What Type Of Marriage Was Joseph's With Fanny Alger?

[JulieM]

I'm starting another thread because again, I don't want to take others off topic.

I remember reading some of JLHPROF's opinions on this some time ago, but would like other's input or beliefs too as this is a difficult issue for me.  (I would also welcome any views from JLHPROF as always too.)

Since Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet, he and Fanny's marriage wasn't a sealing.  (At least officially.)

And, it couldn't be a legal marriage.

So, what are your views regarding what type of marriage Joseph intended it to be?

What was the ceremony like?

Also, JLHPROF, you posted you were looking for sealing records for Fanny and Joseph (done after the keys were restored via proxy or in person).  I'm very interested in knowing what you find!

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

I'm starting another thread because again, I don't want to take others off topic.

I remember reading some of JLHPROF's opinions on this some time ago, but would like other's input or beliefs too as this is a difficult issue for me.  (I would also welcome any views from JLHPROF as always too.)

Since Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet, he and Fanny's marriage wasn't a sealing.  (At least officially.)

And, it couldn't be a legal marriage.

So, what are your views regarding what type of marriage Joseph intended it to be?

What was the ceremony like?

Also, JLHPROF, you posted you were looking for sealing records for Fanny and Joseph (done after the keys were restored via proxy or in person).  I'm very interested in knowing what you find!

 

Maybe you should consider adding a poll to this thread.  Lots of board members are familiar with all the available data on Fanny.
It seems to me there are several options, each with reasons to be invalid and reasons to be valid.

It clearly wasn't a legal marriage or an eternal sealing as we know it today.  That kind of limits the options.

1. Not a marriage at all but an affair
2. A marriage under his authority as President of the Priesthood and Church but NOT civil legal authority
3. A sealing but NOT by the keys of Elijah (think early Kirtland Temple practices of "sealing").
4. A common law marriage of no legal standing but the same methodology as a civil marriage of the time.

As for the posthumous sealing record, I took a look and cannot find one.  But I am sure I read it somewhere...

Edited February 28, 2017 by JLHPROF

[rpn]

The 5. option would be that Fanny was pregnant by someone else, confessing it, and when Emma saw them and made the assumptions she did, JS offered the protection he could by identifying it as a marriage.

[bsjkki]

Does anyone have a link to what facts are known about the whole topic? 

[MDalby]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Does anyone have a link to what facts are known about the whole topic? 

This is a good summary.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger-2/

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, MDalby said:

This is a good summary.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger-2/

I'm not sure all the facts they say are facts--maybe a few alternative facts mixed in?

[blueglass]

If we were to take a Christopher smith view of the history it would be difficult to show how God overturned all of the marriage laws in the old/new testaments, book of mormon, and doctrine and covenants to exonerate Joseph smith of multiple adulteries.  with the Oliver Cowdery excommunication he was accused of "seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery."  David Patten called it "the adultery scrape".  It looks like Joseph was trying to pressure oliver as an attorney into a technicality or loophole release on the accusation of adultery by using Lev 18:20, Lev 20:10 that it can only be called adultery if the woman was married.  As fanny was not, then it is technically old testament fornication.  I thought Jesus over-turned this definition of adultery with matthew 5:27-28.  

[Doug the Hutt]

JulieM,

 

0. It was not a marriage.  The only "type" of marriage that it can logically be labelled is "illegal", "unrecognized", "illegitimate", etc....anything but legal and lawful.  Marriage would have been seen by Joseph's contemporaries as found here:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/marriage .  And Joseph's relationship with Fanny met exactly zero of those conditions.  I mean, all that's true unless we're talking about "marriage" instead of marriage -- kind of like translation and "translation".  Then all bets are off because once you're allowed to start redefining things there's no end to what a person can start claiming.

1. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.  This includes marriage.

2. There was no marriage that the State would ever recognize that occurred between them.

3. Where did the idea that a person can be married under the authority of the priesthood but not civilly come from?  Is that in some manual I've yet to have read that someone else is privy to?  CFR please.  And where does that line of thinking stop?  What other illegal or immoral activity can be couched "under the authority of the priesthood"?  Can we just call the "under the authority of the priesthood" example special pleading and move along?

