The Great Church History Cover-up

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BTW, Thews, it is enlightening to see you let your hair down on another message board. Your references to the "Mormon cult," "spike the KoolAid," and "dumb down juice" are quite endearing. It gives me a much better idea of who I'm talking with.

Oh really. I guess when a christian is really saved they can do what ever they want. At least Thews is living his religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh really. I guess when a christian is really saved they can do what ever they want. At least Thews is living his religion.

I wonder if he was high-fiving anyone while doing it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder if he was high-fiving anyone while doing it.

Hahahahaha, that was a good one. [High fives SL]

[Nemesis]

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?

Knock off the condescension.

Nemesis

[Jeff K.]

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.

Why isn't it the same? It is adding another person to the relationship. Depending on the culture and people it may very well be my uncles business, so no, your point isn't really that concrete.

[Redefined]

Yes, in MY opinion a husband should tell his wife and get her approval each and every time, if he plans on bringing another wife into the relationship (it's not HIS decision if they are ONE its THEIR decision). It's called consideration and respect. I cannot believe in a God that would do otherwise. . . it's unjust. Therefore, because I don't believe that a "god" would ever command that, Joseph Smith took advantage of his situation.

[Jeff K.]

So to should consideration and respect be given to both father and mother, its a cultural thing you know. And if it is so, then the goose and gander both must be held accountable.

[Redefined]

So to should consideration and respect be given to both father and mother, its a cultural thing you know. And if it is so, then the goose and gander both must be held accountable.

I really didn't get what you are saying here? Can you please clarify? However, it does spark an idea for starting a new topic.

[Zakuska]

Knock off the condescension.

Nemesis

Nemesis - HIGH FIVE!

[cinepro]

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 knew he was deceiving Emma. When you say "Don't tell Emma", it means you know you're doing something she doesn't want, and you're trying to hide it from her.

Unless he was getting together with the Whitney's to plan a surprise party for Emma, that's deception.

[thews]

So to should consideration and respect be given to both father and mother, its a cultural thing you know. And if it is so, then the goose and gander both must be held accountable.

A relationship between a husband and wife doesn't follow the "goose" in your analogy. This isn't a "cultural" thing as you assert. By your logic, a man can marry another woman and fail to tell his wife and this isn't deception. If this isn't deceiving, nothing is... would you agree? Agian, using rational logic, this is a relationship between a man and woman that started with "till death do us part" as husband and wife.

[Pahoran]

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.

Correction: Mormon polygamy was not like "Big Love." Joseph was not "adding another wife to the relationship." Plural marriage does not mean multiple partners in one marriage, it means multiple concurrent marriages; each marriage consisting of one man and one woman.

And your assumption about it being "TOTALLY her business" relies upon the presentist fallacy. America was not nearly as matriarchal in the 19th century as it is in the 21st century. That doesn't mean there weren't some wives who expected to keep their husbands completely under their thumbs, but it does mean that it wasn't taken for granted the way it is today.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Redefined]

Correction: Mormon polygamy was not like "Big Love." Joseph was not "adding another wife to the relationship." Plural marriage does not mean multiple partners in one marriage, it means multiple concurrent marriages; each marriage consisting of one man and one woman.

And your assumption about it being "TOTALLY her business" relies upon the presentist fallacy. America was not nearly as matriarchal in the 19th century as it is in the 21st century. That doesn't mean there weren't some wives who expected to keep their husbands completely under their thumbs, but it does mean that it wasn't taken for granted the way it is today.

Regards,

Pahoran

And slavery was part of 19th century America as well. . . .it doen't make it right.

[thews]

No, the article states:

"Might there exist other reasons for making sure that Emma was not present? Consider this:...hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph. Note that Joseph's letter states that "when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible." Joseph wanted the Whitneys to avoid observation by anyone, and not just by Emma."

This does not "imply the reason," as you stated...it merely states that there might exist other reasons. We want to present all possibilities.

What grounds do you come up with the "hostile men" theory? Don't you think if that was Joseph Smith's intent he'd say so? He didn't say anything about "hostile men," but did say (twice) that it was not safe for his wife to be there when the Whitney's brought over their daughter who was married to Joseph Smith as mr. Whitney stated as a "companion" for life to his daughter. Exactly what evidence gives the "hostile men" theory weight? The fact that he was in hiding? If he was lonely, why wouldn't he want his wife there? Your implication that other reasons "might" exist would require motive to be valid. Anything could be true, and it will be if it's what you want to be true, but there should be some sound logic to imply it's the most reasonable. The facts are that Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann as a "companion" for life... why wouldn't he want his other wife there for companionship?

Sounded to me like an instruction not to come if she was already there. How could he have asked her not to come if he can't communicate with her until she is there? Emma was obviously visiting him on a regular basis, and he apparently didn't know the exact schedule, because he was unable to communicate with her.

It's true he didn't know ("know" being the operative word) that she wouldn't be there, but he didn't think she'd be there, but if she was, it was not safe. Why was it "not safe" ...that's the real question.

