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

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I feel like there is often an assumption that "bitter former members" have an agenda and are untrustworthy, but true believers don't have an agenda and can be trusted. In reality both have an agenda that colors what they say. 

I agree.
It is when these things suddenly are brought forward decades after the fact that they become questionable.  There has to be a reason for these things to be spoken of (whether truth or lie).  That is the agenda I refer to.
McLellin's claim in the 1870s that he spoke to Emma in 1847 and she told him of the "barn" incident is highly suspect.  He is the only source for the "barn" story.
And what do we know about him:

Even a quick perusal of his Wikipedia entry should be sufficient:

• Left the Church in 1838 over money issues.
• Rumored to have robbed Joseph's home and stable while Joseph was in prison
• Joined Sidney Rigdon's Church and became an Apostle in 1845
• AND joined the Strangites, the Hedrickites, and tried to get David Whitmer to start a Church
• According to Brigham Young:
  While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.

Now, if you think that sounds like a credible person as the only reference for Joseph fooling around with Fanny in the barn go for it.  Personally, I see an agenda.  I admittedly see an agenda in the Brigham Young story of McLellin and the members spreading the robbery rumor too.  But just his inconsistent history alone makes his claims concerning the prophet highly suspect.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But that revelation is fascinating to read through!  Thanks for posting it.

Maybe we could start a thread containing the non-canonical revelations received by the prophet's and apostles.  There are many and while the Church today doesn't claim them as official doctrine it would be foolish to think they didn't impact the course of the Church through the years.
In other words, we may not follow them but they may well have got us to where we are today.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So what do you believe their relationship was?

Not to answer for Alan but he has stated repeatedly that he doesn't believe Joseph was ever a polygamist (although I think he accepts the existence of some sort of sealings).

[Alan]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

So what do you believe their relationship was?

They didn't have one beyond the fact that she lived and worked in Joseph and Emma's home.

I know that most people here don't agree with my view, but I don't believe Joseph practiced plural marriage beyond dynastic sealings.

 

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, Alan said:

They didn't have one beyond the fact that she lived and worked in Joseph and Emma's home.

I know that most people here don't agree with my view, but I don't believe Joseph practiced plural marriage beyond dynastic sealings.

 

Wow.  You've got to have your head buried deeply in the sand OR you haven't done much research on this topic.  

There would have to be a lot of good people telling and writing lies (including contemporary writings from Nauvoo) for what you believe to be true.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Wow.  You've got to have your head buried deeply in the sand OR you haven't done much research on this topic.  

There would have to be a lot of good people telling and writing lies (including contemporary writings from Nauvoo) for what you believe to be true.

Oh I have researched this subject thoroughly over many years. And I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion either.

No head in the sand here. What I actually did was look at the evidence. By that I don't mean simply the after the fact (mostly decades after the fact) statements made by practicing Utah polygamists, I mean the contemporary evidence. There is little doubt in my mind that the most reliable evidence points towards Joseph being a monogamist.

Those who believe Joseph was a polygamist also have to believe he was a liar. I don't.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wow.  I haven't read this before.

Either Phelps had an almost perfect memory or most of that is him rather than Joseph givenPhelps reconstructed what he heard 40 years later.  One should be cautious.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

But what type of polygamy was this to be?  Was Abraham actually married or was he given the handmaiden, Hagar, by Sarah so he could have a child (maybe that was considered marriage back then?). 

If this revelation is accurate (related 30 years later from memory by W. W. Phelps), it states they were to marry Indian women to raise up posterity to be "white and delightsome".   That sounds similar to why Hagar was given to Abraham.

But that revelation is fascinating to read through!  Thanks for posting it.

Hagar would have been most likely considered a lesser wife, laws dealing with what was and was not owed her and her children may not have been codified yet though and that was how she was able to be abandoned.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Possibly.  But I see both Emma's reaction (when they were discovered) and Oliver's strong reaction (willing to be excommunicated and leave the church over it) as pretty strong evidence this was more an affair (portrayed as a marriage after the fact) than any type of marriage.  This is also evidence that he didn't get Emma's permission, IMO (her reaction and her throwing Fanny out).  But we can't know that for sure, of course.

