Joseph Smith's Monogamy

[phaedrus ut]

I remember seeing so many people arguing that Joseph Smith fought polygamy on these forums over the years.  If that's what you wish to believe there is plenty of evidence you can use to defend your case.  I had a conversation with one of my in laws., a former Bishop, this past summer and he had no idea that Joseph had multiple wives.  I think the evidence shows that Joseph tried to keep his polygamy hidden and I think the Utah church continued that tradition for him.  

I've always considered the Temple Lot affidavits from his former wives to be the most convincing evidence not only of his polygamy.  Malissa Lott gave a sworn statement in the Temple Lot case and was detailed enough to remember the room number in the Nauvoo Mansion where she and Joseph slept together as husband and wife.  She later gave a the same testimony to Joseph Smith, III, gave a notarized statement to Joseph F. Smith and was interviewed late in life by church historian Andrew Jensen.  All confirming she was his wife "in very deed" and they slept together as both husband and wife at the Nauvoo Mansion and at her fathers house.  

Phaedrus 

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I remember seeing so many people arguing that Joseph Smith fought polygamy on these forums over the years.  If that's what you wish to believe there is plenty of evidence you can use to defend your case.  I had a conversation with one of my in laws., a former Bishop, this past summer and he had no idea that Joseph had multiple wives.  I think the evidence shows that Joseph tried to keep his polygamy hidden and I think the Utah church continued that tradition for him.  

I've always considered the Temple Lot affidavits from his former wives to be the most convincing evidence not only of his polygamy.  Malissa Lott gave a sworn statement in the Temple Lot case and was detailed enough to remember the room number in the Nauvoo Mansion where she and Joseph slept together as husband and wife.  She later gave a the same testimony to Joseph Smith, III, gave a notarized statement to Joseph F. Smith and was interviewed late in life by church historian Andrew Jensen.  All confirming she was his wife "in very deed" and they slept together as both husband and wife at the Nauvoo Mansion and at her fathers house.  

Phaedrus 

Phaedrus, my mother in law doesn't know the extent of my faith crisis since I found out about Joseph's particular way of living polygamy. She's reading the "Saints" book and she's pretty far into it and I've yet to read it. If you've read it, do they give much detail about Joseph living polygamy, or do they put it more as sealings? Because if it's like that, it's no wonder that Alan and Investigator might stick to their guns that these were sealings only. And a reason to withhold my faith crisis confession.

ETA: Phaedrus! I can't post anymore, on Limited, thanks for that link to read on Wheat and Tares!!

Edited January 29, 2019 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I remember seeing so many people arguing that Joseph Smith fought polygamy on these forums over the years.  If that's what you wish to believe there is plenty of evidence you can use to defend your case.  I had a conversation with one of my in laws., a former Bishop, this past summer and he had no idea that Joseph had multiple wives.  I think the evidence shows that Joseph tried to keep his polygamy hidden and I think the Utah church continued that tradition for him.  

I've always considered the Temple Lot affidavits from his former wives to be the most convincing evidence not only of his polygamy.  Malissa Lott gave a sworn statement in the Temple Lot case and was detailed enough to remember the room number in the Nauvoo Mansion where she and Joseph slept together as husband and wife.  She later gave a the same testimony to Joseph Smith, III, gave a notarized statement to Joseph F. Smith and was interviewed late in life by church historian Andrew Jensen.  All confirming she was his wife "in very deed" and they slept together as both husband and wife at the Nauvoo Mansion and at her fathers house.  

Phaedrus 

Yes, I agree.  And that's just one testimony from the women involved (who were faithful members of the church that loved Joseph dearly).

It's amazing to me that so many hold Joseph to a different standard than they do Brigham (or other Prophets).  They are fine accusing Brigham of doing something so extremely dishonest (altering histories and journals.....forcing good members to lies under oath and so on...), but can't see the simplest answer is that Joseph was human too and felt it was necessary to hide the early days of living polygamy in Nauvoo.  

[phaedrus ut]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Phaedrus, my mother in law doesn't know the extent of my faith crisis since I found out about Joseph's particular way of living polygamy. She's reading "The Saints" book and she's pretty far into it and I've yet to read it. If you've read it, do they give much detail about Joseph living polygamy, or do they put it more as sealings? Because if it's like that, it's no wonder that Alan and Investigator might stick to their guns that these were sealings only. And a reason to withhold my faith crisis confession.

From what I understand the new Saints book does cover it more than has been done in the past.  The Wheat and Tares blog has some coverage of the book and polygamy if you are interested.  

Phaedrus  

[Alan]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the reply (and explaining what you believe).

I'm going to issue a CFR that it's a "known fact" that journals were "doctored".  (I am aware that some of the official church history was rewritten regarding certain occurrences or details...but not specifically about polygamy.)

Please name which journals and give the evidence that proves they were definitely altered?   Please provide the sources that make this a "known fact".

