Did Joseph Smith cheat on his wife? | SU Podcast

In this episode, Brian and Jake talk about the first controversy of the season, being the situation with Fanny Alger. Joseph's relationship with Fanny was his first plural relationship and first plural marriage.
Brian talks about why it is a controversy. Was Joseph cheating on Emma? Why didn't he tell her about it? Did she have any children? Why was she kicked out of the house? We go through all of these and more in this episode!
Comment below your thoughts and questions!
SUBSCRIBE:
saintsunscripted/subscribe
Follow Us:
Facebook: / saintsunscripted
Instagram: / saintsunscripted
Website: saintsunscripted.com/
Follow Jake:
Facebook: / jacob.watson.5817
Instagram: / jacob.watson0_0

[@scottb4509]

One tidbit that I glean from this story, is that there is an interesting parallel between the stories of polygamy, as practiced by both Smith and Abraham. Both of their second wives were servants or maids in their own house. Both of their first wives didn't like the second after the polygamous marriages were performed, and both of the second wives were sent away because of conflicts with the first wives. And later the first wives both accepted the idea of polygamy into their hearts, whether for Sarah, welcoming Hagar back into the family; or for Emma, participating in future sealing ceremonies of other women to Joseph. There are some obvious differences in the details and reasons for the practice of polygamy in both cases, but I find the similarities to be interesting. Ultimately, do we declare Abraham to be a false prophet simply because the issues Sarah had with his practice of polygamy? or is it because the Lord still spoke so highly of Abraham long after that polygamy issue, that we can view him as exonerated and therefore still worthy to be a prophet, but because Smith's practice issues or situations too recent, we can't, so easily see, the instances of the Lord still speaking so highly of Smith as we do of Abraham after the fact? Smith's records haven't yet been so long in the past that the details and issues are lost to abridgement and translation biases, to paint him in a wholly saintly light as has been done with Abraham over the millennia.

[@scottb4509]

@@jaykentucky6949 you illustrated one difference, to argue against the 5 or so similarities I gave, and then somehow claimed they were completely different stories??!! I specifically said that there were obvious differences to some details and reasons for those polygamous relationships, which of course the giving of Hagar by Sarah to Abraham is one difference, but the fact still remains that Sarah wasn't too keen on the idea of Abraham having another wife or another son by Hagar after the fact. She had her qualms with the polygamous relationship between Hagar and Abraham, and that is why Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. Just because you can point out circumstantial differences, doesn't at all mean that they are not similar. I can and did acknowledge the differences, while you are biasedly blind to the similarities, which shows an immaturity unbecoming of one who claims to be following and seeking the truth. seems like you merely wish to have your biases confirmed, and are willing to suppress evidence that may go against your preconceived beliefs. As for the arguments on the moral yardstick, the claim that Fanny Alger was a teen is unfounded. she was an adult between the ages of 18-21 at the time. but to say that what they were doing in the barn was necessarily sex is conjecture. all we know is that it was a "transaction", this could have been anything. and it is only in much later records that we find the feelings of others as being against Smith and Fanny's, previously understood, innocent platonic relationship. None of the accounts we have of Fanny were of first hand experience, with this relationship, it is all second or third hand accounts, and at times even after those account givers had left and become antagonistic to the church, with an obvious axe to grind or incentive to tear down what they no longer agreed with. The fact that Emma Smith personally participated in several polygamous ceremonies of other women to Joseph is evidence enough to me that she wasn't fully against the idea of Joseph practicing polygamy. and I choose to use that context as evidence that Smith was not merely a horn dog, in it for the sex, especially since not one of those other women had any children from Smith, and Emma had many, and some of those wives were well beyond child bearing age, and would never had agreed to a polygamous marriage to Smith for the purpose of indulging in Smith's supposed sexcapades. Ultimately it is all a mute point, because even if Smith did do something wrong in the matter, if we hold him to the same standard as the prophets of old, that still would not disqualify him as a prophet of God. The burden of fault in Abraham's case still falls on Abraham. The Lord never told Abraham to take Hagar to wife, that was an idea that Abraham agreed to do, because He felt the Lord wasn't capable of fulfilling His promised blessings otherwise. Abraham took the liberty of taking Hagar to wife against, or in leu of the fulfillment of, the counsel/promise of the Lord, and yet we'd never dream of calling Abraham a false prophet for that act of rebellion or misjudgment. So, if we are to hold Smith to the same standard as Abraham, then I see no reason as to why Smith would be disqualified as being a chosen prophet of God, even if Smith misjudged or mishandled this situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not admitting that He did, but without clear proof, because we simply have a lack of information, it is still not a disqualifying factor "IF" it were true.

[@scottb4509]

@@allieooop3923 No that is not the most important aspect. it may be the only important aspect for you, because it is the supposed nail in the coffin, you believe to be the downfall of Smith's divine prophetic appointment, but ultimately both Abraham and Smith supposedly made grave misjudgments and mistakes in their practices of polygamy or in the case of Abraham you claim Abraham rebelled against God entirely, and went rogue, and yet for some reason you still wholeheartedly endorse Abraham as a worthy and righteous prophets of God, but for the same type or level of misjudgment or mistake performed by Smith you judge him harshly and account it to him for condemnation and disqualification as a chosen prophet of God. You are effectively holding Smith and Abraham to different standards. you may see different details as being the defining message you want to take away from their situations, but ultimately both supposedly made similar mistakes, and yet you hold them to different standards and give Abraham a slap on the wrist, while biasedly disqualifying Smith altogether for doing virtually the same thing. if one gets to still be heralded as a prophet of God, in spite of his mistakes in regards to the teachings of God and the practice of polygamy, then so does the other. you don't get to have a double standard, and still claim to be following and seeking truth.