 

Emma's reaction was the same with a known plural wife, Eliza Snow.  She also kicked the Partridge sisters out iirc (could have been the Lawerences), who she had picked herself to be married.  Oliver's reaction could have been based on lack of knowledge and then not being able to get past the first gut response as so often happens when learning something that troubles us even if we learn the reasons later are invalid.

I would agree it is unlikely he got Emma's permission.

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Thanks Calm for tracking those down, appreciate it.  I would love to see another round of testing by a more independent party than Perego, especially since the science for DNA tests has improved significantly since 2005.  

[Calm]

I find the hints that Ugo would let his faith cause him to lie about the findings rather reprehensible.  Not only that, I have heard him speak and .I believe him when he said he didn't care whether he found children or not.  He is not a proponent of JS had no sex with his wives.

[JulieM]

51 minutes ago, Alan said:

Oh I have researched this subject thoroughly over many years. And I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion either.

No head in the sand here. What I actually did was look at the evidence. By that I don't mean simply the after the fact (mostly decades after the fact) statements made by practicing Utah polygamists, I mean the contemporary evidence. There is little doubt in my mind that the most reliable evidence points towards Joseph being a monogamist.

Those who believe Joseph was a polygamist also have to believe he was a liar. I don't.

But you believe Brigham and other Prophets are liars?  And also dozens of faithful saints (some who were Joseph's wives) who knew Joseph lied about him living polygamy too?

That's a lot of lies to coordinate and keep track of plus quite the huge conspiracy if true!  

I own a family journal of someone who knew the Prophet and he recorded about Joseph performing a sealing in Nauvoo.  Why would Joseph do that if he was against polygamy?  It was a sealing involving Joseph's family member too.

Are you one who believes that Brigham led the church astray?

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

Ah no you didn't...so considering that I've now given you 18 hours to provide your CFR and you have failed to do so or have been unable to do so...I can now consider them null and void fabrications

 

Just to remind you here are your assertions that I've asked you to provide CFR's on:

01.

Quote

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

 

So CFR that many faiths (other then those with ties to Joseph Smith) have used the OT teaching and understanding to believe that God condoned polygamy in the Bible

02.

Quote

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

 

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

 

Again feel free to withdraw these bizarre claims if you desire or provide your CFR and I'll acknowledge it

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find the hints that Ugo would let his faith cause him to lie about the findings rather reprehensible.  Not only that, I have heard him speak and .I believe him when he said he didn't care whether he found children or not.  He is not a proponent of JS had no sex with his wives.

I never said he would lie, I don't know the guy personally and can't comment on his character.  That he isn't independent is just a fact of the matter, its not a slight on him personally.  Its good to have multiple corroborating sources of evidence for everything, its called peer review, and its an accepted practice for scientific findings like DNA testing.  Also, since the technology in this field is rapidly advancing, I think it would be worth a second look using the most up to date science.  

[strappinglad]

We do know that Oliver C. did come back into the Church and at a time when polygamy was the accepted observance of the day. He seems to have gotten over his problems with JS . Too bad some of us here can't do the same. Of course Oliver would have had much less access to contemporary sources than we do now, right? He could have leaned over to someone in the church pew and learned a couple of juicy items.

 Fanny Alger's silence on the matter speaks volumes.

[Glenn101]

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't know anymore that anyone else here knows if it was truly a marriage (joined by the priesthood) or not.

I agree with that.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I never said he would lie, I don't know the guy personally and can't comment on his character.  That he isn't independent is just a fact of the matter, its not a slight on him personally.  Its good to have multiple corroborating sources of evidence for everything, its called peer review, and its an accepted practice for scientific findings like DNA testing.  Also, since the technology in this field is rapidly advancing, I think it would be worth a second look using the most up to date science.  

Then you are accusing him of incompetence.  From what I understand DNA matching is a relatively hard science.  

Repeating because technology improvement is wise.  Double checking another's work is good as well Suggesting it be repeated because you don't trust the work of a scientist because you don't see him as independent enough is criticizing the quality or honesty of the scientist's work.  Attaching that criticism to the scientist's faith (or are you suggesting another reason for his lack of independence?) attacks his intregity.

