Polygamy: "Reluctance" and the Statement on Marriage

[sock puppet]

There is from the LDS defenders a lot of ballyhoo trying to fit Joseph Smith, Jr.'s roll in the hay with Fanny Alger to be a polygamous marriage rather than the more obvious "dirty, nasty, filthy scrape" as labeled by Oliver Cowdery--for which he was excommunicated. LDS defenders like to date the barn incident as spring 1836. Others disagree and place the date earlier. For this OP, however, we'll go with spring 1836.

Joseph Smith, Jr. reportedly had resisted the notion before eventually engaging in it. Acceding to it only when an angel drew a sword and threatened Joseph Smith, Jr. with death if he did not do so. So, if Alger was a wife, the reticence and the angelic threat had to have occurred no later than the spring of 1836. (In August 1836, Joseph Smith, Jr. arranged for Fanny Alger to be taken from Ohio to Missouri.)

Not until 1841 did Joseph Smith, Jr. take another polygamous "wife." From April 5, 1841 (Louisa Beaman) through the spring of 1843 (just before the revelation was dictated on July 12, 1843, see below) (Nancy Maria Winchester), took 14 polygamous "wives."

So, from August 1836 to April 1841, Joseph Smith, Jr. perhaps defied the death-threatening angel by not engaging in polygamy, but then in just 2 years time took at least 14 wives. What accounts for the 'damn breaking' in early 1841, as Joseph Smith, Jr. went on a rampage of bedding women other than Emma, for many in the 1840s there are records of ceremonies and sealings? But none for Fanny Alger, at least not until done in proxy for her and Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1899. Perhaps the purported angelic threat did not occur (if ever) until the early spring of 1841, and Fanny Alger was just a matter of his libido getting the better of him. Otherwise, Joseph Smith, Jr. was willing to defy God and the angel for 5 years, spring 1836 to April 1841.

The Fanny Alger incident took place, according to defenders, in early 1836. That was the year after the first publication by Joseph Smith, Jr. (e.g., 1835) of the Statement on Marriage in the D&C.

Joseph Smith, Jr. didn't deliver the 'revelation' on polygamy until it was dictated by him to scribe William Clayton on July 12, 1843.

After the 'damn broke' in 1841, Joseph Smith, Jr., as publisher, caused or allowed the publication of the Statement on Marriage three more times: in the Times and Seasons editions of Sept 1 and Oct 1, 1842, and in the 1844 edition of the Mormon canon, specifically the D&C. This was AFTER numerous liaisons with women. On May 26, 1844, Joseph Smith, Jr. openly denied in a Sunday sermon aboard the Maid of Iowa having more than one wife. HoC 6:408-12. It might be one thing to keep the polygamous marriages quiet and not tout them publicly (although that is almost universally how real marriages are treated), but quite another to affirmatively, bluntly and openly lie about it.

In 1856 (Oct 8), Brigham Young claimed "as to [Joseph Smith, Jr. reportedly] denying any such thing, I never knew that he denied the doctrine of polygamy. Some have said that he did, but I do not believe he ever did." George D. Watt's long transcription. Either Brigham Young was ignorant of the Times and Seasons or the D&C, or he was in 1856 gaslighting and trying to change the historical narrative.

So, I wonder how many believing Mormons reading this board have:
1-Denied publicly being married to his/her spouse(s)?
2-Did not live with and provide for them?
3-Did not hold them out in public as his/her spouse?
4-Were secretly sealed to the spouse?

Both marriage and adultery involve two people having sexual relationships. So what differentiates a marriage from mere adultery? Marriage is when you hold someone out to the public as your spouse. Sort of a signaling to all others, this is my sex partner, do not tread where you shouldn't (i.e., don't have sex with my spouse). In fact, at the common law a couple were considered legally married without a certificate and without a ceremony conducted by an 'authority', so long as the couple held themselves out to others as married. Sure, people elope, get married in secret ceremonies by public officials, but upon returning home, let others know and hold themselves out as husband and wife. Married people almost always live together; those that are already married (and not separated) and have an affair rarely live together.

But as to Joseph Smith, Jr's alleged "marriage" to Fanny Alger, there is no certificate or other public record, there was no holding out openly to others that they were married. There is no record of a divorce before she married Solomon Custer on Nov 16, 1838. With no evidence, the LDS defenders conject that perhaps Joseph Smith himself conducted a marriage ceremony between himself and Fanny Alger before getting down and dirty in the barn.

So what indicia then could differentiate the Smith-Alger incident as a marriage from mere adultery? I don't recall from the Old Testament that any of the polygamy practitioners denying it, but for the incident where Abraham claimed his wife was his sister.

Decades passed, and as some of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s contemporaries were aging out and dying, there was a flurry of talk and claims made about the nature of the relationship between Joseph Smith, Jr. and Fanny Alger. It is an enduring saga in the annals of early Mormon history.

There doesn't seem to have been any reluctance by Joseph Smith, Jr. with regards to women other than Emma, from April 1841 on. So the reluctance that led to the death threat from an angel had to have been before that. But, was it sometime before or after the Fanny Alger barn incident?

[Moksha]

What if the angel with the drawn sword demanded that Joseph lie for the Lord and deny practicing polygamy, since he was certainly aware of the law of the State of Illinois? As the Saints would be quick to point out, God's ways were certainly not the ways of Illinois, the United States, or Western Civilization.

Joseph was there to reestablish God's laws and to experience the joy of following his libido.

[sock puppet]

What if the angel with the drawn sword demanded that Joseph lie for the Lord and deny practicing polygamy, since he was certainly aware of the law of the State of Illinois? As the Saints would be quick to point out, God's ways were certainly not the ways of Illinois, the United States, or Western Civilization.

Joseph was there to reestablish God's laws and to experience the joy of following his libido.

Oh, that pesky Wentworth letter. More of God's commanded lies? "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

[Mag’ladroth]

What if the angel with the drawn sword demanded that Joseph lie for the Lord and deny practicing polygamy, since he was certainly aware of the law of the State of Illinois? As the Saints would be quick to point out, God's ways were certainly not the ways of Illinois, the United States, or Western Civilization.

Joseph was there to reestablish God's laws and to experience the joy of following his libido.

Oh, that pesky Wentworth letter. More of God's commanded lies? "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Does this mean the Proclamation on the Family much ballyhoo’d about would also be a lie if a Supreme Court verdict rendered polygamy lawful? I mean isn’t there an obscure prophecy that can be pulled out by the Church to say that the restoration of polygamy would be a sign of the return of Christ?

[Moksha]

Oh, that pesky Wentworth letter. More of God's commanded lies? "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Don't forget about those all-powerful fingers crossed behind the back.