The Great Church History Cover-up

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. In this FAIR Wiki article, Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters",

1. FAIR shows four heavily edited versions of the letter used by critics.

2. FAIR then shows the entire letter.

3. FAIR points out which portions of the entire letter were omitted by the critics in order to emphasize the portions that make it sound more like a "love letter."

And you say that FAIR is spinning it?

Wonka just pooned your butt.

[thews]

Something can only happen "again" if it has happened before.

And we know that it hasn't, for the simple reason that you are still here. You may have been suspended, but you were certainly not banned. And since you previously claimed not to know why, you would appear to have no grounds to assert that it was "for stating an opinion."

Your attempt at claiming martyr status just failed.

Such jagged darts... like this is an attempt to claim martyr status? Woe is me...

Based upon a previous moderator warning, I would guess that you were suspended for quoting without attribution.

All I received was a ban and I don't know why... which is why I didn't answer you before.

Now, I previously called for references on three points relating to your assertions:

1. Please provide your analysis of the Whitney letter. Explain your reasoning, and explicitly draw your conclusions;
   
2. Explain how you reach the extraordinary conclusion that "Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off;" and
   
3. Tell us who Joseph's "many offspring" were.
   

[*]I already did an extensive response to the Whitney letter (see post #230).. please respond to what I wrote.

[*]If you have a different explanation as to why he wasn't wearing his garments in jail, please give me an alternative opinion.

[*]I never claimed there was offspring to "prove" Joseph Smith consummated the plural marriages... I don't need offspring to "prove" this... FARMS admits it. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to prove a point I didn't make.

I repost those questions to provide context for your response.

See post #230 for all you didn't respond to.

Let's see how well you do.

Let's see how you do after acknowleding some facts and actually answering a question or two.

Before we start examining your responses to these, I really have to hope that you are better at parsing 19th century English than you are at parsing 21st century English. How many times did I have to reiterate that I did NOT explain polygamy in terms of "not enough men" before it finally sunk in?

Well, I clearly owe you an apology then... I apologize.

I note that your post, which purports to answer my three questions, actually only addresses the first of them. Furthermore, it is worded as a response to a FAIRWiki article.

Why?

If I were to guess, I'd say you've cut and pasted it whole from somewhere. Another anti-Mormon website, is it?

And again all we have is some darts an no answers. I know a lot about this letter and I wrote every word. How dare you make such a claim without anything to base it on. Why not actually answer what was already posted?

What "letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney?" was that?

Oh, you mean the letter written to her parents?

Got it.

And, as I pointed out, all you have to do is read lines 2 and 3 to come to this brilliant conclusion... it's moot, it means nothing, and FAIR's "but the real question is..." is pointless. The letter was addressed to all three of the Whitney's. Is this something you actually think is valid? Please explain...

So that is the sole conclusion you draw from the Whitney letter, is it?

Yes... I believe Emma is being deceived in this letter, and you again failed to actually rerspond, but answer with a question that is pointless. What is your point?

That is usually the case when people write personal letters.

Of course you would.

And another response without making a point... what is your point?

The letter was written to her parents, and asked all three of them to visit Joseph in his one room living quarters -- but you "agree" that it was "a private and secret 'love letter' to Sarah Ann, requesting that she visit him."

You obviously didn't read my response, because you keep pointing out what we all know... the letter was addressed to all three of the Whitney's, Sarah's father married her to Joseph Smith (see my post in #230 for exactly what he said), and who the letter is addressed to means nothing. Who cares... read lines 2 and 3. Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney the day after she tured 17, they were married when he asked them (yes all three of them) to come over... but only if Emma was not there.

I am snipping a great deal of material that is addressed only to the FAIRWiki article, which is consistent with your response being an unattributed cut-and-paste.

And you again fail to make a point or address anything. What is your point?

But it doesn't "mean nothing." It means that your prurient assumptions about the intent of the letter are false.

