The Great Church History Cover-up

[Zakuska]

...how the church covers up the history of what other poeple thought about the mormons.

Well.. isn't that a given... they burn their printing presses to the ground.

[around the back double smac]

[Zakuska]

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).

But cal, thews has proved himself a master fact factory.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But cal, thews has proved himself a master fact factory.

So you could say that he is a ........"Fact-ory" Lol!!!!!

{down low}

[Zakuska]

So you could say that he is a ........"Fact-ory" Lol!!!!!

{down low}

You know... Ive often wondered... with the town council burning the expostor press etc... how did any of the papers survive so we have them today?

Theres got to be some good jucy anti-mormon journal some where that tells about a little boy... maybe william Laws son who hid out in the cellar and smuggled a copy out in his nap sack while doging flying bullets from Portter Rockwells gatlin gun.

That would make for great action movie!

[Pahoran]

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

Thank you.

Now as we look at that link, and as we peruse the excerpts you think are so telling, we find two things:

1. It proves, or purports to prove, that Joseph took off his garments, and advised others to do the same. Which we already knew. This is a point that nobody has disputed.
   
2. It offers not a shred of evidence in support of the sole point that is in dispute, namely, that the reason for removing the garment was to avoid identification as a polygamist.
   

It is as if you had been repeatedly asserting that the real reason Jack and Jill went up the hill was to fetch a jar of molasses; then, when asked to prove that, you have responded by proving that Jack and Jill really did go up the hill.

And expressing your contempt for anyone who disagrees with your interpretation.

Your contempt for us, thews, is demonstrated not only in the things you say, but in your clear disdain for our intelligence. You must think us incredibly stupid if you expect us to fall for that shell game.

So, with that matter well and truly settled, do please refresh our memory: what, if any, evidence do you purport to offer in support of the claim that the Church "covers up" its history?

Do you still maintain that the Whitney letter somehow supports that claim?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

Do you still maintain that the Whitney letter somehow supports that claim?

Since "thews" will attempt to declare certain portions of the Whitney letter "moot," I'm providing a line-numbered copy of the entire letter for reference.

1. Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.

2. I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;

3. for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way:

4. and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me;

5. now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things.

6. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed,

7. all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night,

8. let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window;

9. it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty,

10. I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never,

11. but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you;

12. the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty:

13. only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy,

14. when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.

15. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.

16. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me,

17. I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.

18. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith

[Zakuska]

5. now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things.

Im surprised that the crictics haven't picked up on this line and tried to spin it into a failed prophecy.

It also a little Ironic that you post the entire letter. The critrics post a snipit here and prhase there... and yet its the church who is hiding the history.

[thews]

Thank you.

Now as we look at that link, and as we peruse the excerpts you think are so telling, we find two things:

1. It proves, or purports to prove, that Joseph took off his garments, and advised others to do the same. Which we already knew. This is a point that nobody has disputed.
   
2. It offers not a shred of evidence in support of the sole point that is in dispute, namely, that the reason for removing the garment was to avoid identification as a polygamist.
   

It is as if you had been repeatedly asserting that the real reason Jack and Jill went up the hill was to fetch a jar of molasses; then, when asked to prove that, you have responded by proving that Jack and Jill really did go up the hill.

That's a really weak response, but rivals all the other sarcastic non-answers with your Jack and Jill analogy that offers no alternative reason for them taking off their garmants.

And expressing your contempt for anyone who disagrees with your interpretation.

Your contempt for us, thews, is demonstrated not only in the things you say, but in your clear disdain for our intelligence. You must think us incredibly stupid if you expect us to fall for that shell game.

Your lack of answers pretty much defines your stance. The questions you can't answer, you don't, and then play the poor poor pitiful me card in being attacked. I can't help it of you feel threated by the questions you have no answer for.

So, with that matter well and truly settled, do please refresh our memory: what, if any, evidence do you purport to offer in support of the claim that the Church "covers up" its history?

Truth be told, you just run away from questions you can't answer, use a lot of bad sarcasm in making the replies you do post as long as possible without ever saying anything, ask for "proof" for ever tiny minute detail in the hopes it can be disproven but attacking the source without offering up any sort of viable reson for doubting the truth as it doesn't say what you want it to. Case in point:

1) You acknowledge Joseph Smtih took off his garments before going to jail, and asked the other to do so as well.

2) Polygamy was illegal, and Mormons of the day were identified by their garments as polygymists.

