Contemporary Evidence Of Joseph'S Polygamy

[canard78]

I agree. I also have to believe that Alan knows this too (his lack of response makes that very obvious).

Alan seems to have a track record of making wild claims with little care for any evidence.

He's recently said that Elder Mattsson is a fraud based on 'documents' he has read. He also says that based on his 'first hand experience' he concludes that Elder Mattsson is justifying sin. He mentions an example of Elder George P. Lee who was initially thought to have been excommunicated for arguing over doctrine and was later found to have been a child molestor.

Alan: CFR unanswered on both threads.

"Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements (will not be tolerated)"

[Alan]

Alan seems to have a track record of making wild claims with little care for any evidence.

He's recently said that Elder Mattsson is a fraud based on 'documents' he has read. He also says that based on his 'first hand experience' he concludes that Elder Mattsson is justifying sin. He mentions an example of Elder George P. Lee who was initially thought to have been excommunicated for arguing over doctrine and was later found to have been a child molestor.

Alan: CFR unanswered on both threads.

"Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements (will not be tolerated)"

I did provide references to my beliefs on this forum (a link to Richard Price's site). It seems that many obviously didn't bother to read them.

As for Bro. Mattsson, I shared on the other thread that I had personally heard him speak and testify very forcefully of the truth of the church. This, apparently, when he didn't really believe. That to me makes him a deceiver/liar. How else am I to understand a man who says he knows something to be true when in fact he doesn't, and strongly suspects the reverse?

It has to be understood that I don't have to play the game this way just because that is the way others want me to play it. I am perfectly at liberty to express an opinion or a belief on this forum without having to reference everything. This is understood I'm sure, because many on here do it repeatedly. It's called having an opinion.

It also has to be borne in mind that I started this thread by asking for "contemporary evidence of Josephs polygamy". The onus is therefore on the respondents to provide this evidence, not on me. I don't remember any respondent providing any references which qualify as contemporary evidence. Just because something is offered as evidence does not make it so.

[Calm]

I did provide references to my beliefs on this forum

The CFRs IIRC were specifically for evidence of the backwriting of Clayton's journal.

Does the link to Price have this evidence?

Clayton's diary, if I understand those who have read it, is a day to day diary, which makes it contemporary evidence that you rejected saying it was back written...which means the burden is now on you to demonstrated it is not what it claims to be.

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

A link that might be useful in this discussion:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries

[Alan]

The CFRs IIRC were specifically for evidence of the backwriting of Clayton's journal.

Does the link to Price have this evidence?

Clayton's diary, if I understand those who have read it, is a day to day diary, which makes it contemporary evidence that you rejected saying it was back written...which means the burden is now on you to demonstrated it is not what it claims to be.

[Alan]

The CFRs IIRC were specifically for evidence of the backwriting of Clayton's journal.

Does the link to Price have this evidence?

Clayton's diary, if I understand those who have read it, is a day to day diary, which makes it contemporary evidence that you rejected saying it was back written...which means the burden is now on you to demonstrated it is not what it claims to be.

[Alan]

My re-writen/back-writen missionary journal reads as a daily record. No one reading it would know it wasn't what it appears to be.

Back writing or re-writing was a common practice of the time (eg History of the Church - reference provided earlier) and it would be odd if Clayton had not done this in my view. Therefore I find there is, for me, a question mark over the contempory provenance of this evidence. Certainly sufficient for me to conclude that it is unwise to condemn Joseph as a liar.

[Questing Beast]

So, to be clear: you are saying that the Clayton Nauvoo period journal was rewritten entirely, by Clayton obviously, many years later, and the actual - at the time, "on the ground" of Nauvoo - journal was then destroyed as superfluous and inimical to the rewritten copy? The Clayton Nauvoo daily journal was changed in the rewrite to make JS the instigator and practitioner of polygamy? It would require a heavy rewrite, and entire rewrite, I'm thinking, in order to cover all editing, such as you did with your missionary journal. What did you do with the original, Alan?...

[Alan]

Threw it away.

[Calm]

Have you looked at the Clayton journals by any chance? Not just here and there, but indepth reading and research?

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I did provide references to my beliefs on this forum (a link to Richard Price's site). It seems that many obviously didn't bother to read them.

As for Bro. Mattsson, I shared on the other thread that I had personally heard him speak and testify very forcefully of the truth of the church. This, apparently, when he didn't really believe. That to me makes him a deceiver/liar. How else am I to understand a man who says he knows something to be true when in fact he doesn't, and strongly suspects the reverse?

It has to be understood that I don't have to play the game this way just because that is the way others want me to play it. I am perfectly at liberty to express an opinion or a belief on this forum without having to reference everything. This is understood I'm sure, because many on here do it repeatedly. It's called having an opinion.

It also has to be borne in mind that I started this thread by asking for "contemporary evidence of Josephs polygamy". The onus is therefore on the respondents to provide this evidence, not on me. I don't remember any respondent providing any references which qualify as contemporary evidence. Just because something is offered as evidence does not make it so.

My CFR was for your phrase "I have done some background reading on this fella" - what background reading have you done?

I also asked you to provide the year of the fireside you attended with Mattsson. Was he still an Area Authority at the time? That also remains unanswered.

[canard78]

My re-writen/back-writen missionary journal reads as a daily record. No one reading it would know it wasn't what it appears to be.

Back writing or re-writing was a common practice of the time (eg History of the Church - reference provided earlier) and it would be odd if Clayton had not done this in my view. Therefore I find there is, for me, a question mark over the contempory provenance of this evidence. Certainly sufficient for me to conclude that it is unwise to condemn Joseph as a liar.

So you don't have any evidence at all that Clayton rewrote his journal? You only know that you once did so he must have too?

You also have no evidence that Elder Mattsson has some unknown personal issue that has lead to his disaffection (which you've stated elsewhere) but because you have personally known people who have become disaffected due to a later revealed issue, you conclude that Mattsson must have too?

You also have no evidence that when Mattsson gave his fireside (as an Area Authority?), he had already concluded the church was not true. You assume, but don't know, his testimony was an attempt to deceive or be a fraud. You also assume that even if he had started to lose some confidence in the truth of the church he was lying and not following apostolic council that "a testimony is found in the bearing of it."

That's a lot of assumptions being made based on very little or even no evidence. Can you at least admit that you actually have no evidence to offer us. Just assumptions? That way way we can stop bothering you for the CFR on all counts.

[ALarson]

So you don't have any evidence at all that Clayton rewrote his journal? You only know that you once did so he must have too?

You also have no evidence that Elder Mattsson has some unknown personal issue that has lead to his disaffection (which you've stated elsewhere) but because you have personally known people who have become disaffected due to a later revealed issue, you conclude that Mattsson must have too?

You also have no evidence that when Mattsson gave his fireside (as an Area Authority?), he had already concluded the church was not true. You assume, but don't know, his testimony was an attempt to deceive or be a fraud. You also assume that even if he had started to lose some confidence in the truth of the church he was lying and not following apostolic council that "a testimony is found in the bearing of it."

That's a lot of assumptions being made based on very little or even no evidence. Can you at least admit that you actually have no evidence to offer us. Just assumptions? That way way we can stop bothering you for the CFR on all counts.

Canard, you summed up Alan's woeful lack of any evidence on all CFRs requested of him. He has nothing other than his own opinions (which he's entitled to, of course). I'm not counting on anything else coming from him.

[Alan]

He has nothing other than his own opinions (which he's entitled to, of course).

Absolutely my friend.

This is a "Mormon Discussion & Dialogue" forum, not specifically a medium for the posting of personal research, thesis and dissertations (though there is nothing to stop someone doing that of course).

If my opinion differs from anyone elses, or everyone elses, that does not mean I have to justify it.

To be honest, I have travelled down this road before. In the past I have spent hours researching subjects and posting them on demand, only to have people dismiss the article, research or reference anyway. So there is little point. Nowadays I state my opinions, if no one likes them that's just tough. I don't have to justify them and I certainly don't dance to other people's tune.

Some seem to think they just have to write "CFR" and I become duty bound to acceed to their request.

I think it irks some that I believe as I do, but that is their problem, and one for which I bear no responsibility.

So, to re-state my position. I do not believe there is sufficient contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. There is evidence that he did and there is also evidence that he did not. There is also evidence that he denied involvement. And there is certainly evidence that some historical records were re-written to make it appear he approved of it when the original indicates the opposite (see previous reference regarding HC).

Therefore, it is my position that the party line is not watertight, and it therefore comes down to our personal insights and opinions. We weigh up the evidence we see and arrive at a position.

The fact that I appear to have arrived at a position which differs from most people seems to get them all hot and bothered. But as I said earler, that is their problem.

