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. You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.
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
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?
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?
How committed are you to following his example?
Not at all.
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.
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. He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.
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."
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)
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.
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).
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! 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.
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)
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. And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.
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.
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. You're trying to kill the messenger, but I've got my asbestos suit on, so I'm immune.
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.
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.
harmony wrote:Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS.
I know more than you
can possibly imagine.
One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.
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. You can talk about your
faith, but you can't extrapolate your faith to anyone else. You don't have the authority to make any claims for the LDS church.