Joseph and Fanny-Asking for Will's Opinion in Particular

[_DarkHelmet]

Why do critics discount fanny's role in seduction.

WhyMe, you are taking a losing and despicable position and losing credibility by the second.

If you look at it as an affair, the blame goes on the 30-ish year old married prophet far, far more than the single 18-ish year old girl working for him. At best, Fanny would have been just past the age at which she could give her own consent to a marriage in Ohio at the time. She was at a far lower level of emotional, and therefore moral, responsibility. And he was in a position of fiduciary responsibility for her.

Please, quit while you're behind.

Don

Why Me is only projecting his own thoughts and feelings to this case. I'm sure if he was caught in an affair with an 18 year old baby-sitter, he would blame the babysitter for seducing him, at least based on his comments here.

[_Seven]

"DonBradley"

Seven,

Your perspective on Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger seem to me very reasoned.

I wrote a long response, which I lost. I've rewritten it below, but in a somewhat more summary form.

I hate when that happens.
I get sidetracked when I am replying to a post and after a certain amount of time, MD logs me out and loses the post. Now I try to copy it before submitting, if I remember to. (or type it in Word first)
Did you see Cinepro's comment on how to save those posts?

Fifth, Mosiah, in his larger addendum to his father's autobiography (of which his Fanny Alger account is part), defends his memories of the early days against critics who say he was too young to recall such things, citing as evidence for his powers of memory the fact that he has always kept the Word of Wisdom. (Apparently doing so ensures not only that you will walk and not faint but also that you will remember and not confabulate.)

And, sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Mosiah Hancock's Fanny Alger story is completely alien to the monogamous Kirtland context in which it supposedly occurred yet completely at home in the polygamous Utah context in which he recorded it. If you go reread the story, you'll see that the whole context for the "exchange of women" is that Mosiah's mother (Clarissa Reed) had already been living in the Joseph Smith home--and it was therefore naturally expected, according to Mosiah, that she would marry Smith. Levi knows this, so he approaches Joseph with some caution to ask permission to marry her despite Joseph's own presumed intentions. And it is because of this that Joseph is in a position to bargain: I'll let you have Clarissa if you'll get me Fanny....

Those two points are the most persuasive for me of your position that Mosiah fabricated the story of his mother and fathers marriage.
However, if Joseph had already been teaching polygamy since 1831 to his inner circle, why would this exchange be so foreign?
If Levi and Clarrissa were married in 1833, what is the motive for Levi to insert this story of his cousin Fanny Alger into their marriage story?


Is there evidence that the inner circle had been seeking and taking wives among the "Lamanites" as Joseph taught them to in 1831?

Compton is right to point out that the "exchange of women" described by Mosiah Hancock fits with polygamous cultures. But early Kirtland was not a polygamous culture. It was a thoroughly monogamous culture in which polygamy could only be a scandal to be denounced and would therefore have to be practiced in entire secrecy.

But again, if Joseph had already been teaching polygamy in 1831 as the evidence shows, then why wouldn't Levi assume that Joseph, in his position of power as Prophet, gets first claim on Clarrissa?

[_DonBradley]

At this moment I have the mind of a critic, not an apologist. Critics are constantly lambasting Joseph Smith and omitting fanny's role. We all assume that fanny was asexual with no sexual desire. But it might not be so. She had many children with her husband which means she was sexually active. Now was this activity forced by her husband or was it desired?

Obviously Fanny was a sexual being and likely wanted and enjoyed whatever relationship they had. I don't think anyone is denying that. And she clearly had some moral agency. But that wouldn't make the two equally accountable, because:

He was well into adulthood; she was just past(?) childhood.

He was married; she was single.

He was a prophet; she wasn't.

He was either her employer or her caretaker, and therefore had both legal and moral responsibilities to her but could, if he chose, abuse his position of responsibility over her. She had no comparable responsibility for him, if she had any at all.


