FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 7"
(→132, 530-531n29-36 (PB) - Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger) |
(→133, 531n37-40 (PB)) |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833?}} | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833?}} | ||
− | ====133, 531n37-40 (PB)==== | + | ====133, 531n37-40 (PB) - Did William McLellin report that Joseph and Fanny were found "in the barn together alone...?==== |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
+ | |title=One Nation Under Gods | ||
|claim= | |claim= | ||
− | + | Did William McLellin report that Joseph and Fanny were found "in the barn together alone...?" | |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | |||
− | |authorsources= | ||
*{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=35}} | *{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=35}} | ||
*Ann Elza Web Young, ''Wife No. 19'', 66-67. | *Ann Elza Web Young, ''Wife No. 19'', 66-67. | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Emma Smith discover her husband Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn?}} | ||
+ | |||
====133, n42 (PB)==== | ====133, n42 (PB)==== | ||
{{IndexClaim | {{IndexClaim |
Revision as of 15:20, 12 November 2014
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Response to claims made in "Chapter 7: Woe In Ohio"
Claims made in "Chapter 6: No rest for the Righteous" | A FAIR Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods A work by author: Richard Abanes
|
Claims made in "Chapter 8: Big Trouble In Little Missouri" |
Smith decided to solve his economic dilemma by establishing a bank for the purpose of land speculation.
—One Nation Under Gods, p. 135. (paperback edition)
127 epigraph, 527n1 (PB) - David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
David Whitmer said that Joseph Smith claimed that "[s]ome revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil"Author's sources:
- David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 31.
- DC 46꞉7
FAIR's Response
Question: How does David Whitmer's account of the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright compare to those of the eyewitnesses?
Whitmer's account is at variance in several ways with Hiram Page’s account
Whitmer's account is at variance in several ways with Hiram Page’s account. Whitmer gets the destination city in Canada wrong (he says Toronto, the other accounts, and the revelation itself, say Kingston) and he did not correctly identify all of the participants (he identified Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery, while Page noted Joseph Knight and Josiah Stowell). Note that the text of the revelation itself finally clears up the issue of exactly who the revelation was directed to,
...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page
e& Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing...
Page, an eyewitness, makes no mention at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there any mention of a "false prophecy"
Page also makes no mention or even a hint at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there an accusation that the trip was based upon a "false prophecy," so naturally no subsequent "revelation" is noted by Page explaining the mission’s failure.
In Whitmer’s 1887 account we learn for the first time of the supposed post-mission revelation where Joseph Smith is told that some revelations are from God, some from devils, some from men. This account is in all likelihood a fabrication. Unlike his consistent, life-long statements concerning the witness of the Gold Plates, this account, which is probably a second-hand retelling of events 57 years after their occurrence, suddenly appears and is wrong on several of the documentable facts, as well as being inconsistent with the first-hand testimony of Hiram Page, given 40 years earlier than Whitmer and by comparison much closer to the actual event.
Question: How did Latter-day Saint scholars respond to the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright prior to Page's letter coming to light?
B.H. Roberts expressed doubt as to the accuracy of the story, and suggested that David Whitmer may not have recalled all of the details correctly
The letter from 1848 by Hiram Page was not publically available until the 20th Century. As a result, various LDS responses to the accounts by Whitmer and McLellin of necessity must explain why the apparent anomalous revelation does not make Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. Such was the case when B.H. Roberts expressed doubt as to the accuracy of the story, and suggested that David Whitmer may not have recalled all of the details correctly, yet went on to address the claim anyway. Roberts concluded:
Does that circumstance vitiate his claim as a prophet? No; the fact remains that despite this circumstance there exists a long list of events to be dealt with which will establish the fact of divine inspiration operating upon the mind of this man Joseph Smith. The wisdom frequently displayed, the knowledge revealed, the predicted events and the fulfilment thereof, are explicable upon no other theory than of divine inspiration giving guidance to him. [1]
As it happens, the passage of time and the uncovering of additional information has vindicated that confidence.
