Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[canard78]

Section 132 intro says:

"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."

I've seen no evidence presented by the church for this and the attempted evidence I've seen, in other places, is mostly dated to the 1860s.

An 1831 date is essential for the Alger "affair" which may have been only 2-3 years later. Where is the evidence?

Edited October 30, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

To add to this, Nevo said (on the other thread):

Have you read Danel Bachman's 1978 JMH article, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage"? I'm pretty sure that article was the basis for the statement in the heading to D&C 132. Bachman's thesis that Joseph Smith was contemplating polygamy as early as 1831 is ultimately speculative—there is no definitive proof that he was—but I find Bachman's arguments quite persuasive.

[canard78]

"Phelps’ 1861 letter remains the only evidence of a July 1831 polygamy revelation."

Mike Parker

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2008/07/08/on-the-origins-of-polygamy-or-what-did-joseph-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

The problem with this is threefold:

- 30 years had passed

- Utah saints had gone public and were actively seeking an "early-as-possible" justification. Memory and interpretation of it will naturally be influenced by what's needed at the time

- Phelps' recollections don't even stand as evidence, even if the recollections are right:

Joseph received several revelations while he was in Missouri, four of which are part of our Doctrine and Covenants (sections 57, 58, 59, and 60). In 1861 — thirty years later — Phelps wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which he revealed, word-for-word, a previously unknown revelation to Joseph, purportedly given 17 July 1831, proclaiming that the men in the group should eventually take Native American wives. The key portion of the document states:

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

In a note appended below the revelation, Phelps explained:

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph privately, how “we,” that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the “natives” — as we were all married men? He replied instantly “In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation — the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.”

The second part is 1834, not 1831. It doesn't make any reference to the content of the 132 revelation and is not unambiguously about polygamy... It's possibly about marrying people by revelation (polygamous or not).

Phelps' 1861 bias naturally applies a polygamous interpretation and potentially influences the wording of the recollection.

If this is the best evidence available then it's pretty poor.

[JLHPROF]

Section 132 intro says:

"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."

I've seen no evidence presented by the church for this and the attempted evidence I've seen, in other places, is mostly dated to the 1860s.

An 1831 date is essential for the Alger "affair" which may have been only 2-3 years later. Where is the evidence?

 

 

EVIDENCE 1

Joseph begins translating the Bible August 1830.  In October of 1830 for example he is up to Lamech (a polygamist).

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/old-testament-revision-1#!/paperSummary/old-testament-revision-1&p=11

 

this clearly led to 

 

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 

EVIDENCE 2

 

 

 Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne [discern] with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed.

    Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what new doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others: and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the discourse; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord.

    Verily I say unto you, ye are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live.

    Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

    Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; For the final desolation, and decrees upon Babylon: For, as the everlasting gospel is carried from this land, in love for peace, to gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, for Zion,— even so shall rebellion follow after speedily, with hatred for war until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all the kingdoms and nations that strive to govern themselves by the laws and precepts, and force and powers of men under the curse of sin, in all the world.

    Verily I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, and go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by [a] terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government, and cause the death and misery of man[y] souls, but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places, during all these tribulations.

    Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

    Reported by W.W.P. [William W. Phelps]

 

    About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [smith, Jr.] privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives"—as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In th[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation."

[cinepro]

Section 132 intro says:

"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."

I've seen no evidence presented by the church for this and the attempted evidence I've seen, in other places, is mostly dated to the 1860s.

An 1831 date is essential for the Alger "affair" which may have been only 2-3 years later. Where is the evidence?

 

I've always assumed they were projecting it to the time of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible.  Obviously Fanny Alter is problematic (especially since she predates the restoration of the sealing power).

[BCSpace]

I link to the home page in my siggy but this might be a good resource for you:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/pre-kirtland/

 

Here is the next period of time which speaks of Fanny Alger:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/kirtland-polygamy/

 

And all of them can be accessed via the History menu item at the top of the page.

 

He also has pages on each 'wife' and all the evidence and facts regarding them.

Edited October 30, 2014 by BCSpace

[Nevo]

I link to the home page in my siggy but this might be a good resource for you:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/pre-kirtland/

 

That is a good resource.

 

Of particular relevance for this thread is the following:

 

Corroborating Phelps’ recollection is a contemporaneous letter from Ezra Booth who wrote to Ira Eddy on December 6, 1831 saying: “It has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives. . . . It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

[T-Shirt]

I've always assumed they were projecting it to the time of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible.  Obviously Fanny Alter is problematic (especially since she predates the restoration of the sealing power).

