The Fanny Alger Puzzle

[DBMormon]

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

yeah, but Buckeye, don't you get it, we get to pick and choose which testimonies best support our view and throw out the rest.

[DBMormon]

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

I agree Kevin, Both sides have reason to doubt and both sides can not create a smooth fitting puzzle.  Whether believer or critic, you must choose to believe your conclusion despite flawed points

[DBMormon]

Kevin C, I should add, I am happy to live with flawed history and nuanced mormonism.  My issue is most members can't live in that arena and get defensive and stop short of acknowledging such flaws.  

 

Certain Mormons handle it well - Dan Wootherspoon, Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, Terryl Givens, Fiona Givens, Adam Miller and many others - (I would put you in that group) 

But too often when there are deep flaws in our history and doctrine, we will defend tooth and nail even when it is the biggest stretch in the world.  Why not just say as one scholar recently told me "The history is deeply flawed, none of our explanations work very well with issue X: and yet inspite of that I choose to have faith and move forward.  That for me, validates the reasons I have doubt rather than marginalizes them.  It also acknowledges that our history isn't clean and that faith is an act of agency.  IT also holds up much better to reality IMO.

[Buckeye]

yeah, but Buckeye, don't you get it, we get to pick and choose which testimonies best support our view and throw out the rest.

 

Yep. But IMO it is especially dangerous to consider throwing out Cowdery's testimony. Cowdery was one of the few witnesses to many critical events in church history (BOM translation, Angel Moroni, etc.) and for some of the most critical events he was the only witness other than Smith (priesthood restoration, priesthood keys). Throw out Cowdery and we no longer have the necessary two witnesses to say that we have the AP, MP, or sealing keys. Very, very dangerous IMO.

[DBMormon]

Yep. But IMO it is especially dangerous to consider throwing out Cowdery's testimony. Cowdery was one of the few witnesses to many critical events in church history (BOM translation, Angel Moroni, etc.) and for some of the most critical events he was the only witness other than Smith (priesthood restoration, priesthood keys). Throw out Cowdery and we no longer have the necessary two witnesses to say that we have the AP, MP, or sealing keys. Very, very dangerous IMO.

No, No, we don't throw him out.... just the testimony we don't agree with that doesn't support our cause. see how this works.  

[cinepro]

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.

 

Now I see why the Expositor was such a big deal.  If what Joseph was doing was secret, legal adultery, it suddenly became illegal!

[USU78]

Kevin C, I should add, I am happy to live with flawed history and nuanced mormonism.  My issue is most members can't live in that arena and get defensive and stop short of acknowledging such flaws.  

 

Certain Mormons handle it well - Dan Wootherspoon, Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, Terryl Givens, Fiona Givens, Adam Miller and many others - (I would put you in that group) 

But too often when there are deep flaws in our history and doctrine, we will defend tooth and nail even when it is the biggest stretch in the world.  Why not just say as one scholar recently told me "The history is deeply flawed, none of our explanations work very well with issue X: and yet inspite of that I choose to have faith and move forward.  That for me, validates the reasons I have doubt rather than marginalizes them.  It also acknowledges that our history isn't clean and that faith is an act of agency.  IT also holds up much better to reality IMO.

 

"Flawed history."

 

What an odd notion.

 

History is history.  When you used "flawed" you make value judgments concerning people from a time, place and situation you likely do not understand.  "We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are."

 

I, accordingly, reject the "flawed" vs "unflawed" taxonomy in history which both you and your unnamed "scholar" (who should be ashamed to have made such an asinine statement) have asserted.

[CV75]

If the fundamental issue is that Joseph Smith's marriages occurred before the restoration of the sealing key in 1836, there needs to be some recognition that there was an earlier restoration of sealing power without it, as referred to by the Lord in 1831 (e.g. D&C 1:8-9; 68:12). This necessitates an appreciation of the difference between power and keys.

 

The sealing power was restored to and exercised by men on earth in connection with the restoration of the keys of the kingdom (as noted in D&C 27:13). It was then exercised through the restoration of a corresponding and specific sealing key given to Joseph’s 1836. The particular sealing power associated with the key of Elijah had not been exercised earlier, but the earlier sealing power was still exercised in various ways, including the performance of marriages, under the keys of the kingdom by the command of the Lord.

 

So Joseph had power and authority to seal (including performing marriages) by virtue of the keys of the kingdom whenever the Lord commanded him between 1829 and 1836, and thereafter by virtue of the keys that were committed / commissioned by Elijah. Sealing power is manifest in many ways, according to the keys under which they are exercised.

Edited November 15, 2014 by CV75

[Calm]

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.

Law of Adoption looks like it was messed up according to Woodruff:

 

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Woodruff,%20Wilford/WoodruffW_LawOfAdoption.html

 

You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than what you have done. We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the Temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God. Men would go out and electioneer and labor with all their power to get men adopted to them. One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. ...Men are in danger sometimes in being adopted to others, until they know who they are and what they will be. Now, what are the feelings of Israel? They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. President Young was not satisfied in his mind with regard to the extent of this matter; President Taylor was not. When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, "Have you not a father, who begot you?" "Yes, I have." "Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?" "Yes," says I, "that is right." I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want ll men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days. Elijah the prophet appeared unto Joseph Smith and told him that the day had come when this principle must be carried out. Joseph Smith did not live long enough to enter any further upon these things. His soul was wound up with this work before he was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. He told us that there must be a welding link of all dispensations and of the work of God from one generation to another. This was upon his mind more than most any other subject that was given to him. In my prayers the Lord revealed to me, that it was my duty to say to all Israel to carry this principle out, and in fulfillment of that revelation I lay it before this people. I say to all men who are laboring in these temples, carry out this principle, and then we will make one step in advance of what we have had before.

