The Great Church History Cover-up

[Doctor Steuss]

Wiki - " &c"

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

I don't know if Joseph had an unconventional personal meaning for it, but it is an abbreviated way of writing et cetera (etc.).

[Vance]

So did the letter deceive Emma? No, because the letter was not addressed to her.

But you didn't answer the question and give a reason for your answer!!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But you didn't answer the question and give a reason for your answer!!!!

Not to mention the point was moot anyway.

[cinepro]

So did the letter deceive Emma? No, because the letter was not addressed to her.

Was making sure the Whitney's and Emma were not present at the same time qualify as deceiving Emma? I'm ambiguous on that one - I personally think that Joseph was simply practicing conflict avoidance in this case.

"Conflict Avoidance" = the reason he was deceiving Emma.

No one is arguing that deception wasn't the best way to keep Emma from finding out about it.

[Jeff K.]

Cinepro shoots..... and misses again.

[Zakuska]

He must not have read this:

Joseph did want Emma to be with him as much as possible. The letter confirms that Emma visited him. He simply did not want someone else there when Emma was there. You know, you can also look at this from the other angle - why would Joseph want anyone else there when Emma was visiting?

[Vance]

"Conflict Avoidance" = the reason he was deceiving Emma.

No one is arguing that deception wasn't the best way to keep Emma from finding out about it.

So if Emma didn't want to know about it (the details of Joseph's involvement with polygamy), it (granting her wishes) was still deception?

[Doctor Steuss]

So if Emma didn't want to know about it (the details of Joseph's involvement with polygamy), it (granting her wishes) was still deception?

I have admittedly zoned out during portions of this thread...

Is there documentary evidence that this is the position that Emma took, or is this merely an assumption?

[Vance]

I have admittedly zoned out during portions of this thread...

Is there documentary evidence that this is the position that Emma took, or is this merely an assumption?

Doc,

I am going to pull a "thews" on you here and say that since Emma vacillated back and forth on accepting plural marriage then "it is reasonable to assume" (<= a thewism, he he) that she didn't want to know about it.

PS, notice I prefaced the statement with an "if", and that is definitely NOT a thewism.

I now await your karma to roll run over me.

[Doctor Steuss]

[

[Pahoran]

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

Asked and answered. Time to actually support your accusation with some evidence.

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?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You have no basis to accuse Joseph of deceiving Emma; but still you persist.

Why?

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).

I disagree with your conclusion. It is unavailable on the evidence provided.

OTOH, it is virtually inevitable, given your anti-Mormon bias.

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?

See above. As you know, I have made no false claims; you have a monopoly on those.

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.

A factoid you keep repeating, in juxtaposition to the invitation, to urge us to make the same leap of logic upon which you are relying.

Further facts, which you try to sweep under the rug, PRECISELY BECAUSE they are directly relevant to your prurient assumptions:

1. Joseph was staying in one-room quarters, and emphasised this fact in the invitation.
   
2. All three of the Whitneys were to visit him together in that one room.
   

As you know, this arrangement is remarkably inconvenient, if and only if Joseph was inviting Sarah Ann over for a quick tumble; which is, of course, what you assume the letter is for, projecting your own predelictions upon a man you have never met and cannot hope to understand. Yet Joseph compounds the inconvenience by insisting that, instead of just dropping Sarah Ann off and driving away, the parents stay with her throughout.

The only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence is that Joseph wanted to meet with the three of them, all together, and for the purpose explicitly mentioned in the letter.

Emma didn't know about the plural marriage,

Do you have evidence to that effect, or is it simply an assumption of your own?

As Senator has pointed out, if Emma really didn't know about the plural marriage, she'd have no reason to be upset if she saw the Whitneys there, would she?

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.

And, as you know but have brazenly ignored, your assumption is not the only possible explanation for this. Plausible alternatives have been offered, and you have not dealt with them.

You can deny the facts again and again,

In order to do something again, I would first have to do it once.

So, CFR: where have I denied "the facts" regarding the contents of the letter? I have certainly contested your interpretations, but I have denied no facts.

You appear to be letting your habit of making false accusations run away with you.

Snip a lot of "blather."

Question: Do you believe Emma was being deceived in this letter. "Yes" or "No".

I have answered the question several times. Unless you have some new evidence to add, you will please refrain from asking it again.

(If no, address the evidence and explain).

Pardon me, but you don't get to hand out assignments.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

"Conflict Avoidance" = the reason he was deceiving Emma.

No one is arguing that deception wasn't the best way to keep Emma from finding out about it.

So, rather than ask if I or anyone else think that Joseph was deceiving Emma...do you think that Joseph thought that he was deceiving Emma?

