The Great Church History Cover-up

[thews]

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

What exactly was it? claiming you said something doesn't let me know what exactly you are talking about.

I suggest you do so.

I did... lots of data and links.

Also you ignore the points I raised.

Again... what are you talking about? (be specific)

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?

I never said this... you did.

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.

And again you quote nothing and state nothing... what are you talking about? (be specific)

Your opinion seemed to be assailed and overcome by a simple question which you cannot answer.

What question? (be specific)

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.

what exactly are you talking about? I posted a lot of data and linked the source. if you disagree with something, please be specific in what you disagree with and what you deem incorrect (with data). I'd be happy to answer your question (I currently don't know what you're talking about)

[thews]

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.

What point are you making? (be specific)

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.

Please enlighten me as to what data I posted you disagree with, or what point exactly you disagree with? (I seriosuly have no idea what you're talking about).

[Senator]

Eeh,

I'll side with thews on this one. Using simply the Whitney letter alone without further circumstantial knowledge, and with the wordage contained therein, I can see how one could possibly conclude clandestine undertones, and therefore the question, "Was Emma being deceived" to not be invalid or loaded.

[Redefined]

The FAIR article I linked in this topic earlier explained that Joseph Smith did feel that lying was alright to preserve God's work going forward. (I'll find it here in a minute and add the link). So I would say that Joseph Smith may have felt threatened of Emma knowing about a visit with the Whitneys. Why?. . . let's just say maybe Emma Smith may have known her husband better then anybody else. So it isn't even "not highly possible". . . it is arguably a very contending position. . . in the least, it holds as much water as the claim that he just wanted a platonic visit with his new friends.

Added "Gee Golly!" 8 pages later!!. . . . http://www.fairlds.o...ion.html#head10

[Jeff K.]

My point was the question of "deception". Is deception in and of itself an indication of wrong doing? Thews is rather shallow in an attempt to show as much. When I raised the question as to whether or nor Christ deceived, or used what might be construed as deception, Thews went on something of a minor tissy fit. It is understandable since the question undermines his deisre to throw a certain nefariousness into the mix. It basically stands as his whole argument. When undermined, he doesn't have one.

This is why he continues to say "show me". You know, you can show a man the Grand Canyon, and if he refuses to see it, there isn't much more you can do about it. Sometimes it is a mental challenges that others simply cannot overcome, sometimes it is an adherence to a dogma that makes it almost impossible for people like Thews to admit to other (and often more likely) possibilities. The former stance is a difficult one to overcome, the latter unfortunately and ironically deals with deception on Thews part.

It has been shown that Emma was aware of polygamy, and had approved of it, though she was not happy about it. Within the context of what was shown, along with the explanation clearly given, the context seems abundantly clear (lets call it the Grand Canyon). If the Grand Canyon can be seen on a clear day, does someone denying it require us to all fall over ourselves in an attempt to help the poor benighted Thews take up the mantle of light and knowledge? Let us embrace a foundation of our religion and give him his agency to remain ignorant and in the dark, he likes it there.

[Senator]

My point was the question of "deception". Is deception in and of itself an indication of wrong doing?

By this remark, are you implying that there was deception taking place with regards to Emma, but that it doesn't necessarily mean that there was any wrong doing in it?

.. an attempt to help the poor benighted Thews take up the mantle of light and knowledge?

Nah, Thews is just reading a lot of polemical websites.

[Redefined]

I think Emma Smith had doubts as to whether the law of Polygamy was coming through God or was simply coming through Joseph Smith. I think she went back and forth (just as people struggle today with decisions) about whether she felt it was of God or not. Her struggle seems to be that she believed Joseph Smith to be the Prophet of God, but when he introduced this law to her, she struggled with her testimony as to whether he really was. (Much like many people would struggle with their testimony of the prophet, if the church today decided open their doors to homosexual marriages.)

So in her situation I see it as faith just couldn't stretch enough. So what is one to do? Either proclaim Joseph Smith and his church as all lies, resolve that the problem must lie in oneself, or go into a state of denial.

[Zakuska]

30 Pages and still no church History cover ups.

[Jeff K.]

By this remark, are you implying that there was deception taking place with regards to Emma, but that it doesn't necessarily mean that there was any wrong doing in it?

Nah, Thews is just reading a lot of polemical websites.

Senator you need to learn to read context.

Rather than take one of my quotes out of context, lets see what I said in its full context.

