The Trolley Problem--Nemo the Mormon is back

[MG 2.0]

Right now sitting here I personally don't know the answer to this specific question, malkie. What I do know is that one of the premier researchers in Mormonism, Don Bradley, after all his research has concluded that Joseph and Fanny were married. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So whether or not it was legal in the sense of it being legal in the state of Illinois, I don't know. But seemingly in the eyes of those that were 'in the know', including Fanny's parents, it was right in the eyes of God and His church.

I would suggest that those interested in this topic and the specific question being asked in regards to 'marriage' or 'affair' that you take the time to listen to this interview with Don Bradley:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LOlm4lt3mts

From eighteen minute mark on.

Regards,
MG

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

If I'm not mistaken Don Bradley was out of the church and an atheist at the time he was doing this research. He was looking for reasons to see Joseph Smith as a charleton. What he found basically took him a bit by surprise. He's a member of this board I think. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry that you are not able to look at the interview. You would only have to watch it from about minute eighteen to minute twenty. That really shouldn't be that hard should it?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

If I'm not mistaken Don Bradley was out of the church and an atheist at the time he was doing this research. He was looking for reasons to see Joseph Smith as a charlatan. What he found basically took him a bit by surprise. He's a member of this board I think. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry that you are not able to look at the interview. You would only have to watch it from about minute eighteen to minute twenty. That really shouldn't be that hard should it?

Regards,
MG

Thanks. I used downsub.com to create a transcript of the relevant couple of minutes, and will have a look in the morning.

for what it's worth, I have a lot of respect for Don, and am generally quite happy to accept that he puts his beliefs aside as much as possible while conducting his research.

[I Have Questions]

Right now sitting here I personally don't know the answer to this specific question, malkie. What I do know is that one of the premier researchers in Mormonism, Don Bradley, after all his research has concluded that Joseph and Fanny were married. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So whether or not it was legal in the sense of it being legal in the state of Illinois, I don't know. But seemingly in the eyes of those that were 'in the know', including Fanny's parents, it was right in the eyes of God and His church.

I would suggest that those interested in this topic and the specific question being asked in regards to 'marriage' or 'affair' that you take the time to listen to this interview with Don Bradley:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LOlm4lt3mts

From eighteen minute mark on.

Regards,
MG

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

Don is relying on second hand and third hand, non contemporary sources. The one thing Don does admit is that even if one were to claim it as a marriage, it was illegal.

Though secret, atypical, and of uncertain officiator and date, Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny with Fanny Alger merits identification as his earliest known polygamous marriage.

Could Don add any more caveats? He’s saying it wasn’t like a marriage and that nobody knows when or where it happened. If there’s no evidence of when, where, how, and with whom present, a thing happened, on what basis can you say a thing happened? Don is just picking a conclusion that he wants to believe on no other basis than it’s what he wants to believe.

The evidence demonstrates that the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, when we know of it existing in spring-summer 1836, was carried out in a church into which polygamy had entered and in which non-legal marriages could be justified as divinely sanctioned.

This is Don admitting he is making a simple, big, assumption, which goes like this - “Joseph had an affair with Fanny, it happened in and around the time illegal polygamous couplings were happening, therefore I am going to assume it was a marriage even though there is no evidence of a marriage ever taking place.”

[Moksha]

I think MG is referring to The Unwritten Law of the Haystack in terms of the marriage to Fanny.

[Kishkumen]

As with most stories from church history this one has more to it. I would simply suggest that folks do additional research in this regard. I did years ago, and I'm comfortable with all of the 'moving parts'. If you're going to call the whole thing a dirty and nasty affair you are then obligated to support that accusations from multiple sources.

That takes work.

Regards,
MG

That’s fine, MG. Your choice, of course. I would also expect any historian to investigate the matter thoroughly before opining on it. That said, I don’t blame any average person who makes a negative moral judgment of Joseph Smith’s sexual relationships outside of his marriage to Emma. I think anyone is justified in calling that wrong. No amount of explaining or examining of evidence really changes the basic moral issue. Either one upholds fidelity in monogamy as the moral standard, or one does not. You do not.

[Physics Guy]

I have no mission to bring down the LDS church, but if I did, I wouldn’t ask for any stronger weapon than letting everyone know about Smith’s many “wives”. But if I were really keen to stop anyone from joining the LDS church, I would also be willing to employ another weapon that is even stronger, and that is offered to me by Mormon apologists without my asking for it. I’d make sure to publicize all the defenses and excuses that Mormon apologists offer for Smith’s conduct, verbatim, in full, and without adding comment. The defenses just seal the deal.

[malkie]

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

Don is relying on second hand and third hand, non contemporary sources. The one thing Don does admit is that even if one were to claim it as a marriage, it was illegal.