3) Joseph Smith was going to jail, and as I have already pointed out lied about practicing polygamy.

Logic conclusion: He took his garments off to avoid being prosecuted as a polygymist. Why would anyone doubt this? If you do, please offer me an alternative conclusion, and the only other one I've heard so far was that he took them off, and ask the others to take theirs off, because they were hot.

Do you still maintain that the Whitney letter somehow supports that claim?

Regards,

Pahoran

You just keep continuing to ask more questions and fail to answer anything. You have yet to answer my main question, so I'll point it out yet again:

1) Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney before the letter was written.

2) It is not a love letter, but a letter asking the Whitney's to bring him their daughter, who he was married to.

3) The letter was addressed to Mr and Mrs. Whitney and their daughter Saraha (this is very clear and not a question).

4) Emma Smith didn't know of Joseph Smith's marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney.

5) In the letter, Jospeh Smith states twice that he is lonely.

6) In the letter, Joseph Smith is very clear that the only condition it is not safe is if Emma was there (no mention of bad guys or mobs, but the only condition is that if Emma is not there, then it is "safe".)

7) Joseph Smith stats that he doesn't think Emma will come tonight.

8 ) Mr. Whitney performed the marriage of Sara to Joseph Smith "giving" her to him in a traditional marriage ceremony stating that the were "companions" for life.

Question you have failed to answer many times: Was Emma Smith being deceived?

[thews]

Since "thews" will attempt to declare certain portions of the Whitney letter "moot," I'm providing a line-numbered copy of the entire letter for reference.

1. Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.

2. I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;

3. for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way:

4. and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me;

5. now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things.

6. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed,

7. all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night,

8. let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window;

9. it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty,

10. I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never,

11. but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you;

12. the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty:

13. only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy,

14. when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.

15. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.

16. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me,

17. I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.

18. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith

You have continued to fail to answer the detailed questions in post #330. Am I to assume you cannot and therefore choose not to?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have continued to fail to answer the detailed questions in post #330. Am I to assume you cannot and therefore choose not to?

Your sneering aside.

The very least you could do is bring up a valid criticism.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Logic conclusion: He took his garments off to avoid being prosecuted as a polygymist. Why would anyone doubt this? If you do, please offer me an alternative conclusion, and the only other one I've heard so far was that he took them off, and ask the others to take theirs off, because they were hot.

[...]

Even coming from you, I'm surprised (well, maybe not so much surprised as more perplexed than usual) you

[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, I am still waiting for a responce to this. This it 3rd time I have given this to you. Can I hope you will respond this time?

I will keep this simple this time.

[selek]

Thews,

You have yet to demonstrate the premise that polygam ists could be identified by their garments.

Until you do so, your argument is fatally flawed.

You have been given a number of factual evidences which contradict your theory, and you have steadfastly failed to address, let alone refute them.

You have been given at least two plausible alternative reasons- one of them attested to by testimony from the participants themselves and the other by historical evidence- and yet have not addressed them.

Your theory relies on an assertion not in evidence, and you ignore theories supported by either first hand testimony or by the extant evidence.

Why should we accept a rationalization that contradicts and denies the evidence over those supported by the evidence?

You've dodged a number of CFR's and moderator patience is wearing thin- either back up your assertion that Joseph removed his garments because they were evidence of polygamy or withdraw the charge.

[thews]

Even coming from you, I'm surprised (well, maybe not so much surprised as more perplexed than usual) you

[Redefined]

That, and it doesn

[thews]

Thews,

You have yet to demonstrate the premise that polygam ists could be identified by their garments.

Until you do so, your argument is fatally flawed.

Not so. Polygamy was frowned upon as it was illegal and the locals (non-Mormons) identified mormons by something that only Mormons used, which is the undergarmants. This is simple logic, and the claim my logic is flawed would have you, or anyone else, provide an alternate conclusion regarding why Joseph Smith would take his garments off. This ruse that one must produce reams of evidence to "prove" a point is just another dodge, becuase you have no answer. If you do, please share your opinion regarding why joseph Smith took his garments off and asked the others to as well. You point, regarding mormons were not identified as Mormons (polygimsts) by their garments means nothing.

You have been given a number of factual evidences which contradict your theory, and you have steadfastly failed to address, let alone refute them.

You, like others, continue to make claims but reference nothing and post no counter argument, and when the data is posted and you're painted in a corner, you simply go away and fail to answer the question. What exactly are you talking about,and what exactly is your alternate opinion of why Jsopeh Smith took his garments off and asked the others to do so as well?

