I disagree with the “easily” part. The reason is because I am thinking of a few friends of mine who are very moral and wonderful people with strong desires to live in accordance with God. And while I have no doubt in my mind that both are faithful to their respective spouses, I know for a fact that these men would not say it is “easy”.
My point was simple: fanny’s parents would not have remained members of the lds church if something dirty was going on or if they thought Joseph was taken advantage of their daughter. They saw nothing wrong in the relationship between Joseph and Fanny. Neither did her brother.I’m not sure if the purpose of your post is to show that her parents did a good thing or a creepy thing…
Yes, they did have a say in it. Some refused to be sealed to Joseph Smith until they received a witness of the truthfulness of the principle of plural marriage. Also, Joseph would often ask a relative for permission for the sealing.
But the question is, for example, did Joseph ask Emma for permission about his relationship with Fanny BEFORE they become “involved?”
. Again, this confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:This reminds of a (true) story about a woman I used to work with. Her mother gave her to an older man in marriage when she was just 16. The mother needed the money that the man was willing to pay for her daughter.
I don’t think that it is known. There are no witnesses that were actually present to get Emma’s reaction. What is known, is that fanny left the household with her parents and moved to a different area. Within a season, fanny married and stayed married to her husband for the rest of her life, bearing nine children, I believe.
My question isn’t whether or not they were real marriages in the eyes of the LDS …this is way more than that.Criticism
Critics charge that Joseph Smith’s early plural marriage(s) cannot have been “real” marriages, since the doctrine of “eternal marriage” (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841.
Response
Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the “affair” theory, wrote:
I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom 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.[1]
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.
Hostile accounts which 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 lectures. Fanny stayed with Ann Eliza’s family after leaving Joseph and Emma’s house, and both Ann Eliza and her father Chauncey Webb[2] refer to Joseph’s relationship to Fanny as a “sealing.”[3] 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.”[4] 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.
The keys?
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
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.
Conclusion
The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded “after the fact.” Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
It seems clear, however, 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
en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_eternal_marriage
I think that this explains it quite well with fanny.
It is an historical fact. Fanny’s parents died members of the lds church in Utah. Both were proud that their daughter was sealed to Joseph Smith as was her brother.
Is it fair to say, then, Mormons reject the account of Emma finding them together in the barn, much to her surprise?
Maybe because they believe he was a prophet?
Joseph Smith was a pervert with a penchant for young girls and other men’s wives. All this BS about “sealings” is simply a cover-up for plain and simple fornication. Trust me, if I caught JS in the barn shagging my 15 year old daughter, the world would have been short one “prophet” in a hurry. As for Emma, she made her feelings about the matter quite clear. For mormons to condone this kind of sick behaviour is merely illustrative of the falsity of this bogus “religion.”
The thing is this: fanny eventually married not long after leaving the mormon community with her parents. And she was not that old at that time either. I do think that it was illegal in america to be married to two men. Thus, fanny was not considered married in the outside world. But permission was given for Joseph to marry fanny by her parents, I believe. This came from one of fanny’s relatives long after the event in 1890. If true, this was not a secret dirty affair at all.
And yet, fanny’s parents gave permission for Joseph to marry their daugher. They did not see this as a dirty affair at all. Joseph had Fanny’s uncle ask her parents for permission to marry their daughter. First, he talked with her father, then mother and then with fanny herself. All consented.
Perhaps. But they gave permission for her daughter to marry him. And fanny herself consented. I don’t see the problem if all three consented.
And yet, fanny’s parents gave permission for Joseph to marry their daugher. They did not see this as a dirty affair at all. Joseph had Fanny’s uncle ask her parents for permission to marry their daughter. First, he talked with her father, then mother and then with fanny herself. All consented.
That only shows that the whole crew was sick and perverted.So much for sick behavior.
whyme - Fanny eventually married who?
And yet, fanny’s parents gave permission for Joseph to marry their daugher. They did not see this as a dirty affair at all. Joseph had Fanny’s uncle ask her parents for permission to marry their daughter. First, he talked with her father, then mother and then with fanny herself. All consented.
So much for sick behavior.
You mean as long as parents approve, it’s okay for men to get involved with underaged girls?Fanny’s parents migrated to Utah with the mormons. They and her brother remained faithful. Fanny eventually married when she was twenty years old, I believe. I don’t think that she remained a mormon. Some claim she was a Unitarian. But I am not sure about this. But she never spoke a bad word about Joseph Smith.