My point was the question of "deception". Is deception in and of itself an indication of wrong doing? Thews is rather shallow in an attempt to show as much. When I raised the question as to whether or nor Christ deceived, or used what might be construed as deception, Thews went on something of a minor tissy fit. It is understandable since the question undermines his desire to throw a certain nefariousness into the mix. It basically stands as his whole argument. When undermined, he doesn't have one.

I implied nothing. You on the other seemed to overlook everything.

I do agree, Thews is focused on the polemical, not the historic.

[Senator]

Senator you need to learn to read context.

Rather than take one of my quotes out of context, lets see what I said in its full context.

I implied nothing. You on the other seemed to overlook everything.

I do agree, Thews is focused on the polemical, not the historic.

No, actually the full context of what you said is what I was trying to unravel. Would you care to further flush out what you meant by "Is deception in and of itself an indication of wrong doing?" How that relates to both Christ's example and this particular event with the Whitneys, Emma and Joseph?

[Jeff K.]

Was Christ deceptive? In other words if deception were the issue, must it by nature be nefarious? If not, then isn't the argument specious?

Get it now?

[Senator]

Was Christ deceptive? In other words if deception were the issue, must it by nature be nefarious? If not, then isn't the argument specious?

Get it now?

I get the questions. I was interested in your answer to those questions in relation to the specific examples at hand.

Care to answer your own questions in relation to the Whitneys, Joseph and Emma?

[Vance]

Emma knew about the principle of polygamy.

Emma knew that Joseph was involved in its practice.

So, NO!! Emma wasn't being deceived.

[Senator]

Emma knew about the principle of polygamy.

Emma knew that Joseph was involved in its practice.

So, NO!! Emma wasn't being deceived.

However, if my understanding is correct, she was not aware of this particular marriage between her husband and Sarah Ann. (and others) So, at least it is safe to say she was kept in the dark in regards to the extent of Joseph's envolvement.

[wenglund]

30 Pages and still no church History cover ups.

It really isn't about cover-ups. It just that some people, like the Senator, can't get enough of things such as polygamy. They have polygamy fever, and they need more polygamy. It is kind of like with Christopher Walken and Will Farrell and the cowbell--see "More Cowbell".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

It really isn't about cover-ups. It just that some people, like the Senator, can't get enough of things such as polygamy. They have polygamy fever, and they need more polygamy. It is kind of like with Christopher Walken and Will Farrell and the cowbell--see "More Cowbell".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, yes, you've posted that before. We all know how clever you are. (but not nearly as clever as the skit itself)

However, I'm failing to recall few, if any instances that I actually brought up the subject. I do however find the subject of interest and worthy of discussion, do to the great significance it had in our early religious history.

[wenglund]

I do however find the subject of interest and worthy of discussion, do to the great significance it had in our early religious history.

Yes, sometimes the thirst for polygamy is hard to quench....particularly when there are so few matters of "great significance" to occupy one's mind nowdays.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

However, if my understanding is correct, she was not aware of this particular marriage between her husband and Sarah Ann. (and others) So, at least it is safe to say she was kept in the dark in regards to the extent of Joseph's envolvement.

Or in other words, Joseph, understanding how it upset her, didn't rub her nose in it by enlightening her on all of the sealings.

So now we are quibbling about whether taking one more wife was a deception or not.

[Senator]

Yes, sometimes the thirst for polygamy is hard to quench....particularly when there are so few matters of "great significance" to occupy one's mind nowdays.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Feel free not to chime in when the subject comes up!

[Jeff K.]

Yes, yes, you've posted that before. We all know how clever you are. (but not nearly as clever as the skit itself)

However, I'm failing to recall few, if any instances that I actually brought up the subject. I do however find the subject of interest and worthy of discussion, do to the great significance it had in our early religious history.

Alas you have yet to reveal any cleverness senator, rather you seem obsessed.

Now Senator allow me to once again state

If deception is not the issue for a tint of nefariousness, then the question is specious. To put it in more mundane terms. Asking what the temperature was on such a day in regard to Emma Smith's standpoint is a specious question and really has no merit.

[Senator]

Alas you have yet to reveal any cleverness senator.

Oh, was that the goal? My bad.

Look, Jeff it's not that difficult. The question was simple. You could answer yes, no, maybe, I don't know, and add a little explanation. Why always the need to dodge and invalidate the question.

Here, I'll start out.

