Wife No. 19: Ann Eliza Webb

[_Mercury]

Whaaaaaa?

No comprendo.

to "bump" is to move the thread back to the top without adding any substance to the post. Around here we call it Nehor.

[_The Nehor]

Whaaaaaa?

No comprendo.

to "bump" is to move the thread back to the top without adding any substance to the post. Around here we call it Nehor.

Then we need a Mr. Nehor picture.

[_The Nehor]

so, in your opinion she wasn't religious, a good person, or reliable? And her book has been debunked?

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

I wouldn't say it's been debunked. I don't think the book was reliable as a historical source but then I also don't think it was intended to be either.

[_Mercury]

so, in your opinion she wasn't religious, a good person, or reliable? And her book has been debunked?

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

I wouldn't say it's been debunked. I don't think the book was reliable as a historical source but then I also don't think it was intended to be either.

What the hell is wrong with you? Its a story about authoritarian cultures and abuse. Religion has nothing to do with the validity of her story.

Think outside the church for once.

[_The Nehor]

so, in your opinion she wasn't religious, a good person, or reliable? And her book has been debunked?

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

I wouldn't say it's been debunked. I don't think the book was reliable as a historical source but then I also don't think it was intended to be either.

What the hell is wrong with you? Its a story about authoritarian cultures and abuse. Religion has nothing to do with the validity of her story.

Think outside the church for once.

It's a sensational story that takes liberty with the facts.

For example, her playing up her beauty and youth. She was a 24 year old divorcee with 2 children who had been living with her parents for years. In this day and age that might not be looked at oddly but back then she was in desperate circumstances in terms of finding marriage. She plays up that she was a borderline child and how she was more on par with Brigham's children then with his other wives of whom she was NOT the youngest.

[_Mercury]

so, in your opinion she wasn't religious, a good person, or reliable? And her book has been debunked?

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

I wouldn't say it's been debunked. I don't think the book was reliable as a historical source but then I also don't think it was intended to be either.

What the hell is wrong with you? Its a story about authoritarian cultures and abuse. Religion has nothing to do with the validity of her story.

Think outside the church for once.

It's a sensational story that takes liberty with the facts.

For example, her playing up her beauty and youth. She was a 24 year old divorcee with 2 children who had been living with her parents for years. In this day and age that might be looked at oddly. Back then she was in desperate circumstances. She plays up that she was a borderline child and how she was more on par with Brigham's children then with his other wives of whom she was NOT the youngest.

Mormons center their lives around a sensationalist story that takes GREAT liberty with the facts. Joseph played up his skills of translation and business so I don't see what the problem is with your characterization dude. According to you its a different story and the same type of situation. A white trashy self aggrandizing individual writes a book. Why don't you consider her a pillar of the community?

[_The Nehor]

Mormons center their lives around a sensationalist story that takes GREAT liberty with the facts. Joseph played up his skills of translation and business so I don't see what the problem is with your characterization dude. According to you its a different story and the same type of situation. A white trashy self aggrandizing individual writes a book. Why don't you consider her a pillar of the community?

To take that to it's logical conclusion: Since you hate Joseph, shouldn't you hate Ann Eliza too?

[_Dr. Shades]

Pahoran over at MAD board says that Ann Eliza Webb's book has been thoroughly debunked as a piece of garbage. I've read the book, and have heard the same accusations from other sources. . . Please help me out here...

In my opinion, the testimony of eyewitnesses--in other words, someone who walked the walk and talked the talk for many years, not just someone who saw something once with his spiritual eyes--is infinitely more reliable than a biased commentator well over a century removed from the facts.

[_skippy the dead]

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

If you base the measurement of how religious someone is on the number of doctrines they may have wrong, then I'd have to say that a large percentage of active believing LDS is not very religious. That's a silly basis - very few get all or even most of the doctrine right (see MAD as evidence), but are still quite devoted to the religion (i.e., religious).

[_The Nehor]

I don't think she was very religious. I base this on two observations. One, the lack of mention of her having a private religious life and two, she had quite a few doctrines wrong.

If you base the measurement of how religious someone is on the number of doctrines they may have wrong, then I'd have to say that a large percentage of active believing LDS is not very religious. That's a silly basis - very few get all or even most of the doctrine right (see MAD as evidence), but are still quite devoted to the religion (I.e., religious).

I'm not talking about esoteric things. I'm talking about the basics. She was wrong on points that Primary children could have corrected her on.