127-8, 528n5 (PB)
Claim
- Did Joseph say that "[f]ifty-six years should wind up the scene" before the second coming of Jesus Christ?
Author's source(s) - History of the Church, 2:182. Volume 2 link
- History of the Church, 5:336. Volume 5 link
128-9, 528n10 (PB)
Claim
- Were the revelations published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants "amended, added to, excised, and in some cases assigned different historical settings" as claimed by Michael Marquardt?
Author's source(s) - H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, xv.
129, 529n14-15 (PB)
Claim
- Did Joseph break Ohio law by marrying Newel Knight to "undivorced Lydia G. Baily," despite having no license to perform marriages in Ohio?
Author's source(s) - D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 88..
- The author's claim is false: No law was broken, and marriage certificates were issued by the state of Ohio; no license was required to perform marriages, since any religious leader had a right to perform marriages in Ohio.
- Ohio marriages illegal?
129, 529n17 (PB)
Claim
- Did Joseph perform marriages for people who had not obtained marriage licenses from the State of Ohio?
- Does History of the Church claim that instead, they were only married "according to the rules and regulations of the Church of the Latter-day Saints?"
Author's source(s) - History of the Church, 2:377–378. Volume 2 link
- Misrepresentation of source: Joseph gave couples marriage certificates?
- The author's claim is false: Ohio marriages illegal?
129, 529n16 (PB)
Claim
- Was Kirtland, as Fawn Brodie claimed, "full of converts who had left behind them spouses who could not be persuaded to join the church?"
Author's source(s) - Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 183. ( Index of claims )
- The author includes a direct, attributed quote from Brodie's book, however, this upon examining the source one finds that this is only Brodie's own opinion—She does not provide a source to back up this claim.
529n16 (PB)
Claim
- Author's quote: Disruptions of the family unit and marriage break-ups are often seen among religious groups termed "cults."
- Author's quote: [E]x-Mormons have reported that LDS leaders/counselors commonly encourage divorce when the spouse of a faithful Mormon forsakes the faith."
Author's source(s) - No sources provided for this claim.
- The author's claim is false: Church leaders do not advise divorce under these circumstances.
- Note that the author takes the opportunity to classify the Church as a "cult" based upon this supposition.
- Loaded and prejudicial language
130, 530n22 (PB)
Claim
- Did Levi Lewis claim that Joseph tried to seduce Eliza Winters in 1830?
Author's source(s) - Levi Lewis, Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834 reprinted in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 268.
131, 530n23-24 (PB)
Claim
- Were LDS men encouraged to take plural wives "of the Lamanites and Nephites" in order to make them "white, delightsome and just?"
Author's source(s) - Marquardt, 375.
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 210.( Index of claims )
132 (PB)
Claim
- Author's quote: "Although Smith never took any Lamanites as wives, he did begin establishing what would gradually become a fairly large harem of young girls and women taken from his flock of 'white and delightsome' disciples."
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
132, 530-531n29-36 (PB) - Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger
The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:
Joseph's first polyamous marriage was with Fanny Alger.Author's sources:
- Andrew Jenson, 233.
- Benjamin F. Johnson, letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903.
- Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 6-7.
- Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 31-34. ( Index of claims )
FAIR's Response
What do we know about Joseph Smith's first plural wife Fanny Alger?
There are no first-hand accounts of the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger
One of the wives about whom we know relatively little is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand (and mostly hostile) accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.
Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions which, again, rests on dubious historical grounds. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).
There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.
Did Joseph Smith marry Fanny Alger as his first plural wife in 1833?
Joseph Smith met Fanny Alger in 1833 when she was a house-assistant to Emma
Joseph Smith came to know Fanny Alger in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant to Emma. Neither Joseph nor Fanny ever left any first-hand accounts of their relationship. There are no second-hand accounts from Emma or Fanny's family. All that we do have is third hand accounts from people who did not directly observe the events associated with this first plural marriage, and most of them recorded many years after the events.
