Alan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: If you can't answer the CFR, you need to retract your claim. Decision of John F. Philips, Judge in Temple Lot Case. p.42 If you had actually read the link in the OP that this thread is named after, you would have known this. That is why your CFR is so annoying. You are essentially arguing about a document you haven't taken the time to read. But apparently I'm the one in denial. Edited January 30, 2019 by Alan Additional comment Link to comment
Gray Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 33 minutes ago, Alan said: Decision of John F. Philips, Judge in Temple Lot Case. p.42 If you had actually read the link in the OP that this thread is named after, you would have known this. That is why your CFR is so annoying. You are essentially arguing about a document you haven't taken the time to read. But apparently I'm the one in denial. Please quote the actual decision from the primary source. A reference to someone's independent hobby research on their blog (the OP) is not enough. 2 Link to comment
ALarson Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Please quote the actual decision from the primary source. A reference to someone's independent hobby research on their blog (the OP) is not enough. I think he's referring to this statement by the judge: Quote It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding'". 1 Link to comment
Alan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Please quote the actual decision from the primary source. A reference to someone's independent hobby research on their blog (the OP) is not enough. Yes it is. I suggest you read the link on the OP. I mean... why participate in this thread if you haven't? Seems a bit bizarre. Link to comment
Calm Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think he's referring to this statement by the judge: "Nest hiding" being adultery as far as I can tell from a quick google search, the judge does not appear to be claiming the women are lying about having physical relations with Joseph, correct? 4 Link to comment
ALarson Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Calm said: "Nest hiding" being adultery as far as I can tell from a quick google search, the judge does not appear to be claiming the women are lying about having physical relations with Joseph, correct? Correct. So unless Alan has another quote by the judge, this does not meet the CFR. But maybe I missed something and the judge does say more about the women's testimonies. He needs to supply a link and the exact quote where the judge states the women are "lying". Edited January 30, 2019 by ALarson 3 Link to comment
ALarson Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Alan said: Read the whole section. How about the quote you are referring to and a link? I cannot see any other references to the women who testified other than what I quoted above. Does he state they are "lying" in another part of his statement? Edited January 30, 2019 by ALarson 3 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 6 hours ago, Alan said: MARRIAGE. v. 4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, C1, p. 251 (1835). You know Joseph had nothing to do with that section right? Pure Oliver Cowdery if memory serves. Joseph may have allowed it, but it's no revelation. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy Link to comment
Analytics Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You know Joseph had nothing to do with that section right? Pure Oliver Cowdery if memory serves. Joseph may have allowed it, but it's no revelation. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy Joseph Smith excommunicated Hiram Brown for, in Joseph's own words, "preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines." It would seem that Joseph did in fact know what the laws of the Church were. 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: Joseph Smith excommunicated Hiram Brown for, in Joseph's own words, "preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines." It would seem that Joseph did in fact know what the laws of the Church were. Yet he did nothing about Brigham, Heber, Orson, Orson, Parley, his brother William, his personal secretary William Clayton, and others. I take that back. He did something. He put them at the front of the line for temple ordinances, gave them blessings of exaltation, and passed all his priesthood authority on to them. Yeah, he had a real issue with those polygamists in the Church. 2 Link to comment
jbarm Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 I get a chuckle out of assertions that Joseph wasn't a polygamist by the Snufferites (followers of Denver Snuffer). They follow the claims of Joseph Smith III and the Reorganites that Joseph was a committed monogamist (CoC now agrees Joseph was not a monogamist as I understand it now). Denouncing Brigham Young and the following prophets as being apostate is the Snufferites bread and butter. The reason I find this so funny is that the Snufferites are former/current members of the mainstream LDS Church and claim their priesthood authority from the same line. They claim Brigham and the Church were fallen and wrong but still claim Brigham and the Church had the authority to bestow the priesthood and temple ordinances upon them and their ancestors until some magical recent time (the excommunication date of Denver Snuffer, as I understand it). Snufferites tend to favor numerology (citing 100 years or 25 years or whatever from some event to tie to a current event to show the hand of the Lord) and like to cite their descent from the prophet Joseph or Hyrum as part of their credentials. The OP sure sounds like one of Snuffer's acolytes that I know who is a descendant of Hyrum Smith. 3 Link to comment
Gray Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 6 hours ago, Alan said: Yes it is. I suggest you read the link on the OP. I mean... why participate in this thread if you haven't? Seems a bit bizarre. ALarson was kind enough to furnish the actual quote, which allowed me to google it for greater context. In context your claim about what the judge said was false. https://books.google.com/books?id=z5oKAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA954&lpg=RA1-PA954&dq="It+perhaps+would+be+uncharitable+to+say+of+these+women+that+they+have+borne+false+testimony+as+to+their+connection+with+Joseph+Smith"&source=bl&ots=ZWd-DWGUAj&sig=ACfU3U0FE4pQtqzog3ra_fvO-U4yn8GXpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwjoyPjpfgAhVtpoMKHbWBDq4Q6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith"&f=false 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts