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

[_Roger]

Don:

touché on the Benjamin F. Johnson source, Roger! I was wondering if you'd locate it. This is the sole source of which I'm aware that claims there were rumors of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger's relationship before Fanny was booted from the house.

I'll acknowledge that it is evidence of that. I would, however, question the quality of the evidence.

Hmmm. Seems like trying to have it both ways.

At the time of writing, Benjamin F. Johnson was then in his mid-80s recalling a period some 68 years earlier, when he was a teenager. All of the relevant sources reporting a marriage are closer to the event than this. Yet you reject those as motivated and contaminated.

When have you seen me reject anything as being "motivated and contaminated? You're assuming too much.

I have sources, from the 1830s, showing that Kirtland residents and members of the church were not aware of and not responding to the Fanny Alger relationship until late 1836 and 1837--after the relationship's discovery by Emma; so, while I take Benjamin F. Johnson as a useful source, I see little reason to trust that he correctly recalled 68 years later that he heard the rumors before then.

I don't doubt that you do "have sources" but as this discussion clearly illustrates, this whole topic is full of contradicting sources. I think it is reasonable to conclude something was going on between Joseph and Fanny in 1835. You acknowledge that Hancock puts them together as early as 1833.

by the way, it will probably come as no surprise to you that I take exception to your claim that "polygamy" is a "generic" term. There's nothing generic about it, except that it doesn't specify multiple wives or multiple husbands, only multiple marriages. The word meant just that in Joseph Smith's day:

polygamy
POLYG'AMY, n. [Gr. many, and marriage.] A plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; or the having of such plurality. When a man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy.
(Webster's Dictionary, 1st edition, 1828)

"Polygamy" simply means "many marriages,", as everyone knows and the word itself shows. So the 1835 statement responds to an incident that was understood to be one of simultaneous marriages. If you disagree with that, take it up with the authors of the statement, who chose a word they knew referred to just that.

Unlike you, I have no reason to doubt that they meant what they said, and I will no longer argue for the self-evident--that "polygamy" refers to multiple marriages. If you want to make it not really mean that in this case, good luck with that. You'll need it!

My Best,

Don

I'm not following you here. Since when have I ever disupted the meaning of the word "polygamy"? All I am saying is you can't point to any specific case of either polygamy or fornication as being the motivation behind D & C 101. Neither can I. All I am saying is I think it is reasonable (probably more reasonable) to conclude that that article is in response to "the suspicion or knowledge of the Prophet's plural relation" than to some unnamed incident(s), although
"at the time there was little said publicly on the subject."

Of course the article is generic--you yourself admit that polygamy means "many marriages." Which "many marriages" is the article refering to? You don't know. Neither do I, but I can at least point to Joseph Smith as the most likely candidate and base that conclusion on testimony from people who were there at the time.

All the best,

Roger

[_Roger]

TD:

As a believer I struggled with polygamy for three main reasons:

First, polygamy was in opposition to the Golden Rule. I'm pretty sure few men would be quite so eager to participate in polygamy (or defend it with such force), if it were their wives who had multiple husbands and they were left with a smidgen of care, concern, and intimacy, while the woman they loved was sleeping around with five or ten more powerful men. Ya know? Most men I know are not too cool with the idea of getting little to no sex or love from the woman they marry.

Secondly, of course the Book of Mormon clearly states that God says polygamy "breaks the hearts of his daughters." So, what? God requires men to break the hearts of girls and women? It is a commandment essential to exaltation to break the hearts of girls and women?

While the passages may be interpreted to say that if God commands otherwise they can engage in polygamy, nowhere does it say the daughter's hearts will not be broken.

Finally, the thirteenth article of faith states, "... if there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praisworthy, we seek after these things." Yet, the inner circle, had to lie to members, the government, and the community because their behavior was considered so disgusting and immoral? God says, polygamy breaks the hearts of his daughters, something clearly not virtous and praiseworthy.

It is what it is.

I was right, you do have a way with words. This is so on the money.

