Nice way to get mormons to leave us alone? (soul, Jehovah's Witness, myth)

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Fanny Alger ... I'm waiting with bated breath.

You had better not bate your breath. A person in your position needs to take slow, deep ones.

In the meantime, I go to your FAIR website (LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage), type the word 'Alger' in the Search field at the top of the page, and in the very first web page listed as the results of the search, I found this apparent misstatement of fact:

I'm glad you admit that it seems only "apparent" to you. It is not a real misstatement of fact.

Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women - FAIRMormon
"There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events. ... Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage."

This is exactly true, despite your feelings to the contrary. What do you find is wrong here? (1) You present Oliver Cowdery's statement, but this certainly isn't a first or second hand account. (2) The FAIR statement only says that "most" were recorded many years after the events. (3) The Cowdery statement doesn't tell us what the nasty affair was. Was it getting married to a second wife? Riding unaccompanied in the hansom? You are reading Cowdery's statement in a way to support some claim, but his statement (made several years after whatever happened) is vague and can be interpreted several ways.

That site refers to Alger as Smith's first "plural wife" (church speak, I suppose) even though they were not legally married, ever.

"Plural wife" is the term that has been used for over 170 years. You need to get over any problem you have with the term. Technically it wasn't polygamy anyway; it was polygyny. And what YOU think about the status of their marriage doesn't matter. Apparently husband, wife, and both their families thought they were married.

On the contrary is found a letter by Oliver Cowdery, second elder in the early LDS church and first scribe of the Book of Mormon. "The first contemporary reference to the alleged relationship was in a letter dated January 21, 1838. Oliver Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren stating that Smith had inappropriately spent time alone with Alger, referring to it as a 'dirty, nasty, filthy affair.'"
Fanny Alger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dealt with this above. This is certainly not first hand and probably third hand. It doesn't tell us anything other than Cowdery strongly disapproved of the "affair" (whatever that was, not necessarily meaning "an adulterous sexual relationship"). Oliver was very upset with Joseph at the time that was written, so we can't easily determine how much to attribute his strong statement to the earlier events and how much to the events of the time when the statement was made.

Do you know where this excerpt is taken from? (maybe Fawn M. Brodie's book No Man Knows My History, about Joseph Smith, Jr.?):
Fannie Alger

No. I don't know where it is from.

Looks like this might a straightforward discrepancy as to the facts regarding the Cowdery letter.

There is no discrepancy.

Does the letter not exist?

Yes, a record of the letter exists and is not disputed.

If the letter exists and was in fact written in 1838, does LDS church consider that difference in time to be "many years after the events"?

"The Church" doesn't, to my knowledge, have any statement regarding all this. Maybe you are confusing FAIR with the Church. You do realize, right, that you are attacking a comment someone affiliated with FAIR made as if it were somehow official LDS material?

It is perfectly clear that you know next to nothing about Fannie Alger and you are just grabbing stuff off websites. You clearly don't know about the various accounts, when they were said, who said them, what was contained in them, etc. ParkTwain, it is obvious you aren't in a position to comment on whether "most accounts" were given many years later or not. Right?

Is the citation I quote not addressing Smith and Alger's relationship?

It certainly appears to be. Oliver seems to be upset that Joseph was being sealed to other women, with Fannie being one of the first, if not THE first. I can see that you want Oliver's word "affair" to mean a sexual relationship outside of marriage. But that is baggage that YOU are bringing to the table.

Was Cowdery not in a position to be accurately informed about the nature of any Smith/Alger relationship?

We don't know, but he was probably "informed" and maybe even "accurately informed." He certainly knew about some of the other plural wives of Joseph Smith. He almost certainly did not know about many of the plural marriages at the time. Maybe (and this is just for your benefit as a starting point to consider) Oliver is just now learning about plural marriage, something other leaders believed was a true principle but something from which Oliver had been excluded from knowing. The problem with you, ParkTwain, is that you don't have enough information to respond to these issues.

Maybe you can help us out here.

I hope I have.

No matter what YOU may feel about plural marriage, ParkTwain, the people who were engaged in it at the time (and their families) saw themselves as really wedded, as truly husband and wife.

But after all is said and done, your post has proved nothing. Everyone knows that the Church has explicitly taught that Joseph Smith started plural marriage in the early 1830s. Nothing you've said supports the idea that the Church is hiding anything.

