Teach children about plural marriage?

[Senator]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

And if they don't teach about polygamy then you accuse them of hiding the history of the church. 

Moi?

[Doctor Steuss]

23 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

There were some posters in the Dan McClellen thread arguing against the idea that Latter-day Saints believe in the univocality of scripture. 

I think anyone who has done Seminary scripture mastery knows that a key component of LDS belief assumes univocality... at least to some extent.  Lone scripture verses, removed from context, spanning thousands of years and multiple authors, all meant to stand together united for reinforcing doctrinal integrity makes little sense outside of a univocality pretext.  In this feller's heretical (and embarrassingly wrong with a consistency that could be used to calibrate high end timepieces) opinion, that is.

After all, the primary author (or maybe editor, would be a better term), through human intermediaries, is the same divine force.  One would expect a level of univocality.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Doctor Steuss

[Frank11]

Whether children should be brought into contact with this topic is something the parents themselves must know. The whole truth cannot be told anyway, at least not that Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married and had children with their husbands.

However, if you look at the story as it is presented to the children, I doubt that a child can gain a positive impression of God. In fact, from my faith perspective, it is an insult to God. While Joseph Smith and others are portrayed as faithful, obedient servants, it is impossible to understand in any way why God supposedly commands plural marriage relentlessly.

Yet polygamy is not that difficult to explain, not even to children. Of course, in biblical times, the father would rather give his daughter to a wealthy man who could provide for his wife and children, even if he already had other wives. In the society of the time, women could not provide for themselves and the alternatives were poverty and hunger, as well as prostitution or enslavement. In this respect, polygamy solved supply problems. However, nowhere in the Bible is it commanded by God.        
  
Of course, this model of explaining polygamy does not help those who believe that polygamy and polyandry were divinely commanded to Joseph Smith, and the most obvious explanatory model would certainly not fit into the Mormon belief system.    

Edited December 20, 2024 by Frank11

[Pyreaux]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea no. I have studied the history quite extensively and quite frankly find your approach as a direct attempt to muddy the waters so to speak, and this in order to make it more palatable. Perhaps tyou do this for yourself in order to not reject it as divinely directed or whatever. Bushman does the same thing. Just like he does with Smith's treasure digging and fake peepstone speculating that this was perhaps a tutorials for the BoM translation and further prophetic abilities. You and Bushman and other apologists do all sorts of gyrations downplaying testimony that paint Joseph in a poor light and even reading into history something that Joseph or others never claimed about the practice. Things like I have bolded above.  D&C 132 does NOT say it was just to bind families in the after life. It specifically commands that it is to produce children in the covenant. So no, you don't get to spin it.  You do this for Joseph but I doubt you would ever give such latitude and so on to sny other person who did the things Smith did.  And no. Lying is lying and Joseph and other flat out lied.  

Yea, no. Section 132 is not the rule book for polygamy or else it specifies that a man must have the permission of the first wife to marry another and that that woman must be a virgin. This is where you might apply Occam’s Razor: If 132 contains the requirements for all plural marriages, Joseph would have wrote something that went counter to his own behavior and other polygamists. If it's comporting with history, this may have been a reference to Joseph’s marriages to Emily and Eliza Partridge specifically. The problem remains, what Emma knew about sealings and when is debated and debatable, she certainly knew of the wives after Emma had personally picked Emily and Eliza and placed their hands in Joseph’s.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

That doesn’t make sense to me.  The repeat ceremony was not for a ritual purpose.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/dc-132-1843_07_12_000?lang=eng#p5

If I recall correctly, Don Bradley argued that early sealings (like Fanny Alger) were sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the timing and suggests that the sealing power, was initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy. Joseph Smith was first sealed to the Partridge sisters, likely as part of the early practice. The second sealing was at Emma's demand for the ceremony, though perhaps unnecessary being they were already sealed.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

If 132 contains the requirements for all plural marriages, Joseph would have wrote something that went counter to his own behavior and other polygamists

Would not have perhaps?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Don Bradley argued that early sealings (like Fanny Alger) were sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony.

CFR please. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

9 hours ago, Calm said:

 

If I recall correctly, Don Bradley argued that early sealings (like Fanny Alger) were sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the timing and suggests that the sealing power, was initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy. Joseph Smith was first sealed to the Partridge sisters, likely as part of the early practice. The second sealing was at Emma's demand.

