The Great Church History Cover-up

[Nemesis]

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

[Zakuska]

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?

Yep thews wants documented weather charts of illinous during that time. Of course Joseph lied so it had to have been snowing during that time.

[thews]

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

Wiki Wonka provided a direct quote from George Smith

[Doctor Steuss]

Gobsmacked.

[Zakuska]

You're right... it's not as good as a logical conclusion being backed up with data. Claiming someone would take off sacred undergarments "because he was hot" when going to jail and asking others to do the same makes no real sense, but you'll accept it as fact because it's what you want to believe. But, using logic, you'd also have to address the unture statements Joseph Smith made regarding prqacticing polygamy, which would provide motive to remove his undergarmants. Oh... and he and the others were going to jail, and polygamy was illegal.

Thews what were Joseph Smith and Hyrum going to jail for?

The charge was "Treason" for declaring marshal law and caling out the legion. Not for polygamy. Gov. Ford could have carred less if Joseph was a poligamist or not. Talking about a leap in logic!

[Nemesis]

Wheres the documentation I asked for thews?

[Doctor Steuss]

You're right... it's not as good as a logical conclusion being backed up with data. Claiming someone would take off sacred undergarments "because he was hot" when going to jail and asking others to do the same makes no real sense, but you'll accept it as fact because it's what you want to believe.

I assume you have a historiographic evidentiary standard that you are utilizing to dismiss the account of someone who was actually there (other than your brand of

[thews]

I to would like to see thews start backing up his claims with evidence. Thews you got today to get your sources in order.

Nemesis

Well, I'll just be honest, as the LDS in here can call me names, post nonsensical sarcasm, and refuse to answer questions, and that's OK, but you single me out in quoting "sources" to my position, while not requiring "sources" for an opposing position. If you're going to ban me for stating an opinion then that's the way this forum of discussion works when an opposing argument is met with questions that cannot be answered, and that's really the purpose of this thread. As I have quoted a few times (see post #360) 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.

Now, what the real question is, is why all the fuss about whether or not Mormons were identifed as polygamists because of the undergarmants, and not why Joseph Smith took them off. This ploy, to divert attention away from the topic is pretty obvious to me. See OP and look at what it askes for... I'm the one that has to provide answers and back up evey minute detail, but that's not required in the opposing argument.

relevant questions:

1) Why did Joseph Smith take off his undergarments before he went to jail?

2) Did Joseph Smith make untrue statements about practicing polygamy? (which would establish motive for removing them)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, I'll just be honest, as the LDS in here can call me names, post nonsensical sarcasm, and refuse to answer questions, and that's OK, but you single me out in quoting "sources" to my position, while not requiring "sources" for an opposing position.

THis is false. I got a warning too. I am LDS. This accusation falls on its face. But hey don't let the facts get in your way here.

AND FYI we have given you several sources. You just dismiss them.

Remeber the journal entries that they took of their garments because it was hot. That was source complete with a website listing.

[Doctor Steuss]

Well, I'll just be honest, as the LDS in here can call me names, post nonsensical sarcasm, and refuse to answer questions, and that's OK, but you single me out in quoting "sources" to my position, while not requiring "sources" for an opposing position. If you're going to ban me for stating an opinion then that's the way this forum of discussion works when an opposing argument is met with questions that cannot be answered, and that's really the purpose of this thread. As I have quoted a few times (see post #360) http://www.i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm.

Now, what the real question is, is why all the fuss about whether or not Mormons were identifed as polygamists because of the undergarmants, and not why Joseph Smith took them off. This ploy, to divert attention away from the topic is pretty obvious to me. See OP and look at what it askes for... I'm the one that has to provide answers and back up evey minute detail, but that's not required in the opposing argument.

relevant questions:

1) Why did Joseph Smith take off his undergarments before he went to jail?

2) Did Joseph Smith make untrue statements about practicing polygamy? (which would establish motive for removing them)

Hi Thews,

I

[Nemesis]

Well, I'll just be honest, as the LDS in here can call me names, post nonsensical sarcasm, and refuse to answer questions, and that's OK, but you single me out in quoting "sources" to my position, while not requiring "sources" for an opposing position. If you're going to ban me for stating an opinion then that's the way this forum of discussion works when an opposing argument is met with questions that cannot be answered, and that's really the purpose of this thread. As I have quoted a few times (see post #360) http://www.i4m.com/t...en_prophet.htm.

This is not your source for why they were imprisoned this is only the source for removing their garments. Now provide the source that polygamy was the reason for their imprisonment. Your opinion does not count as a source or as fact.

Nemesis

[thews]

Hi Thews,

I

[Doctor Steuss]

I reckon I could stop being a jack*** for a minute, and answer these two questions of yours (to what end though?):

1) Why did Joseph Smith take off his undergarments before he went to jail?

We have primary evidence stating why, given by someone who was actually in jail with him (and received injuries from the mob, no less).

The statement (that currently stands as the only primary evidence presented) was made within the walls of the Nauvoo Temple (where polygamist sealings were performed).

Given the individual who made the statement (i.e. someone who was there), the individual who recorded the statement (i.e. Clayton in meeting minutes), and the place in which the statement was made (within the walls of the very building where the purportedly sacred ordinances of polygamist sealings and garment initiation were performed), it would seem there is little to no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement. Of course, if there are other primary statements made under similar circumstances that contradict this one, then we would then have reason to doubt it.

2) Did Joseph Smith make untrue statements about practicing polygamy? (which would establish motive for removing them)

Yes he did. However, this

[Doctor Steuss]

Mormons were the only ones to wear undergarmants and practiced polygamy. I realize it's a point you think you can make by stating it 100 times, but it follows logic that they would be identifed by the garments, Joseph Smith was untruthful about practicing polygamy, and that's the reason he took them off before he went to jail.

Hi Thews,

I

[Zakuska]

THis is false. I got a warning too. I am LDS. This accusation falls on its face. But hey don't let the facts get in your way here.

AND FYI we have given you several sources. You just dismiss them.

Remeber the journal entries that they took of their garments because it was hot. That was source complete with a website listing.

Dontcha know mola... they're "moot".

[Zakuska]

Dr. Stuess quoting thews:

Mormons were the only ones to wear undergarmants and practiced polygamy. I realize it's a point you think you can make by stating it 100 times, but it follows logic that they would be identifed by the garments, Joseph Smith was untruthful about practicing polygamy, and that's the reason he took them off before he went to jail.

Oh my...! I can't beleive "Captian zinger" missed this one...!?

No wonders Mormons hated those heathan gentiles so bad, what with all their.... running around the country side with no underwear on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dr. Stuess quoting thews:

Oh my...! I can't beleive "Captian zinger" missed this one...!?

No wonders Mormons hated those heathan gentiles so bad, what with all their.... running around the country side with no underwear on.

If he says so it must be true.

THe logic follows that other people may have practiced polygamy but they didn't were underware. OR they could have worn underware but didn't practice polygamy.

[Calm]

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.

And why is this unacceptable as an answer?

Have you ever lived in Illinois? I have for six way too long years of my life. I hate Utah's weather and I'd take Utah hands down anytime over Illinois. Winters were excruciatingly cold, the wind would cut right through us (we'd try to hide from it as we waited for the school bus in a corner of the chimney of the house on the corner, but the owner didn't like that so mostly we had to huddle together) and the only worse than the winters were the summers (I remember lying on my bed with not even a sheet on top as that would cling to our skin in the dorm at the top of the house with all our windows open hoping for a drift of air and not getting one, the only good thing about summer was not having to wait for the school bus).

I have no doubt that if I'd had to wear those garments back then, I'd be peeling them off the first 80plus day (humidity makes the temp feel much, much worse).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And why is this unacceptable as an answer?

Have you ever lived in Illinois? I have for six way too long years of my life. I hate Utah's weather and I'd take Utah hands down anytime over Illinois. Winters were excruciatingly cold, the wind would cut right through us (we'd try to hide from it as we waited for the school bus in a corner of the chimney of the house on the corner, but the owner didn't like that so mostly we had to huddle together) and the only worse than the winters were the summers (I remember lying on my bed with not even a sheet on top as that would cling to our skin in the dorm at the top of the house with all our windows open hoping for a drift of air and not getting one, the only good thing about summer was not having to wait for the school bus).

I have no doubt that if I'd had to wear those garments back then, I'd be peeling them off the first 80plus day (humidity makes the temp feel much, much worse).

One more thing, If I am not mistaken the garment back then went to the wrists and to the ankles. Blah

[Calm]

One more thing, If I am not mistaken the garment back then went to the wrists and to the ankles. Blah

Yep, they were basically long johns for both men and women.

it follows logic that they would be identifed by the garments

What logic?

Garments were worn by all endowed LDS at that time including nonpolygamous members (as documented above). How would the garment do anything more than identify the individual as a practicing Mormon, something already well known about the four that were in Carthage?

[Calm]

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

Makes it that much more believable if you've lived there.....because it just so happens that it is dang hot in Illinois at the end of June.

As to why JS would ask others to remove them, I suspect it was more along the lines of giving them permission to as they might have felt uncomfortable doing so in his presence.

Since there was no attempt apparently to persuade Brother Richards to remove his after the first request, it seems totally illogical to me to believe that the reason was to hide the fact they were polygamists...after all, there was someone in their group that was wearing garments, that they apparently knew was wearing the garment and that would certainly at least exposed him as a polygamist.

