Are we enemies?

[_Pahoran]

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

He also rejoined the Church. Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.

How committed are you to following his example?

Show us why we shouldn't take Oliver's characterization as truth.

See above.

Show us why we should not believe that Joseph lied repeatedly about his involvement in plural marriage, since we can read his statements for ourselves in the contemporary newspaper.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do. Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.

Knowing how you choose to characterize your opponents, I'm not surprised.

Do you deny that you did it on purpose? Yes or no?

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.

He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.

He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.

under suspicious circumstances, when he was getting pressured from Emma and his family. And Emma was so excited about it when she first read it, she burned it.

Thus proving that you're not the only one to allows your own personal prejudices to cause you to reject the revealed Word of God.

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.

Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.

Self-evident? Pahoran, you wouldn't know self-evident if it bit you on the nose. You deliberately ignore any and all evidence that does not support your world view. Don't talk to me about self-evident, when you have no grasp of the evidence at all.

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.

And I, on the other hand, have had confirmation from the initial source that indeed, he does not.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.

You choose to move the discussion to the literal, and away from the figuretive?

What sort of dodge is this? Are you now claiming that Joseph only figuratively lied, that he only figuratively committed adultery, that he only figuratively invented a revelation, that he only figuratively lost his prophetic calling?

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?

You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS.

I know more than you can possibly imagine.

For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.

So don't go talking like you know what you don't know, because not only do you not know, but no one else does either. I repeat: the books aren't open. So you don't know anything about the Latter-day Saints. No one does.

I agree that you know nothing at all. It is an astoundingly stupid mistake to project your own vast ignorance--of which you are justifiably proud--upon everyone else.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Ray A]

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

Do you have a source for that, Pahoran?

[_Runtu]

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

Do you have a source for that, Pahoran?

I'm guessing that this excerpt from the Far West Record:

April 12 1838

[High council presided over by Joseph Smith. Council called to consider the case of Oliver Cowdery who had written a long letter of protest to Edward Partridge regarding the Church's involvement in civic matters and particularly the matter of Cowdery's property in Far West. The council heard charges against Cowdery and deliberated on his standing. Cowdery was excommunicated. For the account see FWR. Joseph Smith's remarks occupy only a small part of the record, but indicate his attitude regarding Cowdery and their history in the restoration. The remarks made by Joseph are in regard to the insinuation made by Cowdery to several brethren that Joseph was guilty of adultery. To set the context, we include testimony which drew forth Joseph's remarks.]

. . . George W. Harris testifies that one evening last fall [see November 7, 1837 FWR.] O. Cowdery was at his house together with Joseph Smith jr, and Thomas B. Marsh, when a conversation took place between Joseph Smith jr & O. Cowdery, when he seemed to insinuate that Joseph Smith jr was guilty of adultery, but when the question was put, if he (Joseph) had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing; when he [Oliver] answered No. . .

. . . David W. Patten testifies, that he went to Oliver Cowdery to enquire of him if a certain story was true respecting J. Smith's committing adultery with a certain girl 1, when he turned on his heel and insinuated as though he [Joseph] was guilty; he then went on and gave a history of some circumstances respecting the adultery scrape stating that no doubt it was true. Also said that Joseph told him, he had confessed to Emma, . . .

. . . Thomas B. Marsh testifies that while in Kirtland last summer, David W. Patten asked Oliver Cowdery if he Joseph Smith jr had confessed to his wife that he was guilty of adultery with a certain girl, when Oliver Cowdery cocked up his eye very knowingly and hesitated to answer the question, saying he did not know as he was bound to answer the question yet conveyed the idea that it was true. Last fall after Oliver came to this place he heard a conversation take place between Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery when J. Smith asked him if he [Joseph] had ever confessed to him that he was guilty of adultery, when after a considerable winking &c. he said No. Joseph then asked him if he ever told him that he confessed to any body, when he answered No.

Joseph Smith jr testifies that Oliver Cowdery had been his bosom friend, therefore he intrusted him with many things. 2 He then gave a history respecting the girl business.

