Brigham Young?

[David T]

Alan, you have shown that you are not up to date on the latest scholarship. While the invitation to read Hales' massive 2013 multivolume set is there, also check out they essays in 2010's The Persistence of Polygamy: Volume 1, Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy. Especially the essay by Don Bradley, "Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo? The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger". - I know of no more current research or material that these that "seriously bring into question" the idea of some sort of a relationship happening between Joseph and Fanny.

Edited February 10, 2014 by David T

[Alan]

 

I know of no more current research or material that these that "seriously bring into question" the idea of some sort of a relationship happening between Joseph and Fanny.

 

I do.

But if there was a relationship (meaning a sexual relationship) it must have been adultery.

However, the child wasn't Joseph's. Does that not strike you as odd?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Alan

[David T]

 

 

I do.

But if there was a relationship (meaning a sexual relationship) it must have been adultery.

However, the child wasn't Joseph's. Does that not strike you as odd?

 

CFR that there is even records of the child being born and living, let alone a paternity test. I don't recall that evidence. My understanding is that while it was said that she was pregnant, there is no record of the child actually being born, with a suggestion there may have been a miscarriage/stilbirth.

 

Also, the evidence suggests that early on, there was a difference between the practice of Plural Marriage, and the principle of Eternal Marriage. The former was contemplated prior to the latter. While the latter gave more understanding and significance to the former, they weren't initially seen as essentially connected as they were in the 1840s.

 

Hales' website has some good documentation on the Alger relationship. I seem to recall that Don Bradley's essay in the Persistence of Polygamy volume, as well as Hales' published books are even more up to date, with more documentation and stronger analysis.

Edited February 11, 2014 by David T

[Alan]

 

CFR that there is even records of the child being born and living, let alone a paternity test. I don't recall that evidence.

 

There was an article in the Deseret News a few months ago regarding DNA tests on some of the descendants of Joseph's so-called children. Some of the women involved swore blind their children were Joseph's. However, DNA evidence has proved every single one of them false. Fanny Algar was one of them.

I'm at work right now so can't spend too much time finding this, but it shouldn't be hard to find in the DN archives.

Supposing Fanny was married to Joseph, if it wasn't an eternal sealing it must have been adultery as there were no other options.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Alan

[David T]

 

There was an article in the Deseret News a few months ago regarding DNA tests on some of the descendants of Joseph's so-called children. Some of the women involved swore blind their children were Joseph's. However, DNA evidence has proved every single one of them false. Fanny Algar was one of them.

 

That was a 2005 article, discussing research by Ugo Peregro. The problem is, it turns out that the assertion of the individual tested to have been the descendant of a child of Fanny Alger is problematic. As Don Bradley noted on this forum, "There actually nothing in the historical record to indicate that Orrison Smith was Fanny Alger's child. He wasn't raised by her, and there are no records presented by Ugo or anyyone else linking them. Rather, a descendant of Orrison Smith for some reason believed he was a descendant of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. That Ugo tested this person shows only that he has very relaxed standards for who he'll test, not that there was any significant reason to believe Orrison Smith was either Joseph Smith's or Fanny Alger's child."

 

Supposing Fanny was married to Joseph, if it wasn't an eternal sealing it must have been adultery as there were no other options.

The evidence shows it may not have been as black-and-white as that, especially when there is evidence that as early as 1831, Joseph gave Oliver Cowdery and other early (married) missionaries to the Lamanites authorization to take wives among the Lamanites for doctrinal reasons. While this comes from multiple sources, it appears that this authorization was never actually put into practice.

Edited February 11, 2014 by David T

[Stone holm]

 

 

 

That was a 2005 article, discussing research by Ugo Peregro. The problem is, it turns out that the assertion of the individual tested to have been the descendant of a child of Fanny Alger is problematic. As Don Bradley noted on this forum, "There actually nothing in the historical record to indicate that Orrison Smith was Fanny Alger's child. He wasn't raised by her, and there are no records presented by Ugo or anyyone else linking them. Rather, a descendant of Orrison Smith for some reason believed he was a descendant of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. That Ugo tested this person shows only that he has very relaxed standards for who he'll test, not that there was any significant reason to believe Orrison Smith was either Joseph Smith's or Fanny Alger's child."