Though secret, atypical, and of uncertain officiator and date, Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny with Fanny Alger merits identification as his earliest known polygamous marriage.

Could Don add any more caveats? He’s saying it wasn’t like a marriage and that nobody knows when or where it happened. If there’s no evidence of when, where, how, and with whom present, a thing happened, on what basis can you say a thing happened? Don is just picking a conclusion that he wants to believe on no other basis than it’s what he wants to believe.

The evidence demonstrates that the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, when we know of it existing in spring-summer 1836, was carried out in a church into which polygamy had entered and in which non-legal marriages could be justified as divinely sanctioned.

This is Don admitting he is making a simple, big, assumption, which goes like this - “Joseph had an affair with Fanny, it happened in and around the time illegal polygamous couplings were happening, therefore I am going to assume it was a marriage even though there is no evidence of a marriage ever taking place.”

Thanks, IHQ - I have nothing to add to your comments other than to note that, if MG thought this video helped his case, I must confess that I don't see how.

[sock puppet]

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

Don is relying on second hand and third hand, non contemporary sources. The one thing Don does admit is that even if one were to claim it as a marriage, it was illegal.

Though secret, atypical, and of uncertain officiator and date, Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny with Fanny Alger merits identification as his earliest known polygamous marriage.

Could Don add any more caveats? He’s saying it wasn’t like a marriage and that nobody knows when or where it happened. If there’s no evidence of when, where, how, and with whom present, a thing happened, on what basis can you say a thing happened? Don is just picking a conclusion that he wants to believe on no other basis than it’s what he wants to believe.

The evidence demonstrates that the relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, when we know of it existing in spring-summer 1836, was carried out in a church into which polygamy had entered and in which non-legal marriages could be justified as divinely sanctioned.

This is Don admitting he is making a simple, big, assumption, which goes like this - “Joseph had an affair with Fanny, it happened in and around the time illegal polygamous couplings were happening, therefore I am going to assume it was a marriage even though there is no evidence of a marriage ever taking place.”

Such is the plague on a historian that also is a believer. Conclusions announced by motivated contemporaries fill the voids of evidence.

[malkie]

Right now sitting here I personally don't know the answer to this specific question, malkie. What I do know is that one of the premier researchers in Mormonism, Don Bradley, after all his research has concluded that Joseph and Fanny were married. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So whether or not it was legal in the sense of it being legal in the state of Illinois, I don't know. But seemingly in the eyes of those that were 'in the know', including Fanny's parents, it was right in the eyes of God and His church.

I would suggest that those interested in this topic and the specific question being asked in regards to 'marriage' or 'affair' that you take the time to listen to this interview with Don Bradley:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LOlm4lt3mts

From eighteen minute mark on.

Regards,
MG

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

I could say I'm disappointed, but that would not be quite accurate. As I said to IHQ, if you thought this video helped your case, I must confess that I don't see how. In fact, as pointed out by others who have commented since my last comment, it confirms the facts: Joseph's relationship was a case of adultery, plain & simple, since (even assuming that a "marriage" ceremony took place) polygamy was illegal.

Don makes a big deal of the possible misinterpretations of the word "affair", but in the end it doesn't really matter whether Oliver said "affair", or "scrape", or used some other noun. The important part is that, whether he was a witness, or had the "thing" reported to him, Oliver's description of the affair as "dirty and nasty" still seems appropriate.

Are you now ready to answer plainly my questions about the legality of Joseph's "marriage" to Fanny?

[MG 2.0]

As with most stories from church history this one has more to it. I would simply suggest that folks do additional research in this regard. I did years ago, and I'm comfortable with all of the 'moving parts'. If you're going to call the whole thing a dirty and nasty affair you are then obligated to support that accusations from multiple sources.

That takes work.

Regards,
MG

That’s fine, MG. Your choice, of course. I would also expect any historian to investigate the matter thoroughly before opining on it. That said, I don’t blame any average person who makes a negative moral judgment of Joseph Smith’s sexual relationships outside of his marriage to Emma. I think anyone is justified in calling that wrong. No amount of explaining or examining of evidence really changes the basic moral issue. Either one upholds fidelity in monogamy as the moral standard, or one does not. You do not.

I would agree that the "average person" might respond as you say. At first blush one might have some real concerns. Years ago when I was looking at Nauvoo polygamy and the influence of John C. Bennett and others on the hearts and minds of others, including future historians/critics, I started to see that there was more to it than what the "average person" might know.

I think that Don Bradley is one of the best sources to look to. Years ago I briefly talked to him at a FAIR conference soon after he had come back into the church. Cool guy.

Regards,
MG