[_harmony]

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.

Then where is he in this conversation? Oh that's right. He's not here. He hasn't said anything, therefore he isn't the source of your understanding.

And Pahoran... you have no idea what I've published, on what subject I'm published, or what I'm considered expert in. And just because I don't tell you shouldn't be construed to mean I am not published, expert, or a consultant. You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

So... you deny this:

Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren, in January 1838, "When [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, 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." Johnson cites this letter in support of the contention that Joseph Smith Jr. initiated the first plural marriage with a young woman living in his home as a maid, Fanny Alger.[2] Although not named as a complaint in the letter or excommunication, Cowdery opposed the plural marriage doctrine.

It's from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

He also rejoined the Church.

Since I've not left the church, our situations are not similiar and this has no bearing on this discussion. Why are you introducing this red herring?

Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.

Fanny Alger was not a factor in Oliver's excommunication, nor was she a factor in his reconciliation with the church. Why are you conflating them? Do you have an agenda, like maybe to obscure what is plain to anyone reading the account?

How committed are you to following his example?

Not at all.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do.

If you think this is bait and switch, you have a strange definition of the practice.

Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"

Any time Joseph spoke from the pulpit, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.

Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife: one woman, but one husband, except in teh case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836) Joseph Smith
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I 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 then lived with his family 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 of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.

Wrong again, Pahoran. There is plenty of evidence, and it damns him.

He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.

Indeed, and you have no evidence that the revelation existed anywhere but in Joseph's mind. No witnesses, no heavenly messengers, no written record of when it was received. Which tells me it never was received, just like the priesthood ban (also based on a nonexistent revelation).

He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.

Oh balderdash, Pahoran. Joseph covered up his marriages until the day he died! He lived a clandestine, furtive, hidden life for his last 2 years, getting more and more caught up in his lies and flat out ruining his children's and Emma's lives and peace.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.

On the contrary, Pahoran, I can prove he lied, and I can prove he did it when he was acting as God's mouthpiece. Therefore, he lied in God's name... repeatedly. (see above quotes)

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?

Sweetie, this is not raving. This is harmony at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating. And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.

You might want to take that to heart, Pahoran. Your "Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does." is less than convincing.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.

No filthy fantasies here, P. Just delivering the message that Joseph lied. You're trying to kill the messenger, but I've got my asbestos suit on, so I'm immune.

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?

Not hardly. I'm female. We can't be blamed for any stupidity that comes out over any prophet's signature.

You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

And you have no authority to speak for the church... none.

Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS.

I know more than you can possibly imagine.

One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.

For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.

*sigh* Pahoran, Pahoran. Try to keep up, sweetie. You can't talk about the faith of the LDS, when you can't verify that anyone (not one single person) besides yourself has faith. You can talk about your faith, but you can't extrapolate your faith to anyone else. You don't have the authority to make any claims for the LDS church.

[_MormonMendacity]

<snip>For the record, I think the church works for some people. I know a lot of people who would be far worse off if they did not have Mormonism in their lives. (emphasis added)

Really? I wonder at your knowledge. How can one judge if a person would be "far worse off" without Mormonism?

I don't believe I'm one of those people, but I don't begrudge them for getting something out of the religion that I don't.

I agree with that. I do wonder if the constraints reinforce feeling of self-loathing. I know people who persist in holding on who suffer from depression. I constantly reaffirmed my happiness and alternatively repressed and then exhibited this kind of depression.

What do you think? Are we enemies, or just people who disagree passionately?

I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.

[_Runtu]

<snip>For the record, I think the church works for some people. I know a lot of people who would be far worse off if they did not have Mormonism in their lives. (emphasis added)

Really? I wonder at your knowledge. How can one judge if a person would be "far worse off" without Mormonism?

One example: I have a relative who suffers from a mental illness and has had periods of activity and inactivity in the church. This relative functions much better when she is involved in the church, mostly because it gives her a sense of stability and a support group. And because "the gospel" gives her a focus she otherwise doesn't have. Could she find something else that works for her? I'm sure she could, but given her background and experience, Mormonism is the one thing that is readily at hand.

