The Great Church History Cover-up

[notHagoth7]

The FAIR article I linked in this topic earlier explained that Joseph Smith did feel that lying was alright...

Double standard. Early on, Martin Luther dealt with similar issues in almost the exact same way.

[Jeff K.]

Just try to keep up on the future senator. And now and then, when you have a good counterpoint feel free to represent it in the best manner you are able. We all appreciate your mighty efforts.

[Senator]

Just try to keep up on the future senator. And now and then, when you have a good counterpoint feel free to represent it in the best manner you are able. We all appreciate your mighty efforts.

[Redefined]

Double standard. Early on, Martin Luther dealt with similar issues in almost the exact same way.

At least for me, if the critical explanation isn't acceptable, then put forth an explanation of why Joseph Smith would write a letter to the Whitneys cautioning them not to come if Emma was there. Is it honest of him to keep things from his spouse, or was it a fear that Emma might be followed, which may put the Whitney's in danger. Either way, FAIR suggests that he did conceal truths for the matter of God's Kingdom going forward. So everyone here that suggests Joseph Smith wouldn't have been anything other than completely honest with Emma, is going to have that article to contend with. Martin Luther would be a whole seperate discussion for people who are interested. . . if you wanted to start a topic.

Edited typo.

[wenglund]

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

For your sake, I will try and limit the presumed annoyance of putting things into healthy and productive perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

At least for me, if the critical explanation isn't acceptable, then put forth an explanation of why Joseph Smith would write a letter to the Whitneys cautioning them not to come if Emma was there. Is it honest of him to keep things from his spouse, or was it a fear that Emma might be followed, which may put the Whitney's in danger. Either way, FAIR suggests that he did conceal truths for the matter of God's Kingdom going forward. So everyone here that suggests Joseph Smith wouldn't have been anything other than completely honest with Emma, is going to have that article to contend with. Martin Luther would be a whole seperate discussion for people who are interested. . . if you wanted to start a topic.

Edited typo.

I don't know about complete honesty, but I think the question of complete honesty is irrelevant in the sense that it was cautionary and an effort to avoid problems with the Whitneys. One reason I brought up the question of "caution" in regard to Christ speaking in parables, was an effort to avoid creating issues during biblical times in which new members might also face issues from various corners.

My other point was the doctrine was known and accepted (perhaps reluctantly) by Emma Smith and therefore again irrelevant.

[Redefined]

I don't know about complete honesty, but I think the question of complete honesty is irrelevant in the sense that it was cautionary and an effort to avoid problems with the Whitneys. One reason I brought up the question of "caution" in regard to Christ speaking in parables, was an effort to avoid creating issues during biblical times in which new members might also face issues from various corners.

My other point was the doctrine was known and accepted (perhaps reluctantly) by Emma Smith and therefore again irrelevant.

Okay, I'm finding this to be a rather vague sentence ". . . was an effort to avoid creating issues during biblical times in which new members might also face issues from various corners." It would help me understand better what you are saying if you can give me a specific example of Christ using a parable to help new members avoid issues?

Was Emma accepting of the practice at that time? Do you know if there any reference that we can look at to determine what her attitude about it was. . . because I know she went back and forth. Thanks.

Edited spelling error.

[Deborah]

Was Emma accepting of the practice at that time? Do you know if there any reference that we can look at to determine what her attitude about it was. . .

Considering that some of Joseph's other wives actually lived in her home she obviously accepted it at one time. And yes she did go back and forth but what does that prove except she had difficulty accepting it.

[notHagoth7]

if the critical explanation isn't acceptable, then put forth an explanation of why Joseph Smith would write a letter to the Whitneys cautioning them not to come if Emma was there.

Just a handful of extremely plausible scenarios, none of which would have required dishonesty:

1) Same platonic reason I told my son he couldn't go visit with the neighbors Sunday night (they simply needed family time, and so did we).

2) Emma knew and accepted the principle, but had asked to be spared the details.

3) Emma knew and accepted the principle. And Joseph simply deemed it inappropriate to potentially offend her with the details.

4) Emma knew and rejected the principle. He told her he'd live it anyway. And spared her the details.

