cursor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) JLHPROF, on 13 Nov 2014 - 10:13 AM, said: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._____ [which mod/admin might have added this comment? BTW?] Really, even though people can in fact be criminals? Of course you understand that prior to 2006, Warren Jeffs was not a convicted criminal. Might I make reasonable comparison to a then NON convicted criminal? While previously not a criminal, his behavior was reprehensible in the eyes of the general public. That is my point. Edited January 7, 2015 by cursor
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 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"? I prefer to apply Occam's Razor to this one: Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was not sanctioned by God. No apparent positive fruits from the union. He lied about it. No revelation to support it. Ended in divorce and her leaving the church. Seems time to for an official admission that it was most likely a mistake so that we can all move upward and onward.
oremites Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I prefer to apply Occam's Razor to this one: Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was not sanctioned by God. No apparent positive fruits from the union. He lied about it. No revelation to support it. Ended in divorce and her leaving the church. Seems time to for an official admission that it was most likely a mistake so that we can all move upward and onward. Why do we need an "official admission" to move upward and onward? Let's just do it already. Whatever happened is between Joseph, Fanny and God. Let them deal with it. I don't think there's anyone alive that's knows enough about it to make any kind of qualified judgement, let alone an official admission. "Occam's Razor" is just another term for "best guess". I think the official position is and should be D&C 64:10 - "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." 1
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Why do we need an "official admission" to move upward and onward? Let's just do it already. Whatever happened is between Joseph, Fanny and God. Let them deal with it. I don't think there's anyone alive that's knows enough about it to make any kind of qualified judgement, let alone an official admission. "Occam's Razor" is just another term for "best guess". I think the official position is and should be D&C 64:10 - "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." Personally, I've made my decision and I'm good with it. And I agree with 64:10. Why do we need an official admission? I think it would help many. I think that the recently published essays still defend the practice as sanctioned of God (problematic IMO). I think the admission would also help in unwinding the messages sent by the excommunications of people like Michael Quinn.
cinepro Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 I prefer to apply Occam's Razor to this one: Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was not sanctioned by God. No apparent positive fruits from the union. He lied about it. No revelation to support it. Ended in divorce and her leaving the church. Seems time to for an official admission that it was most likely a mistake so that we can all move upward and onward. I think the nature of the relationship makes it impossible to "admit" it was most likely a "mistake".
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I think the nature of the relationship makes it impossible to "admit" it was most likely a "mistake". Why is that?
JLHPROF Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 He lied about it. No revelation to support it. Both very debatable.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Both very debatable. Did JS not tell people that he had only one wife when he was, in fact, married to Fanny? Where was the revelation that supported his marriage to Fanny when he married her? 1
Alan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Did JS not tell people that he had only one wife when he was, in fact, married to Fanny? This is half right.He certainly did declare that he had only one wife. He was never married to Fanny Alger
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 This is half right.He certainly did declare that he had only one wife. He was never married to Fanny Alger What are you suggesting?
cursor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) This is half right.He certainly did declare that he had only one wife. He was never married to Fanny AlgerYeah, what fancy [redacted]. Talk about dancin' .. Are you happy/satisfied with that? Read the forum rules before posting, otherwise you would know that profanity will not be tolerated. ~Mods Edited January 8, 2015 by Chronos
cursor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Both very debatable. Um ... no ...He lied about it, ANDThere was no revelation to support it. Edited January 7, 2015 by cursor
cinepro Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 Both very debatable. While I wouldn't expect Joseph to make a huge public announcement amount a revelation for polygamy in the early 1830s and his taking of Fanny as a plural wife, D&C 132 does seem to indicate that Joseph would have to tell Emma first and give her a chance to accept the arrangement (with permission to continue if, and only after, she refuses to accept it). 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 While it's possible Joseph asked Emma to "receive this law" before the arrangement with Fanny, I strongly suspect that wasn't the case.
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Um ... no ...He lied about it, ANDThere was no revelation to support it. Is this the same cursor that posted here about "Mormons Codex"? If so what has happened to you? I miss the old you.