From his own report, he didn't care one way or the other.  So if you think he did in a significant enough way to alter the results, you think he was telling a lie. He was helping people find out if they were descendants and they wanted to be (were interested in joining the JS family association), so if there was any pressure, it was to find connections.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then you are accusing him of incompetence.  From what I understand DNA matching is a relatively hard science.  

Repeating because technology improvement is wise.  Double checking another's work is good as well Suggesting it be repeated because you don't trust the work of a scientist because you don't see him as independent enough is criticizing the quality or honesty of the scientist's work.  Attaching that criticism to the scientist's faith (or are you suggesting another reason for his lack of independence?) attacks his intregity.

From his own report, he didn't care one way or the other.  So if you think he did in a significant enough way to alter the results, you think he was telling a lie. He was helping people find out if they were descendants and they wanted to be (were interested in joining the JS family association), so if there was any pressure, it was to find connections.

This is why I had issues with this link. http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger-2/  I read this sentence, " Overall, evidence indicates infrequent sexual relations in less than half of Joseph Smith’s polygamous unions, which is likely why only two children are known to have been born to Joseph’s plural wives, with only one living to adulthood, a daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher

I thought it should have had a few qualifiers like some believe, evidence suggests, or it is likely etc. They qualify the first half of the sentence but present as fact Joseph Smith had two children from polygamous relations. I remembered reading about the DNA studies and found the article in the Deseret News. I don't think it is "settled" that Joseph Smith had two children from polygamous marriages so that makes me suspect the entire site is not entirely trustworthy.

[Calm]

I am not sure what that has to do with Ugo Perego.  It is not his website.  That is out of date as well as Josephine is known to be not his daughter.  Brian Hales, who is the author I believe, probably erred in how he wrote that because while iirc,he speculated that Josephine was Joseph's daughter, he knew the evidence was inconclusive and had said so elsewhere.

I do believe that Brian allows his bias to push his conclusions to a certain extent, he is strongly imo against the possibility of sexual polyandry and some of his timeline conclusions reflects that.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure what that has to do with Ugo Perego.  It is not his website.  That is out of date as well as Josephine is known to be not his daughter.  Brian Hales, who is the author I believe, probably erred in how he wrote that because while iirc,he speculated that Josephine was Joseph's daughter, he knew the evidence was inconclusive and had said so elsewhere.

I do believe that Brian allows his bias to push his conclusions to a certain extent, he is strongly imo against the possibility of sexual polyandry and some of his timeline conclusions reflects that.

I probably didn't use the right quote from you earlier. It was the Ugo Perego DNA studies that led me to question the conclusions from the Hales website. From my very limited knowledge, I knew it was only speculation Josephine was Joseph's daughter.

I have learned to be very careful with sources and when I find misstatements like that, I tend to throw out the whole source. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I probably didn't use the right quote from you earlier. It was the Ugo Perego DNA studies that led me to question the conclusions from the Hales website. From my very limited knowledge, I knew it was only speculation Josephine was Joseph's daughter.

I have learned to be very careful with sources and when I find misstatements like that, I tend to throw out the whole source. 

You should write Brian and point it out if it bothers you.  I suspect he will change it and he may explain it was a poor wording and he was aware and had written elsewhere that it was a possibility, not a certainty.  While I disagree with some of his conclusions, .I do believe he works hard to get things right.  He has lots of projects going and updating his website completely when the new info came out last year might have fallen through the cracks.  I have some stuff .i need to do myself tonight for a couple of hours still, then I get to play grandma tomorrow, so I will probably forget given my useless memory these days, so I am not going to commit to telling him myself...but if I do remember next time I bump into him online, I will pass on he needs to correct his error.  However, if you do it now, it would be better. 

