One of strangest trends in recent plural marriage publications by cultural Mormons has been to regress back to Fawn Brodie’s portrayal of Joseph Smith’s first plural marriage with Fanny Alger as an adulterous affair. This despite Todd Compton’s seminal treatment and a wide array of evidence in favor of a marriage from both hostile and friendly sources. I don’t wish to recap all this here as it would be a retread of G. L. Smith’s recent FARMS Review (I was thrilled to receive a shout out in the footnotes). Suffice it to say, the distorted version of Joseph Smith as a womanizer has really taking a beating and I have recently uncovered some additional information that will further vindicate the Prophet on that score, but that will have to wait for another post. The other major paradigm debate regards Fanny’s age at the marriage and on this I part ways with Compton’s analysis. Even if it is granted she was 16 at her ceremony, I can find regions of the country contemporaneous with Joseph Smith where men married a higher percentage of females aged 16 or less with greater frequency than Joseph Smith did. But, first let me present my unprofessional transcription of Mosiah Hancock holograph that I followed Compton’s lead and checked up on in the LDS archives:
When my Father had started on his first mission to preach this gospel He felt that perhaps he had done wrong in not telling the Prophet that he had made arrangements to marry Temperance Jane Miller of New Lyme — When Father returned from his mission he spoke to the Prophet concerning the matter. The Prophet said — “Never mind Brother Levi about that for the Lord has one prepared for you that will [63] be a Blessing to you forever.
At that time Clarissa Reed — was working at the Prophets. She loved brother Levi Hancock. The Prophet had the highest respect for her feelings. She had thought that perhaps she might be one of the Prophet’s wives as herself and Sister Emma were on the best of terms. My Father and Mother understanding each other were inspired by the Spirit of the Lord to respect his word through the Prophet. — Therefore Brother Joseph said “Brother Levi, I want to make a bargain with you. If you will get Fanny Alger for me for a wife, you may have Clarissa Reed. I love Fanny.” “I will” said Father. “Go brother Levi and the Lord will prosper you” said Joseph. — Father goes to the [undeciphered] Samuel Alger. — his [his crossed out?] Father’s Brother in Law and [said] “Samuel, the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife, what say you?” — Uncle Sam says — “Go and talk to the old woman about it, t’will be as she says” Father goes to his sister and said “Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife, what say you?” Said she “Go and talk to Fanny, it will be all right with me.” — Father goes to Fanny and said “Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife, will you be his wife?” “I will, Levi,” said she. — Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said “Brother Joseph, I have been successful in my mission.” Father gave her to Joseph repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him. [64]
Clarissa Reed being in poor health, Father takes her to her folks in Rome — The reason of mother’s poor health was that she worked hard at the Prophets. He had many visitors at this time and it used to be frequently the case that many of these worthies ? chewed tobacco to the extent that it would seem that were they had been sitting in a room for a little while that a flock of geese had been waddling about the floor the filth was so great and mother being of such a refined nature could not stand such nonsense. — Not far from this time Joseph received the Revelation on the Word of Wisdom. —
As time progressed [I stopped copying here as one can get the rest of the story about rescuing Fanny from the temple from Compton.]
Compton excerpts most of this material, but one misses out on some delightful commentary on the genesis of the Word of Wisdom. Emma tends to get unfairly blamed for it, but she wasn’t the only one disgusted for having to clean up the mess. As an aside, I once worked with a new member who had difficulty accepting the section as a revelation, instead viewing a better solution to “Emma’s” problem as a lecture on manners instead of overacting by banning the substances altogether.
This account has been controversial because of its lateness and second-handedness and its conflicts with other sources that are more easily reconciled with an 1835 dating when things got difficult with Fanny working as a maid and Emma likely experiencing one of her bouts of jealousy. I have a speculative theory that harmonizes the accounts, but I don’t wish to provide more fodder for critics with what little evidence I have to support a very tentative hypothesis.
I have been poking around about Fanny Alger‘s birthdate. She may have been older than Compton accepts. Compton used Ancestral File for his date of 20 Sept. 1816 . But those user-submitted family group sheets are notoriously inaccurate. The vast majority on familysearch.org regarding Alger report it as 30 Sept. 1816 in Rehoboth, Bristol, Massachusetts. A couple suggest “About 1814 Bloomfield, Essex, New Jersey” while correctly identifying her parents Samuel Alger and Clarissa Hancock.
The main reason to suspect that the 1816 date is too late is Levi Hancock’s autobiography.