Is it honest of him to keep things from his spouse

You're implying that's what he was doing.

Either way, FAIR suggests that he did conceal truths for the matter of God's Kingdom going forward.

And? I'm not bound to align with the opinion in a FAIR article. (Regardless of how interesting and well-researched the article might be.)

So take your argument up with the author of that article. Because that article does *not* speak for the entire church. Or for me.

Martin Luther would be a whole seperate discussion for people who are interested. . . if you wanted to start a topic.

Not interested in a separate thread. But Martin Luther did advocate for polygamy in private, but publicly claimed the opposite. And when asked directly if he had anything to do with such things, Martin Luther outright lied. However, that doesn't make me question the value of the Reformation. Or his character. It just makes me acknowledge the same thing that Luther initially knew; some people simply can't handle the truth. Information Management.

[Redefined]

Considering that some of Joseph's other wives actually lived in her home she obviously accepted it at one time. And yes she did go back and forth but what does that prove except she had difficulty accepting it.

It would help to clarify if Joseph Smith might have been trying to go behind Emma's back.

[Jeff K.]

Okay, I'm finding this to be a rather vague sentence ". . . was an effort to avoid creating issues during biblical times in which new members might also face issues from various corners." It would help me understand better what you are saying if you can give me a specific example of Christ using a parable to help new members avoid issues?

Was Emma accepting of the practice at that time? Do you know if there any reference that we can look at to determine what her attitude about it was. . . because I know she went back and forth. Thanks.

Edited spelling error.

Does this quote establish context regarding Emma Smith?

Quote

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'

[Redefined]

Just a handful of extremely plausible scenarios, none of which would have required dishonesty:

1) Same platonic reason I told my son he couldn't go visit with the neighbors Sunday night (they simply needed family time, and so did we).

2) Emma knew and accepted the principle, but had asked to be spared the details.

3) Emma knew and accepted the principle. And Joseph simply deemed it inappropriate to potentially offend her with the details.

4) Emma knew and rejected the principle. He told her he'd live it anyway. And spared her the details.

So is it your position in 2-3, that he did ask the Whitney's over for the intent of which might be hurtful to Emma if she knew?

4) Well, I really can't say what I think about that here in this forum, but how INCONSIDERATE!

You're implying that's what he was doing.

Yes, that is my view of it. Senator gave another interesting opinion that is considerable.

And? I'm not bound to align with the opinion in a FAIR article. (Regardless of how interesting and well-researched the article might be.)

So take your argument up with the author of that article. Because that article does *not* speak for the entire church. Or for me.

Okay, So are you saying FAIR lied or is inaccurate about it? What is your thoughts on his keeping the practise of polygamy guarded?

[awyatt]

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.

And yet, Cinepro, you never provided any info in the referenced posts that it was the Church that covered anything up in those instances.

Fact of the matter is, the complete, unabashed, undiluted history of Zina is available. And yet people still try to see her complex history as, somehow, a coverup. It just isn't so.

-Allen

[Redefined]

Does this quote establish context regarding Emma Smith?

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

[cinepro]

Considering that some of Joseph's other wives actually lived in her home she obviously accepted it at one time.

Did you mean the Partridge sisters?

The older Partridge girl was sealed to Smith on 8 March 1843. Emma Smith knew nothing of these relationships at the time, but two months later Smith apparently convinced his wife to let him be sealed to the girls with her blessing. According to Emily's account, "Emma had consented to give Joseph two wives, if he would let her choose them for him, and she chose E[liza] and myself.

[Jeff K.]

Accepting before or after the time of the letter, does it matter if in the end there is acceptance?

Isn't the quote prior to the letter itself?

[Redefined]

Accepting before or after the time of the letter, does it matter if in the end there is acceptance?

Isn't the quote prior to the letter itself?

Yes, If my husband tried to cover himself about his excursions with another women, it would not be okay of him to have been dishonest with me period. . . no matter if I eventually forgave him and accepted it for what it was.

[notHagoth7]

So is it your position in 2-3, that he did ask the Whitney's over for the intent of which might be hurtful to Emma if she knew?

....4) Well, I really can't say what I think about that here in this forum, but how INCONSIDERATE!

OK, let's talk about considerate.

Step outside the Western marriage paradigm for just a minute.

Here's an example you can draw from. You're a teenager.

And you're dating three different people. And they each know that it's not exclusive. (Whether they like it or not.)

Question: on any given date, how often would you bring up your past and future dates to your companion? And why?

Okay, So are you saying FAIR lied

Uh, no.

...or is inaccurate about it?

I'm not even saying that. I'm simply saying I happen to have a differing perspective. My having a differing perspective doesn't make that article wrong.

What is your thoughts on his keeping the practise of polygamy guarded?

Please post your bank account number, your routing number, and your bank balance. Your SS# too, while you're at it.

Getting the hint? It revolves around common sense, privacy, autonomy, and propriety. Just in case, to be precise, issues between two spouses are nobody else's business. Period.

Or, as the sage Malcolm Reynolds put it: "I look out for me and mine. That don't include you less I conjure it does."

Fair enough?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 26 October 2009 - 03:36 PM, said:

Accepting before or after the time of the letter, does it matter if in the end there is acceptance?

Isn't the quote prior to the letter itself?

Yes, If my husband tried to cover himself about his excursions with another women, it would not be okay of him to have been dishonest with me period. . . no matter if I eventually forgave him and accepted it for what it was.

The acceptance being it was the will of God and therefore nothing to forgive. Does it matter then?

[Redefined]

OK, let's talk about considerate.

Step outside the Western marriage paradigm for just a minute.

Here's an example you can draw from. You're a teenager.

And you're dating three different people. And they each know that it's not exclusive. (Whether they like it or not.)

Question: on any given date, how often would you bring up your past and future dates to your companion? And why?

Uh, no.

I'm not even saying that. I'm simply saying I happen to have a differing perspective. My having a differing perspective doesn't make that article wrong.

Please post your bank account number, your routing number, and your bank balance. Your SS# too, while you're at it.

Getting the hint? It revolves around common sense, privacy, autonomy, and propriety. Just in case, to be precise, issues between two spouses are nobody else's business. Period.

Or, as the sage Malcolm Reynolds put it: "I look out for me and mine. That don't include you less I conjure it does."

Fair enough?

This wasn't the case of Joseph Smith, he had a exclusive wife. The facts surrounding the way he brought in his extra wives are circularly arguable, so I will refrain from going there. Refer to post #582 for my thoughts about her "acceptance" of polygamy.

I was asking what your thoughts were since I thought you had implied that just because FAIR says something doesn't mean that it is what you think happened. I can understand this. . . But then you don't think that FAIR was right in their opinion about him concealing the truth in order for God's work to go forward?

I think your comparison is absurd because according to the article Joseph Smith concealed this, which is to say he wouldn't have concealed it if he felt it would impede on God's work going forward.

[Redefined]

The acceptance being it was the will of God and therefore nothing to forgive. Does it matter then?

It is in my high opinion that a righteous God would not ask a person to hide things from his or her spouse. So it just sounds like a rationalization to me, and "the devil made me do it" sort of response!

[Jeff K.]

You mean like the time Christ used parables to hide His meanings from the pharisees? Or told those he cured not to reveal what had happened to others?

Would a righteous God be deceptive?

[Redefined]

You mean like the time Christ used parables to hide His meanings from the pharisees? Or told those he cured not to reveal what had happened to others?

Would a righteous God be deceptive?

Thank you for your examples, I understand better what you are talking about.

Unfortunately for you, my answer is still the same. . . I don't believe the bible.

[Zakuska]

You mean like the time Christ used parables to hide His meanings from the pharisees? Or told those he cured not to reveal what had happened to others?

Would a righteous God be deceptive?

He sure was deceptive to Pharaoh.

Ex 3

18 And they shall ahearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord bGod of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now clet us go, we beseech thee, three days

[cinepro]

You mean like the time Christ used parables to hide His meanings from the pharisees? Or told those he cured not to reveal what had happened to others?

Would a righteous God be deceptive?

Really? Joseph Smith not telling Emma about his polygamous marriages was like Jesus teaching in parables, or the miraculously-cured not telling others?

That's the best you can come up with?