text:
The Whitney Letter
Recently, a reader asked if I had a response to the letter written by Joseph to Newel K. Whitney indicating that Joseph was a polygamist and was hiding these relationships from Emma. The following article is my answer to this inquiry.
On August 18, 1842, while in hiding at Carlos Granger's, Joseph allegedly wrote a letter to the Whitneys with the salutation, "Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c." Many say that the "&c." in the salutation refers to the Whitneys' daughter, Sarah Ann. Proponents of the position that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy quote excerpts from this letter to prove it was a love letter to Sarah asking her and her parents to visit him in hiding so he could see Sarah. They allege that about three weeks prior to the letter, on July 27, 1842, Joseph gave a revelation to Newel K. Whitney that Sarah was to be his plural wife and that Newel was to marry them. In the supposed revelation the Lord told Newel the very words to use in the marriage ceremony and on that day they were married. So, according to the proponents of this position, the requested visit was so Joseph could be with his new plural wife.
Joseph's critics not only point to this letter (and the alleged revelation) to prove Joseph practiced polygamy but also to show that he was a deceiver, liar, and lustful man. To them, Joseph lied to Emma when he wrote her two days previous to the Whitney letter and closed it by telling her, "Yours in haste, your affectionate husband until death, through all eternity; for evermore" (The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney, REVISED EDITION, 1982 by H. Michael Marquardt). To them, Joseph was practicing deception against Emma when he stated in the Whitney letter, "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" and "I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night." In addition, when in the letter he requested the Whitneys to burn it as soon as they read it, his critics believe that he was continuing his deception by trying to keep the meeting secret. (Fairwiki.org about the Whitney letter). Thus, according to the supporters of this position, Joseph was requesting a secret rendezvous with his new plural wife because he needed marital companionship from her and he did not want Emma to know about it.
However, close scrutiny of the facts surrounding both the Whitney letter and the alleged revelation indicate this interpretation is not correct..
Facts About the Two Documents
According to chapter 34 of The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books, the alleged revelation from Joseph to Newel K. Whitney and the letter to Newel, Elizabeth, and Sarah Whitney are maintained in the archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. For the revelation, the Joseph Smith's Polygamy Chronology Web page states that it was recorded in the "Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2." However, in the article "Historical Perspectives on the Kirtland Revelation Book" by John A. Tvedtnes of the Maxwell Institute, this revelation is not listed as being in the book. The oldest revelation in the book was dated November, 1834, which preceded the alleged Whitney revelation by eight years.
For the Whitney letter, an image of a photograph of it is displayed on the "Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney" site. This site states the following about the photograph:
Photographs of both sides of the original letter written in the handwriting of Joseph Smith are in the George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
In chronological order, the first of the two documents is the alleged revelation given by Joseph to Newel on July 27, 1842. As previously stated, it contained the authority for Joseph to marry Sarah Ann Whitney and the words for the marriage ceremony which her father, Newel, was to conduct. The text of this document follows. Please pay particular attention to the italicized parts.
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 because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, You both mutually agree, calling them by name, 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 eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times passed. 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. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in me by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Gethrow [Jethro?] and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life hereafter be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney, REVISED EDITION, 1982 by H. Michael Marquardt, italics added)
The second document, the letter allegedly from Joseph to the Whitneys, was written August 18, 1842, which was 22 days after the alleged revelation. The following text of the entire document comes from the Fairwiki.org article about the letter:
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; 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, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
The Validity of the Two Documents
I was very disappointed not to find specific information online as to how these two documents were validated as being Joseph's. (If anyone has information as to the validation of these documents, I would appreciate your responding to this blog with that information.) Before we can conclude anything about Joseph's behavior based on these documents, we must be certain that he wrote them. If he did not write them, then certainly they cannot be used to prove he was a polygamist.
Authentication of the Alleged Revelation
There seems to be discrepancies about the written source of the document even though all sources I have found, including Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, agree that the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. It would be easy to assume that if LDS officials said this revelation came through Joseph, then it did. However, this is not necessarily true. Matthew L. Jockers, Stanford University, wrote the paper "Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC Classification" which stated:
As Mormon scholar Dean Jessee makes clear in the introduction to Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Smith and Jessee 2002), Smith's speeches, letters, and even journal entries were frequently written by scribes or written in tandem with one or more of his collaborators. In another article that appears in the pages of the "Joseph Smith Papers" online archive (Jessee n.d.) Jessee writes, "only a tiny proportion of Joseph Smith's papers were penned by Smith himself." In many of the documents Jessee collected, we see the handwriting of Smith interwoven with the handwriting of his scribes, sometimes side by side in the exact same letter, journal entry, or document.
So, unless the original document is in Joseph's handwriting, which from the above quote is highly unlikely, how do we know that it truly came from Joseph?
The other issue is the one put forth by Richard S. Van Wagoner in "The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young," Dialogue, Vol. 28, No. 4, Winter 1995, pp.2–3. He states:
The Twelve's nineteenth-century propaganda mill was so adroit that few outside Brigham Young's inner circle were aware of the behind-the-scenes alterations that were seamlessly stitched into church history. Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian who later left the church, was aghast at these emendations. Commenting on the many changes made in the historical work as it was being serialized, Wandell noted in his diary:
I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was "doctored" to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards.
More than a dozen references to Brigham Young's involvement in transposing the written history may be found in the post-martyrdom record first published in book form in 1902 as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, an 1 April 1845 citation records Young saying: "I commenced revising the History of Joseph Smith at Brother Richard's office: Elder Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith were with me."
That this revision, or censorship, of the official history came from Brigham Young is evidenced by an 11 July 1856 reference in Wilford Woodruff's diary. Apostle Woodruff, working in the church historian's office, questioned Young respecting a "p[ie]ce of History on Book E-1 page 1681-2 concerning Hyr[u]m leading this Church & tracing the [A]aronic Priesthood." Young advised, "it was not essential to be inserted in the History & had better be omitted." Woodruff then queried him about "Joseph[s] words on South Carolina" (see D&C 87; 130:12-13) which had recently been published in the Deseret News . Young said he "wished it not published." Years later Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the First Presidency, admitted that after Joseph Smith's death some changes were made in the official record "for prudential reasons."
Because of the many scribes used to pen Joseph's works and because of the credibility problem of the LDS historians of the post-Joseph era, it is most difficult to be sure of the authenticity of this alleged revelation. And if we cannot be sure of its authenticity, how can we use it as proof that Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy?
Authentication of the Letter
Even though a photograph is available for viewing, the Whitney letter also has authentication issues. Since this letter was allegedly written by Joseph while he was in hiding, I seriously doubt that he would have dictated it to a scribe to write. Thus, if it is from Joseph, odds are that it should be in his handwriting. As indicated above, the "Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney" site states the letter is in Joseph's handwriting. However, the site gives no indication as to how they know that to be true other than the photograph of the letter is maintained by the Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Chapter 34 of The Essential Joseph Smith, published by Signature Books and Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness ( p. 719, V.) state the original document is maintained in the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. However, the writers of both of these works do not address how they know it is Joseph's handwriting. Has the handwriting of the letter from the original or the photograph been authenticated as Joseph's handwriting by outside, professional experts? In addition, how do we know the original letter is not a forgery like those produced by Mark Hofmann? Until a complete, independent, and unbiased validation of this document has been done, how can we draw any conclusions from it about Joseph's motives or behaviors?
Analyzing the Alleged Revelation
After reading both of the complete documents, it is obvious to me that the interpretation of the Whitney letter as a love letter depends on the validity of the alleged revelation and whether or not Sarah Ann was a plural wife of Joseph. Without these two events, it is a real stretch of one's imagination to interpret the Whitney letter as anything other than a letter between very good friends.
Questionable Text
Some of the text along with the circumstances of the alleged revelation make it very questionable to me. According to the Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith site, Sarah Ann Whitney was Joseph's sixteenth wife including Emma. Fourteen times previous to Sarah Ann he had allegedly entered into a plural marriage and all of these women were still living. In addition, this site indicates that in the following fifteen months he entered into an additional eighteen plural marriages after Sarah Ann. This means that after allegedly marrying Sarah Ann, he was less than half done and would continue marrying plural wives at the average rate of a little more than one a month. This scenario gives me a problem with a sentence in the alleged revelation which states "You both mutually agree, calling them by name, 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 eternity..." (italics added). If this alleged revelation was given by God, He would have known that Joseph had fifteen wives previous to Sarah Ann and would have another eighteen after her. He would have known that Joseph could not (because of his previous wives) and would not (because of his future wives) preserve himself only for Sarah Ann. In addition, if God was authorizing Joseph's polygamy, He would not have made a statement which restricted his involvement to one wife and excluded his involvement with his previous and future wives. Also, since a main purpose of polygamy was to obtain a greater reward in eternity, why would God restrict Joseph to a marital relationship with only one wife "throughout eternity." On the other hand, if Joseph created this alleged revelation for his own benefit, knowing about his previous wives and his desire for future wives (averaging more than one a month) he would not have restricted his marital activities to only Sarah Ann. Therefore, from this sentence alone in the alleged revelation, I do not believe this document came from God or that it was created by Joseph.
Questionable Subject Agreement
From my reading of Joseph's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, I have never noticed the subject agreement to be incorrect. Admittedly, I have not studied each revelation for this purpose, but I have never noticed one while studying a revelation for meaning. I attribute this to God's impeccable understanding of all languages and that He always knows who He is talking to and what He is saying. However, in the above alleged revelation the subject agreement is incorrect. Through Joseph, God is supposedly telling Newel what he is to say when conducting the marriage ceremony between Joseph and Sarah Ann. In the words Newel was to use, a reference was made to Joseph as "my servant Joseph." This means that during the service Newel, by command of God, would reference Joseph as "my servant Joseph" which would communicate the meaning that Joseph was Newel's servant. God would have known that when Newel was addressing Joseph, he should state something like "God's servant Joseph" and not "my servant Joseph" as is stated in the alleged revelation. This little discrepancy is an indication that this document was not God given but was created by man.
Sarah Ann's Immediate Response is Questionable
Another issue I have with this alleged revelation is its timing in relation to the date of the marriage. Orson F. Whitney (the nephew of Sarah Ann Whitney) stated about Sarah Ann in The Contributor, Vol. 6, No. 4, January 1885, p. 131:
This girl was but seventeen years of age, but she had implicit faith in the doctrine of plural marriage, as revealed to and practiced by the Prophet, was of celestial origin. She was the first woman, in this dispensation, who was given in plural marriage by and with the consent of both parents. Her father himself officiated in the ceremony. The revelation commanding and consecrating this union, is in existence, though it has never been published. It bears the date of July 27, 1842, and was given through the Prophet to the writer's grandfather, Newel K. Whitney, whose daughter Sarah, on that day, became the wedded wife of Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. (Strange Marriages Of Sarah Ann Whitney)
I find it very hard to believe that on July 17, 1842, a 17-year-old woman received a revelation that she was to become a plural wife of 36-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. and with no hesitation she married him on that same day. In Todd Compton's analysis of the above statement he indicates that her acceptant state of mind about embracing polygamy may have been a "family tradition that has idealized the story." But he goes on to say that her father and mother and Joseph had instructed her in this doctrine prior to her alleged marriage to Joseph on the date of the alleged revelation (In Sacred Loneliness, p. 348). Yet his references to support this notion are unclear. Even if she was the most serious-minded and obedient child, her thoughts at age 17 of having to marry a 36-year-old man with 15 other wives would have been very scary, if not repulsive, to her. At age 17, with her whole life ahead of her, she was being required to sacrifice all of her dreams to participate in a new doctrine, that was only taught in secret, so her family could be assured of eternal life. And this new secret doctrine would require her at 17 to embrace sexual behavior that had been previously taught to her by her parents and society as being immoral. Keeping this in mind, I find it a bit contrived that she was so convinced of the truth of this doctrine that as soon as the alleged revelation came, she obeyed it and was married on the same day.
My wife's great, great grandfather and family followed Brigham Young west to Utah after Joseph's death. In the 1860s their daughter was in love with a young man and was desirous to be married to him. However, a Bishop decided that she was to be one of his plural wives. This thought was so repulsive to her that her entire family and her fiance's family fled Salt Lake City under cover of darkness with wagon wheels and horse hooves padded so as to leave unnoticed. As the story goes, they feared being caught and killed. They risked all so that their daughter would not have to participate in polygamy. And this was after polygamy had been taught and practiced openly for years as a doctrine of God brought forth in revelation by His Prophet Joseph (LDS D&C 132). Thus, is it probable that another young woman with less instruction and exposure to this doctrine, Sarah Ann Whitney, embraced it so thoroughly that on the day the alleged revelation was given to her father, she was not only ready to obey it, but did? I just do not believe so. If the document had been received and she had been given time to come around to this position, then it would be more feasible. But to receive such a life- and morality-changing command and to completely obey it the same day, to me is way outside of normal human behavior for this circumstance and as such gives question to the validity of this event.
Elizabeth's Autobiography Omitted Reference to the Alleged Revelation
The most important issue I have with this alleged revelation is the portion of Elizabeth Whitney's autobiography printed in the The Women of Mormondom, pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. When reading her statement, it is not so much what she says that casts great doubts upon the validity of the alleged revelation, but what she does not say. Even though it is lengthy, I am including the entire quote from this book so that no one thinks I purposely left anything out. Please pay particular attention to the parts I have italicized.
A very proper one to speak here is Mother Whitney, for it was her husband, Bishop Whitney, who preserved the revelation on polygamy. Speaking of the time when her husband kept store for Joseph (1842-3), she says: "It was during this time that Joseph received the revelation concerning celestial marriage; also concerning the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He had been strictly charged, by the angel who committed these precious things into his keeping, that he should only reveal them to such ones as were pure, and full of integrity to the truth, and worthy and capable of being entrusted with divine messages; that to spread them abroad would only be like casting pearls before swine; and that the most profound secresy was to be maintained, until the Lord saw fit to make it known publicly through his servants. Joseph had the most implicit confidence in my husband's uprightness and integrity of character, and so he confided to him the principles set forth in that revelation, and also gave him the privilege of reading and making a copy of it, believing it would be perfectly safe with him. It is this same copy that was preserved in the providence of God; for Emma (Joseph's wife), afterwards becoming indignant, burned the original, thinking she had destroyed the only written document upon the subject in existence. My husband revealed these things to me. We had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon the matter continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us, revealing unto us his power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision; a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own bosoms that God heard and approved our prayers and intercedings before him. Our hearts were comforted, and our faith made so perfect that we were willing to give our eldest daughter, then seventeen years of age, to Joseph, in the order of plural marriage. Laying aside all our traditions and former notions in regard to marriage, we gave her with our mutual consent. She was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents. Of course these things had to be kept an inviolate secret; and as some were false to their vows and pledges of secresy, persecution arose, and caused grievous sorrow to those who had obeyed, in all purity and sincerity, the requirements of this celestial order of marriage. The Lord commanded his servants; they themselves did not comprehend what the ultimate course of action would be, but were waiting further developments from heaven. Meantime, the ordinances of the house of the Lord were given, to bless and strengthen us in our future endeavors to promulgate the principles of divine light and intelligence; but coming in contact with all preconceived notions and principles heretofore taught as the articles of religious faith, it was not strange that many could not receive it. Others doubted; and only a few remained firm and immovable."