Why, because you say so? What grounds do you have for making this claim? Please specifically address what I said that you disagree with.

It was obviously difficult for her. Which is understandable.

Why is it "understandable" if it was only supposed to be a blessing? Why would Emma be uncomfortable?

And so?

Yes. One room.

What is your point? Jospeh Smith states he's lonely (twice), it's God's will that they come (yes all three), Sarah's father married them in a traditional marriage *ceremony, the only condition where it is not safe if Emma is there, he has a room intirely to himself... What is your conclusion?

*in case you missed what Sarah's father said:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-SarahAnnWhitney.htm

Her father, Newel K. Whitney, performed the ceremony:

[Calm]

All I received was a ban and I don't know why... which is why I didn't answer you before.

See the bottom of your post here to find out: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/45743-need-for-plural-marriage/page__view__findpost__p__1208733214

The Warren Jeffs comparison certainly didn't help.

[thews]

See the bottom of your post here to find out: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/45743-need-for-plural-marriage/page__view__findpost__p__1208733214

The Warren Jeffs comparison certainly didn't help.

I had already posted that when I received the warning... now I know what I shouldn't say. Do you have a comment on the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney from Joseph Smith?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

wrong answer... it's either yes or no.

[...]

LOL. This is awesome.

Now you

[thews]

LOL. This is awesome.

Now you

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes I did... which you failed again to acknowledge what was posted.

Maybe you can repost the parts that you feel are the most realevant to what Dr. Stuess has asked for and lets see if your really did post it.

[Doctor Steuss]

Yes I did... which you failed again to acknowledge what was posted. Care to offer us some oh so witty sarcasm as a substitute for anything of substance about the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney?

I have no interest in the letter to Sarah Ann Whitney (nor do I know enough about it to feel comfortable venturing to comment on it).

PS.

I hereby acknowledge what was posted... and that it didn't provide the official implementation of the policy (there's got to be a pre-digested bullet point on a website devoid of original research somewhere that can help out).

PPS.

My sarcasm is devoid of wit, and I take great offence that you would try to attribute wit to my rhetorical tool (of being a tool).

PPPS.

I wonder if Red Herring is kosher.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

PPPS.

I wonder if Red Herring is kosher.

I believe so, but only with soy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course "some" would. "Others" may not, but that is because "some" are more intelligent than "others."

One room. Four people.

Do the math.

He has a room to himself. Are you saying Carlos Granger's house had but one room? Please link me to this floorplan and I contend you're wrong.

What a horrible responce. I contend that you are desprate to paint a picture that cannot be painted with the evidence.

[thews]

Maybe you can repost the parts that you feel are the most realevant to what Dr. Stuess has asked for and lets see if your really did post it.

Do you ever post anything of your own, or are you the resident highfiver that arbitrairly agrees with everything from a Pro LDS position? I posted a ton of information regarding blacks being denied the priesthood if you or dr. Suess cares to actually address what was posted instead of continually asking for things over and over in an attempt to drive actual questions regarding the data away. It really serves no purpose to keep posting these support highfives... they add nothing to the discussion.

[thews]

I have no interest in the letter to Sarah Ann Whitney (nor do I know enough about it to feel comfortable venturing to comment on it).

Care to find out about it... http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-SarahAnnWhitney.htm

PS.

I hereby acknowledge what was posted... and that it didn't provide the official implementation of the policy (there's got to be a pre-digested bullet point on a website devoid of original research somewhere that can help out).

The quote it so I can tell what it is you're talking about.

PPS.

My sarcasm is devoid of wit, and I take great offence that you would try to attribute wit to my rhetorical tool (of being a tool).

call it a goose chase

PPPS.

I wonder if Red Herring is kosher.

I wonder if you have anything of substance to say?

[Zakuska]

Im not seeing the letter to Sarahs parents. Did I miss something?

[Pahoran]

All I received was a ban and I don't know why... which is why I didn't answer you before.

