Questing Beast Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Exhibit A:April 3, 1836 - Elijah restores the sealing keys to Joseph SmithExhibit 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.What is there to discuss? Either you take Alan's approach, or something equally problematic, to bolster JS's "prophetic mantel", or you accept the evidence that JS was guilty of breaking the morality code of early 19th century American Christianity, and called it "the dispensation of the fulness of times, including 'patriarchal marriage'", and developed the "doctrine" over time to more fully cover himself with validity. He was intensely religious, and apparently intensely sexual. The two traits would be mutually exclusive without a religious definition of what JS did. You either agree with it, somehow, or you accept that religion makers do in fact come along every once in a great while; the successful kind anyway, the stunningly successful kind even less often. It remains to be seen which kind JS is....
iamse7en Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 There really is no problem here. Joseph's concept and understanding of "priesthood" and even the "sealing" power and keys evolved over time, as he received more light. As early as 1835, he was using his priesthood authority to marry couples:I have done it by the authority of the holy Priesthood and the Gentile law has no power to call me to an account for it. It is my religious priviledge, and the congress of the United States has no power to make a law that would abridge the rights of my religion: I have done as I was commanded, and I know the Kingdom of God will prevail, and that the Saints will triumph over all their adversaries. (Newel Knight, “Sketch,” 6, LDS Church Archives; Joseph marries Newel Knight to [undivorced] Lydia Goldthwaite in 1835)Though he did not have the sealing authority or keys, he used his priesthood authority to perform marriages. He presumably delegated this same authority to Levi Hancock presumably. It's no matter that it was a polygamous or monogamous marriage. The concept of eternal marriage did not surface until later, then wasn't performed until 1841 (with JS's sealing to Louisa Beaman). He had the "authority" and permission to perform plural marriages before any sealing keys were "delivered" presumably from the "angel with the sword" or simply by virtue of his priesthood. 1
omni Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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,Holy mental gymnastics Batman! 1
ERayR Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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,CFR. It seems those with the most prurient thoughts tend to impose their imaginations on those who are not still here to defend themselves.
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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."Not a revelation just like (now Section 134) the partner at the same time about submission to governments. Joseph was not around when it was written (by Oliver I believe).Personally I think we should axe the other section out of the D&C too.
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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...He witnessed the affair? Kinky. 1
canard78 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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,Points for creativity: 10/10Points for good apologetics: umm...
Calm Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Points for creativity: 10/10Points for good apologetics: umm...I very much would like to hear how she answers my question:How does it protect her from social norms if no one outside a select group knows about it?
sunstoned Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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...I think Emma agreed with Oliver on this also. Whatever you want to call it. It took place in secret behind Emma's back. Not really one of the high points in church history.
why me Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I think Emma agreed with Oliver on this also. Whatever you want to call it. It took place in secret behind Emma's back. Not really one of the high points in church history.I don't know....it seems that Emma moved on and her and Joseph had a good marriage. We can only speculate what was said behind closed doors. The problem comes when people pretend to know the complexities of any marriage. Emma was not on board with polygamy. But regardless of high points and low points of lds history, good seeds came from the tree and we can see these fruits today in our communities. What does this say to us?
canard78 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Fanny_Alger:_Marriage_or_affairWhere's the reference to this:...plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.I've heard 1831 a few times, but was interested to read the original source. I'm struggling to find any original document on it. This blog suggests that there are no 1830s sources for it. Only 2nd hand accounts most of which were many years later. Has anything new come out since 2008 when a FAIR blog was saying there's no evidence:http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/08/on-the-origins-of-polygamy-or-what-did-joseph-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/
Calm Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Where's the reference to this:I've heard 1831 a few times, but was interested to read the original source. I'm struggling to find any original document on it.This blog suggests that there are no 1830s sources for it. Only 2nd hand accounts most of which were many years later.Has anything new come out since 2008 when a FAIR blog was saying there's no evidence:http://www.fairblog....did-he-know-it/Having now read this post, it won't mark it as unread for me tomorrow as I am hopefully just about to go to sleep so remind me if I haven't answered I need to check with others to get the source.
canard78 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Having now read this post, it won't mark it as unread for me tomorrow as I am hopefully just about to go to sleep so remind me if I haven't answered I need to check with others to get the source.Thanks. I've seen the 1831 reference a few times so would be interested how we've reached that conclusion.And having replied it will now be marked as unread again
Glenn101 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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...Did he really???? Or did he just hear about it from someone else?Glenn
CV75 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 That's a fascinating point. This LDS Newsroom article says Joseph received the sealing authority from Peter in 1829:http://www.mormonnew...article/sealingSo perhaps the answer to my OP is that the marriage to Fanny was a "sealing" after all.I think it would qualify, at least under the terms of what “sealing” meant at the time, prior to subsequent revelations about work for the dead, etc.I won't ask whether that was before or after Joseph taught Emma about the sealing power and had her sealed to him...Oh, go ahead!I'm sure Emma learned about sealing in its various nuances as the revelations came out over time, and as quickly as she was able to bear new knowledge. All these folks, even Joseph as open-minded as he was, were "old bottles" to a degree, facing an extraordinarily marvelous work and wonder.It coud just be that, like they used to do with baptism, Emma's 1843 (?) sealing was only a later, recorded version of a much earlier, original sealing and/or a "renewal" of vows and/or a more correctly/formally/udated performance of the ordinance (the particulars of which had been perfected over time).And what can one really expect -- we've never even had an offically/properly recorded date for the restoration of these very same sealing powers! 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Did he really???? Or did he just hear about it from someone else?GlennMy memory was that he witnessed it through the barn...but I can not support that view...so I'll concede that he must have only heard of it...unless someone else has evidence to support Oliver having witnessed the deed
omni Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) In 1838 Fanny married a non-Mormon, Solomon Custer and separated from the body of the Saints by remaining in Indiana. If it was a marriage we would have record of a divorce wouldn't we? Unless this is one of his polyandrous marriages. Edited July 30, 2013 by omni
Calm Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) If it was a marriage we would have record of a divorce wouldn't we? Do you believe there are records of every marriage and divorce that took place at that time in the US?Plural marriages were never civil marriages and thus would not have been on civil records even if they were complete for that time period. Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah
omni Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I wouldn't expect a civil divorce record, but I would expect one from the church considering the emphasis we put on record keeping. One thing historians love about our history is our excellent and comprehensive record keeping. You would think there was be one for a marriage involving the prophet. Maybe there's a document with a statement from someone at least recognizing the divorce?
Calm Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't expect a civil divorce record, but I would expect one from the church considering the emphasis we put on record keeping. One thing historians love about our history is our excellent and comprehensive record keeping. You would think there was be one for a marriage involving the prophet. Maybe there's a document with a statement from someone at least recognizing the divorce?Please demonstrate that recordkeeping was in that complete of a form at that time. Recordkeeping wasn't a priority from the very beginning, but something that developed in great part due to the revelations.For example, the Lord has to give further instructions on recording baptisms for the dead in 1842, see sec 128.Plus if she was a plural wife, with no civil divorce, why would she get a sealing cancelation to civilly marry a nonmember? Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 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.It is my understanding the when Elijah came with Sealing Power it was to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers. IOW it was about doing temple work for the dead. That sealing power is different than the kind that Peter had that later passed on to JS.
omni Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Are there any official documents recognizing the marriage? If not, are you (or anyone else) aware of any statements made by contemporaries acknowledging either the wedding or the divorce?
Thinking Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Not a revelation just like (now Section 134) the partner at the same time about submission to governments. Joseph was not around when it was written (by Oliver I believe).Was he also not around when the book went to the printer? That doesn't happen in just a few days.
why me Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 In 1838 Fanny married a non-Mormon, Solomon Custer and separated from the body of the Saints by remaining in Indiana. If it was a marriage we would have record of a divorce wouldn't we? Unless this is one of his polyandrous marriages.The marriage was not legal. Polygamy was not recognized. How to divorce in a polygamous relationship? And this is why that fanny could marry Solomon. Also, this was a sealing. Fanny did quite well. She married and had many children. Her parents remained in the church and were proud that fanny was a plural wife of Joseph Smith as was her brother. All in the church. No rumor of an affair or an illicit relationship.
why me Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Was he also not around when the book went to the printer? That doesn't happen in just a few days.What is important is the following: Oliver returned to the church, bore his testimony to the saints and on his deathbed he confirmed his testimony to his wife, daughter and friends. And off he went to meet his maker. How to explain it?
Recommended Posts