Joseph said that the "ancient order of plural marriage" was to again be practiced at the time that Fanny was living with his family
Benjamin F. Johnson stated that in 1835 he had "learned from my sister’s husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, 'that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.' This, at the time did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived then with his family (the Prophet’s) a neighbor’s daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial, for the amiability for her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her."[2]
Joseph asked the brother-in-law of Fanny's father to make the request of Fanny's father, after which a marriage ceremony was performed
Mosiah Hancock discusses the manner in which the proposal was extended to Fanny, and states that a marriage ceremony was performed. Joseph asked Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Samuel Alger, Fanny’s father, to request Fanny as his plural wife:
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 [Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill 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.[3]
How could Joseph and Fanny have been married in 1831 if the sealing power had not yet been restored?
There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored
There is historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony in Kirtland, Ohio in 1833.
Apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.
Joseph and Fanny's marriage was a plural marriage, not an eternal marriage
Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see D&C 110). This confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:
- plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
- eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
- "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.
Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later. Therefore, the marriage of Joseph and Fanny would have been a plural marriage, but it would not have been a marriage for eternity.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that priesthood power already gave the ability to ratify certain ordinances as binding on heaven and earth (D&C 1:8), that the sealing power was given mention in earlier revelations such as Helaman 10:7, and that the coming of Elijah and his turning of the hearts of children and fathers was prophesied in 3 Nephi 25:5-6. This supports the view that it is unlikely that Joseph was just making up the sealing power and priesthood power extemporaneously to justify getting married to Fanny and having sexual relations with her.
Did some of Joseph Smith's associates believe that he had an affair with Fanny Alger?
Oliver Cowdery perceived the relationship between Joseph and Fanny as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair"
Some of Joseph's associates, most notably Oliver Cowdery, perceived Joseph's association with Fanny as an affair rather than a plural marriage. Oliver, in a letter to his brother Warren, asserted that "in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself."[4]
Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the "affair" theory, wrote:
I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom [Todd] Compton counts as Smith’s first plural wife, satisfies the criteria to be considered a "wife." Briefly, the sources for such a "marriage" are all retrospective and presented from a point of view favoring plural marriage, rather than, say, an extramarital liaison…Smith’s doctrine of eternal marriage was not formulated until after 1839–40. [5]
There are several problems with this analysis. While it is true that sources on Fanny are all retrospective, the same is true of many early plural marriages. Fanny's marriage has more evidence than some. Bergera says that all the sources about Fanny's marriage come "from a point of view favoring plural marriage," but this claim is clearly false.
Even hostile accounts of the relationship between Joseph and Fanny report a marriage or sealing
For example, Fanny's marriage was mentioned by Ann Eliza Webb Young, a later wife of Brigham Young's who divorced him, published an anti-Mormon book, and spent much of her time giving anti-Mormon, anti-polygamy lectures. Fanny stayed with Ann Eliza's family after leaving Joseph and Emma's house, and both Ann Eliza and her father Chauncey Webb [6] refer to Joseph's relationship to Fanny as a "sealing." [7] Eliza also noted that the Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." [8] This would be a strange attitude to take if their relationship was a mere affair. And, the hostile Webbs had no reason to invent a "sealing" idea if they could have made Fanny into a mere case of adultery.
It seems clear, then, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.
Categories:
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Church of Jesus Christ
- FAIR
- Mormon
- Mormonism
- LDS Church
- Subpages
- Navbox
- Navigation
- Brian Hales website link
- To learn more box
- American Massacre
- Letter to a CES Director
- Mormon America: The Power and the Promise
- MormonThink
- Mormonism Unmasked
- Nauvoo Polygamy
- No Man Knows My History
- One Nation Under Gods
- Questions
- The Changing World of Mormonism
- Wikipedia