Tar & Feather Tale - which version is true?

[Guest]

I don't actually see any differences between the two versions, other than the anti-mormon one being slightly more detailed because they were perpetrators of the crime.

Further, I'm actually surprised by the anti-mormon version because it's not very anti-mormon. It actually seemed entirely objective and factual.

The only thing anti-mormon I see in it is some of the 'reasons' claimed for doing what they did, but that clearly relates back to the LDS version in which it says the reasons the thing occurred was because of "lies" said of Joseph and the Church. Clearly the anti-mormon reasons were simply "rumor mill", not even based on any facts. Since rumors are often lies, that ultimately means there is no actual difference between the two versions. A little truth perverted into lie, fomenting the wicked to commit wicked acts, was the ultimate result.

[_Dr. Shades]

Since rumors are often lies, just as most of the violence against the Church was, . . .

Wow, ldsfaqs. I never thought I'd see you admit that most of the (reported) violence against the church was just rumors and often lies.

I'm proud of you.

[_LDS truthseeker]

Stop referring to the one version as 'anti-Mormon'. Using that label immediately makes people think it's false. A balanced person would call it 'critic's version'.

[_ldsfaqs]

Since rumors are often lies, just as most of the violence against the Church was, . . .

Wow, ldsfaqs. I never thought I'd see you admit that most of the (reported) violence against the church was just rumors and often lies.

I'm proud of you.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my typing there.... NO, that's not what I meant.
The reports and the violence thereof DID occur.

[_schreech]

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my typing there.... NO, that's not what I meant.
The reports and the violence thereof DID occur.

And yet - mr universe, you provide no substance to support your claims. Shocking. I think you need to spend more time doing full body fit and not defending the LDS social club...

[_Drifting]

I don't actually see any differences between the two versions, other than the anti-mormon one being slightly more detailed because they were perpetrators of the crime.

Further, I'm actually surprised by the anti-mormon version because it's not very anti-mormon. It actually seemed entirely objective and factual.

The only thing anti-mormon I see in it is some of the 'reasons' claimed for doing what they did, but that clearly relates back to the LDS version in which it says the reasons the thing occurred was because of "lies" said of Joseph and the Church. Clearly the anti-mormon reasons were simply "rumor mill", not even based on any facts. Since rumors are often lies, that ultimately means there is no actual difference between the two versions. A little truth perverted into lie, fomenting the wicked to commit wicked acts, was the ultimate result.

Ldsfaqs, the Church version portrays the reason for the attack was Joseph's faithfulness to his religion.

The non Church version portrays the reason as his illegal or immoral activity with men's wives and daughters.

Which do you think is accurate and what do you base that view on?

[_ldsfaqs]

I don't actually see any differences between the two versions, other than the anti-mormon one being slightly more detailed because they were perpetrators of the crime.

Further, I'm actually surprised by the anti-mormon version because it's not very anti-mormon. It actually seemed entirely objective and factual.

The only thing anti-mormon I see in it is some of the 'reasons' claimed for doing what they did, but that clearly relates back to the LDS version in which it says the reasons the thing occurred was because of "lies" said of Joseph and the Church. Clearly the anti-mormon reasons were simply "rumor mill", not even based on any facts. Since rumors are often lies, that ultimately means there is no actual difference between the two versions. A little truth perverted into lie, fomenting the wicked to commit wicked acts, was the ultimate result.

Ldsfaqs, the Church version portrays the reason for the attack was Joseph's faithfulness to his religion.

The non Church version portrays the reason as his illegal or immoral activity with men's wives and daughters.

Which do you think is accurate and what do you base that view on?

Like I said.... One is based on simply what happened, and the other is based on some of the reasonings the thing happened based on the "rumor mill", not any actual known sin or immoral activity.

Further, you misrepresent the Churches version, the Churches version does in fact indicate that there were various false "evils" claimed against the Church and Joseph.

I think both are accurate..... Which is something I already said surprised me.
The anti-mormon version didn't really lie about anything. However, their version DID omit the true cause which was their bigotry. But, with both versions, that lie was clear.

[_Darth J]

I think both are accurate..... Which is something I already said surprised me.
The anti-mormon version didn't really lie about anything. However, their version DID omit the true cause which was their bigotry. But, with both versions, that lie was clear.

So in your estimation, when someone takes exception to a grown, married man having sexual relations with a 16 year-old girl, this is bigotry?

[_SteelHead]

I think he is confusing bigotry and bigamy.

[_Drifting]

Can anybody corroborate this:

The bottle of acid broke, chipping one of Joseph’s teeth and causing him to speak with a whistle for the rest of his life.