The Great Church History Cover-up

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Thews you have nevered addressed this rebuttal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

I added more to my quote THews. Check it out again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

All I have is your opinion that JS took his garments off becuase the garment was a sign of ploygamy accourding to you. That last part is false and you cannot come up with a refernce for it because it isn't true.

JS did take off his garments. Why did he do that?

You have yet to establish that the garment is a sign of being a polygamist. Were is your reference for that THews?

I have not insutled you. I am asserting that you wet the bed in the same fashion taht JS took his garments off because the garment was a sign of polygamy.

Speaking of not being in a discussion involving adaults. Adaults when asked for reference provider them. So far you have failed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[5 digits mola]

High five.

Did you know that thews still wets the bed?

Thats what I heard!!

This is tasteless so stop it.

[Calm]

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?

Why would having garments on put Joseph in any more danger than he already was?

I could see an unidentified man that no one knew was Mormon having that option, but the four you are talking about were leaders of the Church and surely had no way of hiding who they were so what would removing the garments have accomplished?

[Zakuska]

You know all this arguing over the garment as a sign of Polygamy could be set to wrest if one could find a couple who were sealed at the and not involved in polygamy.

[Wiki Wonka]

Why would having garments on put Joseph in any more danger than he already was?

I could see an unidentified man that no one knew was Mormon having that option, but the four you are talking about were leaders of the Church and surely had no way of hiding who they were so what would removing the garments have accomplished?

A very good point. We are to believe that Joseph removed his garments so that the folks taking him to jail wouldn't know that he was...wait for it...Joseph Smith, who was practicing polygamy?

It was W. W. Phelps who said that Joseph sometimes didn't wear garments because it was hot.

It was John Taylor that "corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear."

It was thews who can't seem to come up with any source other than his own thoughts that connect the garments, and their removal, with polygamy.

[thews]

Why would having garments on put Joseph in any more danger than he already was?

I could see an unidentified man that no one knew was Mormon having that option, but the four you are talking about were leaders of the Church and surely had no way of hiding who they were so what would removing the garments have accomplished?

what is your point? Joseph Smith was being accused of practicing polygamy, which was against the law. Joseph Smith was being sent to prision, and asked all involved to take off their garments as well. People in those days identified polygimists by the garments... what's so hard to digest here? If you don't believe Joseph Smith took off his garments because it identified him as a polygimist, then please give me an alternative reason... do you subscribe to the "because he was hot" argument?

Consider Joseph Smith lied about practicing polygamy (establishing motive):

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#lied

Joseph lied about practicing polygamy.

1844 Sermon given by Joseph

It is clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite claims to the contrary:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this...I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are - whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)

1838 Interview with Joseph (at least 3 years after his first plural wife)

In the July 1838 edition of the Elder's Journal ("Edited by Joseph Smith") Joseph Smith answered some questions including the following:

"Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?

"Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom which has gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to our great mortification, of marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two or three months after the death of their companion.

"We believe that due respect ought to be had, to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children."

(Elder's Journal, Vol 1, No. 3, p 43; reprinted in History of the Church Vol 3, p 38)

1838 Letter written by Joseph

On Dec 16, 1838 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the church from Liberty Jail which included the following:

"We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God."

(History of the Church Vol 3, p 230

1844 Notice in Church-owned Newspaper

"TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1844.

NOTICE.

"As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.

"This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.

"JOSEPH SMITH,

"HYRUM SMITH,

"Presidents of said Church."

(Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 423)

1843 Joseph's speech in front of the Ladies' Relief Society

By the time Smith had dismissed Bennett in the summer of 1842, Smith had taken the following "spiritual wives" for himself in Nauvoo:

Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (current wife of Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (current wife of Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (current wife of Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (current wife of Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (current wife of David Sessions), Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde (current wife of Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (current wife of Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (current wife of John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson Sherman, and Eliza R. Snow. (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Todd Compton, 1997, p. 4.)

That's twelve women who have been amply documented as JS' plural wives, during the period in which Smith placed responsibility for the entire polygamy practice on Bennett. In a speech before the Ladies' Relief Society, on February 21, 1843-----wherein many of his "plural wives" were in attendance-----Smith had the audacity to state the following:

"There is a great noise in the city...and many are saying there cannot be so much smoke without some fire. Well, be it so. If the stories about Joe Smith are true, then the stories of John C. Bennett are true about the ladies of Nauvoo; and he says that the Ladies' Relief Society are all organized of those who are to be the wives of Joseph Smith. Ladies, you know whether this is true or not."

Because his "plural wives" in the audience had been sworn to secrecy, Smith felt confident enough to stand before them and lie unabashedly.

Polygamy was always illegal as practiced by Mormons:

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#lied

Polygamy was always illegal whenever and wherever the Mormons practiced it. It was even illegal in Canada and Mexico as they only recognize marriages that are legal in the person's home country. John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States "except one"--i.e., "The law in relation to polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, page 317)

Most of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in Illinois in the early 1840s. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

[Zakuska]

what is your point? Joseph Smith was being accused of practicing polygamy, which was against the law. Joseph Smith was being sent to prision, and asked all involved to take off their garments as well. People in those days identified polygimists by the garments... what's so hard to digest here? If you don't believe Joseph Smith took off his garments because it identified him as a polygimist, then please give me an alternative reason... do you subscribe to the "because he was hot" argument?

Consider Joseph Smith lied about practicing polygamy (establishing motive):

http://mormonthink.c...olyweb.htm#lied

Polygamy was always illegal as practiced by Mormons:

http://mormonthink.c...olyweb.htm#lied

And yet it was because of the Mormons that the Edmunds tucker act was inacted by Congress making Polygamy ilegal in all existing states. Your getting the cart before the horse thews.

Secondly, Since the "sealings" that where performed in Navoo were "Religious: in nature and not recognized by the state they wouldn't fall under the definition of Bigamy. They may fall under the laws of promiscuity and possibly adultuery.

[Calm]

Joseph Smith was being accused of practicing polygamy, which was against the law. Joseph Smith was being sent to prision

Are you saying he was taken to jail on the charge of polygamy?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

what is your point? Joseph Smith was being accused of practicing polygamy, which was against the law. Joseph Smith was being sent to prision, and asked all involved to take off their garments as well. People in those days identified polygimists by the garments... what's so hard to digest here? If you don't believe Joseph Smith took off his garments because it identified him as a polygimist, then please give me an alternative reason... do you subscribe to the "because he was hot" argument?

Brilliant, so now you are able to read the minds of dead people. WEre is your evidence that "People in those days identified polygimists by the garments".

CFR. I will accept any histroical source. You have now moved the goal post.

[Doctor Steuss]

People in those days identified polygimists by the garments... what's so hard to digest here?

Knowing that you have multiple sources from the time period documenting this practice, I'd just like to say (with presentism well in mind) that people in early-mid 19th century America were a bunch of pervs... running around performing underwear checks.

----------------------------------

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

[Calm]

You know all this arguing over the garment as a sign of Polygamy could be set to wrest if one could find a couple who were sealed at the and not involved in polygamy.

Here is a list of Nauvoo temple endowments, but I believe the time period is post martyrdom:

http://www.xmission.com/~research/family/familypage.htm

I had family that were endowed at Nauvoo and weren't at that time practicing plural marriage. Will have to dig out the records and see what year it occurred in.

[Zakuska]

Also... the Illinois law thews sites is unconstitutional!

"It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; "

What ever happend to trial by jury? Innocent until proven Guilty?

[Calm]

If you don't like to accept what people actually said, there is another option that has been speculated that the garments were removed to avoid their likely desecration much like LDS are told these days to not wear garments in places they would be exposed to those who would not understand the purpose (such as doctors, gyms without private dressing rooms, outside like T-shirts, etc.)

I however see no reason to doubt the word of John Taylor. What would be the purpose of him lying about it? It is not as if removing them because they were hot is some sort of noble motive, lol.

[Senator]

what is your point? Joseph Smith was being accused of practicing polygamy, which was against the law. Joseph Smith was being sent to prision, and asked all involved to take off their garments as well. People in those days identified polygimists by the garments... what's so hard to digest here? If you don't believe Joseph Smith took off his garments because it identified him as a polygimist, then please give me an alternative reason... do you subscribe to the "because he was hot" argument?

Thews,

For crying out loud!

As a dispassionate and unvested observer of this thread may I say that your tactics for argumentation have become absolutely absurd.

If you would like to declare that you will not believe any and all documented explanation that comes from the mouth of a Mormon, just say so, and I'm positive this discussion would end immediately. I'm sure you opponents would love to move on to something actually productive.

[Calm]

On another note, JS had already been identified as a polygamist by William Law at least. What good would it therefore do for him to remove his garments?

Garments were, after all, part of the endowment process, not part of the sealing process. And IIRC, there were some sealings/marriages done prior to the organized endowment (those of you who actually study this stuff please correct me if I am wrong). Either way, why would people be identifying polygamists by their garments? Devout, endowed members, certainly...but the endowment was never restricted to only polygamists.

[Wiki Wonka]

If you don't believe Joseph Smith took off his garments because it identified him as a polygimist, then please give me an alternative reason... do you subscribe to the "because he was hot" argument?

