The Fanny Alger Puzzle

[cinepro]

Some recent discussions (and the Church essays) have got me thinking about Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger, and the fact that it occurred before the restoration of the sealing power in 1836.

 

 

The Fairwiki describes the situation this way:

 

 

Joseph and Fanny were married before the sealing power was restored in 1836

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see DC 110:). This confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

1. plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
2. eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
3. "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later. Therefore, the marriage of Joseph and Fanny would have been a plural marriage, but it would not have been a marriage for eternity.

 

 

But in the current Gospel Doctrine manual, in the lesson on Section 132, it says this (emphasis added):

 

 

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. 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.

 

So, is the manual wrong?  And why would the Lord command a Prophet to practice secret, non-eternal plural marriage?  There is obviously no eternal benefit to it, so was it to fulfill the scriptural mandate to "raise up seed"?  

Edited November 12, 2014 by cinepro

[KevinG]

A few points...

 

1) Not just to raise up seed in mortality, but to raise up righteous seed, and as an eternal principle.  We've discussed this to the point of nausea on other polygamy threads.

 

2) We learn line by line and precept by precept.  This process is no different for prophets and member.  The same line of questioning can be raised about Joseph baptizing and sealing before certain keys were given him.

 

3) The manual could be wrong, or the fairwiki could be wrong, but we cannot know the inside scoop, or what Joseph, Fanny and others were prompted to do, and how it was consistent or different than their actions in trying to live the fullness of the Gospel as the Lord was guiding them to it.

[JLHPROF]

Some recent discussions (and the Church essays) have got me thinking about Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger, and the fact that it occurred before the restoration of the sealing power in 1836.

 

 

The Fairwiki describes the situation this way:

 

 

 

 

But in the current Gospel Doctrine manual, in the lesson on Section 132, it says this (emphasis added):

 

 

 

So, is the manual wrong?  And why would the Lord command a Prophet to practice secret, non-eternal plural marriage?  There is obviously no eternal benefit to it, so was it to fulfill the scriptural mandate to "raise up seed"?  

 

1. The manual isn't wrong.  Celestial Plural marriage requires the sealing keys.  At the time they had no concept of Celestial Marriage or really eternal marriage.  They were still practicing marriage till death you do part, and had learned that plural marriages were also acceptable.  So that is what he did.  Married a second wife exactly as anyone else would have gotten married in the Church.  Kind of like the whole Martin Luther/Phillip of Hesse story.

 

2. I am not convinced Joseph was commanded to marry Fanny.  I believe he had a revelation that plural marriage was a law of God, so took it upon himself to give it a try out of obedience to the law.  But I think he may well have jumped the gun (ran before he was sent).  This is what Brigham Young (probably falsely) accused Oliver Cowdery of doing as well.

Edited November 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[KevinG]

It took us several generations to get the quorums of the 70 organized right.  Why the fuss over Joseph not being perfect in the restoration of all things?  (Oh yeah, sex sells).

[stemelbow]

1. The manual isn't wrong.  Celestial Plural marriage requires the sealing keys.  At the time they had no concept of Celestial Marriage or really eternal marriage.  They were still practicing marriage till death you do part, and had learned that plural marriages were also acceptable.  So that is what he did.  Married a second wife exactly as anyone else would have gotten married in the Church.  Kind of like the whole Martin Luther/Phillip of Hesse story.

 

2. I am not convinced Joseph was commanded to marry Fanny.  I believe he had a revelation that plural marriage was a law of God, so took it upon himself to give it a try out of obedience to the law.  But I think he may well have jumped the gun (ran before he was sent).  This is what Brigham Young (probably falsely) accused Oliver Cowdery of doing as well.

Number two seems to be likely. But the exception noted in point one is also interesting.

[Calm]

It took us several generations to get the quorums of the 70 organized right.  Why the fuss over Joseph not being perfect in the restoration of all things?  (Oh yeah, sex sells).

And sealing of parents to children.

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

So, is the manual wrong?  And why would the Lord command a Prophet to practice secret, non-eternal plural marriage?  There is obviously no eternal benefit to it, so was it to fulfill the scriptural mandate to "raise up seed"?  