I believe that the revelation "concerning celestial marriage" referenced by Elizabeth Whitney in her autobiography is what is known today as Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. She indicates that a copy of the document was kept in safety by her husband Newel and that the original document was burned by Emma, which events are commonly known to be associated with the document on celestial marriage that became Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. Allegedly this revelation was dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. When reading Elizabeth's statement above, we must keep in mind that her daughter Sarah allegedly married Joseph a year earlier on July 27, 1842—the same date that Newel Whitney, Sarah's father, allegedly received a revelation from God through Joseph authorizing Sarah's and Joseph's plural marriage and dictating the marriage ceremony which Newel was to use to marry them that day. This alleged date of marriage is confirmed by affidavits obtained from both Sarah and Elizabeth in 1869. (I will discuss these affidavits a little later.)
I have read and re-read the above statement by Elizabeth trying to find some reference to the alleged revelation requiring Newel to perform the plural marriage ceremony between his Sarah and Joseph. However, I can find none. All references to a plural marriage revelation are to the one allegedly dictated by Joseph on July 12, 1843. She associates Newel's and her experience as to the validity of polygamy with this revelation and not with the one allegedly given to Newel a year earlier authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph. In addition, she associates Sarah's marriage to the 1843 revelation and not to the alleged July 27, 1842 revelation given to Newel upon which date Sarah was allegedly married to Joseph.
To me, both Elizabeth's omission of acknowledging the alleged 1842 revelation to Newel and her associating the beginning of their plural wife experience to the 1843 revelation is very strong indication that the earlier revelation to Newel, authorizing the plural marriage of Sarah and Joseph, did not occur. To the Whitneys, the revelation to Newel would have been a very important revelation and worthy of inclusion in Elizabeth's autobiography. It is the one, not the "Section 132" revelation, that told them plural marriage was of God. It indicated to them that it was acceptable to God for Sarah, their beloved daughter, to obey "this new and strange doctrine" (to quote Elizabeth) and enter into a plural marriage with Joseph. Because this revelation required Newel and Elizabeth to allow their 17-year-old daughter to participate in a unorthodox system of marriage thought by society to be wicked, it is the revelation given in 1842—not the one given in 1843—that would have caused Newel and Elizabeth to seek and receive a testimony of its truth. It was the revelation given to Newel in 1842, not the one in 1843, that was the first written revelation authorizing plural marriage and setting a precedent for the marriage ceremony that was to be performed. And yet, Elizabeth did not mention this important revelation in her autobiography about the authority for the practice of polygamy and their involvement with this system of marriage. She was detailed in her account and very proud that her daughter "was the first woman given in plural marriage with the consent of both parents," yet she failed to mention the 1842 revelation and associated these actions with the 1843 revelation which occurred a year after the date of Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. Because of the importance to the Whitneys of the alleged revelation to Newel, her omission of it in her above statement was a result of more than forgetful thinking. The only possible explanation is that the alleged revelation to Newel on July 27, 1842, never occurred. If it had, Elizabeth would have mentioned it in her autobiography as the basis for their belief in plural marriage. And if that revelation did not happen, neither did the marriage.
Analyzing the Letter
For the purpose of analyzing the contents of the letter, I am going to assume that Joseph wrote it even though, as discussed above, further authentication may need to be done in this area.
If you believe that Joseph was a polygamist and married Sarah Ann Whitney on July 17, 1842, then it is easy to construe some of the contents of the letter as a "love letter" requesting his new wife to visit him. Although, the entire letter is more difficult to view in this manner than many of the briefer excerpts quoted by various authors that run together the "convicting" sentences and leave the other parts out. However, if you believe Joseph was not a polygamist and did not marry Sarah Ann Whitney, then such an interpretation of the letter is a real stretch of imagination. Standing alone, the letter gives no proof that Joseph was a polygamist or that he was married to Sarah Ann Whitney.
Statements in the Letter used to Support the Position that Joseph Practiced Polygamy
The statements in the letter which authors point to as "proof" of Joseph's polygamy and marriage to Sarah are:
...my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief...
...all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...
...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...
...burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.
...I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night.
If the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann were not true, all that can be learned from these portions of the letter is:
Joseph's friendship with the Whitneys was very strong,
he was lonely and anxious to see them,
they should keep this letter secret (burn it),
they should use utmost caution in meeting with him in secret,
keeping the meeting secret will insure their safety, and
for their safety they should not meet with him when Emma is there.
It is only the alleged revelation and marriage to Sarah Ann that interprets these parts as a "love letter." Without the "polygamy" issue, this is just a letter between very good friends from one who is in hiding and wants to remain hidden for both his safety and that of his friends.
Admittedly, the part about Emma is very curious. Why would Emma's presence, without the polygamy interpretation, make it unsafe for the Whitneys? Fairwiki.org gives a good answer to this question. However, they do not follow this rationale through to their conclusion because they finally interpret the letter in light of the alleged revelation and marriage. Fairwiki.org states:
The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted,
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. ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma. Joseph wrote the next day in his journal,
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." ([LDS] History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)
Without the predisposition that Joseph was a polygamist and had recently married Sarah Ann, this position logically explains why he wanted the Whitneys to come when Emma was not there. Both Joseph and the Whitneys would be safer if they visited when Emma was not there because she could be followed by authorities wanting to arrest Joseph. Even if Emma was not followed, her presence in addition to some of Joseph's other friends would be a certain tip-off to anyone watching the house that Joseph was indeed hiding there.
The necessity of Joseph's hiding place remaining a secret could explain why he wanted the Whitneys to burn the letter. This would prevent it from falling into the wrong hands which would allow his hiding place to be revealed. In addition, the need to protect his whereabouts would explain the secrecy he requested of Newel in contacting him at his hiding place by knocking "at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty..." Possibly, Joseph wanted Newel to be very careful in his approach to his hiding place in case it was being watched by authorities. Joseph's assurance to Newel that he had a room by himself was indication that their visit would be private and safe.
Other Problems with the "Love Letter" Theory
Even if one believes Joseph was a polygamist, brought forth the revelation to Newel, and married Sarah Ann Whitney, this letter still has problems being interpreted as a "love letter" to Sarah. Again, Fairwiki.org does a good job explaining this position. In their conclusion they state:
Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter?
The categorizing of the purpose of this letter as a "love letter" is wishful thinking on the part of those who believe Joseph was a polygamist. As indicated above, Joseph certainly would not invite his new wife's parents to come with her to a private room so he could be with her as her husband. Thus, the loneliness expressed in the letter had to be for friendship from those of like faith and not for a new plural wife. In addition, their meeting was also for another purpose as indicated in the letter:
..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads...
Joseph wanted to give his friends a spiritual blessing for which, as expressed in the letter, it was important to "have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty...."
Other Evidences in the Sara Ann Whitney Case
Discrepancies in Affidavits and Statements
At the Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney site we find the following affidavits by Sarah Ann and her mother Elizabeth regarding her alleged plural marriage to Joseph Smith, Jr.:
AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL
Territory of Utah }
County of Salt Lake.}ss.
Be it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said county, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A.D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage, in the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.
Sarah A. Kimball.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the day and year first above written.
E. Smith, Probate Judge.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press], p. 73., italics added)
AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY
County of Salt Lake.} ss.
Be it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Handcock, state of Illinois, she was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and all eternity, by her husband Newel K. Whitney then Presiding Bishop of the Church.
E. A. Whitney.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and year first above written.
James Jack, Notary Public.
(Andrew Jensen, Historical Record, Vol. 6, May 1887, pp. 224-226.)
However, both Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Whitney stated differently in October, 1842—just a little over two months after their daughter allegedly entered into a polygamous marriage with Joseph Smith, Jr. The Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, published the following statement signed by twelve men including Newel K. Whitney:
We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 939–940)
The Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, also published the following statement signed by nineteen women of the Ladies Relief Society including Elizabeth Whitney:
We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make. (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)
So, how can it be that two months after the alleged plural marriage of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith, Jr. her parents signed and published a statement in the widely circulated Times and Seasons that they "know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants" (Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940)? Yet, 27 years after the alleged marriage Elizabeth signs an affidavit attesting to the marriage and some 35 years after the alleged marriage she writes her thoughts about the event as published in The Women of Mormondom, pages 368–369, by Edward W. Tullidge, 1877. Even Sarah's affidavit is discrepant with her parents' statements in the Times and Seasons. In her affidavit, also made 27 years after her alleged plural marriage to Joseph, Sarah stated, "she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... according to the laws of the same regulating marriage...." Thus, Sarah stated that her marriage to Joseph was according to the marriage laws of the Church. However, her parents stated in Times and Seasons that those Church laws did not support polygamous marriages. They said that other than "J. C. Bennett's 'secret wife system,'" the only marriage system known within the Church was the one taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, which was a monogamous system of marriage. The statements published in the Times and Seasons are in direct opposition to both affidavits of marriage, Elizabeth's autobiography, and the alleged revelation itself.
With all due respect to the Whitneys, they were lying somewhere. The first scenario is that Newel and Elizabeth lied in their Times and Seasons statement to cover up the alleged revelation and Sarah's alleged marriage to Joseph. The second scenario is that they told the truth in their Times and Seasons' statement but Sarah and Elizabeth lied in their affidavits 27 years later, and Elizabeth lied in her autobiographical reflections 35 years later. Most Mormon history authors support the first scenario. I support the second. However, before I can give my reasoning, I need to discuss a little about the nature of the statements made by the Whitneys.
The Nature of Affidavits and Statements
So, are the affidavits made by Sarah and Elizabeth and Elizabeth's biography statement more reliable for telling the truth than Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the Times and Seasons? According to Todd Compton in the prologue to his book, In Sacred Loneliness, affidavits and biographies are very good evidence. He states:
What criteria can be used to evaluate whether a woman's marriage to Joseph Smith (during his lifetime) can be reliabley documented? In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him. An affidavit is very good evidence. A woman mentioning in a journal or autobiography that she married the prophet is also good evidence, as is a close family member's or friend's testimony or affidavit or reminiscence, especially if he or she supplies convincing detail, anecdotal or documentary. (page 1, italics added)
However, with all due respect to Mr. Compton, I do not necessarily consider affidavits, journals, and autobiographies very good evidence. The reason why is that they are personal statements made without penalty for lying. Unless an affidavit is part of a court proceeding, there is no penalty for perjury. The only thing official about a notarized affidavit outside of a court proceeding is that the notary verifies that the person who is making the statement has provided sufficient proof that they are the person they allege to be. The two affidavits above, as well as all the affidavits obtained by Joseph F. Smith mentioned by Mr. Compton above, fall into this category. They are merely a person's statement—true or false. Likewise, a person's journal or autobiography falls into the same category—it is their personal statement, true or false. Only a statement which is made in a court of law under penalty for perjury and which withstands cross examination can be assumed to have a high probability of truthfulness. Thus, the affidavit made by Sarah and the affidavit and biography statement made by Elizabeth have no more inherent truthfulness than the signed statements by Newel and Elizabeth in the Times and Seasons. At face value, they are on equal footing as to the probability of their truthfulness.
Evaluating the Whitneys' Affidavits and Statements
There are some considerations that I believe weigh in favor of the 1842 Times and Seasons statements being the truthful ones. First, they were made publicly with the corroboration of twenty-nine others. This lends credibility to their statements. Second, they were made very close to the time of the events they addressed. Usually statements made close in time to the event referenced are the most accurate because the person's memory has not been faded by time, and their interpretation of the events has not been influenced by other opinions. Third, the statements regarding the alleged plural marriage between Sarah and Joseph were made many years after that alleged event. In addition, they were made by those involved in polygamous activities at a time when it was important to the LDS Church to justify the doctrine of polygamy. As stated by Todd Compton above, "In 1869 Joseph F. Smith, countering Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church (RLDS) denials of Joseph Smith's polygamy, had Joseph Smith's living widows sign affidavits documenting their marriages to him" (ibid.). Actually, by that time, there had been a sustained three-year missionary effort to Salt Lake City and other parts of Utah by the Reorganized Church. Many LDS joined the Reorganization but soon left the area for Idaho or the Mid-West. Alexander Smith was there in 1866 and again in 1869 with his brother David. During this missionary effort, both of these sons of Joseph Smith, Jr. (and cousins of Joseph F. Smith) defended their father and spoke against polygamy to the LDS priesthood (including Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith) and members of the LDS Church (RLDS History of the Church 4:427–553). Because of their success and the high regard for Joseph Smith, Jr. in the LDS Church, this challenge from Joseph's sons must have brought considerable pressure upon the leaders of the LDS Church as well as those involved in polygamy to "prove" the position that their practice of polygamy came directly from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself. Such pressure to prove that Joseph was the originator of polygamy brings into question for me the validity of their affidavits and statements. Fourth, as previously discussed, Elizabeth's autobiographical statement in The Women of Mormondom omits reference to the alleged revelation to Newel in 1842 authorizing the plural marriage of Joseph and Sarah and associates all their celestial marriage involvement with the alleged 1843 revelation, which came one year after Sarah's alleged plural marriage to Joseph. This failure of Elizabeth to mention in her autobiography such an important event in the lives of the Whitneys indicates to me that both the revelation and the marriage did not occur. Because of these reasons, I have to give credibility to Newel's and Elizabeth's statements in the Times and Seasons as being true rather than to Elizabeth's later affidavit and statement as well as to Sarah's later affidavit.
To interpret the Whitney letter as a love letter from Joseph to Sarah Ann Whitney, the validity of the previous alleged revelation to Newel K. Whitney and Joseph's plural marriage to Sarah Ann would have to be established. Without the occurrence of these two events, the letter becomes merely a request from Joseph to his good friends, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney, for a visit. As presented above, the need for validation of the author of the revelation, discrepancies within the revelation, the grammatical structure of the revelation, the immediate response of 17-year-old Sarah Ann to the revelation, the Times and Seasons statements of Newel and Elizabeth, and the discrepancies in the later affidavit and biographical statement of Elizabeth and affidavit of Sarah Ann cast serious doubts about the validity of the alleged July 27, 1842, revelation to Newel and the subsequent plural marriage on that date of Joseph and Sarah Ann Whitney. Thus, in my opinion, there was no such revelation and no such marriage, which makes the letter nothing more than just a communication between friends.
Posted by JSDefender at 6:37 PM 30 comments: Links to this post
Labels: Brigham Young, Elizabeth Whitney, John C. Bennett, LDS DC 132, Newel K. Whitney, Polygamy Issue, Sara Ann Whitney, The Whitney Letter


This is it. If you want to upgrade to Windows 10, and NOT pay for the upgrade, you have to do it today. July 29th is the Last Day To Upgrade To Windows 10 For FREE! Ok I get it, but I rather use my copy of Windows 7 or Windows 8 (HAHAHAHA), or I have a program that doesn't work on Windows 10, or well you get the idea. There are a million excuses as to why you don't want a freebie from Microsoft. Let me say that again, a FREEBIE FROM MICROSOFT! When in the history of computers, as the average human knows them, has Microsoft ever given a freebie before (at least when it came to the Operating System)?
Confirm any files on your machine that are super critical have a back up. Guess what if they are that critical you should have a back up even if you weren't following these steps.
Click on that little upgrade icon on the bottom right of your Windows pc (next to the clock).
If your system reads the product key as "Windows 10 on this device is activated with a digital entitlement", that means that your license for this device has now been updated to be eligible for Windows 10 for free as long as it is running. In essence, you have to go through the software update so that you can update your license to include Windows 10.
Click on settings –> Update & Security –> Recovery and select Get Started under the section Go Back To Windows 7 (or 8 depending on what you have).
A few drivers, like printers may need to be reinstalled.
If you had a custom picture for a background or you had customized the look for your copy if windows, it will revert back to default settings.
That's all we have come across using this trick. Keep in mind, upgrading to Windows 10, you don't have to immediately downgrade back to your previous version in one day. As the note says in the Go Back feature, you have a month to go back to your old version.


