Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:00 pm
They totally throw Oliver under the bus and never mention how Emma saw JS and AF out in the barn together. Emma never says exactly what she saw but it was enough to make her kick Fanny out of the house! This is so blatantly deceitful on the part of the church to leave out details like that!
They might be right to leave those details out. Both purported facts are from second-hand accounts recalled decades later by someone antagonistic to Joseph Smith. On that basis only, they stand about as much chance of being true as Brigham Young's transfiguration. I have a bias against believing miraculous events, though, so IMO they're much more likely than the transfiguration, but that isn't saying much.
I agree with you that those are second hand accounts, but...
The only reference to Fanny being a marriage is a second (maybe third?) hand account 60 years later. Other than that there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was anything but an affair.
So I agree with you, but that would also torpedo most of the apologetics that the church is using in this essay.
I covered that when going through Saints because they made a lot of these same arguments in there, and it's absolute BS to try and paint this as a marriage at that time.
RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:00 pm
They totally throw Oliver under the bus and never mention how Emma saw JS and AF out in the barn together. Emma never says exactly what she saw but it was enough to make her kick Fanny out of the house! This is so blatantly deceitful on the part of the church to leave out details like that!
They might be right to leave those details out. Both purported facts are from second-hand accounts recalled decades later by someone antagonistic to Joseph Smith. On that basis only, they stand about as much chance of being true as Brigham Young's transfiguration. I have a bias against believing miraculous events, though, so IMO they're much more likely than the transfiguration, but that isn't saying much.
I agree with you that those are second hand accounts, but...
The only reference to Fanny being a marriage is a second (maybe third?) hand account 60 years later. Other than that there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was anything but an affair.
So I agree with you, but that would also torpedo most of the apologetics that the church is using in this essay.
I covered that when going through Saints because they made a lot of these same arguments in there, and it's absolute BS to try and paint this as a marriage at that time.
Oh, absolutely. I just want to follow good methods of historical inquiry. And I really like your idea of contrasting the source of the marriage claim with the source of the claim that Emma caught them rolling in the hay. The only reason to accept one but not the other is undue bias.
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.
RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:00 pm
They totally throw Oliver under the bus and never mention how Emma saw JS and AF out in the barn together. Emma never says exactly what she saw but it was enough to make her kick Fanny out of the house! This is so blatantly deceitful on the part of the church to leave out details like that!
They might be right to leave those details out. Both purported facts are from second-hand accounts recalled decades later by someone antagonistic to Joseph Smith. On that basis only, they stand about as much chance of being true as Brigham Young's transfiguration. I have a bias against believing miraculous events, though, so IMO they're much more likely than the transfiguration, but that isn't saying much.
I agree with you that those are second hand accounts, but...
The only reference to Fanny being a marriage is a second (maybe third?) hand account 60 years later. Other than that there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was anything but an affair.
So I agree with you, but that would also torpedo most of the apologetics that the church is using in this essay.
I covered that when going through Saints because they made a lot of these same arguments in there, and it's absolute BS to try and paint this as a marriage at that time.
Excellent point about second hand accounts. They ignore Oliver's first hand account which came first- the letter to his brother Warren, and credit Second hand accounts that came years later. I don't think that's how real history is done.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.
deacon blues wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:03 pm
Excellent point about second hand accounts. They ignore Oliver's first hand account which came first- the letter to his brother Warren, and credit Second hand accounts that came years later. I don't think that's how real history is done.
I noticed this a lot with Saints - they would use these outdated second hand accounts to demonize people (William Law's chapters are really bad with this) and then of course leave out both first hand and second hand accounts that go against Joseph Smith.
I get why second (and third) hand accounts are not the most reliable, but there needs to be consistency. Even FAIR admits that there are only 1 (maybe 2) accounts of William Law being accused of adultery, yet Saints devotes two chapters to it. It is so flimsy and one could argue we have just as many accounts that Joseph Smith was having abortions done by Bennett if we're going to play that game.
Notice the Fanny Alger essay is pretty fuzzy on the timeline for Joseph’s marriage to Fanny...almost like they don’t want members to connect the dots that Joseph “married” her before the sealing power was given to him in April 1836...
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph
Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:02 pm
Notice the Fanny Alger essay is pretty fuzzy on the timeline for Joseph’s marriage to Fanny...almost like they don’t want members to connect the dots that Joseph “married” her before the sealing power was given to him in April 1836...
If they're going to pretend it was a marriage (there is no marriage records and only one second hand account 60 years later), you might as well just make that marriage whatever you want it to be.
