The Great Church History Cover-up

[Zakuska]

I'm failing to understand the rules here. When data is posted by cutting and pasting, isn't that the purpose of giving credit for its source? Isn't the inverse of someone claiming it and not being able to prove it, claiming it's false without being able to prove it's false?

What you are posting is a secondary source. You need to quote the primary source.

[Chaos]

I just posted the rule, thews. Now you are starting to annoy me. I don't have the patience to read all this. Everybody post one question they want answered by the other guy. Responses will have to be documented with something besides personal opinion. Everybody knows how everybody "feels" and I don't want to see it said again.

Anybody who ignores or complains will be booted from the thread. I'm tired of it.

[thews]

I just posted the rule, thews. Now you are starting to annoy me. I don't have the patience to read all this. Everybody post one question they want answered by the other guy. Responses will have to be documented with something besides personal opinion. Everybody knows how everybody "feels" and I don't want to see it said again.

Anybody who ignores or complains will be booted from the thread. I'm tired of it.

Ok thanks.

[thews]

Perhaps the reason you claim you haven't been answered...

There are only 4 people who could answer that question difinitively thews. All of them are dead.

Go buy yourself a Ouija board and find out.

I'm not into occult magic, but it's not necessary to form an opinion. So, my one question to you, since you believe the plural marriages of Joseph Smith were not consummated, even though FARMs admits it and there's numerous statements by the plural wives confirming it... my question to you is:

Question: Do you believe, in the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, was Emma Smith being deceived?

[WalkerW]

I'm not into occult magic, but it's not necessary to form an opinion. So, my one question to you, since you believe the plural marriages of Joseph Smith were not consummated, even though FARMs admits it and there's numerous statements by the plural wives confirming it... my question to you is:

Question: Do you believe, in the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, was Emma Smith being deceived?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/%22Love_letters%22

[Zakuska]

I haven't an opinion either way. I would need to know what Emma was doing at the time. I know earlier she got so angry that she threw a pregnant teenager down the stairs.

Does it have anything to do with the church's truth claims. No.

PS. The letter wasnt to Sarah Ann Whitney It was to her parents, she was CCd.

[thews]

I haven't an opinion either way. I would need to know what Emma was doing at the time. I know earlier she got so angry that she threw a pregnant teenager down the stairs.

You didn't answer the question.

Does it have anything to do with the church's truth claims. No.

This doesn't add anything to the question ...you didn't answer it.

PS. The letter wasnt to Sarah Ann Whitney It was to her parents, she was CCd.

I've said many times the letter was addressed to all three (Sarah, He father and mother), and it was not a love letter (see post #330). You can refuse to answer the question, but you have posted enough opinion I figured you knew enough about it to answer this simple question.

[thews]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/%22Love_letters%22

What does this response mean? Linking an entire site doesn't answer a question or give enough information to even know what your point is. what is your answer to the question? Was Emma being deceived?

[Chaos]

I'm not into occult magic, but it's not necessary to form an opinion. So, my one question to you, since you believe the plural marriages of Joseph Smith were not consummated, even though FARMs admits it and there's numerous statements by the plural wives confirming it... my question to you is:

Question: Do you believe, in the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, was Emma Smith being deceived?

I told you to ask your question so it would have to be answered. You took advantage by planting a loaded paragraph without one scrap of documentation. That is what you aren't going to be allowed to do that anymore if you want to stay in a thread. This is your last warning.

[WalkerW]

What does this response mean? Linking an entire site doesn't answer a question or give enough information to even know what your point is. what is your answer to the question? Was Emma being deceived?

I provided the link since you seemed interested in this particular subject. You talked about forming opinions. Was making sure you had this information so you could do so.

[thews]

I told you to ask your question so it would have to be answered. You took advantage by planting a loaded paragraph without one scrap of documentation. That is what you aren't going to be allowed to do that anymore if you want to stay in a thread. This is your last warning.