Product prices and availability are accurate as of 2019-04-20 10:07:31 CDT and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on http://www.amazon.com/ at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
Use the size chart to select your size. If you prefer a looser fit, go up a size. Garment Care : Machine Washable / 84-percent-polyester-18-percent-spandex. It's excellent flexibilty in every direction will make you feel comfortable under any movement. Suitable for all sports indoors and outdoors. Moisture Sensing/Quick time Dry/TWO-WAY Air Circulation Ultra-light. This is so ultra-light(4.23oz / Long sleeve_Size Medium) unlike other sports shirt that is wearable.


Learn more about exciting opportunities to discover the world of mission by going on one of our 2016 immersion trips.
Hear stories of transformation and hope from participants who have gone on one of our mission trips.
Discover what our priorities are and how you can apply for a grant from Holy Name Province Franciscan Missionary Union.
Please consider becoming an active partner in the work of the Franciscan Missionary Union by making a donation.


text:
Review: Iron Man 3
Posted on April 28, 2013 by Cihan
After a stint fooling around with the Avengers, Tony Stark is left with a mild case of PTSD and has to battle a new threat with nothing more than a screwdriver, 10 year old assistant and plenty of snark.
Written and directed by the legendary Shane Black, Iron Man 3 stands out from the previous two thanks to Black and Marvel's insistence on keeping audiences on their toes. There's no sense of diminishing returns in this franchise so far, though we did hit a mis-step with the first sequel. In Iron Man 2's defence, that film was made under the shadow of a writers strike, and after rewatching it recently its only two major flaws are its over-reliance on including SHIELD characters into the mix, and Mickey Rourke who sucks the energy out of every scene he's in. That film is saved by Sam Rockwell who does the exact opposite and steals every scene.
Iron Man 3's only problem was how to begin phase 2 of Marvel's cinematic run by following up Joss Whedon's epic Avengers. I can say that they give an admirable effort, and though they don't reach Avengers level of conflict and adventure, where Iron Man 3 shines is in character and dialogue.
Desperate, Stark glues Pepper to his back to check his six.
Black's writing resume has such highlights as: Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. So as expected, Iron Man 3 continues his trend of pairing up a flawed protagonist with unlikely allies and having them bounce hilarious dialogue off each other.
When a mysterious terrorist begins a campaign of terror against the USA, Stark is pulled into the conflict when things get personal. After a devastating attack, he's ultimately left to fend for himself with a broken suit and no back-up. It was the best direction to take after The Avengers where he had every tool at his disposal.
It's at this point the film takes an interesting interlude, pairing Stark with a kid as he both prepares for a comeback and also does the kind of detective work that fans of Batman have been yearning for but were lacking in the Nolan films.
As for why he's even in this predicament? The Mandarin. Played by Ben Kingsley. It's the kind of performance I can't even write about for fear of spoiling anything. Suffice to say comic book purists are angry at what Marvel have done, but for a layman like me I found it such a great and memorable character, easily my favourite of the Marvel films thus far.
If you look at a villain like the Red Skull, played by the brilliant Hugo Weaving, all you're seeing is a typical bad guy with generic threats, but with Kingsley's Mandarin, you never know what's going to come out of his mouth. And believe me, from the midway point everything he says is classic.
"Make me a coffee, machine."
"225 lbs machine with lasers."
"Ok, I'll go make coffee."
Iron Man 3 unfortunately stumbles with a climactic action scene set in the docks. At night. Sigh. Taking a cue from the latest A-Team movie is not exactly inspiring guys. It's mostly just a blur of CGI robot suits versus CGI humans, with the only highlights, as par for the course with an Iron Man film, being the dialogue and banter between Stark and his allies, such as Rhodes.
Iron Man 3 interestingly doesn't end with the status quo, but with things changed for Stark, an encouragingly stark (geddit) difference from other films which might have either ended on a cliffhanger, or with things back to normal. Considering Downey Jr is getting older and expressing doubts as to returning to the role in the future, it's a bold move by Marvel. There's a sense of finality to the resolution, yet the credits still promise that Tony Stark will be back.
Out of all the superhero movies clamouring for our attention these days, Iron Man is my favourite character, thanks to Downey Jr's sarcastic wit, so here's hoping he can stick around a little while longer.
This entry was posted in Cinema reviews by Cihan. Bookmark the permalink.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


