Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:30 am

Gazelam, how would you explain Joseph having been "sealed" to Fanny at least a year or more before the LDS church claims the sealing power was restored to earth in the Kirtland Temple? And who performed the sealing?

Oh, and not everybody said that Joseph and Fanny had been sealed. Remember that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in large part because he accused Joseph Smith of having committed adultery with Fanny.

Post by **_desert_vulture** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:25 am

Sethbag wrote:Gazelam, how would you explain Joseph having been "sealed" to Fanny at least a year or more before the LDS church claims the sealing power was restored to earth in the Kirtland Temple? And who performed the sealing?

Oh, and not everybody said that Joseph and Fanny had been sealed. Remember that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in large part because he accused Joseph Smith of having committed adultery with Fanny.

Oliver apparently fell out of favor, and wasn't included in the communication from God about the correctness of polygamy. If Joseph Smith had received a revelation circa 1831 regarding polygamy, it is entirely possible that Oliver Cowdery knew nothing of it. Thus Oliver would assume that the relationship with Alger was an affair, when Joseph Smith could contend that it was official polygamy commanded of God. It is quite problematic however that Section 110, given April 3, 1836, containing the sealing power, had not yet been given to Joseph Smith. I have not seen a convincing argument resolve this complication.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 am

desert_vulture wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Gazelam, how would you explain Joseph having been "sealed" to Fanny at least a year or more before the LDS church claims the sealing power was restored to earth in the Kirtland Temple? And who performed the sealing?

Oh, and not everybody said that Joseph and Fanny had been sealed. Remember that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in large part because he accused Joseph Smith of having committed adultery with Fanny.

Oliver apparently fell out of favor, and wasn't included in the communication from God about the correctness of polygamy. If Joseph Smith had received a revelation circa 1831 regarding polygamy, it is entirely possible that Oliver Cowdery knew nothing of it. Thus Oliver would assume that the relationship with Alger was an affair, when Joseph Smith could contend that it was official polygamy commanded of God. It is quite problematic however that Section 110, given April 3, 1836, containing the sealing power, had not yet been given to Joseph Smith. I have not seen a convincing argument resolve this complication.

Then there's the fact that he was fooling around in secret in a barn for goodness' sake. There was no need for this if he had received an official revelation from God. The fact is that his behaviour is consistent with a common or garden adulterer with a penchant for young girls.

Post by **_desert_vulture** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:29 am

Fortigurn wrote:Then there's the fact that he was fooling around in secret in a barn for goodness' sake. There was no need for this if he had received an official revelation from God. The fact is that his behaviour is consistent with a common or garden adulterer with a penchant for young girls.

Not really. Most married couples with a good sex life, enjoy adventurous sex in unique places. Frolicking in a barn really is not definitive proof of married or adulterous sexual relations.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:37 am

desert_vulture wrote:Not really. Most married couples with a good sex life, enjoy adventurous sex in unique places. Frolicking in a barn really is not definitive proof of married or adulterous sexual relations.

The problem here is that there is no evidence that he was married to the girl, and certainly no evidence that his wife knew about their relationship. We're not talking about a married couple with a healthy sex live enjoying adventures in unique places. We're talking about a married man having sex in a barn with a 16 year old without his wife's knowledge. There was no reason to conceal themselves in a barn from Emma if this was all official and above board. Nor was there any reason to conceal their relationship from others.

Post by **_desert_vulture** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:55 am

Fortigurn wrote:
desert_vulture wrote:Not really. Most married couples with a good sex life, enjoy adventurous sex in unique places. Frolicking in a barn really is not definitive proof of married or adulterous sexual relations.

The problem here is that there is no evidence that he was married to the girl, and certainly no evidence that his wife knew about their relationship. We're not talking about a married couple with a healthy sex live enjoying adventures in unique places. We're talking about a married man having sex in a barn with a 16 year old without his wife's knowledge. There was no reason to conceal themselves in a barn from Emma if this was all official and above board. Nor was there any reason to conceal their relationship from others.

There is evidence that he was married to her. Check out the "Date of Fanny Alger's marriage" on Todd Compton's site here: http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/7207/rev.html It seems that there are a number of historical sources including Mosiah Hancock, Levi Hancock, Benjamin Johnson, and Lyman Shirman. I agree that we are not talking about a typical married couple enjoying a typical married sex life. However, a couple having sex has every right to conceal themselves, in a barn, hotel room, or wherever else, I'm sure you would agree. Having sex in a barn is irrelevant to the issue of whether Joseph Smith was actually married to Fanny Alger at the time. It is not quite as black and white as many would like to think. I think the major objection to it was that Joseph Smith had not yet received the sealing power, so how was it possible for him to be sealed to Fanny Alger? I still have yet to hear a reasonable response which answers that issue.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:03 am

desert_vulture wrote:here is evidence that he was married to her.