[@scottb4509]

@@allieooop3923 so you are basing your entire argument on the assumption that Abraham was acting in good faith, while Smith was purposely acting out of lustful deceit and lying and manipulating peoe to get what he wanted out of them. Do you not understand that it is the number one no no in intellectual honesty to assume nefarious intentions. The only reason you'd choose to assume Abraham acted in good faith in choosing his wifes advice over that of God, but assume Smith was acting evil in choosing God's advice over his wife's is, 1. Because you have presupposes biases that you are yourself nefariously and dishonestly choosing to hold to over the pursuit of unbiased truth, and/or 2. You do not agree with scripture when it says if you do not choose the Lord over everyone else then you cannot be called His (Luke 14:26). Either way you are choosing to put your own beliefs above the doctrines and teachings of God, as well as above the pursuit of truth through intellectually honest analysis of facts and teachings. Your biased presuppositions are blinding you to the reality and truth of both God's teachings as well as God's standards. You are essentially telling God what He should be doing and are ignoring or rejecting God's already established and articulated teachings and standards in the process. Rather than trying to change God's ways, it is probably better to change ourselves to be in line with His ways.

[@scottb4509]

@@allieooop3923 now you are playing mental gymnastics, because you never said anything about Abraham "not trusting God", you specifically said he was following his wife's counsel, and completely left out God's involvement in that misjudgment. and now that I'm pointing it out, you are back peddling, and pretending like you were saying that all along. If Abraham acted in bad faith, and trusted his wife over God, how is that worse than Joseph, acting in supposed trust of God over his wife? The moral of the story of Abraham engaging in polygamy, shouldn't be "don't do it". it should be trust God over even your own wife. and that is what Smith claimed to be doing. You have certainly characterized the nature of Smith's actions and intentions, by implying that he could not have possibly been following God's commands, but simply sought to justify adulterous behavior, by making it seem as though they were instructions from God. how is that any different than assuming nefarious and bad faith intentions on the part of Smith?! claiming he did it because of some mental health issues is a cop out, and a back handed attempt at hiding your biases within potential yet unfathomably unlikely scenarios, and to couch your beliefs within seemingly unbiased opinions one could have, in spite of the fact that you and I both know you don't believe that for a second. In many other conversations we've had, you have expressed that you believe Smith was nothing but a lying horn dog attempting to mask his sexual deviance with supposed instructions from God. you have a clear bias which is clouding your ability to remain impartial. the consistency with what God taught is that God did teach polygamy as an acceptable and at times necessary practice to raise up a people unto the Lord. the Fact that God laid out restrictions and guidelines for the practice of polygamy in Leviticus, and that the entire house of Israel, which is the chosen inheritance of the Lord Himself, was conceived through no less than 4 women. and that Jesus Christ Himself taught the parable of the 10 virgins where He equates Himself as the bridegroom that marries 5 women at the same time, or where it says that if David wanted more wives then God could have given them to him, is clear evidence to me that God did not only condone, but encouraged the practice of polygamy in times past. just because you can't read between the lines, to see that and are only looking for the word for word instructions like "I command you to practice polygamy", is clear that you don't wish to discern God's intentions and works among men, but only want your preconceived beliefs to be confirmed, so you downplay the things that go against your beliefs, and play up those that agree. you are not at all "listening to what God has said and rejecting that which contradicts it." you are takin God's supposed silence as proof that it is against His teachings. God never said that polygamy is evil or that none are supposed to practice it. those are words you are basically putting in God's mouth in order to justify your beliefs. You are taking the absence of God's clear instructions to do what we see many prophets of old practiced, as supposed proof that it was not of God. Why can't we use the fact that God gave guidance for the practice of polygamy, as well as taught stories and gave clarifying teachings about some who did practice it, as proof for God's acceptance of and condoning attitude toward the practice of polygamy in at the very least those Biblical instances, and then use those instances as the precedence for Smith being able or possibly even asked to practice it in modern times. You continue to down play every time it was practiced in the Bible as being not of God, and yet we know that God Himself taught it in passing, and used those prophets who practiced Polygamy to raise up a holy and righteous people unto Himself. You are still employing a double standard if you say that those men of old practiced polygamy against the will and desires of God, but were still deemed as righteous and holy men before God. And because Smith did something supposedly also against the desires and will of God in practicing polygamy, therefore, he is disqualified as being a holy or righteous man before God. You cannot have it both ways. either those men of old are disqualified also, or Smith, like them of old, is still eligible to be a righteous prophet of God.

[@scottb4509]