[thews]

So, rather than ask if I or anyone else think that Joseph was deceiving Emma...do you think that Joseph thought that he was deceiving Emma?

Of course Joseph Smith was deceiving Emma

[thews]

Asked and answered. Time to actually support your accusation with some evidence.

Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney behind Emma's back... she didn't know about it. What do you think about that?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You have no basis to accuse Joseph of deceiving Emma; but still you persist.

Why?

Because he did deceive Emma. You continue to make the same claims, quote nothing and fail to respond to key points... like these two:

1) Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney without Emma's knowledge.

2) Mr. Whitney married Joseph Smith to his daughter stating they were "companions" for life.

What do you think about those key points?

I disagree with your conclusion. It is unavailable on the evidence provided.

OTOH, it is virtually inevitable, given your anti-Mormon bias.

You disagree, but state nohting. You fail to address the evidence you have no answer fro, and continue to make this reply posts as long as you can to make it look like you actually made a point. Quote something... reference something... what is your point? What exactly do you disagree with?

See above. As you know, I have made no false claims; you have a monopoly on those.

and again... more nothing. why not tell us why? ...you know, actually make a point.

A factoid you keep repeating, in juxtaposition to the invitation, to urge us to make the same leap of logic upon which you are relying.

Further facts, which you try to sweep under the rug, PRECISELY BECAUSE they are directly relevant to your prurient assumptions:

1. Joseph was staying in one-room quarters, and emphasised this fact in the invitation.
   
2. All three of the Whitneys were to visit him together in that one room.

Here's where we have a strawman to change what I said and reply to what you want. What does this have to do with Mr. Whitney marrying Joseph Smith to his daughter as a "companion" for life?

As you know, this arrangement is remarkably inconvenient, if and only if Joseph was inviting Sarah Ann over for a quick tumble; which is, of course, what you assume the letter is for, projecting your own predelictions upon a man you have never met and cannot hope to understand. Yet Joseph compounds the inconvenience by insisting that, instead of just dropping Sarah Ann off and driving away, the parents stay with her throughout.

The only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence is that Joseph wanted to meet with the three of them, all together, and for the purpose explicitly mentioned in the letter.

I still don't know what possible point you're attempting to make, other than concoct a new question and answer it to yourself.

What do you think about a father bringing his daughter over to his son in laws house? Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney, and Emma didn't know about it. It was only "unsafe" if his wife Emma was there... Emma was being deceived. If you disagree, please state why with some relevant data addressing what was posted.

Do you have evidence to that effect, or is it simply an assumption of your own?

read Mr. Wonka's article where it's stated, and let me know what you think about it.

As Senator has pointed out, if Emma really didn't know about the plural marriage, she'd have no reason to be upset if she saw the Whitneys there, would she?

This makes no sense whatsoever. So what you're saying, is the following:

1) If Emma didn't know about the plural marriage of her husband to a 17 year old girl

2) She would have no reason to be upset if she saw the Whitney's there.

What logic does this follow? Joseph SMith states twice it is "unsafe" if Emma is there, and he doesn't "think" she'll come tonight. What this means, is that if they come, and she is there, they should leave. There is no logic in what you're saying... please elaborate.

And, as you know but have brazenly ignored, your assumption is not the only possible explanation for this. Plausible alternatives have been offered, and you have not dealt with them.

"Plausable alternatives" should have something to back them up, rather than just the possibility they could be true by implying things without addressing what the letter does say.

1) No mention of hostile men, but the only condition is if Emma was there, you cannot be safe.

2) Avoid detection, so he won't have to explain it to anyone.

3) Joseph Smith was married to Emma and Sarah Ann Whitney.

In order to do something again, I would first have to do it once.

So, CFR: where have I denied "the facts" regarding the contents of the letter? I have certainly contested your interpretations, but I have denied no facts.

You appear to be letting your habit of making false accusations run away with you.

Snip a lot of "blather."

I'm not going to go back and read you pages of diversion as is you intent. This is an obvious ploy, and I would counter that you go back and state which questions you failed to answer.

I have answered the question several times. Unless you have some new evidence to add, you will please refrain from asking it again.

You have responded (at great length with as much sarcasm as possible to divert). A response is not an answer.

Pardon me, but you don't get to hand out assignments.

Regards,

Pahoran

You asked the question in the OP, and IMO are attempting to hide the information you don't wish to acknowledge. Things you have not responded to:

1) Mr. Whitney using the word "companion" when he married Sarah Ann to Joseph Smith. Why do you believe Emma was not deceived if Joseph Smith took a "companion" without her knowledge. That's the question... you could choose to respond, fail to respond (if you don't have an answer which is typical), or insert another full page of diversion without making any relevant points.