The Lord allows time for people to follow his commandments.  He did so with the Word of Wisdom and did so here as well.   Joseph Smith probably was just putting his toe in the water and to see how things went before moving further.  The problems with Emma did not help.   What seed did Joseph have with Fanny?  If there was no kids, then the purpose was not to raise up seed. 

[strappinglad]

I can baptize without having the keys to do baptisms. The bishop has those keys and can authorize me to perform a baptism. Christ holds all the keys and can authorize someone with the proper priesthood to perform whatever ordinance needed.

[JLHPROF]

I can baptize without having the keys to do baptisms. The bishop has those keys and can authorize me to perform a baptism. Christ holds all the keys and can authorize someone with the proper priesthood to perform whatever ordinance needed.

 

Oooh..delegated authority.  Juicy subject.  Do you need to be ordained an Elder to confirm someone, or can the presiding authority delegate their authority to you?  How does this relate to temple sealers, who do not hold the Apostleship, but are delegated sealing keys for the duration of their calling?

 

How much can actually be done by someone with only delegated authority?

Maybe another thread to avoid derailing?

[The Nehor]

The manual is wrong as they so often are. As a general principle it is right but they often leave out exceptions. You will find that manuals also insist you have to be baptized and confirmed before you can hold the priesthood but those apostates Joseph and Oliver got the priesthood and were then baptized.

[Bob Crockett]

I think the evidence of a relationship with Fanny Alger is extremely thin and have always so thought.  But Joseph Smith's biographers tend to accept what evidence there is.  I don't think Andrew Jensen's inclusion of the the marriage in the official church chronology is evidence at all.  What Oliver Cowdery said on the subject is highly suspect, and then he later came back to the Church which undercuts his allegation of adultery.   

[guerreiro9]

I agree with Bob on this to a certain extent.  Very very (and I could include another very) little is known about the relationship (if any) between Joseph and Fanny.  They could have been married.  They could have been having an affair.  They could have had no romantic relationship at all.  I think too many times we conflate what has been written about the evidence with the evidence itself.  I have read all of the original accounts regarding Fanny Alger and there is just not very much there.

 

Some of the speculations that are made to both show Joseph is a good light and a bad are just that.  Speculations...

 

-guerreiro9

[mormonnewb]

I think the evidence of a relationship with Fanny Alger is extremely thin and have always so thought.  But Joseph Smith's biographers tend to accept what evidence there is.  I don't think Andrew Jensen's inclusion of the the marriage in the official church chronology is evidence at all.  What Oliver Cowdery said on the subject is highly suspect, and then he later came back to the Church which undercuts his allegation of adultery.   

 

I'm not all that familiar with the evidence one way or the other, but the fact that the Church has acknowledged their relationship seems pretty good evidence in and of itself.  In fact, I'd equate it with the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule.

 

In short, for the non-lawyers on the board (all three of them), hearsay evidence is usually considered unreliable as it comes from a third-party.  And so courts will usually exclude this evidence, asking that the litigants produce witnesses that can give first-hand accounts of their experiences.  However, a third-party statement can be introduced if it is a declaration against the person's own interest (i.e., "He told me that he helped Bob move the body").  The theory is that a person is highly unlikely to make an admission against their own interest unless it is true.

 

I view the Church's admission about Fanny Alger in a similar light.  Due to the issue raised in the OP, the Church had every reason to deny JS' relationship with Fanny.  Therefore, it seems that, if there was any reasonable doubt at all, it would have done so (or at least, said that "not enough is known to ascertain the extent of their personal relationship, if any").  However, for the Church to publicly acknowledge a relationship that would ultimately be reported upon in the New York Times, on CNN and across the globe, it seems safe to assume that it must have been quite convinced of its veracity.

[Nevo]

I have read all of the original accounts regarding Fanny Alger and there is just not very much there.

 

That's right. Just a lot of hearsay evidence from Fanny's brother, mother, cousin, close friends, and Oliver Cowdery, among others. How could any of them possibly know if there was a relationship? Maybe Emma threw Fanny out of the house because she ruined a tablecloth or something.

[Coreyb]

The manual is wrong as they so often are. As a general principle it is right but they often leave out exceptions. You will find that manuals also insist you have to be baptized and confirmed before you can hold the priesthood but those apostates Joseph and Oliver got the priesthood and were then baptized.

