The Great Church History Cover-up

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I never made that claim. And actually, I'm glad they didn't.

If your theme, dblagent, is that members of the Church often don't follow the Brethren, and sometimes invent rumors and false doctrines of their own, then I'm in agreement with you.

[Scottie]

Geesh...did you tell her she could buy RSR at Deseret Book?

She bought it herself at Deseret Book.

[mysteryman]

From time to time we are treated to another chorus of the venerable old mantra: the Church "covers up" its history, "hides" all the "embarrassing" bits, and only provides a "whitewashed" version. When it is pointed out that all of the supposedly "embarrassing" bits are available to everyone who troubles themselves to pick up some books and actually read anything, the scope of the cover-up shrinks a bit: it's not that the Church actually "suppresses" those things (thus admitting that the Tanners lied about that) but that it doesn't affirmatively teach them to Primary children.

High on the list of "embarrassing" facts that the Church supposedly "covers up" -- basing this on the jet-engine-toned claims put forward by the accusers -- are three things: plural marriage, the "Expositor" incident, and the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun with him in Carthage Jail, and used it.

Well, yesterday being Sunday (we have to wait another week for Conference) I taught my Primary class the lesson on the martyrdom.

And guess what?

It mentioned the "Expositor" incident. It mentioned the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun with him in Carthage Jail, and used it.

Not only that, but plural marriage was mentioned in passing in a recent lesson.

Now exactly what is the Church trying to "cover up" again?

Regards,

Pahoran

Whether or not the Church hides or covers things up in modern times is an open question. For example, not all the Brigham Young collection is open for researchers. The Council of 50 minutes are not open for researchers. Why are these things being held? Is there something embarrassing in them? I don't know the reason, but the fact that they are suppressing access does raise many questions. Many things that the critics cry about, you are correct, the information is out there, even published by companies that are church owned such as Deseret Book, BYU Studies, FARMS, etc. But, the manner in which historical issues are addressed by Church manuals or items that are directly published by the church is whitewashed. For example you won't read about polyandry in church publications that address Church history and polygamy. That Joseph was not honest about it with Emma or the Church about plural marriage is not addressed. In the past, treasure hunting and translating the BOM with a rock in his hat rarely appeared, but it seems the church is more open now about that issue. That the Mormon legislature of Utah made slavery legal in Utah in 1852 and that there were about 29 African slaves in Utah at the start of the Civil War is not brought up. Some the very vile and racist comments about blacks is missing from direct church publications and manuals. The "Our Heritage" manual that is currently being used gives a totally false impression about Mormon/Indian relations in Utah with no indication of the violence between them or Young's extermination orders against hostile Indians. The Church's Joseph Smith movie was simple propaganda. So the church does whitewash their history in many aspects, but they do not necessarily hide it since such issues are allowed to be published by church owned publishers. But the thing is, when people find out such things on the internet or some hostile source, they feel lied to. Sure you could say that they could have found many of these things out by reading historical studies and such, but they feel that these issues were covered up at church because they never heard them before. By the time they find out that these issues are discussed in sources from Deseret Book, FARMS, or BYU Studies it is many times too late.

[Jerubaal]

That the Mormon legislature of Utah made slavery legal in Utah in 1852 and that there were about 29 African slaves in Utah at the start of the Civil War is not brought up.

I learned all about this just a week or two ago in my Utah history class, taught at Brigham Young University of all places. Now, I know that that doesn't amount to it being taught church-wide to every child from primary on up, but it seems odd that they would let such things be taught if they were trying to suppress them, which is the topic of this thread.

[dblagent007]

If your theme, dblagent, is that members of the Church often don't follow the Brethren, and sometimes invent rumors and false doctrines of their own, then I'm in agreement with you.

I'm sure that happens, but I don't think that's my theme. I don't think the members are being disobedient or inventing rumors or false doctrines. My theme is that they honestly feel that they are following the brethren by avoiding things that challenge or weaken their faith. When deciding whether they should read something, they don't make any distinction between historical works and other works. If it is not faith promoting, then it is not read, history or not.

I am a little surprised that you have taken issue with this. I have seen it so often in real life that I thought it almost self-evident. Sure there are exceptions, but I feel confident that there is a sizable number of active members that view things the way I have postulated.

[mysteryman]

I learned all about this just a week or two ago in my Utah history class, taught at Brigham Young University of all places. Now, I know that that doesn't amount to it being taught church-wide to every child from primary on up, but it seems odd that they would let such things be taught if they were trying to suppress them, which is the topic of this thread.

Brian Cannon is great teacher isn't he. How do you like your TA Brett?

Read my comment a little closer, I answer your question there.