You did not receive "a ban." A suspension is not a ban.

And once again we have to explain the same thing to you several times before you get it.

[*]I already did an extensive response to the Whitney letter (see post #230).. please respond to what I wrote.

I did. You failed to make your point.

[*]If you have a different explanation as to why he wasn't wearing his garments in jail, please give me an alternative opinion.

And this from the fellow who whiiiiiines about me answering questions with questions.

Well, tough. It was your idea to introduce that nonsensical and baseless speculation, with all the flourish of someone playing the right bower to take the trick. Now, I could hold your feet to the fire over this one; but I won't. I'll just say that, since you can't back it up, you lose.

The notion that wearing the garment would identify Joseph as a polygamist is absurd on its face. It is and always was associated with the Endowment, not Plural Marriage.

Also, it is not "covered up," so it fails on that point as well. It is a well-known fact in the Church that Willard Richards was the only man in the upper room to be wearing the garment on that day. It is also well-known that he was the only one not to receive a wound to the body, despite the fact that the bullets were "flying like hail."

No, the most likely reason that Joseph wasn't wearing the garment is that, since he knew that he and Hyrum would be killed (and it is a fact that he knew it) he didn't want the Church's enemies to have an opportunity to desecrate the garment as well.

Terrifying as you no doubt find the implications of that explanation, you will, I have no doubt, try your best to disqualify it. Good luck; since your explanation has failed, that is the only one on offer at the moment.

[*]I never claimed there was offspring to "prove" Joseph Smith consummated the plural marriages... I don't need offspring to "prove" this... FARMS admits it. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to prove a point I didn't make.

Your feigned rage is unconvincing. As everyone can see, I put no words in your mouth; I merely asked you to substantiate your claim that Joseph had "many offspring," thus:

What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't?

Are you resiling from this claim?

Yes or no?

See post #230 for all you didn't respond to.

Nothing of any significance to the point at issue.

Let's see how you do after acknowleding some facts and actually answering a question or two.

You are the one with an accusation to make, thews; that means you are the one with the burden of proof.

And again all we have is some darts an no answers. I know a lot about this letter and I wrote every word.

Then why is it all written as if it were a response to the FAIRWiki article?

How dare you make such a claim without anything to base it on.

ROTFL! That's really rich, thews.

How many claims have you made without anything to base them on?

And, as I pointed out, all you have to do is read lines 2 and 3 to come to this brilliant conclusion...

A "brilliant conclusion" that eviscerates your argument.

it's moot, it means nothing, and FAIR's "but the real question is..." is pointless.

And you expect to establish this, how? By mere dogmatic assertion>?

All you "critics" assume that the letter was a "secret love letter" setting up a tryst between Joseph and Sarah.

The fact that it was addressed primarily to Sarah's parents, leaving her as a mere "&c," is proof that it was not.

Your assumption, based entirely upon another assumption, namely that Joseph was just like you, is false.

The letter was addressed to all three of the Whitney's. Is this something you actually think is valid? Please explain...

What's to explain?

Okay, thews. Just for you, I'll type it out r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y, in the increasingly faint hope that you just might be able to keep up.

Are you aware, do you know, or have you heard of any other "love letters" that invite the in-laws to the honeymoon?

Any?

Or is such a thing pretty much unknown in the annals of English or American literature?

Because if Joseph's letter to the Whitneys really is as unorthodox a "love letter" as it appears, then isn't it just possible that it's not a "love letter" at all?

Well, isn't it?

Try to actually think about it this time.

Yes... I believe Emma is being deceived in this letter, and you again failed to actually rerspond, but answer with a question that is pointless. What is your point?

My point is that you previously hinted (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the Whitney letter was trying to set up a tryst. That's why I asked if the "deception" trope was your sole point.

So I take it you don't conclude that a tryst was being set up.

Except, of course, that you really do.

So who is trying to "cover up" what here, thews?