We were then able to have rye bread and soon the potatoes came on so we fared well again. By fall we had some apples and peaches. I went to live with Solomon for awhile to help him boil his sorghum. By this time it was spring and I helped Father drive his team and get the ground ready to plant corn, beans, and potatoes and wheat. After the crops were in I went to live with Samuel Alger in 1815. I stayed there through the fall and winter. My sister, Clarrisa was at mothers with her young baby, Fanny. She stayed through part of the summer, sometimes her boy, Eli, was with her and at times he stayed with his Father or his uncle Solomon. Samuel Alger went to stay with his wife and children and hauled wood with a man by the name of Adams. In the spring they returned home. He gave me twenty-five cents to bare my expenses and I started home in March, 1816.
The 1810 census has Samuel Alger in Bloomfield, Ontario, NY which matches Levi’s record well. By the 1820 Census they had moved to Lebanon, Astabula, OH. The move must have come after the birth of another daughter Amy (Emma) Saphony in Sep. 1818. Fanny [Custer] appears in 3 censuses (1850, 1860, 1880) afterwards and all list her birthplace as New York. Emma S. [Overton] is listed as being born in New Hamphire (wrong!) in 1850 and New York in 1860. This is significant because the Sept. 1816 data for Fanny’s birthdate usually comes coupled with her being born in Massachusetts, when everything else points to her and all her siblings born before the move to Ohio being born in Bloomfield, NY. (The other familysearch items get the town right but not the county or state.) So Compton appears to be mistaken in the JMH article on p. 177 by uncritically following the Massachusetts birthplace and arguably that casts doubt on the date as well.
In general, the ages in the census for Fanny don’t help a lot:
1820: <10
1830: 10-14
1850: 31
1860: 42
1880: 63
Assuming the 1830 census taker followed instructions to report ages as of June 1st, Fanny could still turn 15 later in the year and hence could have been born between June and, say, Sept. 1815. I think that such a date can be reconciled with Levi’s autobiography. It is clear that some of the other Census reports underestimate her age. Women were notoriously evasive about their true age, but there may be other ways that such a discrepancy surfaced.
It is much more difficult to reconcile the Sept. 1816 date, even though it comfortably fits with the 1830 census. Perhaps Levi misnamed the “young baby” as Fannie when it was really Saphony who is reported to have been born in 1813 and died young. But I don’t think a 2 year old is a “young baby” and odds are that she died in her first year like one of her older brothers did. (I have studied 19th century child mortality rates). It makes more sense to have grandma help with the baby in the months shortly after it is born. Levi’s dates can’t be easily corrected because he gives so many of them. So unless the Alger family genealogists have something more solid than Levi’s autobiography, I think Fanny was probably at least a year older than what Compton uses.
Joseph claimed an angel had to threaten him with his life before he would practice polygamy, but the fact that he professed love for Fanny shows that he did not need that much persuasion.
In D&C 132 it says the Lord commanded his servants Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon to practice plural marriage, but if you read the OT, no where does the Lord give any commandment; with Abraham it was Sarah’s idea; with Jacob, he was tricked into marrying two, and then the others were his first two wives’ ideas; with David and Solomon, they probably thought it was their right since they were kings, even though the Israelites had been warned that a king should not have many wives or it will corrupt him:
Deut. 17:
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away…
What is the sense of asking the first wife’s permission if she is forced to give permission by being threatened with destruction?
Why is one wife not enough for exaltation? All those who only want one wife will be angels in the next life instead of gods?
How many wives is enough to satisfy God? What is the number? If two isn’t enough, then a man with two wives will be an angel as well.
“Joseph claimed an angel had to threaten him with his life before he would practice polygamy, but the fact that he professed love for Fanny shows that he did not need that much persuasion.”
The four angel appearances starting in 1834 were not the only divine manifestations wherein God’s will for Joseph was revealed. According to Orson Pratt, Joseph Smith discussed the idea that divinely authorized polygamy would be restored with Lyman Johnson and others in 1831. I agree with Dan Bachman that the initial revelation for plural marriage occurred when Joseph Smith was studying about the Old Testament patriarch’s polygamy and inquiring of the Lord for more information. Therefore I accept that he received new information about Abraham, Jacob, and David that might not be otherwise available to the surviving biblical text.
I think it plausible to say that God did command those prophets, for example Abraham could have considered it a command to become the father of many nations and therefore he was only fulfilling such a command in the most reasonable manner possible by taking another wife while his first one was barren.
But just sticking with what we find in the Bible, it easy to say that God authorized, condoned, “gave” wives, and regulated plural marriage situations. Deuteronomy talks more about not hording excessive wives and it isn’t altogether anti-polygamy. It was a fun debate for centuries on how many wives were excessive. Some argued over 4 from Jacob’s precedent others over 18 from David’s before his transgression with Bathsheba.
