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

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Yes.

All this tells us is that Eliza considered the relationship in 1886 as a polygamous marriage.  I think this is additional corroborating evidence that there was a relationship, especially since Eliza lived with the Smiths during this time, but I don't think this tells us much about what the dynamics of the relationship was with respect to whether a marriage ceremony was performed or not, and especially since this is such a late recollection, all we have contemporaneously are the Oliver Cowdery statements, and the High Council minutes.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-2/121

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'd be interested in seeing more of what she wrote too.

It's interesting that she states Joseph and Fanny were "sealed" and that she named Oliver as the person who sealed them.

When did Joseph first start calling his plural marriages sealings, so you know?

None of the sealing doctrines happened until late Nauvoo, when it comes to marriage sealings.  In the Kirtland period and early Mormonism they used sealing to describe sealing up to salvation, and there were times where whole congregations were sealed to receive salvation in the next life.  But the whole doctrine of marriage sealings didn't start to happen until late Nauvoo, and our current doctrine on the subject has evolved significantly from the Nauvoo period as well, after Joseph died it continued to change.  

I also find the idea that Oliver would have married Fanny to Joseph as extremely problematic since we have evidence that this was part of the reason he was excommunicated in 1838.  This makes that recollection very problematic to me, since that fact is contradicted by the more reliable contemporaneous evidence that Oliver considered the relationship an affair.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Why do you find statements by those who remained faithful in the church problematic, somehow less reliable, than those of one who fell away from the church, when the latter corroborates the former?

 

Its not their faithfulness that makes their statements problematic, its the late recollections by people that had no first hand knowledge, that had other motivations for writing what they did (to pretty up the history of their ancestors) and with the errors and anachronisms in these accounts, what are we to believe?  

Professional historiography as I understand it has a clear hierarchy of how they consider source evidences and their reliability.  I think these evidences rank fairly unreliable by this method.  I'm no historian, and didn't invent the criteria, but I have no reason to question the methods they use. 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Nevo for sharing.  The Mosiah Hancock recollections are very problematic for me, anachronistic content, he wouldn't have had knowledge about these things personally, and he added these things to Levi's biography after he died.  I just have a hard time believing them.  

I am interested in learning more about the Eliza Jane Webb letter to Mary Bond, that one sounds interesting. I kind of find all of these late recollections to be just a little too apologetic, trying to clean up the story to honor Joseph Smith's memory.  But with Eliza Jane Webb, she no longer being a member of the church, that one is interesting.  I know that Richard Bushman shares this quote in RSR that Fanny Alger was asked about her relationship with Joseph Smith after his death, and said quote "That is all a matter of my own, and I have nothing to communicate." (RSR page 327)

A couple interesting resources to consider as well,  This .pdf I found helpful.  

https://exploringmormonism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DatingFannyAlger.pdf

Also, the first chapter of Persistence of Polygamy there is an essay by Don Bradley on this topic, and I don't have the book, but you can read the first few pages of it as a preview on Amazon.  I need to get that one and read the whole thing.  

https://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polygamy-Joseph-Origins-Mormon/dp/193490113X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488318808&sr=1-1&keywords=the+persistence+of+polygamy

I agree that Mosiah Hancock's recollections are problematic. I think everyone admits that. He seems to be repeating (and perhaps embellishing) family stories. I don't place much weight on his narrative except where it is supported by other, better evidence. I think it is credible that Levi Hancock approached Fanny's parents with the marriage proposal because it rings true. Joseph Smith tended to use intermediaries and typically sought out a male relative to press his suit. Levi Hancock was Fanny's uncle. Other times Joseph would approach the father (e.g., Newel K. Whitney) or a brother (e.g., Benjamin F. Johnson) or a brother-in-law (e.g., Joseph Bates Noble).

Eliza Jane Webb had no reason to invent a recollection about Fanny Alger's mother telling her that "Fanny was sealed to Joseph by Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland in 1835-or 6," although we can rightly question whether the relationship was a "sealing" (probably not) or whether Cowdery performed the marriage (almost certainly not). We could also question the date, but it is supported by other evidence.

