The main question I can't get a straight answer to from TBMs

[_thews]

In the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney... we know the following:

1) Emma Smith didn't know about the plural marriage by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney (written before the letter was sent).
2) The letter is not a love letter, but a plea for Sarah's prents to bring her to him.
3) The letter was written to Sarah and her parents.
4) Joseph SMith states twice in the letter he is lonely.
5) Joseph Smith states twice in the letter, that the only condition it is not safe is if his wife Emma was there.
6) Joseph Smith states he doesn't think Emma will come tonight, and he has a room "intirely to myself."
7) Mr. Whitney married Joseph Smith to his 17 year old daughter, and used the word "companion" to define their union.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-Sa ... hitney.htm

Her father, Newel K. Whitney, performed the ceremony: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout all eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation...If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S.A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition...”

Question (this is a yes or no answer): Was Emma being deceived in this letter?

[_Manfred]

How can Emma be deceived by a letter that was not written to her?

Am I misunderstanding the question?

[_thews]

How can Emma be deceived by a letter that was not written to her?

Because it was written to Joseph Smith's teenage bride and her parents asking them to bring her to him behind his wife's back.

Am I misunderstanding the question?

I think so. This letter was not a love letter and it was addressed to Sarah Ann and her father and mother (who it was addressed to is not a point of contention, as lines 2 and 3 point this out very clearly). As I pointed out, Emma didn't know of this marriage, Mr. Whitney married his teenage daughter to Joseph Smith (then in his 40's) to be "companions" for life, and the only condition which was not safe for them to come, was if Emma Smith was there... but then Joseph Smith points out he doesn't think Emma will come tonight. No mention of bad guys or mobs, but the one condition mentioned (twice) pointing out what wasn't safe, is if Emma was there.

Question: Was Emma Smith being deceived?

[_Manfred]

I don't think Emma was being deceived (and if she was, no one said Joseph Smith was perfect). There could be other reasons for Joseph arranging his meeting with the Whitney family when Emma was not around. See, for example, this FAIR treatment of the subject.

[_Joseph Antley]

I have no idea. Possibly.

[_thews]

I don't think Emma was being deceived (and if she was, no one said Joseph Smith was perfect). There could be other reasons for Joseph arranging his meeting with the Whitney family when Emma was not around. See, for example, this FAIR treatment of the subject.

If you have a point to make, I'd appreciate it if you quote it and link the source. Mormon approved web sites present circular arguments that delve into layers upon layers of triangulated logic to present an argument hinging one multiple points at a time. This is necessary as each point cannot stand up to sound logic, so the objective is to dilute the so-called "point" with distortion.

To the points you made:

1) "no one said Joseph Smith was perfect." This isn't really about whether or not Joseph Smith was perfect, because no one but God is perfect, but rather an observation using sound logic. This letter was written towards the end of his life, and if you believe the claims Joseph Smith made, he would clearly know that God was watching his every move and guiding him. If you assume his position and God showed himself to you multiple times (supposedly), then you wouldn't have to rely on faith for your beliefs. The things Joseph Smith claimed he saw are divine beyond comprehension, and the point I'm making is that if he actually saw them, I cannot imagine he'd be cheating on his wife under the guise of polygamy behind her back and deceiving her. Using sound logic and acknowledging Joseph Smith used his magic rock and stovepipe hat to cheat people out of money before the Book of Mormon was written, it makes far more sense that Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon was false and he used his false religion to satisfy his desires. Think critically here... could you pen this letter if you knew God were watching you and had revealed himself to you?

2) "There could be other reasons for Joseph arranging his meeting with the Whitney family when Emma was not around." If you want to, you can theorize plausible scenarios to anything, but what actually makes sense? As I stated in the first post:

1) Emma Smith didn't know about the plural marriage by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney (written before the letter was sent).
2) The letter is not a love letter, but a plea for Sarah's parents to bring her to him.
3) The letter was written to Sarah and her parents.
4) Joseph Smith states twice in the letter he is lonely.
5) Joseph Smith states twice in the letter, that the only condition it is not safe is if his wife Emma was there.
6) Joseph Smith states he doesn't think Emma will come tonight, and he has a room "intirely to myself."
7) Mr. Whitney married Joseph Smith to his 17 year old daughter, and used the word "companion" to define their union.

When you consider all of these facts, one of the main things to consider is that Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney's to burn the letter, so you get a real insight into the mind of Joseph Smith and his intentions. The only condition it is "not safe" and he points out it out twice, is if Emma was not there, and he doesn't think she'll come tonight. Emma didn't know about this plural marriage, and when you read the words Mr. Whitney said when he married them, stating they were "companions" for life and Joseph Smith promising the entire Whitney family eternal salvation for "giving" their daughter to him (something only God can do), you really have to discount what we do know to paint the picture you're attempting to paint absolving Joseph Smith of his "sin".

If you have a point to make I'd love to hear it, but I'm not going to search an entire site to attempt to identify waht that point is, so please be specific and quote it. Thanks.

