The Great Church History Cover-up

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted. I Lose.]

[thews]

Thews,

I

[Calm]

1) Joseph Smith took off his undergarments knowing he was in danger. One could conclude logically that he didn't believe they protected him.

One could indeed. I am not personally aware of any teaching by JS that the garment would provide physical protection. I am aware of beliefs that use the experience of Willard Richards in Carthage to support the idea that garments provide physical protection (which is not doctrinal btw), but obviously this would not have affected beliefs that existed prior to the jail experience and thus is not evidence that JS believed that garments physically protect.

2) He asked the others to remove their undergarments.

Yes, he did and there are various reasons that this might have occurred.

What definitely occurred is that one man did not do so and there is no evidence that JS felt that this was a wrong decision. If JS was somehow convinced that four of the most wellknown Mormons could hide their Mormonhood by removing their garments, why would he not have had a fit when one of his followers refused to do so thus blowing any chance of the deception being successful?

[Calm]

The real poitn, one you didn't and probably won't answer

I just did a quick search of the thread on the word "protect" and it would seem that today is the first time you've mentioned this. It seems strange to first berate someone for not addressing a point that wasn't brought up, but especially strange is that the "real" point was never made in the first place. Were we just supposed to read your mind that this was the point you were really making?

[Doctor Steuss]

Thews, I appreciate the candid progress that has just been made. By admitting that some of the assumptions are not true, you have just admitted that your argument is illogical.

I will assume that you knew what and how your were responding, and that you just purposefully demonstrated that your conclusion does not hold up to common logic (which, took some class to do, on your part as we rarely like showing how we are wrong).

Now that you've been able to show that your conclusion is illogical, I imagine you'd probably like to move onto something else?

[Calm]

Now that you've been able to show that your conclusion is illogical, I imagine you'd probably like to move onto something else?

It would seem that thews' argument is that garments were used to identify who was definitely Mormon in that time and place (this makes one wonder what did they use prior to that time?) I have no disagreement that if someone knew about garments and the link to the endowment, that this could be used for identification purposes and would be even be useful if there was any uncertainty over who the individual was.

So my question is was JS going to deny he was Joseph Smith, deny he was Mormon or what? What did he believe he would be able to accomplish by removing the garment?

Obviously in any case he was wrong since he still ended up dead.

Still removing the garment at least made his last few hours a bit more comfortable since the heat wouldn't have been as unbearable.

[ttribe]

Perhaps I missed it, but could someone please point out to me why it matters, at all, that JS removed the garment prior to going to Carthage? It's not like EVERYONE didn't know that he was Mormon; and it's not like there weren't many rumors about his practice of polygamy...so the removal of the garment hardly seems related to those two things.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thews comments:

Since you're an agnostic Mormon it hardly makes sense for you to care, as what you define as your beliefs doesn't make sense.

That this (i.e. that me having my name on membership rolls within the LDS Church, and also not quite certain as to the existence and state of deity in the cosmos, and that somehow I shouldn't care about the truth because of this) "doesn't make sense" is probably about as good a summation of the overall communication issues in this thread as we

[Redefined]

Perhaps I missed it, but could someone please point out to me why it matters, at all, that JS removed the garment prior to going to Carthage? It's not like EVERYONE didn't know that he was Mormon; and it's not like there weren't many rumors about his practice of polygamy...so the removal of the garment hardly seems related to those two things.

Very true.

[Calm]

Documentation required for thews' current argument:

That JS believed or at least taught that the garment provided physical protection (since garments were a new introduction into the society, it seems relevant to determine when certain beliefs about them were established rather than assuming that beliefs about something sprang full grown into existence at the identical time of the article.)

That there was logical reason for JS to believe that if three of the four men removed their garments, this would somehow hide their identity as Mormons from the jailers (those who arrested him were personally acquainted with him after all) or the mob (which IIRC also contained people who were personally acquainted with him). Considering his history with the legal system, the widespread publication of various articles about him (some of which likely carried his likeness), where they arrested him (IIRC at his home), that people were visiting him, that those in the jail were calling him Joseph, etc...well, the idea he was trying to hide his identity seems far fetched.

And if he wasn't trying to hide his identity, he would obviously have been also identified as a Mormon without any need to appeal to garment detection.

So why would JS think that taking garments off hide anything from anyone (especially given that not all of them removed garments) even if garments were as well known to be connected to Mormons as thews' argument requires.

[Calm]

Perhaps I missed it, but could someone please point out to me why it matters, at all, that JS removed the garment prior to going to Carthage? It's not like EVERYONE didn't know that he was Mormon; and it's not like there weren't many rumors about his practice of polygamy...so the removal of the garment hardly seems related to those two things.

As far as I can tell, thews' ultimate aim is to either prove JS's modus operandi was deception (thus he attempted to deceive his jailers somehow by removing his garments, evidence that he's deceiving Emma is in the 'love letter') and now also "the real point" is possibly that JS didn't believe in the garment's protecting power as he taught it (this teaching of guarantee of protection has yet to be proven by thews) so he knew the endowment thing was just a fraud.

thews can correct me if I've misread him.