@@allieooop3923 you are still using your own beliefs as the basis for your interpretations and understanding of scripture. and are conflating God's words about Adam having a wife with that somehow meaning no one else should have more than one. God is in no way implying any instruction of details about polygamy in His instruction to Adam about leaving his mother and father to join his wife. Those are two completely separate ideas, which can only be conflated after the fact. Adam would have no idea what you are talking about if you tried to make this argument in His day. saying Abraham followed the counsel of his wife, and leaving out God's instruction that the child would be through Sarah, in spite of Sarah laughing at that idea, and convincing Abraham to disbelieve God is implying that it is Sarah's fault and not Abraham's and that that is how Abraham can still be deemed righteous. what you say is obvious is clearly not obvious to you, because you are still ignoring that so called obvious detail in your attempt to discount Abraham's disobedience, while condemn Joseph for a similar supposed disobedience. you are still ignoring or rejecting the blatantly obvious. trying to say that the moral of the story can be both that we should listen to God over even our own wives, and also that we should not practice polygamy is not consistent with either this story nor with the rest of scripture. the story of Abraham never once implies that, polygamy is a bad thing nor that it should never be practiced, that is just you reading your own beliefs into the text, (eisegesis). and Elsewhere in scripture we find where the practice of polygamy was certainly viewed as a good in not necessary thing in order to bring about God's will and plan, as especially illustrated in Jacob bringing about the 12 tribes of Israel through 4 different wives. The story of the 10 virgins certainly is the portrayal of a polygamous relationship with 5 women marrying the Lord (bridegroom) as a good thing. and Jacob producing the 12 tribes of Israel through 4 wives, is certainly portrayed as a good thing. as for the clear, to me, evidence for God's support or condoning of polygamous relationships, and your clear view of the monogamous teachings of the scripture, are not in conflict. this is one instance where it doesn't have to be either/or, and can be both. both monogamy, and polygamy can be used and condoned, and encouraged by God for certain people and in certain situations. The Book of Mormon clarifies on this topic, stating that monogamy is the status quo, and that polygamy is to be practiced only for the purposes of God. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:29-30). in other words in the absence of specific commandment or instruction it is of course best to practice monogamy, but in the instance where we are to raise up a people to the Lord, He can and has instructed the practice of polygamy. You may see the parable about only the second coming, but the story itself is certainly about a polygamous marriage to 5 women, and that is most definitely how those of Christ's culture and and Jewish beliefs, would have understood the parable. discounting Christ's own teachings on the topic merely because doing so aids your narrative and beliefs, isn't an intellectually honest approach to scripture. Saying the parable had nothing to do with marriage is to ignore the entire culture and traditions of those to whom the parable was told. as for Lewis positing the 3 options for Christ, and you carrying those options over to Smith, you are still using the cop out of what is possible rather than what is likely. just as in the case of Jesus, the lunatic and liar options are all but wiped from the board once you analyze the evidence, no one in Christ's day viewed Him as crazy, and all those who opposed Him, and viewed Him as a liar were dumbfounded and proved wrong by the many miracles and wonders He performed. It's not so easy to call someone who performs miracles right in front of you, a liar and a fraud. Likewise in Smith's case there are miracles he performed, and prophecies, which came true, so the liar and fraud claim is implausible and becoming less legitimate the further we go on. the lunatic claims, are unfounded, because like Jesus, none in Smith's day found him to be mentally ill, and most viewed his abilities to lead and recite doctrine and scriptures, as nothing short of intelligence. I mean the man was running for president of the United States, when He was killed. it takes some intelligence and cognitive awareness to do such a thing. You said, "Abraham was a prophet DESPITE going against the will and desires of God by having sex with Hagar", but that "Smith's practice of polygamy doesn't disqualify him as a prophet of God; it's the fact that he claimed God commanded it--and that contradicts what I see as God's clear teachings". What excuse do you think Abraham gave to everyone in his day and age as to why he was taking Hagar to be his polygamous wife? God gave him a commandment and promise to have children, and Abraham knew Sarah was barren. Abraham, therefore, must have assumed that Hagar was whom God was telling Abraham to have children through so that the promise of the Lord could be fulfilled. whether Abraham was right or wrong in this, H obviously thought that doing it was in line with the promises and teachings of God. He didn't do it out of rebellion or spite against God. God promised Abraham a Son, and Abraham thought this was how that promise was going to be fulfilled. Therefore, Abraham acted in accordance with what he believed God wanted him to do. This is the same thing Smith claimed to be doing also. you don't get to say one specifically said it was from God and the other only believed it was from God, therefore, they are completely different, so you can apply different standards to them. you are again downplaying one, while playing up the other, to justify a double standard, when they are essentially the same thing. not to mention you are ignoring the nuance of culture and vast time differences between Abraham and Smith. for all we Know Abraham did teach that his relationship with Hagar was commanded by God, and that part was edited out or ignored in the many translation and abridgment processes over the past 4000+ years. you are taking the words we have left as if that contains every detail and nuance to explain things that happened 4000 years ago.

[@easthooligunz]

Crazy how he didn’t even tell Emma until AFTER they were married. If God told you to do it .. sure God would want you to be honest. My god.

[@matthewmortensen7792]

100%

[@henochparks]

Wrong she knew and kicked on it.

[@SidJane10]

Read Joseph Smith Revealed by Whitney Horning for the truth. This guy does not speak it. Drink deep for the truth

[@zissler1]

Didn't Abraham lie that Sarah was his sister?

[@NinjaMaster1]

According to D&C 132. Joseph did in fact cheat on Emma. 132 requires that the first wife give permission for a second wife. Emma delt with infidelity in her second marriage also. She raised the child of her husband’s mistress. Funny thing is. Emma is the one who now lies with 2 husbands. She is buried between Joseph and her second husband in Nauvoo.

[@henochparks]

The practice of plural marriage was revealed in the early 1830s. It was Aaronic Priesthood level. The revelation of D&C 132 of the 1840s is Melchizedek level.

[@boysrus61]

When was the sealing power given to Jospeh? Wouldn't this be an adulterous relationship because Joseph was sealed to Emma in 1843 and Emma was his 21st sealing? Why didn't he ever seal himself to his children or his parents?

[@henochparks]

@@boysrus61 No one knows when he was given the sealing power; probably in the early 1830s when he learned of the Temple rites and power from on high. No one knows who he was first sealed to , to include his own family members. Emma struggled with the concept for years. Therefore he moved on until she got it. That is why she was not the first to be sealed to him. Several of the sealings were at the request of the parents to link families. Such as the to the Smiths-Algers, and to Smiths-Kimballs.

