Publications on Mormon History

[_harmony]

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.

The sealing power is the only saving grace for polygamy. Otherwise it's just a bunch of old men shacking up with young girls, making promises they can't keep so they can strut around like bantycocks. Without the authority to seal, there is no authority to marry outside of the law, which is why Joseph hid his activities, lied about them from the pulpit, allowed the marriage section in the Book of Commandments to stand. And the sealing authority wasn't "restored" ever so conveniently, until 1836, 5 years after the dirty little affair with Fanny.

Fanny, again, Daniel. You can never escape Fanny, because Joseph took her, a virgin, to his bed (or rather in the barn if I remember right from Oliver's account) when he was married to Emma. That's called adultery in anyone's book. And I could understand it, and forgive it, if he'd ever repented. He didn't. He lied about it, invented revelations to cover it, induced his targets to lie for him, and slandered those who refused him.

He was sleaze and you know it. Everything he did after Fanny is tainted. All of it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm aware of your position, harmony. Thank you for sharing it again.






.

[_Yoda]

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.

But, Daniel, you are not providing any information to counter her, either. The reason you have given is that "you are not interested in the subject."

I specifically asked you for information which would "clear" Joseph of any wrongdoing in the case of Fanny. You couldn't, or didn't have the inclination, to provide it.

You have to admit....the case against Joseph in regards to Fanny is pretty strong. I would honestly be very interested in what you have read that paints a different picture of this situation.

Even if you choose to paraphrase some of your prior readings, I would be interested. This issue is very troublesome for me, and I know it is troublesome for others who are members as well.

[_harmony]

I'm fully aware of your (Moderator Note)Personal attack edited by Liz 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.

(Moderator Note) Personal attack edited by Liz

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.

I don't say "remember Fanny". Just Fanny. That's enough to set you off. She's part of Mormon history you'd like to hide in the basement closet under a trapdoor. I only say Fanny to remind you of your support of a lying adulterer.

(Moderator Note)Personal attack edited by LizI'll be pleased to hear your explanations about how a man can sleep with a teenager while married to someone else, hide it, repeat it, lie about it, seduce his friends into it, and still maintain the mantle of prophet.

That's Mormon history.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But, Daniel, you are not providing any information to counter her, either. The reason you have given is that "you are not interested in the subject."

We haven't actually been talking about the case of Fanny Alger.

We've been talking about whether the fact that the sealing power wasn't restored until after the Fanny Alger matter is vitally important. Harmony thinks it is; I can't see why it should be.

But even that was a distraction from the original issue, which was about whether simply invoking "Remember Fanny!" is an adequate substitute for historical knowledge. I think it isn't.

In any event, the reason I gave for not supplying you with a list of sources is that I don't have one readily available. I indicated, however, that the review that I had edited (and of which I had turned the hard copy -- the only version of it in my possession -- over to the relevant staff editor in order to enter my editorial suggestions) features a brief discussion of the Fanny Alger case, with references, that I had found useful. I further indicated that that review will be published shortly.

I specifically asked you for information which would "clear" Joseph of any wrongdoing in the case of Fanny. You couldn't, or didn't have the inclination, to provide it.

See above.

You have to admit....the case against Joseph in regards to Fanny is pretty strong. I would honestly be very interested in what you have read that paints a different picture of this situation.

Even if you choose to paraphrase some of your prior readings, I would be interested. This issue is very troublesome for me, and I know it is troublesome for others who are members as well.

Whether this review will help you or all others, I can't say. I thought it was well done, and quite useful.

I don't, however, think that there's much point in my attempting to paraphrase it without supporting references.

[_Daniel Peterson]

(Moderator Note)Personal attacks edited by Liz

So much for civil disagreement.

She's part of Mormon history you'd like to hide in the basement closet under a trapdoor.

I'm sending an essay that discusses her to press on Friday.

a man can sleep with a teenager while married to someone else, hide it, repeat it, lie about it, seduce his friends into it, and still maintain the mantle of prophet.

That's Mormon history.

Yup. In your mind, that pretty much sums it up.

Why do you bother?

But the real question is, Why do I bother?

Goodbye, harmony.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This was the opening post of the thread, in case anybody here cares:

I finally got my copy of Reid L. Neilson and Terryl L. Givens, eds., Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), with essays by Richard Brodhead, Klaus Hansen, Richard Dilworth Rust, Catherine Albanese, James Allen, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Douglas Davies, Margaret Barker and Kevin Christensen, Laurie Maffly-Kipp, Richard Mouw, Wayne Hudson, Reid Neilson, and David Whittaker.

I just picked up my copy of BYU Studies 47/3 (2008), which, despite its ostensible date, is just off the press. It's a special issue entitled "Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents," and was guest edited by Richard Turley and Ronald Walker. The contents include photographs and transcriptions of important materials from the Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris collections, as well as associated articles and reviews.

And, just this afternoon, I finished editing a wonderful, lengthy review of a recent book on early Mormon polygamy that romps through the standard attacks on Joseph Smith for his alleged sexual libertinism, his supposed arrogance, his purported greed, etc. It will appear in the next issue of the FARMS Review.

There's good stuff, for those who read.

[_Yoda]

I'm sending an essay that discusses her to press on Friday.

Thanks, Daniel. I look forward to reading it.

[_harmony]

On page 1, in reference to Fanny, Daniel said:

The references that describe it {Fanny and Joseph's relationship} as a marriage.

My emphasis of Daniel's word.

My point is Fanny and Joseph's relationship was not a marriage; there was no way it could have been a marriage. He was already married to Emma.

There was no way their relationship could even have been a sealing (the escape clause for every other extramarital affair he and his friends had); the sealing power was not restored until 5 years later in 1836.

It was exactly what it looked like: a dirty little affair, as Oliver wrote. Adultery. The sin second only to murder.

And that, my friends, is what this discussion has been about. Daniel thinks if he insults me enough, (shall I list them?) I will shut up about Fanny. Not gonna happen. Fanny was the biggest turning point in church history, the turning point that impacted the church more than any other single event. Every event from then on stems from Joseph dropping his pants and his mantle with Fanny.

[_Nevo]

My point is Fanny and Joseph's relationship was not a marriage; there was no way it could have been a marriage. He was already married to Emma.

According to Mosiah Hancock's autobiography, his father Levi (Fanny's uncle) married Joseph and Fanny: "Father gave her to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated it to him." That sure sounds like a marriage--or at least a semblance of one. Of course, it wasn't a legally recognized marriage, but then none of Joseph's plural marriages were.