[3DOP]

[Deleted. I Lose.]

Oh Dr. Stu. A man who can concede to losing, who knows he is lost, is the biggest winner! (I have not read any of this thread except p. 23 or whatever it is we are on.) Concede. Lose. Lose to win! I am also...oh nevermind. Don't give scandal...God bless good Doc Stu.

R (aka 3DOP) (aka R the Loser)

[ttribe]

As far as I can tell, thews' ultimate aim is to either prove JS's modus operandi was deception (thus he attempted to deceive his jailers somehow by removing his garments) and now also "the real point" is possibly that JS didn't believe in the garment's protecting power as he taught it (this teaching of guarantee of protection has yet to be proven by thews) so he knew the endowment thing was just a fraud.

thews can correct me if I've misread him.

Seems to me it could actually be evidence in favor of the argument that he knew he was going to die...not wanting to expose the sacred to those who might desecrate his soon-to-be-dead body...but for that to be a possibility (in this thread anyway), then thews would have to admit that this entire line of argument has been a complete waste of time. Unlikely...I know.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is indeed a possibility, but the given evidence and the necessary assumptions tend (in my opinion) to cause it to move too far out of the realm of probability. Therefore, it ceases to be the most "logical."

Nice work. And to be more precise, it never ceased to be logical because it didn't begin to be logical in the firstp lace.

[Doctor Steuss]

Oh Dr. Stu. A man who can concede to losing, who knows he is lost, is the biggest winner! (I have not read any of this thread except p. 23 or whatever it is we are on.) Concede. Lose. Lose to win! I am also...oh nevermind. Don't give scandal...God bless good Doc Stu.

R (aka 3DOP) (aka R the Loser)

My dear Catholic brother, I'm glad you haven't read any of this thread. I think I'd die from embarrassment if you were to. I can

[Redefined]

My dear Catholic brother, I'm glad you haven't read any of this thread. I think I'd die from embarrassment if you were. I can

[Calm]

Seems to me it could actually be evidence in favor of the argument that he knew he was going to die...not wanting to expose the sacred to those who might desecrate his soon-to-be-dead body...but for that to be a possibility (in this thread anyway), then thews would have to admit that this entire line of argument has been a complete waste of time. Unlikely...I know.

Well, I am perfectly willing to concede the possibly that JS was attempting some sort of deception by removing the garment.

I just would like to know what he was attempting to deceive someone about because nothing I can come up with makes sense....

Being Mormon? Since he was wellknown as the leader of the Mormons as soon as he was identified as Joseph Smith, there is no hope of this.

Being Joseph Smith? Seems strange to have his friends and family calling him Joseph, visiting him etc. Seems stranger that he would try to do this when there were people who knew him personally involved in arresting him and in the mob that attacked and there is no reason I can think of that Joseph would have thought it was possible that there wouldn't be these people who could identify him, especially when he had agreed to be turned over to Gov. Ford and Ford's representative.

Being polygamist? thews himself has stated one only needed to be identified as Mormon to be tied to polygamy so we are back at question one.

What else would he be trying to deceive people on here?

[thews]

As far as I can tell, thews' ultimate aim is to either prove JS's modus operandi was deception (thus he attempted to deceive his jailers somehow by removing his garments, evidence that he's deceiving Emma is in the 'love letter') and now also "the real point" is possibly that JS didn't believe in the garment's protecting power as he taught it (this teaching of guarantee of protection has yet to be proven by thews) so he knew the endowment thing was just a fraud.

thews can correct me if I've misread him.

Regarding the whole undergarment thing, it's just a piece of the puzzle regarding Joseph Smith and the topic of the thread, which is the allegation that the Mormon church hides its history. Why this is relevant, though it seems minor, is that it shows Joseph Smith was attempting to avoid prosecution by being identified as Mormon, and showing no faith that the garments themselves had any protection properties. As Mr. Wonka stated, Joseph Smith took them off and asked others to do the same, because he was hot.

Regarding the letter to Sarah Ann Whitney, this whole undergarment things is really a diversion not to answer my questions (See post #330). Both the OP and Mr. Wonka failed to answer my question(s), which boils down to: Was Emma being deceived?

If you have been asked to document that garments identified polygamists many timess don't post again in this thread until you do it. That applies to everyone.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules "If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it."

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm beginning to think you may be a monk. . you seem somewhat Dalai Lama-ish.

If only I were so lucky. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I have found the comforts of the modern world too enticing to renounce.

That, and I look super sexy in a tube top.

Wut?

(PS. I definitely need to stay out of this thread though. Has my chi all out of whack).

[Edit to add an extra "o" to my "to" that was "too" persnickety]

[Calm]

it shows Joseph Smith was attempting to avoid prosecution by being identified as Mormon

So you really believe that somehow Joseph Smith the known prophet of the Mormons somehow thought he could avoid being identified as Mormon even when he was obviously known to be Joseph Smith (and was arrested as such by people who knew him).