I do not believe Emma was being deceived in regards to this particular letter and Joseph's invitation for the Whitneys to covertly visit him. Given the circumstantial setting, that he was in hiding and that Emma was very likely to be under surveillance, it was probably wise council to not have the Whitney's visit coincide with Emma's presence. That's reasonable.

I also find it unlikely that Joseph would have given such a caution to the Whitneys, for the purpose of avoiding a jealous altercation with Emma (if that was the fear), if Emma was unaware of the preceding marriage in the first place. What's to fear, if she didn't know about anything. She would have been glad for the company of close friend on such occasion.

See, that's not so difficult.

Now whether I'm right or not is an entirely different issue.

[cinepro]

30 Pages and still no church History cover ups.

As outlined in post #29 of this thread, it could be argued that the Church "covered up" the truth about Zina Huntington.

Also see post #9 of this thread, where the Church changed one reference on the website, but other misleading references remain.

[Redefined]

Oh, was that the goal? My bad.

Look, Jeff it's not that difficult. The question was simple. You could answer yes, no, maybe, I don't know, and add a little explanation. Why always the need to dodge and invalidate the question.

Here, I'll start out.

I do not believe Emma was being deceived in regards to this particular letter and Joseph's invitation for the Whitneys to covertly visit him. Given the circumstantial setting, that he was in hiding and that Emma was very likely to be under surveillance, it was probably wise council to not have the Whitney's visit coincide with Emma's presence. That's reasonable.

I also find it unlikely that Joseph would have given such a caution to the Whitneys, for the purpose of avoiding a jealous altercation with Emma (if that was the fear), if Emma was unaware of the preceding marriage in the first place. What's to fear, if she didn't know about anything. She would have been glad for the company of close friend on such occasion.

See, that's not so difficult.

Now whether I'm right or not is an entirely different issue.

Well, that is refreshing. . . finally someone explaining how that letter may have been something other than what the critics see it as . . without just saying. . "its not what you think".

[Jeff K.]

Oh, was that the goal? My bad.

Look, Jeff it's not that difficult. The question was simple. You could answer yes, no, maybe, I don't know, and add a little explanation. Why always the need to dodge and invalidate the question.

Here, I'll start out.

I do not believe Emma was being deceived in regards to this particular letter and Joseph's invitation for the Whitneys to covertly visit him. Given the circumstantial setting, that he was in hiding and that Emma was very likely to be under surveillance, it was probably wise council to not have the Whitney's visit coincide with Emma's presence. That's reasonable.

I also find it unlikely that Joseph would have given such a caution to the Whitneys, for the purpose of avoiding a jealous altercation with Emma (if that was the fear), if Emma was unaware of the preceding marriage in the first place. What's to fear, if she didn't know about anything. She would have been glad for the company of close friend on such occasion.

See, that's not so difficult.

Now whether I'm right or not is an entirely different issue.

Well lets see, some tend to be overly simplistic and so state things simplistically. So generally those who do so are out maneuvered by individuals who deem it worthy to get them to accept any premise. You senator seem to be missing the point. In fact, you seem to be missing two points.

1-The first aspect was that contextually the idea of deception is specious unless you wish to tie it to some nefarious act. Of course you don't get it, understandable, you seem to be behind on a number of things when it comes to such discussions.

2-My second point was that Emma was not decieved based on the context of her prior knowledge and acceptance of polygamy. This is a ready source I did provide but apparently you did not read. In essence I covered the field for various issues. You myopically were hypnotized by one point only, not surprising.

You senator, seem to have overlooked both points in detail. Again, I understand why you do this. You aren't the fastest draw in a gunfight, or even the most accurate, and your powder tends to misfire, while your aim is, in this case, wild and uneven. Otherwise I am sure you bring a great deal to the table.

Try and keep up in the future. If you cannot find the post where Emma spoke of her dislike but acceptance of polygamy which I provided, I would be glad to repeat the post once again.

[Senator]

So generally those who do so are out maneuvered by individuals who deem it worthy to get them to accept any premise.

Of course you don't get it, understandable, you seem to be behind on a number of things when it comes to such discussions.

You myopically were hypnotized by one point only, not surprising.

Again, I understand why you do this. You aren't the fastest draw in a gunfight, or even the most accurate, and your powder tends to misfire, while your aim is, in this case, wild and uneven. Otherwise I am sure you bring a great deal to the table.

Try and keep up in the future.

Heh, heh,

I love you Jeff. I really do.

Take care.