 

 

 

The evidence shows it may not have been as black-and-white as that, especially when there is evidence that as early as 1831, Joseph gave Oliver Cowdery and other early (married) missionaries to the Lamanites authorization to take wives among the Lamanites for doctrinal reasons. While this comes from multiple sources, it appears that this authorization was never actually put into practice.

 

 

I remember reading some where that Jacob Hamblin declined to take Native Americans as plural wives, although several missionaries to the Native Americans did.  He did, however, adopt (not sure if it was formal) a Native American son.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Alan]

 

That was a 2005 article, discussing research by Ugo Peregro. The problem is, it turns out that the assertion of the individual tested to have been the descendant of a child of Fanny Alger is problematic. As Don Bradley noted on this forum, "There actually nothing in the historical record to indicate that Orrison Smith was Fanny Alger's child. He wasn't raised by her, and there are no records presented by Ugo or anyyone else linking them. Rather, a descendant of Orrison Smith for some reason believed he was a descendant of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. That Ugo tested this person shows only that he has very relaxed standards for who he'll test, not that there was any significant reason to believe Orrison Smith was either Joseph Smith's or Fanny Alger's child."

That does seem a tad convenient, and frankly, a bit of a stretch.

The available scientific evidence points to the fact that Fanny's child was not Joseph's. Or, to put it another way; there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, despite deployment of the latest research methods, that Joseph fathered any children with his supposed plural wives. This is a major blow to the pro-polygamists and suggests to me that we should perhaps rethink our traditional position.

It has to be remembered too that many of these women stated catagorically that these children were Joseph's. They even told the children that Joseph was their father. Now we see that this was incorrect...... in every case.

What does this tell us about the honesty of the women involved?

However, could these women have been referring to something else? If they had been sealed to Joseph and considered him their husband in the eternities, then they could assume that any children they had, irrespective of the biological father, would be Joseph's in the long run. Much like the story in the NT when the Sadducees were grilling Jesus about the woman with 7 husbands. Where each husband's children were considered the offspring of the first (pre-eminent) husband.

This provides a much better explanation in my view.

[David T]

 

The available scientific evidence points to the fact that Fanny's child was not Joseph's. 

 

NO. You are making a weird disconnect. Since there is no verifiable descendant of Fanny Alger, or evidence that any child survived or lived with her, your statement makes no sense. Its the exact same scientific scenario if , for example, I declared that I was your grandson, and then a DNA test was ran proving that I wasn't, then I could equally say "The available scientific evidence points to the fact that Alan's wife's child wasn't Alan's."

Edited February 11, 2014 by David T

[JLHPROF]

 However, could these women have been referring to something else? If they had been sealed to Joseph and considered him their husband in the eternities, then they could assume that any children they had, irrespective of the biological father, would be Joseph's in the long run. Much like the story in the NT when the Sadducees were grilling Jesus about the woman with 7 husbands. Where each husband's children were considered the offspring of the first (pre-eminent) husband.

 

I think this is a highly possible explanation for the claims that these children were Joseph's.

However, I still have to disagree with the notion that Joseph was their husband only in the eternities.  The sealing ceremony does state "for time and all eternity" after all.  And the notion that the could be sealed in this ceremony and not be "wives" just makes no sense.

[Calm]

.

However, I still have to disagree with the notion that Joseph was their husband only in the eternities.  The sealing ceremony does state "for time and all eternity" after all.  And the notion that the could be sealed in this ceremony and not be "wives" just makes no sense.

Do you know for certain that the sealing ceremony used then is identical to the one using "for time and all eternity"?

[JLHPROF]

Do you know for certain that the sealing ceremony used then is identical to the one using "for time and all eternity"?

 

Wife by wife starting with Fanny Alger, no I can't 100% guarantee that.

