggests that the other four were non-sexual marriages.

He married the 15 year old in 1845 but she did begin having children for six years. Then she had 4: 1851, 1854, 1857, 1861.

Of the three 16 year olds, he had children with only one. He married her in 1844, but she did not begin bearing children for 7 years; not until she was 23. She had four: 1851, 1856, 1858, 1861. These facts for his two youngest wives suggest that sex in their marriages was posponed until they were several years older.

Of the three remaining, one was 18 and two were 19 and each gave birth to her first child from 12 - 19 months after her marriage.

[_DonBradley]

Institution of Polygamy(reminiscence - 1880)

Elder Joseph B. Noble. It was my lot to be reared almost on the spot where the Plates of the Book of Mormon were found - In June 1832 I embraced the Gospel and in the Spring of 1833 I went to Ohio where I saw the Prophet Joseph for the first time - spent 9 days with him 6 of which I worked with him in the field - He (Bro. Noble) spoke of Joseph unfolding to him the Eternity of the Marriage covenant to convince him of the truth of which was no small matter - Joseph bore testimony that he had received a revelation on this principle in Kirtland but the Lord then told him "not yet." The Angel of the Lord came to him in Nauvoo and told him the time had come - and his Joseph’s obedience should be followed by blessing - St. George Stake Minutes, vol. 6, Dec. 23, 1880 (LDS Archives).

Interesting quote!

Taken literally, this one would mean that there was no polygamy in Kirtland. In fact, there is one historian of Mormonism I know who believes nothing happened between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger because Joseph B. Noble said his sister-in-law Louisa Beaman had been Joseph's first plural wife.

But the Fanny Alger relationship is very well documented. We know something happened. So on the theory that Joseph really wasn't supposed to practice polygamy yet in Kirtland, he went ahead too soon (or as some here argue, the Kirtland relationship wasn't really polygamy).

Don