The Great Church History Cover-up

[Senator]

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?

Well, when I questioned him on that I got:

1) I was taking his examples out of context.

2) I was...well...basically just a few pickles shy of a barrel.

[Jeff K.]

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.

OK fair enough, it establishes context.

[Jeff K.]

Well, when I questioned him on that I got:

1) I was taking his examples out of context.

2) I was...well...basically just a few pickles shy of a barrel.

And you embrace that status quo.

[notHagoth7]

The facts surrounding the way he brought in his extra wives are circularly arguable

As is much of LDS history - regardless of which side one takes on such issues.

I was asking what your thoughts were since I thought you had implied that just because FAIR says something...

I appreciate that. My thoughts are simply this: I'm not bound by what FAIR thinks or publishes.

That doesn't make them wrong. But it does mean that their articles cannot magically paint me into some imaginary corner.

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?

Again, my having a differing opinion doesn't make their article wrong. Can I make that more clear? I am free to arrive at my own conclusions. The article can say whatever its authors/editors wish. And people are free to subscribe to it if they find it helpful. (I'm detecting a pattern here and in two other threads, and might launch a separate thread to explore it further.)

I think your comparison is absurd because according to the article...

If I'm hearing you correctly, my comparison is absurd...because some article asserts something different?

Why would you think I'm somehow bound to whatever some article asserts?

THAT assertion is absurd.

which is to say he wouldn't have concealed it if he felt it would impede on God's work going forward.

Luther. Bank accounts. Information Management.

There's actually room for considerable overlap between what I've said and your summary of the article.

[Jeff K.]

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?

Ridicule without a counterpoint merely confirms your lack of ability to respond. Other examples were presented also.

Lack of a counterpoint with the boy and his limited pickle barrell put you in a less credible position.

[Redefined]

As is much of LDS history - regardless of which side one takes on such issues.

I appreciate that. My thoughts are simply this: I'm not bound by what FAIR thinks or publishes.

That doesn't make them wrong. But it does mean that their articles cannot magically paint me into some imaginary corner.

Again, my having a differing opinion doesn't make their article wrong. Can I make that more clear? I am free to arrive at my own conclusions. The article can say whatever its authors/editors wish. And people are free to subscribe to it if they find it helpful. (I'm detecting a pattern here and in two other threads, and might launch a separate thread to explore it further.)

If I'm hearing you correctly, my comparison is absurd...because some article asserts something different?

Why would you think I'm somehow bound to whatever some article asserts?

THAT assertion is absurd.

Luther. Bank accounts. Information Management.

There's actually room for considerable overlap between what I've said and your summary of the article.

So, Joseph Smith concealed his polygamous affairs in order to escape identity theft? Excuse the obvious exaggeration, but it illustrates the absurdity of comparing his concealment of polygamy to concealing ones private financial information.

[Zakuska]

So, Joseph Smith concealed his polygamous affairs in order to escape identity theft? Excuse the obvious exaggeration, but it illustrates the absurdity of comparing his concealment of polygamy to concealing ones private financial information.

Oh but it is an apt anology. He told Abraham to conceal his true Identiy as Sarah Husband from Paroah, to bring about his purposes.

[Senator]

Ridicule without a counterpoint merely confirms your lack of ability to respond. Other examples were presented also.

Lack of a counterpoint with the boy and his limited pickle barrell put you in a less credible position.

Boy, it's a good thing you didn't just say "his limited pickle"

[Pahoran]

So, Joseph Smith concealed his polygamous affairs in order to escape identity theft?

Pardon me, what "polygamous affairs" were those?

Plural marriages are not affairs; they are marriages. In fact, polygamy, not monogamy, has been the dominant form of marriage throughout human history; and whatever your opinion of it may or may not be (and I think I can guess) it was not adultery.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Redefined]

Pardon me, what "polygamous affairs" were those?

Plural marriages are not affairs; they are marriages. In fact, polygamy, not monogamy, has been the dominant form of marriage throughout human history; and whatever your opinion of it may or may not be (and I think I can guess) it was not adultery.

Regards,

Pahoran

Let me clarify,

I can see how you could have come to that definition for affair. I meant it to group they polygamy. . . like in church affairs. I didn't even realize that the way I said it could be taken differently until you just pointed out that you did take it differently.

[Pahoran]

I've been in many discussions with Mormons in debate forums, and there are many who don't believe Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages. While you say you don't care, the subject is relevant when deciding a position on polygamy. As I have stated many times in this thread, the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney IMO clearly points out how Emma Smith was being deceived.

Yes, you do indeed keep asserting that.