And you again fail to make a point or address anything. What is your point?

My point is that you are wasting an awful lot of verbiage -- and bandwidth -- to make no point at all.

But it doesn't "mean nothing." It means that your prurient assumptions about the intent of the letter are false.

Why, because you say so?

No, because the letter says so.

The letter, thews.

I have to break it here. End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Part 2

Why is it "understandable" if it was only supposed to be a blessing? Why would Emma be uncomfortable?

A lot of people were uncomfortable with plural marriage. That discomfort was not confined to the exact moments when the parties were "getting busy."

What is your point? Jospeh Smith states he's lonely (twice), it's God's will that they come (yes all three), Sarah's father married them in a traditional marriage *ceremony, the only condition where it is not safe if Emma is there, he has a room intirely to himself... What is your conclusion?

My conclusion is that he wanted them there for a purpose that could not be fulfilled by Sarah alone.

Or by Newel dropping Sarah off at the door and coming back an hour later.

That is a very minimalist conclusion, thews. It requires no prurient speculation, and no assumptions of any kind. It merely follows from the content of the letter.

The letter, thews.

The one you so fondly -- and errantly -- imagine supports your pornographic fantasies.

Then why is it only not safe if Emma is there (he states it twice)?

That question has already been answered by others. Joseph was in hiding.

He has a room to himself. Are you saying Carlos Granger's house had but one room? Please link me to this floorplan and I contend you're wrong.

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof; pity I'm too old to fall for such a transparent ruse.

The letter -- the one upon which you hang all your pornographic fantasies -- makes specific mention of Joseph's one private room for the four of them to meet in. If you want to argue that he had the run of the house, what evidence do you have to support that assumption? Ever heard of Occam's (or Ockham's) razor? If your argument doesn't stand up without introducing assumptions unsupported by evidence, try to find one that does.

Does it?

What point are you making? You continue to answer questions with questions in an attempt to imply you actually said something. What is your point?

The point is found in the next two sentences. Here it is again:

So, every time Joseph married a young girl, it was so he could have clandestine meetings with the girls and their parents to talk about religion, does it?

I realise that the weight of the evidence supports the argument that this is what was happening with the Whitneys, but I doubt that you can extrapolate it to all of Joseph's plural marriages.

It was a request for Sarah's parents to bring them the bride that Mr. and Mr's Whitney gace [gave?] Joseph Smith when Mr. Whitney married them. Joseph Smith was a son-in-law for all intent and purposes.

So why aren't they just dropping her off and picking her up an hour later? Or the next morning? Why are the four of them meeting all together?

Game, set and match.

Maybe you should try actually answering a question before you proclaim victory.

Oh, you're about to re-enact the "Knight at the Bridge" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, are you?

"It's only a flesh wound! Come back, you coward!"

Yes indeed Joseph Smith was hiding from the enemies he had afetr making a lt of people lose money,

I guess you just couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a cheap shot, could you? What people, what money?

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are discussing anything in good faith after that?

You have failed to actually say anything addressing what was posted, but simply insert some questions as responses to imply you have a point to make. What is your point? Do you deny the Mr. Whitney married Joseph and Sarah with a traditional marriage vow?

Why should I deny that?

Are you still trying to beat up a straw man about how none of Joseph's plural marriages were marriages in fact? Because if you are, I'm not defending it. The Church does not teach it, either explicitly or implicitly. Never has.

And no honest critic, if such there be, has ever claimed that it has.

But the Whitney letter does not help you. Sorry.

Nor can you extrapolate anything from the Whitney marriage to any other of Joseph's plural marriages. It is a statistically unrepresentative sample. "All Indians walk in single file; at least, the one I saw did."

Anyone who reads this and believes who it was addressed to maens something is clearly in denial of what it does say. It was addressed to Sarah and her parents. Joseph Smith did marry her, and Sarah's parents were promised eternal salvation for giving her to him. It states he's lonely twice. It states it's not safe if his wife Emma is there.. that's it.. the only condition it's not safe, is if Joseph Smith's wife Emma is there and he thinks "Emma won't come tonight."