Why does the sealing power need to have been restored in order for Joseph Smith to have taken a second wife?

[stemelbow]

That is a good resource.

 

Of particular relevance for this thread is the following:

Corroborating Phelps’ recollection is a contemporaneous letter from Ezra Booth who wrote to Ira Eddy on December 6, 1831 saying: “It has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives. . . . It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

In light of this question, this is huge.

[JLHPROF]

Why does the sealing power need to have been restored in order for Joseph Smith to have taken a second wife?

 

It doesn't.

[cinepro]

Why does the sealing power need to have been restored in order for Joseph Smith to have taken a second wife?

By what authority could a second wife otherwise be taken?

[JLHPROF]

By what authority could a second wife otherwise be taken?

 

The same authority first wives were taken by prior to the 1836 restoration of sealing keys.

[cinepro]

The same authority first wives were taken by prior to the 1836 restoration of sealing keys.

Which authority was that, and how does that authority lend efficacy to illegal marriages?

Let's look at this another way.

 

(Replacing my earlier analogy with a hopefully better one).  Suppose President Monson were asked to perform a marriage (for "time only") for a young couple in Salt Lake City, but they knew their parents didn't approve of the union so they asked him to meet them at a park late one evening.  They don't have a marriage license, but President Monson meets them and performs a marriage for time only.  Are they married?

 

Now, assuming that Ohio didn't recognize bigamous marriages in the early 1830s, in what way were Joseph and Fanny "married"?

 

Edited October 30, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

Which authority was that, and how does that authority lend efficacy to illegal marriages?

Let's look at this another way.

 

Right now, the state of Georgia does not recognize Same Sex Marriages.   If an LDS Bishop decided to perform a secret marriage ceremony at the local park for two men, would they be "married"?

 

Now, assuming that Ohio didn't recognize bigamous marriages in the early 1830s, in what way were Joseph and Fanny "married"?

 

 

Because Joseph had no interest in what the state thought and no knowledge of sealing keys yet.  He simply performed marriages based on his own authority as President of the Priesthood.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7111

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/6710/6359

 

And if he could marry a man to a first wife without state permission, and he believe plural marriage was acceptable to God, then why couldn't he marry a man to a second wife without state permission just as he married anyone else?

 

 

Joseph was not timid in his announcing his intent to solemnize marriages.  During the Knight ceremony, he stated that LDS Elders had been "wronged" in connection with the marriage license issue and explained that from this time forth he intended to marry couples whenever he saw fit.

 

Joseph and Fanny were married by a fellow priesthood holder acting under the direction of Joseph Smith, and their marriage was as binding as any of the dozens of other marriages performed in Kirtland with no license and before the restoration of sealing keys.

Edited October 30, 2014 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

Which authority was that, and how does that authority lend efficacy to illegal marriages?

Let's look at this another way.

 

(Replacing my earlier analogy with a hopefully better one).  Suppose President Monson were asked to perform a marriage (for "time only") for a young couple in Salt Lake City, but they knew their parents didn't approve of the union so they asked him to meet them at a park late one evening.  They don't have a marriage license, but President Monson meets them and performs a marriage for time only.  Are they married?

 

Now, assuming that Ohio didn't recognize bigamous marriages in the early 1830s, in what way were Joseph and Fanny "married"?

 

They were married in the same way FLDS men are married to plural wives...illegally. It is more of a "spiritual" wife than a legal wife.

 

I agree, the Alger episode is a problem. Legally JS marriage to Fanny was as legit as if I married 2 gay men in a state where it is illegal. They may call themselves married but they wouldn't have the legal rights. All they would have, like JS and Fanny, was a way to ease their guilt about extramarital sex.

[canard78]

EVIDENCE 1

Joseph begins translating the Bible August 1830. In October of 1830 for example he is up to Lamech (a polygamist).

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/old-testament-revision-1#!/paperSummary/old-testament-revision-1&p=11

this clearly led to

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

EVIDENCE 2

There's no evidence in "1" that his enquiry was made in 1831, only conjecture on your part based on the fact that he was translating a passage in 1830 that refers to plural wives and the start of 132 (recorded 13 years later) refers to the fact that at some point between 1830 (perhaps) and 1843 Joseph had enquired about polygamy.

Your evidence "2" is the stuff I've already quoted and mentioned. It's 30 years after the date. How confident are you in the words of a revelation that he's recording from memory 3 decades after it has been given and in a time (1860s) when Utah was actively defending polygamy.

[canard78]

That is a good resource.