I don't believe I'm one of those people, but I don't begrudge them for getting something out of the religion that I don't.

I agree with that. I do wonder if the constraints reinforce feeling of self-loathing. I know people who persist in holding on who suffer from depression. I constantly reaffirmed my happiness and alternatively repressed and then exhibited this kind of depression.

I agree with you. That's one of the things that I've realized after leaving: we spent an awful lot of time telling ourselves how happy we were, all the while we had it reinforced that we were not good enough.

What do you think? Are we enemies, or just people who disagree passionately?

I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.

I would think that's quite clear from your posts. I'm not a fan of the church, obviously, but I am not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. In its current state, it does a lot of damage to people. Can that change? I don't know. I hope so.

[_MormonMendacity]

I would think that's quite clear from your posts. I'm not a fan of the church, obviously, but I am not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. In its current state, it does a lot of damage to people. Can that change? I don't know. I hope so.

I am also not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world; I believe there are many who want it to be a good one.

What I have come to realize is that engaging in topics that are off-limits -- even while attempting to do so respectfully -- has put me in the camp of the enemies. Over the years, my determination to engage in a gentle discourse with my Mormon friends and familes has eroded.

I frankly am happy to let them be LDS -- and in peace about it -- but they seem unable, or unwilling, to grant the same privilege of letting me worship how, where or what I may.

For example, when they give a child's blessing they never turn to me and ask if I would like to sacrifice a goat to Baal.

[_wenglund]

I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.

Actually, you show yourself to be an enemy with statements like your last sentence above.

To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature (look how you wish to control the Church leaders and even your loved ones). It also is contra-supportive of your loved ones, and thus unwittingly an exaccerbation of the depression you claim to be concerned about. In other words, you are stupidly "victimizing" the supposed "victims".

Please, for everyone's sake (including your own), take a moments pause from your self-deluding Joan-of-Arch complex, and try educating yourself on the REAL causes and treatments of depression. That way you just might stop insipidly trying to rob people of key preventions and interventions for depression, or discontinue supplanting corrosive elements instead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MormonMendacity]

To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature...

To be equally as honest and frank, your analysis indicates your poor reading and comprehension skills. Lord help the souls you psycho-babelize!

I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.

I don't portend to be their rescuer like you pretend to be smart.

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.

Then where is he in this conversation? Oh that's right. He's not here. He hasn't said anything, therefore he isn't the source of your understanding.

And Pahoran... you have no idea what I've published, on what subject I'm published, or what I'm considered expert in. And just because I don't tell you shouldn't be construed to mean I am not published, expert, or a consultant.

There are a great many fields of knowledge, and you may indeed be an expert in one or more of them.

But you are not an expert in Mormon things, including but not limited to LDS history. You know practically nothing about it at all.

And yet you explicitly claimed to know more about it than Plutarch does, then immediately denied that the specific kind of knowledge he questioned was even necessary.

You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

So... you deny this:

Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren, in January 1838, "When [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, 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." Johnson cites this letter in support of the contention that Joseph Smith Jr. initiated the first plural marriage with a young woman living in his home as a maid, Fanny Alger.[2] Although not named as a complaint in the letter or excommunication, Cowdery opposed the plural marriage doctrine.

It's from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

Do I deny that Oliver said it? No.

Was he being strictly truthful at the time? Perhaps not.

Was he right? Of course not.

He also rejoined the Church.

Since I've not left the church, our situations are not similiar and this has no bearing on this discussion. Why are you introducing this red herring?

That you have not the integrity to leave the Church you loathe, detest and slander at every opportunity is something that surprises me not at all; but you ought not to be so very proud of that fact.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.

Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.

Fanny Alger was not a factor in Oliver's excommunication, nor was she a factor in his reconciliation with the church. Why are you conflating them? Do you have an agenda, like maybe to obscure what is plain to anyone reading the account?

No.

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.

How committed are you to following his example?

Not at all.

Of course not; he did, after all, show some integrity in the end.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do.