Interestingly, though, every single time you are asked to explain your reasoning, you resort to the exact same rhetorical dodge:

1. You quote the excerpts from the letter;
   
2. You try to head off criticism of your leap by saying that the anticipated counter-arguments are "moot"; then
   
3. You demand that anyone who disagrees with the conclusion to which you have leaped -- without making the slightest attempt to get there by a connected argument -- explain their alternative view.
   

This approach is, as you undoubtedly know, completely illegitimate. It is a devious rhetorical trick, relying upon its shock value to work.

Your failure to even try to make an actual argument towards your conclusion is remarkably telling.

There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from the letter. Two that are not available on the evidence are:

1. That Joseph was inviting a family of three to his one-bedroom living quarters in order to get a bit of action; and
   
2. That Emma was being deceived.
   

Do you understand the difference between necessary evidence and sufficient evidence?

Frankly, I don't think you do. But I will endeavour to explain it to you, futile though the attempt may be.

Necessary evidence is what you have when the evidence at hand must exist if the conclusion is true.

Sufficient evidence is what you have when the evidence at hand can only exist if the conclusion is true. Sufficient evidence is sufficient because it admits of no other explanation.

If Joseph was trying to deceive Emma about plural marriage, he would necessarily tell his plural wives not to let the cat out of the bag. That might include telling them to avoid her. Thus, such advice constitutes necessary evidence.

However, it does not constitute sufficient evidence, because the advice not to come when Emma was there is such that, given the circumstances, may admit of alternative explanations, in the minds of reasonable people.

With that in mind, I think Senator's argument is an interesting one that at least deserves consideration. Have you given it any thought at all?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Boy, it's a good thing you didn't just say "his limited pickle"

Why state the obvious?

[thews]

Yes, you do indeed keep asserting that.

Once again, instead of just answering a question, we get the diatribe... it's "yes" or "no."

Interestingly, though, every single time you are asked to explain your reasoning, you resort to the exact same rhetorical dodge:

Wrong. I point out the facts, you ignore them, then later claim I didn't make them. How about you just answer a simple question without pages of distortion? Maybe quote something you disagree with and make an actual point?

1. You quote the excerpts from the letter;
   
2. You try to head off criticism of your leap by saying that the anticipated counter-arguments are "moot"; then
   
3. You demand that anyone who disagrees with the conclusion to which you have leaped -- without making the slightest attempt to get there by a connected argument -- explain their alternative view.
   

And in this, you quote nothing, make no counter point to anything quoted, and as most LDS do in debate forums do, claim to say something but say nothing. What exactly is your point? What exactly do you disagree with? (be specific).

This approach is, as you undoubtedly know, completely illegitimate. It is a devious rhetorical trick, relying upon its shock value to work.

And yet again, you say nothing, quote nothing, and make false claims based on your opinions without anything being backed up with an actual point. What exactly is your point?

Your failure to even try to make an actual argument towards your conclusion is remarkably telling.

More nothing based on nothing intended to make pages of nothing. What is your point?

There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from the letter. Two that are not available on the evidence are:

1. That Joseph was inviting a family of three to his one-bedroom living quarters in order to get a bit of action; and
   
2. That Emma was being deceived.
   

Joseph Smith was inviting Mr. Whitney and his wife to bring him their daughter, which Mr. Whitney married her to Joseph stating they were "companions" for life. Emma didn't know about the plural marriage, and the letter specifically states the only condition it is "not safe" is if Emma was there, he was lonely, and he didn't think Emma would come tonight. You can deny the facts again and again, but unless you have a response of any sort of substance it's just another dodge intended to distort. The facts are very clear... address them if you wish to make an argument that makes sense or is based on something other than your biased opinion.

Do you understand the difference between necessary evidence and sufficient evidence?

Do you understand the difference between the truth and distorted facts?

Frankly, I don't think you do. But I will endeavour to explain it to you, futile though the attempt may be.

Necessary evidence is what you have when the evidence at hand must exist if the conclusion is true.

Sufficient evidence is what you have when the evidence at hand can only exist if the conclusion is true. Sufficient evidence is sufficient because it admits of no other explanation.

Again more rhetoric intended to run on and blather about nothing. What point are you making? I know the difference regarding "a reasonable doubt" and a "shadow of a doubt" as I've served on a jury twice. In this case, if you wish to question the evidence, you must address it. What opinion do you have of Mr. Whitney stating Sarah Ann was Joseph Smith's "companion" for life when he married them? What exactly is your point?

If Joseph was trying to deceive Emma about plural marriage, he would necessarily tell his plural wives not to let the cat out of the bag. That might include telling them to avoid her. Thus, such advice constitutes necessary evidence.

More tap dancing using the typical response to attempt to define what the letter isn't rather than what it contains. I don't need a strawman argument to play the switcheroo on defining what Joseph Smith's intent was per your opinionated strawman. The evidence is the letter and what it says. What part of, "I don't think Emma will come tongiht," it's not safe if Emma is there, he's lonely, Mr. Whitney married them as "companions" for life, and Emma didn't know about this plural marriage don't you get? If you have a point to make, make it already without the strawman attempting to define what wasn't... try addressing what is.