Why wouldn’t Emma be involved if adopted daughter and therefore be aware of the sealing?  That doesn’t make sense to me. Why hide such sealings?  Besides, it was described as them repeating the sealing not to upset Emma, wasn’t it?  Why would she be upset by a sealing adopting them as children?  She was de facto adopting children all her life, even if not legally.

Did the Law of adoption sealings that occurred between men have the ‘child’ sealed to the husband and wife or only the husband?  (I have asked this question before, but can’t remember what the answer was, lol).  If only the husband, that would explain why Emma didn’t know…or if to Joseph and another of his wives.   Hmmm…that could also be why the previous sealing wasn’t mentioned to Emma.  I can imagine she would be quite hurt if Joseph had chosen another woman to be the ‘mother’ of his children when she was available.  Still seems a stretch given how Emily (or was it Eliza) described the apparent subterfuge.

Jane Manning James said that Emma wanted her sealed to her and Joseph as a daughter?  I had thought Jane misunderstood and it was meant to be as a plural wife of Joseph’s, but maybe it was as a daughter.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/jane-elizabeth-manning-james?lang=eng

It does make sense if they were having men adopted as sons, they would have women adopted as daughters. I never understood why it had to be limited to marriage for women…except when it got into men caring more about growing their kingdoms than linking families.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Also why wasn’t it shared it was an adoption sealing when Oliver argued Joseph had an affair?  I really want to hear Don’s reasoning.

This?

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/eliza-jane-webb-to-mary-bond-april-1876/

Eliza Jane Webb to Mary Bond April 1876

Eliza J. Webb [Eliza Jane Churchill Webb], Lockport, New York, Letter to Mary Bond, April 24, 1876, P21, f11, item 7, 8, Community of Christ Archives:

Fanny Alger’s mother says Fanny was sealed to Joseph by Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland in 1835-or 6. . . . Fanny Alger had lived in Joseph’s family several years, and when she left there she came and lived with me a few weeks. I suppose your mother will remember what a talk the whole affair made.

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Also here, making it very clear the Alger relationship was husband wife, not father child:

https://bhroberts.org/records/jZTiDc-yIuvhb/eliza_j_webb_recounts_the_joseph_fanny_alger_sealing

Here’s another

https://bhroberts.org/records/psWfCb-1FZtab/eliza_j_webb_refers_to_josephs_and_fanny_algers_relationship_as_similar_to_a_sealing 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would not have perhaps?

Exactly, he wouldn't. But suggesting 132 is a rule book suggests that is what he did.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please. 

Re-Writing Origins of Polygamy & Fanny Alger Affair

Quote

Dr. Christopher Smith, a non-LDS historian, discussed his chapters in Cheryl Bruno’s book “Secret Covenants.” He and Don Bradley argued that Fanny Alger was sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the affair’s timing. Smith also explored Joseph Smith’s consistent proposal patterns to his wives, including Emma. He suggested that the sealing power, initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy.

 

[Calm]

Thanks. Do we have Don Bradley actually saying this or just Smith relaying what he discussed with Don?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks. Do we have Don Bradley actually saying this or just Smith relaying what he discussed with Don?

https://bhroberts.org/records/psWfCb-k7WYOb/don_bradley_concludes_that_the_fanny_alger_smith_relationship_was_smiths_first_polygamous_marriage

 

A polygamous marital relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger is better evidenced by the data than an extramarital affair, better fits the contemporaneous context, and holds greater explanatory power.

. . . .Though secret, atypical, and of uncertain officiator and date, Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger merits identification as his earliest known polygamous marriage.

Edited December 20, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks. Do we have Don Bradley actually saying this or just Smith relaying what he discussed with Don?

It is a new book that came out in May and is an anthology of essays.  I haven't read the book yet but the essays in particular are written (or co-written) by Don Bradley.  I was able to view the table of contents in Amazon's book preview (https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Covenants-Insights-Mormon-Polygamy/dp/1560854715) and it is chapter 4 and 5.

[Calm]

I asked a friend the same question.  She has the knowledge on the topic and mindset to give a reliable assessment, imo.  Her response:

Quote

Don's spoken to me about it in a personal conversation or two, since we work together, but I don't know if he's presented on it yet. I believe he may have mentioned it on one of his Ward Radio appearances, as well.