[@henochparks]

Nope you forgot the Aaronic Priesthood level practice.

[@randyjordan5521]

@@henochparks "The practice of plural marriage was revealed in the early 1830s. It was Aaronic Priesthood level. The revelation of D&C 132 of the 1840s is Melchizedek level." I love it when Mormons just make stuff up.

[@mormonreject7564]

Is this video suggesting a timeline makes Emmas feelings invalid? What garbage is that. You have no right to tell someone their feelings are invalid. " Hey Emma just get over it because it was a polygamous marriage.". I bet a few misogynistic men like Bringham told her that... Emma knows the truth because she lived with Joseph. Women are not second rate citizens whose opinion does not matter because of a timeline. I wish this video didn't make it a choice for viewers to decide about Joseph.. his actions don't over rule his wifes pain.

[@MrTheklman11]

why was Emma Smith not told her marriage was going to become plural ?

[@lamaramariewilson6746]

I heard that Joseph was afraid to tell her because he didn't think that she would take it well, but Im not sure.

[@javieralbertocabrerapuente6620]

@@lamaramariewilson6746 who would?

[@chrissessions6108]

That's what we're all wondering. All we can do is guess. It seems obvious that Joseph knew he would be in trouble with Emma if he made his intentions known. I think it's safe to say that he was purposely trying to keep it a secret from Emma by doing “transactions” in the barn. This flies in the face of “the law of Sarah” in D&C 132 which basically says that the polygamist needs to ask his first wife for approval before taking another wife. He doesn't actually need to get her permission, but he does need to ask. So no matter how you slice it, polygamy just doesn't look good. I can't believe that a righteous, caring God would be the author of a practice that blatantly puts women on a subservient level where their input doesn't matter. That certainly doesn't square with the family proclamation.

[@boysrus61]

@@chrissessions6108 Also, wasn't the purpose of polygamy to have children? Seems Joseph knew all about the "rhythm" method of birth control and was able to do his deeds without producing and seed- buuuuuut isn't that against the whole purpose of it?

[@Fatfinger4378]

@@chrissessions6108 One of the biggest reasons none of this adds up is that God was so concerned about Joe practicing polygamy that he sent an angel threatening death if the prophet didn't restore the practice. While the fruits and legacy of this apparently critical (to God) component of the restoration can be debated elsewhere, that same God did nothing for Emma. God could easily have sent a confirming manifestation to her as well, to ease her mind and heal her heart, but nothing. Not only was she clearly devastated by her husband's polygamy, she would later go on to deny that it ever even happened. If the whole thing were the work of her loving Father in Heaven, Emma would have received comfort and confirmation, instead of God's only concern being that Joe start having extra women. Also, if it was on the up-and-up, Fanny would have been much more likely to discuss, or at least acknowledge, her marriage to the prophet as his first plural wife instead of, for some reason, never being willing to say a public word about it throughout the rest of her life.

[@SaneAsylum]

Some context regardless of true or not. God did not remove David or Solomon despite much plurality of marriage (that God disliked greatly Jacob 2:24) until it became conspiracy to commit manslaughter.

[@leem3299]

Poligamy was never commanded or encouraged by God in the old testament. It happened because it was acceptable in that culture. Poligamy as a requirement of God is never in the old testament. Excusing Joseph based on the old testament doesn't hold water.

[@SaneAsylum]

@@leem3299 Abraham was never even chastised for it, nor Jacob so... but I actually agree with you. My point was that they are men and God doesn't "care" enough about it to remove them from their place for it. My point was not and has never been that polygamy is anything other than stupid. Likewise that prophets often as pretty stupid too (they are men after all).

[@suyanaramirez9098]

David and Solomon were kings, not prophets. David was not removed even after adultery and murder.

[@3foot44]

The Hancocks are not an un-biased witness due to a conflict of interest. They were also practicing polygamy, so they would naturally defend Joseph. Levi Hancock, her uncle, after securing permission for Fanny to marry Joseph, also performed the marriage. Joseph also introduced Levi to Clarrisa Reed and they were married in 1832. Clarissa later entered into a polyandrous marriage with Joseph in March 1833.

[@chrissessions6108]

That's a little silly to call it a conflict of interest. If we are interested in what the people who were privy to the relationship thought of the relationship, then the Hancocks' opinion is entirely valid. It's too big of an ask to say it only counts if the people with a favorable view of Joseph and Fanny's marriage also had an unfavorable view of Mormonism.

[@tzaylor]

Thank you for this episode!

[@lizkt]

I wish we knew more through first hand accounts. I really do. But I've accepted that, like in all history, we weren't there and can never truly know what transpired or the circumstances of everyone involved. so why judge them based on guesses? instead, I rely on what I do know to be true. That is enough for me

[@boysrus61]

There have been podcasts dedicated to this topic. The most recent one by Bill Reel and RFM (released about June 2023) really goes into detail with first hand accounts, contemporary writings, and paperwork from the day. Ver interesting.

[@amanda_weber1]

He wasn't reluctant to enter into plural marriage like the church teaches. He wrote to Levi Hancock that he loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife. I believe Levi's account that he performed the ceremony, but it's still an affair if you have sexual relations with a wife behind your first wife's back in my opinion. Emma did not consent and was completely blindsided. So sad.

[@danielstark8356]

You really should do more episodes for thos series

[@mca4093]

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

We do know Brigham young abused his position in the church to trick a woman into commuting adultery with him. Brigham young had a baby with zina diantha Huntington, a mother with two kids with her real husband Henry Bailey jacobs. Zina diantha Huntington is the great great grandma of orson Scott card, the author of Enders game.