Not to mention Adam being ordained before he was born

 

 

Oooh..delegated authority.  Juicy subject.  Do you need to be ordained an Elder to confirm someone, or can the presiding authority delegate their authority to you?  How does this relate to temple sealers, who do not hold the Apostleship, but are delegated sealing keys for the duration of their calling?

 

How much can actually be done by someone with only delegated authority?

Maybe another thread to avoid derailing?

yes, you should

[guerreiro9]

That's right. Just a lot of hearsay evidence from Fanny's brother, mother, cousin, close friends, and Oliver Cowdery, among others. How could any of them possibly know if there was a relationship? Maybe Emma threw Fanny out of the house because she ruined a tablecloth or something.

...and my point is proven. Let's see the actual quotes from Fanny's brother, mother, cousin, close friends, Oliver Cowdery, and others. Consider this a CFR.

Show 'em if you got 'em

-guerreiro9

By the way I think they had a relationship, probably sexual, but that is purely speculation.

[guerreiro9]

That's right. Just a lot of hearsay evidence from Fanny's brother, mother, cousin, close friends, and Oliver Cowdery, among others. How could any of them possibly know if there was a relationship? Maybe Emma threw Fanny out of the house because she ruined a tablecloth or something.

I'll do your job for you. Here is a link to the josephsmithpolygamy site run by Brian Hales.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/fanny-alger-2/#link_ajs-fn-id_1-82

He lists the 20 known statements about Fanny Alger. Most of yours aren't on the list, unless you are claiming Oliver Cowdery was Fanny's brother, cousin, close friend and mother I guess.

-guerreiro9

[Nevo]

Let's see the actual quotes from Fanny's brother, mother, cousin, close friends, Oliver Cowdery, and others. Consider this a CFR.

 

Brother:

• "John Olger . . . toald me his Sister was Seald to Joseph in Curtlin, this he Said to me in 1868." (John Hawley Autobiography, January 1885)

Mother:

• "Fanny Alger’s mother says Fanny was sealed to Joseph by Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland in 1835-or 6." (Eliza Jane Webb to Mary E. Bond, 24 April 1876)

Cousin:

• "Father goes to the Father Samuel Alger—his Father’s Brother in Law and [said] 'Samuel the Prophet Joseph loves your Daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you'—Uncle Sam Says—'Go and talk to the old woman about it twi’ll be as She says' Father goes to his Sister and said 'Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you' Said She 'go and talk to Fanny it will be all right with me'—Father goes to Fanny and said 'Fanny Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife will you be his wife'? 'I will Levi' Said She." (Mosiah Hancock, 1896)

Close Friends/Roommates:

• "Alger, Fanny, Joseph Smith’s wife. One of the first wives Joseph married. Emma made such a fuss about. Sister E. R. Snow was well acquainted with her as she lived with the Prophet at the time." (Eliza R. Snow, Document 10, in Andrew Jenson Papers)

   

• "I do not know that the 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgment is principally formed from what Fanny Alger told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'Sister Emma.'" (Eliza Jane Webb to Mary E. Bond, 4 May 1876)

Oliver Cowdery:

• "A dirty, nasty, filthy scrape of his and Fanny Algers was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth on the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." (Oliver Cowdery to Warren A. Cowdery, 21 January 1838) 

[Alan]

Joseph wasn't married to Fanny Algar.

Puzzle solved.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Alan

[CV75]

Some recent discussions (and the Church essays) have got me thinking about Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger, and the fact that it occurred before the restoration of the sealing power in 1836.

There was sealing power as early as D&C 1:8-9 (1831), where marriages were performed by the Lord's servants in this regard.

 

The sealing power in D&C 110 (1836) is far more comprehensive in that not only was the authority to seal  granted to the Lord's servants, but the actual key as well.

 

We see authority being granted without granting the keys all the time, and in this case it had to to with binding on heaven and earth.

 

So, I can see how plural marriages were performed by the sealing power mentioned in D&C 1, and how they werealso performed later with the expanded significance by the  specific key mentioned in D&C 110.

[guerreiro9]

 

Brother:

Mother:

Cousin:

Close Friends/Roommates:

Oliver Cowdery:

 

Quotes from people on your list: 1 Oliver Cowdery

Quotes from people on your list who knew somebody who knew somebody 30-40 years prior: 4

 

How much weight do you place on 2nd or 3rd hand gossip about someone's sex life 30-40 years after the fact?