Brian's site is very useful for providing documentation.  I believe his work is currently the most complete and generally up to date, though obviously not perfect there.  I always say to go to the original documentation.  I have to be very familiar with a person's work before I accept their conclusions as my own without checking first when able.  I may have to accept on trust for a time when I can't access original sources, but it annoys me when it happens.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Calm

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree.
It is when these things suddenly are brought forward decades after the fact that they become questionable.  There has to be a reason for these things to be spoken of (whether truth or lie).  That is the agenda I refer to.
McLellin's claim in the 1870s that he spoke to Emma in 1847 and she told him of the "barn" incident is highly suspect.  He is the only source for the "barn" story.
And what do we know about him:

Even a quick perusal of his Wikipedia entry should be sufficient:

• Left the Church in 1838 over money issues.
• Rumored to have robbed Joseph's home and stable while Joseph was in prison
• Joined Sidney Rigdon's Church and became an Apostle in 1845
• AND joined the Strangites, the Hedrickites, and tried to get David Whitmer to start a Church
• According to Brigham Young:
  While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.

Now, if you think that sounds like a credible person as the only reference for Joseph fooling around with Fanny in the barn go for it.  Personally, I see an agenda.  I admittedly see an agenda in the Brigham Young story of McLellin and the members spreading the robbery rumor too.  But just his inconsistent history alone makes his claims concerning the prophet highly suspect.

"Rumored"?  Really?

And while Brigham Young might be good at many things, he is most certainly not a good character witness or source for events that involve people that left the Church and whom he viewed as disloyal.  As far as I can tell, he felt the only limits to the stories he could tell about such people were the bounds of his own creativity.

Honestly, the problem isn't that he's the only source.  The real problem is that the story is so easy to believe.  Notice how few people, then and now, respond with "that's utterly impossible, and I don't believe it!"  Instead, the initial response is a quick mental browse of LDS doctrines in an attempt to create a doctrinal fig-leaf to cover the story.

[bcuzbcuz]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And by murky you mean completely unsubstantiated 3rd hand rumor almost 40 years after the fact.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger/Discovered_in_a_barn

By murky I mean as equally murky as the marriage to Fanny Alger being the first sealing under the new covenant....before the covenant was restored. 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Then you are accusing him of incompetence.  From what I understand DNA matching is a relatively hard science.  

Repeating because technology improvement is wise.  Double checking another's work is good as well Suggesting it be repeated because you don't trust the work of a scientist because you don't see him as independent enough is criticizing the quality or honesty of the scientist's work.  Attaching that criticism to the scientist's faith (or are you suggesting another reason for his lack of independence?) attacks his intregity.

From his own report, he didn't care one way or the other.  So if you think he did in a significant enough way to alter the results, you think he was telling a lie. He was helping people find out if they were descendants and they wanted to be (were interested in joining the JS family association), so if there was any pressure, it was to find connections.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never said he was lying in any way, and I have a problem with you taking my comments and trying to turn them into an accusation of lying.  You are misrepresenting me, and I corrected you last time, but you continue to twist my words into a misrepresentation and I don't appreciate that at all.  

Independence and peer review and new technology are the important principles that I commented about in my message, and that's all I have to say on the subject.  Please DO NOT, continue to assert that I'm calling his work a lie.  

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Hagar would have been most likely considered a lesser wife, laws dealing with what was and was not owed her and her children may not have been codified yet though and that was how she was able to be abandoned.

What do you think of the following quote I found on another site, that I don't dare link in case it has temple content. Isn't this what is taught in the same Bible Joseph possible read about it in?

"Summary: Contrary to Joseph Smith’s teaching in LDS scripture (D&C 132), God did not command Abraham to take many wives, nor did God command Abraham specifically to take Hagar as a wife. A careful study of Genesis 16 shows that it was Sarai’s idea for Abram to have sexual relations with Hagar in order to produce a child. In their culture, this practice was akin to what we call surrogate motherhood. Abram’s child by his wife Sarai’s maid Hagar would be considered in that culture to be Sarai’s child. Some distinctive, close verbal parallels between Genesis 16:2-3 and statements in Genesis 3 (in which Eve, tempted by the serpent, gave the forbidden fruit to her husband) shows that the narrative in Genesis 16 is portraying Sarai and Abram as falling into sin. As far as the inspired narrative is concerned, Sarai remained Abram’s only true wife. The promise made to Abram of descendants that would inherit the land of Canaan was to be fulfilled by God’s power through Sarai herself, not a surrogate. In no way is Abram’s relationship with Hagar biblical precedent for Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage. The article concludes by presenting a series of striking contrasts between Abraham and Joseph Smith in this regard."