[@latter-daytemplar7156]

@@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843 There was no trick. Brigham and Zina married each other, and Zina's previous marriage was considered superseded/annulled as a result. Zina remained Brigham's wife for the rest of her life, and her former husband (Henry Jacobs) remarried.

[@rconger384]

Jake I am hoping to see more of "Season 2!"

[@Icanonlyimagn7891]

I’m wondering where all of his offspring are… if he married so many women, and consummated those marriages, wouldn’t you think there would be at least of few children conceived? Especially since they didn’t have modern birth control.

[@Ether-pb5gb]

Brian: "Not much to talk about when it comes to JS's plural marriage" Also Brian: writes 3 volumes about JS's polygamy

[@rconger384]

Brian would be the one to know.

[@davidp5114]

Reading through Brian's stuff right now and I'm really enjoying it. Thanks for the episode!

[@gailcapshaw397]

Just because there is an act of a plural marriage ceremony does not negate an affair. Joseph was married to Emma so she should have been involved with her husband’s marriage while she’s married to Joseph. Since they were having a secret “transaction” in the barn, no matter what Emma meant by the word, it is an affair because Emma did not know about the “marriage”. Having a licensed minister perform an illegal and unethical marriage does not make it legal or ethical. Eliza Snow was another plural wife also so of course she called Fannie’s a marriage. Also Fannie called it a marriage. This definition fits their world views. As for the other families who said it was a marriage, they were involved in the discretion of a second marriage behind the back of the current wife. Of course, they stayed with the church because they were involved in the family indiscretion.

[@jonbaker476]

Exactly. Thank you

[@Hamann9631]

Gail Capshaw. Joseph should have told Emma. That doesn't mean there wasn't a marriage. It was a marriage with God's approval. That means in God's eyes it wasn't adultery.

[@arnaldohumbertopereira5120]

Thank you for this episode! This is a very interesting topic!

[@SaneAsylum]

One of the biggest mistakes LDS people make and one of the biggest sacred cows, has been the deification of our prophets. They are all just men doing the part foreseen by God for better and quite often worse. Jesus chose Judas knowing full well the outcome. One of the best scriptures ever written was the mea culpa in Mormon 9:31

[@PyrrhicPax]

Agreed, many members of my ward make the mistake of believing prophets are flawless. That their word is immutable, ignoring the fact that they fairly often disagreed with each other, and the church doctrine has gone through several reforms already, such as the rules on polygamy and the amount of melanin a priest is allowed to have in their skin

[@michiganabigail]

@@PyrrhicPax yeah, I’ve noticed that, too. People often think to themselves that if a prophet said it, it must be true. But it’s only when they’re speaking as prophet, and they can still be wrong. They just won’t lead us completely astray.

[@PyrrhicPax]

@@michiganabigail I like to think that prophets are simply the most qualified person God could find for the job. I think some have a gift, they may be able to hear God more clearly than most, or have enough intuition to loosely predict the future. a colorado missionary told me the church calls them "divinationers" or "seers" and that these are the people who tend to become prophets, apostles, or quarum members. But they're all still just people.

[@michiganabigail]

@@PyrrhicPax I've never heard the term "divinationers" used in the church. I have heard mention of seers, but almost always as part of the phrase "prophets, seers, and revelators," and even then, it's not that they've always seers and thus deserve to be called, it's something that comes with the calling. I think the important part is that they're headed in the right direction-- towards God.

[@PyrrhicPax]

@@michiganabigail maybe revelators was the word he used, not divinationers

[@quantumloops1]

5:40 she saw him with Fanny. She didn’t state anyone else there to witness a marriage which means it could not have been a marriage that was the transaction. That leaves the other option as what was relay happening; an affair.

[@randyjordan5521]

Considering that Fanny left the Smith household after that scandal occurred, we needn't wonder what she and Joseph were doing in that barn.

[@brettmajeske3525]

We do not have a first person testimony from Lucy at all. So we do not know what she did or did not say. We only have Cowdery's testimony, who was not present and relied on hearsay and rumor.

[@randyjordan5521]

@@brettmajeske3525 Joseph Smith's loyal follower Levi Hancock told the whole story about the Fanny affair to his son Mosiah, who recorded it as part of his autobiography. He wrote that "the worthies" (possibly Oliver Cowdery and Warren Parrish, and apostle David Patten who also knew of the affair) were aware of the incident in the barn, and they placed Fanny in an upper room of the unfinished Kirtland Temple while they sought out Joseph to question both of them about the incident. Joseph had Levi bring his wagon to the temple, where he lowered Fanny out of a window and drove her to a town 45 miles away so she couldn't testify as to the affair. Several other Mormons in the know knew about and wrote about the affair, including Benjamin Johnson, Chauncey Webb, and William McLellin. One of the charges against Cowdery in his 1838 church court was that he had accused Smith of committing adultery. That charge most likely referred to Cowdery's knowledge of the Fanny affair. Because of the multiple accounts of the incident, church historian Andrew Jenson listed Fanny as Smith's plural wife when he researched the issue in the 1880s. Considering that Joseph Smith went on to "plural marry" at least 32 other women, and several others turned him down, I don't know why any believer in Joseph Smith would be surprised that he went after Fanny in 1833.

[@Eightplex]

I finds it interesting that most making claims about what happened in the past with Joseph claim to know more about his sex life than they know about their own parents or that their children know about their sex life. Amazing. Thoses who claim to know so much rely on so little information. What it really reveals is the heart and personality of the individuals making claims. When everything turns sexual it's because that is how they percieve life - sex is the answer and reason for everything and most of all - every motive must be atrributed to something nasty and lustful...