I'm failing to understand the rules of this board? I asked him one question and provided many posts of documentation. Please expalin what exactly I'm doing wrong, as I attempted to do as you instructed and asked one question based on data posted.

[thews]

I provided the link since you seemed interested in this particular subject. You talked about forming opinions. Was making sure you had this information so you could do so.

Well Ok, but that would be like pointing someone to a library and telling them the answer was inside. I was asking what your specific point was.

Thanks

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm failing to understand the rules of this board? I asked him one question and provided many posts of documentation. Please expalin what exactly I'm doing wrong, as I attempted to do as you instructed and asked one question based on data posted.

Thews, this goes back to the comments I made about "have you stopped wetting the bed". It is a loaded question the presupposes that you wet the bed still. Were is your evidence and documentation that conclusivly shows that Emma was decieved? You asked a load question. That question is "was Emma being decieved". A less loaded question would be, "Here is some evidence and what conclusion can we draw from it". I promise you that if you ask along those lines you will progress in knowledge alot faster.

[thews]

Thews, this goes back to the comments I made about "have you stopped wetting the bed". It is a loaded question the presupposes that you wet the bed still. Were is your evidence and documentation that conclusivly shows that Emma was decieved? You asked a load question. That question is "was Emma being decieved". A less loaded question would be, "Here is some evidence and what conclusion can we draw from it". I promise you that if you ask along those lines you will progress in knowledge alot faster.

This question isn't loaded, and your childish comments are only an attempt to use name-calling as you have no answer. I've decided not to acknowledge you, as you have no point to make, but in this head-hunter double standard I fail to see how calling a critic out on a board attempting to be objective is warranted when I'm playing by the rules and posting the source of my claims. If the data is wrong, then a counter-point referencing the data should be expected. The OP and Mr. Wonka have both failed to answer the questions as posted in #330, and I contend it's because they have no answer. I would ask that you use adult conversation is speaking to adults, and use data to back up your claims as I have done and have been required to use in making said claims. I still fail to see how I'm "wrong" and others claiming I'm wrong post no counter to the data posted outside opinion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This question isn't loaded, and your childish comments are only an attempt to use name-calling as you have no answer. I've decided not to acknowledge you, as you have no point to make, but in this head-hunter double standard I fail to see how calling a critic out on a board attempting to be objective is warranted when I'm playing by the rules and posting the source of my claims. If the data is wrong, then a counter-point referencing the data should be expected. The OP and Mr. Wonka have both failed to answer the questions as posted in #330, and I contend it's because they have no answer. I would ask that you use adult conversation is speaking to adults, and use data to back up your claims as I have done and have been required to use in making said claims. I still fail to see how I'm "wrong" and others claiming I'm wrong post no counter to the data posted outside opinion.

Hmm I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. For some reason you chose to make this personal this time. I don't know why. I can't help people if the don't wish to be helped and are to stuborn to actually read what I wrote and comprehend it.

A loaded is question is one like this "Have you stopped beating your wife"? Another one is " Why do you hate black people". Those are loaded questions. I am not accusiong you of anything I am simply trying to show you were you are breaking board guidelines. I really don't want you banned. But if you continue down this road you will be.

It sure would be nice if you could use the historical evidence at hand and present it for us to discuss. YOu made some accustaion in the past and you defended them. You remember the whole " The garment is a sign of polygamy" debate? You are doign the same thing again. You presuppose that Emma was being decieved. You asked a loaded question. Then when we tell you taht "no I don't think Emma was being decieved". you tell us "We have failed to answer the questions".. I would love to answer your question if you had some nice sources that showed conclusivly that Emma was being decieved. SO far all I have gotten from you is some cherry picked quotes with your spin on things. Wonka comes in with the full sources and quotes them and you continue to tell us that teh church covers up its history.

Sorry but the evidence at hand just doesn't line up with you spin. Its been nice talking with you.

[selek]

This question isn't loaded, and your childish comments are only an attempt to use name-calling as you have no answer. I've decided not to acknowledge you, as you have no point to make, but in this head-hunter double standard I fail to see how calling a critic out on a board attempting to be objective is warranted when I'm playing by the rules and posting the source of my claims. If the data is wrong, then a counter-point referencing the data should be expected. The OP and Mr. Wonka have both failed to answer the questions as posted in #330, and I contend it's because they have no answer. I would ask that you use adult conversation is speaking to adults, and use data to back up your claims as I have done and have been required to use in making said claims. I still fail to see how I'm "wrong" and others claiming I'm wrong post no counter to the data posted outside opinion.

As you can see from the above quote, Chaos, learning and discussion are not Thews objective here.

In every thread in which he has participated, the tactics are the same: loaded, insulting questions designed to advance a particular agenda, petulant demands, personal abuse, and an arrogant, utter refusal to accept any possibility or thought that does not advance his argument towards the goal line.

Nemesis nearly banned him earlier for exactly the same behavior- only a hasty, abject retreat allowed him to remain.

Apparently, tho, his earlier close call hasn't taught him anything.

[thews]

As you can see from the above quote, Chaos, learning and discussion are not Thews objective here.

make your point...what is it? You disagree with me? Why?

In every thread in which he has participated, the tactics are the same: loaded, insulting questions designed to advance a particular agenda, petulant demands, personal abuse, and an arrogant, utter refusal to accept any possibility or thought that does not advance his argument towards the goal line.

Ouch baby... very ouch. what exactly do you disagree with? I post a lot of data and don't use opinion without it. what exactly is your point? (be specific)

Nemesis nearly banned him earlier for exactly the same behavior- only a hasty, abject retreat allowed him to remain.

Is that how you wish critics to be dealt with? just ban them...? What exactly posted do you disagree with? (make a point)

Apparently, tho, his earlier close call hasn't taught him anything.

You've stated nothing but opinion... use data and tell me exactly what you disagree with (please).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You've stated nothing but opinion... use data and tell me exactly what you disagree with (please).

Which is unfortunalty all you have done. You paste a few quotes then offer your opinion. The evidence presented just does not back up your opinion. And I am not the only one that has offered good reason why your opinion is/was wrong. You just end up ignoring it and then declaring it "moot".

[thews]

Hmm I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. For some reason you chose to make this personal this time. I don't know why. I can't help people if the don't wish to be helped and are to stuborn to actually read what I wrote and comprehend it.

Youhave nothing but "wet the bed" name-calling which is childish and that's a fact. It's all you have, so it's hardly a surprise you use it.

A loaded is question is one like this "Have you stopped beating your wife"? Another one is " Why do you hate black people". Those are loaded questions. I am not accusiong you of anything I am simply trying to show you were you are breaking board guidelines. I really don't want you banned. But if you continue down this road you will be.

"Was Emma being deceived with the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney" is not a loaded question ...it is if you have no answer. One answer could be "no," but then you'd have to respond with a reason why. You don't, nor do the others. and that's ebcause they'd have to defend the position. You can't, so all you have is name calling. it's been a long time since I was in 4th grade ...I have an opinion based on data.

It sure would be nice if you could use the historical evidence at hand and present it for us to discuss. YOu made some accustaion in the past and you defended them. You remember the whole " The garment is a sign of polygamy" debate? You are doign the same thing again. You presuppose that Emma was being decieved. You asked a loaded question. Then when we tell you taht "no I don't think Emma was being decieved". you tell us "We have failed to answer the questions".. I would love to answer your question if you had some nice sources that showed conclusivly that Emma was being decieved. SO far all I have gotten from you is some cherry picked quotes with your spin on things. Wonka comes in with the full sources and quotes them and you continue to tell us that teh church covers up its history.

if you had a counter argument you'd state it. you obviously don't, so this ruse is all you have. If you do have something to say, for example deny somethig posted was true/flase, you'd post it ...all you have is name calling and opinion.