4. Let us not forget that Fanny was a child.  Joseph was an adult with powerful influence over many people who should have known better than to engage in romantic relationship with a child.  It actually wasn't even a dirty, filthy, nasty affair -- that may have been true had Fanny been of age but she wasn't. If anything Fanny was the victim of a predator.

5. D&C indicates that the transmitting of the sealing keys to Joseph occurred in the temple years later.  "Keys" weren't even a thing when Joseph's and Fanny's paths crossed.

 

So then, what would the Law circa 1832 call a secret relationship with likely physical activities between a 38 year old married male community leader and a 16 year old orphan girl who isn't his wife?  I know what we call it today and I know what we do with them.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Doug the Hutt said:

3. Where did the idea that a person can be married under the authority of the priesthood but not civilly come from?  Is that in some manual I've yet to have read that someone else is privy to?  CFR please.  And where does that line of thinking stop?  What other illegal or immoral activity can be couched "under the authority of the priesthood"?  Can we just call the "under the authority of the priesthood" example special pleading and move along?

4. Let us not forget that Fanny was a child.  Joseph was an adult with powerful influence over many people who should have known better than to engage in romantic relationship with a child.  It actually wasn't even a dirty, filthy, nasty affair -- that may have been true had Fanny been of age but she wasn't. If anything Fanny was the victim of a predator.

Wow...where to begin. 

1. Fanny was NOT a child by any definition (except the modern term "minor")
2. Marriage is a religious, not civil union.  The state's opinion on the topic is irrelevant.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow...where to begin. 

1. Fanny was NOT a child by any definition (except the modern term "minor")

I don't know.  She was only 16 years old right?  (Or do you think she was older? I think it was 1833 when they married...)

Joseph was an older, married man too.

To be clear though, I do not believe Joseph was a pedophile.

Edited February 28, 2017 by JulieM

[blueglass]

 The state's opinion on the topic is irrelevant.

Clearly - the church has embraced and praised God for the federal religious liberty corrections forced upon Utah and Idaho in UT constitution art3sec2, and in ID constitution art1sec4.  

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe you should consider adding a poll to this thread.  Lot's of board members are familiar with all the available data on Fanny.
It seems to me there are several options, each with reasons to be invalid and reasons to be valid.

It clearly wasn't a legal marriage or an eternal sealing as we know it today.  That kind of limits the options.

1. Not a marriage at all but an affair
2. A marriage under his authority as President of the Priesthood and Church but NOT civil legal authority
3. A sealing but NOT by the keys of Elijah (think early Kirtland Temple practices of "sealing").
4. A common law marriage of no legal standing but the same methodology as a civil marriage of the time.

As for the posthumous sealing record, I took a look and cannot find one.  But I am sure I read it somewhere...

I wonder if they were ever sealed (how about more modern sealings?).

When did Joseph first start teaching or speaking about sealings, do you know? 

Was it before his relationship to Fanny?  

Edited February 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I don't know.  She was only 16 years old right?  (Or do you think she was older? I think it was 1833 when they married...)

Joseph was an older, married man too.

To be clear though, I do not believe Joseph was a pedophile.

I think Fanny Alger was likely 19 when she married Joseph Smith. See Brian Hales's treatment here.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I think Fanny Alger was likely 19 when she married Joseph Smith. See Brian Hales's treatment here.

So Joseph was likely ten years older, around 30, right?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I think Fanny Alger was likely 19 when she married Joseph Smith. See Brian Hales's treatment here.

I tend to concur.  Given the rapid departure from Kirtland in 1836 I find it unlikely that Fanny remained in Kirtland for 3-4 years AFTER the relationship with Joseph was ended. 

Even splitting the difference and settling on a date after the 1834 first visit of the angel (per Mary Rollins) but before leaving Kirtland in Sept 1836, that would leave us maybe late 1835?
That would make Fanny 18-19 and Joseph around 29.

Edited February 28, 2017 by JLHPROF

[CMZ]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 Lot's of board members are familiar with all the available data on Fanny.

Lots

[JulieM]

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

I think Fanny Alger was likely 19 when she married Joseph Smith. See Brian Hales's treatment here.

Thanks Nevo.  I tried to read some on this last night and it seems no one really knows for sure how old she was (between 16 - 19 depending on who the researcher is).  I guess it's safe to say she was a teenager at the time.

Do you have an opinion on what type of marriage took place between Joseph and Fanny or what the ceremony may have been like?