[@ironeagle9850]

Exactly

[@boysrus61]

It is about power. Power over women. Women gained very little from being the polygamous wife of Jospeh Smith. (Well, I guess several of them were given plots of land in their name which was a plus but also a way to buy their silence from the majority of the members.) Joseph ran off with Emma to get married and it really upset Isaac Hale. Joseph promised to stop his treasure digging when Isaac confronted the marriage. Did Joseph marry anyone who wasn't coerced in some way to do so? Doesn't appear so. Power. It's all about the power of Joseph over these women and sometimes their current husbands.

[@michellemilne3315]

Wait, so if it was a sealing (“it could have been the first sealing of the Church”) then he was “sealed” to Fanny BEFORE being “sealed” to Emma? Would that technically make Fanny his first wife?

[@ryaneden1187]

Emma was sealed to Joseph...after...21 other women. So Emma was #22 🎉 In fact, her entire Relief Society Presidency Councilors and Secretary were sealed to Joseph before her - and she didn't know.

[@2013RUL]

Yes

[@nae0067]

I think Emma gets the final say on the question of was it an affair?

[@scottb4509]

Wouldn't God get the final say? I mean think of the situation with Mary and Joseph. When Mary tells Joseph that she is pregnant He initially freaked out and was going to call off their marriage, but an angel of God came to Him and told Him to stay with her. Is it possible that a similar thing happened with Emma, especially since Emma did stay with Joseph and later participated in some of these polygamous sealings/marriages? Obviously Emma did not reject Joseph's practice of polygamy altogether, if she was willing to participate in some of those marriage ceremonies.

[@biggentallen]

@@scottb4509 you don't get to put the kind of pressure Emma had on somebody then still say they chose something of their own free will. Emma showed signs of abuse. She participated in something like 10% of the marriage ceremonies that Joseph had. I can't say for certain any more than you can, but that hardly sounds like Emma accepted the idea. She was likely the only one in the household with any sense.

[@scottb4509]

@@biggentallen and you are welcome to believe that, but in doing so you are implying that you know Emma's feelings, and also Joseph's intentions. Neither of which is for sure knowable simply by reading the info about their practice of polygamy alone. You have to know their character, and Emma was anything but a weak and helpless woman. there were times when she stood up to all of the leaders of the church, and made her voice be heard. Emma was also the founder of the longest running, and now largest women's organization in the United States. that is a not an accomplishment a weak and abused women is likely to achieve. And we cannot forget that Emma wasn't always the stalwart and obedient type either. She was saintly and put up with a lot of unnecessary persecutions and trials for sure, and could have left Smith at any time, if there was ever an issue of abuse. and she blatantly rejected some of Smith's prophecies about the church and about the future. Smith prophesied that Young would become the prophet and leader of the church, and she completely ignored that prophecy and left the church when Young took over. Ultimately this entire conversation and debate is a mute point, and is irrelevant to where Joseph is qualified to be a prophet of God. If we can show that prophets of old mishandled or misjudged or even lied about their practices of polygamy, and were still counted worthy and righteous in God's eyes, then we have no leg to stand on in attempting to claim that Smith's supposed misjudgments and lies about his practice of polygamy, would in any way disqualify him as being a righteous and chosen prophet of God. Therefore, I can hold that He was right in doing it, and you can hold that he was wrong in doing it, and the Bible declares that it doesn't matter, because even those in the Bible who were wrong in doing it, were still called chosen and heralded as righteous prophets of God. which is better, to hold our own beliefs, ideas, and standards above those illustrated in the bible? or to use the Bible as our precedence and example of God's standard?

[@nae0067]

It was Emma’s marriage not Gods. Emma didn’t believe it was from God. You have the issue of Divine morality. Which is basically God said so, so it’s right even though it seems wrong. If any other leader of any other group did this what would you think? Which leads to special pleading. “It is bad when others do it but it’s different here because it’s my leader.” Because of this phenomenon. I think it’s better to use your best judgment. I think Emma believed Joseph was inspired on many things but that he was wrong about polygamy. At some point Joseph persuades Emma to try it out. She picked 4 young women. Jospeh decided not to tell her he was already married to them. They had a ceremony anyway. According to Emily Partridge, Emma immediately repented and had the girls removed from the home. She did all she could to fight it. She taught against it. She burned the 132 revelation and said it was not from God! Maybe we could learn something from Emma.

[@biggentallen]

@@nae0067 very well said. It amazes me that people who claim they are obedient to God would go so far out of logics way to excuse anything the "Prophet" did no matter how vile.

[@seans5289]

What would you expect the historical data to look like if Joseph and Fanny’s relationship had actually been illicit?

[@brettmajeske3525]

Part of the problem is the lack of direct evidence either way. It is like the rumors of George Washington's affairs. Plenty of hearsay, little actual evidence. Historians tend to downplay unsubstantiated rumor.

[@BenMyers72]

This should be all it takes for everyone to walk away from Mormonism, no further questions.

[@raddiemutto7934]

You ignore an incredible amount when you say no further questions. The key to Mormonism is not polygamy. It is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon either came from God, or from the Devil. It's translation was supernatural - or beyond what a human on their own can do. And this is why I am a member. I consider the Book to be from God. With that being said, I agree with you that I think this Fanny Alger business could have been done differently. I think Emma did see them having sex, and I think Joseph hid it from Emma. I also don't like that Fanny was shown the door after having been discovered. I don't image myself allowing 1 wife, to throw another wife out. It is all kind of weird to talk about. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You could be missing something very important to your eternal destiny.