Edited November 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"My issue is most members can't live in that arena and get defensive and stop short of acknowledging such flaws."

 

​Then that is their problem, not yours, so why obsess about it?

[CV75]

Kevin C, I should add, I am happy to live with flawed history and nuanced mormonism.

What do you mean by “flawed history” and “flaws in our doctrine and history”? I’m not asking for examples (one man’s flaw is another man’s imagination), but your definitions.

 

For example, are you using “history” to mean events that actually happened or to mean the study (or attempted study) of past events (real or purported)? What does flawed mean in the case you are using it? what does doctrine mean?

 

And "nuanced momonism," what do you mean by that?

[cjp]

HI Alan,

 

I wanted to say that I share a lot of your thoughts about the lack of compelling evidence for the narrative of Joseph's polygamy that we have been told. I would like to discuss it more with you, but since this doesn't seem the appropriate place, is there someway I can contact you or should I start a new post?  Thanks.

[cjp]

I don't know if this is the best place to post this topic, but it is related to the Fanny Alger affair in a way. I have a question about the High Council meeting on April 12, 1838 regarding Oliver Cowdery before he got excommunicated. In the testimonies against Oliver, his accusations that Joseph had committed an affair or admitted to an affair were brought up and in response, “Joseph Smith jr testifies that Oliver Cowdery had  been his bosom friend, therefore he intrusted him with  many things. He then gave a history respecting the girl  buisness.”

 

Has anyone read any accounts of what was said by Joseph? I have read some scholars that suggest he probably explained his polygamous relationship with Fanny (since we now interpret her as the girl involved). But I have never heard of any account by the men involved that this was a time when Joseph taught polygamy. Do you think that is because they were sworn to secrecy regarding what happened in church trials, like we are today?

Also, at least 3 of the men who were part of the council did not go West with the Brighamites and joined Sidney's movement and/or the RLDS church after Joseph's death, so I wonder if that could indicate he wasn't forthcoming about polygamy here since at first Sidney and then later the RLDS were claiming Joseph didn't' teach or practice polygamy. So I'm just wondering if we have any indication of what Joseph said. I would appreciate any thoughts or suggested readings.

 

If only they had written at least one more sentence about what Joseph said, we would know a lot more about what was really going on at this time!

[cjp]

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the meeting minutes if anyone wants to check them out :

see here

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/minute-book-2#!/paperSummary/minute-book-2&p=127p (for names of those on the High Council , see p 118)

[readstoomuch]

I get the feeling that Joseph was implying that Oliver knew about and had been entrusted with the secret of polygamy. I read the minutes and the article about Fanny Alger in JosephSmithspolygamy.com. I think you have to read the interactions within the bigger issues Oliver was having that led up to the trial where he was executed. Oliiver didn`t show up to his trial and there were those testified against him for activities such as counterfeiting and stealing a printing press.

I think there is a book about OC as the Second Elder of the Church. It is a complicated time in Church History, but OC, did not support the prophet during this period of persecution. There is about as good of evidence about Fanny Alger being the earliest plural marriage that you are going to get when the activity is not in keeping with the law off the land. Like much of history the trial cannot be interpreted without understanding the period of the Church and plural marriage itself.

[Calm]

"that led up to the trial where he was executed. Oliiver didn`t show up to his trial"

I probably wouldn't have either if I knew that was going to be the outcome.

[readstoomuch]

sorry, excommunicated, not executed. I thing there was partisanship between several groups at the time and Oliver being married to a Whitmer, put him on their side of the feud.

[cjp]

Thanks for the reply. But if you think that Joseph was implying that Oliver knew about and had been entrusted with the secret of polygamy, then would that mean that everyone in the meeting already knew about polygamy and would understand what Joseph was implying here? I just think it seems a little weird to think that that many people were aware of polygamy by that early of a date, as in later recountings most of them don't talk about Joseph teaching them the doctrine of plural marriage until the 1840s (other than the few references to a possible revelation about marrying the Lamanites, but that itself is unclear), I actually just read  affadavits from the scribe of this meeting, Ebenezer Robinson, from the 1870s and 1880s that say he was introduced to polygamy by Hyrum in 1843. So I wonder how Joseph explained the matter to the coucnil?

[cinepro]

I get the feeling that Joseph was implying that Oliver knew about and had been entrusted with the secret of polygamy.

 

The history of Oliver Cowdery and polygamy is murky because of the accusations made by Brigham Young and others during the Utah period regarding Oliver's conduct in Kirtland.  But this page has some interesting info, although I don't know how reliable it is.

[Alan]

cjp,

I tried to message you but it didn't work. Can you message me?

Edited December 15, 2014 by Alan

[SmileyMcGee]

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).

Hmmmm....if you're married why don't you let your spouse answer that one for you.

[Curtis Weber]

Henry Jones Sr: "Goose-stepping morons should try reading books instead of burning them." What a great line. Joseph Smith Jr tops that a little: "could we read and comprehend all that has been written from the days of Adam on the relation of man to God & angels. ...in a future state, we should know very little about it. Could you gaze in heaven 5 minutes you would know more than...by read[ing] all that ever was written on the subject." (WJS, 254). Still, maybe a little reading wouldn't hurt: D&C 68:12.

[cursor]

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

 

Can you reasonably understand how Waren-Jeff-ish that sounds? 

 

Do not compare people to criminals.

[cursor]

Throw out Cowdery and we no longer have the necessary two witnesses to say that we have the AP, MP, or sealing keys. Very, very dangerous IMO.

 

And what might AP and MP mean? Thanks. Typing just a few extra characters ain't that hard.

[ERayR]

And what might AP and MP mean? Thanks. Typing just a few extra characters ain't that hard.

 

Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood.