The Great Church History Cover-up

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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:

And you responded with this:

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

How dare you. Can't you say anything with substance? You alluded to something that is false. Geeze.

[high fives Zak and Wonka]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I asked you if Emma was being deceived... care to actually answer the question with something of substance? Why was Emma "uncomfortable" with polygamy if the plural marriages were just "sealings"?

So anytime some one is "uncomfortable" with something that really means they are being deceived.

What evidence do you have that Emma was being decieved?

[thews]

So anytime some one is "uncomfortable" with something that really means they are being deceived.

What evidence do you have that Emma was being decieved?

what part of "it's not safe if Emma is here" don't you get? What part of "I don't think Emma will come tonight" isn't clicking with you? What part of Joseph Smith marrying a 17 year old girl seems to be completely normal for a wife? "Uncomfortable" is nothing more than a dodge. If this were just a sealing as some assert, then it would be fine if Joseph Smith's wife was there, but that was the condition... it was only unsafe if Emma was there... why? Answer: Emma was being deceived.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

what part of "it's not safe if Emma is here" don't you get? What part of "I don't think Emma will come tonight" isn't clicking with you? What part of Joseph Smith marrying a 17 year old girl seems to be completely normal for a wife? "Uncomfortable" is nothing more than a dodge. If this were just a sealing as some assert, then it would be fine if Joseph Smith's wife was there, but that was the condition... it was only unsafe if Emma was there... why? Answer: Emma was being deceived.

You are the one that claimed the "uncomfortable" aspect of this not me.

Here it is again in it entirety

I asked you if Emma was being deceived... care to actually answer the question with something of substance? Why was Emma "uncomfortable" with polygamy if the plural marriages were just "sealings"?

How does "it isn't safe for Emma" Translate into "Emma is being decieved". I don't get the logic behind your assertion here.

So if I say "that it isnt safe" that really is code language for "I am really trying to deceive you"..

I just don't follow that. It was unsafe because JS was in hiding. People knew that JS and Emma were married. How do you get to your enemies? You can do it through Family. If Emma has to go out of town and she goes to JS and then JS position is revealed, tell me how that makes either of them safe?

So far you have just asserted what you wish was true. The facts just don't bere this out.

You also failed to explain how this letter to Sara was a "love" letter when it included her parents to come. That is a really odd love letter. I say it is wishful thinking on your end.

"it was only unsafe if Emma was there" Were are you getting this from. It was unsafe for Emma to be there for any reason as JS was in hiding. This is silly that you try to spin this into something that it isn't. You haven't offered anything here.

[thews]

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:

Quote

"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.

Without digging through when I'm being quoted and by whom, I believe you did fail to answer the questions I asked based on what you wrote on FAIRMormon. I also believe that if you answer my questions, you'll understand why I believe your points and distortions are moot. For the record (main points of contention... please be specific):

1) The letter is written to the Whitney family, and specifically states this in lines 2 and 3.

2) The letter itself is not a love letter, but a request for the Whitneys to bring Joseph Smith's plural wife to him.

Some facts:

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

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

[wenglund]

In reading the last part of this thread, for some reason the phrase "hello wall" comes to mind. :-\

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

wenglund,

Apparently, some people think if they continue to ignore the well written counter arguments, AND post the same things over and over, that somehow, they will be convincing. Even though it hasn't worked for them in the past.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In reading the last part of this thread, for some reason the phrase "hello wall" comes to mind. :-\

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here! Here!

[high fives Wade]

wenglund,

Apparently, some people think if they continue to ignore the well written counter arguments, AND post the same things over and over, that somehow, they will be convincing. Even though it hasn't worked for them in the past.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity.

Yes, it does seem to be the case.

[Vance]

I look forward to hearing your take on my questions.

I look forward to seeing you ignore his answers, as is your modus operandi.

[Zakuska]

How does "it isn't safe for Emma" Translate into "Emma is being decieved". I don't get the logic behind your assertion here.

thews keeps focusing on that one little part of the statement and misses the fact that Joseph in the sentence following also says his life depends on them not being seen by anyone. And that their journey to visit him was "heroic". So apparently if emma was there wasnt the only "unsafe" part about it.