[@BenMyers72]

@@raddiemutto7934 thanks for your response. It’s refreshing to hear that you can see what happened with Fanny and the whole polygamy scenario. With regard to the BoM, I used to think like you. For many years. Now, with a lot of research and thinking and study, I’ve come to the conclusion that the book has Joseph’s fingerprints all over it. I’ve tried Moroni’s promise several times and it never worked for me. That was a shelf item for a long time. Now, I know why. Because it’s not true. It’s all made up. It’s very well done - yes. But it’s not from God and it’s certainly not what it claims to be. There isn’t enough space here to explain how I’ve come to that conclusion. There is so much evidence against it being ancient scripture. Dig deeper and see for yourself.

[@raddiemutto7934]

@@BenMyers72 the book being made up is not a reasonable claim. Joseph dictated it word for word over 500 pages. We have the descriptions from the scribes and others. I take it you no longer believe in God or the devil. Fun fact the BOM isnt the only book created this way. The urantia book was similar. But at least i can admit the urantia book was from the devil or demons and not from man dictating it.

[@mattctr]

Joseph was a prophet until his death. Emma Bidamon, not so much.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

We do know Brigham young abused his position in the church to trick a woman into commuting adultery with him. Brigham young had a baby with zina diantha Huntington, a mother with two kids with her real husband Henry Bailey jacobs. Zina diantha Huntington is the great great grandma of orson Scott card, the author of Enders game.

[@mattctr]

@@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843 You’ve heard other faithless folk who have interpreted some information to draw those conclusions. Still Other faithful folk have looked at that same information and drawn very different, nearly opposite conclusions. Your word choice is deliberately inflammatory and shocking. Brigham Young remained a prophet until his death. You, not so much.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

So you believe in his Adam-god theory, his blood atonement theory, and his notion that every male who gets the celestial kingdom will need to be a polygamist?

[@mattctr]

@@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843 99% of people misunderstood his teachings on Adam, and yes, celestial law, including plural marriage, is a true principle, though currently not practiced fully by mortals on this side of the veil. If you flee to the future city of Zion, you will need to submit to Celestial Law, as the Lord Himself will dwell for a time with the Saints there before His coming to the Mount of Olives and final coming in Glory to all the world. Open your eyes. Truth has not failed, though men have.

[@leem3299]

@@mattctr You seem all sure of yourself. Good for you I guess. All religions have certainty. The most certain isn't how Jesus identifies his followers. He identifies them by, "... that you love one another, as I have loved you". How did he love? He didn't throw doctrine and religious certainty at people - that was the Pharisee long suit. Jesus actually loved those who religion had failed.

[@scottbrandon9390]

If Emma did see something in the barn, what could she do? Divorce was hard to obtain in 1836. Women and children were as pieces of chattel under the law, "owned" like livestock and land by the husband. Women were also bound financially by the husband. So she was stuck in this doctrine of plural marriage. Or she would have to accept it as a revelation (later written in D&C 132) and stick with JS which is what appears to have happened.

[@scottbrandon9390]

No she didn't.

[@MrArtist7777]

Great topic and thanks for sharing! I believe Joseph was doing his level best to obey God's commandment on plural marriage. Having descended from George Reynolds, who represented the entire church on plural marriage against the Fed. Gov't., and studying the topic thoroughly, I firmly believe Joseph was sealed to the some 33 women but only married to about 5, including Emma. They used sealed and Temple married synonymously back then but the definition of most of the sealings was just that: sealed. Brigham Young was sealed to Wilford Woodruff, not married, just sealed. I hope the church clears this topic up a bit more as there were relatively few Temple marriages but many Temple sealings.

[@jonbaker476]

As a guy who has been raised in the church my entire life, and who served a mission and everything, I gotta say: your interpretation of the "transaction" just doesn't seem remotely logical. It's kind of like the whole deal of him "only having eternal marriages with no sexual intercourse." First off, that doesn't coincide with the revelation of polygamy that Joseph had received earlier in his life. The purpose is to have children. If he isn't having sex or children, then why is he marrying them? Also, why was he marrying women who were married and sealed to other men? I mean, I don't think you guys realize how crazy it makes you look when you say things like this, trying to make him look spotless and clean like Jesus himself. Honestly it would be better to say: We believe Joseph to be called of God but he did have some sexual problems, which is what caused him to lose a connection to God at the end of his life and is what caused him to be killed at Carthage Jail, due to God's power not being present with him. Sort of like a King David figure but a bit holier. It's so obvious that Joseph was having an affair with Fanny Alger, and many other women as well. But who could blame him? He was trying to do a great work, and he was trying to also hold his family together as well (he had a very dysfunctional upbringing if you didn't know). It makes complete sense that all that stress would pour out somewhere in his life, and for men it's usually in the form of substance abuse or sexual addictions. And on top of that, he was a tall and handsome man who was almost worshiped to an extent. Most guys don't know what its like to have women throw themselves at you like I'm sure they did with him; he was like a religious rockstar. It's an incredibly tempting thing, which is why King David also fell. My point is that trying to cover these things up with your bizarre reasoning really makes you look like religious zealots and crazy people.

[@leem3299]

I agree with most of what you said except I don't see Joseph falling to the temptation of women throwing themselves at him. He wasn't Tiger Woods. Joseph specifically told women of all ages and situations that God wanted them to Mary him. Many of them were horrified at the prospect. But Joseph used the ol' "Pray to know that this is right, just as you know i'm a prophet of God". And wouldn't you know it, it usually worked. Enough desperate pleading in prayer and eventually some feeling of comfort came (because that's what prayer does to people who follow religious leaders) and whalla, they consented - and lived a very very difficult life. I'm not gonna give Joseph any slack on his woman collecting. He did a lot of impressive things that I can appreciate. But we gotta not excuse the unexcusable, or find a way to pretend it was ok. I haven't watched this video yet, and I think I won't because of your warning. I think I know what I would get if I watched. Thanks for the heads up.

