Fanny Alger And The Sealing Authority

[cinepro]

Exhibit A:

April 3, 1836 - Elijah restores the sealing keys to Joseph Smith

Exhibit B:

Fanny Alger married to Joseph Smith "about 1833"

Exhibit C:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood."

http://mormon.org/faq/plural-marriage (emphasis added)

Discuss.

Edited July 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Fanny_Alger:_Marriage_or_affair

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see DC 110:). Again, this confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

• plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
  
• eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
  
• "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.
  

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later.

[cinepro]

http://en.fairmormon...riage_or_affair

Is this correct?

Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood."

[Calm]

Is this correct?

I would guess that the authorization had to take place from the beginning, once the sealing power was restored that had to be given as well.

[daz2]

so the revelation on plural marriage happened before the revelation on the sealing power (section 132)? Where is this revelation? By what authority (civil, priesthood, or otherwise) was the marriage performed? At that time, civil law did not permit a man to marry two wives. Was there priesthood authority in the church to marry more than one living wife til death do you part? If so, where is that mentioned? Where and when was that authority bestowed and by whom? Who had that authority? Who performed the marriage of Joseph to Fanny?

[rpn]

I think it is going to turn out that Ms. Alger was confessing to Joseph in the barn that day that she was pregnant. When Emma saw them and thought the worst, Joseph decided to shield her.from the social norms of the day. And he went to his grave doing so, with Ms. Alger made the very best life for herself that she could,

[Calm]

so the revelation on plural marriage happened before the revelation on the sealing power (section 132)?

So it would seem from the timeline.

Sealing is the authority for eternal marriage, plural marriage would seem to have begun solely as a time only arrangement.

As to the rest, when the records are found (if they still exist), it will make for some interesting reading.

[The Nehor]

Is this correct?

Generally yes. Specifically between 1831 and 1836, no.

[Calm]

I think it is going to turn out that Ms. Alger was confessing to Joseph in the barn that day that she was pregnant. When Emma saw them and thought the worst, Joseph decided to shield her.from the social norms of the day. And he went to his grave doing so, with Ms. Alger made the very best life for herself that she could,

Seems rather a strange coincidence that Joseph later revealed plural marriage then....or do you see him already knowing it was going to happen and just taking advantage of it to protect the woman from the social norms....by having a secret marriage with her or claiming to at least?

How does it protect her from social norms if no one outside a select group knows about it?

[Tacenda]

Why would Oliver call it, to put it nicer, an affair? And if it was a sealing wouldn't he have been in the know about sealings?

[halconero]

Why would Oliver call it, to put it nicer, an affair? And if it was a sealing wouldn't he have been in the know about sealings?

I think it's the same reaction many people (including members) have towards modern polygamist marriages.

[Calm]

Why would Oliver call it, to put it nicer, an affair? And if it was a sealing wouldn't he have been in the know about sealings?

It wouldn't have been a sealing since the sealing power wasn't given until 1836.

That doesn't prevent it from being a plural marriage though authorized/commanded by God.

If Oliver didn't believe or acknowledge it was a commandment, then it seems logical that he would call it an affair.

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

I think Don Bradley has taken care of all this in his reseached article. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.

[Calm]

I think Don Bradley has taken care of all this in his reseached article. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.

Just a link to his announcement:

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Thinking]

Verse 4 from Section 101 of the 1835 D&C:

"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

[why me]

If Oliver didn't believe or acknowledge it was a commandment, then it seems logical that he would call it an affair.

One problem that troubled Don was oliver using the word affair. But when Don researched this he discovered that there was no affair. That fanny and Joseph were married. I take heart in the brother, mother and father of Fanny who also saw no affair. They were happy that there daughter fanny was a plural wife of joseph smith. And all were active in the church. And fanny never called it an affair. I also believe that if this relationship was illicit, fanny would have told mom and dad during her lifetime. After all, mom and dad were living in utah with the saints .