[Jeff K.]

Of course Joseph Smith was deceiving Emma

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My nephew married a woman without letting us know, were we deceived? Is every elopment a deception? Again I ask the question which you so far have refused to answer

Did Christ us deception himself if deception is what you wish to call it. Will you declare Christ deceptive?

You haven't answered any questions I presented, not surprising, you want "your answers" as "you" wish to read them. No other dialogue will suffice for you.

This has been my experiance. Once I offer an alternate expliantion, I am either told that I didn't really give an answer or the answer I did give was just "moot". This is pointless not to mention it is unpersuasive.

[Redefined]

My nephew married a woman without letting us know, were we deceived? Is every elopment a deception? Again I ask the question which you so far have refused to answer

Did Christ us deception himself if deception is what you wish to call it. Will you declare Christ deceptive?

You haven't answered any questions I presented, not surprising, you want "your answers" as "you" wish to read them. No other dialogue will suffice for you.

Your nephews failure to let an uncle know of his elopement is not the same as failing to let one's WIFE know that he is adding another wife to the relationship. It is TOTALLY her business. There is no excuse as to why one would ever be right about concealing such an event from one's spouse.

[thews]

This has been my experiance. Once I offer an alternate expliantion, I am either told that I didn't really give an answer or the answer I did give was just "moot". This is pointless not to mention it is unpersuasive.

An alternative explanation would require some sort of logic behind it. When asked questions about your logic, you could choose to answer them, or choose to fail to answer them and imply there's a logical reason for failing to do so. This is supposed to be a apologetic discussion board isn't it?

[Wiki Wonka]

Of course Joseph Smith was deceiving Emma

[thews]

My nephew married a woman without letting us know, were we deceived? Is every elopment a deception? Again I ask the question which you so far have refused to answer

I don't read the pathetic highfivers who continue to post sarcasm, so I apologize if I failed to answer your question. Regarding this blanket statement, no you were not deceived. If you had eloped while you were married and failed to tell your wife about it, yes you would have been deceiving her, as Joseph Smith deceived Emma by marrying Sarah Ann Whitney without her knowledge.

Did Christ us deception himself if deception is what you wish to call it. Will you declare Christ deceptive?

This is the strawman argument intended to divert. Bringing up a new question in an attempt to paint two-wrongs-make-a-right is typical, as is answering questions with questions in attempting to build the strawman and negate the question asked. If you wish to talk about the subject you seem to be addressing, why not actually make a point regarding the facts? Your question contains nothing of relevance here, but its intent is to somehow absolve Joseph Smith for deceiving his wife Emma.

You haven't answered any questions I presented, not surprising, you want "your answers" as "you" wish to read them. No other dialogue will suffice for you.

What questions do you ahve about the Sarah Ann Whitney letter or the facts about it? I'll answer anything you wish... please be specific and stay on topic.

[Wiki Wonka]

There is no excuse as to why one would ever be right about concealing such an event from one's spouse.

The following is from the FAIR Wiki article: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Sealing

What consent was required from the first wife for a husband to marry an additional wife?

The revelation now contained in D&C 132 was given specifically for Emma's benefit, and it lays out the requirements for a husband to take an additional wife.

D&C 132:61 and D&C 132:65:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood

[selek]

Your nephews failure to let an uncle know of his elopement is not the same as failing to let one's WIFE know that he is adding another wife to the relationship. It is TOTALLY her business. There is no excuse as to why one would ever be right about concealing such an event from one's spouse.

In your opinion- which is highly arbitrary, and fraught with both subjectivism and presentism.

Of course, you've still given us no reason to consider your opinion as anything other than a spit in the ocean...care to take a stab at it?

[Wiki Wonka]

Wiki - " &c"

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

Its the 19th-century version of "etc." I see it all the time in 19th-century documents. Joseph didn't have any special meaning for it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

An alternative explanation would require some sort of logic behind it. When asked questions about your logic, you could choose to answer them, or choose to fail to answer them and imply there's a logical reason for failing to do so. This is supposed to be a apologetic discussion board isn't it?

I suppose we can just use "you logic" because evidently every one else' logic seems to be faulty even though you haven't yet engaged any of it and either never responded or just declared it "moot".

You are predictable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the strawman argument intended to divert. Bringing up a new question in an attempt to paint two-wrongs-make-a-right is typical, as is answering questions with questions in attempting to build the strawman and negate the question asked. If you wish to talk about the subject you seem to be addressing, why not actually make a point regarding the facts? Your question contains nothing of relevance here, but its intent is to somehow absolve Joseph Smith for deceiving his wife Emma.

It is evident from your post here that you have know idea what a strawman arguement is. I suggest you educate your self here.