Evidence That Joseph Only Had One Wife?

[Alan]

Doesn't the Fanny Alger affair have contemporary evidence?

We're led to believe it does, but in fact it isn't the case. Oliver Cowdery said something many years later, but nothing at the time.

What we do know is that Fanny Alger was living with Joseph and Emma and was asked to leave, and she left town. We also know she was pregnant. And we also know (through DNA) the child was not Joseph's.

The Price's have uncovered a contemporary record of a young man who was subject to church discipline for inappropriate behaviour with a young woman at the same time Fanny left town.

It's not conclusive, but it suggests all is not as some have presented it.

[Alan]

Nevo,

I'm terribly sorry to say this, but you're wrong. There really is no contemporary evidence from the Nauvoo period proving Joseph's involvement in polygamy. If you think differently, show me the evidence.

All of the most likely offspring of Joseph's alleged plural marriages have been DNA tested. None are descended from Joseph. This is in spite of the women involved being adamant they were Joseph's wives and that the children were his.

Have you noticed how most of the affidavids from the alleged plural wives of Joseph, produced many years after the fact in Utah, are unsigned?

Even Todd Compton admits William Clayton's diary was back-written. In other words, it may say that under the date 1st May 1843, but that is not when that entry was actually made. It was made much later.

When I was on my mission I was very homesick at first. Later, when I had overcome this condition I read back over my journal and was alarmed at what I had written. It didn't reflect the truth as I now saw it.

So I re-wrote it.

Now it's a lot more inspiring and uplifting and talks about investigators and working hard etc. My posterity will think I was a great missionary from the outset. But it isn't an accurate representation of the events as they really transpired, only as they were later interpreted by me when my circumstances were different and I saw things in a different way.

[Alan]

But what about QB's question about children from the Nauvoo polygamy era? Is there not evidence of this?

Also, what are the implications for BY. If he was part of this big history re-write, isn't that a bit of an indictment against him?

There certainly is no dispute that there were children born to plural wives of other people in the Nauvoo era. But none to Joseph. I believe this to be one of the strongest evidences against Joseph's involvement. Are we really to believe that BY and others were fathering an army of kids while Joseph (who had no problem regularly producing children with Emma) was, excuse my turn of phrase..... firing blanks?

Re-writing history in the light of new information was a common practice at the time. It was not sinister or conspiratorial at all. It was done in the name of accuracy. It is easy to see why this was done in the church.

I believe Brigham was a good man and that he really believed in plural marriage, and Adam-god, and blood atonement etc. But that does not make him right. It is possible to be sincere but sincerely wrong.

[Questing Beast]

Nevo,

I'm terribly sorry to say this, but you're wrong. There really is no contemporary evidence from the Nauvoo period proving Joseph's involvement in polygamy. If you think differently, show me the evidence.

All of the most likely offspring of Joseph's alleged plural marriages have been DNA tested. None are descended from Joseph. This is in spite of the women involved being adamant they were Joseph's wives and that the children were his.

Have you noticed how most of the affidavids from the alleged plural wives of Joseph, produced many years after the fact in Utah, are unsigned?

Even Todd Compton admits William Clayton's diary was back-written. In other words, it may say that under the date 1st May 1843, but that is not when that entry was actually made. It was made much later.

When I was on my mission I was very homesick at first. Later, when I had overcome this condition I read back over my journal and was alarmed at what I had written. It didn't reflect the truth as I now saw it.

So I re-wrote it.

Now it's a lot more inspiring and uplifting and talks about investigators and working hard etc. My posterity will think I was a great missionary from the outset. But it isn't an accurate representation of the events as they really transpired, only as they were later interpreted by me when my circumstances were different and I saw things in a different way.

Fascinating admission. But the picture it offers of "church history" is rather disgusting. How can you even care about Mormonism when it is founded upon a tissue of rewritten misrepresentations and lies?

You still have not addressed "Nauvoo polygamy", which involved scores of women who had children from engaging in "the practice". Either JS condoned and encouraged and taught "the principle", or he was the most blind of men not to see it happening under his very nose and all around himself....

[Alan]

Fascinating admission. But the picture it offers of "church history" is rather disgusting. How can you even care about Mormonism when it is founded upon a tissue of rewritten misrepresentations and lies?

You still have not addressed "Nauvoo polygamy", which involved scores of women who had children from engaging in "the practice". Either JS condoned and encouraged and taught "the principle", or he was the most blind of men not to see it happening under his very nose and all around himself....