[why me]

Verse 4 from Section 101 of the 1835 D&C:

"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

This was not a revelation. It was written by oliver cowdery.

http://en.fairmormon...denies_polygamy

The Article on Marriage was printed in the 1835 D&C as section 101 and in the 1844 D&C as section 109. The portion of the Article on Marriage relevant to polygamy states: Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. ^[1]

This section was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith—it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver and W.W. Phelps introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition. (Phelps read the article on marriage, while Cowdery read the one on government.)^[2]

On July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith discussed Oliver's awareness of polygamy at the time of this publication: To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery. ^[3]

The article outlined the general practice of performing a Latter-day Saint wedding, explained LDS beliefs about the marriage relationship, and denied that the Saints were practicing polygamy (rumors of which were already circulating as a result of the Prophet teaching the concept to some of his close associates).

Gilbert Scharffs notes:

The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101

Isn't it amazing what can be had from sites that support the lds church. Any member can look up such information. And this is the way it should be. It is not the church's job to debate history. But scholars and interested parties can and offer interpretations.

Edited July 29, 2013 by why me

[CV75]

Is this correct?

D&C 1 (1831, D&C 68 also; and D&C 76, 1832; D&C 35, 1830; ) speaks of the sealing power of the priesthood for various covenants and mysteries pertaining to eternal life -- the earlier plural marriages would have been part and parcel of this generalized sealing power that became more defined as Elijah restored his specific keys and the related later revelations on a variety of subjects about these keys followed.

[pogi]

Verse 4 from Section 101 of the 1835 D&C:

"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

The following is from fairmormon.org:

Gilbert Scharffs notes:

The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101.

The following is from Journal of Discourses 20:29:

To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority.

Looks like why me beat me to it.

Edited July 29, 2013 by pogi

[Johnnie Cake]

Exhibit A:

April 3, 1836 - Elijah restores the sealing keys to Joseph Smith

Exhibit B:

Fanny Alger married to Joseph Smith "about 1833"

Exhibit C:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood."

http://mormon.org/faq/plural-marriage (emphasis added)

Discuss.

Ummmm...I'm going to have to agree with Oliver's assessment on this one....After all, he claimed to witness this also and with his natural eyes no less...

Edited July 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[janderich]

Joseph in section 132 receives the sealing power. Was this in 1831 or later? If it was in 1831 then consider the visit of Elijah. Did he restore the sealing power or some other power?

[Kenngo1969]

Dang! It's a real bummer that God, being omniscient, can't act "retroactively" ... (It's just one of those mysteries, like how Joseph saw a vision his older brother Alvin, who hadn't had any temple work done for him yet, in the Celestial Kingdom. )

Edited July 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[cinepro]

D&C 1 (1831, D&C 68 also; and D&C 76, 1832; D&C 35, 1830; ) speaks of the sealing power of the priesthood for various covenants and mysteries pertaining to eternal life -- the earlier plural marriages would have been part and parcel of this generalized sealing power that became more defined as Elijah restored his specific keys and the related later revelations on a variety of subjects about these keys followed.

That's a fascinating point. This LDS Newsroom article says Joseph received the sealing authority from Peter in 1829:

http://www.mormonnew...article/sealing

Latter-day Saints believe this same authority given to Peter was given to Joseph Smith in 1829 and passed along to the current prophet and president of the Church, Thomas S. Monson.

So perhaps the answer to my OP is that the marriage to Fanny was a "sealing" after all.

I won't ask whether that was before or after Joseph taught Emma about the sealing power and had her sealed to him...

Edited July 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Johnnie Cake]

Dang! It's a real bummer that God, being omniscient, can't act "retroactively" ... (It's just one of those mysteries, like how Joseph saw a vision his older brother Alvin, who hadn't had any temple work done for him yet, in the Celestial Kingdom. )

Well...actually God did restore the Melchizedek Priesthood retroactively...compare the original section 27 to the D&C section 27. With God all things are possible

[Kenngo1969]

Well...actually God did restore the Melchizedek Priesthood retroactively...compare the original section 27 to the D&C section 27. With God all things are possible