MORE FREE STUFF!!! We're exhibiting at the Philly Bike Expo this weekend with sizing samples of our new jerseys. Yup, you'll be able to order them on the spot! We'll also be selling various art prints and giving away little trinkets. To get the word out we're running another contest! "Regram" this image w/your size and the hashtag #justeleanorpbe and you're entered for a chance at a free jersey! We'll be picking the winner after the dust settles .
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged free stuff, giveaway, Philly Bike Expo on 11/06/2014 by admin.


text:
The Most Lamentable Tragedy – Titus Andronicus	May 18, 2016
Filed under: CD Reviews — NVMP @ 11:28 PM
Tags: The Most Lamentable Tragedy, Titus Andronicus
A review by Jon Warhol
Online reviewers have been praising and glorifying the hell out of The Most Lamentable Tragedy as if it's some grand philosophical statement that's going to bring peace to mankind. They're all wrong. Dissenting opinions should always be welcoming punk, so here's mine.
Before calling me a hater, let's get one thing straight: Titus Andronicus is one of my favorite bands and there are some really great parts to their 4th album: The Most Lamentable Tragedy (TMLT). However, TMLT is a 29-track 93-minute rock opera in 5 acts that suffers from some little problems which add up to one big problem: it's just too much. The length, the number of tracks, the concept, the production, the weird parts, the loud parts, the silent parts. It's just too damn much. Some tracks kick ass, but as a whole it falls flat.
Length: Too long. I own the album on CD and it spans 2 discs. I could dramatically improve it by halving the track list so it'll fit onto just one. Disc 1 is mostly A-OK, but on disc 2 do we need the Gregorian chant praising Egyptian sun-god Ra? Or the choral version of "Auld Lang Syne"? Or the track called "7 Seconds" that's just 7 seconds of silence? Or the closing track "A Moral", an anti-climactic short drone? You get the point.
Lyrics and Vocals: References to classic literature and pop culture and a complicated story about a manic-depressive who meets his doppelgänger, goes through dream sequences and has an existential crisis…or something like that. It's really hard to get the story simply from listening to the music. This is because most of the album is sung in a scream that's exhausting, hard to interpret, and just a little too soft in the mix.
I totally get that this is punk rock and it's supposed to be loud, emotional, confrontational, angsty, blah blah. It certainly achieves all those feelings. But if the lyrics are important and tell such a complicated story, why were they sung and recorded in a way that makes them hard to hear?
Part of me also feels that a 93 minute 5 act opera about one's personal problems is a little self obsessed à la Roger Waters or Pete Townshend. But hey, I'm not the one with manic depression and it works for Patrick, so to each their own.
Production: Again, I understand punk is supposed to have an in-your-face quality, but listening through the whole thing feels like it was recorded and mixed quickly in one small room. There's often so much guitar, bass and drums that most of the lyrical content and story gets lost in muddiness. Combined with TMLT's length, the production and instrumentation really begins to sound the same after a while. You'll get weary of riff after riff and more guitar and more guitar that by the time disc 2 rolls around, you'll find yourself skipping tracks.
Things I liked: The band's performance on TMLT is top-notch. Tight rhythms, powerful chord riffs and melodic guitar solos make parts of TMLT stand out as some of Titus' strongest playing. There are times when the lo-fi, fast and angry production works well. Tracks 9 – 12 "I Lost My Mind (DJ)", "Mr. E. Mann", "Fired Up" and "Dimed Out" are the best on the whole album and would be an awesome EP if released on their own. While the album's length and production made me miss some of the overall story, I respect that the band tried something bold and new. Titus Andronicus made a true artistic statement with TMLT. Whether or not this statement is realized will vary from listener to listener.
Get it! If you're already a Titus Andronicus fan and like lengthy rock operas.
Don't get it! If you're not already fan. Start with their second album The Monitor. Or, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdWBpXlc6E from Titus' YouTube channel. It's the best 15 minutes from the whole album.


This is a simple pen cup that can be mounted to a wall. It is divided into three compartments of equal sizes. Its size is about 14 cm (W) x 6 cm (D) x 87 cm (H). The distance between the mounting holes is 10 cm.


text:
La prométhazine est un neuroleptique antihistaminique inhibiteur des récepteurs H1 de la famille des phénothiazines. C'est un médicament utilisé dans le traitement de l'allergie et de l'insomnie passagère. Il s'agit d'une des premières molécules antihistaminiques découvertes de manière fortuite lors de recherches menées sur des composés de la famille des phenothiazines.

La prométhazine fut jadis utilisée pour ses vertus neuroleptiques avant d'être mise à l'écart à l'instar de nouvelles molécules phénothiazidiques. Elle demeure néanmoins utilisée comme adjuvant dans les situations de violences dans le domaine psychiatrique. Divers protocoles comprenant la prométhazine et l'haloperidol ont été publiés, dans le cadre d'une contention chimique.

D'un point de vue psychotrope, la prométhazine possède d'importantes vertus sédatives ainsi que des propriétés antipsychotiques notables. Elle n'est cependant jamais utilisée dans le cadre des psychoses en psychiatrie, elle l'est seulement comme hypno-sédatif.

Aux États-Unis, elle est connue pour son association avec la codéine dans le cadre d'un usage récréatif sous la forme d'une boisson appelée «  » (un mélange de sirop contre la toux sèche associant codéine et prométhazine, de soda et parfois d'alcool). Ce mélange qui peut être dangereux, popularisé par le monde du hip-hop, est à l'origine de nombreuses overdoses fatales et tend à se populariser en Europe.

D'un point de vue pharmacologique, la prométhazine est anticholinergique et affecte faiblement les récepteurs muscarinique. Son affinité pour les récepteurs histaminiques H1 est élevée. La prométhazine appartient aux antihistaminiques de première génération. Elle posséderait en outre de faibles propriétés anxiolytiques, à l'instar de l'hydroxyzine. Elle ne possède néanmoins pas d'AMM à cet effet.

La prométhazine est disponible en officine sur ordonnance (Liste 1 des substances vénéneuses) et est présente sous différentes formes telles que en comprimés sécables dosés a 25 mg, en pommade et sous forme de sirop. Elle n'est néanmoins pas présente dans toutes les officines du fait du déclin de vente au profit des antihistaminiques de seconde génération, possédant une sédation moins prononcée.

Elle reste toutefois une molécule peu dispendieuse, avec un potentiel antihistaminique élevé. Le nom commercial est Phenergan (France). Elle est classée au niveau deux de vigilance, ce qui doit attirer l'attention des conducteurs du fait des risques de sédation. Il s'agit d'une molécule photosensibilisante, à l'instar des phenothiazides.

La prométhazine, à l'instar de nombreux antihistaminiques, possède une action marquée contre les nausées et vertiges. Elle est utilisée de façon marginale comme prémédication avant une anesthésie.

Les effets secondaires sont semblables aux composés de la même famille, et comprennent principalement :

- Sédation, constipation, difficultés à uriner, troubles de la vigilance, photosensibilité, euphorie/dysphorie, difficultés à la concentration, troubles de la mémoire, apathie, comportement stéréotypés, agitation paradoxale, exacerbation des effets d'autre dépresseurs du système nerveux central (SNC), augmentation de l'appétit, sècheresse buccale, troubles de l'élocution.

Dans le cadre d'un traitement à visée sédatif, l'association avec des benzodiazepines n'a pas montré d'efficacité, le ratio bénéfice risque étant jugé défavorable.

La prométhazine reste toutefois une alternative aux autres antihistaminiques dans la prise en charge de la rhinite saisonnière, urticaire, rhume des foins, conjonctivite...