I do not think that anyone has argued that the angelic appearances to Joseph Smith were the only motivation that he had to practice plural marriage. It makes more sense to marry someone you love. However I think that Joseph Smith was also very aware that the difficult things God commanded him to do was very much in violations of community standards for marriage and likely incite extra-legal violence on his person and the hardships it would cause with his own family. So yeah, sometimes love isn’t enough (even when coupled with the more gentle forms of revelation.) For Joseph, one wife was not enough when he was commanded to do otherwise. The principle is that of obedience, without which it is impossible to please God.
onika,
You’re missing the point. As Keller pointed out it is all about obedience. Being sealed to one wife is all that is required (along with keeping the other commandments) to obtain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. If one were commanded to take another wife and did not do so his exaltation would be in jeopardy because of disobedience. As I’m sure you are well aware, for over 100 years any Latter-day Saint taking more than one wife is subject to loosing his opportunity for exaltation. It’s all about obedience.
As described in the Book of Mormon, the reason God sometimes commands men to have more than one wife is to build up a righteous people unto himself (Jacob 2:27-30). Now that the Church has reached what I will suggest is “critical mass” where plural marriage is no longer required, it is highly unlikely that plural marriage would be allowed in the Church again (in mortality) even if it became legal in America.
Theodore (grandson of a polygamist)
Nice work, Keller. I appreciate the work Compton has done on this topic. It has given everyone else a good start.
Just a general comment…for purposes of discussion, we don’t live in the 19th century anymore and our leaders preach equality in partnerships. Women are not taken or given. We make our own choices in and out of mortality. Also, I think it is important to remember that even JS was refused.
Though I remain an active LDS member, I’ve never been comfortable about the early practice of polygamy. I think the point onika makes is a good one, and one that Keller did not fully address in his response.
As church members, we’re not taught about polygamy right off the bat. When the topic inevitably comes up, we discuss it strictly in terms of obedience. It’s taught, or at least implied, that Joseph didn’t like polygamy and had to be forced into it by the angel.
That’s how most of us come to terms with this vague, often skirted concept. He had to do it.
But when you get into the love aspects of the whole thing framed by Joseph and Hancock making a backroom deal about who gets whom, things get a whole lot more awkward.
The document may help vindicate the prophet on the grounds of Fanny’s age, but it certainly doesn’t make me more comfortable about his plural marriage practices.
Tossman,
“More comfortable” would be too mild of an expression for my wife. Even though I am a product of plural marriage, the historical aspect of it is not even a subject that is open for discussion in our home. Plural marriage is now a serious sin and most women of our generation abhor the thoughts of it, and rightly so.
I’m sure many women in the Church of the 19th Century abhorred it also but many of them embraced it along with all the other principles of the Gospel, my grandmother included. Love was an integral element in my grandmother’s marriage and I sincerely hope that love was involved in most plural marriages. Love would be an essential ingredient in a plural marriage just as much, and probably more, that in a monogamous marriage.
Theodore
Although I emphasized obedience in my last comment, it only tells part of the story and perhaps a male-centric one at that. The flip side of the coin is as Juliann pointed out that is that everyone should have agency. To that I would add, they should be entitled an to receive their own revelation on what they should or could do. I respect the choices of the women who rejected the prophet’s marital advice and those that went along with it after prayerful consideration.
I also believe that some scriptural language would read a little differently if it was given with today’s cultural sensitivities. We have made progress towards gender equality so some of the candid accounts about courtship and marriage, even those involving Joseph Smith, can make us uncomfortable. I will admit that I carried around some misgiving about some aspects about early polygamy.
I did a post over at M* that may apply somewhat here, although I was focusing on Nauvoo plural marriage in general and Benjamin Johnson’s account in particular (which exhibits a lot of the same elements as Hancock’s). See http://www.millennialstar.org/2007/05/01/pbs-polygamy-and-pressure/
I think part of the answer to onika’s question may lie in chronology. The consequences of Joseph’s involvement with Alger were likely very severe, though we only get a glimpse of reactions by Emma or Cowdery, for instance. I interpret the story of Joseph’s period of reluctance and the angel with drawn sword to be a result of the Alger situation, not prevenient to it. We don’t know that for sure, but it would readily explain Joseph’s strong reticence–he argues with the angel, quoting scripture in contradiction to the command–to make another attempt until at least several years later.
Curtis, I think you are right that much hinges on reconstructing a chronology. I do not recall an account that Joseph argued with the angel, so if you have a reference I would be pleased.
According Mary Lightner, the angel first appeared in 1834. A possible, yet speculative, date for it might coincide with a diary entry in late 1834 where Joseph indicates his resolve to be more obedient. I seem to recall this idea being first suggested to me by G.L. Smith, but I have lost our correspondence and the specific diary date.
I think you are right that the backlash contributed to Joseph needing an angelic appearance to re-engage in polygamy. That might explain the 2nd-4th appearances. I think it is fairly clear that the scandal did not break out until mid to late 1835, well after first angelic appearance. We see the marriage section denying plural marriage pass a conference vote in August and Joseph having maids leave his property, IIRC, in October. The Saints without Halos site has a nice chronology on it, but I am too lazy to check.
