The Great Church History Cover-up

[thews]

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.

I guess you can't read. From response #330:

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.

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

Wrong again. The letter clearly shows Joseph Smith was lonely and wanted to be with his young bride, and asked Sarah Ann Whitney's parents to bring her to him. The only condition where it was "not safe" is if Emma was there (he states it twice, and says he doesn't think Emma will come tonight). This truth doesn't bode well for what you believe, but to a critical thought process it's clearly what it says.

1) Emma Smith didn't know about joseph Smith being sealed to Sarah Ann Whitney.

2) Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney when this letter was written.

3) The only condition where it was "not safe" is if Emma was there (the only condition).

0 for 2 there thews.

But thanks for playing.

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

These :highfives: are pathetic, but at least you actually claimed to make a point... an incorrect one, but at least an attempt to add something to the discussion.

[thews]

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.

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

Regards,

Pahoran

My fancy footwork? You ask the question, I answered it, and all I get in return is a diatribe of sarcasm failing to actually answer the questions. If you had answers you'd state them, but since you don't, what you post in retort are pages of tap dancing. (see post #323).

To answer your question, I assert that Joseph Smith took off his garments in jail, and asked the other to take theirs off as to not be identified as polygymists. Why is this such a huge leap? They were polygymists, polygamy was illegal, and they were going to jail. if you have a counter reason for them taking off their undergarments, please give it to me so that I may understand why you find this so hard to believe.

PS - All I need is an answer and your pages of sarcasm don't add anything. Note also I expect, as is common, that you'll find a way to claim you're done and just run away from the questions that are too hard to answer. Also expected are more pathetic :highfives: that add nothing but blind supposed support without adding anything to the discussion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

So in other words we are just supposed to take your word for it. There is no source that tells us that the garment was a sign of polygamy only Thews word. Sorry dude that isn't how it works.

What a really bad attempt to justify your position. Not only is it not convincing it is amaturish.

The gament is not a sign of polygamy. That has never once been taught by the church. If it was I am sure you could prove us all wrong by find anything from the church. I will accept anything from church histroy, the JOD, or even a journal entry from JS or other GA's that lived back in the day. It certainly is not in any of our cannon. I think you blowing smoke here.

Go ahead prove me wrong.

I don't know why they took off thier garments, but to assert taht the garment was a sign of polygamy is false if fails on its face. WHy do I say that. becuase most of the church was not polygamist. Only about 5% practiced it. Yet most members were endowed and wore the garment.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess you can't read. From response #330:

Wrong again. The letter clearly shows Joseph Smith was lonely and wanted to be with his young bride, and asked Sarah Ann Whitney's parents to bring her to him. The only condition where it was "not safe" is if Emma was there (he states it twice, and says he doesn't think Emma will come tonight). This truth doesn't bode well for what you believe, but to a critical thought process it's clearly what it says.

1) Emma Smith didn't know about joseph Smith being sealed to Sarah Ann Whitney.

2) Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney when this letter was written.

3) The only condition where it was "not safe" is if Emma was there (the only condition).

These :highfives: are pathetic, but at least you actually claimed to make a point... an incorrect one, but at least an attempt to add something to the discussion.

Wrong again, it was for safty and not deception. Sorry. You just can't deal with the evidence.

[Wiki Wonka]

To answer your question, I assert that Joseph Smith took off his garments in jail, and asked the other to take theirs off as to not be identified as polygymists. Why is this such a huge leap? They were polygymists, polygamy was illegal, and they were going to jail. if you have a counter reason for them taking off their undergarments, please give it to me so that I may understand why you find this so hard to believe.

Confirming that you have no source to tie the removal of garments to the practice of polygamy - it is simply your conjecture because you think that it isn't a "huge leap."

Joseph instructed the Quorum to remove, hide or destroy the garments because there were reports that William Law was going to use this as a means to identify families in Nauvoo that were to be killed. Sources are:

1) Heber C. Kimball, Journal, 21 December 1845, and Oliver B. Huntington, Journal, 22 April 1897.

2) Sarah G. Richards to Zina Huntington, 20 September 1890, Church Archives.

Hopefully your "day job" isn't "historian," thews.

[Zakuska]

And once again Wiki Wonka Pwnes thews with actual sourced material rather than half baked conspiracy theories of deception and gile.

[slap me some skin wiki]

Why does William Law sound more and more like a Nazi sympathizer the more I learn about him?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Confirming that you have no source to tie the removal of garments to the practice of polygamy - it is simply your conjecture because you think that it isn't a "huge leap."

Joseph instructed the Quorum to remove, hide or destroy the garments because there were reports that William Law was going to use this as a means to identify families in Nauvoo that were to be killed. Sources are:

1) Heber C. Kimball, Journal, 21 December 1845, and Oliver B. Huntington, Journal, 22 April 1897.

2) Sarah G. Richards to Zina Huntington, 20 September 1890, Church Archives.

Hopefully your "day job" isn't "historian," thews.

How dare you show the facts. Geeze. Well you are just wrong because you are not Thews and this is pro LDS and just can't be right. Ppfffttt.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

1) Heber C. Kimball, Journal, 21 December 1845,

[...]

Wonka,

This will probably sound like a stupid question (at least I hope it does, because I like asking those):

Is this different than his autobiography (i.e. is HCK one of those peeps that just wrote an autobiography, and that is treated like their journal)? Or is this separate (i.e. a

[Pahoran]

My fancy footwork? You ask the question, I answered it, and all I get in return is a diatribe of sarcasm failing to actually answer the questions. If you had answers you'd state them, but since you don't, what you post in retort are pages of tap dancing. (see post #323).

That's false. Of course.

To answer your question, I assert that Joseph Smith took off his garments in jail, and asked the other to take theirs off as to not be identified as polygymists. Why is this such a huge leap? They were polygymists, polygamy was illegal, and they were going to jail. if you have a counter reason for them taking off their undergarments, please give it to me so that I may understand why you find this so hard to believe.

Clearly you don't understand how a CFR works in this forum; so I'm going to tell you.

It starts when you make an unsupported assertion that others either don't accept or want to see more information on. They then "call for references."

Your options at this point are:

1. Produce the reference so that we can check it and judge for ourselves how well it supports your assertion; or
   
2. Admit that you have no reference, and it is merely your unsupported opinion.
   

What you don't get to do is pretend it is some kind of "default explanation" and then try to duck the burden of proof by demanding that others provide a better one.

You've asserted something. A CFR basically means: "Put up or shut up."

By making a positive assertion, you shoulder the burden of proof. You have twice failed to satisfy that burden by supporting your assertion. That means you can't put up. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are personally incapable of shutting up, too.

Therefore, for the balance of this thread, I would ask you to refrain from making this unqualified assertion as if it were an established fact. It is a controversial opinion that you are unable to support.

PS - All I need is an answer and your pages of sarcasm don't add anything.

Nor do your unsupported assertions and airy hand-waving.

BTW, who died and made you thread originator? AFAICT, I'm still here.

Note also I expect, as is common, that you'll find a way to claim you're done and just run away from the questions that are too hard to answer.

If you really believe that you've asked "questions that are too hard to answer," I have serious doubts about your grasp of reality.

Also expected are more pathetic :highfives: that add nothing but blind supposed support without adding anything to the discussion.

I don't know if you've noticed, thews, but the "highfives" to which you refer are hardly ever seen around here; they are so common in this thread only because you are going ballistic about them.

You see, I suspect one or two people might be having fun watching you go ballistic.

But, as thread originator (that's me) I'm going to exercise the prerogative of getting the thread back on track. Please note the topic and re-read the OP. Can you show that your obsession about this point bears any relationship to that?

Because if not, I'm going to ask you to either let it go or, if you just can't bear to do that, then take it to another thread.

Ideally with some supporting documentation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

Confirming that you have no source to tie the removal of garments to the practice of polygamy - it is simply your conjecture because you think that it isn't a "huge leap."

Well, to me anyway, common sense would dictate that if you had an alternate theory, you'd state it. But, since the onus is clearly on me to "prove" why I believe Joseph Smith took his garments off before going to jail (rather than just use logic as polygamy was illegal), here you go:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

to your point...

2. Smith ordered apostles to get rid of their garments

"Heber C. Kimball said Smith sent word to the apostles on the east coast to destroy their garments they had received in the endowment since 1842." (Quinn page 147) Quinn references History of the Church 6:519 which mentions the letter, and Heber C. Kimball's diary, 21 Dec. 1845, found in the book "Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, page 224"

Joseph instructed the Quorum to remove, hide or destroy the garments because there were reports that William Law was going to use this as a means to identify families in Nauvoo that were to be killed. Sources are:

1) Heber C. Kimball, Journal, 21 December 1845, and Oliver B. Huntington, Journal, 22 April 1897.

2) Sarah G. Richards to Zina Huntington, 20 September 1890, Church Archives.

and then to mine (logical)

3. Smith removed his own garments, instructed other to do the same

"Smith removed his own endowment "robe" or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, "When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments."" (Quinn page 146) Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives.

and this

"Emma Smith remembered that the prophet did more than consent to the revelation's destruction. According to her 1847 account, while alone in their Mansion House bedroom, Smith "told her that the doctrine and practice of polygamy was going to ruin the church" and then he burned the revelation. Clayton's diary shows just before the prophet returned to Emma [that night], he told his secretary to burn the Council of Fifty's minutes. It makes sense that while he was alone with her the night of 23 June 1844, only hours before surrendering for trial, he directed his attention to destroying the written evidence of polygamy." (Quinn page 147) For the Emma quote, Quinn references William E. McLellin letter to Joseph Smith III, 10 Jan. 1861 and July 1872, archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the Clayton reference, Quinn refers to Clayton diary 22 June 1844 with an explanation referring to other Clayton journal entries.

Hopefully your "day job" isn't "historian," thews.

It isn't, but I value the truth and the words I put in print are those I actually believe, as I believe in God and deception is wrong all the time. Now, I assume I'll get the standard character assination (much like the LDS commonly use against Henry Caswal), let's look at the facts:

1) Joseph Smith was going to jail.

2) Polygamy was illegal.

3) Undergarments identified a polygimst.

What do you conclude the reason Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his undergarments if you disagree with what was posted?

I answered your questions (I'll answer any you choose, as I do not fear them). Are you going to answer post #330 in this thread, or am I to assume you have no comment about your words regarding the Sara Ann Whitney letter?

[thews]

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.

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

Regards,

Pahoran

Ok, you got it. If you disagree, please let me know why you believe Joseph Smith took off his garments before going to jail.

Am I the only one that has to answer questions... without "answering" them with another question? Direct question to you (which you failed to answer regarding the Saran Ann Whitney letter):

1) We know Emma didn't know about Joseph Smith being sealed to Sara Ann Whitney (she was just 17).

2) We know Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney's that it is not safe to bring her to him if Emma was there (he states it twice as the only condition it is "not safe").

3) We know the letter isn't a love letter, but a request to bring joseph Smith his bride.

4) We know Mr. Whitney, who married Joseph Smith to his daughter, used traditional marriage vows to include "companion" for life.

5) We know the letter was addressed to all three of the Whitney's (Mr., Mrs., and Sarah).

6) We know Joseph Smith was lonely (he states it twice).

7) We know Joseph Smith states "I don't think Emma will come tonight."

My one question to you: Do you believe Emma Smith was being deceived?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok, you got it. If you disagree, please let me know why you believe Joseph Smith took off his garments before going to jail.

You are being dishonest. We have given you direct refrences to historical accounts that tell you why. You responces are a joke. Go home.

You don't even acknowledge when an answer was given to you. This is pathetic and it is disrepsectful.

[thews]

You are being dishonest. We have given you direct refrences to historical accounts that tell you why. You responces are a joke. Go home.

You don't even acknowledge when an answer was given to you. This is pathetic and it is disrepsectful.

You only post something of substance every 4th post (maybe) that actually makes a point, post after every LDS Pro post agreeing with them, and keep trying to be funny with your sarcasm. Again you state something, but back it up with nothing. How about you actually state what you mean exactly.

1) Please reference what you're talking about with "direct references" as stated.

2) Please provide a reason for Joseph Smith to take off his garments if it wasn't because he didn't want to be identified as a polygimst.

There is nothing "disrespectful" about posting something that doesn't agree with your argument, nor is it "dishonest" as you assert, as I would saythe same thing about you. I don't need 10 people to agree with me to substantiate my argument. This is a discussion, if you have something to state, I'd like to see it without all the manufactured drama and bad sarcasm. What exactly is your point?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You only post something of substance every 4th post, post after every LDS Por post agreeing with them, and keep trying to be funny with your sarcasm. Again you state something, but back it up with nothing. How about you actually state what you mean exactly.

One in four isn't bad. I wish I could say that same for you.

What the hell have you been doing dude. We asked for a refrence for the garment being a mark for polygamy. And what kind of a responce did we get from you? Just more assertion. Were is your histroical refrence that the garment was a sign of polygamy. You will get banned for not putting up a refrence. You will get banned because you continue to assert it with no refrence. That will be the reason for the banning. Not for any other reason. Mere speculation does not esptablish something as fact. that is all you ahve given is specualtion. ANd you want us to give a you a better reason for believing something than what you have asserted. How about a hisrtical refrence. Wanka provided you with a refrence. Did you even respond to it? No! You pretened that no one has answered your pathetic post.

You didn't even respond to the reason I gave that the garment was not a sign for being a polygamist. Instead you pretened taht I didn't respond to you.

No cookie for you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1) Please reference what you're talking about with "direct references" as stated.

2) Please provide a reason for Joseph Smith to take off his garments if it wasn't because he didn't want to be identified as a polygimst.

I will do this as soon as you prove to me that you don't wet the bed any more.

This isn't how it works Thews you are the one that is asserting that "the reason for Joseph Smith to take off his garments if it wasn't because he didn't want to be identified as a polygimst" The burden of proof is on your shoulders because you are the on asserting that JS took off his garment because you believe it is a sign of being a ploygamist. It is your job to show that that is the case. Mere speculation and assertion doesn't cut it.

The reason you won't respond to my responces is because you keep wetting the bed. Can you give me a reason to believe otherwise?

See how it doesn;t work.

[Wiki Wonka]

Ok, you got it. If you disagree, please let me know why you believe Joseph Smith took off his garments before going to jail.

Am I the only one that has to answer questions... without "answering" them with another question? Direct question to you (which you failed to answer regarding the Saran Ann Whitney letter):

1) We know Emma didn't know about Joseph Smith being sealed to Sara Ann Whitney (she was just 17).

2) We know Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney's that it is not safe to bring her to him if Emma was there (he states it twice as the only condition it is "not safe").

3) We know the letter isn't a love letter, but a request to bring joseph Smith his bride.

4) We know Mr. Whitney, who married Joseph Smith to his daughter, used traditional marriage vows to include "companion" for life.

5) We know the letter was addressed to all three of the Whitney's (Mr., Mrs., and Sarah).

6) We know Joseph Smith was lonely (he states it twice).

7) We know Joseph Smith states "I don't think Emma will come tonight."

My one question to you: Do you believe Emma Smith was being deceived?

8. We know that the one actual reason stated by Joseph in his letter for this visit was that the "one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me."

I would assume from this that there was a blessing involved for the Whitneys. He says this..."git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

8. We know that the one actual reason stated by Joseph in his letter for this visit was that the "one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me."

I would assume from this that there was a blessing involved for the Whitneys. He says this..."git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads."

Why go to the source of what the letter says when Thews can offer us his opinion based on his preconceived notions.

[Wiki Wonka]

Ok, you got it. If you disagree, please let me know why you believe Joseph Smith took off his garments before going to jail.

"Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather."

An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith, editor. p. 222-24.

So, according to John Taylor, they took them off because it was hot.

[thews]

One in four isn't bad. I wish I could say that same for you.

What the hell have you been doing dude. We asked for a refrence for the garment being a mark for polygamy. And what kind of a responce did we get from you? Just more assertion. Were is your histroical refrence that the garment was a sign of polygamy. You will get banned for not putting up a refrence. You will get banned because you continue to assert it with no refrence. That will be the reason for the banning. Not for any other reason. Mere speculation does not esptablish something as fact. that is all you ahve given is specualtion. ANd you want us to give a you a better reason for believing something than what you have asserted. How about a hisrtical refrence. Wanka provided you with a refrence. Did you even respond to it? No! You pretened that no one has answered your pathetic post.

You didn't even respond to the reason I gave that the garment was not a sign for being a polygamist. Instead you pretened taht I didn't respond to you.

No cookie for you.

I gave you the reference in post #360, while you continue to post childish ranting hiding behind the "prove it" ruse that there must be some other reason Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments in jail, why not actually make a point and tell me why you think Joseph Smith took off his garments in jail? Continuing to fail in giving an alternative motive for Joseph Smith taking off his garments only proves your only counter argument is that I can't prove why he did. We know he wasn

't wearing them, so why not give me a reason for it (insert an actual answer that makes a point here).

Becuase you can't read, here it is again:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

2. Smith ordered apostles to get rid of their garments

"Heber C. Kimball said Smith sent word to the apostles on the east coast to destroy their garments they had received in the endowment since 1842." (Quinn page 147) Quinn references History of the Church 6:519 which mentions the letter, and Heber C. Kimball's diary, 21 Dec. 1845, found in the book "Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, page 224"

3. Smith removed his own garments, instructed other to do the same

"Smith removed his own endowment "robe" or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, "When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments."" (Quinn page 146) Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives.

[thews]

"Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather."