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 While I wouldn't expect Joseph to make a huge public announcement amount a revelation for polygamy in the early 1830s and his taking of Fanny as a plural wife, D&C 132 does seem to indicate that Joseph would have to tell Emma first and give her a chance to accept the arrangement (with permission to continue if, and only after, she refuses to accept it). While it's possible Joseph asked Emma to "receive this law" before the arrangement with Fanny, I strongly suspect that wasn't the case. You have to feel a bit sorry for Joseph. Caught between a rock and a hard place. What with God telling him to institute polygamy and a strong willed wife he adored and he knew she would not approve. Tough position.
Alan Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Cursor He didn't lie about it.I tend to agree with you about the revelation, though I think there is an explanation. Edited January 9, 2015 by Alan
cursor Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Fanny Alger was just 16 years old (when Joseph was 11 years older ... um ... that'd be 27, and was at a time when he was married to Emma). D&C 132 came to light (was published) in 1843. As early as 1838 Oliver Cowdry described the episode with Fanny (a house-maid) as a, "dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's ... in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." Keep in mind that is is one of the Three Witnesses. How credible might his perspective be? So what ... an applicable revelation about plural marriage didn't occur until five years after the fact? Note that Fanny Alger legally married Solomon Custer on November 16, 1838 (a non-mormon). So much for eternal marriage. Edited January 9, 2015 by cursor
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Fanny Alger was just 16 years old (when Joseph was 11 years older ... um ... that'd be 27, and was at a time when he was married to Emma). D&C 132 came to light (was published) in 1843. As early as 1838 Oliver Cowdry described the episode with Fanny (a house-maid) as a, "dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's ... in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." Keep in mind that is is one of the Three Witnesses. How credible might his perspective be? So what ... an applicable revelation about plural marriage didn't occur until five years after the fact? Note that Fanny Alger legally married Solomon Custer on November 16, 1838 (a non-mormon). So much for eternal marriage. Joseph received revelation on plural marriage when translating the Bible in the early 1830's.Fanny Alger was most likely an attempt on his part to start practicing a doctrine he had studied and received revelation on without fully understanding it.D&C 132 as it is canonized is the clarified, full deal version.But there was absolutely revelation on plural marriage (at least 1, maybe 2) before the Fanny Alger incident. As to his lying, just plain old pearls before swine rules again.And either way, Fanny was sealed to Joseph posthumously. If we believe in sealing and if Fanny chooses, she will be one of his eternal companions.
cursor Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) But there was absolutely revelation on plural marriage (at least 1, maybe 2) before the Fanny Alger incident. Might you mean '1 maybe 2 "years"' ,,, perhaps? So, if I can't appreciate the very temporary affair, then I must be swine. Thanks for that thoughtful consideration. Please be reminded that just a couple a years later she was legally married to another, and a non-Mormon at that. If that doesn't strongly suggest "affair", I'm not sure what might. And, what might Joseph have done about losing his second wife to another? What might have been his attitude regarding it? And what did he actually do? Edited January 9, 2015 by cursor
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I'm not sure what might. And, what might Joseph have done about losing his second wife to another? What might have been his attitude regarding it? And what did he actually do? If you were actual there please tell us. If you were not it is all imagination.
cursor Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 No, I was not there. That must then mean that any plausible interpretation that I might choose to own is purely my own selective imagination (and hence, not real at all). And of course, you are allowed whatever imagined interpretation you prefer ... not having actually been there. Hey, whatever is comfortable for you.
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 No, I was not there. That must then mean that any plausible interpretation that I might choose to own is purely my own selective imagination (and hence, not real at all). And of course, you are allowed whatever imagined interpretation you prefer ... not having actually been there. Hey, whatever is comfortable for you. Now you are getting it. What ever one chooses to believe is fine if one also accepts the consequence.
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Might you mean '1 maybe 2 "years"' ,,, perhaps? No, I mean 1 or 2 revelations on plural marriage prior to D&C 132 in its fullness.
cursor Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Thanks for the added clarity. I appreciate it. Could you kindly point me to them. Thanks.
Recommended Posts