Is there any truth to this?

[carlimac]

I was in a facebook discussion with some gay friends who like to use little tidbits like these to somehow disqualify any general authority from teaching about marriage being one man and one woman.  Here is a response from one of them. It's something I've never heard before. And if it's true, what could the explanation be for it?

 

"Joseph married his first polygamous wife, Fanny Alger in 1833, this was three years before the claim that in 1836 Elijah delivered those keys back to the earth (D&C 110). If keys were needed to perform plural marriages, why did Joseph take plural wives before he had the keys?

Furthermore, why did an angel with a "Drawn sword" need to threaten Joseph to obey and practice polygamy since Joseph already was?

"Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully." 

 

 

Ok I've heard the drawn sword thing. Not a biggie IMHO. But what about the timing of his marriage to Fanny Alger?

 

 

I don't give much worry to stuff like this. My testimony is quite secure and things that seem off now will be made clear one day. But I'm just wondering if this dude has his story all wrong. 

[David13]

I don't know about the "truth" of it.

I am not concerned about it.

I do not believe that polygamy is an excuse or a justification for homosexuality.

dc

[The Folk Prophet]

The Fanny Alger "marriage"/"affair" is all rumor and speculation and the fact is that we don't know much about it. We can only presume, if we believe that Joseph was a righteous man and a prophet of God, that whatever did go down did so under the direction and authority of God.

However, the command and authorization to take a plural wife need not be directly tied into the Elijah's keys. The keys were needed to seal said marriage, but if the keys were needed to authorize all marriages, then even Joseph (and other's) first marriage was invalid without said keys. We know this is not the case. Sealing keys seal the marriage for the eternities - but the right and authorization to marry monogamously stands despite the existence of sealing keys. So why, theoretically, could it not be the same with plural marriages. Could not God authorize plural marriage prior to the actualy sealing keys being returned?

Finally, it might be interesting to note that prior to the angel with sword incident that Joseph had taken upon himself several other plural sealings already, all to women who were married to other men. The reasonable explanation behind this (I get this thinking from Brian Hales, btw) is that Joseph had taken these eternity only polyandrous marriages upon himself for the express purpose of not needing to therefore consumate them, and to avoid trauma with Emma. The angel's appearance with sword post these sealings implies that this was insufficient at some level. So, therefore, might the Fanny Alger marriage, even if legitimate at the time, be invalid having not actually stuck. The clear mandate seems to be that Joseph needed to be in multiple marriages, legitimately sealed and living as man and wife for time and eternity.

It's all very interesting as an academic study, but I don't see any particular argument that's beneficial to disqualifying general authorities in any regard. As pointed out by you, testimony is independent of these things.

Edited April 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

carlimac, this is not remotely close to faith shattering for me either. But it's always that people of today look at the restoration as an instantaneous event instead of a long drawn-out process. For example - Joseph didn't just see God, translate the plates, and came up with all our doctrines in one fell swoop. It took years and years and years from when he knew he was to restore the church to the actual work of restoring it all the way to the time he was baptized, ordained, etc. etc.

The restoration of Eternal Marriage is the same way. It took years!

There really isn't good historical documents to know exactly how things came about but there is evidence that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph as early as 1831. Fanny Alger was Joseph's first plural wife. There is evidence that this was a marriage, not an adulterous affair. But yes, the keys of eternal sealing was not restored until 1836, therefore, Fanny was a plural wife to Joseph on earth only from 1833 to the time that the sealing was done which made it an eternal one. I'm simply assuming they got sealed after the keys were restored because later accounts regarding Fanny - including those unsympathetic to the Church - referred to their union as a sealing.

From the accounts, Joseph did not tell his wife about the marriage. He did not want to, he did not want to have multiple wives on account of Emma - hence, the flaming sword. This does not necessarily imply that Joseph does not have a plural wife. It simply means he did not want it, he did not want to teach it, he did not want to restore it in the way God wanted it restored.

So, here's the timeline as far as I understand it:

1.) 1831... God revealed to Joseph that plural marriage is to be practiced again.

2.) 1833... Joseph married Fanny secretly for earth only.

3.) 1835... Joseph started teaching about plural marriage.

4.) 1836... sealing keys restored

5.) 1831-1842... Joseph remained reluctant to fully restore Eternal Marriage to which an Angel gave the ultimatum.

5.) 1842 - Joseph finally achieved full restoration of Eternal Marriage - completing the "line upon line" steps of first, plural marriage, then the restoration of the sealing keys, and tying the teaching of plural marriages to sealings such it is understood that sealed marriages do not end in death but are Eternal.

So, as you look at it, the work of the restoration of Eternal Marriage (a bedrock principle of the Plan of Salvation) took at least 11 years to accomplish with Fanny in the thick of the work.

Edited April 7, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

There really isn't good historical documents to know exactly how things came about but there is evidence that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph as early as 1831. Fanny Alger was Joseph's first plural wife. There is evidence that this was a marriage, not an adulterous affair. 

 

Just out of curiosity (and please keep in mind that I don't consider it an adulterous affair (obviously, if one knows me)), what evidence is that?

[Backroads]

I'm enjoying reading the info on this thread, guys. I'm one of those weird freaks who has little-if-any problems the concept of plural marriage, and I think the academic study, as it has been so far called, of this is fascinating.

[bytebear]

I completely dismiss the Fanny Alger rumors.  It just doesn't fit with the rest of Smith's marriages.  Why such a long gap?  Why would he keep it secret from the other authorities?  Nope, I think she was just a wayward soul who got in trouble, was taken in by Joseph and Emma, and the rumor mill cranked out stories with no bearing beyond that. And as was asked above, I am unaware of any evidence that this was anything more than rumor.

 

I also personally believe Smith was a precursor to polygamy, meaning he was practicing it in spirit before Brigham Young was given the authority to practice it in body.  So, I consider each sealing a symbolic (for eternity only) notion until the leadership got used to the idea and accepted that it was from God. 

 

Also, when sealings were revealed, everyone wanted to be sealed to the prophet, and there were a lot of sealings that we simply wouldn't do today (men sealed as brothers, various leaders sealed as sons, and of course the child of apostles -Helen Kimball- sealed as spouses). 

Edited April 7, 2015 by bytebear

[carlimac]

So, therefore, might the Fanny Alger marriage, even if legitimate at the time, be invalid having not actually stuck. The clear mandate seems to be that Joseph needed to be in multiple marriages, legitimately sealed and living as man and wife for time and eternity.

It's all very interesting as an academic study, but I don't see any particular argument that's beneficial to disqualifying general authorities in any regard. As pointed out by you, testimony is independent of these things.

Oops. Posted without my reply the first time.  

 

So is there any evidence that Joseph Smith actually lived with any other wives besides Emma? I thought that there was no evidence that there were any consummations or children besides the ones he had with Emma or  that they adopted. 

 

The way the conversation played out on facebook was something to the effect of, " How can a general authority say marriage is to one man and one woman ( holding up one finger) given the history of plural marriage and that many general authorities of the church are 'practicing' plural marriage today since they were sealed to a wife who is dead and another living. "  And then goes on to accuse them of being liars and hypocrites, etc,etc.   Also the "counterfeit marriage and relationships" statement by Elder Perry has them really steamed.  I ask them if they don't believe the church to be true, why do they care what he says.  No good answer to that besides kids are committing suicide over the church's stance on homosexuality and they are "standing up" against any discrimination.  (sheesh- these guys).  so somehow, by attacking the church on facebook they are preventing suicides? I guess it's a long shot but doesn't seem like a terribly effective method. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by carlimac

[omegaseamaster75]

Circumstantial evidence points to a marriage between JS and Fannie Alger. I do not view this as an "affair" because he was in fact married, so therefore could not be considered and extramarital affair I view the long gap between marriages as JS trying to preserve some sense of normalcy in his home, it is no secret that Emma was not a fan of plural marriages as a rule and it caused much strife in their marriage. JS was given much information and I think in some cases he didn't know or have the capacity at the time to process all that he was given. Fanny may have been an early misstep? We will never know in this life time.

Edited April 7, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[carlimac]

I completely dismiss the Fanny Alger rumors.  It just doesn't fit with the rest of Smith's marriages.  Why such a long gap?  Why would he keep it secret from the other authorities?  Nope, I think she was just a wayward soul who got in trouble, was taken in by Joseph and Emma, and the rumor mill cranked out stories with no bearing beyond that. And as was asked above, I am unaware of any evidence that this was anything more than rumor.

 

 

I just read a bunch of stuff on fairmormon.org that shows quite a bit of evidence that there was a relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Oliver Cowdery said it was an affair, but many others insist there was a ceremony and that they were married, that she was his first polygamous wife. I do believe there is a perfectly logical explanation. I think she probably was his first polygamous wife and that he was afraid to tell Emma. God's commandments sent to a still very human prophet who was going about this commandment awkwardly because he was reluctant to obey and didn't want to upset his dear Emma. 