Question: Was Emma being deceived? (try answering a question with an answer rather than another question)

There is no evidence that Emma was being deceived.

And now how about you try to answer some actual questions with actual evidence that goes to the actual points at issue?

Your prurient speculations from the Whitney letter have collapsed.

You have admitted that you have no basis for your idiotic speculation about why Joseph wasn't wearing his garments at Carthage.

So what, if anything, is your actual position about Joseph's "many offspring," as of today?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you ever post anything of your own, or are you the resident highfiver that arbitrairly agrees with everything from a Pro LDS position? I posted a ton of information regarding blacks being denied the priesthood if you or dr. Suess cares to actually address what was posted instead of continually asking for things over and over in an attempt to drive actual questions regarding the data away. It really serves no purpose to keep posting these support highfives... they add nothing to the discussion.

Do I ever post anything of my own? Are you suggesting that I am plagarizing some one elses comments? Lol. [fist bump for Zak]

I quite frankly thought that your attempted rebuttle of Pahoran's was weak.

[thews]

Do I ever post anything of my own? Are you suggesting that I am plagarizing some one elses comments? Lol. [fist bump for Zak]

I quite frankly thought that your attempted rebuttle of Pahoran's was weak.

And once again we have nothing but your opinion agreeing with another's LDS position adding nothing to what's being posted. These pathetic :highfives: mean nothing, as you will agree to whatever Pro LDS position is being stated, regardless of its content.

[Doctor Steuss]

Care to find out about it... http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-SarahAnnWhitney.htm

[...]

Sure (although learning of early LDS history hasn't exactly tickled my learning bone as of late... too much stuff from earlier millennia to be learned).

Do you mind providing me a reference that might be useful/helpful (i.e. a book, or journal reference -- or any reference for that matter that hasn't suffered from heavy-handed editing and that provides footnotes/endnotes to primary sources)?

[Edited to increase pedantic smarminess to substance ratio]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And once again we have nothing but your opinion agreeing with another's LDS position adding nothing to what's being posted. These pathetic :highfives: mean nothing, as you will agree to whatever Pro LDS position is being stated, regardless of its content.

Well shoot. Your arguments relie on speculation of what could have happened. The evidence simple doesn't paint the picture you wish it would. I can't help it if your arguemnts are bad. Don't blame me.

[fist bump for Zak]

I agree to what the truth is. And what you present as "facts" have been discredited. YOu have utterly failed to paint the letter to Sara as a "Love Letter". Don't get mad at me for that. Why would JS write a letter to Sara and her perants if it was a love letter. I cannot think of any "love" letters that invite parents.

You like to look at any thing that is anit-LDS regardless of content. 2 can play this game.

Are you going to pretend that I never engaged you on other issues? If you choose to go down that road you will have lost all credibility.

[Vance]

And once again we have nothing but your opinion agreeing with another's Anti-Mormon position adding nothing to what's being posted. The pathetic whining of yours means nothing, as you will agree to whatever Anti LDS position is being stated, regardless of its content.

How about that?

[Zakuska]

thews ->

[board wack Mola]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And once again we have nothing but your opinion agreeing with another's Anti-Mormon position adding nothing to what's being posted. The pathetic whining of yours means nothing, as you will agree to whatever Anti LDS position is being stated, regardless of its content.

How about that?

[ high fives Vance]

[thews]

And once again we have to explain the same thing to you several times before you get it.

Actually, once again you fail to actually say anything except snide little remarks to imply you actually have a point to make.

I did. You failed to make your point.