Il possède un effet hypotenseur. Une vigilance doit tout particulièrement être portée sur les personnes âgées et les enfants. Ce médicament n'est pas recommandé chez l'enfant de moins de 8 ans, sauf dans le cas d'absence d'alternative). Le manque d'étude et le principe de précaution suggère d'éviter la prométhazine chez la femme enceinte (risque tératogène potentiel).

Lors d'un traitement à la promethazine, la consommation d'alcool est fortement  déconseillée (risque de majoration de la sédation). La prométhazine présenterait moins de risque sur le plan cardio-vasculaire que l'hydroxyzine (risque d'allongement du QT à l'ECG). Néanmoins, une attention particulière doit être portée chez les sujets présentant des pathologies cardiaque et/ou psychiatrique.

En France, les médicaments à base de  prométhazine par voie orale étaient précédemment sans ordonnance, mais sont désormais disponible uniquement sur ordonnance depuis .

Histoire
Après la découverte du rôle de l'histamine dans les allergies, le laboratoire Rhône-Poulenc cherche à développer dès 1933 des antihistaminiques ; les chimistes synthétisent donc en 1947 un dérivé phénothiazinique, la prométhazine, qui possède des propriétés sédatives marquées. En 1948, le chirurgien Pierre Huguenard l'utilise dans un cocktail lytique pour provoquer sédation et indifférence chez les opérés, et Henri Laborit, un autre chirurgien, cherche à prévenir le choc opératoire et soupçonne un effet « stabilisant » du système nerveux central (SNC) pouvant créer une hibernation artificielle et une sédation sans narcose, il demande alors au laboratoire Rhône-Poulenc de travailler sur des composés aux propriétés stabilisantes plus marquées, ce qui permet la création de la chlorpromazine.

En , cette substance est vendue sous plusieurs marques de par le monde : Allersoothe, Antiallersin, Anvomin, Atosil, Avomine, Closin N, Codopalm, Diphergan, Farganesse, Fenazil, Fenergan, Fenezal, Frinova, Hiberna, Histabil, Histaloc, Histantil, Histazin, Histazine, Histerzin, Lenazine, Lergigan, Nufapreg, Otosil, Pamergan, Pharmaniaga, Phenadoz, Phenerex, Phenergan, Phénergan, Pipolphen, Polfergan, Proazamine, Progene, Prohist, Promet, Prometal, Prometazin, Prometazina, Promethazin, Prométhazine, Promethazinum, Promethegan, Promezin, Proneurin, Prothazin, Prothiazine, Prozin, Pyrethia, Quitazine, Reactifargan, Receptozine, Romergan, Sominex, Sylomet, Xepagan, Zinmet et Zoralix.

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Articles connexes
 insomnie
 phénothiazine
 allergie
 antihistaminique

Liens externes
 fiche BIAM : http://www.biam2.org//www/Sub415.html

Antihistaminique H1

Hypnotique
Phénothiazine
Amine tertiaire

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


For decades, conventional wisdom has said that federal entitlement programs are the third rail of national politics. Any politician advocating reductions would be penalized at the election booth.
Many vital entitlement programs like the Social Security disability program are nearly broke, but no one discusses how to reform them to make them sustainable. Similarly, at the local level, spending on police has put massive pressure on budgets. But it would be political suicide for a politician to advocate reform.
Although crime rates are at the lowest they have been in over 30 years, the number of arrests has declined only slightly between 2009 and 2010 and the U.S. still spends more than $100 billion on police every year. This money goes to fund 714,921 sworn police officers and an increasing number of militarized police units.
The combined numbers of police, encouraged by federal funding and aggressive policing, are representative of a continued misguided approach to keeping communities safe. Because the Department of Justice considers 'successful law enforcement policies' as those that increase the number of people arrested and imprisoned, governments are shortchanging the public in regards to public safety at a very high cost.
Policymakers should be directing funds toward true community-based and collaborative policing efforts, prevention, intervention, treatment, education and a host of other programs and initiatives that have been shown to promote healthy safe communities. When arrests are the bottom line instead of public safety and healthy, prosperous communities, our priorities are skewed.
We are crowding out important social spending in order to support an increasing burden of spending on law enforcement.
Meanwhile, the Social Security national average wage index for all employment categories in 2012 was $44,321. This is slightly below the minimum average salary for a police officer. Police also have rich pension benefits that almost no other American employee enjoys.
Police compensation is almost always controlled through union negotiations with local governments. It poses a difficult challenge for local officials to make changes. For example the bankrupt city of San Bernardino, California pays crushing police salaries, but it is restricted by a city charter to make any reductions.
Police pension costs have become an enormous burden for many local governments. High average salaries and retirements as early as 52 for some police employees have created massive pension liabilities for governments, including the recently bankrupt city of Vallejo in California.
[T]he city would take on between $90 million and $100 million in debt to pay off legal settlements made last year. The bulk of those settlements were made in connection with police misconduct cases.
The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project estimated that $346 million was spent in 2010 on misconduct-related civil judgments and settlements, excluding sealed settlements, court costs, and attorney fees. The amount of sealed judgments could have been substantial, but taxpayers have no way of knowing.
In a healthy society, all institutions must be examined to determine if their mission and practices serve the needs of the people. Police in America have been the third rail; mostly immune from review and reform. It's long past time for America to grapple with the difficult question of how much policing we need to maintain a safe and stable society and how much of our scarce financial resources can be spent while shortchanging other community services.
> As spending on police increased 445%, the number of people in prisons and jails increased 275% from 1982 to 2007.
The spending in the chart does not seem to be adjusted for inflation, which in the same period was about cumulative 115%. For the sake of example, let's assume that the spending in 1982 was about $19B. This means that in 2007, it was about $104B. But that $104B was equivalent to only $48B in 1982 dollars, which is a 153% increase. So, the rate of incarceration per *real* dollar spent actually increased by about 80% (275/153 – 1).
We can debate whether a high incarceration rate for drug-related offenses is right or wrong, but first you need to present correct inflation-adjusted data.
The biggest supporters of drug laws are the police and prison guard unions. We imprison black people as a jobs program.
Thanks for pointing that out CraigL. I should get in touch with the Justice Policy Institute and feed that back to them.
Spring means budget season for local governments across the United States, and Steve Novick, a city commissioner in Portland, Oregon, has a proposal he thinks could save his city a nice chunk of change: slashing funding for the Portland Police Bureau's Drugs and Vice Division. The division, which largely targets drug dealers, costs $3.9 million annually to operate, and Novick's idea is to redirect a substantial portion of that budget to improving dangerous intersections where pedestrians are killed each year, as well as to better preparing the city for disasters—particularly the big earthquake that could strike Portland any day now.


I'll Never Buy (or Lease) Another Car Again…Without This Man!
Let's face it, there are some things in life that we have to do even though we don't want to. I'm sure you can think of one or two, right? We all learned this little fact of life most probably from our parents. Case in point: buying (or leasing) a new car. Haggling back and forth with the car salesman is not particularly how most of us want to spend our time, am I right? Well, I have good news for you. In case you didn't know that such a service exists, I am here to spare you from future angst by sharing my recent delightful car buying (leasing) experience with you. Yep, you read that right…I did use the word delightful and car buying in the same sentence. And I have a gentleman named David Rojas, aka The Deal Creator to thank for that. You see, David is a buyer's representative. (Not to be confused for a car broker).
Sometimes I post questions on my facebook page when I'm looking for recommendations on certain things and this time I decided to ask my friends their opinions on buying or leasing a car. Talk about a hot topic; people came out in full force to share their opinions on the subject matter. Through it all, I got a phone call from David who had somehow got wind of the thread. Although by the time I got the call from David, I had already started speaking with someone else and politely thanked David for the call. It didn't take me long to figure out that this initial person I had been speaking to was not going to be the one to help me. Thankfully, even though it didn't look like David was going to get my business, he remained very professional and took just a few extra minutes to educate me on the difference between a car broker and a buyer's representative. I thanked him and we hung up. A day or two later I called him back.
He asked me to narrow my choices down to my top two – three picks and then he arranged to meet me and take me to the dealerships to test drive the vehicles. We went in, test drove all three and left. None of the car salesmen even attempted to talk to us about pricing. That was a bit weird, but in a pleasant way. Once I decided on which vehicle I wanted, David and I discussed my options (to buy or to lease). I had never leased before and I really didn't think I was a good candidate for it due in part to the number of miles I drive and also the fear of what if the car gets dinged or damaged in some way. David and I discussed my budget and in the end (which was super quick by the way), he was able to get me into the car that I desired, under budget and allayed any fears I had by including a wear & tear policy into the monthly payment, making sure that when I turned my car in at the end of 3 years that I would not owe one cent.
David Rojas is truly the Deal Creator and provides an invaluable service. He's up there in my book right next to the other indispensables: a good lawyer, doctor and accountant. Need a new car or know someone else who does? Contact David at (954) 638-1900.


