DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Melchett
_Emeritus
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:05 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Melchett »

Kishkumen wrote:
Blixa wrote:More funny than the construction "You're all's?"


If you can't laugh at the madness, then what is left?


I'm having a hard time with Fanny from the British point of view.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Blixa »

Melchett wrote:
I'm having a hard time with Fanny from the British point of view.


Just don't try knocking me up before 6 in the morning...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Melchett
_Emeritus
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:05 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Melchett »

Blixa wrote:
Melchett wrote:
I'm having a hard time with Fanny from the British point of view.


Just don't try knocking me up before 6 in the morning...


A whole world of trouble flashes before my eyes.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Kishkumen »

Melchett wrote:I'm having a hard time with Fanny from the British point of view.


Quite an appropriate name, really. They say she was pretty smokin'.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _ldsfaqs »

You guys are CLUELESS how you use a little truth to lie, instead believing the EASY anti-mormon lie, as if it's the actual truth. Third hand accounts and the rumor mill are not the truth, especially when there is clear contradictory testimony.

Fanny Alger

Summary

Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.


http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/P ... anny_Alger
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Darth J »

ldsfaqs wrote:
There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case.


What does this "historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831" consist of, Ldsfaqs?
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _EAllusion »

My girlfriend thought I was cheating on her just because she caught me having sex with another woman. Fortunately, I was able to inform her than the other woman and I considered ourselves married. Man, that was a load off her shoulders as she realized this meant I wasn't being unfaithful to her in anyway and my actions could no longer be viewed as hurtful or inconsiderate.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Fence Sitter »

ldsfaqs,

Polygamy or Celestial marriage may not be the best way to go when trying to defend Joseph Smith Jr as trustworthy.

Just a thought.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Darth J »

ldsfaqs wrote:All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.[/b]
.................

Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.


Why should we rely on this third-hand account recorded years after the events, Ldsfaqs?

And by the way, the statement that "all we do have is third-hand accounts" is not true.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/Fan ... ltery.html
_Simon Belmont

Re: DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Guys, DCP just ate some popcorn!

Better start a new thread!
Post Reply