Still I believe that the wedding ceremony happened in April 1833 following Compton and Hancock. I think the angel’s first visit was in regards to pressuring Joseph to assume more responsibility for the marriage. So I speculate that that is the point Joseph had her moved her into the hotel [1] so he could better provide for her. Before then, I speculate that Joseph did not spend much time with Fanny to avoid suspicions among those not yet aware of the marriage or plans for the restoration of plural marriages.
I think the best account of Joseph’s realization that plural marriage sealed his fate (he knew he would be killed) either way, is the Dennison Harris account juxtaposed against Mary Lightner’s. Of course this could reflect a more mature understanding on Joseph’s part, so it is not at all clear how much earlier he wrestled with the dilemma. Ultimately Joseph chose to fear God more than man, but he adopted strategies to delay the inevitable.
[1] Perhaps somebody up in Logan can help me out? I seem to recall reading another version of the Mosiah/Levi Hancock journal that had been typed up and donated to USU Special Collections. My memory is hazy and could easily have been confused with similar stories in diaries I had been reading at the time, but I seem to recall that Joseph revealed a commandment to Levi to move the Alger family closer to him in Kirtland. Much of Levi’s material can be found online, but it does not include the marriage items. I wonder if what I vaguely recall seeing represents a version that the family was more comfortable with disclosing than the holograph version. I can’t find any source that has the Algers moving from Chagrin to Kirtland, so I have at least one strike against my recollection.
I think a lot of the discomfort over polygamy in the LDS Church is largely due to the fact that we’re still trying to pretend we’re sexually repressed, morally self-righteous, Southern Baptist prigs.
If we’d just get over it and realize sex isn’t something ugly, but rather something that needs good judgment and good management (and God’s approval), I think a lot of the cognitive dissonance would be more or less neutralized on this subject.
Seriously, half the problems in our Church come from members who are under the strange, misguided notion that they’re actually Southern Baptists.
Maybe if we quit trying to act like the Utah wing of Focus on the Family, we wouldn’t have these issues with Joseph Smith.
It seems to me likely that Joseph had sex with more women than just Emma.
And you know what – doesn’t bug me. Doesn’t bug my wife. What’s wrong with that? As long as you handle the feelings involved in a sensitive manner (which I don’t think Joseph exactly did), and it has God’s blessing – I don’t see any more emotional problems than your typical screwed-up American suburban monogamous marriage.
It’s also in Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner’s 1905 address:
“…He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him [the angel] soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak….”
Thanks, Curtis. That citation gives me a number of things to think about. I wish we had an account from Joseph directly about what the issues were each time the angel visited from 34 to 42. Seems like the Book of Mormon passage would have come up early as opposed to later. I see some portions of D&C 132 as being a response to objections that could be raised from Jacob 2, so perhaps 132 summarizes some of the conversation Joseph had with the angel.
I don’t have a problem with people practicing polygamy if that is what they want to do, but this revelation isn’t about the MAN being obedient about living polygamy. His part of obedience is to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise or the contract is void after this life.
If you read carefully, you’ll notice the commandment to live polygamy is directed towards the WOMAN (first wife). Notice in verse 61 it says “if” the man “desire” to marry another; he doesn’t have to marry another. But if his wife doesn’t agree to it and “give” him another, she shall be destroyed. Clearly wives are merely vessels for child-bearing, which is also evidenced by the practice of arranged marriages where the woman has no choice.
D&C 132:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law…
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and DESIRE to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified…
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
Onika,
I am not aware of any incidents where a woman didn’t have the free agency to turn down a marriage proposal. It is inappropriate to label the way Joseph Smith worked through family members to extend a proposal as an “arranged marriage.” Women could and did turn Joseph down. Your caricaturization of how women fared under polygamy doesn’t follow. Even if you were to fast forward to the Deseret period, we find Brigham Young maximizing women’s free agency: whether it be having the nation’s most liberal divorce laws or being the first to allow women to vote. Try to tell all those Mormon women doctors and leaders of the suffrage movement that they were just around to procreate. Let’s don’t minimize the sacrifices these elect women freely chose to make. It dishonors them, in my opinion. Not that anyone here is intentionally doing that.
We live in an era with greater sensitivity towards gender equality. With that in mind, it is easier for us to detect the cultural filter that scriptural language was relayed through in the past. So yes, we can say that language like being “given” in marriage is an artifact of a relatively more sexist era. I think that if Joseph Smith had written down a more general revelation, recall that D&C 132 (or at least the portions you site) was directed at Emma who was struggling with the principle. When Joseph introduced the principle to men, it was under the same-obey-or-suffer-the-consequences urgency found in D&C 132.
