Wife No. 19: Ann Eliza Webb

[_Dr. Shades]

She was wrong on points that Primary children could have corrected her on.

Primary children today, perhaps, but not Primary children of the Nineteenth Century.

Don't fall into the presentism trap.

[_The Nehor]

She was wrong on points that Primary children could have corrected her on.

Primary children today, perhaps, but not Primary children of the Nineteenth Century.

Don't fall into the presentism trap.

No, I'm guessing the children then would know this stuff too.

[_Coca Cola]

Perhaps that debunking was sort of like a FARMS review. The evidence in this case was that the Journal of Discourses told the members to pray and she didn't mention it. It really doesn't address anything specifically but it helps fill the page and looks like a rebuttal.

Oh -- that would make sense.

[_Coca Cola]

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

Oh, well, thank you!

[_The Nehor]

Perhaps that debunking was sort of like a FARMS review. The evidence in this case was that the Journal of Discourses told the members to pray and she didn't mention it. It really doesn't address anything specifically but it helps fill the page and looks like a rebuttal.

Note that I stated in the beginning that it was not a rebuttal, just an analysis. A good start for discussion of rebuttal might be Nibley's analysis of the book.

[_moksha]

Perhaps that debunking was sort of like a FARMS review. The evidence in this case was that the Journal of Discourses told the members to pray and she didn't mention it. It really doesn't address anything specifically but it helps fill the page and looks like a rebuttal.

Note that I stated in the beginning that it was not a rebuttal, just an analysis.

It was a marvelous analysis.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

She was wrong on points that Primary children could have corrected her on.

Primary children today, perhaps, but not Primary children of the Nineteenth Century.

Don't fall into the presentism trap.

No, I'm guessing the children then would know this stuff too.

It's been a while since I read it. Could you maybe mention a couple of those points of doctrine?

[_The Nehor]

She was wrong on points that Primary children could have corrected her on.

Primary children today, perhaps, but not Primary children of the Nineteenth Century.

Don't fall into the presentism trap.

No, I'm guessing the children then would know this stuff too.

It's been a while since I read it. Could you maybe mention a couple of those points of doctrine?

It's been a while for me too. I can't recall them exactly but I'll get back to you. I should have time to dig out the book and do some reading tomorrow. If not, Sunday.

[_Coggins7]

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

Hmmmm. Sounds very much like Sister Beck. Could we have a genre here?

[_Dale]

I plan to buy a copy. I do not consider her as always saying stuff that fits reality. It will not stop me from buying the book, or reading it. I read quotes from her and i prefer if possible to read a persons quotes in the original.