I started this thread because, on the other thread, people were continually asking me to produce evidence to prove a negative. I therefore played the same game and initiated this one to give them the opportunity to post the positive evidence that Joseph was a polygamist. None of the evidence posted is new to me, nor has it convinced me that my position needs to be reviewed.

Participants gave it their best shot but it wasn't enough.

C'est la vie.

On this board you do have to document opinions if you are creating arguments. Thread closed.

[canard78]

Absolutely my friend.

This is a "Mormon Discussion & Dialogue" forum, not specifically a medium for the posting of personal research, thesis and dissertations (though there is nothing to stop someone doing that of course).

If my opinion differs from anyone elses, or everyone elses, that does not mean I have to justify it.

To be honest, I have travelled down this road before. In the past I have spent hours researching subjects and posting them on demand, only to have people dismiss the article, research or reference anyway. So there is little point. Nowadays I state my opinions, if no one likes them that's just tough. I don't have to justify them and I certainly don't dance to other people's tune.

Some seem to think they just have to write "CFR" and I become duty bound to acceed to their request.

I think it irks some that I believe as I do, but that is their problem, and one for which I bear no responsibility.

So, to re-state my position. I do not believe there is sufficient contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. There is evidence that he did and there is also evidence that he did not. There is also evidence that he denied involvement. And there is certainly evidence that some historical records were re-written to make it appear he approved of it when the original indicates the opposite (see previous reference regarding HC).

Therefore, it is my position that the party line is not watertight, and it therefore comes down to our personal insights and opinions. We weigh up the evidence we see and arrive at a position.

The fact that I appear to have arrived at a position which differs from most people seems to get them all hot and bothered. But as I said earler, that is their problem.

I started this thread because, on the other thread, people were continually asking me to produce evidence to prove a negative. I therefore played the same game and initiated this one to give them the opportunity to post the positive evidence that Joseph was a polygamist. None of the evidence posted is new to me, nor has it convinced me that my position needs to be reviewed.

Participants gave it their best shot but it wasn't enough.

C'est la vie.

I still have two question that are not a lot of bother:

- What year was Mattsson's fireside? Was he still a member of the quorum of the 70?

- You said: "I have done some background reading on this fella."

I don't need a reference for your opinions (that lead to your conclusions of his hidden issue that will come out) but I am interested in both of the above which are both a simple matter of fact.

[Alan]

I still have two question that are not a lot of bother:

- What year was Mattsson's fireside? Was he still a member of the quorum of the 70?

- You said: "I have done some background reading on this fella."

I don't need a reference for your opinions (that lead to your conclusions of his hidden issue that will come out) but I am interested in both of the above which are both a simple matter of fact.

I refer you to my previous post.

[Tacenda]

Absolutely my friend.

This is a "Mormon Discussion & Dialogue" forum, not specifically a medium for the posting of personal research, thesis and dissertations (though there is nothing to stop someone doing that of course).

If my opinion differs from anyone elses, or everyone elses, that does not mean I have to justify it.

To be honest, I have travelled down this road before. In the past I have spent hours researching subjects and posting them on demand, only to have people dismiss the article, research or reference anyway. So there is little point. Nowadays I state my opinions, if no one likes them that's just tough. I don't have to justify them and I certainly don't dance to other people's tune.

Some seem to think they just have to write "CFR" and I become duty bound to acceed to their request.

I think it irks some that I believe as I do, but that is their problem, and one for which I bear no responsibility.

So, to re-state my position. I do not believe there is sufficient contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. There is evidence that he did and there is also evidence that he did not. There is also evidence that he denied involvement. And there is certainly evidence that some historical records were re-written to make it appear he approved of it when the original indicates the opposite (see previous reference regarding HC).

Therefore, it is my position that the party line is not watertight, and it therefore comes down to our personal insights and opinions. We weigh up the evidence we see and arrive at a position.

The fact that I appear to have arrived at a position which differs from most people seems to get them all hot and bothered. But as I said earler, that is their problem.

I started this thread because, on the other thread, people were continually asking me to produce evidence to prove a negative. I therefore played the same game and initiated this one to give them the opportunity to post the positive evidence that Joseph was a polygamist. None of the evidence posted is new to me, nor has it convinced me that my position needs to be reviewed.

Participants gave it their best shot but it wasn't enough.

C'est la vie.

Maybe to some the idea that JS never instituted polygamy in the first place would bring down the church as one big fraud from BY's get go. And that just wouldn't or couldn't be lived with.