 

However, for the wives taken after the restoration of the endowment, sealing keys, an in May of 1842 I think it's a pretty safe bet since the ordinances & keys had been restored.  After all, Joseph and Emma were "remarried" or sealed after that date on May 28, 1843 implying a new ordinance needed.  And we have no record of the temple marriage ceremony being changed (unlike other parts of the temple ordinances).

 

And as mentioned in other posts, if it wasn't then these women and William Clayton and others were ALL liars, an idea I simply refuse to accept as believable.

 

 

[At age 12 in 1831], [smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. ... In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife ... [in 1842 age 23] I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing ... for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do[.]  - Mary Rollins Lightner

[Alan]

This actually flags up an interesting question. Namely, what is the difference between "time" and "eternity"?

Seems straightforward on the face of it. However, Joseph taught that eternity was approx 2.5 billion years. So it appears, according to this, that eternity is still a function of time, not an absence of it.

If this is the case, then does the phrase "time and eternity" make any real sense?

[ALarson]

Alan, maybe you've already addressed this but, why do believe that Joseph Smith didn't live polygamy as he was commanded to live it?  I see that you believe he was just sealed to these women but didn't have a physical husband/wife relationship with them.  Isn't that contrary to what he was commanded to do?  

[Alan]

Alan, maybe you've already addressed this but, why do believe that Joseph Smith didn't live polygamy as he was commanded to live it?  I see that you believe he was just sealed to these women but didn't have a physical husband/wife relationship with them.  Isn't that contrary to what he was commanded to do?  

 

I don't see anywhere where he was commanded to have physical relations with the women he was sealed to. Please clarify.

[Coreyb]

Interesting, he also said it was one eternal round, like the ring on his finger.

[ALarson]

I don't see anywhere where he was commanded to have physical relations with the women he was sealed to. Please clarify.

D&C 132:63:

...for they [the virgins] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. 

 

Or, do you not believe what it states in the Doctrine and Covenants?  

 

How about Brigham Young's words?

 

(Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, so that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth." 

 

[Alan]

Or, do you not believe what it states in the Doctrine and Covenants?  

 

The thing is, he didn't did he!

He had no children from these alleged plural marriages, yet Emma was regularly pregnant. Does that not strike you as odd? It does me; very odd.

 

As for D&C 132 generally, let's just say I have my concerns about it's provenance.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Alan

[ALarson]

The thing is, he didn't did he!

He had no children from these alleged plural marriages, yet Emma was regularly pregnant. Does that not strike you as odd? It does me; very odd.

 

As for D&C 132 generally, let's just say I have my concerns about it's provenance.

You don't know that for sure as not all of them (potential children of Joseph's) have been tested yet.  

 

But your reasoning just dodges the question.  Even if he wasn't successful with multiplying with his plural wives, it doesn't mean that he didn't try and wouldn't have been obedient to how he was commanded to live the principle.  Why would you think he would only partially be obedient or that he'd choose selective obedience?  That's very odd.  I would think you'd believe that he either would reject the whole commandment or live it fully.

 

I get tired of the claim of "no children so no marital relations".  That does not hold any water as there are numerous explanations why a couple does not have children.

Edited February 12, 2014 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

The thing is, he didn't did he!

He had no children from these alleged plural marriages, yet Emma was regularly pregnant. Does that not strike you as odd? It does me; very odd.

 

As for D&C 132 generally, let's just say I have my concerns about it's provenance.

 

Oh come on.  Most of these women he only saw rarely.  Probably barely time to consummate a marriage, let alone get pregnant.  Most he never lived with, some lived with their civil husbands.  That really is a silly reason to doubt the historically documented marriages.

[ALarson]

Oh come on.  Most of these women he only saw rarely.  Probably barely time to consummate a marriage, let alone get pregnant.  Most he never lived with, some lived with their civil husbands.  That really is a silly reason to doubt the historically documented marriages.

Not to mention all those early church members who would have had to have lied about their marriages to Joseph.  Also the witnesses to these marriages would have had to be liars as well.  That's quite the conspiracy theory.

