Tar & Feather Tale - which version is true?

[_ldsfaqs]

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?

That's called a RUMOR..... Do YOU try to KILL PEOPLE over a rumor????

Are you people so clueless to understand that whatever the "excuse" was, already existing prejudice, religious bigotry, etc. was the ROOT cause of every action???

[_Yoda]

I am curious as to why the critic version omitted the information about Emma fainting due to thinking her husband was covered in blood. The critic version also omitted the information about the child who was sick dying.

Also, the Church version states that Joseph was awake, taking care of the child. The critic version states that the mob dragged Joseph out of bed.

There are some clear differences in details here.

Do we have any information on which version is more correct regarding these differences?

[Guest]

I am curious as to why the critic version omitted the information about Emma fainting due to thinking her husband was covered in blood. The critic version also omitted the information about the child who was sick dying.

That's easy.... They weren't there.

Also, the Church version states that Joseph was awake, taking care of the child. The critic version states that the mob dragged Joseph out of bed.

Likely semantics.... Dressed for bed, in your bed room taking care of the sick kid, etc. is about the same thing. After all, a mob barging into your home you wouldn't actually be "physically" in bed by the time they got you. Thus, both testimony can be correct.

There are some clear differences in details here.

Do we have any information on which version is more correct regarding these differences?

This differences have no significance and are easily explainable given the facts.

Again, I'm actually impressed by this so-called anti-mormon version. I find it actually truthful and not anti-mormon, and going hand in hand with the Church version but from the other side.

[_Drifting]

Can anybody find the sources the Church version has used when piecing their account together?

Like I say, the non Church version had footnotes and references and I doubt the Church would have used the same documentary sources and come up with a different version...