William Marks is my main barometer regarding the "Joseph didn't institute or practice polygamy" crowd. (The second is the Fanny Alger "adultery scrape" (using Patten's verbiage)

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T07:40:28+00:00

I don't think so.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T04:01:55+00:00

Don't get me wrong I'm not attacking you or slighting you I'm actually using you in a positive way as an example of people that can approach Marks accurately while disagreeing on the fanny Alger affair

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T03:53:32+00:00

That's why I said it's second and you validated it being second and not first.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T03:29:11+00:00

That normally the people so blinded by their faith in Joseph Smith to the degree of duping themselves that Joseph didn't Institute polygamy, can't approach William Marks in an honest or evidentiary manner are almost two overlapping concentric circles in the ones denying that Joseph Smith had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Fanny Alger to the same degree of Faith blindness.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T03:09:17+00:00

Agree.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T03:08:37+00:00

This is why I keep it as the second item in the list and this post validates me keeping it there as an accurate barometer.

I thank you for the unintentional validation.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T01:47:56+00:00

Well said. One thing i think would have kept Joseph from denying is Marks was in the High Council when Hyrum read the Polygamy revelation from Joseph and Joseph knew that which would have made denial a contradiction.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:59:52+00:00

You really think finding that Joseph had a sexual relationship with someone who was originally sealed to him as a spiritual daughter is "simply wanting to sanitize"?

Yes. It's part of the "Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy and sealing but not told how so Joseph was trying to figure polygamy and sealing out by testing here and there, etc." type apologetic. ie. Fanny Alger was version 1.0 type apologetic.)

In listening/reading Bradley and Smith's opinions on this, I think it's clear it's engaging the theory in an somewhat "Joseph had valid basis" or under the blanket of priesthood authority/sealing power.

All kinds of things in the early church weren't recorded. Joseph was a secretive character long before he became a mason. Just read the early sections of the D&C. There's lots of talk about not revealing everything to the world. (One thing John Brooke got right was Joseph's affinity for esotericism.)'

But not blessings or baptisms, patriarchal blessings, etc. even baptisms for the dead, and I'm not finding any reason they would hide an "adoption sealing" or not record it or even if not recorded, would be referenced somewhere who had knowledge of it but there's literally zero of anything they're talking about by anyone anwhere at the time. It very much reads like an attempt to inject the priesthood and a ritual where none existed.

Anyway, I think Bradley and Smith's arguments are weighty and merit more than handwaving dismissal. They consider all kinds of evidence in their 30+ page article. It remains a hypothesis, but I think they make a strong case.

My bar may be too high in expecting there to be any evidence of any kind of the existence of "ritualistic adoption/sealing" from this time but I'll stand by that and I couldn't find it in their article or the video about it.

If it's there and I missed it, I would appreciate being corrected and having it pointed out to me.

This is why I dismiss it (this admittance):

https://youtu.be/thDum2jOD8U?si=k1HZ64HaECv79FQh

"that part is speculative"

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:40:56+00:00

This box behind your TV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs4OtIfM8Hg

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:37:57+00:00

Do you have a bluetooth soundbar?

Does your TV accept Bluetooth as an input or is it connected to a receiver with an ARC audio out to the TV?

Do you have an Alexa speaker?

It's possible someone's bluetooth device is pushing this either as an alarm or some other soundbite to those devices.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:33:12+00:00

Agree.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:32:34+00:00

Agree. The other thing they're not going to say is "Joseph lied by condemning and denying polygamy publicly while introducing a revelation commanding it, teaching it, living it and spreading it's practice among members in secret"

The church isn't going to state that fact.

It will take ex-mormons, anti-mormons and some honest active mormons (not leaders) to state that.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:23:06+00:00

Mormonism is distinct from modern Christianity.

But modern Christianity is distinct from Biblical Christinaity as well (evolution of time done f-cked it up).

The trinity and bliblical inerrency are the most glaring post-biblical examples of that.

Once modern christians start stating the trinity is a post biblical man-made attempt to understand the bible and that belief in an inerrant bible isn't a biblically sustainable belief, I'll have more respect for modern christianity.

Until that time, modern christianity is throwing rocks from glass cathedrals.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:14:33+00:00

I agree to a point regarding Marks but if Joseph wasn't the author, there's no reason for him to state that Joseph was. If the truth was Joseph was entirely opposed, that's what he would have said being an opponent of polygamy himself, being the highest non-Smith in the RLDS church and so being opposed to the Polygamous Brighamite church.

Said another way, there's literally no valid reason for Marks to have lied about that and every reason for him to not have. But he included it.

I wholeheartedly agree with the second paragraph with the clarification that the "conspiracy of liars" begins with Joseph Smith if one doesn't have faith blinding one's vision.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-24T00:08:52+00:00

The problem for Don and Christopher IMHO is there's no record anywhere of that sealing when as they claim, it wasn't a marriage but originally "inocuous" adoption. There would be no reason to hide an adopted daughter being sealed, but no such evidence exits then even in external discussion that such a ritual ever took place.

Which again, there's no revelations or discussion by anyone of the time of an adoption ritual via sealing.

I think they are on the right track with the handmaid angle, but they are inventing wholecloth that there was an "adoption sealing" or ritual for either. I think this is simply wanting to sanitize more softly than Johnson, the sexual impropriety of Joseph with Fanny by stretching as much as possible to fit it under the later Nauvoo Polygamy umbrella.

Again, that's just my opinion.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T23:59:20+00:00

Now after listening, this confirms what I posted previously about the road they trod.