[behind the back ]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

thews keeps focusing on that one little part of the statement and misses the fact that Joseph in the sentence following also says his life depends on them not being seen by anyone. And that their journey to visit him was "heroic". So apparently if emma was there wasnt the only "unsafe" part about it.

[behind the back ]

So what we can learn here is that the Whitneys were being decieved because JS said it wasn't safe (his life depends on them not being seen by anyone) for them as well.

yeah.

[bumps chests]

[thews]

wenglund,

Apparently, some people think if they continue to ignore the well written counter arguments, AND post the same things over and over, that somehow, they will be convincing. Even though it hasn't worked for them in the past.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity.

rather than just another pathetic :highfive: that means nothing, adds nothing, and is used to show support for a Pro LDS position, why not make a point? You know... cite something you disagree with. Quote something that supports why you think something is incorrect... oh, I know why you don't... because then you'd have to stand by a position based on something of substance ...you have nothing but idle opinion.

[thews]

I look forward to seeing you ignore his answers, as is your modus operandi.

Hmmm... yet another :highfive: stating nothing, adding nothing to the discussion, but urging ignorance. Ignorance seems to work for you.

[Zakuska]

Hey vance.... [slap me some skin bro.]

[thews]

In reading the last part of this thread, for some reason the phrase "hello wall" comes to mind. :-\

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

let's add four to the number of :highfivers: that say nothing of substance or point out something that would add to the discussion. If you had an argument, you state it... you don't, because ignorance is bliss.

[Zakuska]

Take the blue pill wade! You sexy lookin copper-top you!

oh... and [give me five]

[Zakuska]

You know Mola... we are up to 18 pages on this thread and thews has yet to list a single thing the church is covering up. I wonder why?

[wenglund]

let's add four to the number of :highfivers: that say nothing of substance or point out something that would add to the discussion. If you had an argument, you state it... you don't, because ignorance is bliss.

Good-bye Wall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm... yet another :highfive: stating nothing, adding nothing to the discussion, but urging ignorance. Ignorance seems to work for you.

Hey, I am not the one that is seriously trying to argue that because some one is "uncomfortable" or told that "it isn't safe" that really is code language for being decieved. Got it.

I also am not the one that is trying to argue that a letter addressed to a girl and here parents can be reasonably stated as a "love leter".

Take the blue pill Thews and wake up. Ignorance is bliss.

[rubs elbows with vance, wade, and Zak].

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You know Mola... we are up to 18 pages on this thread and thews has yet to list a single thing the church is covering up. I wonder why?

Because we are to busy high fiving each other.

[Vance]

thews' problem is that he ASSUMES that if one wades through all the "evidence" that he has presented, that his is the only viable/reasonable conclusion.

NEWS for you thews!!!!!!!!!!

IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence clearly shows that the letter WAS NOT a love letter.

The evidence clearly shows that SAFETY was the real concern NOT deception.

0 for 2 there thews.

But thanks for playing.

Now feel free to re-post all of your drivel again.

[Zakuska]

[big 40 to Mola, Vance and Wade]

[Pahoran]

Thews,

I'm getting very tired of your fancy footwork. So here's what we are going to do: we are going to take your assertions one at a time.

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,

Call for references, please. What is the basis for this assertion?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

Thews,

I'm getting very tired of your fancy footwork. So here's what we are going to do: we are going to take your assertions one at a time.

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,

Call for references, please. What is the basis for this assertion?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'll second that CFR. This is an assertion that I've never heard before.

[thews]

I'll second that CFR. This is an assertion that I've never heard before.

I take it you're again going to fail to answer the questions I ask you? See post #330.

Regarding why Joseph Smith took off his undergarments and asked the other to as well, you claim you've "never heard this before" and ask for some sort of backing. This was early in the 1800's (a long time ago), and just because there wasn't a tape recorder running to positively "prove" why he took them off, why is it so hard to believe he didn't want to be identified as a polygymist and that's why? If you have a better explanation, please enlighten me.

(insert reason Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his undergarmants in jail here):

I would appreciate a response to post #330.