It isn't limited to church history, it's practically all history. It's only recently we have come to expect our historians to be objective, this is most definately a late 20th century development.

Joseph knew what was going on, though perhaps not to the extent it was. This is why he moved against the polygamists and had some outside of Nauvoo excommunicated. It is also why he preached against polygamy so often and so forcefully.

And I think it is probably likely that William Marks (Nauvoo Stake President) account of Joseph confiding in him just days before he died, that he had lost patience and had decided to move decisively against the polygamists and throw them out of the church, is true. Certainly, if church disciplinary action is to be embarked upon, it would have to be initiated by the Stake president.

Marks later stated that Joseph was involved but repented. But once again, this was said in the light of later information thought (by Marks) to be correct, so is less reliable.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Alan

[Questing Beast]

So you accept Marks, and you deny Marks. You are correct in pointing out that "history" is far less factual than it is concocted. But other than a noticeable number of neo historians showing that "history" has been concocted, I don't think today is significantly different/better at it. Just look at the obfuscation under oath that takes place at the highest levels of authority in the land. People always concoct for their own self interest and protection.

That is not how "true religion" is supposed to be founded. So there is no such thing as "true religion" and never has been and never will be. Each individual must decide what "true religion" Is, for himself.

You admit that JS told Marks that plural marriage was a damnable doctrine and would destroy the Saints. But you deny JS's admission to practice of it himself. Interesting "cut and paste" exercise there. What is your need to be so discriminatory? It is an endless exercise in futility. It's better to just admit that religions, all of them, are manmade, but "God" works with what we make the best "he" can. That's what free will is all about, taking what we choose and working continually for the best outcome, which means that everyone learns what they need to learn from the experience. It's not as if we are "pushed for time" or anything like that. We are immortals having a mortal experience, and we can do this as much as we need to. If you take a stance like this, all the arguments go away in an instant....

[Tacenda]

http://restorationbo...nettcrusade.htm

LDS Historians Neglected to Report Joseph's Crusade

"There is an important factor that the Saints and the public have not known concerning the story of Joseph's anti-polygamy crusade. It is that the LDS historians purposefully neglected to tell about the importance of the Affidavits and Certificates and Joseph's tremendous effort to have them spread nationwide. Although the majority of those affidavits were quoted in the Times and Seasons, the LDS historians did not list them together and explain their significance in the fight against polygamy. They did not relate that the special August 29 conference was specifically for the purpose of raising a large missionary force to take the Affidavits and Certificates broadside throughout the land, nor the fact that Joseph had them printed and circulated to prove that he was not involved in polygamy. Their early historians, who knew the facts, only alluded to the certificates as being produced to dispel Bennett's falsehoods, without mentioning that they were a part of Joseph's anti-polygamy crusade. They did not give the broadside the emphasis it deserved.

The lack of emphasis on Joseph's crusade by early LDS writers was no doubt a purposeful omission of the facts, because they did not want to publish anything that would show that Joseph had fought against polygamy. They wanted the Saints and the world to believe that he was a polygamist. This is another example of their changing history in order to perpetuate their polygamy theology."

Is the paragraph above why you are so adament about Joseph Smith not living polygamy Alan? This information is somewhat new to me. But still there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I guess JS needed to do everything possible to save the church. And he was hiding his polygamy for a short while, therefore the need to not have children. A few of the children of his wives have been proven to not be his but there are a few that still have question marks besides them.

I found the quote below on an anti site and won't give the website, but it puts this as the source: SOURCE: LDS History of the Church 5:131–132; RLDS History of the Church 2:613; ; see also Dean C, Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 2 [salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1992]: 443–444)

"Joseph Smith calls and holds a special conference in Nauvoo. At that conference 380 elders volunteer to travel nationwide to distribute a broadside (a two-paged newspaper) filled with affidavits and certificates in a massive effort to convince the public, among other things, that that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Smith spearheads this endeavor, which is one of his greatest efforts to deny he was practicing plural marriage. It was such a tremendous undertaking and was promoted with such zeal that it can rightly be called a crusade.

Smith had been arrested on August 8 by Missouri officials on charges that he had been an accomplice in the attempted assassination of former Missouri governor,Lilburn Boggs. The Prophet was released the same day of his arrest by the Nauvoo Municipal Court. He then went into hiding—first in Iowa, and then back in Nauvoo.

Upon his return to Nauvoo, Smith recorded:

"I advised the Twelve to call a special conference on Monday next (August 29), to give instructions to the elders, and call upon them to go forth upon this important mission; meantime, that all the affidavits concerning Bennett's conduct be taken and printed, so that each elder could be properly furnished with correct and weighty testimony to lay before the public."

