Publications on Mormon History

[_harmony]

The references that describe it as a marriage.

A marriage. In 1831. Joseph already had a marriage when he was involved in the dirty little "affair" in 1831. That's why Oliver referred to the situation as a dirty little "affair".

The sealing power had not been restored in 1831. If there was a secret "marriage" ceremony, it had no authority because the sealing power wasn't restored until 1836. Fanny was an adulterous affair, since Joseph was still legally married to Emma in 1831.

I'll be delighted to read this review. I'm looking forward to it. I may even print it and put it with my other notes surrounding the years after Joseph dropped his mantle when he dropped his pants and entered Fanny's bed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never interacted with a Bickertonite before, harmony, and so it's interesting to learn about your point of view.

Thanks.

[_harmony]

I've never interacted with a Bickertonite before, harmony, and so it's interesting to learn about your point of view.

Thanks.

My temple recommend says Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours. My tithing checks say Pay to the order of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours do. My administrative access to my ward website is granted from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the owner of the site.

Fanny, Daniel. Never forget Fanny.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My temple recommend says Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours. My tithing checks say Pay to the order of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours do. My administrative access to my ward website is granted from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the owner of the site.

I'm aware of that, and genuinely wonder why you bother.

Fanny, Daniel. Never forget Fanny.

I'm aware of Fanny, and that, for you, she represents the essence of Mormon history and essentially all you feel you need to know about it.

I wonder why you want to remind me of that embarrassing fact.

[_harmony]

My temple recommend says Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours. My tithing checks say Pay to the order of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same as yours do. My administrative access to my ward website is granted from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the owner of the site.

I'm aware of that, and genuinely wonder why you bother.

Because it's my church too.

Fanny, Daniel. Never forget Fanny.

I'm aware of Fanny, and that, for you, she represents the essence of Mormon history and essentially all you feel you need to know about it.

I wonder why you want to remind me of that embarrassing fact.

I agree it's embarrassing for Mormons to have to admit that our first prophet was a lying adulterer who thought more of his extramarital activities than the mantle of prophet... very embarrassing.

Fanny, Daniel. Never forget Fanny. When you're out there, fighting the good fight, tooth and nail, hip and thigh, remember Fanny... and what Joseph laid down when he lay down with her.

[_Chap]

[...]

Fanny, Daniel. Never forget Fanny.

I'm aware of Fanny, and that, for you, she represents the essence of Mormon history and essentially all you feel you need to know about it.

I wonder why you want to remind me of that embarrassing fact.

I wonder how many people will think DCP's response is an effective one?

Harmony insists on attention to Fanny in the context of this discussion for reasons that seem quite cogent: the liaison with Fanny (at least on the evidence cited by Harmony) does not seem to be open to the same apologetic tactics as later liaisons, which it appears could be argued by believing LDS to be legitimate plural marriages carried out using authority conferred on Joseph Smith. And there is some evidence that one of Smith's associates referred to the liason as a 'dirty affair'.

If she is right, it would seem that Smith did something very disreputable quite early in his alleged prophetic career: that may not render his prophetic status completely unbelievable, but it certainly would render it more problematic than it would have been if Harmony's point was invalid.

If DCP is very familiar with the point that Harmony is making, many of his faithful readers might think it more effective for him to remind us of his no doubt crushing rebuttal, rather than (I suspect inaccurately) suggesting that this is the only point relating to the CoJCoLDS that she ever brings up.

(And even if that were true, what would it have to do with the truth or falsity of her argument?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Harmony employs the word Fanny as an incantation to ward of the intellectual obligation to learn something about a topic before pronouncing judgment on it.

That's intellectually disreputable, and obviously so.

It's embarrassing to see anybody else seeking to aid and abet her in her attempt to fudge that manifest truth.

As to the restoration of the sealing power and the claimed commandment to enter into plural marriage, the two are distinct. The former doesn't have to precede the latter chronologically any more than the bestowal of the sealing power has to have preceded the contracting of monogamous marriages.

[_Chap]

Harmony employs the word Fanny as an incantation to ward of the intellectual obligation to learn something about a topic before pronouncing judgment on it.

That's intellectually disreputable, and obviously so.

It's embarrassing to see anybody else seeking to aid and abet her in her attempt to fudge that manifest truth.

As to the restoration of the sealing power and the claimed commandment to enter into plural marriage, the two are distinct. The former doesn't have to precede the latter chronologically any more than the bestowal of the sealing power has to have preceded the contracting of monogamous marriages.

Good. Now DCP has actually deigned to make a counter-argument to Harmony, the matter can be discussed by those with an inclination to do so.

(It's so embarrassing to see an intellectual and a Church leader of such eminence get all huffy and puffy instead of keeping his cool and making a reasonable point in response to a challenge. Glad that's over!)

[_harmony]

Harmony employs the word Fanny as an incantation to ward of the intellectual obligation to learn something about a topic before pronouncing judgment on it.

That's intellectually disreputable, and obviously so.

Balderdash. "Fanny" is shorthand for everything Joseph did prior to authorization, prior to revelation, after kicking his gift to the metaphoric curb. "Fanny" is a reminder that Joseph had a gift that he squandered, defiled, and corrupted because he couldn't/wouldn't control his libido. "Fanny" is useful.

It's embarrassing to see anybody else seeking to aid and abet her in her attempt to fudge that manifest truth.

Chap gets it, Daniel. You could, if you would, but you deliberately don't. Not my fault, and certainly not Chap's.

As to the restoration of the sealing power and the claimed commandment to enter into plural marriage, the two are distinct. The former doesn't have to precede the latter chronologically any more than the bestowal of the sealing power has to have preceded the contracting of monogamous marriages.

He was already married in 1831, Daniel. There is on getting around that. Chap gets that too; and again, you refuse to.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm fully aware of your Bickertonite convictions, harmony. I "get" them. I simply don't agree with them, and am not inclined to grant them as the premises for discussion. They are points at issue, not shared territory.

Good. Now DCP has actually deigned to make a counter-argument to Harmony, the matter can be discussed by those with an inclination to do so.

(It's so embarrassing to see an intellectual and a Church leader of such eminence get all huffy and puffy instead of keeping his cool and making a reasonable point in response to a challenge. Glad that's over!)

The fundamental point, which you plainly missed -- I charitably suggest that it's because you're not as familiar as I am with harmony's repeated and proud announcements of her failure to read much if anything on Mormon history while routinely pronouncing on the subject, a stance that she seeks to justify with the ever-potent defense "Remember Fanny!" -- is that, in discussing Mormon history, nothing can substitute for knowledge of Mormon history.