However, it does not constitute sufficient evidence, because the advice not to come when Emma was there is such that, given the circumstances, may admit of alternative explanations, in the minds of reasonable people.

more endless blather addressing nothing and making no point whatsoever.

With that in mind, I think Senator's argument is an interesting one that at least deserves consideration. Have you given it any thought at all?

Regards,

Pahoran

Why do LDS forms packs of opinions and continually agree with each other's biased opinion. If you have a point ot make then make it... quote something (be specific) you still haven't answered the question:

Question: Do you believe Emma was being deceived in this letter. "Yes" or "No". (If no, address the evidence and explain).

[Jeff K.]

Thews, its been addressed. Several times in fact.

Try not to be dishonest in your debate tactics.

[Vance]

Emma knew about the principle of polygamy.

Emma knew that Joseph was involved in its practice.

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

thews, aren't you paying attention?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

thews, aren't you paying attention?

Vance,

WHy can't you just answer the questions? Don't you have anything of substance to post??

[Vance]

Vance,

WHy can't you just answer the questions? Don't you have anything of substance to post??

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's mind numbing isn't it?

I said the something similar a while back in this thread. I got accused of the same thing. THere is no point in this dialogue only because THews is right and us mormons are wrong. Of course I will continue to make posts if we can actually move past what has transpired here.

[cinepro]

Ridicule without a counterpoint merely confirms your lack of ability to respond. Other examples were presented also.

Lack of a counterpoint with the boy and his limited pickle barrell put you in a less credible position.

I'm willing to let the argument stand on its own. If anyone is inclined to believe that Emma not knowing about the depth of Joseph's polygamy is somehow related to Jesus teaching in parables ("But Emma, I was just teaching you The Parable of the Monogamous Husband..."?), then there is nothing I could say that would convince them otherwise.

That's either something you're going to believe, or you don't.

[Zakuska]

*** WARNING ***

Post with no substance...

[High Five Mola and vance]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

*** WARNING ***

Post with no substance...

[High Five Mola and vance]

Lol

[back at you]

[Jeff K.]

I'm willing to let the argument stand on its own. If anyone is inclined to believe that Emma not knowing about the depth of Joseph polygamy is somehow related to Jesus teaching in parables ("But Emma, I was just teaching you The Parable of the Monogamous Husband..."?), then there is nothing I could say that would convince them otherwise.

That's either something you're going to believe, or you don't.

You need to learn the difference between a well thought out argument or position and opinion. Yours is opinion. And like other body parts, most have one, some larger than others...

The nuances of the time have been explained ad infinitum in regard to what was known.

The issue of deception and what qualifies has also been addressed

The rather dishonest approach by some critics has also been clearly shown

You in the end have nothing to show for your opinion.

[Vance]

*** WARNING ***

Post with no substance...

[High Five Mola and vance]

Oh yeah, right back at you!!!

[Wiki Wonka]

From Post 330:

Observation #2 - When you said, "The question is, who was this letter addressed to?" I find this moot, as it's spelled out in lines 2 and 3 that the letter is addressed to the Whitneys.

The question of to whom the letter is addressed is relevant because it is so often either ignored or distorted by critics. I will offer a few examples:

From Post 468:

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?

The letter is not addressed to Sarah Ann Whitney, it is addressed to "Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c."

From Post 541:

Q: In the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney by Joseph Smith, was Emma Smith being deceived?

The letter is not addressed to Sarah Ann Whitney, it is addressed to "Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c."

From Post 554:

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

The letter is not addressed to Sarah Ann Whitney, it is addressed to "Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c."

From Post 557:

I've said many times the letter was addressed to all three (Sarah, He father and mother)

No, it wasn't addressed to "Sarah, her father and mother"...it was addressed to "Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c." You not only reversed the order of the people to whom it was addressed, but you also increased emphasis on Sarah (upgraded from &c.) and de-emphasized her parents (Brother and Sister Whitney to "her father and mother").

From Post 330:

What exactly is being "distorted" here? We know Joseph Smith said (twice) it was not safe if Emma was there, and that he stated he thought she "won't come tonight" so it would be safe. If Joseph Smith was worried about mobs, he would have said, "watch out for the mobs," but he didn't, all he said was that it was not safe if Emma was there. Regardless, please exaplin what it is you imply is a distortion.

We are referring here to something written by Richard S. Van Wagoner. His version of the letter says:

My feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us ... if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to Afford me succor ... the only thing to be careful is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety.

[Zakuska]

Wiki - " &c"

Would that not be an abreviation for "and Children"?