Of particular relevance for this thread is the following:

Corroborating Phelps’ recollection is a contemporaneous letter from Ezra Booth who wrote to Ira Eddy on December 6, 1831 saying: “It has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives. . . . It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

It's evidence supporting Phelps' recollection of a need to marry the "natives" it doesn't however support plural marriage. Phelps seems to have drawn that conclusion by himself from what may (or may not) have been said in 1834.

[CA Steve]

That is a good resource.

 

Of particular relevance for this thread is the following:

 

Corroborating Phelps’ recollection is a contemporaneous letter from Ezra Booth who wrote to Ira Eddy on December 6, 1831 saying: “It has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives. . . . It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

I am not sure how this corroborates polygamy since the man in question is defined as being "entirely free from his wife".

[halconero]

By what authority could a second wife otherwise be taken?

 

Joseph was performing temporal marriages via the priesthood before the restoration of the sealing keys. In a like manner, our Bishops today can perform marriages due to their priesthood office even for non-members. I'd argue that the ceremony performed by Bishops counts as an ordinance as well due the statement concerning their priesthood office within the church and the fact that exact wording is used.

[cinepro]

Joseph was performing temporal marriages via the priesthood before the restoration of the sealing keys. In a like manner, our Bishops today can perform marriages due to their priesthood office even for non-members. I'd argue that the ceremony performed by Bishops counts as an ordinance as well due the statement concerning their priesthood office within the church and the fact that exact wording is used.

 

Right.  But that's not the question.

 

Here's the question:

 

If someone performs a temporal marriage, even by the power of the Melchezidek Priesthood, and it is not a legal marriage (i.e. it does not conform to the laws of that jurisdiction), is that couple "married"?

 

I certainly understand that Joseph probably (well, hopefully) had someone with the Priesthood stand in front of Fanny and him and say words to the effect of "Now you are married".  But if they didn't follow the local law regarding marriage, in what way can we say they were "married"?

 

I understand the justification for the sealing power being greater than any earthly power, and God looking on people being sealed in marriage, even illegally, as being "married".  But it seems to make a whole lot less sense when we're talking about a non-sealed, illegally secret bigamous temporal marriage

Edited October 30, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

Right.  But that's not the question.

 

Here's the question:

 

If someone performs a temporal marriage, even by the power of the Melchezidek Priesthood, and it is not a legal marriage (i.e. it does not conform to the laws of that jurisdiction), is that couple "married"?

 

I certainly understand that Joseph probably (well, hopefully) had someone with the Priesthood stand in front of Fanny and him and say words to the effect of "Now you are married".  But if they didn't follow the local law regarding marriage, in what way can we say they were "married"?

 

I understand the justification for the sealing power being greater than any earthly power, and God looking on people being sealed in marriage, even illegally, as being "married".  But it seems to make a whole lot less sense when we're talking about a non-sealed, illegally secret bigamous temporal marriage

 

I see where you are coming from - your argument is that this was technically neither a temporal marriage (civil) or a priesthood marriage (sealing) but some sort of weird hybrid.

 

I would lean towards it being a priesthood marriage for time, regardless of sealing keys.  At this time the priesthood were always sealing each other up to eternal life, even with sealing keys.  They did have the apostleship after all.

[cinepro]

I see where you are coming from - your argument is that this was technically neither a temporal marriage (civil) or a priesthood marriage (sealing) but some sort of weird hybrid.

 

I would lean towards it being a priesthood marriage for time, regardless of sealing keys.  At this time the priesthood were always sealing each other up to eternal life, even with sealing keys.  They did have the apostleship after all.

 

So which apostle performed the marriage?

[cinepro]

I see where you are coming from - your argument is that this was technically neither a temporal marriage (civil) or a priesthood marriage (sealing) but some sort of weird hybrid.

 

 

 

My argument might be that it was a "weird hybrid", but my fear is that it wasn't "weird" at all, but instead was exactly what it looks like.

[JLHPROF]

So which apostle performed the marriage?

 

I don't think that we know - Levi Hancock is the most likely candidate but he might not have been an apostle.

He was a seventy, one of the presidents of seventy actually, and at various times in Church history they have been considered apostles.

 

At the time in Kirtland most of the 12 apostles were about ready to apostatize.

But just like with the Bishops today, I don't think the apostleship was necessary.  I merely pointed out that it was still the highest priesthood authority on earth.

Edited October 30, 2014 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

If someone performs a temporal marriage, even by the power of the Melchezidek Priesthood, and it is not a legal marriage (i.e. it does not conform to the laws of that jurisdiction), is that couple "married"?

 

Yes. It would be presentism to take out the frontier in some of those marriages (and divorces). The only thing that matters in this conversation is whether or not the Church considers it to be so.