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

[Guest]

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

Here it is:

http://books.google.fi/books?id=knN9Hzk ... t&resnum=4

I think that it is interesting article.

[_why me]

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

Read the article and then get back to me. It is not a question of who should be more responsible. If that were the case, the world would certainly be a better place. It is a question of fanny saying yes. She was the maid. She knew that he was married. She met his wife. And yet, she went to bed with him. And critics have this relationship based on Joseph Smith's lust. It is not my understanding. And if that is the case, why would fanny be innocent? Was she not lustful? Do you know fanny?

Now the article stated that young women matured young sexually in the early 19th century.

Bottom line: she could have said no.

[_karl61]

why me wrote:



"Bottom line: she could have said no."

and history tells the story of what happens when Joseph is told no. And you were right as she was the maid.

[_William Schryver]

by the way, Will, attacking me based on my age or perceived desirability - either physical or emotional - doesn't work. I'm very secure in those areas, so your attacks just make me roll my eyes and yawn.

Where did I "attack" you about your "age or perceived desirability," dear beastlie?

You're getting a little hyper-sensitive, aren't you?

Look, it's not my fault that the march of time, coupled with your many years of wanton fornication, has taken you from here:

to here:

in such a short period of time.

Sin does that to a girl.

Especially the snarly ones.

But, hey ... I gotta go now. I'm leaving on a jet plane. Don't know when I'll be back again. I have a date in Vegas, followed by one in Pittsburgh, followed by one in San Francisco. So you guys will probably have to carry on for a few days with little or no input from your most detested LDS apologist.

I'm sure you'll miss me more than I'll miss you ...

[Guest]

WhyMe,

The link doesn't work for me. Can you give the name of the item, and I'll locate it? Thanks!

With respect to the relative culpability of Joseph and Fanny in the event of an affair, whatever the article says would irrelevant. As I mentioned, it really doesn't matter what Fanny did. Joseph would still be the more responsible party. So in chastising critics for blaming Joseph and not Fanny you are wrong and will remain wrong.

My interest in the article is in understanding the culture of the time, not in whether Joseph Smith would have been exonerated in the event of an affair. All my arguments on the latter subject are unrelated to my interest in the article and they stand.

[Edit:]

by the way, WhyMe, I don't disagree that Fanny Alger should have stayed out of any and all extramarital affairs. So, if there were one between she and Joseph, should would have been guilty of a moral wrong.

I also wanted wanted to add that I appreciate how good-natured you are in these discussions. I've seen you take a lot of undeserved (well, usually... ) beatings, and you do so with more poise than I would.

<Tip of the hat>

Don

[_JohnStuartMill]

by the way, Will, attacking me based on my age or perceived desirability - either physical or emotional - doesn't work. I'm very secure in those areas, so your attacks just make me roll my eyes and yawn.

Where did I "attack" you about your "age or perceived desirability," dear beastlie?

You're getting a little hyper-sensitive, aren't you?

Look, it's not my fault that the march of time, coupled with your many years of wanton fornication, has taken you from here:

to here:

in such a short period of time.

Sin does that to a girl.

Especially the snarly ones.

You are an awful person. I really have to doubt that you believe that Jesus is real, because someone who sincerely believed in Jesus wouldn't act like you do. But it's been a while since I've read the Bible, so maybe I'm just forgetting about the "be a callous dick" part of the Sermon on the Mount.

[_why me]

WhyMe,

The link doesn't work for me. Can you give the name of the item, and I'll locate it? Thanks!

With respect to the relative culpability of Joseph and Fanny in the event of an affair, whatever the article says would irrelevant. As I mentioned, it really doesn't matter what Fanny did. Joseph would still be the more responsible party. So in chastising critics for blaming Joseph and not Fanny you are wrong and will remain wrong.

My interest in the article is in understanding the culture of the time, not in whether Joseph Smith would have been exonerated in the event of an affair. All my arguments on the latter subject are unrelated to my interest in the article and they stand.

[Edit:]

by the way, WhyMe, I don't disagree that Fanny Alger should have stayed out of any and all extramarital affairs. So, if there were one between she and Joseph, should would have been guilty of a moral wrong.

I also wanted wanted to add that I appreciate how good-natured you are in these discussions. I've seen you take a lot of undeserved (well, usually... ) beatings, and you do so with more poise than I would.

<Tip of the hat>

Don

Here it is:

http://books.google.fi/books?id=knN9Hzk ... t&resnum=7

[_DonBradley]

For what it's worth...

Like JSM, I cringe at some of the exchange above.

I've also had just enough off-list communication with Will to believe that he intends considerably more lightness and jocularity in many or most of his comments than comes across to many or even most other readers. Though this may be hard for some to believe, I think the comments are usually intended to be funny, even to the person at whom they are aimed.

In fact, "combatants" here often--I think--view the discussion as a kind of game of repartee. I would place Will among those. Of course, I may be wrong. But it makes more sense to me than suspecting that Will is really a closet Satanist.

Don

[_why me]

WhyMe,

by the way, WhyMe, I don't disagree that Fanny Alger should have stayed out of any and all extramarital affairs. So, if there were one between she and Joseph, should would have been guilty of a moral wrong.

I also wanted wanted to add that I appreciate how good-natured you are in these discussions. I've seen you take a lot of undeserved (well, usually... ) beatings, and you do so with more poise than I would.

<Tip of the hat>

Don

Thanks for the compliment. I think that when you read the article, you will see that norms were just a tad different from today in regards to sexuality.

Generally, I believe that the people on this forum are good people who are trying their best to navigate through life. I am no exception. I always attempt to see the human being in the post that they post. And it seems to work for me. Glad that you are on this forum.

[Guest]

I've rarely see Will do anything BUT attack people personally. I understand that apologists may find religious criticism frustrating, and I certainly don't deny that some critics give worse than they get, but Will really goes after people unnecessarily. I don't think the incongruity between Jesus' Gospel and Will's method of defending his interpretation of it can be patched up. Keep in mind that I'm saying this as a non-Christian non-theist, so it's not as if I'm holding Will to my standard -- I'm just holding him to his own.