“as pertaining to the law of the priesthood, if any man espouse a virgin, and DESIRE to espouse another”
Just to rephrase that: If any man (acting in obedience to the law directed at him) desires to to take a second wife (his desire stemming in part from a love of God and a desire to fulfill all His commandments) then the first wife should be consulted, but can’t ultimately dictate the choice to her husband. If she does prevent her husband from fulfilling a righteous commandment then she must share in the suffering (melodramatically referred to as “destruction”) that comes from breaking a commandment or rejecting revelation.
Yes, women had their rights recognized in Utah. That is not the issue. The issue is the role of women in a marriage. No, we don’t live polygamy today, but if this is an eternal law we will be living it later.
I don’t care about the term “given”. What I care about is that the first wife is forced to accept polygamy if her husband wants to practice it, when they didn’t agree to that arrangement before they got married. It wasn’t in the contract and now the contract is being changed. Even if they agreed to it before getting married, it would be wrong to use force or threat of destruction to get someone to agree to that type of contract.
A woman could turn down a proposal, but I was trying to point out that the first wife really could not refuse her husband multiple wives. You may say she has her free agency not to accept, but she is threatened with destruction if she doesn’t. In other words she is forced to accept. It is the same way government uses force–obey traffic laws, or pay a fine. If you don’t pay it you go to jail; if you resist arrest you could be killed. Ultimately disobedience to the law leads to destruction of the disobedient. We are forced to obey.
The man in this revelation was not commanded to take more than one wife, only to be sealed. So, really, if the man had any love or sensitivity for his wife’s feelings, he wouldn’t take another wife unless she wanted him to, and not because she felt forced to by being threatened with destruction. And many women who were in polygamous marriages did get divorced because they were not happy, and shouldn’t God’s laws bring happiness? And why bothering consulting her if it makes no difference what her husband does?
I wasn’t saying Joseph’s marriage with Fanny was an arranged marriage. I was referring to arranged marriages of any time period (Bible), including those of slaves. I do think love is a necessary ingredient to a happy marriage.
One more thing; Jesus said we shouldn’t get divorced except in the case of adultery–not very liberal.
“I do think love is a necessary ingredient to a happy marriage.”
Long story short, that is a relatively modern concept and it is presentist of us to judge past marital systems based on our modern cultural values.
“if this [plural marriage] is an eternal law we will be living it later.”
For the record I do not agree with this argument for reasons similar to those spelled out in this FAIR wiki article.
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/John_Taylor_September_1886_revelation
“women had their rights recognized in Utah.”
I am glad we agree on this point. And yes its relevancy to Emma’s reaction to the introduction to plural marriage is somewhat strained. I think that Brigham Young’s attitudes give us a window into what Joseph’s were. Yes the situations were different as during Joseph’s time the practice both new and secret and obviously countered expectations that prior monogamous marital had with them. When the practice of polygamy went public in Utah, Brigham did a pretty good job of bringing those expectations into sync.
“It wasn’t in the contract and now the contract is being changed.”
Right and this is the point of vs. 7, that past contracts do not have the same level of validity or eternal blessings as the new covenant being offered. On the other hand, the most fundamental contract for a Latter-day Saint (including Emma) is the one made to obey God’s commandments. New revelation entails that one’s understanding of God’s will is subject to change.
“In other words she is forced to accept.”
Well I can’t force you to stop you from incorrectly using the word “force” in this context 🙂 . I would settle for “pressure” or “incentivise.” I confess I have been incorrectly using the word “free agency” as well. We are free to make choices, but we can not always control the outcome or consequences. The risk of punishment under the law doesn’t force me, to say, follow speed limits or wear a seat belt. I may choose not to on the basis of maximizing my happiness or by using some other moral calculus.
So of course Emma had her choice. She could divorce Joseph, separate from him, poison him, try to talk him out of obeying God’s commandment, withhold consent and repent later (while God is strict in demanding obedience, He is nothing if not merciful), or pray to receive her own revelation and divine aid to be able to consent.
I don’t mean to beat this into the ground, but I think I need to clarify further what I meant.
Section 132 is about an everlasting covenant, the one made when a couple is sealed in the temple. Your argument is that polygamy is not necessarily required in the next life, but that isn’t really what section 132 is about. No where does it say that the men are required to live polygamy; they are required to be sealed, which I’m sure you’ll agree is an eternal law. part of that law is that the man is justified and not an adulterer if he desires to marry additional wives. So far, so good. The part I object to is that the first wife is required to accept additional wives. The commandment for polygamy is directed at her, not him. Why isn’t her willingness to be married and have children (while others are not willing)enough for her to achieve exaltation? But no, she must accept additional wives as well. Why? So her husband can procreate faster? Is it that much faster when compared to the billions he will procreate? Is it really necessary when he has all eternity to procreate? What’s the rush? Isn’t it better/more important to foster a healthy, happy relationship relationship with one’s spouse than to produce children quickly? Here again it appears women are just baby-making machines.