 

Also, in answer to the false statement by the facebook guy, there is far more evidence that the relationship took place in 1836 well after Joseph smith began receiving visits from the angel commanding him to start plural marriage. 

Edited April 8, 2015 by carlimac

[The Folk Prophet]

Oops. Posted without my reply the first time.  

 

So is there any evidence that Joseph Smith actually lived with any other wives besides Emma? I thought that there was no evidence that there were any consummations or children besides the ones he had with Emma or  that they adopted. 

 

Depends on what you call evidence. If you count his wives testifying that they lived with him as man and wife, then yes, there is evidence -- testified to in a court of law, sworn in, during the temple lot case.

 

The way the conversation played out on facebook was something to the effect of, " How can a general authority say marriage is to one man and one woman ( holding up one finger) given the history of plural marriage and that many general authorities of the church are 'practicing' plural marriage today since they were sealed to a wife who is dead and another living. "

 

Because, if you watch back again, he was not talking about the history of the church, but the standard held by the great majority in society today. It was very clear.

[carlimac]

Depends on what you call evidence. If you count his wives testifying that they lived with him as man and wife, then yes, there is evidence -- testified to in a court of law, sworn in, during the temple lot case.

 

 

Because, if you watch back again, he was not talking about the history of the church, but the standard held by the great majority in society today. It was very clear.

 

The FB guy didn't say he was talking about Church history. He said it was ironic that the Church insists now that marriage should only be between one man and one woman given our history. he balks at the notion that polygamy was a commandment from God and that it was removed in God's time. He is an ex with a hefty load of baggage and contempt, having been disciplined for homosexual relationships. He's now "married" to a guy and as defensive as anyone on Des News comments boards. I don't know if he's on there or not. wouldn't be surprised. But on facebook he is pretty slanderous about the Church. His buddies get on there and prop him up, too. I've been accused of all sorts of things I'm not and of thinking things I don't think. It's all so familiar- part of the militant Gay script that is phoney, skewed and nonsense. I politely exited stage left when it became obvious the discussion was going nowhere. 

[Blackmarch]

I was in a facebook discussion with some gay friends who like to use little tidbits like these to somehow disqualify any general authority from teaching about marriage being one man and one woman.  Here is a response from one of them. It's something I've never heard before. And if it's true, what could the explanation be for it?

 

"Joseph married his first polygamous wife, Fanny Alger in 1833, this was three years before the claim that in 1836 Elijah delivered those keys back to the earth (D&C 110). If keys were needed to perform plural marriages, why did Joseph take plural wives before he had the keys?

Furthermore, why did an angel with a "Drawn sword" need to threaten Joseph to obey and practice polygamy since Joseph already was?

"Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully." 

 

 

Ok I've heard the drawn sword thing. Not a biggie IMHO. But what about the timing of his marriage to Fanny Alger?

 

 

I don't give much worry to stuff like this. My testimony is quite secure and things that seem off now will be made clear one day. But I'm just wondering if this dude has his story all wrong. 

mostly 3rd -4th hand accounts given way later. Nor are all or most accounts in harmony. Where there is lack of info, people fill in the gaps as best fits their views or wants.

[Guest]

The FB guy didn't say he was talking about Church history. He said it was ironic that the Church insists now that marriage should only be between one man and one woman given our history. he balks at the notion that polygamy was a commandment from God and that it was removed in God's time. He is an ex with a hefty load of baggage and contempt, having been disciplined for homosexual relationships. He's now "married" to a guy and as defensive as anyone on Des News comments boards. I don't know if he's on there or not. wouldn't be surprised. But on facebook he is pretty slanderous about the Church. His buddies get on there and prop him up, too. I've been accused of all sorts of things I'm not and of thinking things I don't think. It's all so familiar- part of the militant Gay script that is phoney, skewed and nonsense. I politely exited stage left when it became obvious the discussion was going nowhere.

Carlimac, even as a Catholic, the teaching of the marriage covenant between one man and one woman has always been that your covenant with God, you and your spouse.... not a covenant with God, you, and two spouses. No, when you marry another spouse that covenant is a separate covenant from the first marriage - and is between God, you, and your spouse in that specific marriage.

Now, as a Catholic, it is easy to separate the covenants because Catholics don't believe in Eternal Marriages. That is, when your spouse dies, your marital covenant is dissolved. So, when you marry another spouse, it's easy to see it as another covenant.