This is what drives me bonkers when discussing this with true believing Mormons.... the entire chapter (Jacob 2) and some of the surrounding chapters are dissing polygamy. Pretty much everything written about polygamy in the Book of Mormon deals with how rotten it is... and then there's this little loophole like the fine print on a legal document "but if I command it it's suddenly okay, otherwise it stinks."

[_Roger]

Jason B:

I guess at least on this issue you summarize the tipping point for me. I used to defend this issue exactly like this. But as I explored it more I realized that if this were any other person than Joseph Smith I would not defend it but rather would condemn it. I realized that the only way I could justify is if God really commanded it. And as I explored more it just did not seem the way this all came to be as godly, at least the way I believe godly should be based on what the LDS Church has taught me about God.

I wish I could conclude some other way. But the defenses of this seem to border on absurdity. Let's assume that Joseph did marry Fanny first. Let's assume that the marriages to Helen Mar was dynastic and no sex happened. Let's assume the polyandrous relationships were all platonic and dynastic. We still end up with many, many wives and a system that seems frankly abusive to women and to favor men that are powerful. It just does not seem to taste good as Joseph once stated about truths from God.

I commend you for thinking this through. It is certainly not an easy thing to change your mind on something like this--especially if you've been raised to revere the man.

[_William Schryver]

truth stumbler:

… the Book of Mormon clearly states that God says polygamy "breaks the hearts of his daughters."

No, it doesn’t.

Jacob condemned some of the men in his day for committing “whoredoms.” And it is these “whoredoms” that were the cause of the broken hearts of the wives and daughters in 550 B.C., just as they are today.

He also condemns David’s and Solomon’s practice of having “many” wives and concubines.

I don’t know what constitutes “many,” but I perceive a significant difference between David and Solomon, who had literally dozens and dozens of wives and concubines, and even Brigham Young, who had more wives than anyone else during the era of Mormon polygamy. Of course, even of David and Solomon, the Lord is recorded as saying:

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Therefore, it is clear that there are distinctions to be made, and a blanket condemnation is not appropriate nor justified when it comes to these things.

Even during the height of Mormon plural marriage, very few men had what could be characterized as “many” wives. I don’t have the numbers in front of me at the moment, but I’m fairly certain you could count on your fingers the men who had more than seven wives. Of the 15% or so of LDS men who entered into polygyny, most had only two or three wives. And although some may have failed to provide each wife with the requisite love and attention, it is clear that many were successful in providing for all of the needs and wants of their plural spouses.

In sum, I submit that your generalized condemnation of these things is unwarranted by the evidence. There were many cases of very successful and happy plural marriages. And for any woman who was not satisified with her marital arrangement, divorce was readily obtainable.

Above all, I never cease to be amazed by the narrow-mindedness and culturally arrogant posture of many “modern” people towards the historically common practice of polygyny.

[Guest]

[_DonBradley]

<Sigh>

Now you've done it, Will. You've thrown down the gauntlet to Brackite on Jacob 2!

Gentlemen, to your corners...

[_Roger]

Wil:

You're farther gone than I realized:

There were many cases of very successful and happy plural marriages.

Aside from Eliza Snow (who was enamoured with Joseph Smith) name.... oh I don't know, how about five "happy" plural marriages of the prophet's? Please also show evidence of their "success."

[_Jason Bourne]

Jacob condemned some of the men in his day for committing “whoredoms.” And it is these “whoredoms” that were the cause of the broken hearts of the wives and daughters in 550 B.C., just as they are today.

He also condemns David’s and Solomon’s practice of having “many” wives and concubines.

And Jacob condemns David and Solomon's practice it total. He leaves no wiggle room like we find in D&C 132:

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

And this is in direct conflict with Jacob 2. Did the Lord change his mind?

In sum, I submit that your generalized condemnation of these things is unwarranted by the evidence. There were many cases of very successful and happy plural marriages. And for any woman who was not satisified with her marital arrangement, divorce was readily obtainable.

I have no doubt that polygamy may have worked for some families.

Above all, I never cease to be amazed by the narrow-mindedness and culturally arrogant posture of many “modern” people towards the historically common practice of polygyny.

