Fanny Alger And The Sealing Authority

[why me]

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?

Fanny's mom and dad and brother did. They all acknowledged that fanny was a plural wife of JS. And she remained so since it was a sealing.

[omni]

Was he also not around when the book went to the printer? That doesn't happen in just a few days.

And if it was in error, why has it not been removed from our cannon?

[Thinking]

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?

Actually, what is important is that this same verse 4 from section 101 was used repeatedly to "prove" that monogamy was the rule of marriage in the church. If that section was a mistake, why was it quoted so much? How to explain it?

[omni]

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.

So it wasn't recognized civilly, and it wasn't a sealing since that power wasn't given to Joseph until a couple years later...how then is it a marriage?

[Thinking]

And if it was in error, why has it not been removed from our cannon?

It was removed and replaced by section 132 after the church came to Utah.

[canard78]

And if it was in error, why has it not been removed from our cannon?

He's talking about section 101 of the 1835 D&C. The point is it has been removed from the canon. Keep up

Joseph certainly was aware it was going in. He also revised and updated the D&C in 1843 (later printed in 1844 after his death). I'm not aware of him making any complaint about it then.

He left in (the old) 101 and did not add in (the current) 132. Even though it had been recorded by 1843, Joseph did not move to canonise 132 and did not move to remove 101. Both were done decades later by people defending a position of polygamy (that was very different to the one Joseph seems to have practiced) against the attacks of both Goverment and other LDS splinter groups.

[canard78]

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?

How is that relevant to the canonisation of the old section 101? If we're saying something can be canonised in error, for the wrong reasons then great. I'll add 132 to that list.

[canard78]

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.

Later? Don't you mean earlier? 1829 vs 1836?

Edit: ignore me. I've just seen your "later" is used in a different context.

Edited July 30, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

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.

Did you find that 1831 reference?

Thanks.

[omni]

Fanny's mom and dad and brother did. They all acknowledged that fanny was a plural wife of JS. And she remained so since it was a sealing.

But were these statements made at the time of the relationship? Some have argued that the idea of plural marriage came later as an excuse for JS's relationship with Fanny.

[omni]

It was removed and replaced by section 132 after the church came to Utah.

Got it, I was under the impression it was still in there. Guess I have to keep up on my...ahem...daily reading of the D&C

[canard78]

Fanny's mom and dad and brother did. They all acknowledged that fanny was a plural wife of JS. And she remained so since it was a sealing.

Can I get a reference for those too please? I'd be interested to read them in context, to which audience and at what time.

[canard78]

Got it, I was under the impression it was still in there. Guess I have to keep up on my...ahem...daily reading of the D&C

But the point I made later is that Joseph made no move during the 1843 revision to remove it and replace it with 132. That was several decades later.

[Calm]

Did you find that 1831 reference?

Thanks.

Does this work for you?:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice

[omni]

But the point I made later is that Joseph made no move during the 1843 revision to remove it and replace it with 132. That was several decades later.

Yeah, I realized that after you pointed it out. I initially thought the objection was because it was still in there.

[canard78]

Does this work for you?:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice

Thanks. I think this line sums it up:

"There are no contemporaneous records which tell us when Joseph first taught plural marriage, or when he first had a revelation endorsing it."

Most of these are recollections of people 20-30 years after the event. I'm not denying there was plural marriage practiced in Joseph's era eventually. But it's hard to see where the doctrine appears before 'stuff' happens with Alger.

At best we have a move to integrate with the native Americans from one contemporaneous source, but not as plural marriage (Lamanites and Nephites according to Phelps, to make their posterity 'white and delightsome... Hmm... and how had he figured on Nephites? I thought they were all dead. I guess he was another of the early saints that seem to have given the Book of Mormon little more than a passing glance).

[CV75]

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.

Yes, the work of the temples and the redemption of the dead (D&C 138:46-48) include the ordinances for establishing eternal marriages and families. Peter presumably had the keys to perform marriages within the Kingdom on earth. Elijah’s is a specialized key as the keys of the kingdom held by Peter are specialized. Both sets of keys involve the principle of sealing on earth and in heaven: sometimes one or the other, and sometimes both; sometimes effectuated by ordinance simultaneously, and sometimes sequentially.

The various permutations of turning and planting, hearts and promises, children and fathers are fulfilled by establishing eternal families (which involves marriage, continuation of the seeds, etc.). The arrival of Elijah initiated the cascade of revelation and resources making all these ordinances possible for time and eternity.

It helps me to remember that the priesthood keys “are the rights of presidency, or the power given to man by God to direct, control, and govern God’s priesthood on earth” and the priesthood power is the ability to perform the ordinances and other functions of the priesthood, irrespective of presidency (we needn’t be presidents to perform the ordinances). Sealing power, then, is the ability to perform ordinances that seal, or ordinances that create bonds and covenants, and this is the case for every ordinance we have. These bonds and covenants made by the power of the priesthood can be temporal (United Order), spiritual (baptism), and for time and/or eternity. Marriage can qualify as any of these types.

With this in mind, until Elijah came again, the sealing power in connection with the particular key(s) that Peter gave Joseph only enabled him to perform ordinances on earth, or to seal (“bind”) people on earth with certain covenants for the living, for the purpose of building up the Kingdom on the earth. This was preparatory to Elijah giving Jospeh they keys to preside over performing ordinances to seal people (both living and dead) in temples. Joseph was given by Peter the keys and the power, for example, to seal people in marriage in the kingdom on earth. This power was expanded when Elijah gave him the keys and power for the temple ordinances, thus sealing people in the Kingdom of Heaven as well as in the Kingdom on earth.

Even so, before receiving Elijah’s keys, Joseph’s Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood performances could be said to be sealed in heaven as well, since Elijah was presiding with the keys to do so from afar all along, much like Peter was presiding over the ordinances Joseph performed with the keys John the Baptist had given him. In every case, the Holy Spirit needs to ratify the action to make it effectual in eternity.

The restoration of keys put these rights of presidency directly into Joseph’s hands, so that he had both the keys as well as power to perform ordinances for the living and the dead, and seal on earth and in heaven. But it was a stepwise development. With regards to marriages, he performed and sealed them by the power of the priesthood for the sake of the building up of the Kingdom on the earth (according to Peter’s keys and sealing power which he had been given) until he received the keys and sealing power from Elijah to perform them for the sake of building up the Kingdom of Heaven.

So it seems to me that Joseph could have performed valid marriages with Peter's sealing keys before Elijah restored the keys that preside over the performance of marriages on a higher and broader scale. The functions and processes of presidency over those performances, and who was doing the presiding (Elijah, Peter, and Jospeh) changed from heavenly angels to earthly prophets as the Restoration rolled forth.

[Calm]

Hmm... and how had he figured on Nephites? I thought they were all dead. I guess he was another of the early saints that seem to have given the Book of Mormon little more than a passing glance).

Moroni 1:2 talks about the Lamanites putting to death those Nephites that won't deny Christ...which implies it would seem that they allowed those who did deny Christ to live, basically defectors....and considering the depravity of the Nephites at the time, I bet there were lots that were happy enough to do so.

So I think one could reason that a good segment of the Nephite population might have survived, either through defections in the past where Lamanite pretty much became a political label rather than a tribal label and those who survived by defections at the end....

2 For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. 3 And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.

add-on: I knew there was a specific verse dealing with defections:

Mormon 6:15 ....also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites....

Edited July 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Yes, the work of the temples and the redemption of the dead (D&C 138:46-48) include the ordinances for establishing eternal marriages and families. Peter presumably...

...aaaaaand you lost me.

Presumably? Based on what information? Why did he teach nothing of this principle to his intended audience? Or are you saying the writings of Peter or about Peter have some veiled reference to marriage (beyond the "bound/loosed on earth/heaven" scripture).