You asked for an alternative reason. You were given one that was backed up with a cited source. The only thing that you did differently here was that you didn't declare it "moot," although that's what you are essentially trying to do here.

The "because he was hot" argument has the distinct advantage of being documented with a source.

For the umpteenth time: CFR. Give us a source for your statement that Joseph removed his garments because he was a polygamist. Your own thoughts and conjectures do not count as a fulfillment of the CFR. Per board rules, you need to support it with a source or withdraw it.

[Calm]

Apparently the ten men who first received the endowment were: Joseph and Hyrum Smith, "James Adams, Heber C. Kimball, William Law, William Marks, George Miller, Willard Richards, Newel K. Whitney, and Brigham Young."

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/anointed2.htm

At the very least, William Law was never plurally married, IIRC so it would appear that one could receive garments without being plurally married.

Therefore what thews needs to show is that the general public identified polygamists by their garments even though this was factually incorrect (nonpolygamists being endowed and therefore wearing garments as well).

add-on: here is a link to the members of the Anointed Quorum including those who were sealed to their wives and plural marriages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointed_Quorum

I don't have time to go through each one, but it looks like James Adam was not plurally married though endowed and sealed to his one wife.

[Wiki Wonka]

Knowing that you have multiple sources from the time period documenting this practice, I'd just like to say (with presentism well in mind) that people in early-mid 19th century America were a bunch of pervs... running around performing underwear checks.

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

[Doctor Steuss]

Sorry, I missed seeing this until now. These references were passed on to me by other members of FAIR. They were cited in a thesis by Andrew Ehat "JOSEPH SMITH'S INTRODUCTION OF TEMPLE ORDINANCES AND THE 1844 MORMON SUCCESSION QUESTION." (1981):

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

I don't have direct access to them. I do believe that they are both actual journals and not autobiographies, but I will try to find out more.

[...]

Very much appreciated. Thank you.

The main reason I was looking for clarification is that it is my understanding the Heber C. Kimball was much like Joseph in regards to education level and relied on others quite a bit to write things for him (I might be confusing him with someone else though). I

[Zakuska]

20 pages and counting and STILL no proof of a cover up.

[Zakuska]

Apparently the ten men who first received the endowment were: Joseph and Hyrum Smith, "James Adams, Heber C. Kimball, William Law, William Marks, George Miller, Willard Richards, Newel K. Whitney, and Brigham Young."

http://www.signature...s/anointed2.htm

At the very least, William Law was never plurally married, IIRC so it would appear that one could receive garments without being plurally married.

Therefore what thews needs to show is that the general public identified polygamists by their garments even though this was factually incorrect (nonpolygamists being endowed and therefore wearing garments as well).

add-on: here is a link to the members of the Anointed Quorum including those who were sealed to their wives and plural marriages:

http://en.wikipedia....Anointed_Quorum

I don't have time to go through each one, but it looks like James Adam was not plurally married though endowed and sealed to his one wife.

Thanks cal. I think that pretty much blows thews theory to bits.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks cal. I think that pretty much blows thews theory to bits.

Well not if you think going to the source doesn't mean anything. I mean who cares what the sources say when Thews can just speculate on what "other people think the garment represents".

He changed his argument to an indefensible one.

It used to be that "The garment was a sign of polygamy" to "people back in the day considered the garment to be a sign of polygamy".

Both are false just one changes what he was asserting.

Who cares what other people thought. I care what the garment meant to JS and the early church.

After all this is how the church covers up its history not how the church covers up the history of what other poeple thought about the mormons.

[Calm]

It used to be that "The garment was a sign of polygamy" to "people back in the day considered the garment to be a sign of polygamy".

Both are false just one changes what he was asserting.

At the very least, he has to prove that people actually believed it was a sign of polygamy as he can't appeal to "common sense" since something isn't common sense if it's contrary to known facts.

And as I mentioned above, it seems highly unlikely that JS would think it a successful move for him to remove his garments since the attacks about polygamy focused on him. It's been awhile since I've read the Expositer, perhaps someone else would be kind enough to see if such claims were also being made about his brother, John Taylor or Willard Richards.

JS was taken to prison on the charge of treason. I am wondering what polygamy has to do with that. You would think that JS would have had a major fit that Willard Richards refused to follow his request to remove his garments if it was for the purpose of hiding the fact they were polygamists from the jailer. That one of them was a polygamist would be all the confirmation of the rumours that the mob needed assuming that they cared enough about proof to require something more than the claims of William Law and others....assuming that thew's faulty assumption that garments proved polygamy is correct (contrary to documented facts).