Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.
Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least
an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.
Then where is he in this conversation? Oh that's right. He's not here. He hasn't said anything, therefore he isn't the source of your understanding.
And Pahoran... you have no idea what I've published, on what subject I'm published, or what I'm considered expert in. And just because I don't tell you shouldn't be construed to mean I am not published, expert, or a consultant.
There are a great many fields of knowledge, and you may indeed be an expert in one or more of them.
But you are not
an expert in Mormon things, including but not limited to LDS history. You know practically nothing about it at all.
And yet you explicitly claimed to know more about it than Plutarch does, then immediately denied that the specific kind of knowledge he questioned was even necessary.
You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.
I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.
So... you deny this:
Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren, in January 1838, "When [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." Johnson cites this letter in support of the contention that Joseph Smith Jr. initiated the first plural marriage with a young woman living in his home as a maid, Fanny Alger. Although not named as a complaint in the letter or excommunication, Cowdery opposed the plural marriage doctrine.
It's from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery
Do I deny that Oliver said it? No.
Was he being strictly truthful at the time? Perhaps not.
Was he right? Of course
He also rejoined the Church.
Since I've not left the church, our situations are not similiar and this has no bearing on this discussion. Why are you introducing this red herring?
That you have not the integrity to leave the Church you loathe, detest and slander at every opportunity is something that surprises me not at all; but you ought not to be so very proud of that fact.
The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.
Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.
Fanny Alger was not a factor in Oliver's excommunication, nor was she a factor in his reconciliation with the church. Why are you conflating them? Do you have an agenda, like maybe to obscure what is plain to anyone reading the account?
What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.
How committed are you to following his example?
Not at all.
Of course not; he did, after all, show some integrity in the end.
You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do.
If you think this is bait and switch, you have a strange definition of the practice.
You claim that Joseph lied "in the name of the Lord" and when pressed, appeal to some statements published in "contemporary newspapers."
Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"
Any time Joseph spoke from the pulpit, he spoke as God's mouthpiece.
So this is the feeble justification you offer for your false accusations, is it? That because Joseph was standing at a pulpit he was therefore speaking "as God's mouthpiece?"
Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"
Or did you just make that up?
He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.
Even if that is the case--and I do not concede that it is--it does NOT justify your evil and malicious accusation that he "lied in the name of the Lord."
Did you really think that I, of all people, would fall for it?
Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife: one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836) Joseph Smith
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."
Thank you, and please note that these two statements are actually one statement reprinted. Please also note that Joseph authored neither of them.
Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church." This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)
Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage
, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.
Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.
Well, for that you can blame Joseph.
I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.
Wrong again, Pahoran. There is plenty of evidence, and it damns him.
Then produce it, and stop merely asserting it.
Until you do, I say that you are merely manifesting the content of your own mind.
harmony wrote:He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.
A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?
You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.
Indeed, and you have no evidence that the revelation existed anywhere but in Joseph's mind. No witnesses, no heavenly messengers, no written record of when it was received. Which tells me it never was received, just like the priesthood ban (also based on a nonexistent revelation).
A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no
record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is
a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."
harmony wrote:He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,
And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.
Oh balderdash, Pahoran. Joseph covered up his marriages until the day he died!
And given the murderous rage the "Christianity" of his neighbours was likely to manifest, who could blame him?
Sorry, let me rephrase that: what reasonable
person could blame him?
There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he
believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other. Only the very vilest
of haters--and that would include you--resort to the "charlatan" or "cover-up" explanation. Just as only the very filthiest
of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.
He lived a clandestine, furtive, hidden life for his last 2 yrs, getting more and more caught up in his lies and flat out ruining his children's and Emma's lives and peace.
Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.
It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.
Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your
words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.
On the contrary, Pahoran, I can prove he lied, and I can prove he did it when he was acting as God's mouthpiece. Therefore, he lied in God's name... repeatedly. (see above quotes)
Your argument is a non sequitur, and your above quotes do not support it.
But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance
where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.
Which is what "lying in the name of the Lord" actually means. It does not
mean "lying while in his employ," which is the only way your mendacious word game actually works.
You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?
Sweetie, this is not raving. This is harmony at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating.
Well, "Harmony"--or rather, Discord
--at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating, is still raving by anyone else's standards.
And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.
Uh-huh. So you resort to mere hand-waving.
In other words, you have nothing
As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.
You might want to take that to heart, Pahoran. Your "Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does." is less than convincing.
So sorry, but perhaps I'm not making myself plain: even if Joseph was every bit as dishonest as you accuse him of being, he would still
have been more honest than you. I find it infinitely
more likely that you would lie about a divine manifestation than that he would.
And besides, my own witness contradicts yours. So I will trust mine, knowing that at least mine actually happened.
Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?
Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.
No filthy fantasies here, P. Just delivering the message that Joseph lied.
Which is part of your filthy fantasy.
Besides, we both know that if you really believed that he lied, that would merely make you admire him the more.
Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?
Not hardly. I'm female. We can't be blamed for any stupidity that comes out over any prophet's signature.
Thank you. So since you don't claim to be a prophet, you'll excuse me for not following you. In order for someone to be a true prophet, they must at least claim
harmony wrote:You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.
Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this
And you have no authority to speak for the church... none.
No, but I can say what the faith of the Latter-day Saints consists in, because unlike you, I actually share it.
One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.
I can't think of any argument less "scintillating" that the absurd counterfactual that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." You must have been awfully
desperate to resort to that.
harmony wrote:For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.
What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.
*sigh* Pahoran, Pahoran. Try to keep up, sweetie. You can't talk about the faith of the LDS, when you can't verify that anyone (not one single person) besides yourself has faith.
*Sigh* Discord, Discord. I am keeping up, sourie. You are intentionally equivocating here. The fact that a community has a shared faith
with a given content
is one that does not depend upon the ability of any member of that community being able to verify that any other member has faith
. The two things are spelled
the same, but they do not mean
I can't believe you thought I'd fall for that obvious and maladroit deception.