[canard78]

Moroni 1:2 talks about the Lamanites putting to death those Nephites that won't deny Christ...which implies it would seem that they allowed those who did deny Christ to live, basically defectors....and considering the depravity of the Nephites at the time, I bet there were lots that were happy enough to do so.

So I think one could reason that a good segment of the Nephite population might have survived, either through defections in the past where Lamanite pretty much became a political label rather than a tribal label and those who survived by defections at the end....

add-on: I knew there was a specific verse dealing with defections:

Mormon 6:15 ....also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites....

They must have escaped into the north countries too then if they were marriage options in 1831. And they'd have been more "Lamanite" than "Nephite" if they needed marrying into the whites to aid the 'delightsome' transition.

Setting that aside (and I was being overly glib) - the link you provides gives very little evidence of an 1831 revelation.

And yet the section heading for 132 states:

Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

Which, that they should marry natives? That's not even in there. The other early reference (Jacob) says plural marriage is permissible for the purpose of raising up children. Joseph didn't practice it that way either.

So what was the 1831 reference?

[why me]

Did you find that 1831 reference?

Thanks.

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

https://www.lds.org/...rriage?lang=eng

It is also in Rough Stone Rolling on page 326.

Edited July 31, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Can I get a reference for those too please? I'd be interested to read them in context, to which audience and at what time.

Rough Stone Rolling: page 325. Also on the same page all consented to the marriage: Fanny, her mom and her father. This was not a stealing away a young woman and marrying her secretly. Her uncle acted as the go between.

The negative comments about Fanny and Emma's reaction comes from Ann Eliza Young years later when she was touring around condemning the mormons about polygamy. Not exactly a reliable source since she could not know Emma's reaction: she was not yet born. But the critics can use her anyway to disparage Joseph Smith.

RSR page 325-326

Edited July 31, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Thanks. I think this line sums it up:

"There are no contemporaneous records which tell us when Joseph first taught plural marriage, or when he first had a revelation endorsing it."

Most of these are recollections of people 20-30 years after the event. I'm not denying there was plural marriage practiced in Joseph's era eventually. But it's hard to see where the doctrine appears before 'stuff' happens with Alger.

If you have a copy of Rough Stone Rolling you will be able to read the account of plural marriage, especially pages 437-440. It was not an easy time for Joseph Smith emotionally because of this principle. For some strange reason, you are failing to see the human dimension in all this. A good hisorian can use their imagination and place themselves among the facts and interpretations. In this Bushman has done a good job.

[canard78]

If you have a copy of Rough Stone Rolling you will be able to read the account of plural marriage, especially pages 437-440. It was not an easy time for Joseph Smith emotionally because of this principle. For some strange reason, you are failing to see the human dimension in all this. A good hisorian can use their imagination and place themselves among the facts and interpretations. In this Bushman has done a good job.

Eh? Where have I failed to see the human aspect and proven my bad history?

I just asked what the earliest record of the 1831 revelation was and who the source was.

We're saying Joseph had the revelation in 1831. Where/when does he say he does? Where/when do others say he did?

It seems the only sources for the 1831 revelation are recollections of what Joseph said and mainly 20 years after he's supposed to have said them.

[CV75]

...aaaaaand you lost me.

Presumably? Based on what information? Why did he teach nothing of this principle to his intended audience? Or are you saying the writings of Peter or about Peter have some veiled reference to marriage (beyond the "bound/loosed on earth/heaven" scripture).

I simply presume that since Peter had the keys of the kingdom, he and his designees/delgates could perform marriages, which like the many other covenants, have to do with binding of sorts (depending on the covenant and the ordinance).

The people of God were "bound" in many ways: baptism, marriage, the Lord's supper, priesthood, having all things in common, etc. and Peter held the keys to perform these bindings and also allow other priesthood holders to do them.