Webb also wrote in the same letter: "I do not know that the 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that something similar commenced, and my judgment is principally formed from what Fanny Alger told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'Sister Emma.'" The Webbs took Fanny in when she was ejected from the Smith household, so Webb was in a position to know from Fanny herself in 1836 that "something similar" to a sealing had taken place.

Eliza R. Snow was living at the Smith home at the same time as Fanny Alger and was, by her account, "well acquainted with her." Eliza was also well acquainted with Joseph Smith—eventually becoming one of his plural wives. She believed the relationship was a marriage. Whether she came to that belief based on her conversations with Alger or Smith at the time, or later, or entirely on her own, we don't know. But she was in a position to have talked to one or both of them about it—it's hard to imagine that she didn't. Further, as Don Bradley notes, "if she had had any doubts whether the relationship was a marriage, she could simply have remained silent." But she didn't. Instead, when Andrew Jensen interviewed her about Joseph's plural wives in 1886, she personally added Alger's name to Jensen's handwritten list.

Thanks for the link to Don Bradley's "Dating Fanny Alger" paper. I have Persistence of Polygamy, vol. 1, at home and highly recommend it, particularly Don's contribution.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Nevo

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

all we have contemporaneously are the Oliver Cowdery statements, and the High Council minutes.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-2/121

Yes, that's all we have contemporaneously but I don't think Oliver Cowdery was more of an insider on this issue than Eliza R. Snow was (or, for that matter, Chauncy and Eliza Webb). And the High Council testimony repeatedly has Oliver saying that Joseph didn't admit adultery—even though Cowdery himself apparently wasn't buying it.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

According to Brian Hales, Fanny was sealed to Joseph by proxy on April 4, 1899 under the direction of President Lorenzo Snow (Salt Lake Temple Sealing Records, Book D, 243, GS film, 184,590, LDS Family History Library)

Thank you!
I knew I had read that somewhere.  (Thought I was going crazy).

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not their faithfulness that makes their statements problematic, its the late recollections by people that had no first hand knowledge, that had other motivations for writing what they did (to pretty up the history of their ancestors) and with the errors and anachronisms in these accounts, what are we to believe?  

Professional historiography as I understand it has a clear hierarchy of how they consider source evidences and their reliability.  I think these evidences rank fairly unreliable by this method.  I'm no historian, and didn't invent the criteria, but I have no reason to question the methods they use. 

I understand, and agree with your point about sources. Mosiah Hancock obviously was a secondhand report at best, and standing alone would be of doubtful value. The Eliza Webb letter is better evidence, corroborating elements of and lending credence to Mosiah's report.

Glenn

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I understand, and agree with your point about sources. Mosiah Hancock obviously was a secondhand report at best, and standing alone would be of doubtful value. The Eliza Webb letter is better evidence, corroborating elements of and lending credence to Mosiah's report.

Glenn

Except that she got details wrong (she called it a sealing and that it was performed by Oliver).  We really don't have a good source on this event and just kind of have to piece things together I guess from what we do have.  (But I get your point here.)

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Guest]

21 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!

 

If I may...many faiths have used the OT teaching and understanding to believe that God condoned polygamy in the Bible, so it must be ordained of God. In the early days (well for a few centruries) the early Pope's were polygamist, as well as having concubines as well, based on this belief. It was these very scriptures that caused Joesph to inquire about these very matters. Church history makes it clear that Joesph already had received an answer as early as 1832, just two years after the Church was organized, even though he did not publish it until the Nauvoo years, and then only at the repeated request of Hyrum Smith. Hyrum wanted it written down so that he could take it to Emma himself who had serious issues with it, understandably! Hyrum told Joseph that he would get the U&T that Joesph could receive it (a topic for another time, as many had thought the U&T had been taken with the plates by Moroni), and Joseph told Hyrum that he did not need it. Joseph then went on to dictate it to his scribe, with a pause. 

I too have difficult issues with the issue, with polygamy as well. My bio-father was a bigamist, married another woman and had children by her after ten years of marriage to my mother and her three with him. Of course my mother did not know until two years into his illegal marriage to his "other wife". Also in scripture, in the OT, every example of plural marriage given, was tragedy, for both wives and children, not to mention the Book of Mormon lists this very reason for God's condemnation of the practice...so a lot of confusion there, at least for me. In any age, I have been and always would have been a one woman man, and doubt that I would even remarry if my wife passed away, God forbid. 