Show me the evidence that Smith was married to her at this time, and that Emma knew about it.

I agree that we are not talking about a typical married couple enjoying a typical married sex life.

We most certainly are not, I'm glad we agree on that.

However, a couple having sex has every right to conceal themselves, in a barn, hotel room, or wherever else, I'm sure you would agree.

Yes, but in this case you have not proved that they were married, and not concealing this from Emma.

Having sex in a barn is irrelevant to the issue of whether Joseph Smith was actually married to Fanny Alger at the time.

Having sex in a barn with a 16 year old without his wife's knowledge, makes Smith look like a common or garden adulterer.

I think the major objection to it was that Joseph Smith had not yet received the sealing power, so how was it possible for him to be sealed to Fanny Alger? I still have yet to hear a reasonable response which answers that issue.

That, together with the fact that they were in concealment, is strong evidence that this was a run of the mill adulterous affair. If they were already legitimately sealed and/or married, why the concealment of their relationship?

Post by **_desert_vulture** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:39 am

Fortigurn wrote:
desert_vulture wrote:here is evidence that he was married to her.

Show me the evidence that Smith was married to her at this time, and that Emma knew about it.

I agree that we are not talking about a typical married couple enjoying a typical married sex life.

We most certainly are not, I'm glad we agree on that.

However, a couple having sex has every right to conceal themselves, in a barn, hotel room, or wherever else, I'm sure you would agree.

Yes, but in this case you have not proved that they were married, and not concealing this from Emma.

Having sex in a barn is irrelevant to the issue of whether Joseph Smith was actually married to Fanny Alger at the time.

Having sex in a barn with a 16 year old without his wife's knowledge, makes Smith look like a common or garden adulterer.

I think the major objection to it was that Joseph Smith had not yet received the sealing power, so how was it possible for him to be sealed to Fanny Alger? I still have yet to hear a reasonable response which answers that issue.

That, together with the fact that they were in concealment, is strong evidence that this was a run of the mill adulterous affair. If they were already legitimately sealed and/or married, why the concealment of their relationship?

Calm down fortigurn before you blow a gasket! Sheesh dude. Read Compton's book ISL. Go to the link I provided. THERE IS evidence he was married to her, for Christ's sakes. The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage. Don't treat me like those run of the mill TBMs on MADD goddamit. The fact that they were in concealment proves nothing, other than they wanted some privacy while he f***** her lights out. OK? Calm down with the line by line rebuttal and examine the facts first. This isn't RfM.

-DV

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:16 am

desert_vulture wrote:Calm down fortigurn before you blow a f****** gasket! Sheesh dude. Read Compton's book ISL. Go to the link I provided. THERE IS evidence he was married to her, for Christ's sakes. The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair. Don't treat me like those run of the mill TBMs on MADD goddamit.

* Calm down

* f****** gasket

* Sheesh

* for Christ's sakes

* goddamit

I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to calm down in this discussion. I'm just fine.

I read the link you provided. I have in fact read most of ISL before. The problem is that the claim that Alger and Smith were legitimately married at the time of their rolling in the barn is not actually based on first hand evidence. The views cited by Compton were expressed years later by a variety of people in no real position to know whether or not Smith and Alger were legitimately married at the time.

But as I have pointed out, the evidence is against their being legitimately married, else why would Emma have been ignorant of the fact, and have been so upset at discovering them together? Not only that, but since the sealing revelation was not given until later, there is no evidence that Alger and Smith were united in a relationship sanctioned by revelation.

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:35 pm

desert_vulture wrote:
The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage. Don't treat me like those run of the mill TBMs on MADD goddamit.

How are you different than the run of the mill TBM's when you say things like in your first sentence above...that your primary issue is whether "marriage was indeed commanded by God" You sound very much like an individual well indoctrinated who on some issues involving the church willingly suspends critical thinking in lieu of acceptance of the dictates of the church. So when church authority makes claims on behalf of a god, a TBM willingly, non critically accepts with little if any questioning.

by the way, swearing is not acceptable in this forum. If you feel the need to swear you can do so, in the lower forum, (don't remember its name)