This seems to be the sort of issue that is raised purely for its shock value. Most readers of this board will be firm supporters of monogamy, and this is your way of stirring up emotions rather than proving a point.

As for whether FAIR's article has an error, it clearly does not. It only states that "most" accounts are much later, not that all of them are. In fact, it was only in much later accounts where some people are more explicit about the relationship. This statement by Oliver is too vague to prove anything since the word "affair" was often used to merely mean "event" or "situation" rather than "extramarital sexual relationship." All we know from Oliver's statement is that Joseph and Fannie had had some kind of a relationship (and maybe still had in 1838, we can't tell from Oliver) and that Oliver found it repugnant.

You're wrong here, ParkTwain. All of this is irrelevant to whether the Church is hiding stuff, and the statement posted on FAIR is accurate.

Try again.

[ParkTwain]

But there was no LDS doctrine of plural marriage at the time of Smith and Alger's relationship. On what basis did the church state much later that they were "sealed"? As I understand it, in 1843, many years after beginning and ending his relationship with Alger, Smith informed the church's top elders of the new doctrine of plural marriage while in Nauvoo. The secrecy of Smith's action regarding the timing of the implementation of this doctrine makes claims of a "retroactive" marriage suspect to both LDS members and outsiders alike. It only invites suspicion and criticism.

Also inconsistent with the notion that the two were "married" were Alger's own actions. Alger did not travel west out of Ohio with Smith and his household in 1837. Rather, after Smith left Ohio, Alger traveled with her own parents to Indiana and later married another man and had four children with him.

And let us remember that some of Smith's plural marriages included women who were already married and whose husbands were living. What an amazing doctrine, one that I don't believe had any precedent in the Old Testament!

[PaulMcNabb]

ParkTwain,

It appears you have dropped the earlier assertion that the FAIR article was inaccurate and you have yet to provide evidence of widespread coverups of historical facts by the LDS Church.

I'll go ahead and respond to your post.

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

But there was no LDS doctrine of plural marriage at the time of Smith and Alger's relationship.

But LDS *DO* believe that there was a revelation to Smith at that time. The Church did not practice it, nor could it until directed to do so by God, but LDS Christians do assert that Joseph Smith was introduced to the doctrine of Plural Marriage as early as 1832.

On what basis did the church state much later that they were "sealed"?

That is a loaded question. The "Church" repeated later what the Prophet and others claimed earlier, namely that the relationships were commanded of God and that the sealing power was invoked and that these were real marriages.

As I understand it, in 1843, many years after beginning and ending his relationship with Alger, Smith informed the church's top elders of the new doctrine of plural marriage while in Nauvoo.

Your timetable is off. Some leaders knew about the doctrine of Plural Marriage many years before 1843, back in Missouri and probably Ohio days. It was shared with a wider circle of people in 1843.

The secrecy of Smith's action regarding the timing of the implementation of this doctrine makes claims of a "retroactive" marriage suspect to both LDS members and outsiders alike. It only invites suspicion and criticism.

Without granting the "retroactive" assumption in your statement, I agree that the fact that it was kept secret and denied by Church leaders for many years is a difficult thing for some people to accept.

Also inconsistent with the notion that the two were "married" were Alger's own actions. Alger did not travel west out of Ohio with Smith and his household in 1837. Rather, after Smith left Ohio, Alger traveled with her own parents to Indiana and later married another man and had four children with him.

Yes. There are ways to interpret the events as working against Joseph Smith and other early leaders' views. However there is evidence to support the fact that Fannie and Joseph considered themselves and were considered by others to be married in the early/mid 1830s. When dealing with the new social structure of plural marriage, it is difficult sometimes to figure out how someone "should" have acted if she was one of several wives.

And let us remember that some of Smith's plural marriages included women who were already married and whose husbands were living. What an amazing doctrine, one that I don't believe had any precedent in the Old Testament!

Yes, this is called "polyandry." There are a number of articles that are on the FAIR websites about this. It certainly has no known biblical precedent as you say.

ParkTwain, there is a lot of material here that we could talk about, such as the 1830/1840s idea of the role of "sealings," the concept of "dynastic marriages," and so forth. There is no question that much of this is unfamiliar to us today, both in terms of historical knowledge and in terms of cultural understanding. But other than being "odd" and against some of our sense of morality or proper social roles, how does our 21st century view of 19th century practices bear on your earlier assertion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hiding historical facts? I'm not quite sure what your point is with all of this except to show that one could put together an argument against the LDS claims.