If the fact that certain Mormons were practicing polygamy was so well-known, how could JS---the leader of the Mormons and likely the best known of all Mormons---have the slightest hope in hell of pretending he, of all Mormons was not practicing polygamy and that he was shocked to the core that Brother Richards here happened to be one---wearing the garment that was given out by JS's authority in an endowment ceremony that was most often, I believe, presided over by JS himself. It makes no sense to think that JS was handing out garments right and left to other Mormons so they could practice polygamy under his direction, yet he not only was not a polygamist himself but would attempt to claim no responsibility for polygamy as well.

thews' argument presupposes that the practices associated with polygamy were well established knowledge in the surrounding country so that the garment given at endowment was an obvious, undeniable identifying 'mark'. Since the endowment would have also been known as a ritual practiced by devout LDS under the direction of JS, then if the garment was connected with polygamy that would required for JS to be connected with polygamy whether or not he himself was wearing garments. JS's apparent practical attitude toward the garment seems to mirror his attitude toward the Word of Wisdom as something that one was not required to live 24/7 in order to demonstrate commitment to the overall idea.

JS was not a stupid man. It is highly unlikely, imo, that he thought he could make the polygamy issue disappear for him simply by not wearing the garment, especially if one man out of the four was wearing the garment. OTOH, it doesn't take too much brains to figure out taking off something that resembles long johns would help one endure the heat (especially if that heat was to be endured in a small room with limited movement or comfort).

I would like to hear an explanation from thews as to how JS would have expected not wearing the garment himself while WR was wearing it would somehow fooled anyone into thinking he was not involved in polygamy if the garment was so established as a mark of a practicing polygamist.

OTOH, we have a documented explanation by someone who was there---an explanation that was not particularly admirable in regards to JS and was used later on as a criticism of him and praise of WR's--that fits the time and place perfectly (having been in the time---end of June---and place---Illinois--myself, I can personally attest to that) and yet thews' is apparently dismissing it as worthless.

I vote we dress up thews in long johns and outer clothing of that time period and stick him in a steam room and see how long he lasts before the layers start coming off. I'll even allow for the setting be on the lowest with the door open as I'd hate for the board to be tried for manslaughter just in case thews is as stubborn in person on this point as he is on the board.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thews,

I

[thews]

And why is this unacceptable as an answer?

Maybe because it doesn't make sense. if someone is hot, they remove clothing. If someone is hot, they don't ask others to remove theirs.

Have you ever lived in Illinois? I have for six way too long years of my life. I hate Utah's weather and I'd take Utah hands down anytime over Illinois. Winters were excruciatingly cold, the wind would cut right through us (we'd try to hide from it as we waited for the school bus in a corner of the chimney of the house on the corner, but the owner didn't like that so mostly we had to huddle together) and the only worse than the winters were the summers (I remember lying on my bed with not even a sheet on top as that would cling to our skin in the dorm at the top of the house with all our windows open hoping for a drift of air and not getting one, the only good thing about summer was not having to wait for the school bus).

I have no doubt that if I'd had to wear those garments back then, I'd be peeling them off the first 80plus day (humidity makes the temp feel much, much worse).

Yes I have lived in Illinois. Joseph Smith was going to jail. Polygamy was illegal. The garments identified him as Mormon, and Mormons practiced polygamy. The real poitn, one you didn't and probably won't answer, is if Joseph Smith believed the garments would protect him, would heat be bad enough for him to take them off? This web of semantics in exactly what LDS do when they want to evade a point. I guess the heat outweighed the power of the garments according to your logic.

[Zakuska]

Yep, they were basically long johns for both men and women.

What logic?

Garments were worn by all endowed LDS at that time including nonpolygamous members (as documented above). How would the garment do anything more than identify the individual as a practicing Mormon, something already well known about the four that were in Carthage?

Why does thews think they would be a mark in the first place...? Who hasn't seen an old western movie without some miner49er showing off his long johns.

It could just as easily be argued that Josephs long johns proved he was a money digger.

[Calm]

If someone is hot, they don't ask others to remove theirs.

A good leader might understand that his men feel uncomfortable doing something they are not sure is appropriate (and garments being a new thing, the rules governing the practical side of them were probably not as clear cut as they are today...and even now there is a lot of leeway of when it's appropriate to wear them....though one rule is definite, you don't expose them to situations where they may be desecrated) in his presence unless he is seen to do it as well. JS made a point of asking/telling/giving permission them to do so ahead of time since it would be too late for them to remove them once they were taken to jail when his men might have seen him not wearing his.

Again, why wasn't it an issue that Willard Richards did not remove his garments?

The garments identified him as Mormon, and Mormons practiced polygamy.

The garments identified him as Mormon?

Are you suggesting there was no other way for them to know he was a Mormon save his garment? How did they manage to identify him as a Mormon and arrest him all those other times before the endowment took place.

The real poitn, one you didn't and probably won't answer, is if Joseph Smith believed the garments would protect him, would heat be bad enough for him to take them off? This web of semantics in exactly what LDS do when they want to evade a point. I guess the heat outweighed the power of the garments according to your logic.

There is no indication that JS thought the garments would physically protect him as far as I've seen. It would seem this idea was started in part due to what happened to Willard Richards on this occasion, in fact. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd appreciate seeing it.