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

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

So, the story about Oliver coming back to the church is a little sketchy.  We know he attended a conference in 1848 and that he was re-baptized shortly after that.  What we don't know is whether or not anyone told him about polygamy during this time and since he had outspoken concerns about Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger, polygamy would have been a potential problem.  Also, since this wasn't a publicly espoused doctrine until 1852, and since Oliver was not brought into the leadership fold, but just re-baptized and ordained an Elder, that he wasn't brought into the secret practice.  

To speculate that Oliver heard about a doctrine that wasn't publicly taught doesn't seem responsible to me. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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."

I find this so interesting.  Thanks Tacenda.  There is a distinct difference if you look at culture and the fact that i was Sarai's idea..perhaps not God. 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

One more thing on the whole Cowdery and polygamy issue.  In July of 1846 Cowdery apparently received a distressful letter from his half sister Phebe about the practice of polygamy by the Nauvoo saints.  Here is an excerpt from Oliver's letter in reply to Phebe:

Quote

Now, Brother Daniel and sister Phebe, what will you do? Has sister Phebe written us the truth? And if so, will you venture with your little ones, into the toil and fatigue of a long journey, and that for the sake of finding a resting place when you know of miseries of such magnitude as have, as will, and as must, rend asunder the tenderest and holiest ties of domestic life? I can hardly think it possible that you have written us the truth - that though there may be individuals who are guilty of the iniquities spoken of, - yet no such practice can be preached or adheared to as a public doctrine. Such may do for the followers of Mohamet; it may have done some thousands of years ago; but no people professing to be governed by the pure and holy principles of the Lord Jesus, can hold up their heads before the world at this distance of time, and be guilty of such folly - such wrong - such abomination. It will blast, like a mill-dew their fairest prospects, and lay the axe at the root of their future happiness.

Not only is the practice of polygamy so shocking that Oliver is questioning the truth of it, but he roundly condemns the practice in very strong terms.  I've heard some apologists focus in on his words "public doctrine" and try to insinuate that Oliver would have been fine with the private practice of polygamy, just not the public practice, but this takes his words completely out of context and misrepresents the content of the full letter and the context of Oliver's earlier experiences with Joseph Smith and the Fanny Alger affair.  

At most we can assume Oliver heard the rumors about polygamy, but we can't assume that he knew details about how it was being practiced or that he was brought into confidences with church leaders on this subject.  I suspect that church leaders like Brigham or Phineas or Orson Hyde may have intentionally shielded him from the gory details precisely because of Oliver's opposition to polygamy, and its clear that they really wanted Oliver's allegiance to the church because of how it bolstered their claims to authority.  

[bcuzbcuz]

On 3/2/2017 at 6:59 PM, hope_for_things said:

One more thing on the whole Cowdery and polygamy issue.  In July of 1846 Cowdery apparently received a distressful letter from his half sister Phebe about the practice of polygamy by the Nauvoo saints.  Here is an excerpt from Oliver's letter in reply to Phebe:

Not only is the practice of polygamy so shocking that Oliver is questioning the truth of it, but he roundly condemns the practice in very strong terms.  I've heard some apologists focus in on his words "public doctrine" and try to insinuate that Oliver would have been fine with the private practice of polygamy, just not the public practice, but this takes his words completely out of context and misrepresents the content of the full letter and the context of Oliver's earlier experiences with Joseph Smith and the Fanny Alger affair.  

At most we can assume Oliver heard the rumors about polygamy, but we can't assume that he knew details about how it was being practiced or that he was brought into confidences with church leaders on this subject.  I suspect that church leaders like Brigham or Phineas or Orson Hyde may have intentionally shielded him from the gory details precisely because of Oliver's opposition to polygamy, and its clear that they really wanted Oliver's allegiance to the church because of how it bolstered their claims to authority.  

Thank you. Interesting information about Cowdery's return to Mormonism

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Thank you. Interesting information about Cowdery's return to Mormonism

Yeah...that was quite interesting.  Give me some more stories!!!  I get more out of this kind of written history than a long post of scriptures.  Thank you to hope_for_all_things!

[bcuzbcuz]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Yeah...that was quite interesting.  Give me some more stories!!!  I get more out of this kind of written history than a long post of scriptures.  Thank you to hope_for_all_things!

The rich resource of the "History of the Church" can be found on line. They incorporate many, many stories of plural marriage, not all flattering. I no longer have my originals so I resort to on-line editions, but they are full of stories. As are the Journal of Discourses.