Shops in Huntingdon town centre faced disruption on Saturday morning due to a power cut.
About 600 properties were affected by the three-hour electricity outage from 8.20am.
A spokesman for UK Power Networks said: "Engineers worked quickly and as safely as possible to restore power to the High Street area of Huntingdon, following a fault on the electricity network system.
"At around 8.20am on Saturday, 601 Customers would have seen an interruption of power. This was restored in stages with all supplies back on at around 11.25am.


text:
Sound Perception is a one-night performance by the artist Sam Vernon in collaboration with Lizzy DeVita. The performance will run in coordination with DeVita's exhibition as a reaction to the artist's preformed concepts around home, identity and instability. Vernon will be guided by experimental sound, further exploring the sense of claustrophobia present in the exhibition and respond to the space itself.
Sam Vernon earned her MFA in Painting/Printmaking from Yale University in 2015 and her BFA from The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in 2009. Her installations combine xeroxed drawings, photographs, paintings and sculptural components in an exploration of personal narrative and identity. She uses installation and performance to honor the past while revising historical memory. Vernon has most recently exhibited with the Seattle Art Museum, Ewing Gallery of Art & Architecture at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, the Emery Community Arts Center at the University of Maine, Farmington, MoCADA, or the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts in Brooklyn.
http://www.samvernon.com
Lizzy De Vita's practice focuses on how the formation of our many selves, triangulated through our relationships with others, is alarmingly illogical  yet also creative of profound, inarticulable empathy. Her work focuses on how individual identities shift, bloat or dissipate through physical, situational, linguistic and psychological collisions.
Raised in Pittsburgh, Lizzy received a BA from Barnard College in English Literature and Art History (Visual Arts Concentration), and more recently an MFA in Sculpture from the Yale School of Art. She has exhibited works in many venues in the US, including The Andy Warhol Museum, The Invisible Dog, The Carnegie Museum of Art, Barnard College, and The Pittsburgh Center for the Arts. She currently lives and works in Brooklyn.
http://lizzydevita.com/
Adriana Pauly is a German curator and art writer based in New York. In her curatorial as well as her writing projects she esteems to promote art made by female artists as well as harboring a special interest in Latin American art. Her writing has been published by Missy Magazine in Germany, Autre magazine, Artreport and the Oxford University Press.
www.adrianapauly.com
About THE CHIMNEY NYC:
THE CHIMNEY NYC is an exhibition and performance venue promoting local & international artists. Located in the heart of Brooklyn's creative scene, the venue plays on the rawness of its industrial architecture. All works are commissioned to interact with the space, creating immersive environments and interactions with the viewers. In addition to its permanent exhibition space, The Chimney is developing offsite installations and exhibitions in the United-States and in France. The Chimney NYC works in synergy with Livestream Public, an event and educational space committed to engaging the local community by encouraging the growth of technology, artistic expression, and development in design and production fields.
http://www.thechimneynyc.com/


text:
Облога Парижа (845) — облога та захоплення і розграбування Парижа вікінгами.
 Облога Парижа (1429) під час Столітньої війни.
 Облога Парижа (1870—1871) у ході Франко-прусської війни.


invite all interested buyers to visit our website or contact us directly for Luffing Crane , Mc Luffing Crane , Luffing Jib Crane , please do not hesitate to call. We will be your best choice.
We are proud of the substantial buyer pleasure and wide acceptance due to our persistent pursuit of top of the range each on solution and repair for Luffing Crane , Mc Luffing Crane , Luffing Jib Crane , Many products fully conform to the most rigorous of international guidelines and with our first-rate delivery service you will have them delivered at any time and in any place. And because Kayo deals in the entire spectrum of protective equipment our customers don't need to waste time shopping around.


In our busy schedules smartphones and similar mobile devices are the closest companions. It assists in doing the essential things like making a call, playing games, browsing the web, checking mail and last but not the least watching videos and listening to songs. Not all videos are playable in mobile devices and so its essential to convert DVDs and other videos to compatible format. Engelmann Mobile Video 2 can convert DVD chapters and common video files for Sony PSP, Microsoft Zune, Apple iPod touch & iPhone, portable multimedia players of various providers, navigation devices and Android-based mobile & smart phones.
The software is a shareware. You can download a trial version from the following link.
Default unregistered trial is for 3 days. You can extend it for 7 more days by registering the software in the following page: Extend Trial.
Engelmann Mobile Video 2 costs 24.99 USD.
You can get 80% discount on the software. Visit this page for more details.
Windows XP and later Windows version.
.Net Framework 3. If not installed, the software install it automatically.
256 Mb RAM for Windows XP and 1 Gb RAM for Windows Vista onwards.
CPU with min 1 GHz cloak speed.
An MP3 codec should be installed on the system. MP3 Codecs from Windows Media Player 10/11/12 as well as lame_enc.dll are supported.
graphic card with overlay-functions for displaying preview.
23.9 Mb installer of Mobile Video 2 has .Net Framework 3 within it. The installer is signed by Engelmann Media GmbH.
Installation is fast and clean. Installs .Net Framework 3 automatically if not present in the system.
Software is launched at installation finish. Desktop and Quick Launch shortcuts will be created during installation.
The software interface is basic and user friendly.
You can choose DVD, DVD Folder or common video files as the input.
It supports a number of input file types: AVI, ASF, FLV, DIVX, WMV (Windows Media Video), MKV (Matroska), MOV (Apple QuickTime Video), MPG, MPEG, TS (transport streams, e.g. of TV-recordings), MP4, 3GP (video standard used for mobile phones), 3G2 (video standard used for mobile phones), RM (RealMedia).
At present the application includes output formats for the following devices: Android G1, Apple iPhone, iPod touch and iPod nano, Archos AV, DVR and GMINI, BlackBerry Storm, 3GP- and MP4-compatible mobile / Smartphones, Centrix MVP-100 and MVP-120, Cliod CP, MX and PMP, Cowon A3, D2 and Q5, Creative Zen Vision, Epson P2000 and 4000, GPX2, iAudio X5, iRiver H320, H340, PMP 120 und PMP 140, LG T80, Microsoft ZUNE, Mpio FY1000, Nintendo DS, Game Boy Advanced, Palm Tungsten and Treo, Philips SA 60xx, SA 51xx and GoGear SA52xx, Sony PSP, Walkman NW and Walkman NWZ, Targa H2010, TomTom One and GO as well as Windows Mobile.
Output quality can be set to Good, Medium and Low. You can even fine tune the output setting in Advanced Output Settings.
Simultaneous conversion is supported. But all will be converted to a single selected output type.
You will be able to cut desired portion of the seleted video.
You can set the PC to shutdown once conversion is finished.
Target folder is preset but can be changed to user defined location.
Fast conversion speed but resource hungry.
Installation as well as the Software GUI is available in Japanese, English and German languages.
Software is available in five colors/skins: blue, green, pink, gray and orange. Three among these can be set during installation: Tropical Skin (orange), Arctic Skin (blue) and Medium Skin (green).
Software shows splash screen during its launch. It can be disabled from settings.
You can manually check for software updates. For auto update check, you have to enable that feature in settings.
Detailed offline help documentation is available.
This entry was posted in Format Conversion, Software, Video Management, Windows.


The game was sooo much fun, but after freezing up my phone twice after reinstall I have up and just removed Snoopy mom the woman the myth the legend vintage tshirt. Just goes to show that love can take multiple tries and sometimes has to show up by being ridiculously obvious for us to see it.
I love Snoopy, in here maybe because I watched a Snoopy mom the woman the myth the legend vintage tshirt, he represents all the women that are trying to get Gerry, and one of them just got close enough and stuck a love arrow in this head. Snoopy always makes me laugh! If you notice Charles always had a message incorporated in his drawings and skits.
I recall the God/dog object lesson. (Dog is God spelled in reverse.) It also brings to mind I love this Snoopy mom the woman the myth the legend vintage tshirt. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Why can't I hear the dialog!? I love Charlie Brown and would love to hear what they're saying!