Many however have questioned about all of Joseph's many wives as to what type they are? All I can say to that is this, no one knows what type of marriage, any marriage is except those in that marriage, speaking historically or as spectators. 

[ERayR]

On 2/27/2017 at 4:08 PM, 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!

 

 

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

You are asking the wrong questions.  IMNHO the only questions that needs be asked is do you believe Joseph Smith was called of God and do you think it was possible he may have made some mistakes in implementing some things? 

[ERayR]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Except that she got details wrong (she called it a sealing and that it was performed by Oliver).  We really don't have a good source on this event and just kind of have to piece things together I guess from what we do have.  (But I get your point here.)

Perhaps she got the details right or perhaps they all got them wrong.  You and I have absolutely no way of knowing.  Our choice is do you believe Joseph was a prophet called by God.

[Glenn101]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Except that she got details wrong (she called it a sealing and that it was performed by Oliver).  We really don't have a good source on this event and just kind of have to piece things together I guess from what we do have.  (But I get your point here.)

I am not suggesting that either account is 100 percent accurate. I have no way of knowing that. The essential elements are corroborative.

Glenn

[Johnnie Cake]

54 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If I may...many faiths have used the OT teaching and understanding to believe that God condoned polygamy in the Bible, so it must be ordained of God

Huh?  CFR

Quote

In the early days (well for a few centruries) the early Pope's were polygamist,

What? CFR

Quote

 It was these very scriptures that caused Joesph to inquire about these very matters. Church history makes it clear that Joesph already had received an answer as early as 1832,

actually it was July 17, 1831 Joseph said married men could take Indian women as a second wife

 

[Glenn101]

46 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I too have difficult issues with the issue, with polygamy as well. My bio-father was a bigamist, married another woman and had children by her after ten years of marriage to my mother and her three with him. Of course my mother did not know until two years into his illegal marriage to his "other wife". Also in scripture, in the OT, every example of plural marriage given, was tragedy, for both wives and children, not to mention the Book of Mormon lists this very reason for God's condemnation of the practice...so a lot of confusion there, 

Now look at the underlying reasons behind each of those tragedies. Start with your own experience. Every one of those tragedies or bad experiences were caused by unrighteous actions by one of the parties involved. Maybe that is a reason that those examples were published in the scriptures. The same is true of the latter-day practice. The bad examples are the ones that get the publicity.

Fortunately for our fragile testimonies we are not required to live it today, but it is the number one cause of angst yet in the church membership, it would seem.

Glenn

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Huh?  CFR

What? CFR

actually it was July 17, 1831 Joseph said married men could take Indian women as a second wife

 

1. CFR the Old Testiment? OK, the Old Testiment...Abraham, Iassac and Jocob. God's chosen people are the offspring of Jacob (Israel) his twelve sons. He made his covenant with the most known polygamist in all the Bible, as in number of wives and offspring. He called Abraham out of his country and set him apart a the father of all Nations and the man through which all who believe (ever) will be blessed, making him the father of many Nations, with his seed to number greater that the sands of the sea. 

2. The History of the Catholic Church...Google 

3. Now, you may CFR about Indian Women. BTW, CARM is not a CFR. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Joseph could have while she was still living if you look at how Jane Manning was living when a proxy was used for her. 

Jane gave her permission for it though.

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jane gave her permission for it though.

And so would have Fanny most likely if she'd been asked.  Hasn't it been stated that she remained loyal to Joseph?

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So do we have evidence that Levi moved forward with a polygamous union to Clarissa Reed?  That would help bolster that recollection.

One other question for anyone, there is a recollection that Fanny left Kirtland pregnant, I'm assuming with Joseph's child, but do we have any DNA testing of her posterity that could tell us whether this was Joseph's child?   I don't know if the child even survived, does anyone know? 

Those are great questions and in bumping them in hopes that someone may know the answers.  I'll try to look into them too.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am not suggesting that either account is 100 percent accurate. I have no way of knowing that. The essential elements are corroborative.