Now, divorce is not allowed in the Catholic Church - so there's not a time when a Catholic has two marital covenants active at the same time... but that's only because they don't believe in Eternal Marriages.

So, let's add the missing truth from the Catholic Church of Eternal Marriage. Two people make a marriage covenant with God. One dies. Covenant does not dissolve. The surviving spouse makes another marriage covenant with a 2nd wife. There now are 2 covenants. But, each covenant is still between one man, one woman, and God.

So, Eternal Marriages are - even with the Catholic practice - covenants between one man, one woman, and God... but you can have multiple separate covenants.

No Church, as far as I know, consider marriage to a widow/er a sin. So, all Churches do believe in multiple marriages if you look at marriage as an Eternal Union. Only the LDS Church, as far as I know, consider marriages as Eternal in ideal. Therefore, there is really nothing in LDS doctrine that contradicts polygamous marriages versus one-at-a-time marriage in its Eternal perspective. It's still a covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

Make sense?

Edited April 8, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity (and please keep in mind that I don't consider it an adulterous affair (obviously, if one knows me)), what evidence is that?

The Mosiah Hancock account. Yes, all 3rd, 4th, 5th accounts... nothing from JS, Fanny, Emma, or whoever was at the wedding. There's also mention of Fanny's family telling people about the wedding.

Whether Fanny was married to JS or not, I can believe one or the other. I personally accept Fanny as JS' first wife and that the revelation that kicked off the restoration of Eternal Marriages occurred before that marriage.

[carlimac]

Also, Eliza R Snow who knew Fanny Alger well listed her as one of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives

.

[bytebear]

I don't trust the testimony of the Temple Lot case, because the testimony was designed to prove that Emma's heir was not the sole owner of the Smith property.  I believe the women overstated their relationship in an attempt to keep church property with the Rocky Mountain saints. (They lost by the way)

[carlimac]

To me, polygamy is symbolic of the handmaid Mary being the mother of Christ.  (It is called the "law of Sarah", and Abraham / Isaac represented Heavenly Father and our Savior) ... that we are all handmaids to the Lord in raising up Their children - and that it all revolves around bearing children. 

 

I have a gay cousin, and a lesbian aunt - when confronted about my beliefs (I'm the only Mormon in my family) I just said that Christianity is a religion of sacrifice (the atonement being the greatest sacrifice), that it is through sacrifice that we refine our character and become what God would have us be.

 

It is impossible to know all of the details of the early LDS church - or the early Biblical church - our testimony can only be based on the Spirit that we currently feel. 

 

It's a hard thing for those who struggle with same gender attraction, we all have our "hard thing" that we sacrifice and struggle through life with.  No one is perfect, we all need to just support one another in all of our various sacrifices. 

I know it's tuff but lately it mostly seems like "You support me and I'll bash you just because I can."

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't trust the testimony of the Temple Lot case, because the testimony was designed to prove that Emma's heir was not the sole owner of the Smith property.  I believe the women overstated their relationship in an attempt to keep church property with the Rocky Mountain saints. (They lost by the way)

 

The trial was never about the "Rocky Mountain saints" keeping anything. They LDS church had no skin in the game, per se, and they did not lose anything. The only interest the church had in the trial at all was in discrediting the lies of the reorganized church -- lies they were telling to try and legally steal the temple lot (specifically that Joseph Smith never practiced or taught polygamy). The suit was by the reorganized church against the group that owned the temple lot, and the reorganized church lost and the same group that owned the temple lot prior to the suit still owns the lot today.

[Pa Pa]

I was in a facebook discussion with some gay friends who like to use little tidbits like these to somehow disqualify any general authority from teaching about marriage being one man and one woman.  Here is a response from one of them. It's something I've never heard before. And if it's true, what could the explanation be for it?

 

"Joseph married his first polygamous wife, Fanny Alger in 1833, this was three years before the claim that in 1836 Elijah delivered those keys back to the earth (D&C 110). If keys were needed to perform plural marriages, why did Joseph take plural wives before he had the keys?

Furthermore, why did an angel with a "Drawn sword" need to threaten Joseph to obey and practice polygamy since Joseph already was?"Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully." 

 

 

Ok I've heard the drawn sword thing. Not a biggie IMHO. But what about the timing of his marriage to Fanny Alger?

 

 

I don't give much worry to stuff like this. My testimony is quite secure and things that seem off now will be made clear one day. But I'm just wondering if this dude has his story all wrong. 

What would teaching of marriage of "one man, one woman" be an issue 125 years after polygamy ended, unless you wanted to get that "tidbit" in.