I made many points, mainly that Sarah Ann Whitney's father performed the plural marriage to Joseph Smith and joined them as "companions" for as long as they both shall live. Care to address the data posted? What's you opinion of the marriage ceremony by Mr. Whitney when he married his daughter to Joseph Smith? The point you again fail to respond to, or try and distort with some nonsensical argument, is whether or not the letter was a "love" letter and somehow who it was addressed to was relevant. Also, was Emma being deceived... the answer is yes Emma was being deceived, but you won't actually respond to what Mr. Whitney said when he married them, as it makes the rest of your argument painfully meaningless ...but you still have your tiny little snide remarks to imply you have power.

And this from the fellow who whiiiiiines about me answering questions with questions.

You answer questions with question because you have no answer. This is obvious and a common LDS ploy. You can later claim you responded to the points made, which you failed to do in my initial response, and your new ploy is to be as verbose as possible so the response is just not worth it. If you have an acutal answer, you wouldn't need to answer questions with questions.

Well, tough. It was your idea to introduce that nonsensical and baseless speculation, with all the flourish of someone playing the right bower to take the trick. Now, I could hold your feet to the fire over this one; but I won't. I'll just say that, since you can't back it up, you lose.

And once again you make no point whasoever, but just more tired sarcasm to imply you actually have a point... which you don't.

The notion that wearing the garment would identify Joseph as a polygamist is absurd on its face. It is and always was associated with the Endowment, not Plural Marriage.

Also, it is not "covered up," so it fails on that point as well. It is a well-known fact in the Church that Willard Richards was the only man in the upper room to be wearing the garment on that day. It is also well-known that he was the only one not to receive a wound to the body, despite the fact that the bullets were "flying like hail."

No, the most likely reason that Joseph wasn't wearing the garment is that, since he knew that he and Hyrum would be killed (and it is a fact that he knew it) he didn't want the Church's enemies to have an opportunity to desecrate the garment as well.

Terrifying as you no doubt find the implications of that explanation, you will, I have no doubt, try your best to disqualify it. Good luck; since your explanation has failed, that is the only one on offer at the moment.

And once again, without making any point whatsoever, you claim victory while saying nothing. Joseph Smith told all of them to take off the garments before they went to jail, as it identified them as polygamists. This is a fact, but you can't accept it and have no other response, so you just claim I'm wrong and you win... tired same old ploy. If Joseph Smith knew God was guiding him don't you think he'd keep his garments on? But, if Joseph Smith knew God wasn't guining him he would be more inclined to take them off ...think about it and come back with a rational response that actually contains something of substance.

Your feigned rage is unconvincing. As everyone can see, I put no words in your mouth; I merely asked you to substantiate your claim that Joseph had "many offspring," thus:

Are you resiling from this claim?

Yes or no?

I didn't state there were offspring. This was a point you created as part of your strawman to come back with the standard "prove it" DNA records. I don't care that Joseph Smith produced children from his plural marriages. FARMS admits he did consummate at least 8 of the plural marriages... the point you're attempting to manufacture is moot.

Nothing of any significance to the point at issue.

Once again you find a way to run away from the data in post #230 and ask that i restate the entire argument. No thanks... it's still there if yoy wish to answer it... how abotu you start with the marriage ceremony perfromed by Mr. Whitney when he married (or "gave") Sarah to Joseph Smith in exchange for eternal salvation? Isn't Joseph Smith judging for God in making this promise? Does Joseph Smith have the right to promise eternal salvation? I thought that's was God's position to judge?

You are the one with an accusation to make, thews; that means you are the one with the burden of proof.

And once again you come back with nothing... zero. Just more idle claims. I posted a ton of data and linked it. Either respond to what was already posted or conitinue to distort the fact you really have nothing to come back with, because you obviously don't as evidenced by the childsih sarcasm which is your only retort.

Then why is it all written as if it were a response to the FAIRWiki article?

Another question as a response. The reason I used the FAIRMormon argument is because that's what you're using to come up with the "but the real question is, who was the letter addressed to?" response. As I have stated, who the letter is addressed to means nothing... read lines 2 and 3. Your point is invalid, as is the "but is it a love letter" argument. Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney, and, per her father when he performend the ceremony, as a "companion" as long as they both shall live. What part of "married" are you failing to get?