"Obviously Emma was not in agreement with Joseph on this issue; she did her best to destroy a document she clearly did not believe was from God. Brigham Young talked about how incensed Emma was about the issue of polygamy:

“Emma took that revelation, supposing she had all there was; but Joseph had wisdom enough to take care of it, and he had handed the revelation to Bishop Whitney, and he wrote it all off. After Joseph had been to Bishop Whitney’s he went home, and Emma began to teasing for the revelation. Said she—’Joseph you promised me that revelation, and if you are a man of your word you will give it to me.’ Joseph took it from his pocket and said— ‘Take it.’ She went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17, p. 159)"

Edited March 6, 2017 by bcuzbcuz

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The rich resource of the "History of the Church" can be found on line. They incorporate many, many stories of plural marriage, not all flattering. I no longer have my originals so I resort to on-line editions, but they are full of stories. As are the Journal of Discourses.

"Obviously Emma was not in agreement with Joseph on this issue; she did her best to destroy a document she clearly did not believe was from God. Brigham Young talked about how incensed Emma was about the issue of polygamy:

“Emma took that revelation, supposing she had all there was; but Joseph had wisdom enough to take care of it, and he had handed the revelation to Bishop Whitney, and he wrote it all off. After Joseph had been to Bishop Whitney’s he went home, and Emma began to teasing for the revelation. Said she—’Joseph you promised me that revelation, and if you are a man of your word you will give it to me.’ Joseph took it from his pocket and said— ‘Take it.’ She went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17, p. 159)"

Thank you!!

[bcuzbcuz]

On 3/6/2017 at 4:36 PM, Jeanne said:

Thank you!

Emma's side to this story by Brigham Young that Emma had burned the original document was, "It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth." Church History, vol. 3, p, 352.

[bcuzbcuz]

When the Republican Party was founded in 1856 in Philadelphia, it had as its platform: "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." UShistory.org http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm

Obviously, polygamy as practiced in Utah by the early 1850 was not unknown to the politically aware.

[bcuzbcuz]

I love history. 

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.Statement on Marriage, 17 August 1835

Section CI, p. 251, Book of Commandments, Joseph Smith Papers

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I love history.

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.Statement on Marriage, 17 August 1835

Section CI, p. 251, Book of Commandments, Joseph Smith Papers

Yep.  That was what the "Church" believed in 1835.
The Church had much to learn after the Kirtland era ended and they had been proven by the fires of Missouri.

[bsjkki]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  That was what the "Church" believed in 1835.
The Church had much to learn after the Kirtland era ended and they had been proven by the fires of Missouri.

They stated publicly that was what they believed in Oct. of 1842 too. 

William Clayton discusses the Emma story and his account is in Andrew Jenson's Historical Record 6. pg 226 column 1. https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens  The more I read about church history the more questions I have. In William Clayton's sworn testimony, he also discusses Hyrum "very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummin." pg. 225, last column. That makes no sense. This record also contains Eliza's affidavit published in the Deseret News Oct. 22, 1979, claiming Emma died with "libel on her lips," if she really said what she did before her death as stated by her son Joseph. The whole statement is an attack on Emma. It is also difficult to square the signed statements from Eliza found in the Oct. 1 1842 Times and Season with her own actions. In this article https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-6  she explains,

 “At the time the sisters of the Relief Society signed our article, I was married to the prophet— we made no allusion to any other system of marriage than Bennett’s— his was prostitution, and it was truly his, and he succeeded in pandering his course on the credulity of the unsuspecting by making them believe that he was thus authorized by the Prophet. In those articles there is no reference to divine plural marriage. We aimed to put down its opposite.” 

This fails to explain how the statement also states, "we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenant." 

You can read that here. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-october-1842/13 pg. 939. That system of marriage in no way condones polygamy. I don't know how to conclude anything else but that she was lying at some moment. Then I go and read the Voice of Innocence that clearly denounces polygamy. https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-10  All the secrecy and semantic games are hard to square with how we are taught to be honest. 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  That was what the "Church" believed in 1835.
The Church had much to learn after the Kirtland era ended and they had been proven by the fires of Missouri.

Why do you have "Church" in quotation marks? Are you talking about some other church than the one I was referencing? 

And my quote was from JS papers. Was he poorly informed?

Edited March 7, 2017 by bcuzbcuz

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Why do you have "Church" in quotation marks? Are you talking about some other church than the one I was referencing? 

And my quote was from JS papers. Was he poorly informed?

Because Joseph throughout his life had certain bounds on things that belonged to the Church and things that went beyond Church purview.
Church oversight in Kirtland was much more far reaching than it was in Nauvoo.  In Nauvoo much of what Joseph restored wasn't given to the Church body until Brigham tried to force integration almost a decade later.  In my opinion and based on my study of Joseph the statement on marriage belief in the Church was limited to the Church.  Joseph and his anointed quorum operated under additional light and truth the Church as a whole did not possess and would not possess for almost a decade.

Think Moses on Sinai vs the Law of Moses.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Emma's side to this story by Brigham Young that Emma had burned the original document was, "It is false in all its parts, made out of whole cloth, without any foundation in truth." Church History, vol. 3, p, 352.

I don't think I would want to be a fly on the wall in the same room as Emma and BY.