No, I do not imply that the reason for the stealthiness of the Whitney's visit was because hostile men were after Joseph. Joseph was in hiding, therefore someone was after him. The comment about "hostile men" is only presented as one possible explanation. Again, with emphasis and relevant portions extracted:

"Might there exist other reasons for making sure that Emma was not present? Consider this: If Joseph was in hiding, he had good reason to avoid being found....If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there....because hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph."

You also point out why Joseph Smith wouldn't wan tto endanger his friends... were the Whitney's not his friends? "Might" could include any reason, but the one thing we do know, is that is was "not safe" if Emma was there... that's it... the only condition it was not safe, is if Joseph Smth's other wife (his first one Emma) was not there. There should be logic to imply your theory is plausable IMO.

The subject of the wiki article is not Sarah Ann's marriage - it is the letter itself, therefore there is no discussion of Sarah Ann's marriage. Any discussion of the nature of that marriage belongs in a separate article. We are not analyzing the nature of Sarah Ann's marriage here - we are analyzing the contents of the letter and demonstrating the way in which it has been used by critics.

IMO, not mentioning tht Sarah Ann Whitney was married to Joseph Smith when this letter was written, and the fact that Mr. Whitney maried them stating they were "companions" for life is not telling the entire truth, which is the topic of this thread on how the LDS hide actual history.

The wiki article doesn't even contain the phrase "the real question." Referring to "Distortion #1," the article says:

"This certainly has all of the elements of a secret

[Pahoran]

Part 2:

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.

What? Why should I be expected to "go back and state which questions" I "failed to answer" when in fact I DID NOT FAIL TO ANSWER ANY? Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance. YOU made the accusation; YOU get to back it up. You don't get to demand that I do your homework for you.

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

You keep demanding "Yes or no." What part of "No" doesn't answer that question?

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:

"Things," plural, followed by a list of ONE.

Got it.

1) Mr. Whitney using the word "companion" when he married Sarah Ann to Joseph Smith.

You keep obsessing about this word. Why do you think this word is particularly important?

Why do you believe Emma was not deceived if Joseph Smith took a "companion" without her knowledge. That's the question...

Really? I couldn't tell, given that it didn't have a question mark.

So, if that is the question, meaning that there is only one question in view, I take it you've given up trying to leverage something out of your misrepresentations about the letter Joseph wrote to her parents?

In any event, I am happy to address this question, providing you first are prepared to actually spell out your argument. You know, something you've been remarkably shy about doing so far. Let's see how you do, shall we? In fact, I'll give you a start:

1. All actions undertaken by married people without informing their spouses constitute deception of the spouse.
   
2. Joseph married Sarah Ann Whitney without informing Emma.
   
3. Therefore, Joseph deceived Emma.
   

Is that your argument?

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.

Or I might, as you hope, fall for your shell game and be suckered into assuming the burden of proof.

But I think we both know that's not going to happen, don't we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

Part 2:

What? Why should I be expected to "go back and state which questions" I "failed to answer" when in fact I DID NOT FAIL TO ANSWER ANY? Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance. YOU made the accusation; YOU get to back it up. You don't get to demand that I do your homework for you.

Lost is the diatribe of wordy diversion, you continue to claim to make a point ...what it is exactly?

You keep demanding "Yes or no." What part of "No" doesn't answer that question?

What part of "why" don't you understand... be specific.

"Things," plural, followed by a list of ONE.

Got it.

and again no answer or a point.

You keep obsessing about this word. Why do you think this word is particularly important?

Because it's what's known as "relevant" to the discussion. Mr. Whitney married his daughter Sarah to Joseph SMith as a "companion" for life.There are those in here that still believe Joseph Smith was only "sealed" to his plural wives... this shows clearly that this isn't true, Joseph Smith was married to Sarah, as he was to Emma, and was deceiving Emma... that's why it "relevant" ...care to respond to some actual factual relevant data?

Really? I couldn't tell, given that it didn't have a question mark.

This really show just how much you care about a real discussion ...what won't you grab onto to build your strawman? How about making a point on something ...anything?

So, if that is the question, meaning that there is only one question in view, I take it you've given up trying to leverage something out of your misrepresentations about the letter Joseph wrote to her parents?

As had been acknowledged many times, the letter was written to all three of them. Part of your strawman depends on the FAIR argument regarding who the letter was addressed to. Keep buliding the strawman making this point seem valid ...it's moot ...means nothing, but if it's all you have cling to it and keep dodging the questions that do mean something based on sound logic.

In any event, I am happy to address this question, providing you first are prepared to actually spell out your argument. You know, something you've been remarkably shy about doing so far. Let's see how you do, shall we? In fact, I'll give you a start:

1. All actions undertaken by married people without informing their spouses constitute deception of the spouse.
   
2. Joseph married Sarah Ann Whitney without informing Emma.
   
3. Therefore, Joseph deceived Emma.
   

Is that your argument?