I have no intention on this board to try to convince you that I am right or that the LDS Church is true. I don't believe such a thing is possible. But I will "fight" when you start asserting that informed, intelligent belief in LDS principles simply isn't possible.

As I said earlier, there is evidence on both sides. Intelligent and reasonable people can look at all of this and find different sides of the argument to be more compelling. I don't think someone is stupid for not believing the LDS claims, but I'd like the same respect back that there is at least some merit in the counterarguments and that I and my co-believers aren't stupid, ignorant, gullible liars for believing the way we do.

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb

As I said earlier, there is evidence on both sides. Intelligent and reasonable people can look at all of this and find different sides of the argument to be more compelling. I don't think someone is stupid for not believing the LDS claims, but I'd like the same respect back that there is at least some merit in the counterarguments and that I and my co-believers aren't stupid, ignorant, gullible liars for believing the way we do.

Can I have both? That is: I absolutely don't believe that LDS need to be stupid, ignorant, gullible liars but I also can't for the life of me see the merit of the counterarguments. I'm honestly very curious about how these two things fit together. To you, is your belief really the product of a rational comparison of evidence and arguments for and against? Did you scientifically decide against other religions?

[stycotl]

wow, this seems to have gotten a little heated.

haven't we learned by now that arguing religion never persuades anyone? just gets people pissy. especially on the internet. now, if we can have a rational, respectful conversation, maybe people can push away from their keyboards feeling calm and content, rather than offended and angry.

we're getting way off topic here; the discussion started out how to get missionaries (specifically mormons, though i would bet that the op was thinking of others as well) to leave them alone, not the credentials or lack of credentials of the mormon faith. there are usually three or four of those floating around the forums anyway, so we might as well oblige those posters.

for the record, i like some of slayer's stuff, though there are better bands in the metal genre.

and pepsi sucks. mountain dew is where it's at, though i'm trying to cut down on the soda i drink. nasty stuff for your body.

aaron out.

[norcalmom101]

Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb

Patiently and with hope, exactly as I try to do when people don't seem to have a clue about what it means to "trespass" and who can't seem to follow a simple argument.

I am assuming from your post that you think I might have suggested any of those things. I did not. I never said that anyone has a constitutional right to trespass. What I said was that it was highly likely that people have a constitutional right to walk up to your door, ring the doorbell, and ask to talk to you. I am saying that this is almost certainly not trespassing and is constitutionally protected freedom of speech. The exception might be certain situations where you posted appropriate notification and/or restricted access to your door. The fact that you've dragged the irrelevant and previously unused phrase "proselytize their minor children" into this just indicates that you can't really respond to what we've been talking about and are merely trying to ratchet up the emotional level of the discussion to mask your failure.


You too!

My coworker, who is very active in church leadership, and in home protection issues, says you are @#$@#$@#$ dead wrong, and the fact that you think the op referencing the original problem is irrelevant tells me you are not quite stable. btw, the folks at my door went away, if any new guy shows up I'll figure it is you and prosecute.

[norcalmom101]

And yes, this is specifically about mormons, and no, you clearly don't represent any of the ones I know, they have never even heard of your organization.

[arod0331]

How would they react if I open the door wearing a pentacle?

[norcalmom101]

Opening the door naked would do the trick.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by norcalmom101

My coworker, who is very active in church leadership, and in home protection issues, says you are @#$@#$@#$ dead wrong, and the fact that you think the op referencing the original problem is irrelevant tells me you are not quite stable. btw, the folks at my door went away, if any new guy shows up I'll figure it is you and prosecute.

My, you sure are testy today! And "not quite stable"?

I'm glad you have so much respect for your coworker (btw, what church is he affiliated with?). But I was responding to where the thread had moved: people coming to one's door to talk about their religion or church. I'm quite right in what I posted, and I'm mildly curious to hear what your esteemed coworker thinks is wrong in what I've said.

Your OP is a bit ambiguous. What do you mean by someone being "clearly assigned" to you? Are you or a member of your household members of the LDS Church? Do you have LDS friends and family, and are they asking that you be visited?

I think you will be disappointed in your ability to successfully "prosecute" someone for knocking on your door. The best you can hope for is a possibly injunction against future visits, hardly something that the other person needs to worry much about.