 

I don't care what happened, but I certainly can't claim to know what happened and neither can you.

 

-guerreiro9

[Buckeye]

I don't care what happened, but I certainly can't claim to know what happened and neither can you.

 

 

I thought about making this same comment to the 20 members of my congregation who, last fast Sunday, said they knew that various historical facts were true even though they were not first-hand witnesses to the events (resurrection, first vision, priesthood keys restored, etc.). I thought about, and then wisely decided against it.

[stemelbow]

Brother:

• "John Olger . . . toald me his Sister was Seald to Joseph in Curtlin, this he Said to me in 1868." (John Hawley Autobiography, January 1885)

Mother:

• "Fanny Alger’s mother says Fanny was sealed to Joseph by Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland in 1835-or 6." (Eliza Jane Webb to Mary E. Bond, 24 April 1876)

Cousin:

• "Father goes to the Father Samuel Alger—his Father’s Brother in Law and [said] 'Samuel the Prophet Joseph loves your Daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you'—Uncle Sam Says—'Go and talk to the old woman about it twi’ll be as She says' Father goes to his Sister and said 'Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife what say you' Said She 'go and talk to Fanny it will be all right with me'—Father goes to Fanny and said 'Fanny Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife will you be his wife'? 'I will Levi' Said She." (Mosiah Hancock, 1896)

Close Friends/Roommates:

• "Alger, Fanny, Joseph Smith’s wife. One of the first wives Joseph married. Emma made such a fuss about. Sister E. R. Snow was well acquainted with her as she lived with the Prophet at the time." (Eliza R. Snow, Document 10, in Andrew Jenson Papers)

• "I do not know that the 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgment is principally formed from what Fanny Alger told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'Sister Emma.'" (Eliza Jane Webb to Mary E. Bond, 4 May 1876)

Oliver Cowdery:

• "A dirty, nasty, filthy scrape of his and Fanny Algers was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth on the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." (Oliver Cowdery to Warren A. Cowdery, 21 January 1838) 

None of these speak of sexual relations. The closest would be Oliver's. But it could very well be that he felt the a marriage between Joseph and Fanny was a dirty, nasty, filthy scrape.

[cdowis]

I'm not all that familiar with the evidence one way or the other, but the fact that the Church has acknowledged their relationship seems pretty good evidence in and of itself.  In fact, I'd equate it with the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule.

 

In short, for the non-lawyers on the board (all three of them), hearsay evidence is usually considered unreliable as it comes from a third-party.  And so courts will usually exclude this evidence, asking that the litigants produce witnesses that can give first-hand accounts of their experiences.  However, a third-party statement can be introduced if it is a declaration against the person's own interest (i.e., "He told me that he helped Bob move the body").  The theory is that a person is highly unlikely to make an admission against their own interest unless it is true.

 

I view the Church's admission about Fanny Alger in a similar light.  Due to the issue raised in the OP, the Church had every reason to deny JS' relationship with Fanny.  Therefore, it seems that, if there was any reasonable doubt at all, it would have done so (or at least, said that "not enough is known to ascertain the extent of their personal relationship, if any").  However, for the Church to publicly acknowledge a relationship that would ultimately be reported upon in the New York Times, on CNN and across the globe, it seems safe to assume that it must have been quite convinced of its veracity.

 

Sigh, this must be a lawyer talking.

 

In the "against one's own personal interest" rule, the person themselves would normally have first hand knowledge.  In this case, the "church" (leaders, scholars, etc because the "church" has no voice) probably decided to make the whole issue moot, since "the church" does not appear to have any more information on the matter than anyone else.  The debate itself creates negative feelings and publicity, so the issue becomes moot.

 

It is clearly a rhetorical device -- "let's move on".

Edited November 13, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

Joseph wasn't married to Fanny Algar.

Puzzle solved.

 

Well, if he wasn't then, he is now.

The Church had them sealed back around the turn of the 1900's.  So unless she rejected the sealing Fanny Alger is sitting up in heaven right beside Joseph, along with Emma and all the others.

 

Other than historical curiosity it really doesn't matter what happened back in 1834.  She's his wife now.