[Coreyb]

Not to mention all those early church members who would have had to have lied about their marriages to Joseph.  Also the witnesses to these marriages would have had to be liars as well.  That's quite the conspiracy theory.

Especially the wives who didn't stay in the church or go to Utah. Some how the wicked brigham Young had such great power and influence over people no longer connected to his church hierarchy.

[Alan]

Not to mention all those early church members who would have had to have lied about their marriages to Joseph.  Also the witnesses to these marriages would have had to be liars as well.  That's quite the conspiracy theory.

 

Oh dear.

I suggest you and others actually check all this stuff out. Don't just rely on what you are told, or on the opinions of those who have written about it. When you check it out for yourself and start to understand what was going on, you will find that the received wisdom is not necessarily all that wise.

Until then, there is little point in continuing this conversation.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Alan

[ALarson]

Oh dear.

I suggest you and others actually check all this stuff out. Don't just rely on what you are told, or on the opinions of those who have written about it. When you check it out for yourself and start to understand what was going on, you will find that the received wisdom is not necessarily all that wise.

Until then, there is little point in continuing this conversation.

I've researched and read extensively on this topic, so I'm not relying on what I've been "told".  I have even read the very unimpressive book by the Prices.  I still stand by my post above.  There is simply too much overwhelmingly reliable documentation that Joseph Smith lived polygamy.  Too many would have had to have lied or altered records or back written thousands of pages of early church member's journals.  

 

I'm not sure why you want to believe that Joseph Smith didn't live polygamy.  Are you a member of the CoC?  If not, how can you feel that the Mormon church didn't go astray under Brigham Young?

Edited February 13, 2014 by ALarson

[Alan]

I've researched and read extensively on this topic, so I'm not relying on what I've been "told".  I have even read the very unimpressive book by the Prices.  I still stand by my post above.  There is simply too much overwhelmingly reliable documentation that Joseph Smith lived polygamy.  Too many would have had to have lied or altered records or back written thousands of pages of early church member's journals.  

 

I'm not sure why you want to believe that Joseph Smith didn't live polygamy.  Are you a member of the CoC?  If not, how can you feel that the Mormon church didn't go astray under Brigham Young?

 

 

No I'm not a member of the CofC, or Restoration Branches, or Remnant Church or any other RLDS offspring.

I am LDS and have been for 40 years (convert at 14).

The truth is there is a lot of evidence of Joseph's polygamy, but it isn't very impressive evidence. Most of it is in the form of journal entries written many years after the fact. Contemporary evidence is very thin on the ground. Very thin indeed.

Price did a fairly good job as a summeriser, though the work he did on Volume II (which is available online) is better. Incidently, Price died on new year's day.

 

As I said before, I base my position regarding this issue firmly on Joseph's integrity. Despite what others have said about him (for whatever reason), he himself said he wasn't involved. I believe he is a truthful man. Therefore I believe him over everyone else. After all, Joseph Smith is the world's leading authority on the life of Joseph Smith. If I took the position that he was lying, then his testimony regarding anything and everything is brought into question.

The idea that he was lying because he didn't want his enemies to know he was a polygamist doesn't hold water because they already believed he was anyway. The idea he was trying to keep it from the church is equally flawed because, according to most commentators (including many who have participated in this thread) it was an open secret amongst the membership. Therefore his vehement public denial makes absolutely no sense................. unless it was a statement of truth.

 

Your last statement regarding brother Brigham gets to the crux of the reason I started this thread in the first place. Did the church go astray under BY? Please note, "astray" does not equal apostate. My point is that almost every doctrine with which Brigham is closely associated has been abandoned or repudiated by the church in modern times. Adam-God and the Priesthood ban being two very obvious examples, but there are more (blood atonement, polygamy, adoption etc). So yes, perhaps it did go astray at that time and, like the proverbial oil tanker, it has and is taking a long time to turn around and correct it's course. 

Edited February 13, 2014 by Alan