I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Edited February 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

I understand that believers want/need to maintain a belief that an actual marriage took place in order to justify Smith's behavior, even though (with an LDS spin) no keys had been restored for a polygamist marriage...but isn't this want/need just a crutch designed to maintain belief in the man's claims. Isn't this just speculation and post hoc insertion of non existent facts to create a scenario of events as we had hoped they played out rather than how they actually happened.  Isn't the truth really what we seek?  What would happen if no marriage occurred? That is the question every believer should be asking. What if it really was just a dirty filthy affair as Oliver claimed it was...what would that mean for Joseph's claims?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I understand that believers want/need to maintain a belief that an actual marriage took place in order to justify Smith's behavior, even though (with an LDS spin) no keys had been restored for a polygamist marriage...but isn't this want/need just a crutch designed to maintain belief in the man's claims. Isn't this just speculation and post hoc insertion of non existent facts to create a scenario of events as we had hoped they played out rather than how they actually happened.  Isn't the truth really what we seek?  What would happen if no marriage occurred? That is the question every believer should be asking. What if it really was just a dirty filthy affair as Oliver claimed it was...what would that mean for Joseph's claims?

What I do not understand is the non-believers need to destroy Joseph Smith.  It often seems to border on the pathological.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, ERayR said:

What I do not understand is the non-believers need to destroy Joseph Smith.  It often seems to border on the pathological.

Again shooting the messenger... I am not the one who was caught in the barn with Fanny...that was Joseph, it happened...if this information destroys Joseph that's on him not me...but feel free to ignore it if you wish...I could care less but I would rather face the truth and factor it into my decisions instead of making up post hoc alternative facts that didn't actually happen just to make me feel good about  my beliefs.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, ERayR said:

What I do not understand is the non-believers need to destroy Joseph Smith.  It often seems to border on the pathological.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, looking at all types of explanations, and trying to understand what may have taken place.

What are your answers to the questions asked in th OP?

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

I'm starting another thread because again, I don't want to take others off topic.

I remember reading some of JLHPROF's opinions on this some time ago, but would like other's input or beliefs too as this is a difficult issue for me.  (I would also welcome any views from JLHPROF as always too.)

Since Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet, he and Fanny's marriage wasn't a sealing.  (At least officially.)

And, it couldn't be a legal marriage.

So, what are your views regarding what type of marriage Joseph intended it to be?

What was the ceremony like?

Also, JLHPROF, you posted you were looking for sealing records for Fanny and Joseph (done after the keys were restored via proxy or in person).  I'm very interested in knowing what you find!

For the Fanny relationship, I don't believe the evidence supports a "marriage".  Only later recollections and explanations call it a marriage.  I think its an affair and a problematic one that caused serious trouble for Joseph and Emma, and Oliver left over it.  

But expanding this idea a little, how can we call any of Joseph's extramarital relationships marriages.  Its not any real kind of marriage in my mind, no financial support, no cohabitation, no public commitment to people and family.  I personally think that the Nauvoo practices of polygamy are very different than later practice in the Utah time period since they were done in secrecy and missing all the traditional components of a marriage commitment.  

Personally, I don't find any of the Nauvoo polygamy practices by Joseph or others to be even remotely morally acceptable.  I don't like polygamy at all, but the Nauvoo polygamy practiced in secrecy was even worse and I struggle to find anything praiseworthy about any of it.  

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For the Fanny relationship, I don't believe the evidence supports a "marriage".  Only later recollections and explanations call it a marriage.  I think its an affair and a problematic one that caused serious trouble for Joseph and Emma, and Oliver left over it.  

But expanding this idea a little, how can we call any of Joseph's extramarital relationships marriages.  Its not any real kind of marriage in my mind, no financial support, no cohabitation, no public commitment to people and family.  I personally think that the Nauvoo practices of polygamy are very different than later practice in the Utah time period since they were done in secrecy and missing all the traditional components of a marriage commitment.  

Personally, I don't find any of the Nauvoo polygamy practices by Joseph or others to be even remotely morally acceptable.  I don't like polygamy at all, but the Nauvoo polygamy practiced in secrecy was even worse and I struggle to find anything praiseworthy about any of it.  