An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith, editor. p. 222-24.

So, according to John Taylor, they took them off because it was hot.

So your point is that, when faced with impending danger in going to jail after attempting to flee, Joseph Smith took off his garments and asked the others to take theirs off... because it was hot?

[thews]

8. We know that the one actual reason stated by Joseph in his letter for this visit was that the "one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me."

I would assume from this that there was a blessing involved for the Whitneys. He says this..."git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads."

The "blessing" would be the part where Joseph Smith grants the Whitney's eternal salvation for giving him their daughter I would assume. You still haven't answer post #330. There's a lot of questions in it regarding what you have to say about the Whitney letter and I'd really appreciate an answer.

More info regarding the motivation behind the Sarah Ann Whitney letter:

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/teen_polygamy.htm

"And I will bless Joseph Smith and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds."

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

"But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused [to Joseph Smith], shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto Joseph Smith to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."

- Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:55, 62-63

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_josephsmithpolyandrypolygamy_section1.html

Pretend Marriages in Case of Pregnancy

According to church historian Andrew Jenson, Sarah Ann Whitney became the seventh plural wife of Joseph Smith, and the story of his marriage to her illustrates another strategy. She disguised her relationship to the prophet by pretending to marry Joseph Corodon Kingsbury on April 29, 1843. In his autobiography Kingsbury wrote: "I according to Pres. Joseph Smith & Council & others agreed to stand by Sarah Ann Whitney as though I was supposed to be her husband and [participated in] a pretended marriage for the purpose of . . . Bringing about the purposes of God in these last days . . ."

- Elder Joseph Kingsbury, "History of Joseph Kingsbury Written by His Own Hand," page 5, Utah State Historical Society

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_josephsmithpolyandrypolygamy_section1.html

Of all the gospel doctines Joseph Smith established, none received this much attention from God. For God sent an angel to Joseph Smith over a dozen times to make sure he taught and practiced it.

This doctrine had the most saving power over any ordinance, because it guaranteed the salvation of an entire family for only one person's obedience to it.

That's right - Joseph Smith taught that only one person in a family needed to obey this doctrine in order to save their entire family. But if they rejected the doctrine, then their whole family would be damned.

That's exactly the offer the Prophet Joseph Smith gave to fourteen year-old Helen Mar Kimball.

Helen wrote:

"Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he (my father) offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth."

"My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar: how cruel this seemed to my mother whose heartstrings were already stretched unil they were ready to snap asunder, for she had already taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice but the Lord required more."

- Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Womans Exponent, 1880 and recently reprinted in A Woman's view

.

In fact, Joseph Smith gave Helen only 24 hours to decide on whether or not to marry him. Of this, Helen wrote:

"[my father] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty four hours. ... I was sceptical - one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast me off, and this was the only convincing proof That I had of its being right."

The next morning, Joseph Smith finally appeared himself to explain the "law of Celestial Marriage" and claim his teen bride. In her memoir, Helen wrote, "After which he said to me, 'if you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household and all of your kindred.' This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I gave you the reference in post #360, while you continue to post childish ranting hiding behind the "prove it" ruse that there must be some other reason Joseph Smith wasn't wearing his garments in jail, why not actually make a point and tell me why you think Joseph Smith took off his garments in jail? Continuing to fail in giving an alternative motive for Joseph Smith taking off his garments only proves your only counter argument is that I can't prove why he did. We know he wasn

't wearing them, so why not give me a reason for it (insert an actual answer that makes a point here).

Becuase you can't read, here it is again:

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

Your assertion does not count as a refrence Thews.

Yes those accounts state that they took off their garment. That is not the problem I have. The problem I have is that you assert the reason they did that was because the garment was a sign of being a polygamist. What refernce do you have for this assertion?

BTW have you stopped wetting the bed?

[Zakuska]

[5 digits mola]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So your point is that, when faced with impending danger in going to jail after attempting to flee, Joseph Smith took off his garments and asked the others to take theirs off... because it was hot?

IT would appear so. DO you think taht JS was lying? IF so were is your evidence for that.

This is the part were you will need to come up with something from JS claiming that the garment is a sign of polygamy.

[thews]

Your assertion does not count as a refrence Thews.

BTW have you stopped wetting the bed?

And once again you post nothing, make no point whatsoever, answer no questions, provide no opinon based on the response, and your only recourse is to use insults... because you know you're wrong and it's all you have left. If you have nothing to add but childish highfives and insults, you really have no reason to be in a discussion involving adults.