Glenn

I don't agree. We really have no eyewitness accounts or firsthand accounts (to the marriage).  Most of the statements we do have came from those who had reasons for needing or wanting this to be a marriage.  I find it highly likely that they got caught and all were told to say it was a marriage to protect Joseph and even Fanny.  That's what I now lean towards but of course I don't know anymore that anyone else here knows if it was truly a marriage (joined by the priesthood) or not.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

1. CFR the Old Testiment? OK, the Old Testiment...Abraham, Iassac and Jocob. God's chosen people are the offspring of Jacob (Israel) his twelve sons. He made his covenant with the most known polygamist in all the Bible, as in number of wives and offspring. He called Abraham out of his country and set him apart a the father of all Nations and the man through which all who believe (ever) will be blessed, making him the father of many Nations, with his seed to number greater that the sands of the sea. 

Read your bible...no where does god condone polygamy the CFR stands plus you also claimed many religions condone polygamy other than those founded by JS who?

Quote

2. The History of the Catholic Church...Google 

That not how CFR's work. Your made a bizarre claim the early popes were polygamists the CFR stands

Quote

3. Now, you may CFR about Indian Women. BTW, CARM is not a CFR. 

I sighted the 1831 Indian woman polygamy. I did not request a CFR for this claim

 

or you can withdraw your claims

Edited March 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And so would have Fanny most likely if she'd been asked.

Since she was no longer a member of the Church and married to a different man, why would she have ever agreed?  She wouldn't even talk to her own brother about the relationship.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

I believe the child thought to be Joseph's by some was tested (or rather his descendants).  But iirc his birth would have been too late anyway,he was never a good candidate.  If she was pregnant, she had a miscarriage or the child was stillborn or died so young no one made a record. I believe Don Bradley, whose scholarship I trust, believes Fanny was pregnant, this is why she was sent out of state and this may have been why she so quickly got married.

Edit:  the potential son was Orrison Smith.

"In 2005, Perego said DNA testing also ruled out three other alleged male descendants — Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (son of Mary Ann Frost Pratt, married to Parley P. Pratt), Zebulon Jacobs (son of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith, married to Henry Bailey Jacobs) and Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger)."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226318/DNA-tests-rule-out-2-as-Smith-descendants.html

See also:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html

Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since she was no longer a member of the Church and married to a different man, why would she have ever agreed?  She wouldn't even talk to her own brother about the relationship.

Well, there's no way of knowing since we have no information on whether or not Joseph attempted to be sealed to her (his wife if you believe they were married).  

When you state she was no longer a member of the church, had she been excommunicated?  Or do you just mean she was no longer an active member?

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, there's no way of knowing since we have no information on whether or not Joseph attempted to be sealed to her (his wife if you believe they were married).  

When you state she was no longer a member of the church, had she been excommunicated?  Or do you just mean she was no longer an active member?

I don't think she was excommunicated, rather it was her own choice to distance herself though the rest of her family remained in it.

I do agree we will likely never know.  I think, that even if she respected Joseph, she might not be too fond of him given his apparent lack of support of her in her likely pregnant state...though perhaps he ensured there were those who would care for her.  I think if she refused to even talk about it at all, it seems highly unlikely that she would allow it to be dredged up again and her name likely become gossip as well after all those years, even if they tried to keep the sealing a secret.  But maybe she didn't talk about it because she adored him and didn't want to risk others finding out by the tone of her voice, etc. because that could put her in a difficult situation.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Read your bible...no where does god condone polygamy the CFR stands plus you also claimed many religions condone polygamy other than those founded by JS who?

That not how CFR's work. Your made a bizarre claim the early popes were polygamists the CFR stands

I sighted the 1831 Indian woman polygamy. I did not request a CFR for this claim

 

or you can withdraw your claims

You asked for two CFR's for my claim, and I answered them. You can't just say your heard or read it once and to throw out such a claim about Joseph about Indian women like that and not tell anyone from whence it came, as it impurnes not only Joseph, but of the Church leaders in 1831. So again please CFR, I answered yours, you show me the same respect.