Dispelling some confusion about the Whitney Letter

[ERayR]

I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again in the context of this thread:

If conclusive, authentic evidence were to come forth that Joseph's intent was to "spend the evening" with Sarah Whitney while her parents sat in the adjoining room (or waited in the woods), how would that change anyone's opinion or perception of the prophet? He was married to Sarah, so it was their privilege to enjoy such things (and in light of Jacob 2:30, it may have been a sin for them not to).

Is there any believing LDS in this forum who would think differently of him if that were the case? Is there anyone standing to say "The Joseph I know wouldn't do such a thing"?

cinepro I have voiced the same sentiments before myself. It makes no sense unless you subscribe to the belief that the sacraments of marriage are in and of themselves evil. One may not like plural marriage, one may even believe plural marriage was/is right the fact is Joseph and the early saints believed it to be ordained of God. There is nothing inherintly wrong in a husband and wife sharing intimate time together. However, in this case I have a hard time believing that was what this visit was for. Having mon and dad stand guard outside the bedroom seems a little much. Point two: If it was secret from Emma why worry if she was there or not she didn't know (thats what a secret is).

[AKS]

Point two: If it was secret from Emma why worry if she was there or not she didn't know (thats what a secret is).

Unless of course there was some funky business going down. The gig would be up.

[wenglund]

But my hunch, from reading the letter, is that it was actually the parents whose company he craved on this occasion.

That is my hunch as well. I really don't think that Joseph had designs on Sarah except as a way of sealing himself for eternity to the parents.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I may have to require the indentured servitude of your first-born Oompa Loompa. WW

Well...I guess I better get busy looking for a Loompa wife if I am to have such a child. Do you know of any online dating services that cater to Loompa's? And, if so, what are the chances that they look like their pictures?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Black Moclips]

Well...I guess I better get busy looking for a Loompa wife if I am to have such a child. Do you know of any online dating services that cater to Loompa's? And, if so, what are the chances that they look like their pictures?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would start with humans first Wade, before turning to Loompas!

[wenglund]

I would start with humans first Wade, before turning to Loompas!

I started decades ago with the humans, but, as you well know, thus far I have been patheticaly unsuccessful, and so I am thinking that maybe I have at least a slim chance with the Loompas, and if that doesn't pan out, maybe a chance with Hobbit or Anime women. What else would you expect from someone, like myself, of whom human women have accused me of having a major case of Peter Pan Syndrome?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

In a now closed thread, mention was made of the letter Joseph wrote to the Whitney Family while he was in hiding from persecution and prosecution of the Missourians. The background and full content of the letter and discussion of associated issues can be read HERE.

My intent on this thread isn't to rehash all of this, but rather to clear up one bit of confusion regarding a small portion of the letter of August 18, 1942.

The section of the letter Joseph wrote to the Whitneys that I have in mind is, after Joseph tells the Whitney's his new hiding location (at the Granger's), and invites them to come for a visit, he cautions: "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..."

Certain critics have interpreted this to mean that Joseph thought it unsafe for Emma to see Joseph in the company of the Whitneys because that would somehow reveal the alleged secret marriage between Joseph and Sarah Whitney that took place three weeks earlier (see HERE.

This, to me, is quite confused for several reasons. First, a little more than two weeks after the letter was written, Joseph was at home eating a meal with Emma, when it was learned that Joseph was again in danger of being illegitimately arrested. And, while the arresting authorities were being detained outside the house, Joseph left out the back door and went to stay at the Whitneys, with the full knowledge of Emma. It makes no sense, then, that on the 18th there would be fear that Emma would see Joseph in the company of the Whineys, when two weeks later Emma sent Joseph off to be in the company of the Whitneys. (See: History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.8, p.145)

Second, there is a much more plausible reason for the concern about safety in not having Emma and the Whitneys visit Joseph together. This more plausible reason comes by not only reading the letter in its full context, but also from understanding the letter in its historical context.

On the 16th of August, 1842, two days prior to the Whitney letter being written, Emma sent a letter to Joseph, who was at the time secreted at the Sayers'. The letter, in part, said: "There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109--emphisis mine)

Obviously, there was some concern on Emma's part, and likely Joseph's as well, that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly in company with Emma. If her coming alone was of some risk for discovery, then the risk of being there with a bunch of Joseph's associates would make it of considerably greater risk.

As it turns out, the next day (Aug. 17), while walking in the woods, Joseph was discover by a young man, who was then asked to keep Joseph's whereabouts secret, and the young man promised to do do. (See: History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.114)

Even so, according to Joseph's journal for the 17th: "Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)

No doubt, these rumors and need to move heightened the concern for Joseph's safety, and was most likely the reason Joseph "prudently" took great pains to warn the Whitneys against coming while Emma was there, fore that would greatly increase the risk of detection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have integrated some of this material into the wiki article: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter

WW