Verse 7 doesn’t say the contracts are not valid or less valid, only that they are not valid after death, which they already knew when they made the contract.
Also, I don’t believe romantic love is a modern invention. Yes, many cultures of the past have discounted the validity of romantic love in a marriage; they were trying to be practical. But that doesn’t mean those feelings didn’t exist. This is why women did commit adultery.
To clarify further, the everlasting covenant (sealing in the temple) requires the woman to accept polygamy if her husband chooses to practice it. That’s fine if she knows that is the requirement before she marries him, because she is agreeing to it when she marries him. Someone, like Emma, who did not agree to such a contract when she was married, and has already sacrificed her body to her husband, borne him children, and has basically invested everything into this marriage, is now told the terms have changed. Surprise! She must now accept additional wives while she is still married to Joseph, or she can get a divorce if she doesn’t like it.
Do you really think all the women who have been sealed today would accept it if their husbands one day told them they want to change the terms like Joseph? It is breaking the contract if it wasn’t agreed to when the contract was made. Jesus said if a man who is married lusts after another woman he has committed adultery in his heart. Wouldn’t he have to lust (desire) in order to desire (lust after) more wives?
Do you think all women who are sealed know that in order to be married for eternity they must be willing to live polygamy if their husbands desire to in the next life? Remember, God said in section 132 it’s not a sin if he does desire to, and he won’t be bound by man-made laws when he’s a god.
“That’s fine if she knows that is the requirement before she marries him, because she is agreeing to it when she marries him. Someone, like Emma,…”
Right. I think we are in agreement that when plural marriage was revealed it changed whatever expectations were had at the pre-revelation level. Where I think we disagree is how this impacts both genders that had to be grandfathered into having new expectations. While there is value in looking at things from both perspectives, your portrayals of men being driven solely by lust and a God complex is out of touch with the historical context that section 132 was given in or interpreted by the Saints.
The commandment given to Joseph Smith to practice plural marriage or be destroyed is of the same order of magnitude of impact that the command for Emma to accept plural marriage or be destroyed. Whereas you see “desire” to solely denote lust, I see “desire” as necessarily including the desire to be obedient with lust being quite incidental and non-controlling.
“Remember, God said in section 132 it’s not a sin if he does desire to, and he won’t be bound by man-made laws when he’s a god.”
I do not read D&C 132 that way at all. There is a counterexample given in regards to David about your distorted picture of unbound desire. Males can’t and didn’t just throw away every societal norm when plural marriage was introduced. It always had some oversight by the sole holder of the sealing keys. Marriage was quite well regulated by community standards during the Deseret period. D&C 134 only gives the Saints relatively narrow grounds to practice civil disobedience to man-made laws. See G.L. Smith’s http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf
I like some other issues that you raise, but view some of the assertions and conclusions problematic, so I will address these at some point. I should also elaborate on my “order of magnitude” as there is a a lot of good scholarly literature on the relatively higher costs that females bear in marriages and child-rearing (compared to males) and how plural marriage tweaks the dynamics (in many respects towards reducing female costs).
“The commandment given to Joseph Smith to practice plural marriage or be destroyed…”
I assume you mean when the angel appeared to Joseph and commanded him to marry additional wives, because it doesn’t say he is commanded to in D&C 132. This section is merely teaching the principle behind plural marriage and under what conditions it was justified in the Bible. The commandment in this section was that he had to be sealed or be damned, not to practice polygamy.
“There is a counterexample given in regards to David about your distorted picture of unbound desire. Males can’t and didn’t just throw away every societal norm when plural marriage was introduced.”
Yes, the bounds are that the additional wives be virgins. Which brings up the issue of Joseph being sealed to women who already had husbands.
I would like to know more about what you have to say on the other issues that I raised.
I’m just glad that I’m not the one having to justify and defend a 38 year old married man marrying 14 and 16 year old girls…
Thanks for the “dig” Seth, its the same old childish sand throwing I’ve come to love and expect from you… Well done.
Craig, I agree with you about Seth’s comment and moderated it out. Pursuant to D&C 121:43, I would like to point out that Seth has made some substantial, valuable contributions on the subject at hand and it is easy to lose patience when the same topic comes up ad nauseum without acknowledging prior discussion.
Both Seth and I have blogs responding to the charge that Joseph Smith’s marriage partners were underage (after Lawrence O’Donnell and Timothy Egan made some unfortunate remarks). I will soon be publishing an essay with some co-authors in press run by an organization that has been traditionally hostile to plural marriage that explores just how normal it was in mid 19th century America to marry at such early ages. Again to borrow Seth’s phrasing, we have about as much defending and apologizing to do for polygamist ancestors as descendants of monogamists do theirs.
