The Fanny Alger Puzzle

[Nevo]

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.

 

It's clear from the historical record that Oliver accused Joseph of committing adultery with Fanny Alger. That was a major reason for his excommunication from the Church.

[USU78]

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.

 

"As I supposed was admitted by himself."

 

Sounds a lot like gossip to me.

[USU78]

It's clear from the historical record that Oliver accused Joseph of committing adultery with Fanny Alger. That was a major reason for his excommunication from the Church.

 

Accusing is not knowing.

[stemelbow]

It's clear from the historical record that Oliver accused Joseph of committing adultery with Fanny Alger. That was a major reason for his excommunication from the Church.

Well I'm interested to piece that together. I don't know that it means a whole lot to me whether he did or not. But how would he know? Perhaps he felt, as many do even today, that it is adultery for Joseph to enter into marriage with Fanny?

[Alan]

JLHPROF,

Thank you. You have proved my point.

If the evidence they were sealed in life was so thoroughly overwhelming, why have them sealed "again"?

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

And I think I know what you're going to say. Something like "there was no record of the original sealing" so they performed the ordinance again. But if that was the case, why not just create a record? Sorry, the whole story just doesn't hold water and is a complete fabrication in my view.

 

As I have said many times before, this is a really simple problem to solve. It really is. We either take Joseph at his word or we do not.

He publicly stated he had never practiced polygamy, had only ever had one wife, and could prove those who claimed otherwise liars.

I don't know why so many otherwise faithful and believing saints try so hard in their attempt to prove the prophet of the restoration a deceiver.

[Nevo]

Perhaps he felt, as many do even today, that it is adultery for Joseph to enter into marriage with Fanny?

 

Alger's family regarded the relationship as a plural marriage. Cowdery (who was either unaware of, or did not accept, the doctrine of plural marriage) believed it was adulterous.

[CA Steve]

Well I'm interested to piece that together. I don't know that it means a whole lot to me whether he did or not. But how would he know? Perhaps he felt, as many do even today, that it is adultery for Joseph to enter into marriage with Fanny?

From what I remember Joseph asked Oliver to help calm Emma over the affair. It did not seem to work as Emma would not allow Fanny back in the house.

Who knows for sure? It was a long time ago and can we really trust Cowdery's recollection of what went on back then?

Edited November 13, 2014 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF,

Thank you. You have proved my point.

If the evidence they were sealed in life was so thoroughly overwhelming, why have them sealed "again"?

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

And I think I know what you're going to say. Something like "there was no record of the original sealing" so they performed the ordinance again. But if that was the case, why not just create a record? Sorry, the whole story just doesn't hold water and is a complete fabrication in my view.

 

No, not going to say that at all.  You are 100% right that there was no sealing.  There was no sealing because there was no sealing authority at that time.  That is why it had to be done in the temple posthumously.

But in my opinion (since even scholars can't agree) there was a wedding ceremony, probably performed by Levi Hancock.

 

 

As I have said many times before, this is a really simple problem to solve. It really is. We either take Joseph at his word or we do not.

He publicly stated he had never practiced polygamy, had only ever had one wife, and could prove those who claimed otherwise liars.

I don't know why so many otherwise faithful and believing saints try so hard in their attempt to prove the prophet of the restoration a deceiver.

 

I believe Joseph lied publicly.  I 100% believe that and I have zero problem with it.  Of course he said he could prove he only had one wife...he only had one marriage license and that was the only kind of marriage the public recognized.

But he was married and sealed by priesthood authority with no legal component over 30 times.  I consider those more valid marriages than the one to Emma in 1820's.  Emma didn't become his eternal companion (wife for the eternities) until after many of the other women.  In the eternities, she isn't even his first wife, let alone his only wife.

[Alan]

Alger's family regarded the relationship as a plural marriage. Cowdery (who was either unaware of, or did not accept, the doctrine of plural marriage) believed it was adulterous.

 

And yet, according to the family, Cowdery allegedly performed the sealing!

It's all just riddles.

[stemelbow]

Alger's family regarded the relationship as a plural marriage. Cowdery (who was either unaware of, or did not accept, the doctrine of plural marriage) believed it was adulterous.

That's fine. But it very well could be that Oliver being so opposed to Joseph marrying a teenager while still married felt that such a binding was dirty, nasty, scrape, and not even know whether their was an actual sexual act.

[Alan]

 

 Of course he said he could prove he only had one wife...he only had one marriage license and that was the only kind of marriage the public recognized.

But he was married and sealed by priesthood authority with no legal component over 30 times.  I consider those more valid marriages than the one to Emma in 1820's.  Emma didn't become his eternal companion (wife for the eternities) until after many of the other women.  In the eternities, she isn't even his first wife, let alone his only wife.

 

I see.

So if he wasn't legally married but had sexual relations with a woman, that would constitute adultery (legally).

When he denied his association with polygamy, he also denied adultery. He said he could also prove that he hadn't committed adultery. The context was in regard to a forthcoming legal case.

So, your argument doesn't fly I'm afraid.

 

If you don't remember much of what I say, that is understandable. I talk nonsense most of the time and frankly I'm surprised anybody bothers to respond to my ramblings. But please try and remember this; it is important and may prove very useful one day: Joseph Smith was not a liar.

[phaedrus ut]

I  know that Fanny remarried in 1838, when did Joseph and Fanny get a divorce?

[Buckeye]

From what I remember Joseph asked Oliver to help calm Emma over the affair. It did not seem to work as Emma would not allow Fanny back in the house.

Who knows for sure? It was a long time ago and can we really trust Cowdery's recollection of what went on back then?

 

The church relies quite heavily on Cowdery's recollection of many critical events.

[Senator]

I  know that Fanny remarried in 1838, when did Joseph and Fanny get a divorce?

 

They were never "married" to begin with.

[JLHPROF]

I  know that Fanny remarried in 1838, when did Joseph and Fanny get a divorce?

 

They were never legally married.  Just married by priesthood authority.  She probably felt no divorce was necessary.

[Alan]

They were never legally married.  Just married by priesthood authority.  She probably felt no divorce was necessary.

 

Speculation.

How do you know how Fanny felt?

 

I have to say JLHPROF, your case gets weaker with each defence.

A word of advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging. 

[phaedrus ut]

They were never legally married.  Just married by priesthood authority.  She probably felt no divorce was necessary.

 

Can you point me to where in the standard works or the CHI where this type of message is authorized.  Because I think it's a post-hoc imaginary made up marital type.  For example, a LDS couple who is married in the temple and civilly married can no longer engage in marital relations once the civil marriage ends, despite being married under the highest priesthood ordinance & authority in the Church.

 

Phaedrus

Edited November 13, 2014 by phaedrus ut

[cinepro]

Can you point me to where in the standard works or the CHI where this type of message is authorized.  Because I think it's a post-hoc imaginary made up marital type.  For example, a LDS couple who is married in the temple and civilly married can no longer engage in marital relations once the civil marriage ends, despite being married under the highest priesthood ordinance & authority in the Church.

 

Phaedrus

 

Whatever the truth is about Fanny Alger, I find the creative thinking it inspires to be fascinating!

 

FWIW, Brian Hales has quite a bit of info about Fanny Alger:

 

Fanny Alger?

 

There are many fascinating stories, including this recollection about how, exactly, the union came to be.  Joseph enlisted Levi Hancock to approach Fanny's family.  First, he talks with Samuel, Fanny's father:

 

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 [Levi’s sister and Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill 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. Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said, “Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission.” Father gave her to Joseph, repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him. ⁵

 

So he asks Fanny's dad if Fanny can marry the already married Joseph Smith, and he consents but says to ask her mother.  Her mother consents, but says to check with Fanny herself.  Fanny simply responds "I will".

 

The Algers may have been the most faithful family in the history of the Church.

 

I'm also curious at what point Joseph asked Emma for permission on the whole situation.  D&C 132 says he can marry virgins even if he asks Emma's permission and she says "no".  But it doesn't say he can do it without asking her...

[stemelbow]

Whatever the truth is about Fanny Alger, I find the creative thinking it inspires to be fascinating!

 

FWIW, Brian Hales has quite a bit of info about Fanny Alger:

 

Fanny Alger?

 

There are many fascinating stories, including this recollection about how, exactly, the union came to be.  Joseph enlisted Levi Hancock to approach Fanny's family.  First, he talks with Samuel, Fanny's father:

 

 

 

 

So he asks Fanny's dad if Fanny can marry the already married Joseph Smith, and he consents but says to ask her mother.  Her mother consents, but says to check with Fanny herself.  Fanny simply responds "I will".

 

The Algers may have been the most faithful family in the history of the Church.

 

I'm also curious at what point Joseph asked Emma for permission on the whole situation.  D&C 132 says he can marry virgins even if he asks Emma's permission and she says "no".  But it doesn't say he can do it without asking her...

yeah but D&C 132 was after the Fanny affair.

[Nevo]

So if he wasn't legally married but had sexual relations with a woman, that would constitute adultery (legally).

When he denied his association with polygamy, he also denied adultery. He said he could also prove that he hadn't committed adultery. The context was in regard to a forthcoming legal case.

 

Actually, your first claim isn't correct. According to M. Scott Bradshaw, "Illinois law [in 1844] only criminalized adultery and fornication if it was 'open.' . . . The term 'open' . . . was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is 'notorious,' 'exposed to public view,' or 'visible,' and which is 'not clandestine.' Joseph's relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition." Therefore, Joseph could not be properly convicted of adultery under Illinois law so long as his polygamous relationships were not public.

Bradshaw agrees that Joseph's statement on 26 May 1844 that he was innocent of adultery and could "only find one [wife]" should be evaluated against the backdrop of his pending trial on charges of committing adultery with Maria Lawrence. According to Bradshaw,

 

A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.

 

— M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014), 413.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nevo

[DBMormon]

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.

Is there any scenario where you would ever say we messed up? or does being LDS and a believer mean we must justify every possible place we can and not acknolwedge we/he/they simply may have gotten wrong.  I find on any claim that affects possible truth claims of the Church, people will argue any possible plausibility rather than go with the evidence.

[DBMormon]

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.   

so your on record disagreeing with the Church's official position?  I just want to be clear.

[Kevin Christensen]

Is there any scenario where you would ever say we messed up? or does being LDS and a believer mean we must justify every possible place we can and not acknolwedge we/he/they simply may have gotten wrong.  I find on any claim that affects possible truth claims of the Church, people will argue any possible plausibility rather than go with the evidence.

All paradigm choice involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm overall, is "better." Facts, evidence, do not speak for themselves, but are selected or ignored, weighted or dismissed, and interpreted in light of that paradigm.

What you have stated here is a double-edged sword, applying to skeptics and believers alike. Have you ever read a criticism of the LDS truth claims that comprehensively addresses and coherently explains all of the evidence supporting our faith, not in terms of coercive proof, but in terms of Alma's open-ended "cause to believe" that falls short of perfect knowledge. Do a few scandal stories about Joseph Smtih constitute "boldly facing the only evidence that really matters? Does muttering about DNA and a non-canonical line about "principal inhabitants" constitute facing the evidence? Does what a modern reader assume about the meaning of the Fanny Alger puzzle the same thing as what she and Joseph Smith actually experienced? What does that story tell me about the Book of Mormon? It that problem "more significant" to solve than the Book of Mormon?

The "evidence" does not speak for itself, but speaks within a given framework, a paradigm, a narrative. Hence, a lot of the debate isn't about the evidence, but a politicized struggle for control of the narrative in which to select, value and place facts. Someone who just goes with the "evidence", boldly facing the cruel, telling facts, which facts often turn out to be second or third hand late gossip or Hofmann forgeries, or based on poor readings, or ill-informed speculation, or over-generalizations.

Does an example of a poorly informed LDS true believer who knows only what he or she learned by sitting in Sunday School for a few years constitute a paradigm-defining example of the best thinking available?

When Shakespeare's Othello decides to strangle Desdemona, is he boldly and honestly facing the unpleasant facts as he understands them? Should he, at that moment, be surrounded by sympathetic well-wishers who only want to respect his feelings and validate his pain? Should he dismiss any defenses of his wife as nothing more than prejudiced apologetics that deny the plain facts and hard evidence as he understands it?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[DBMormon]

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.

amen my friend

[DBMormon]

I  know that Fanny remarried in 1838, when did Joseph and Fanny get a divorce?

another case of polyandry.... except Joseph was first this time!!!