Sorry but the evidence at hand just doesn't line up with you spin. Its been nice talking with you.

What exactly are you talking about? Please be specific, or we should assume you really have nothing to add (insert criticism here to data posted).

[thews]

Which is unfortunalty all you have done. You paste a few quotes then offer your opinion. The evidence presented just does not back up your opinion. And I am not the only one that has offered good reason why your opinion is/was wrong. You just end up ignoring it and then declaring it "moot".

I posted specific data ..you posted nothing and rerferenced nothing, specificlally referencing nothing, and retorting with nothing.

[Jeff K.]

Thews, I would suggest that you are purposely taking it out of context. He was explaining a loaded question and why it was loaded. When you make a simply analogy a personal attack you in effect concede that you have no evidence beyond your opinion and your own somewhat biased suspicions.

You asked, was Emma being deceived?

There are two approaches to the issue:

I would ask this, when Christ told those he healed not to let the pharisees know, was he deceiving them. Is teaching in a parable for only some to understand a form of deception? How wide ranging is your definition of deception?

The second is, what evidence do you have that deception took place which would make one believe that Emma was being decieved?

My opinion weighed agains yours is that Emma was not decieved in the context of a nefarious act.

[Jeff K.]

Does this quote establish context regarding Emma Smith?

Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."

Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart'

[thews]

Thews, I would suggest that you are purposely taking it out of context. He was explaining a loaded question and why it was loaded. When you make a simply analogy a personal attack you in effect concede that you have no evidence beyond your opinion and your own somewhat biased suspicions.

I posted a lot of data. if you, or he questioned its accuracy, you have it to deny. A blind claim its wrong is wrong IMO ..tell me why?

You asked, was Emma being deceived?

There are two approaches to the issue:

No... it's yes or no.

I would ask this, when Christ told those he healed not to let the pharisees know, was he deceiving them. Is teaching in a parable for only some to understand a form of deception? How wide ranging is your definition of deception?

You asked a question in response to a question. You didn't answer it... but painted a ruse IMO to divert whether or not the question has merit. The question is yes or no, and doesn't require re-definition ... unless you cannot, or refuse to answer it.

The second is, what evidence do you have that deception took place which would make one believe that Emma was being decieved?

I've posted a lot of data. Asking me for more is simply a ruse IMO to distort/divert (see post #330)

My opinion weighed agains yours is that Emma was not decieved in the context of a nefarious act.

My opinion is you are uncomfortable with the answer to the question, so it's why you need to go to such lengths to aviod answering it.

[Jeff K.]

The data you posted seemed slanted. I provided context, you did not.

I suggest you do so.

Also you ignore the points I raised.

Ignoring them does not make them go away. In fact, when I presented a clear question on the range of definition you provided to the meaning of the word deception, you simply retreated. Did Christ deceive? Your lack of response or candor basically confirms or rather allows my point to be clearly stated. You refuse to answer the question I presented because it undermines your position. In effect you provide confirmation that you have no position from which to base your argument. Blinders never work, you should do away with them.

Your opinion seemed to be assailed and overcome by a simple question which you cannot answer. My response clearly did answer your query but you refuse to acknowledge such. While amusing, it isn't very scholarly of you and it does not provide much in the way of support for your position. It also damages your credibility on this board.

[Jeff K.]

My opinion weighed agains yours is that Emma was not decieved in the context of a nefarious act.

My opinion is you are uncomfortable with the answer to the question, so it's why you need to go to such lengths to aviod answering it.

I bear no discomfort to the issue. It is explained. Your own discomfort is marked by the attempted personal jibe. Again, it undermines your credibility. Especially given how I have provided context regarding Emma Smith's level of knowledge. You seem to be without support for your position.

If I might add, in order to help people learn, I do go to extraordinary lengths if they seem a bit slow in grasping the concept. I appreciate your acknowledgement of my efforts in regard to your ability to grasp knowledge.