You have been given at least two plausible alternative reasons- one of them attested to by testimony from the participants themselves and the other by historical evidence- and yet have not addressed them.

What are they? They were "hot"? Can you produce weather charts and quotes from people to prove it was normal for someone to be "hot" and ask others to remove undergarments because they were "hot"? What exactly is your point? Post it.

Your theory relies on an assertion not in evidence, and you ignore theories supported by either first hand testimony or by the extant evidence.

And once againwe have a blanket statement that references nothing. What are you talking about?

Why should we accept a rationalization that contradicts and denies the evidence over those supported by the evidence?

Because I post data, and if i disagree, I state exactly why i disagree. Also, I don't need the pathetic support of posters that have nothing to offer but bad sarcasm to hide behind their lack of an actual answer referencing something. What is your point exactly?

You've dodged a number of CFR's and moderator patience is wearing thin- either back up your assertion that Joseph removed his garments because they were evidence of polygamy or withdraw the charge.

Untrue, and you have dodged a perfectly logical assumption, relying on a supposed "lack of proof" claim, but offering nothing regarding an alternate conclusion based on the sources you require to accept my conclusion. Once again, what is your point? Tell me exactly why you believe Joseph Smith took off his garments, and respond to what i posted regarding joseph Smith lying about being a polygimst, which would give motive for my argument. I posted data... what do you have to say about what was actually posted?

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)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Once again, if you have an alternate opinion regarding why joseph Smith was not wearing his garments, and asked the others to remove theirs as well, please share this conclusion that actually makes a point and references something of substance.

Maybe we can learn from you on how to substantiate a claim? I am done with you. You don't get it and there is no point in further discussion.

[Senator]

a perfectly logical assumption

There you have it ladies and germs of the jury. The prosecution (thews) rests it's case.

Hopefully

Six feet under

[Doctor Steuss]

Are you claiming the "because he was hot" has supporting "evidence"? Please enlighten me with your evidence, why joseph Smith, because he was "hot," would ask others to remove their garments before they went to jail?

Huh? Have you and I been reading the same thread?

Wiki Wonka provided a direct quote from George Smith

[Zakuska]

Are you claiming the "because he was hot" has supporting "evidence"? Please enlighten me with your evidence, why joseph Smith, because he was "hot," would ask others to remove their garments before they went to jail?

Yep thews knows better than the people themselves why they did something.

For the reading impaired such as thews here is that post by wiki again.

"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.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208739582

And thus we see documented evidence that the garment was removed not for fear of being identified as a polygamist but because it was hot. Of course thews thinks every word that came out of Joseph mouth was a lie so he will continue to second guess every thing he said.

[Doctor Steuss]

What I gather from this information I read in regards to "lying about polygamy during the Nauvoo Era",

http://www.fairlds.o...ion.html#head10

is that Joseph Smith felt morally obligated to God's will, and in order to protect his righteous cause, it was necessary to lie about not be forthright about polygamy.

Might this also apply in this case? Might he have thought that it would help his case if he were to be able to show his accusers, that he didn't have on what they thought would be proof of polygamy?

Added.. . . this comment is a direct result of the posts assumption that he didn't wear his garments. . . I take no position on that matter. . . I could see though a possible reason for him not wearing his garments based on the argument FAIR puts forward.

I imagine you meant to respond to someone else, as this has little to no bearing on what I wrote.

[Redefined]

I imagine you meant to respond to someone else, as this has little to no bearing on what I wrote.

Yes, it would have been more appropriate as a general response rather than an individual response. But my response was a result to the thoughts you had about if Joseph Smith thought he would fool people by taking off his garments.

[Doctor Steuss]

BTW, Thews. I know that previously I just assumed that you had multiple sources documenting that there was a common practice of checking people

[Vance]

Humm,

Let's see. Not wearing the garments because it was "hot" is not a valid argument because?

Ah, the weather in late June, like the temperature and relative humidity, somehow make the "because it was hot" argument unbelievable?

[Doctor Steuss]

Yes, it would have been more appropriate as a general response rather than an individual response. But my response was a result to the thoughts you had about if Joseph Smith thought he would fool people by taking off his garments.

Were there other polygamist religious groups running around the Illinois border wearing garments?

If not, it seems strange that the Mormon prophet would think taking his garments off would keep him from being identified as a Mormon. Or did people of that time period actually distinguish between polygamist and non-polygamist Mormons?