Fanny Alger And The Sealing Authority

[Analytics]

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?

Indeed, one would expect that. Joseph Smith said in 1844,

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

History of the Church, 6:409; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on May 26, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Thomas Bullock.

The context of this was Joseph Smith telling the Saints that he only had one wife and that he could prove people who said otherwise were all perjurers.

[canard78]

Doesn’t the doctrine first appear in the Book of Mormon? Jacob 2:30 certainly opens the door to the future practice of plural marriage, when it would have been so easy to unequivocally shut it. For example, by simply omitting that verse.

Right, but that's 1829 and specifies (i) only when the Lord commands and (ii) to raise up seed.

When did the Lord command Joseph to start? And was it to raise up seed? Section 132 says 1831. I'm asking for a source for the 1831 claim. At the moment the best I've seen is personal second hand recollections 20+ years later.

I'm not saying he didn't have a revelation in 1831. I'm just asking for the best source for it.

[canard78]

I've been trying to follow up on. The sources for 1831.

The earliest I've found is Phelps writing in 1861 that Joseph had mention marriage (not plural) to 'Lamanites' in 1831, supported by a letter written Ezra Booth in 1831 to a newspaper mentioning Joseph supporting marriage to 'the natives.' But again not plural).

Phelps says he asked for clarity in 1834 and was told "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpha, by revelation.”

I'm impressed that Phelps is able to recall exact dates and words said around 30 years earlier. It's not the most reliable of sources, especially given the context of the pressure the Utah saints were under in 1860s.

That seems to be it. Every other source is after 1861. 1870s, even one in 1905.

1831 seems to have become the 'received wisdom' of the date to pin it to. But there's very little evidence for it.

http://teachesen.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice#endnote_booknote10

[Calm]

Is there a chronology of events, from an LDS perspective, as best as we know? That gives dates of revelations and marriages etc associated with polygamy?

FAIR has some pages on this with quite a bit of info collected, not sure it is itemized for all, but for a great many.

[Closet Doubter]

Did Joseph sin in these matters? If he did his repentance must've been acceptable to the Lord or he would've been removed from office & he would've become a fallen prophet

IMHO the Lord very effectively removed Joseph from office in June of 1844

[LordUther]

IMHO opinion if Joseph needed removing from office it would've been done many years before 1844, and a President who was more enthusiastic on these issues would not have been called to take his place.

[bluebell]

IMHO the Lord very effectively removed Joseph from office in June of 1844

Not very effectively, as LordUther points out. It took more than ten years after JS claimed he was taught by the Lord and commanded to become a polygamist, and he was replaced by a prophet who, as LordUther stated, caused polygamy to become even more widespread in the church.

And that prophet-Brigham Young-was not 'removed' by the Lord.

[canard78]

IMHO opinion if Joseph needed removing from office it would've been done many years before 1844, and a President who was more enthusiastic on these issues would not have been called to take his place.

When you talk of Brigham Young "being called to take his place" - how did the Lord do that exactly?

[LordUther]

When you talk of Brigham Young "being called to take his place" - how did the Lord do that exactly?

On my phone at work on a break so can't do all the research I need to provide sources & evidence for this but I remember from my seminary days of a meeting being held and BY taking on Joseph's countenance shortly after the martyrdom and this being a divine manifestation of Brigham being called to take on Joseph's mantle.

[LordUther]

And of course if he wasn't the LDS branch that went to Salt Lake was an apostate branch & we're all in the wrong church ;-)