ROTFL! That's really rich, thews.

You make false claims, back them up with nothing, and this is all you have to come back with ...more nothing based on nothing.

How many claims have you made without anything to base them on?

And now we have the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. Why not point out one thing... what are you saying? What is your point?

A "brilliant conclusion" that eviscerates your argument.

Wow.. "eviscerates" my argument... not quite. Your claim regarding whop the letter was addressd to is moot if you actually read lines 2 and 3 of the letter. Your response, once again, means nothing and is based on zero substance ...just more opinion without an actual response that addresses an actual point.

And you expect to establish this, how? By mere dogmatic assertion>?

And once again, another question without anything to back up what point you allude you're making. What is your point?

All you "critics" assume that the letter was a "secret love letter" setting up a tryst between Joseph and Sarah.

Yes that is what the critics assert, and that's because that's what the letter is. You imply it was meerly Joseph Smith wanting to bless his child bride. Why did he state he was lonely twice? Why does he state it's "not safe" if Emma is there twice? You continue to ignore the what the letter actually says and attempt to difine what it is or isn't based on what other supposed love letters don't exist to Joseph SMith's other brides. Why does he use "lonely" in the letter? Why wass it not safe for them to come if Emma was there? Why is that condition (the only condition) mentions twice, and he states "I don't think Emma will come tonight." ...why?

The fact that it was addressed primarily to Sarah's parents, leaving her as a mere "&c," is proof that it was not.

Read lines 2 and 3... who cares who it was addressed to. Do you think letters sent to urge parents to bring their daughter they married to a man were done so by the post office? Joseph Smith needed Sarah's parents to bring her to him. Who cares who it was addressed to? This point is moot.

Your assumption, based entirely upon another assumption, namely that Joseph was just like you, is false.

And once again we have your opinion based on nothing by your opinion. I'm surprised it wasn't followed by a "I win" ending yet again, after you make no point yet again but give your opinion based on zero... zip ...nothing.

What's to explain?

How about an actual point if you have one?

Okay, thews. Just for you, I'll type it out r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y, in the increasingly faint hope that you just might be able to keep up.

Are you aware, do you know, or have you heard of any other "love letters" that invite the in-laws to the honeymoon?

Any?

Or is such a thing pretty much unknown in the annals of English or American literature?

Because if Joseph's letter to the Whitneys really is as unorthodox a "love letter" as it appears, then isn't it just possible that it's not a "love letter" at all?

More idle sarcasm to imply you're just too far ahead. OK, I'll say this again... Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney. M A R R I E D to her... what is your point with this definition of a love letter? Here's some actual data for you (again):

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-SarahAnnWhitney.htm

Her father, Newel K. Whitney, performed the ceremony:

[Wiki Wonka]

I didn't state there were offspring.... the point you're attempting to manufacture is moot.

...

Your claim regarding who the letter was addressd to is moot...

...

Joseph Smith needed Sarah's parents to bring her to him. Who cares who it was addressed to? This point is moot.

Thews, you have a tendency to evade the points made by declaring them "moot." You also tend to flatly ignore what people say and create your own declarations. I said this:

"So you are responding to the question I didn't ask. I expressed no opinion about whether or not Joseph consummated any of his marriages. Personally, I believe that he did in some, but not all, of his marriages."

And you responded with this:

The truth, which you allude is false, is that Joseph Smith didn't consumate his plural marriages, and this is a fact that he did.

So you ignored what I said, then declared that I was wrong about something I never said. I declare your point...moot.

[Zakuska]

And not only that... he declares something you didn't, even say to be a "fact".

methinks thews wouldn't know a fact if it snuck up behind him and bit him on the butt.

Maybe he orders his "fact" finder from ACME freight?

Wikki: [up high]