[Droopy]

name='justdreamin' date='05 October 2009 - 07:11 AM' timestamp='1254748316' post='1208728146']

I don't understand why it is so unbelievable that there are good faithful longstanding members of the Church who are shocked, surprised, and maybe even a little angry, to hear about certain incidents of the past. My parents (aged 68) are BIC Utah Mormons with pioneer heritage who up until 4 years ago didn't know that Joseph Smith had more than a couple of wives; did not know anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre; still don't know anything about the Expositor, etc.

And since when does the responsibility for ignorance fall upon the Church?

The people they associate with in church don't generally know anything about any of it either and won't even entertain the subjects, as they consider "that kind of talk" on the verge of apostasy.

Odd Latter Day Saints, in my experience.

These are not uneducated people.

As to Church doctrine and history, based upon what you've stated thus far, that's precisely how I'd have to understand them.

Pres. Monson spoke at the funeral of my Dads cousin, "Bow-tie Ben."

What this has to do with being educated or uneducated (Does Pres. Monson speak only at the funerals of the educated?), I have no idea.

My parents have also served 3 Senior's missions. So although the Church's history is an open book (more so since the Internet), you can't deny that many Mormons don't know very much about it outside of what they are taught in church.

The onus of responsibility for this state of affairs still falls upon the ignorant, not upon the Church.

Who has the time to actually read all the volumes of "History of the Church" that sit prominently on the shelf, amongst the "Journal of Discourses" and other LDS publications?

I won't even give this old hobby horse of an excuse a particle of my time. There is tonnage of time for Survivor, American Idol, Oprah, ball games all weekend, golf, and various other hobbies/recreational pursuits, so there is also time for deep, serious reading throughout life.

[thews]

No. I did not.

I didn't even say that plural marriage was introduced because there weren't enough men.

Well I already stated that I made a mistake in saying women instead of men, but this just isn't true. There was a balanced men to woman ratio. Are you using factual data to make this claim (not enough men), or are you repeating what you were told?

In his 1943 book, Evidences and Reconciliations, Apostle John A. Widtsoe explained:

"Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church.

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law - a slight excess of males.

The manual simply pointed out that there was a time in Church history when some of the members were permitted to have more than one wife.

If it's cannonized doctrine in the D&C and this is how it's going to work in heaven, then why not explain it further? Did God change his mind, or is it not current practiced bacause it's illegal?

I did not mention any of the irrelevant and trivial factoids that anti-Mormons get hung up about, no.

Joseph Smith marrying girls as young as 14 and 15 is not trivial in any way shape or form. The letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney (who Joseph Smith married at 17) is actual history. In it, Joseph Smith uses "lonely" and Lonesome" in asking the Whitney's come and comfort him. If he also states the only condition that it is "unsafe" is when Emma is not there (he states it twice) and he claims "I don't think Emma will come tonight" I find it hard for you to rationalize what is actually being said and why. Lonely + wife not there = (insert answer based on critical thinking). This is neither "anti-Mormon" as you assert nor trivial.

My one-sentence mention of the topic left out a lot of detail. (One-sentence mentions tend to do that.) For example, it did not mention the Edmunds-Tucker Act, or any of the other barbarities that the Saints endured because of plural marriage.

Why do you think the "endured" somthing. What they were doing was illegal (note that it was illegal in 1830). Why don't mainstream LDS practice polygamy/polyandry now if it's God's will?

But not even an anti-Mormon could be irrational enough to conclude that I must therefore be trying to "cover up" anything about that.

And once again the "anti-Mormon" name comes out. You post is about supposedly not covering up actual history. Joseph Smith had 38 wives and some as young as 14 and 15... this is a fact. These were not just "sealings" as a lot of people in here want to believe, but the marriages were consumated. FARMS admits this:

FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "?but we called it celestial marriage" ("George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20:2, 2008), that Joseph Smith had "conjugal relations" with at least eight women in addition to his first wife, Emma.

Even so, "there is good evidence of a conjugal relationship with Almira Johnson, Melissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Eliza R. Snow," G. L. Smith enumerated, then added that "it is also reasonable," even "persuasive," "to include Eliza Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence." He concluded that there was "some evidence" for sex with "Fanny Alger and Sylvia Sessions Lyon," but begrudgingly pointed out that "this is only nine" of Joseph Smith's 33-38 known plural marriages.

And exactly how is that a "moot point?" Just because you say so?

Not because "I say so" but because who it was addressed to is in fact a moot point (see underlined in the header of the letter), because it was addressed to "you three."

Nauvoo, August 18th 1842

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and & c. I take this opportunity to communicate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three eternaly to keep in your own bosams;

The fact that you are trying to pre-empt the fatal objection to the standard anti-Mormon asinumption that the letter was setting up a tryst is not exactly overwhelming evidence of good faith on your part.

I still don't get the "Anti-Mormon" tag you continue to throw out? This is a letter written by Joseph Smith which he is clearly pointing out that his wife can't be there and he wants the Whitney's to bring him their daughter Sarah? How is this "anti-Mormon"? Joseph Smith married 17 year-old Sarah Ann Whitney, so how is the claim this isn't a "love letter" valid? IMO you are choosing tio believe what you wish and failing to view this critically. If were intended to be some sort of blessing only, Joseph Smith wouldn't have used "lonely" and "lonesome" and pointing out (more than once) that is "wasn't safe" if Emma was there. In you opinion, was Emma Smith being deceived?

No. How could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson? But in a recent Family Home Evening lesson on the martyrdom, I did mention that Willard Richards was the only one of the four men in the jail to be wearing his garments at the time.

The reason it's relevant is because Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off. The reason Joseph Smith ordered the prinyting press destroyed was because it was exposing him as a polygamist, and not because it weas "evil". If it were God's will and Joseph Smith were in fact a wlling martyr (martyr = one who suffers for the sake of principal), then he would have worn his garments proudly and not fired back on the mob IMO.

No. How could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson?

Fair enough.

No, because that would have been a lie. (Not that I have any reason to suppose you would disapprove.) It is likely that Joseph was starting to say that, but the fact is that he did not get a chance to finish it.

But there is no "cover-up" in view. Do you think there is something morally reprehensible about Joseph attempting to say that?

And how could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson?

It's your opinion that this is a "lie," but Joseph Smith was a Master Mason and he did attempt to find someone to save him when he said this. The point is, it wasn't a prayer of sorts to God, but an attempt to save himself. This is relevant (though it's understandable why he would say this) as it applies to the "martyr" label. Again, Joseph Smith ordered the printing press destroyed. Joseph Smith and the failed Kirkland bank made him a lot of enemies. These enemies were more likley to come after him for those reasons more than just because of religous reasons. But, again with the OP. You claim you're not hiding anything and being upfront. WRT kids I see how some of this is too much, but it's not for adults, and there are a lot of adults that hear this story without ever hearing these fatcs.

Well, duh!

Two points to that facile observation: (1) There is no version of a historical event that "encompasses the entire truth" about that event. This is an unquestioned truism of historiography; and (2) The anti-Mormon "versions told do not encompass the entire truth, but only parts of it," heavily intermingled with rumour, conjecture, half truths and outright falsehoods.

Does that explain why you prefer them?

WRT to OP, my point is (as you again toss out the "anti" tag), is that there is a whitwash of sorts unless the entire story is told. To claim the printing press was "evil" make it seem somehow justified for Joseph Smith to order it destroyed. Joseph Smith ordering the press destroyed was wrong and was one of the reasons that led to his death, and not religous persecution which is the point.

No, I would not. I suggest you look up "necessary evidence" and "sufficent evidence" and understand the difference between them. Avoiding confronting Emma with the fact that a plural spouse was visiting him is only necessary evidence of deception; it is not sufficent evidence. Seeing only necessary evidence, and then leaping to a conclusion demonstrates an eagerness to believe the worst.

The fats that Joseph Smith married girls age 14 and 15 is a fact, as is the fact he married many young girls and other men's wives. Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball in 1843 when she was 14. This is in the LDS records at FamilySearch.org. If you choose to ignore these facts it that's up to you.

Then I suggest you read the board guidelines. Temple matters and salacious speculation about the private lives of others are off limits. The facts are not.

I believed I was only posting factual information and apologize if I broke any rules.

And this is supposed to intimidate me, is it? Walter Ralston Martin was a "descendant of Brigham Young."

Only he wasn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

It wasn't meant to intimidate you (I hardly see how it could), but rather point out that I come from the Mormon polygamy bloodline. What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't? Why not? Why wouldn't Joseph Smith consumate his marriages? The belief that he only married widows and they were just "sealings" is simply not true.

[Nemesis]

Well I already stated that I made a mistake in saying women instead of men, but this just isn't true. There was a balanced men to woman ratio. Are you using factual data to make this claim (not enough men), or are you repeating what you were told?

If it's cannonized doctrine in the D&C and this is how it's going to work in heaven, then why not explain it further? Did God change his mind, or is it not current practiced bacause it's illegal?

Joseph Smith marrying girls as young as 14 and 15 is not trivial in any way shape or form. The letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney (who Joseph Smith married at 17) is actual history. In it, Joseph Smith uses "lonely" and Lonesome" in asking the Whitney's come and comfort him. If he also states the only condition that it is "unsafe" is when Emma is not there (he states it twice) and he claims "I don't think Emma will come tonight" I find it hard for you to rationalize what is actually being said and why. Lonely + wife not there = (insert answer based on critical thinking). This is neither "anti-Mormon" as you assert nor trivial.

Why do you think the "endured" somthing. What they were doing was illegal (note that it was illegal in 1830). Why don't mainstream LDS practice polygamy/polyandry now if it's God's will?

And once again the "anti-Mormon" name comes out. You post is about supposedly not covering up actual history. Joseph Smith had 38 wives and some as young as 14 and 15... this is a fact. These were not just "sealings" as a lot of people in here want to believe, but the marriages were consumated. FARMS admits this:

Not because "I say so" but because who it was addressed to is in fact a moot point (see underlined in the header of the letter), because it was addressed to "you three."

I still don't get the "Anti-Mormon" tag you continue to throw out? This is a letter written by Joseph Smith which he is clearly pointing out that his wife can't be there and he wants the Whitney's to bring him their daughter Sarah? How is this "anti-Mormon"? Joseph Smith married 17 year-old Sarah Ann Whitney, so how is the claim this isn't a "love letter" valid? IMO you are choosing tio believe what you wish and failing to view this critically. If were intended to be some sort of blessing only, Joseph Smith wouldn't have used "lonely" and "lonesome" and pointing out (more than once) that is "wasn't safe" if Emma was there. In you opinion, was Emma Smith being deceived?

The reason it's relevant is because Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off. The reason Joseph Smith ordered the prinyting press destroyed was because it was exposing him as a polygamist, and not because it weas "evil". If it were God's will and Joseph Smith were in fact a wlling martyr (martyr = one who suffers for the sake of principal), then he would have worn his garments proudly and not fired back on the mob IMO.

No. How could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson?

Fair enough.

It's your opinion that this is a "lie," but Joseph Smith was a Master Mason and he did attempt to find someone to save him when he said this. The point is, it wasn't a prayer of sorts to God, but an attempt to save himself. This is relevant (though it's understandable why he would say this) as it applies to the "martyr" label. Again, Joseph Smith ordered the printing press destroyed. Joseph Smith and the failed Kirkland bank made him a lot of enemies. These enemies were more likley to come after him for those reasons more than just because of religous reasons. But, again with the OP. You claim you're not hiding anything and being upfront. WRT kids I see how some of this is too much, but it's not for adults, and there are a lot of adults that hear this story without ever hearing these fatcs.

WRT to OP, my point is (as you again toss out the "anti" tag), is that there is a whitwash of sorts unless the entire story is told. To claim the printing press was "evil" make it seem somehow justified for Joseph Smith to order it destroyed. Joseph Smith ordering the press destroyed was wrong and was one of the reasons that led to his death, and not religous persecution which is the point.

The fats that Joseph Smith married girls age 14 and 15 is a fact, as is the fact he married many young girls and other men's wives. Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball in 1843 when she was 14. This is in the LDS records at FamilySearch.org. If you choose to ignore these facts it that's up to you.

Then I suggest you read the board guidelines. Temple matters and salacious speculation about the private lives of others are off limits. The facts are not.

I believed I was only posting factual information and apologize if I broke any rules.

It wasn't meant to intimidate you (I hardly see how it could), but rather point out that I come from the Mormon polygamy bloodline. What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't? Why not? Why wouldn't Joseph Smith consumate his marriages? The belief that he only married widows and they were just "sealings" is simply not true.

If you are going to use other peoples work you need to give them the proper citation. Let this be the last time we need to tell you this.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

When I was on my mission back in the late 70's, we showed a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It told about how someone (Cyrus Wheelock, I believe) smuggled a gun in to Joseph while he was in Carthage Jail. We showed this filmstrip to every investigator. I'm kind of surprised that folks make a big deal about the gun these days.

Regarding Joseph's and Hyrums disposition towards guns, even as they were confined in the Carthage jail with angry mobs milling around outside, I found this intersting:

"Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, 'You may have use for this.' Brother Hyrum observed, 'I hate to use such things or to see them used.' 'So do I,' said Joseph, 'but we may have to, to defend ourselves;' upon this Hyrum took the pistol." (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.33, p.607-608).

BTW, this single barreled pistol is not the same as the six-shooter smuggled into Joseph by Wheelock.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thews]

If you are going to use other peoples work you need to give them the proper citation. Let this be the last time we need to tell you this.

Nemesis

Please correct me where I failed to reference other people's work. If I'm only stating a fact or quoted material, should I post wherwe I found it? I believed this was a board infraction, but have no objection in doing so.

Thanks

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]If I'm only stating a fact or quoted material, should I post wherwe I found it? I believed this was a board infraction, but have no objection in doing so. [...]

Yes, plagiarism isn't allowed on this board.

If you are quoting someone else's research (such as wivesofjosephsmith), then yes you should state where the research is coming from (you can simply put a link to the appropriate website where the information has been copied, after the quote). This is especially true if you are not only copying the quotes of other works from a given person's research, but are copying their editorial changes to the text as well as their verbatim narration.

Plagiarism = Bad. (Unless I do it, then it's good)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Plagiarism = Bad. (Unless I do it, then it's good)

No, then it's awesome.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Plagiarism = Bad. (Unless I do it, then it's good)

No it is only good when I do it!!! HEHEHEHE.

[jkfrost]

No, then it's awesome.

Amen,

Hey can I plagiarize that one?

[thews]

Yes, plagiarism isn't allowed on this board.

If you are quoting someone else's research (such as wivesofjosephsmith), then yes you should state where the research is coming from (you can simply put a link to the appropriate website where the information has been copied, after the quote). This is especially true if you are not only copying the quotes of other works from a given person's research, but are copying their editorial changes to the text as well as their verbatim narration.

Plagiarism = Bad. (Unless I do it, then it's good)

I'll make sure to do so in the future. Sorry

[Pahoran]

Well I already stated that I made a mistake in saying women instead of men, but this just isn't true. There was a balanced men to woman ratio. Are you using factual data to make this claim (not enough men), or are you repeating what you were told?

Good grief.

As I previously wrote:

I didn't even say that plural marriage was introduced because there weren't enough men.

Now, when I was learning English, "didn't" was a contraction of "did not." Thus, I did NOT say that plural marriage was introduced because there weren't enough men.

I did not make that claim.

And while I have heard it suggested as a theory, I was never "told," as in informed by any authoritative source, any such thing.

Nor do I have any good faith basis to believe that any informed Latter-day Saint has ever been "told" such a thing.

This is a straw man, Thews. Don't try to foist it upon me again.

If it's cannonized doctrine in the D&C and this is how it's going to work in heaven, then why not explain it further? Did God change his mind, or is it not current practiced bacause it's illegal?

The context was a Primary lesson talking about the Nauvoo period of Church history.

Your red herrings had nothing to do with the topic.

But the fact remains that it was mentioned.

Joseph Smith marrying girls as young as 14 and 15 is not trivial in any way shape or form.

It depends upon your agenda. I realise that demagogues find it rather titillating.

But given plural marriage, and given marriage norms in wider society during the early 19th century, it's not that big of a deal.

Why was Mrs Bennet so very pleased to have a daughter married at 16?

The letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney (who Joseph Smith married at 17) is actual history.

Yes it is.

And your attempt to exploit it for polemical purposes is actual demagoguery.

In it, Joseph Smith uses "lonely" and Lonesome" in asking the Whitney's come and comfort him. If he also states the only condition that it is "unsafe" is when Emma is not there (he states it twice) and he claims "I don't think Emma will come tonight" I find it hard for you to rationalize what is actually being said and why. Lonely + wife not there = (insert answer based on critical thinking).

No, you insert the answer. I realise that innuendo serves your purposes far more effectively than bald accusation, but you need to take responsibility for the false conclusion you are trying to manipulate people into reaching.

What is the answer your (heh heh) "critical thinking" suggests?

This is neither "anti-Mormon" as you assert nor trivial.

We'd better see what your answer is, hadn't we?

Why do you think the "endured" somthing. What they were doing was illegal (note that it was illegal in 1830). Why don't mainstream LDS practice polygamy/polyandry now if it's God's will?

We should discuss this in another thread, I think. This thread is not about the merits or otherwise of 19th century plural marriage. Nor is it about why it is no longer practiced.

It is about the oft-repeated false accusation that the Church "covers up" its history. Please refrain from inserting too many red herrings.

And once again the "anti-Mormon" name comes out. You post is about supposedly not covering up actual history. Joseph Smith had 38 wives and some as young as 14 and 15... this is a fact. These were not just "sealings" as a lot of people in here want to believe, but the marriages were consumated. FARMS admits this:

I love the way anti-Mormons (and yes, I will continue to use the term as long as you continue to rely upon the anti-Mormon playbook) use the word "admit" to sneak their accusations under the radar. (In the which deception, you are uncritically following your sources.) It has never been denied that some of Joseph's plural marriages were consummated, so it is dishonest to pretend that it is any kind of "admission."

Not because "I say so" but because who it was addressed to is in fact a moot point (see underlined in the header of the letter), because it was addressed to "you three."

Which does not make it a "moot point" at all. Given the salacious intent you want to load upon that letter, the fact that the parents were invited to Joseph's one-room living quarters is highly relevant; your attempt to pre-empt and disarm that relevance is manipulative and disingenuous.

I still don't get the "Anti-Mormon" tag you continue to throw out? This is a letter written by Joseph Smith which he is clearly pointing out that his wife can't be there and he wants the Whitney's to bring him their daughter Sarah? How is this "anti-Mormon"?

Your faux innocent pose is starting to lose its charm.

The facts are not anti-Mormon, and never have been. Your attempt to manipulate them to create a false impression, however, is.

Joseph Smith married 17 year-old Sarah Ann Whitney, so how is the claim this isn't a "love letter" valid?

You are operating from two fallacies here: (1) Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and (2) Non sequitur.

If you don't understand them, look them up.

A "love letter" is determined by its content, not by external events. Did you really not know that?

The letter was addressed to Sarah Ann's parents, with Sarah Ann thrown in as "&c," i.e. "etc." Are you trying to tell us that you think Joseph was in love with her parents?

IMO you are choosing tio believe what you wish and failing to view this critically.

I'm certainly not reading it hypercritically, or even hypocritically.

But feel free to teach me how to read it "critically." Go over t0he letter line by line. Explain to us how your conclusion, and only your conclusion, necessarily and inescapably follows from a "critical" reading thereof.

The reason it's relevant is because Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off.

And what is the basis for that extraordinary pronouncement? How would wearing a garment identify him as a polygamist? How would not wearing it allow him to escape identification?

The reason Joseph Smith ordered the prinyting press destroyed was because it was exposing him as a polygamist, and not because it weas "evil".

Fascinating. Have you read the "Expositor?"

(End of part 1)

[Pahoran]

(Part 2)

If it were God's will and Joseph Smith were in fact a wlling martyr (martyr = one who suffers for the sake of principal), then he would have worn his garments proudly and not fired back on the mob IMO.

Thank you for admitting that it was your opinion.

Idiotic as it is, you are nonetheless entitled to it.

Actually the word "martyr" simply means "witness." Not "passive" or "unresisting," just "witness." All the other cultural baggage that has been loaded onto the word has nothing to do with its core meaning.

And the fact remains that the gun, and Joseph's use thereof, is in the manual.

Ergo, the claim that the Church "covers up" the fact that Joseph had it and used it -- as all decent people, without exception, agree that he had a perfect right to do -- is a lie.

It's your opinion that this is a "lie," but Joseph Smith was a Master Mason and he did attempt to find someone to save him when he said this. The point is, it wasn't a prayer of sorts to God, but an attempt to save himself.

And this is bad -- because?

This is relevant (though it's understandable why he would say this) as it applies to the "martyr" label.

Only to those who ignorantly assume that a real martyr must be some kind of Ghandian figure. The fact is that it is entirely irrelevant to his martyr status. I go farther: the fact that that Joseph did not seek martyrdom, as some have, actually makes his martyr status all the more authentic. He was martyred because your fellow anti-Mormons were absolutely determined to murder him.

Again, Joseph Smith ordered the printing press destroyed.

So he did; and it was justifiable in the circumstances.

Joseph Smith and the failed Kirkland[sic] bank made him a lot of enemies.

Unjustifiably so, incidentally.

And if anti-Mormon websites weren't your sole source of information, you might actually know that it was Kirtland.

These enemies were more likley to come after him for those reasons more than just because of religous reasons.

What a pretty argument. Is there anything to back it up? For instance, is there any evidence that Grandison Newell was in the mob?

How about Warren Parrish, who apparently embezzled most of the Kirtland Safety Society's reserves?

The fact is that we know who the mob participants were. We know who the chief troublemakers were. We know what their motives were. Yes, Thomas C. Sharp hated Joseph personally because Joseph wouldn't collaborate with him in a scheme to defraud the Saints. Yes, Higbee and the Law brothers were bitter about their propaganda organ being shut down, even though Joseph had personally compensated them for the loss of their property, thus setting an example your anti-Mormon friends never lived up to. But through all of the opposition Joseph endured, before the Council of Fifty was organised, before he joined a lodge only to drop off his level of masonic activity almost straight away, before plural marriage became an issue, one theme runs like a red thread: Joseph claimed to be a prophet and taught doctrines that others hated.

Are you going to claim that the destruction of the "Expositor" was what incensed the Missouri anti-Mormons? That the failure of the KSS was what so mortally offended Henry Caswall? That the Palmyrans ran the Smiths out of town because of plural marriage?

But, again with the OP. You claim you're not hiding anything and being upfront. WRT kids I see how some of this is too much, but it's not for adults, and there are a lot of adults that hear this story without ever hearing these fatcs.

And I would say that the only honest way to present "these facts" is to present them in context, and devoid of hostile spin. Otherwise they are mere factoids, flung in people's faces for their shock value.