It should also be noted that:

He was of the gender more known for its seductions. She was not.

He has a known pattern of nonmonogamous relationships. She does not.

Whether the relationship was an affair or a marriage, which of these two would seem the most likely to have initiated it?


The two are not and cannot be equally morally responsible in this situation regardless of what Fanny did--and there's no reason to think she was the one who attempted to initiate the relationship. If she had used all her wiles, she would still be the child or quasi-child, he would still be the obvious adult; she would still be the member of his flock, he would still be her prophet; she would still be under his employment or care, he would still have fiduciary responsibility for her.

Therefore in any case he would be, by far, the more responsible party.

Case closed.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Because Joseph was 30 and married, .

He wasn't 30. He was born in 1805 and you have him having sex with fanny in 1833. Do the math? He was 27 or 28 years old.

WhyMe,

You've just read through pages of argument in which I've presented evidence that the relationship occurred in 1835 and/or 1836. If you do the math, you may find a little surprise there.

But if you take the March 1833 timing, Joseph was indeed 27. And Fanny was only 16. Now do the emotional math, using either set of figures. Who is expected to be more responsible? Note that in the latter case, Fanny is not even 18. Now go dust off your 1830s era Ohio statute books and tell me the significance of that.

by the way, I'm out of this particular side discussion with you, WhyMe. There are some positions one regrets taking dignifying with a response.

Don

[_Seven]

There is no contemporaneous report of Fanny Alger rumors before her expulsion from the home, nor do any of the other nineteen known sources on the Fanny Alger relationship indicate that such rumors were circulating before Emma abruptly put Fanny out of the house. Indeed, in other accounts that report the source of the rumors that source is Emma's discovery of the relationship and expulsion of Fanny from the house, which I can positively date to 1836.

by the way, in answer to another of your questions, yes, I can trace Fanny Alger throughout the relevant period.

Hi Don,
Does the evidence dating the expulsion from the house at 1836 relate to Emma discovering Joseph having sexual intercourse in the barn, or the discovery that Fanny was pregnant with Joseph's child as Ann Eliza Webb implies? Why does this evidence of when the relationship was discovered remove the possibility that they were plurally married before 1836?

Isn't it possible Joseph and Fanny were secretly married for a longer period before Emma discovered it?
Why would Emma have reason to suspect he was plurally married to their nanny? As we know from later plural marriages, Joseph was able to conceal them quite well, even under Emma's very watchful eye.

After Emma discovered his relationship with Fanny Alger, then she began to watch him more carefully. Joseph was able to marry 33 women and successfully hide many of them from her. This is why he had to perform second sealings to the Partridge sisters after Emma consented to give those wives to him.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Seven,

Joseph got "caught" by Emma multiple times in Nauvoo with plural wives, and was sometimes meeting them in other households than his own to take care of this problem. A policy born of experience, perhaps?

The three-plus year relationship of Joseph and Fanny under Emma's nose seems improbable. However, this is only of the reasons to think the relationship did not begin when Mosiah Hancock said it did, and there is insufficient reason to trust him on this matter in the first place.

If the length of the relationship were the only factor weighing against 1833 and saw other good reasons to accept that early dating, I would acceptance despite the obvious logistical problems.

The relationship apparently "came out" when Emma found the pair together in 1836.

I'll answer a couple of your earlier questions, but, as indicated, this is not the venue in which to lay out my research and conclusions. So, in all probability, you will not be satisfied that I've answered all your questions. Hopefully I'll do a better job of that in the published piece!

Don

[_William Schryver]

Gentlepeople,

Well, I'm rarely at a loss for words, but in this moment all I can do is say, "Oh, my!" after having read Mr. Schryver's "definition" of misogyny. To literally take a term, the definition of which is "The hatred or contempt of women." and turn it into something akin to "penis envy" is one of the more disconcerting posts I've seen come from a Mopologist. I can only assign an intent to outright deceive the readership to Mr. Schryver by having said what he said a moment ago.