To add to this view, I'd suggest the marriage aspect becomes suspect with Fanny on another ground.  When she left--was traveling with her family to Missouri, as I recall--she got married shortly after, having stopped in Indiana.  If she thought she was married to Joseph at this time, why would she get married to someone else so quickly afterward?  It could be, particularly early on, that Joseph didn't see it as a marriage, as there was, as hope points out, no talk of a marriage, or sealing for that matter, until years later.  And, it appears, no one heard anything from Fanny about it.  Of course it's also possible when she left, having felt forced out by Emma's reactions, she felt the secret ceremonial "marriage" if you will, was null and void.  It seems after all that Joseph saw it as null and void as the years rolled on.  He didn't go back for her at any time. 

With that said, I'm not so quick to discount the possibility of some sort of ceremony and I wouldn't doubt that Oliver mentioned as the dirty nasty scrape was such a ceremony. 

And for the timing, I like Hales treatment of the subject and don't find it very problematic other than to say there really is nothing very concrete.  It very well could have been as early as 1833.  It is possible Joseph kept it secret from Emma for years (as people have kept on-going affairs secret from their spouses for many years in some cases).  But, in every case it's mentioned, it was many years after by those who were not involved first hand.  So, it's hard to define "likely" here. 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To add to this view, I'd suggest the marriage aspect becomes suspect with Fanny on another ground.  When she left--was traveling with her family to Missouri, as I recall--she got married shortly after, having stopped in Indiana.  If she thought she was married to Joseph at this time, why would she get married to someone else so quickly afterward?  It could be, particularly early on, that Joseph didn't see it as a marriage, as there was, as hope points out, no talk of a marriage, or sealing for that matter, until years later.  And, it appears, no one heard anything from Fanny about it.  Of course it's also possible when she left, having felt forced out by Emma's reactions, she felt the secret ceremonial "marriage" if you will, was null and void.  It seems after all that Joseph saw it as null and void as the years rolled on.  He didn't go back for her at any time. 

With that said, I'm not so quick to discount the possibility of some sort of ceremony and I wouldn't doubt that Oliver mentioned as the dirty nasty scrape was such a ceremony. 

And for the timing, I like Hales treatment of the subject and don't find it very problematic other than to say there really is nothing very concrete.  It very well could have been as early as 1833.  It is possible Joseph kept it secret from Emma for years (as people have kept on-going affairs secret from their spouses for many years in some cases).  But, in every case it's mentioned, it was many years after by those who were not involved first hand.  So, it's hard to define "likely" here. 

 

Were we talking about anyone but Joseph Smith...we would call this incident for what it appears, by all indications, to be..." An extra marital affair"  anything beyond that is just wishful post hoc machinations.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Do you have an opinion on what type of marriage took place between Joseph and Fanny or what the ceremony may have been like?

I think Hales is probably correct that the ceremony was performed by Levi Hancock by "priesthood authority."

Quote

Obviously civil law would not ratify a polygamous marriage. Nor would the sealing keys be restored until April 1836 (D&C 110:13–16). Therefore, Levi was not acting with the authority by which plural marriages were later sealed in Nauvoo. . . . When Joseph performed marriages, as with the Newell Knight-Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey wedding in Kirtland on November 24, 1835, he did it by “authority of the preisthood which he held.” . . . 

It is clear that Joseph Smith believed that the priesthood authority he possessed in 1835 could solemnize a marriage that would stand for the duration of mortal life, so long as that union was approved of God. That priesthood authority could be bestowed upon others who would be similarly empowered to perform a matrimonial ceremony that would be valid according to God’s laws even if “gentile law” would not allow it.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger-2/#WhatAuthoritywasUsedtoSolemnizetheMarriage

I think that Alger and her family believed the relationship was a divinely authorized marriage. I don't think they would have consented to it otherwise. Fanny had a good reputation and her family were stalwarts in the Church.

Ultimately, though, it was a disastrous experiment that caused significant damage. The "girl business" alienated Oliver Cowdery, enraged Emma, and poor Fanny (who was quite possibly pregnant as well) was discarded like yesterday's trash. 

Obviously, a married Joseph engaging in a clandestine sexual relationship with a winsome teenage housemaid is going to look like adultery to a lot of people, but I think the larger historical context suggests that this was an early, abortive attempt of Joseph Smith to reinstate the patriarchal practice of polygamy.