Starting the path to legal polygamy in the U.S.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Let's look at the time line.  Joseph Smith is caught having an affair with young Fanny Alger.  Church co-founder, Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".  This was in 1831 three years before the sealing power has supposedly been resorted.  There was no published revelation either.  Just secrecy and deception.  Just one man telling young girls that it was okay to sleep with him because god said so.  I agree with you, this is the work of a charlatan. 

Utter nonsense.  And your timeline is completely wrong.

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
There was also a polygamy revelation (of debated "officiality" of course) given during the mission to the Lamanites in 1831.

Any idea that Joseph made up polygamy to cover his affair with Fanny Alger is contradicted by history.
At least try to be accurate in your false accusations.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
 

Going from memory here, but I thought Joseph married Fanny in 1833.  The sealing keys were not restored until 1836.

Edited to add this link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

 

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Going from memory here, but I thought Joseph married Fanny in 1833.  The sealing keys were not restored until 1836.

Edited to add this link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

No, she moved to Kirtland in 1833 and met Joseph. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger_as_Joseph_Smith's_first_plural_wife

The marriage was closer to probably 1835, around 4 years after Joseph learned of polygamy.  http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/fanny-alger/

And we've been over the lack of "sealing" keys.  The only people who question the lack of sealing keys are those who think Joseph was only sealed to his plural wives, not married.  If Joseph accepted polygamy he would have entered polygamy prior to the sealing keys in the same manner as he married Emma and anyone else was married.
He would have married her.

[ALarson]

IIRC, according to Levi Hancock (who supposedly performed the ceremony), the marriage took place in 1833.  I'll try to find the sources again and refresh my memory for sure...

Edited to Add:

After reading different sources and writings, it seems that their relationship and marriage could have taken place as early as 1833 or in 1835 (depending on which sources you feel are most reliable, etc.).  

Bottom line is that the date of their marriage is unknown. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Let's look at the time line.  Joseph Smith is caught having an affair with young Fanny Alger.  Church co-founder, Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".  This was in 1831 three years before the sealing power has supposedly been resorted.  There was no published revelation either.  Just secrecy and deception.  Just one man telling young girls that it was okay to sleep with him because god said so.  I agree with you, this is the work of a charlatan. 

You and McGregor will be thread banned if the overheated rhetoric continues.

The highlighted claim is false.

I shall respect the moderator instruction, and not draw the logical conclusion that follows from that fact; as that might be seen as "overheated."

(Incidentally, the assertion following the highlighted claim is likewise false.)

 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Utter nonsense.  And your timeline is completely wrong.

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
There was also a polygamy revelation (of debated "officiality" of course) given during the mission to the Lamanites in 1831.

Any idea that Joseph made up polygamy to cover his affair with Fanny Alger is contradicted by history.
At least try to be accurate in your false accusations.

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Bottom line is that the date of their marriage is unknown. 

No, bottom line is that it was at a minimum 2 years after Joseph learned of polygamy from God, and that the introduction of polygamy was not created as an excuse to cover up the Fanny Alger affair as Sunstoned implied.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

Completely disagree.  Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong.  Polygamy was from God and will be again.

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Completely disagree.  Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong.  Polygamy was from God and will be again.

Really? Then why did he do it is secret and lie about it?  Is this how god works, in shadows?

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Really? Then why did he do it is secret and lie about it?  Is this how god works, in shadows?

Pearls before swine.  Hemlock knots and corn dodgers.  Golden calves and lesser laws.

People cannot handle higher truth.  Clearly.

Edited February 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[VideoGameJunkie]

Maybe Joseph never married Fanny Alger.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

You assume, contrary to direct testimony, that Joseph's plural marriages were "affairs." Then you proceed to pass judgement based upon your own assumptions.

What is "reprehensible" is consciously distorting the facts in order to support a false accusation.

No other "reprehensible" acts are in view.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'll say it again, I think polygamy should be saved for the Millennium and the celestial kingdom.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'll say it again, I think polygamy should be saved for the Millennium and the celestial kingdom.

I'll say it again.  Whatever God requires is right.  Our opinion doesn't matter.

[VideoGameJunkie]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll say it again.  Whatever God requires is right.  Our opinion doesn't matter.

True. I'm just predicting how I believe it will unfold.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't favor a return of polygamy to the Church. But when, and if God, commands me to do it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

[Stargazer]

On 2/1/2016 at 8:26 AM, thesometimesaint said:

I don't favor a return of polygamy to the Church. But when, and if God, commands me to do it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Yeah, what you said.

My late wife was onboard with it, if it were ever to happen (with the proviso that she got to pick my plural wives!), but I forgot to ask my new wife if she was OK with me marrying another wife, if push came to shove!

I wonder what she will say when I ask her?  <Mischievous glint! />

 

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, what you said.

My late wife was onboard with it, if it were ever to happen (with the proviso that she got to pick my plural wives!), but I forgot to ask my new wife if she was OK with me marrying another wife, if push came to shove!

I wonder what she will say when I ask her?  <Mischievous glint! />

 

Assuming you are sealed to both, I'd say it's a little late to worry about it.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Assuming you are sealed to both, I'd say it's a little late to worry about it.

Well, she's sealed to her first husband, so that ship has sailed, but the question still remains what would be her reaction if we were asked to practice it in our Time Only marriage.

I did ask her about this in an email last night and got the answer this morning.  She would be obedient, though it would be hard!  Which is pretty much what I expected.  I married an outstanding woman, that's for sure.

[VideoGameJunkie]

On 4/3/2016 at 0:18 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, she's sealed to her first husband, so that ship has sailed, but the question still remains what would be her reaction if we were asked to practice it in our Time Only marriage.

I did ask her about this in an email last night and got the answer this morning.  She would be obedient, though it would be hard!  Which is pretty much what I expected.  I married an outstanding woman, that's for sure.

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

[VideoGameJunkie]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

Its being done in temples today where a woman who was married to multiple husbands is sealed to all her husbands in the temple. The woman and the husbands have to be dead first though before they can all be sealed, but yes women are sealed to multiple men in temples now.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

Haven't we had this conversation before?  That's only to cover all bases.  I am not stealing her from her first husband, who was a good and faithful priesthood holder.  I will be sure to leave instructions to descendants that we are not to be sealed.  

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Its being done in temples today where a woman who was married to multiple husbands is sealed to all her husbands in the temple. The woman and the husbands have to be dead first though before they can all be sealed, but yes women are sealed to multiple men in temples now.

That has been the case for a long time.  It's not new.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

I think the doctrine is that we don't know what the ultimate outcome of some situations should be, and so we cover all bases.  For example, one of my great grandmothers first husband died and she remarried to my great grandfather.  Who should she be sealed to?  It seems that the first husband gets "dibs" but how do we know?  Maybe she didn't love him, didn't want him, but children and circumstances (and laws at the time) prohibited her from divorcing him.  Maybe she would be much happier with her second husband, the man who was my great grandfather. My mother and father were close to divorce when she died -- should I really have had them sealed together, or should I have not?  I don't know, so it's best to assume that since they were married and loved each other at one time, that they should have the benefit of the sealing.

It's not my CFR, but I think you will find the policy stated in either Handbook 1 or 2.  I think it's in 1, but I'm not sure.