Do you relly need to be this verbose? What do you fail to understand? How many times does it need to be spelled out? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Or I might, as you hope, fall for your shell game and be suckered into assuming the burden of proof.

But I think we both know that's not going to happen, don't we?

Regards,

Pahoran

And again you state a bunch of nothing, using diversion and distortion to state more nothing, referencing nothing, in yet another attempt to be as wordy as possibile without saying anything. What is your point? (be specific and direct, as I will answer whatever question you have without blathering on intentionally).

How about answering a question: What do you believe the relevance of Mr. Whitney using the word "companion" in marrying his daughter to Joseph Smith for life has on this letter, considering Emma Smith dodn't know about the plural marriage? (insert an answer here and be specific).

[Wiki Wonka]

Is this all you have? ...are you following me around the internet on other message boards? How about some answers? How about some logic that makes sense?

Don't flatter yourself. I've been a lurker on that board for a very long time. You are most definitely not my reason for going there.

[Wiki Wonka]

Of course Joseph knew he was deceiving Emma. When you say "Don't tell Emma", it means you know you're doing something she doesn't want, and you're trying to hide it from her.

Unless he was getting together with the Whitney's to plan a surprise party for Emma, that's deception.

OK, so let's dust off a portion of the letter again:

the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.

So Joseph says to the Whitneys that they "cannot be safe" if Emma is there, but if she is not there, then they will be safe. He then reiterates that the Whitneys should only come if Emma is not there. A few questions:

Why do you suppose they (the Whitneys) would not be safe if Emma were present?

Do you suppose that Emma was going to harm the Whitneys in some way?

Was it safer for the Whitneys if Emma knew about the marriage to Sarah? Or was it safer if she did not know?

Do you think Emma would have "kicked Sarah down the stairs" so to speak?

Was Joseph concerned for his own safety if the Whitneys showed up while Emma was there?

How do you translate this concern for safety expressed from Joseph to the Whitneys into "Don't tell Emma?"

[Redefined]

OK, so let's dust off a portion of the letter again:

So Joseph says to the Whitneys that they "cannot be safe" if Emma is there, but if she is not there, then they will be safe. He then reiterates that the Whitneys should only come if Emma is not there. A few questions:

Why do you suppose they (the Whitneys) would not be safe if Emma were present?

Do you suppose that Emma was going to harm the Whitneys in some way?

Was it safer for the Whitneys if Emma knew about the marriage to Sarah? Or was it safer if she did not know?

Do you think Emma would have "kicked Sarah down the stairs" so to speak?

Was Joseph concerned for his own safety if the Whitneys showed up while Emma was there?

How do you translate this concern for safety expressed from Joseph to the Whitneys into "Don't tell Emma?"

It was safer for Joseph Smith if Emma did not know. . . which made it unsafer for Sarah Whitney!

[Wiki Wonka]

It was safer for Joseph Smith if Emma did not know. . . which made it unsafer for Sarah Whitney!

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you believe that Joseph was concerned that Emma might harm Sarah (the "kicked down the stairs option")?.

[Redefined]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you believe that Joseph was concerned that Emma might harm Sarah (the "kicked down the stairs option")?.

I was trying to say that Joseph Smith worried about his own well-being by not telling Emma. . . which made it worse for Sarah to be put in the middle of a lovers quarrel. Now if he would have gotten Emma's blessing for the marriage. . . knowing how she struggled, she may not have been Sarah's best of friends, but her wrath might only have extended to someone being kicked down the stairs. . . instead of a possible blood bath.

Added. . . his warning to the whitneys was about him not them.

[Wiki Wonka]

I hereby dedicate the following brand new FAIR Wiki article to "thews," without whose assistance it would not exist:

Did Joseph and others with him remove their garments in order to avoid being identified as polygamists?

The article is in draft status and any feedback is welcome.

WW

[Jeff K.]

A relationship between a husband and wife doesn't follow the "goose" in your analogy. This isn't a "cultural" thing as you assert. By your logic, a man can marry another woman and fail to tell his wife and this isn't deception. If this isn't deceiving, nothing is... would you agree? Agian, using rational logic, this is a relationship between a man and woman that started with "till death do us part" as husband and wife.

It does indeed. You have some kind of cultural blinder that disallows you from seeing anything but your narrow viewpoint. If the importance is lineage and not marriage to a woman, then you had better believe that eloping is just as serious if not more so. A wife may be many things, she may be a companion, she may be a slave, she may even be superior, but none of those preclude a single objective relationship that "must" exist. That is your sinlge paradigm and has no basis in reality as being the singular form of a communal or cultural relationship.

[Jeff K.]

And slavery was part of 19th century America as well. . . .it doen't make it right.

And Nazis were in the 20th century with the equal rights amendment. They have about as much in common as your comparison. Not very logical of you.

[Zakuska]

And Nazis were in the 20th century with the equal rights amendment. They have about as much in common as your comparison. Not very logical of you.

And Jeff k kills the thread... [hi five jeff ]