On Monday, August 29, a vast crowd of concerned Saints gathers at the Grove near the Temple for the conference. Near the close of Hyrum's address, Joseph, who had not been seen in public for three weeks, walks up onto the stand and sits down. Joseph's sudden appearance is a great surprise, for there was speculation among the Saints that he had gone to Washington or Europe, while others believed he was still in Nauvoo. After Hyrum concludes speaking, Joseph addresses the large congregation. He referrs to the affidavits and certificates which he had been busily preparing, by giving both a plea and a prophecy as he proclaimes:

"Let the Twelve send all who will support the character of the Prophet, the Lord's anointed; and if all who go will support my character, I prophesy in the name of the Lord Jesus, whose servant I am, that you will prosper in your missions." (LDS History of the Church 5:139)"

After the Prophet speaks, 380 elders volunteer to go on "missions" to spread the Affidavits and Certificates throughout the nation (see Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 2:447). These men leave their families, homes, and jobs to travel thousands of miles to distribute the Affidavits and Certificates—and to give their own testimonies that Joseph is not a polygamist."

Edited June 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

Nevo,

I'm terribly sorry to say this, but you're wrong.

Well, I'm in excellent company. On the other hand, there isn't a single historian or scholar of Mormonism that agrees with you.

There really is no contemporary evidence from the Nauvoo period proving Joseph's involvement in polygamy. If you think differently, show me the evidence.

I already listed contemporary evidence in the other thread you started. You didn't respond. You've simply asserted (without providing evidence) that Clayton's diaries were back-written. My CFR for this still stands, by the way.

All of the most likely offspring of Joseph's alleged plural marriages have been DNA tested.

Not true. Almost all of those who were ruled out were never likely candidates. The likeliest of those tested, Josephine Lyon Fisher, has not been ruled out. Other likely candidates either have not been or cannot be tested (including Fanny Alger's child with Joseph).

[Nevo]

We're led to believe it does, but in fact it isn't the case. Oliver Cowdery said something many years later, but nothing at the time.

Oliver did say something at the time. He also referred to the Fanny Alger "scrape" in a letter written less than two years later (not "many years later").

[Alan]

Not true. Almost all of those who were ruled out were never likely candidates. The likeliest of those tested, Josephine Lyon Fisher, has not been ruled out. Other likely candidates either have not been or cannot be tested (including Fanny Alger's child with Joseph).

There was an article in deseret news a few months ago which said that DNA research had shown that Alger's child was not Joseph's. (1)

Edit: It was actually in 2005. I must have seen a more recent report in the DN.

(1) See, Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, Scott R. Woodward, "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jnr.":Genealogical Applications, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Alan

[Alan]

Oliver did say something at the time. He also referred to the Fanny Alger "scrape" in a letter written less than two years later (not "many years later").

Not true.

[Alan]

Previously I said I would provide an example of re-written history when I have time.

Example below:

ORIGINAL

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...... Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife."

RE-WRITTEN VERSION

"gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise."

Mormon Polygamy: A History, Van Wagoner pp303

Edited June 26, 2013 by Alan

[Nevo]

There was an article in deseret news a few months ago which said that DNA research had shown that Alger's child was not Joseph's.

As I have pointed out several times before on this board (here, here, and here), Orrison Smith, the person whose paternity was tested by Ugo Perego, was not a child of Fanny Alger. His parents were John and Priscilla Smith and he was born two years before Fanny was reportedly pregnant.

[Alan]

As I have pointed out several times before on this board (here, here, and here), Orrison Smith, the person whose paternity was tested by Ugo Perego, was not a child of Fanny Alger. His parents were John and Priscilla Smith and he was born two years before Fanny was reportedly pregnant.

Interesting.

So now we have one claim that Fanny Alger definately had a child by Joseph, while someone else is claiming Oliver Cowdery said in a 1838 letter that she had an abortion.

It seems to me that for some reason some people are just desperate to have Joseph regarded as guilty. It doesn't really matter how, any story will do.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Alan

[Nevo]

Not true.

Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger was discovered in the summer of 1836 (see Don Bradley, "Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo? The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger," in The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster [John Whitmer Books, 2010], 14-58).

Oliver Cowdery wrote about the relationship in a letter to his brother Warren, dated 21 January 1838—approximately a year and a half later. And Cowdery had spoken out about the relationship before that. Richard Bushman describes a November 1837 meeting where "Cowdery and Joseph aired their differences" over the matter (see Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 324-25).