Which brings me to this thought: Why the need to redefine a word? What is the purpose behind confusing the meaning of a word when there are so many words that can clearly convey their own meanings?

To ask Mr. Schryver "what is his interpretation of misogyny" is to competely disregard the established fact that few of us have the mandate or the stewardship to define words for the rest of us. It's not up to the general population to figure out what an individual decides a word means, but rather it's the individual's burden to ensure his meaning is clear and falls within generally acknowledged terms in order to reduce confusion.

Mr. Schryver not only failed to use the right word for the feelings he expressed, but further demonstrated to us an inherent communications dishonesty by assigning a complete and false meaning to a word.

Misogyny isn't about women's envy of men's power, but rather men's contempt or hatred for women. It's a simple word with a clear meaning. Let's not conflate that generally accepted meaning with Mr. Schryver's emotional state, shall we?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Once again my observation is confirmed that the first thing to happen after an exmormon exits the chapel doors is the permanent malfunction of the irony sensor.
.
.
.
EADelusion:

I'd like to think that it is especially painful for Will to have a woman pwn him in that manner.

I assure you the agony is well-nigh unbearable.

[_William Schryver]

Gentlepeople,

Well, I'm rarely at a loss for words, but in this moment all I can do is say, "Oh, my!" after having read Mr. Schryver's "definition" of misogyny. To literally take a term, the definition of which is "The hatred or contempt of women." and turn it into something akin to "penis envy" is one of the more disconcerting posts I've seen come from a Mopologist. I can only assign an intent to outright deceive the readership to Mr. Schryver by having said what he said a moment ago.

Which brings me to this thought: Why the need to redefine a word? What is the purpose behind confusing the meaning of a word when there are so many words that can clearly convey their own meanings?

To ask Mr. Schryver "what is his interpretation of misogyny" is to competely disregard the established fact that few of us have the mandate or the stewardship to define words for the rest of us. It's not up to the general population to figure out what an individual decides a word means, but rather it's the individual's burden to ensure his meaning is clear and falls within generally acknowledged terms in order to reduce confusion.

Mr. Schryver not only failed to use the right word for the feelings he expressed, but further demonstrated to us an inherent communications dishonesty by assigning a complete and false meaning to a word.

Misogyny isn't about women's envy of men's power, but rather men's contempt or hatred for women. It's a simple word with a clear meaning. Let's not conflate that generally accepted meaning with Mr. Schryver's emotional state, shall we?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I'm sure the guy who gave the false definition of misogyny was just joking around. He knows it is defined as hatred of women, but I'm sure he thinks misogyny is a myth, a made up word for those angry feminazis to give them a persecution complex. That seems to be what he thinks of misogyny.

Quite to the contrary, I gave an extremely apropos, and quite accurate, definition of the term within the context of this thread.

[_DonBradley]

Those two points are the most persuasive for me of your position that Mosiah fabricated the story of his mother and fathers marriage.

However, if Joseph had already been teaching polygamy since 1831 to his inner circle, why would this exchange be so foreign?

All the mentions of 1831 teaching on polygamy talk about it in a very general way--the doctrine is true, and that sort of thing. Only a couple say it would be practiced again, and in these cases it seems like it will be "someday." But even if it had been taught more strongly, this would not have created the sort of matter-of-fact expectation assumed by Mosiah Hancock.

Notice how in the accounts of Nauvoo polygamy, the women find the idea utterly jarring, even after a few years of hints about it. None of them just assume they will be marrying Joseph, even if they live in his home.

by the way, thanks for suggesting the Firefox addie. I will have to get that!

Don

[_DonBradley]

See the link that I posted for Miss Taken. It is pretty clear cut that you guys that are criticizing Joseph don't know much about early america.

Hey Why Me,

Could you re-post that link? I'm not seeing it but would like to read the article.

Don