And when they fail to shock, you berate us for our lack of "critical thinking," just as the anti-Mormon playbook directs.

The reality is that we are well aware of these facts, in their context; the context you so assiduously strip away. That's why we aren't shocked by them.

WRT to OP, my point is (as you again toss out the "anti" tag), is that there is a whitwash of sorts unless the entire story is told.

And telling the entire story is something the anti-Mormon propaganda machine never does, and is the last thing you want.

You (collectively) claim to want a "warts and all" presentation of Church history. That claim is false; you want nothing of the sort. What you really want is a series of snapshots of the warts and nothing else.

To claim the printing press was "evil" make it seem somehow justified for Joseph Smith to order it destroyed. Joseph Smith ordering the press destroyed was wrong and was one of the reasons that led to his death, and not religous persecution which is the point.

Here's a little of that context you are so alarmed about: the "Expositor" was not the only press to be destroyed in Illinois in that period. Did you know that? Do you know what happened to those responsible for destroying the others? How many of them were murdered by mobs?

You won't find the answers on any of the anti-Mormon websites that do your "critical thinking" for you. If you really want to discuss this topic, go do some real research; then come back and start a new thread on it. It is off-topic for this thread.

It wasn't meant to intimidate you (I hardly see how it could), but rather point out that I come from the Mormon polygamy bloodline. What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't? Why not? Why wouldn't Joseph Smith consumate his marriages? The belief that he only married widows and they were just "sealings" is simply not true.

And that is not my "belief," nor has it ever been taught in the Church.

So, with that straw man scattered: Call For References that Joseph had "many offspring."

Incidentally, Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was most probably never consummated. She continued to live with her family after the sealing. Later on in Utah, a number of similar cases occurred, and in each case, the sealing was a kind of betrothal rather than a fully-fledged marriage. There's a little more of that context you prefer to ignore.

You need not respond with another pile of irrelevant factoids and red herrings, Thews. There are only three questions before you:

1. Please provide your analysis of the Whitney letter. Explain your reasoning, and explicitly draw your conclusions;
   
2. Explain how you reach the extraordinary conclusion that "Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off;" and
   
3. Tell us who Joseph's "many offspring" were.
   

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Incidentally, Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was most probably never consummated. She continued to live with her family after the sealing. Later on in Utah, a number of similar cases occurred, and in each case, the sealing was a kind of betrothal rather than a fully-fledged marriage. There's a little more of that context you prefer to ignore.

And she continued to go to dance parties etc. until over 6 months after the sealing and even then there is only one set of parties that we know she was barred from attending due to the type of individuals ("blacklegs") that were there. If there was any consummation, it occurred close to a year after the sealing which makes no sense unless there was some kind of betrothal arrangment going on and if this was so, there needs to be some kind of indication for when it ended, not just an assumption that it did sometime before JS's death the year following the sealing (IIRC).

The young lady was also past puberty, probably several years as she spoke of herself as being mistaken quite often for being older than she was (something that is not going to occur for a 14/15 year old if they haven't gone through puberty awhile back).

As for the marriage itself, while the age difference and specific ages involved were not common, it certainly wasn't rare in that environment. The only issue should be the polygamy, not the age difference unless one wants to attack the entire European/American culture of that time period (which I'm game for if someone wants to try, but it's not appropriate for this board).

----

On the garment issue, there were monogamists who were endowed during the Nauvoo time period and thus garments would not have proved someone was a polygamist one way or the other....they didn't come in different varieties depending on how many wives one had after all.

My memory is poor on this issue (not being that curious about other people's underwear...or even my own), was ridicule of garments already part of the anti-mormon arsenal at the time of JS's death? Would the significance of the garment connected to the endowment and temple marriage even have been known to the jailer or anyone else who asked JS to strip down for whatever reason (long underwear was not that unusual for that time period after all). Or is this prejudice something only the latter generations of Saints get to enjoy?

[cinepro]

The most prominent "cover-up" in Church History currently being promulgated by the Church is probably the monogamous Joseph Smith at josephsmith.net

Not that I blame them.

(My favorite page has to be the "Questions" about Joseph and Emma! Who hasn't wondered if Joseph and Emma really eloped, and thank goodness the Church answered this oft-asked question for the world to see).

[Wiki Wonka]

What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't? Why not? Why wouldn't Joseph Smith consumate his marriages? The belief that he only married widows and they were just "sealings" is simply not true.

CFR.

Please show us evidence of Joseph's offspring through plural wives.

[thews]

CFR.

Please show us evidence of Joseph's offspring through plural wives.