[Nevo]

. . . while someone else is claiming Oliver Cowdery said in a 1838 letter that she had an abortion.

Who has claimed that?

[CA Steve]

Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger was discovered in the summer of 1836 (see Don Bradley, "Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo? The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger," in The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster [John Whitmer Books, 2010], 14-58).

Oliver Cowdery wrote about the relationship in a letter to his brother Warren, dated 21 January 1838—approximately a year and a half later. And Cowdery had spoken out about the relationship before that. Richard Bushman describes a November 1837 meeting where "Cowdery and Joseph aired their differences" over the matter (see Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 324-25).

I would be interested to know what Don Bradley believes about the DNA evidence.

Don, if you are following this thread, is there any DNA evidence, published or otherwise, that shows Joseph Smith had children by other women?

[Nevo]

I would be interested to know what Don Bradley believes about the DNA evidence.

Don commented on Perego's study here.

[webbles]

Who has claimed that?

He might be talking about calmoriah's statement in

(so if she was pregnant she either lost it or it was adopted and any connection would be impossible to make with no record)

which you quoted in and linked to in post #63.

[Nevo]

He might be talking about calmoriah's statement in http://www.mormondia...entry1209143366

which you quoted in http://www.mormondia...entry1209143385 and linked to in post #63.

Possibly, but calmoriah certainly isn't claiming there that Oliver Cowdery said she had an abortion. I don't know how Alan came up with that one.

By the way, here is the relevant section from Cowdery's 21 January 1838 letter:

I can assure you and bro. Lyman, that as God is to judge my soul at the last day, and as I hope for salvation in the world to come, I never confessed [or] intimated that I ever willfully lied about him [Joseph Smith]. When he was here we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy

scrape

<affair> of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth on the matters, and as I supposed was admitted by himself. At any rate, just before leaving, he wanted to drop every past thing, in which had been a difficulty or difference—he called witnesses to the fact, gave me his hand in their presence, and I might have supposed of an honest man, calculated to say nothing of former matters. Never believe that Oliver will disgrace the gray hairs of his father, or the high sense of honor in the bosom of his brothers, so much as to acknowledge to Joseph Smith, Jr. that he has lied about him. There is something to damning in the thought. My former conduct towards him and that family, when they were poor, and hated, in giving the last cent of my honest earnings to save them from being turned into the streets, is so manifest in the memory of those who knew me at the time, and my course pursued in defending him before all men with my ability and talent, since speak sufficiently in my own heart and proclaim the honest integrity dwelling there too loudly to overlook unnoticed what is passed.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Nevo

[Calm]

He might be talking about calmoriah's statement in http://www.mormondia...entry1209143366

Never occurred to me that the cause of the loss might be abortion, I don't think of abortion as "losing a child" during pregnancy, only miscarriage or stillborn. "Losing" implies something not intended, one doesn't intentionally lose something in my view, especially not a child, though apparently it does for some people. If one said they lost a toddler, for example, I would never assume that the child had been intentionally abandoned. Edited June 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[webbles]

Interesting.

So now we have one claim that Fanny Alger definately had a child by Joseph, while someone else is claiming Oliver Cowdery said in a 1838 letter that she had an abortion.

It seems to me that for some reason some people are just desperate to have Joseph regarded as guilty. It doesn't really matter how, any story will do.

It seems to me that you are just desperate to have Joseph not practicing polygamy that you declare that all evidence must have been re-written even if there is no proof that the evidence was re-written.

[webbles]

Even Todd Compton admits William Clayton's diary was back-written. In other words, it may say that under the date 1st May 1843, but that is not when that entry was actually made. It was made much later.

CFR where he says that. I'm just curious what he says. And even if parts of the diary was back-written, how do you know that that entry was back-written?

[Alan]

Oliver did say something at the time. He also referred to the Fanny Alger "scrape" in a letter written less than two years later (not "many years later").

I guess this could have two meanings. Which one did you mean Nevo?

[Alan]

And even if parts of the diary was back-written, how do you know that that entry was back-written?

How do we know it wasn't?

The whole thing is devalued.

Whose hand was D&C 132 written in? Answer: William Clayton.

When was it produced? Answer: 1852, eight years after Joseph's death.

Was Clayton a prominent polygamist? Answer: Yes he was.

It's not difficult is it!

I notice that no one has commented on the re-written journal entry (which was by Willard Richards by the way) which totally changed the meaning of the entry to mean the opposite of what was originally said.

Can we really trust these re-written documents? I think you know my answer.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Alan