[@lamaramariewilson6746]

I take no issue with the fact that the Prophet had many spouses. I see nothing wrong with polygamy, polyndry or even polyamory. I just don't like how the church has tried to cover up all this in the past. Also I don't agree with the churches view on LGBT marriages and I hope that one day these marriages will be accepted! Im part of this group and its the only thing that has stopped me from joining the church. I respect everyone's belief here and I mean no disrespect to anyone who reads this!

[@mca4093]

There is nothing wrong with sharing your thoughts and hopes. There are so many different types of contractual or exclusive type of relationships that can occur between people. Business, personal, etc. The marriage one has been for the purpose of reproducing children in a stable situation. So its hard for a lot of people to see the utility of a "gay" marriage beyond providing a loving promise between two people of the same sex. Do those types of relationships go on beyond this life? We haven't seen any theological evidence of that yet.

[@stanleyhall8951]

@@mrs.therapist6122 Everybody has their own opinion on the matter. I wonder what the real truth is about it.

[@wendyfoster5579]

Anyone that doesn’t know polygamy was part of the churches history must be living under a rock because it has been spread far and wide.

[@ryanadams5719]

He told Her god commanded his actions…..and if she didn’t condone/agree/accept she would meet her demise

[@mca4093]

Sounds like what my wife told me in certain words.

[@ryanadams5719]

@@mrs.therapist6122 ……True

[@MissJanina1]

​@@mrs.therapist6122She never liked it, but she accepted it.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

How do you restore something that was never a part of anything that needed to be restored. The men of old who took part in it were never commanded by God, they just did it. Abraham had little choice but to keep his wife happy when she told him to go make here a baby. Jacob was faced with the same thing. All the others went after their wives and concubines. So that doesn't count as something to be restored.

[@germanslice]

So you guys let yourself get all distracted by early church history instead of focusing on the straight and narrow way.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

We do know Brigham young abused his position in the church to trick a woman into commuting adultery with him. Brigham young had a baby with zina diantha Huntington, a mother with two kids with her real husband Henry Bailey jacobs. Zina diantha Huntington is the great great grandma of orson Scott card, the author of Enders game.

[@edmundoalarcon2000]

Yes and No... but Yes lol

[@dl1130]

Joseph only had 1 wife. Emma. I know this to be true because it was taught in Priesthood from the manual Teachings of the President's of the Church- Joseph Smith. That was not that many years ago. Brigham Young was the one who instituted plural marriage not Joseph. Why would the church leaders not teach the truth as prophets, seers and revalators? They have always told the members that they teach the history of the church more accurate then the anti literature and to trust them.

[@2013RUL]

He had many that is proven

[@scottbrandon9390]

At 6:05. "Some form of affection" or "transaction". Translation: Fanny and JS were boinking.

[@brettmajeske3525]

Potentially.

[@amandadangerfieldpiano]

We don’t know, said the man in this video.

[@scottbrandon9390]

@@amandadangerfieldpiano High probability.

[@scottbrandon9390]

@@brettmajeske3525Most likely.

[@stevenv6463]

They were in the barn just doing math homework. Relax guys hehe

[@umhewow]

Decent start to honesty, but still wrong in many ways. Joseph hid his polygamy publicly up until his death, which was one of the catalysts which led to Carthage. He ordered the nauvoo expositor to be burned down for printing that he was practicing polygamy, which he was denying, so at the end, the saints who left nauvoo didn’t know joe was doing this. Secondly, if you read the other accoutns of the other wives, They all share common stories about being promised salvation, or punishment in one form or another for either complying or denying his proposals, so obviously Fanny Alger or her parents thought they had to for salvation. Joseph manipulated these women

[@andremignacco6523]

The guy was simply a punk

[@henochparks]

Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy he practiced plural marriage. They are not the same. Polygamy is illegal. Plural marriage is legal . Best get it right.

[@ChaChaDancin]

And it wasn’t just polygamy. Joseph was married to other men’s’ wives. That’s polyandry. Totally compatible with Christianity. 😂

[@henochparks]

@@ChaChaDancin please produce a copy of these alleged marriage records . I you can't should we considered your claim is bogus?

[@ChaChaDancin]

@@henochparks you can consider whatever you want. Joseph Smith’s polyandry is well documented and acknowledged by LDS historians.

[@henochparks]

​@@ChaChaDancin I live in reality. There are no records of Joseph Smith being married to Anyone other than to Emma Hale Smith. There is no DNA evidence that anyone other than the children of Emma Hale Smith has Joseph Smith's DNA. No one! LDS scholars have not one marriage license of Joseph Smith and anyone other than Emma Smith. Tell us why not? Hancock County Illinois has no records of anyone being married to Joseph Smith. None. So produce the alleged records of Joseph Smith's marriages to prove polyandry or admit you are wrong.

[@biggentallen]

Yeah polygamy definitely came from God and was not made up by Joseph as an afterthought to explain away a "dirty nasty affair" that he had with a child house maid... just in case anybody ever doubted.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

We do know Brigham young abused his position in the church to trick a woman into commuting adultery with him. Brigham young had a baby with zina diantha Huntington, a mother with two kids with her real husband Henry Bailey jacobs. Zina diantha Huntington is the great great grandma of orson Scott card, the author of Enders game.

[@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843]

Totally broke dc 132 laws