That's not what I said, but that doesn't mean other have said it. What I said is that if polygamy was used to produce many children (my family being part of it), why would one assume Joseph Smith would only use sealings? In other words, why didn't everyone use sealings? Why would Joseph Smith only seal himself to these women, other men's wives etc.? It's like it's ok for everyone else, but Joseph Smith would dare consumate the marriages, though many women admitted the marriages were sealed? My point, is why wouldn't he consumate them?

I'll answer the rest tomorrow.

To your point, as if offspring would be needed to assume Joseph Smith did marry many women and consumate the marriages, do you not believe FARMS?

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#sex

BYU Professor admits to Joseph's children

In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

Prescindia D. Huntington

Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys. (Mary Ettie V. Smith, Fifteen Years Among the Mormons, page 34; also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History pages 301-302, 437-39)

Joseph's First Counselor

"Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this." - Joseph Smith's close confidant and First Counselor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887

Meliassa Lott

Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife 'in very deed.' (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, p. 156.)

Louisa Beaman

In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, p. 427)

Emily D. Partridge

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she 'roomed' with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had 'carnal intercourse' with him. (Temple Lot case, (complete transcript), pp. 364, 367, 384; see Foster, 'Religion and Sexuality,' p. 15.)

there are many more if you wish to view them

and this...

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#sex

LDS Apologists: Joseph may have had sex with his wives

From the FAIR apologist web site discussing Joseph's marriages to women already married to other living men: "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter#Conclusion

FARMS also admits Joseph likely had sex with his pural wives

FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "

[Wiki Wonka]

That's not what I said, but that doesn't mean other have said it. What I said is that if polygamy was used to produce many children (my family being part of it), why would one assume Joseph Smith would only use sealings? In other words, why didn't everyone use sealings? Why would Joseph Smith only seal himself to these women, other men's wives etc.? It's like it's ok for everyone else, but Joseph Smith would dare consumate the marriages, though many women admitted the marriages were sealed? My point, is why wouldn't he consumate them?

Actually, this is what you said:

What I find odd is how Mormons other than Joseph Smith obviously had multiple wives and had many offspring, but they believe Joseph Smith somehow didn't? Why not? Why wouldn't Joseph Smith consumate his marriages? The belief that he only married widows and they were just "sealings" is simply not true.

As I see it, you said that if others had "multiple wives and had many offspring" then why didn't Joseph?

And I asked you to show that Joseph had "many offspring," and in response you quoted back to me the FAIR Wiki (oh, the irony!) and MormonThink.

To your point, as if offspring would be needed to assume Joseph Smith did marry many women and consumate the marriages, do you not believe FARMS?

So you are responding to the question I didn't ask. I expressed no opinion about whether or not Joseph consummated any of his marriages. Personally, I believe that he did in some, but not all, of his marriages.

Oh, and I have read MormonThink. Here's what I think of them: A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink.

[thews]

Actually, this is what you said:

As I see it, you said that if others had "multiple wives and had many offspring" then why didn't Joseph?

And I asked you to show that Joseph had "many offspring," and in response you quoted back to me the FAIR Wiki (oh, the irony!) and MormonThink.

You are attempting to twist what I said to imply what I said doesn't have merit. Ok... let me reword it. I come from a polygamous background, and Mormons for many years practiced polygamy, including to this day. My point, is that if Mormon did practice polygamy to produce many children, whuy would it be wrong for joseph Smith to do so? Or, to the contrary, why weren't all polygamous marriages just "sealings" if that were the intent? The truth, which you allude is false, is that Joseph Smith didn't consumate his plural marriages, and this is a fact that he did. If you want to discount what FARMS concluded and the many accounts by the wives of Joseph Smith, that's up to you, be the evidence that Joseph Smith did consumate his many marriages is conclusive; so much so FARMS acknowledges it.

So you are responding to the question I didn't ask. I expressed no opinion about whether or not Joseph consummated any of his marriages. Personally, I believe that he did in some, but not all, of his marriages.

So what is your point? Does it matter how many? More than one is enough to imply they all were consumated, but because there isn't so much evidence left over to prove it, it may not be so?

Oh, and I have read MormonThink. Here's what I think of them: A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink.

I'll look at what you wrote later. I, for one, find the arguments at Mormonthink.com to be very good and shows both sides.

[Wiki Wonka]

The truth, which you allude is false, is that Joseph Smith didn't consumate his plural marriages, and this is a fact that he did.

Did you read what I wrote above? I said (and I quote myself).

"So you are responding to the question I didn't ask. I expressed no opinion about whether or not Joseph consummated any of his marriages. Personally, I believe that he did in some, but not all, of his marriages."

So you claim that I am "alluding" that what I myself just said is false???? I have now heard everything.

Just to be clear, I asked you to provide evidence of children by those marriages.