As forensic psychiatry has matured into a well-recognized subspecialty, considerable agreement about the format and content of reports has emerged. Griffith et al. now turn their attention to the art of forensic writing. Their description of the forensic report as "performative narrative" may help to refine professional practice so long as the ethics-related pitfalls are identified and avoided.
The paper by Griffith, Stankovic, and Baranoski1 addresses the question of style in forensic report writing. Using the term performative narrative, they describe a process by which the forensic psychiatrist organizes and transforms information obtained during an evaluation into a coherent story that brings characters and events to life while evoking emotions in the reading audience. This process goes beyond a mere recounting of clinical findings. Instead, the forensic psychiatrist creates a written performance in an attempt to tell a compelling story. Some may view their thesis as simply stating the obvious, while others may react with dismay at the thought of a forensic report as anything more than a dispassionate recitation of findings and impressions. Regardless of one's reaction, their paper explores a relatively underexamined area of forensic practice. A widely shared consensus about the format and general content of a well-written forensic report has contributed to the development of several practice guidelines.2–4 Less attention, however, has been paid to narrative style.
As Griffith and colleagues remind us, the report itself is the work product of a forensic evaluation. In other areas of medicine, physicians usually write to document their findings, treatment interventions, and the rationale for what they have done. In contrast, forensic practice, in the purest sense, typically does not involve treatment. We write to offer opinions for the consideration of fact-finders and decision-makers. We hope that our words will inform, guide, and ultimately persuade them.
Most forensic psychiatrists are probably acutely cognizant of the audience looking over their shoulders as they write. They hope to convince a judge or jury of the soundness of their conclusions, and they choose words carefully and compose reports in a way that will withstand cross-examination. Even the thought about whether reported findings will please or displease those who retained the psychiatrist's services is likely to come to mind. These concerns can inspire greater thoughtfulness and competency in report writing, but they can also lead one into a quagmire of obfuscations, distortions, omissions of relevant data, and other ethically suspect practices. The manner in which experts handle these concerns goes to the heart of their effectiveness and ethics.
The quality of our reports is often the most tangible and visible measure of our professionalism. At a basic level, misspellings, typographical errors, and poor grammar suggest carelessness, if not a lack of respect for the reader. Submitting a report that has these faults could be compared with submitting an amicus brief that has ketchup stains on it. Other shortcomings, such as unnecessary repetitions, an overly dense writing style, or poorly reasoned opinions, also reflect badly on the writer. A deceptively written report, however, may amount to perjury.
Given the centrality of report writing to forensic practice, discussion and debate about the art of composition, not just its structure, take on great importance. There are skills to learn and to teach. There are also pitfalls to avoid.
The term performative writing may cause understandable unease. Performance brings to mind acting, pretense, and even active deception. Egregious examples of dissemblance may be easy to spot and condemn, but even subtle forms of narrative sleight-of-hand may strike some as disturbing, if not unethical. There is a line between persuasive writing and misleading writing that must be identified and not crossed. Griffith and colleagues attempt to illuminate that line and to stay on the righteous side.
Some of their examples, however, involve blatant transgressions that do little to expand their thesis. The psychiatrist who fabricates details in a presentencing report has lied, pure and simple. This is not a matter of texture. Similarly, the case of the defendant who portrays his premeditated aggression as an act of self-defense does little to explore the more nuanced concerns that can arise with the use of labels.
Despite these relatively minor shortcomings, there is much in this article to reflect upon. Can the choice of words, the placement of facts, or "the adroit and exaggerated use of adverbs" (Ref. 1, p 39) become unacceptable distortions of texture? In the hands of an astute writer, these techniques can influence the reader in ways that verge on the subliminal. These subtleties of writing may be viewed as appropriate tools of persuasion, questionable forms of manipulation, or egregious examples of dupery. Nevertheless, the use of such techniques is probably more the rule than the exception, and there is nothing inherently problematic with careful construction of a report. As already noted, this is a talent worth honing and encouraging. When employed in an appropriate manner, these literary skills should enhance effectiveness and professionalism without compromising ethics. As a professional discipline we can discuss and identify acceptable elements of narrative style, as practitioners we can strive to deepen our writing skills, and as mentors we have an obligation to teach both the use and restraints of performative narration.
Although the domain of written content is perhaps more straightforward than that of style, it also needs consideration. The search for narrative cogency may at times warrant the omission of extraneous data that are not essential to the psychiatrist's formulation, and respect for the person should restrain inclusion of embarrassing data that have minimal relevance to the matter at hand. A potentially more problematic concern, however, involves the omission of data that undermine the psychiatrist's formulation. Irrelevant data may serve only to lengthen a report unnecessarily, but data that conflict with the formulation provide full disclosure of the weaknesses, along with strengths, of the formulation. How one goes about presenting that disclosure has implications for persuasiveness, professionalism, and ethics similar to those raised by the texture of writing.
Texture, cogency, and labeling are some of the components through which a writer finds what Griffith and colleagues describe as voice. Training and experience allow the psychiatrist to synthesize an evaluation into a coherent narrative. We are told that "the psychiatrist writes to explain a complex life" (Ref. 1, p 38) and that this "narrative humanizes the examinee without regard for which side of the legal case requested the examination" (Ref. 1, p 38). These statements do raise a question, however, about the purpose of the exercise. All lives are complex, and explanation is not necessarily excuse. In criminal responsibility cases, for example, the outcome should not hinge on the defendant's access to an expert with the time and narrative skill to weave a tale of layered complexity that only distracts the fact-finder from the core issue. Although this does not appear to be the intent behind the exhortation to humanize and explain, these features of report-writing and testimony are also worthy of further discussion.
Along with weaving a compelling story from the available data in the psychiatrist's own voice, the forensic expert is urged also to allow individuals who have been interviewed to speak with their own voices. Perhaps this is the forensic equivalent of clinical empathy. Therapists strive for insightful awareness of the feelings, needs, and sufferings of their clients. In a similar fashion, forensic empathy strives for an awareness of the perspectives and experiences of interviewees. Without such awareness, it is difficult to see how those individuals can be given true voice in the resulting report.
Giving voice, of course, does not imply a naïve acceptance of the accuracy, let alone veracity, of all that we hear. In the absence of forensic empathy and the resultant voice provided to interviewees, however, how can we hope to understand and explain the effect of a mental illness, such as a psychotic disorder, on an individual's behavior or how a competent person's unique background and experiences may lead him to make otherwise unexpected choices?
There are also times when the evaluator must rely on the voices of others. Consider, for example, the case of a defendant who in the midst of substance withdrawal and extreme stress soon after his arrest hears the audible voice of God offering him redemption. To the dismay of his court-appointed attorney, the defendant's belief that he has received divine forgiveness for his criminal behavior is influencing his choices about defense strategy. The attorney requests a competence-to-stand-trial evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the psychiatrist learns that the defendant comes from a religious and cultural background in which such experiences and their religious interpretations are commonplace.
The forensic psychiatrist, who is not an expert in comparative religion, cultural anthropology, or related fields, concludes that the defendant does not have symptoms consistent with a mental illness. In attempting to explain this conclusion, compare the difference between a statement by the psychiatrist that "the defendant's experience is consistent with his religious beliefs and cultural background" versus the statement, "according to the defendant, his minister, and his friends and family members, his experience is consistent with their religious beliefs, cultural background, and own experiences." The former statement is spoken solely in the voice of the psychiatrist and opens the door to a potentially withering cross-examination on the psychiatrist's lack of expertise in religious and cultural studies, while the latter statement relies on the voices of the defendant and multiple other parties to rule out psychosis in a sound clinical fashion.
At one point, Griffith et al. contend that a forensic psychiatrist must use cultural and sociological constructs, as well as psychiatric and psychological constructs, to explain a defendant's criminal behavior. Elsewhere in their paper, they touch on the emotional significance of nonpsychiatric factors, such as race in a custody dispute between an interracial couple, and they comment on ways in which the cultural experiences of the psychiatrist and of the audience may inappropriately distort the construction and the interpretation of the narrative. They are correct, of course, that cultural background can color perceptions, influence emotions, and fuel motivations. In addition, recognizing and avoiding their own culture-bound biases are important tasks for forensic psychiatrists. We enter a thorny thicket, however, when we attempt to use cultural, sociological, and other nonpsychiatric constructs to explain criminal behavior, or to explain other areas of a person's functioning. As I describe in the competency case in the preceding paragraph, there are times when these factors provide a context relevant to understanding a person's psychological or psychiatric condition, but we should tread cautiously lest we go too far astray from our professional roots and expertise.
A 12th-century German proverb says, "whose bread I eat, his song I sing." There is truth and caution here for forensic psychiatry. Our labors as forensic psychiatrists do put food on the table, and the observation that success in forensic psychiatry is often proportionate to the ability to put on a performance is hard to dispute. This acknowledgment is certainly not a shameful one with respect to performance qualities such as clarity and coherence. It also is no shame to embrace qualities such as persuasiveness and the ability to weave a compelling story that grabs and holds the interest of the reader. In fact, we should take pride in developing our skills as effective communicators. The fact that these skills can be put to use in deceptive or dishonest ways does not negate their relevance to ethical forensic practice. Instead, the potential for misuse of such skills only increases the need to discuss, identify, and teach the elements of appropriate performance. We can sing with grace so long as the verses remain true and pure.