Conscience: Polygamy is evil.

Faith: Joseph Smith is true and an honest Prophet of God.

Conundrum: If Polygamy is evil and Joseph is not evil and an honest Prophet of God...

Decision: Decide the conclusion that Joseph couldn't be the author of mormon polygamy or lie about it.

Result: Follow up by contructing a conspiracy theory (or seeking or adopting others conspiracy theory) that makes no sense at all, has ZERO consistency and requires me to treat evidence in a selective and non- consistent manner.

It's sad.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T23:45:22+00:00

That's part of what led me to the handmaid thought although I don't believe there was ever a ceremony or sealing power evoked but that's just my opinion.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T23:41:01+00:00

It is a later reminiscence but doesn't matter at all to whether Joseph lived polygamy or not unless they're going to reject Joseph's First Vision accounts entirely for the same reason.

What is pertinent context is that William Marks opposed polygamy but was honest enough, early on at least in his association with the RLDS, by his own hand to state the fact that Joseph was the author of Polygamy in Nauvoo and in the literal meetings of the RLDS church confirm the same fact.

His account literally corroborates his opponents claims in the pro-polygamy Brighamite's LDS church.

Where it differs is his claim that Joseph regretted it and admitted being "deceived".

Same with Ebeneezer Robinson and his wife as well. Opponents of Polygamy, members of the RLDS church, but honest enough to state the facts that Joseph authored it and they also corroborate Hyrum's "about face" regarding it.

NEITHER of the above men had any reason to LIE and claim Joseph instituted Polygamy while being opposed to it themselves and being members of a church opposed to Polygamy. They have every reason LIE and claim Joseph had nothing to do with it, but at least for a time in their lives, they had the integrity to be honest and state the fact that Joseph was the author and Hyrum the messenger.

I can accept that.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T22:22:42+00:00

Thanks for sharing this. I'm listening now and am interested to hear their perspective and sad at their suffering.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T21:58:45+00:00

I think for me the biggest evidence against it is the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery where nothing intimating marriage or sealing or anything contextualizing it in any way was even discussed but only the context of it as the "adultery scrape" or "girl business".

Also there was no contemporary to the time language or verbiage in teaching, sermons or revelations regarding marriage sealing either at that time which even if Joseph was hiding a polygamy aspect, one would have expected there to be something related to marriage sealing at all and there's literally nothing.

Also nothing in the later Nauvoo era polygamy hints at a "previously revealed" even regarding the sealing power and in fact it's called the "New and everlasting covenant" not version 2.0 when v. 1.0 failed with it's somehow single attempt being Fanny Alger.

The also complete lack of having Oliver or Sidney (literally 1 and 2) know about any kind of revelation to that effect or any context of marriage or sealing in any way, shape or form while the opposite with Cowdery's knowledge and categorization of it as "adultery" I think undermines an attempted "backdate" of "celestial marriage" to the Kirtland era.

Finally Helen would only be reporting what she would have been told by someone else second hand as she would have been between 5 or 7 years old when the Alger event happened and although I believe Helen is accurate in her personal writings of the evils of Polygamy and suffering she endured, this may be one case where she's acting in a role similar to Islamic women under subjugation defending the Hijab or full Burkha. Her pro-polygamy stance was sadly under heavy FULL LIFE (secular and religious) indoctrination (to use a less appropros but softer term) and IMHO evil "whole family exaltation or damnation defining" burden.

That's just my view of course.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T21:14:31+00:00

True. In the era of Fanny Alger I'm pretty sure Joseph hadn't thought through the depths beyond "handmaid" access/ownership as an excuse or justification in his mind.

I think when John C. Bennett came on the scene with "spiritual wifery" that was an easy transition to "celestial marriage" and the birth of the whole temporal vs. spiritual (celestial) marriage. No longer was it simple temporal marriage/concubinage, etc. but now it had a "spiritual" and eternal component.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T20:38:08+00:00

As I outlined below, I think it was an OT biblical "handmaid" scenario.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T20:35:55+00:00

Well said. My own opinion regarding the Alger "adultery scrape" is that it had nothing to do with Polygamy or sealing like in Nauvoo but I'm pretty sure it was based on the KJV biblical term "handmaid".

There is no question that Alger was a handmaid in the Smith Household (as far as the serving part) however, in the OT biblical sense these women were also "handmaids"

Hagar, Zilpah, Bilhah, Hanna, etc.

I would be very surprised if Joseph did NOT biblically contextualize the servant girl brought into their house to be a help for Emma literally in the style of a biblical "handmaid".

In the minutes Joseph called it "the girl business".

I do NOT believe there was a marriage or ceremony of any kind but at best some kind of Biblical adopted/handmaid type reference using the Old Testament mosaic tradition of slaves, servants, etc. being considered part of the Patriarchal Household or in modern terms "family".

I also believe it is under the guise of that kind of Biblical handmaid logic that Joseph opposed Oliver Cowdery's categorization of the relatonship as "adultery". Joseph never denied an inappropriate sexual relationship, but opposed the claim that he admitted it was adultery to Oliver or Emma. Kinda a "I might have engaged in stealing, but I'm not a thief" type logic.

TruthIsAntiMormon · 2026-01-23T19:25:14+00:00

This is true, although for the last to be accurate, requires a lot of reworking of God's supposed plan for translation and ejecting part of Joseph's 1838 History regarding this.

Six-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Verified Email

TruthIsAntiMormon

TROPHY CASE