If you think this is bait and switch, you have a strange definition of the practice.

You claim that Joseph lied "in the name of the Lord" and when pressed, appeal to some statements published in "contemporary newspapers."

Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"

Any time Joseph spoke from the pulpit, he spoke as God's mouthpiece.

So this is the feeble justification you offer for your false accusations, is it? That because Joseph was standing at a pulpit he was therefore speaking "as God's mouthpiece?"

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"

Or did you just make that up?

He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.

Even if that is the case--and I do not concede that it is--it does NOT justify your evil and malicious accusation that he "lied in the name of the Lord."

Did you really think that I, of all people, would fall for it?

Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife: one woman, but one husband, except in teh case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836) Joseph Smith
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Thank you, and please note that these two statements are actually one statement reprinted. Please also note that Joseph authored neither of them.

Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I 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 then lived with his family 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 of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.

Wrong again, Pahoran. There is plenty of evidence, and it damns him.

Then produce it, and stop merely asserting it.

Until you do, I say that you are merely manifesting the content of your own mind.

He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.

Indeed, and you have no evidence that the revelation existed anywhere but in Joseph's mind. No witnesses, no heavenly messengers, no written record of when it was received. Which tells me it never was received, just like the priesthood ban (also based on a nonexistent revelation).

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."

He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.

Oh balderdash, Pahoran. Joseph covered up his marriages until the day he died!

And given the murderous rage the "Christianity" of his neighbours was likely to manifest, who could blame him?

Sorry, let me rephrase that: what reasonable person could blame him?

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other. Only the very vilest of haters--and that would include you--resort to the "charlatan" or "cover-up" explanation. Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.

He lived a clandestine, furtive, hidden life for his last 2 years, getting more and more caught up in his lies and flat out ruining his children's and Emma's lives and peace.

Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.

On the contrary, Pahoran, I can prove he lied, and I can prove he did it when he was acting as God's mouthpiece. Therefore, he lied in God's name... repeatedly. (see above quotes)

Your argument is a non sequitur, and your above quotes do not support it.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.

Which is what "lying in the name of the Lord" actually means. It does not mean "lying while in his employ," which is the only way your mendacious word game actually works.

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?

Sweetie, this is not raving. This is harmony at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating.

Well, "Harmony"--or rather, Discord--at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating, is still raving by anyone else's standards.

And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.

Uh-huh. So you resort to mere hand-waving.

In other words, you have nothing.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.

You might want to take that to heart, Pahoran. Your "Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does." is less than convincing.

So sorry, but perhaps I'm not making myself plain: even if Joseph was every bit as dishonest as you accuse him of being, he would still have been more honest than you. I find it infinitely more likely that you would lie about a divine manifestation than that he would.

And besides, my own witness contradicts yours. So I will trust mine, knowing that at least mine actually happened.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.

No filthy fantasies here, P. Just delivering the message that Joseph lied.

Which is part of your filthy fantasy.

Besides, we both know that if you really believed that he lied, that would merely make you admire him the more.

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?

Not hardly. I'm female. We can't be blamed for any stupidity that comes out over any prophet's signature.

Thank you. So since you don't claim to be a prophet, you'll excuse me for not following you. In order for someone to be a true prophet, they must at least claim to be.

You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

And you have no authority to speak for the church... none.

No, but I can say what the faith of the Latter-day Saints consists in, because unlike you, I actually share it.

One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.

I can't think of any argument less "scintillating" that the absurd counterfactual that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." You must have been awfully desperate to resort to that.

For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.

*sigh* Pahoran, Pahoran. Try to keep up, sweetie. You can't talk about the faith of the LDS, when you can't verify that anyone (not one single person) besides yourself has faith.

*Sigh* Discord, Discord. I am keeping up, sourie. You are intentionally equivocating here. The fact that a community has a shared faith with a given content is one that does not depend upon the ability of any member of that community being able to verify that any other member has faith. The two things are spelled the same, but they do not mean the same.

I can't believe you thought I'd fall for that obvious and maladroit deception.

Regards,
Pahoran