[_Manfred]

From the FAIR link:

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 (hence the request to burn the letter that disclosed his location). He would also not want his friends present in case he were to be found. Anyone that was searching for Joseph knew that Emma could lead them to him if they simply observed and followed her. If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there—not necessarily because Emma would have been angered by finding Sarah Ann (after all, Emma did not know about the sealing, and she would have found all three Whitney's there—not just Sarah Ann), but because 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.

[_thews]

From the FAIR link:

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 (hence the request to burn the letter that disclosed his location). He would also not want his friends present in case he were to be found.

Were the Whitney's not his friends? This doesn't make sense.

Anyone that was searching for Joseph knew that Emma could lead them to him if they simply observed and followed her.

The letter exposes where Joseph Smith was, so if this were the intent, there should be some warnings that said something about the so-called "hostile men," but the letter didn't say anything other than it ws not safe if Emma was there, and he didn't think she would come tonight. What this means, is that if he was wrong and she did come, they were to leave. Again look at what the letter says regarding why it's only unsafe if Emma is not there, and what it doesn't say regarding instruction of avoiding "hostile men."

If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there—not necessarily because Emma would have been angered by finding Sarah Ann (after all, Emma did not know about the sealing, and she would have found all three Whitney's there—not just Sarah Ann), but because hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph.

What this states is 1) Emma didn't know about the marriage of joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney. 2) What it also fails to state is that Mr. Whitney married Sarah Ann to Joseph Smith as a "companion" for life. This would be the same as a father bring his daughter over to his son in law. The statement implies "all three" would have been there, which would be true, but again, Joseph Smith was asking the parents of his wife to bring her to him, and it was not safe if his other wife Emma was there. He also states he's lonely and he has a room "intirely to myself." Be critical in your thought process... what makes sense?

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.

No, Joseph Smith wanted the Whitney's to remain undetected as to avoid being caught by Emma. You can concot any scenario if you wish, but it should be backed up by something other than the easiest out. This letter porves Emma was being deceived.

[_thews]

Some information for any Mormon who actually cares about the truth:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-Sa ... hitney.htm

Sarah Ann Whitney married Joseph Smith in a private ceremony during July of 1842. A revelation through Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann’s father authorized the union: “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N.K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young...” Sarah Ann’s Mother, Elizabeth wrote, “we were convinced in our own minds that God...approved...we were willing to give our eldest daughter, then only seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in...plural marriage”.
Her father, Newel K. Whitney, performed the ceremony: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout all eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation...If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S.A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition...”

Note the date (1842) of this Times and Seasons article

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune1.htm

In the Times and Seasons, published Oct. 1st, 1842, there is a list of twenty-six names, including twelve men and sixteen women, who made affidavit to the effect that they knew of no other system of marriage but that published in the D. and C., some of whom, however, about two years since, made another affidavit that they were polygamous wives at that time and that polygamy was practised in Nauvoo. The "revelation," it will be remembered, was not "given" until July 12, 1843, and not made public until 1852, during which time polygamy was both practised and denied by the Mormon leaders. I quote, in proof from the Times and Seasons of Feb. 1st, 1844:

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church generally that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity * * *
(Signed) JOSEPH SMITH.
HYRUM SMITH.
Presidents of said Church.

And these...

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

1844 Sermon given by Joseph
It is clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite claims to the contrary:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this...I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are - whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)

1838 Interview with Joseph (at least 3 years after his first plural wife)
In the July 1838 edition of the Elder's Journal ("Edited by Joseph Smith") Joseph Smith answered some questions including the following:

"Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?

"Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom which has gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to our great mortification, of marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two or three months after the death of their companion.

"We believe that due respect ought to be had, to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children."

(Elder's Journal, Vol 1, No. 3, p 43; reprinted in History of the Church Vol 3, p 38)

1838 Letter written by Joseph
On Dec 16, 1838 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the church from Liberty Jail which included the following:

"We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God."
(History of the Church Vol 3, p 230

So, regardless of how one rationalizes polygamy, one thing is clear, and that would be Joseph Smith had no issues lying to cover his tracks.

[_thews]

One more head-in-sand shut down on topic from the Mods who control the Madites.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... fc219d3b61

staccato, on 08 May 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:
It seems pretty obvious, given our knowledge of Emma and her thoughts about polygamy, and Joseph's history of hiding wives from Emma, that Joseph was trying to duck Emma so he would not have to put either himself or any of the Whitneys in the position of having to explain themselves and their presence in the middle of the night to Emma.

Let's not forget that at the time this letter was written, August 1842, within three months he had added six more women to his harem: Eliza Snow, Elizabeth Durfee and Sarah Cleveland in June, Delcena Johnson and Sarah Whitney in July and Martha Knight in August.

Poor, lonely Joseph.

Hestia: Your comments in this post are not appropriate and since this thread appears to be leading to the typical attacks on the prophet's character I'm closing it. The question has been answered for those who actually care about the facts.