“I assume you mean when the angel appeared to Joseph and commanded him to marry additional wives, because it doesn’t say he is commanded to in D&C 132.”
Right when I bring up the interpretive context (which might be further parsed down into how those addressed in D&C 132 would have understood it based on their experiences and how later Deseret leaders generalized it for wider practice), Joseph and the angel is my prime example and the only one I have presented in this thread so far. By itself it should suffice, to establish that males were also being pressured or incentivised to obey a commandment authorizing plural marriage. There, of course, remain many details that are still left open, for example which males become accountable and the timing and choice of potential mates.
In addition to Joseph Smith being pressured by an angel, you could ask how did Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Heber C. Kimball, Benjamin Johnson, Sidney Rigdon, Jedediah Grant, William Law, Orson Pratt received information. Joseph put the same kind of pressure he received on these men and I think it is fair to say that Brigham Young in Utah adapted the similar pressure tactics on males (especially those in leadership positions. The pressure had both its carrots (eternal blessings, passing a preliminary Abrahamic test could lead to securing one’s calling and election, potentially greater social networks in the next life, and additional marital bliss) and threats (at least believe in plural marriage or suffer setbacks on the road to exaltation, or lose out on church standing). Many of these stories are told in Ehat’s and Bachman’s master’s theses.
You may have a point that it is less then straight forward to gather these threats and incentives towards males in D&C 132. I wrote a blog a year ago about my interpretation of 132, but never posted it because I could not get anyone from FAIR to agree with me on it and it deals with little understood teachings. Maybe after J. Stapley publishes a paper on the development of sealing practice in Utah my theory will be more defensible.
I think you are right that sealing can occur in monogamist marriages, but in general a monogamist temple marriage was not sufficient to obtain the seal spoken of in D&C 132:7 or 19 that acts as an virtually unconditional guarantee that a couple (not just the male) would both eventually obtain godhead in v. 20.
To the items that characterize male pressure, I would add D&C 132’s juxtapositioning of 1) the command of Abraham to take a plural wife and 2) the command to sacrifice Isaac. While D&C may not spell out that Joseph has been commanded to take other wives that is clearly in the backdrop and it is implied by the Lord accepting Joseph’s sacrifice v. 50. We can plug in the name Joseph in for Abraham and Emma in for Sarah and the passages may make even more sense.
Following Sarah’s pattern, Emma helped select plural wives for Joseph. Like Sarah, she sometimes wavered in the manner in which promised blessings would be brought about (laughing off some scenarios and practicing denial when confronted, but seeking to obtain personal revelation). Emma, like Sarah, would go through bouts of jealous shunning of her husband’s wives. It is possible that Joseph could have had a child (Josephine?) like Ishmael that were never as fully honored as his children from his first wife.
Of course one can find anti-parallels as well. Joseph was not commanded to sacrifice his son. The nature of his sacrifice went beyond just practicing polygamy (I bring this up in relation to my previous point, that merely being initially temple “sealed” is not enough to guarantee it, and further Abrahamic tests can be used to prove one’s faithfulness.) We do not know what exactly Joseph was commanded to sacrifice, but like Abraham, he had to be willing to go through with it up until the last minute.
Nevertheless, I would speculate that Joseph was commanded to let Emma be polyandrously married. Joseph extended this test to other males by asking them to be willing to sacrifice their wives. (Sometimes not providing an escape like D&C 132 does for Joseph or the ram in the thicket does for Abraham.) I think another purposes of early polyandry (what is good for the goose is good for the gander) was to help men empathize with first wives. Polyandry was a little tougher than polygyny to pull off on a larger scale in a society where men were the sole bread-winners. Before DNA testing it would be hard to determine who the child’s father was if a woman was with multiple men in the same period. That is why it was taboo for a widow to marry before a year after her husband’s death. During the same era, a large % of “illegitimate” children were conceived as widows waited out this period with a new common law spouse (when I recall my stats source I will edit it in here). Joseph Smith challenged this ideal a little. In an 1838 Elder’s Journal, he ventured that 3 months wait for widows/widowers was sufficient. He did get mad at William McClellin for flirting on a mission so soon after his (McC’s) wife’s death. (Alternatively, this could be an early manifestation of the “Lock your Heart” sentiment that Ziba Peterson and Oliver Cowdery also got in trouble over.)
D&C 132 can be read that a woman can’t be “with” two men at once, while I think it allows for different types of simultaneous marriages (with different understandings of marital rights and in what sphere they were operative (mortality? serially in mortality?, eternity only?) The middle category is the least understood. But spelling out my opinion on these things is perhaps material for a different post. Brian Hales and G. L. Smith have independently come to similar conclusions (references upon request) and I have a different take. The latest MHA conference had a dispute between Hales and Foster. I have more work to do to decipher the different positions (I may be convinced upon further review.) I am also waiting on Dr. Smith to treat some of Emma polyandy speculation.
