why me wrote:To my knowledge, fanny never said a negative word about Joseph Smith
Maybe the sex was really good. Why would she complain?
and it seems that her husband did not mind.
Did her husband know about her past sex life? Even if he did, it was in the past. It may have bothered him that he didn't marry a virgin, but maybe he got over it.
I think that the point is that Fanny, her parents and her brother never said a negative word about Joseph Smith. In fact, the parents and brother remained faithful. And fanny even when asked about the relationship by her son, said that it was her own business. Now I do believe that like in most marriages fanny would have told her husband about Joseph Smith and her Mormon experience and if it were negative the husband would have spoken out at some point as would fanny especially after Joseph Smith was murdered. But...all went well.
Fanny's parents never saw it as a lustful affair on the part of Joseph Smith. Mainly because it was all done on the up and up. And certainly, what daughter would allow their parents to be a member of a false church? And this is what would have happened after the murder of Joseph Smith. Fanny would have come clean and if Joseph Smith was a horny toad, she would have said so. When it comes to lust men have a hard time controlling it in the bedroom during the act.
Women know when a man is just in it for the lust.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Pollypinks wrote:But for all the horniness we accuse Joseph Smith of, have any of you ever looked at some of those pictures of the women??? I think one was toothless.
<insert blowjob joke here>
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Pollypinks wrote:My thoughts were that Fanny was considered the first plural, or, spiritual wife of Joseph Smith. Even though they were caught bonking in the barn, and Emma threw her out. Emma proceded to throw out other women that Joseph Smith was found to be bonking in the house, right under her nose. And yes, Fanny did indeed go on to marry someone legitimately. But for all the horniness we accuse Joseph Smith of, have any of you ever looked at some of those pictures of the women??? I think one was toothless.
The horny bonking would have gotten back to the parents and they would have left the church. No horny bonking was in play in this relationship. For critics, Joseph Smith was a horny dog with loose pants and his tongue out. Far from the truth. No plural wife ever accussed Joseph Smith of being a lustful dog. And if he was, they would have known.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:The horny bonking would have gotten back to the parents and they would have left the church. No horny bonking was in play in this relationship. For critics, Joseph Smith was a horny dog with loose pants and his tongue out. Far from the truth. No plural wife ever accussed Joseph Smith of being a lustful dog. And if he was, they would have known.
Wasn't the specific purpose of Polygamy so that Joseph could 'raise seed'? So even if he didn't actually play hide the sausage, it was his intention to do some point - presumably once the younger ones reached puberty...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
I'm taking my information about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith sexual liasons from Todd Compton's book. As far as I know, he hasn't been excommunicated for writing what he historically discovered. And it was well documented that strong members of the faith left when they discovered what Joseph Smith was up to. It's history. Deal with it.
why me wrote:The horny bonking would have gotten back to the parents and they would have left the church. No horny bonking was in play in this relationship. For critics, Joseph Smith was a horny dog with loose pants and his tongue out. Far from the truth. No plural wife ever accussed Joseph Smith of being a lustful dog. And if he was, they would have known.
Forgive me for ranting. Sometimes the sheer weight of the BS gets me down. I understand that historical documentation is very important and possibly the only way one could convince the faithful that they have been conned, but isn't it just obvious that Joseph Smith was truly a horn dog? He used his specious authority as a religious leader to pander to his lustful desires (just as many other dubious religious leaders have done).
The only other thing greater in his desire was the fleecing of his flock for monetary gain.
It's just so obvious that I really have a hard time understanding how anyone could buy the "Prophet" story.
I feel better now. Thanks
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
George Miller wrote:The main takeaway message is that AoM is likely not responding to a polygamous relationship between Joseph and Fanny, and that the relationship was likely being consummated in mid to late 1836. I find this more likely, as I doubt Joseph could have carried on this charade in Emma's face, and in Emma's home, for a year and a half without Emma and other church members, like Oliver Cowdery, raising an eyebrow and a voice of complaint.
I think you underestimate the ability to do these kinds of things right under the nose of others, not that I am saying he did.
why me wrote:The horny bonking would have gotten back to the parents and they would have left the church. No horny bonking was in play in this relationship. For critics, Joseph Smith was a horny dog with loose pants and his tongue out. Far from the truth. No plural wife ever accussed Joseph Smith of being a lustful dog. And if he was, they would have known.
Forgive me for ranting. Sometimes the sheer weight of the BS gets me down. I understand that historical documentation is very important and possibly the only way one could convince the faithful that they have been conned, but isn't it just obvious that Joseph Smith was truly a horn dog? He used his specious authority as a religious leader to pander to his lustful desires (just as many other dubious religious leaders have done).
Why me doesn't think horn dogs can hide their horn doggedness since they must always be going around with his tongue half out. I kinda get a kick out of his BS, although he did flee another thread where I showed that I had said the opposite of what he accused me of. :)