I have the book in question. His other chapter from it, the one about the timing of the relationship, is more solidly backed, while his article with Christopher Smith is more speculative and relies more heavily on late second- and third-hand accounts. But it's an interesting theory and it has merit for further research, for sure. 

The idea is that, when Elijah appeared to Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland temple, he brought the sealing keys, which had the effect of turning the hearts of the children to their fathers. It was about lineage, not necessarily marriage. Oliver, shortly thereafter, adopted an orphan girl of about 12, and he and his wife raised her as part of their family. Don and Christopher postulate that it was also a sealed adoption, since adoption sealings were prevalent in Nauvoo and the decades directly afterward. They then suggest that, because Fanny Alger's family talked about her being adopted into the Prophet's family and because most accounts of the relationship refer to it as a sealing, that Fanny was sealed as a daughter to Joseph originally (this also would have been the type of sealing they offered to Jane Manning). Fanny may have been later sealed again to Joseph as a wife in their theory, or Joseph may have considered the adoption sealing also to be a marriage sealing, and the relationship turned more romantic. Oliver, who was thoroughly disgusted by the relationship, may have viewed it as something akin to incest, since he viewed his relationship with his own adopted daughter as strictly paternalistic. And it'd explain why Emma was so upset--if she also thought it was an adoption, her reaction to discovering it was more than that would have been nuclear.

So, it's an interesting idea, and it does account for a lot of the information we have on Fanny Alger. But it's also more heavily speculative, and it does rely on accounts given many years after the fact, none of which come  from Fanny or Joseph.

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

The church should just pull this, because after watching the documentary on HULU, it doesn't look good at all.

 

[Devobah]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church should just pull this, because after watching the documentary on HULU, it doesn't look good at all.

 

Which documentary are you referring to?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I asked a friend the same question.  She has the knowledge on the topic and mindset to give a reliable assessment, imo.  Her response:

 

I went ahead and bought the book as well since I was curious about the chapter that dates the Alger relationship.  I think Bradley makes a really good case that the relationship ended June/July 1836.  He also doesn't think the relationship was very long (since he doesn't believe Joseph could have hid it very well from Emma) so he thinks that start would be sometime in the spring, likely after April 3.  That part is more speculative and ties into the next chapter about the adoption, since Elijah restoring the sealing keys in April 3 would trigger the adoption sealing with Fanny.

I agree with your friends assessment as the adoption idea was more speculative.  But there are some interesting details that do give it some credence.  For example, John D Lee apparently talked about gaining some of his wives through the Law of Adoption, which would be similar to Joseph and Fanny.  And it does give a better source for the Law of Adoption since Brigham Young was at the trial of Cowdery where Joseph explained the "girl business".  If Joseph's explanation was adoption, then Brigham would have known of it and would latter implement it in Nauvoo.  It definitely fit together a lot of the known details, though it had to rework some of the latter statements.  Some of this rework was also done in the previous chapter about the dating so the changes made sense when you combine them together.

For example, Mosiah Hancock (who was not born at the time but is a cousin of Fanny) said that Joseph made a deal with his father (Levi) to swap Clarissa Reed (a girl working for Joseph) for Fanny.  Levi wanted to marry Clarissa (who was later the mother of Mosiah) and Joseph wanted to marry Fanny.  Bradley theorizes that this wasn't a swap for wives, but instead Emma needed a helper and they didn't want to give up Clarissa unless they had another girl to come and help.  So, Joseph tells Levi that he'll let Levi marry Clarissa if he can get his sister (Fanny's mother) to allow Fanny to come help Emma.  Mosiah supposedly misunderstood the family story because he already knew that Fanny had married Joseph and he was living in an environment of open polygamy where that situation could actually occur.  With this change, it means that Fanny joined the Smith household in 1833 as a servant girl and the relationship between Joseph and Fanny would have occurred later.  It also fits his story with other accounts, such Eliza Webb's statement that Fanny lived with the Smiths for several years before things happened and that a sealing occurred in 1835/6.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Which documentary are you referring to?

https://www.hulu.com/series/secrets-of-polygamy-1b08c351-a637-4cd1-bf35-b8d48b09b097