And on top of this he didn't get upset that one of the men with him kept his garments on, thus making that man's identification as a Mormon automatic, that he was visited by family and friends in the jail, that he testified of the Book of Mormon in jail, etc. etc.

add-on: to make my point clearer....

I concede the possibility that taking off of garments might hide the fact of someone's Mormonhood if he was not known to be Mormon in any other way.

thews needs to demonstrate that this was a logical approach for Joseph Smith to employ, the most well known Mormon in existence at that time, the man who had proclaimed himself Mormon far and wide and never denied it before even in legal circumstances....

If JS was trying to hide his Mormonhood by removing the garment, why did he not do anything else to hide it as well? Why did he even turn himself in at that time since for everyone concerned, it was a given if someone was Joseph Smith, he would automatically be considered Mormon since he was the founder of the religion. So the only way he could have hidden the fact that he was a practicing Mormon (a point never argued before in any of his legal encounters so why would he attempt to hide it now?) was to hide the fact that he was Joseph Smith...yet not only did he do nothing to indicate he was trying to hide his identity, it was obvious from the very beginning in that he was arrested as Joseph Smith on the charge of treason that he was who he was.....

[selek]

At this point, Cal, Thews is just trying to get in as many digs as possible before the axe falls.

He still hasn't managed to document any of his claims, and his shifting the goal posts are a mark of creeping desperation.

A dozen pages now of balling up his fists, stomping his feet, name-calling and shouting hasn't added one whit of documented proof to his position- I think that's an admission all by itself.

When you couple it with his projecting his own deceitful arguments and distractions upon us...well, there you go.

Tick-tock, Thews.

Your sands are running out...best put up the proof while you can.

[Calm]

(PS. I definitely need to stay out of this thread though. Has my chi all out of whack).

I doubt there is much left to it if thews has reduced his argument to a claim that JS was trying to deceive others into thinking he wasn't Mormon by removing his garments.

add-on: from wiki....

On June 25, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, along with the other fifteen city council members and some friends, surrendered to Carthage constable William Bettisworth on the original charge of riot.

Is there any indication that Joseph thought he could deny being a practicing Mormon (I am assuming for the sake of an intelligent argument that thews is claiming that JS was planning on saying he was no longer Mormon rather than not Mormon at all) in the presence of all those people that were arrested with him originally?

Is there any indication that JS at any point during his incarceration or before denied his "Mormonhood" or did anything that indicated he was about to follow that path? He certainly didn't act that way in jail when he testified of the truthfulness of what he had taught in the past.

[thews]

So you really believe that somehow Joseph Smith the known prophet of the Mormons somehow thought he could avoid being identified as Mormon even when he was obviously known to be Joseph Smith (and was arrested as such by people who knew him).

And on top of this he didn't get upset that one of the men with him kept his garments on, thus making that man's identification as a Mormon automatic, that he was visited by family and friends in the jail, that he testified of the Book of Mormon in jail, etc. etc.

add-on: to make my point clearer....

I concede the possibility that taking off of garments might hide the fact of someone's Mormonhood if he was not known to be Mormon in any other way.

thews needs to demonstrate that this was a logical approach for Joseph Smith to employ, the most well known Mormon in existence at that time, the man who had proclaimed himself Mormon far and wide and never denied it before even in legal circumstances....

If JS was trying to hide his Mormonhood by removing the garment, why did he not do anything else to hide it as well? Why did he even turn himself in at that time since for everyone concerned, it was a given if someone was Joseph Smith, he would automatically be considered Mormon since he was the founder of the religion. So the only way he could have hidden the fact that he was a practicing Mormon (a point never argued before in any of his legal encounters so why would he attempt to hide it now?) was to hide the fact that he was Joseph Smith...yet not only did he do nothing to indicate he was trying to hide his identity, it was obvious from the very beginning in that he was arrested as Joseph Smith on the charge of treason that he was who he was.....

You are clearly correct and I was wrong to say that Mormons were identified by their Mormon garments... I apologize and the links I've provided are not enough to make that claim. I conceed your point, and Mormons were not identified by their garments, and Joseph Smith took his off because he was hot.

[ttribe]

You are clearly correct and I was wrong to say that Mormons were identified by their Mormon garments... I apologize and the links I've provided are not enough to make that claim. I conceed your point, and Mormons were not identified by their garments, and Joseph Smith took his off because he was hot.

How about we be more direct...if it was already known that Joseph was Mormon (and it was), and it was widely believed that JS was a polygamist (and it seems it was), then what difference do you really think the whole taking off the garment thing would be in terms of creating a deception?

[Nemesis]

I'm still waiting for proof or a huge retraction/apology.

Nemesis

This doesn't count.

u are clearly correct and I was wrong to say that Mormons were identified by their Mormon garments... I apologize and the links I've provided are not enough to make that claim.