There are all sorts of historical practices that the modern world rightfully and thankfully have left behind for the most part. Slavery for example. Human sacrifice as well. Caste systems and the order of peasantry and serfs seem mostly gone from the earth. I am highly dubious you would be tolerant about polygamy from any other source but Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

[_Brackite]

Even during the height of Mormon plural marriage, very few men had what could be characterized as “many” wives. I don’t have the numbers in front of me at the moment, but I’m fairly certain you could count on your fingers the men who had more than seven wives. Of the 15% or so of LDS men who entered into polygyny, most had only two or three wives. And although some may have failed to provide each wife with the requisite love and attention, it is clear that many were successful in providing for all of the needs and wants of their plural spouses.

This here, I have already gave a HyperLink to, to an earlier Post of Mine here:

Moreover, the number of Joseph Smith's sealings, as well as those of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, is not representative of Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century. These leaders set examples of willingness to obey the principle, but Stanley Ivins found that 66.3 percent of Utah polygamists had two wives, and another 21.2 percent had three wives. 2 In Sacred Loneliness goes beyond its narrative and anecdotal scope in making subjective judgments on plural marriage.

( FARMS Review: )

( Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Scott H. Faulring. )

"Of 1,784 polygamists, 66.3 percent married only one extra wife [approx. 1182 men], Another 21.2 percent were three-wife men [approx. 378 men], and 6.7 percent went as far as to take four wives [approx. 119 men]. This left a small group of less than 6 percent who married five or more women [approx. 105 men]." 21

( MRM: )

( Richard Abanes. )



Brigham Young wasn't successful in providing for all of the needs and wants of his Plural wives. The Following is From Todd Compton:

One of the most powerful documents reflected in my book is the diary of Emily Partridge Young. Obviously the marriage of Emily and Brigham was dysfunctional. You might argue that the relationship would have been the same in a monogamous relationship, but I find that hard to imagine. Anderson and Faulring refer to my "negative interpretation" of Emily Partridge, but it is difficult for me to imagine anyone reading her diary and painting a flowery picture of her life with Brigham. Anderson and Faulring suggest that the problem in the relationship was really Emily's: "Yet mood is one of her problems. . ." (p. 97). However, Brigham simply refused to pay her small water and school bills, and she agonized about how she could work to make enough money to pay them. This financial struggle for Emily, especially since she had poor health, cannot be blamed on her "problems" with "mood."

I agree that there were complexities in Emily's relationship with Brigham, and in my book I included positive things she said about him, and positive things he did for her. Yet an overwhelming emotional impression of the journal is agonized disbelief at how Brigham treated her. The diary expresses her ambivalence and inner conflicts, which were fascinating.

If I were reproducing a flatly "negative interpretation," I would not have included the positive things she said about Brigham. Anderson and Faulring seem to suggest that I should have merely cited the positive passages. After describing positive things Brigham did for Emily (all taken from my book), Anderson and Faulring write, disapprovingly, "In Sacred Loneliness prefers to keep Emily's complaints on the record." (p. 98) But citing only the positive would have given a dishonest account of Emily's diary and experiences. The only responsible route for a historian is to reflect the positive and negative and the relative weight they have in her diary. Emily created her record; I didn't. Emily kept her complaints on the record.

( HyperLink: )

[_why me]

I mentioned earlier that fanny didn't seem to have a problem with her sealing to Joseph Smith. Neither did her parents. Now if Fanny and Joe were in the barn having a go at it and were not sealed, I can see a problem developing with the family. Also, critics seem to imply that fanny was a rather loose woman when they imply that she was horny toading it with Joe.

Now fanny to my knowledge never said a negative word against Joe and neither did her family. Plus, her husband seemed to have no problem with fanny's past which implies that all was on the up and up with her and joe. We seem to forget that purity and virginity were in vogue back then for ladies.

And so, all in all, I would say that fanny believed herself to be married to Joseph Smith and sealed to him for eternity. And she didn't seem to be troubled by it.

This is only my opinion of course.