I do think it is important that when Joseph Smith married wives it was with a duty to economically support them, especially within the marriages that were consummated and might result in offspring. Joseph continued to look after Fanny’s well-being after the split but before her re-marriage to Custer. He made business arrangements with B. F. Johnson to provide for Almera. He told another wife that they would live openly as man and wife after the move to the Rocky Mountains. This is in contrast to John C. Bennett’s free love implementation of plural marriage, secretly abandoning his first wife.
One could draw parallels for Adam and Eve for Joseph and Emma as the contemporary emerging endowment drama suggests. It is interesting in the Nauvoo Endowment Companies that commenters drew connections to Thomas Marsh and his wife, but the symbolic parallels are much richer between Joseph and Emma. Like Eve, Emma used moral agency to rebel against a commandment that profoundly and paradoxically affected her and husband’s marital happiness. Like Eve, Emma did not get to choose all the consequences. One could link Eve’s banishment to a suboptimal existence (to a sorrowful and weary world– a hell of sorts) to Emma’s loss of her first husband and suffering through her second’s adulterous affair. On one hand, the rhetorical license of equating Emma’s trials as a consequence (much less something she deserved) of her choice may be a stretch. Likewise one shouldn’t blame Eve for the problem of evil in our world. However, when I think of D&C 132 use of the word “destroy” those events are what come to mind. I think her forgiveness of her second husband and helping raise his child were an act of repentance on her part.
Like Adam, Joseph was put in position to make choices that could cause a separation with his wife/wives. The same types of choices seem to be involved. One could oversimplify both situations to a choice between God and a wife, or between two conflicting commandments. A person falls short of celestial glory when he is either separated from his spouse or from God due to sin. Anything less can be considered to be a degree of Hell. Joseph once remarked that he was willing to go to Hell to rescue Emma. Adam was also willing to go with Eve to her non-paradise to help her repent and to save her (along with himself).
Emma’s behaviour follows neither the extremes presented by Sister Marsh or the Book of Moses’ Eve. In the latter, Eve is the first to realize that man must fall to receive experiential knowledge and ultimately godhood and convinces her husband to go with her. Sister Marsh got upset over cream and dragged her husband into apostasy. He only returned after her death.
Ultimately the story about Adam and Eve is that all things can be made whole again through the atonement. I like the story of Emma’s vision before dying as it gives some closure to me regarding their relationship. Joseph welcomed Emma back with open arms. Jesus accompanied Joseph and apparently endorsed the moment of reconciliation and marital at-one-ment.
You gave a fairly unhelpful throwaway comment yourself Craig. It didn’t deserve much of a response, so that’s all I gave you.
Consequently, I don’t really much mind Keller deleting it. It wasn’t much of a response. But your comment wasn’t much of a comment either.
She was a child either way, I am afraid for your pedophile prophet when Jesus get a hold of him. That you beleve that Jesus is ok with this kind of stuff is why I don’t consider you guys Christan.
Richard,
Early Christian tradition had it that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was 12 when she got pregnant. See the Jewish Encyclopedia for more information about marital customs for that era.
Your opinion would also be out of place in 1830. Suppose you were to attend 100 weddings at random in the US in 1830 where the bride was being married for the first time. By my estimate, over half would involve a teenage bride. Of those 100, you would expect to see 3 married at 14 or younger, 5 at age 15, 9 at age 16, 11 at age 17, 12 at age 18, and 11 at age 19.
So if Fanny got married at 17 as I suspect, it was 3rd most popular age to do so at the time with 16 not far behind.
The age difference was not substantial, either, for the time. In 1850 census marriages a 17 year old bride on average married a 24 year old groom. Around 25% of the grooms were Joseph Smith’s age (27) or older in such marriages with 17 y/o brides.
There has been a lot of change since then in terms marriage laws, increased life span, less correlation between age and economic opportunities, more of an extended childhood, and more co-habitation and divorce. So it makes it difficult for us to understand why a very large percentage of Christians, not just Joseph Smith, married at the ages they did. Our Christian ancestors were not pedophiles so the view that Joseph Smith was one not true either. I can cut you some slack because it is easy to become a victim of propaganda, but now that you have been properly informed I invite you to become an ally is spreading the truth about our American forefathers.
I should add that at either age 16 or 17 Fanny was well past the mimimum age of societal eligibility that has been quantified by the Coale-McNeil model. Using 19th century census statistics that number is fairly consistent around 14.0 (according to Sanderson, Warren C. 1979. “Quantitative Aspects of Marriage, Fertility and Family Limitation in Nineteenth Century America: Another Application of the Coale Specification.” Demography 16: 339-358 cited in Michael Haines 1996 “Long Term Marriage Patterns in the United States from Colonial Times tothe Present” http://www.nber.org/papers/h0080.pdf )