You can't be serious about the part I put in bold above.  "Tweeking"?  Dozens would have had to be in on it and lied (some under oath).  Many of the Prophets of the church would have had to be in on it and would have needed to continue to lie about their Prophet Joseph throughout their lives.  Women who dearly loved Joseph would have had to tell lies about being his wife.  It would be an overwhelming undertaking to alter all the diaries and journals (if Brigham could even get his hands on all of them).  There are letters written between members at that time (contemporary letters regarding polygamy and Joseph) and so on.  So yes, it is a huge conspiracy theory you believe in.....not just a mere "tweeking".

Who lied under oath?

I just explained that, considering the conflated order of things in Utah, those women really believed they were married to Joseph. They even claimed their children were his, which DNA analysis has proved false. Were they lying about their children? If they were, they probably lied about Joseph too.

However, if they were sealed to Joseph they could, in their minds at least, legitimately claim the children were Joseph's, even if the biological father was someone else. Think of the story in the NT about the seven brothers who all married the same woman.

Surely you don't need a CFR for the doctoring of Church History to make Joseph say something positive about polygamy when he in fact said the opposite. I thought everyone knew about that!

What contemporary letters? CFR please.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Alan
additional thought

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Alan said:

Who lied under oath?

I recommend you study the Temple Lot Case.  I don't believe anyone lied, but you must if you believe Joseph did not live polygamy.

Edited January 29, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, Alan said:

Surely you don't need a CFR for the doctoring of Church History to make Joseph say something positive about polygamy when he in fact said the opposite. I thought everyone knew about that!

My CFR is regarding your statement that journals were "doctored" and that this is a "known fact".  That CFR still stands unless you withdraw this claim.

42 minutes ago, Alan said:

What contemporary letters? CFR please.

I've given you those sources in the past on here, but you disappear from threads after that  

If you have not read Andrew Ehat's thesis (where he was given access to letters and documents in the church archives), I highly recommend you do so.  There were letters between Vilate and Heber Kimball that contained information regarding polygamy during that time (in Nauvoo).  These letters were written while Joseph was alive and Ehat was able to read them and include quotes from them in his thesis (they discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town, iirc).  I'll give you that source again if you need it (where you can read it online).  I own a copy, but I believe you can still access it online.

William Clayton's Nauvoo diary/journal is also another contemporary source and you can order yourself a copy of that to read as well (I recommend doing so as it's extremely interesting to read through).

Edited January 29, 2019 by ALarson

[Alan]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

My CFR is regarding your statement that journals were "doctored" and that this is a "known fact".  That CFR still stands unless you withdraw this claim.

I've given you those sources in the past on here, but you disappear from threads after that  

If you have not read Andrew Ehat's thesis (where he was given access to letters and documents in the church archives), I highly recommend you do so.  There were letters between Vilate and Heber Kimball that contained information regarding polygamy during that time (in Nauvoo).  These letters were written while Joseph was alive and Ehat was able to read them and include quotes from them in his thesis (they discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town, iirc).  I'll give you that source again if you need it (where you can read it online).  I own a copy, but I believe you can still access it online.

William Clayton's Nauvoo diary/journal is also another contemporary source and you can order yourself a copy of that to read as well (I recommend doing so as it's extremely interesting to read through).

"They discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town".

So, it was a "sealing" and Joseph wasn't even there. Is that it? Seriously? I stand corrected.... totally proves Joseph was involved. 😉

So the tall and the short of it is, you believe Joseph was a liar.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Alan said:

"They discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town".

So, it was a "sealing" and Joseph wasn't even there. Is that it? Seriously? I stand corrected.... totally proves Joseph was involved. 😉

So the tall and the short of it is, you believe Joseph was a liar.

About sacred things in public discourse, yes I 100% believe he hid the truth.

What about Neibaur's May 1844 journal entry about the William and Jane Law situation?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

"They discuss the Brotherton sealing that Hyrum performed while Joseph was out of town".

So, it was a "sealing" and Joseph wasn't even there. Is that it? Seriously? I stand corrected.... totally proves Joseph was involved. 😉

So the tall and the short of it is, you believe Joseph was a liar.

 

Alan, there's more in the letters, but I now have seen you refuse to look them up or read any contemporary resources provided in the past.  I just did a search on your past activity here regarding this topic and I am going to release you from the CFR (regarding you providing sources for your continuous claims that journals and diaries have all been "doctored"....most specifically you keep claiming that William Clayton's was, but then you can give no evidence that this took place when faced with an issued CFR).  it seems to be your MO on here to come on and make those claims as known facts and then you have nothing to back them up.

You will not seriously look at numerous contemporary sources that have been provided (on this thread and former threads).  Nevo gave you an entire list at one time.  I have given you two very credible contemporary sources as well.

You have every right to continue believing what you do.  But maybe it's best if you stop claiming things as known facts and then refusing to honor CFRs to back up those claims.

Do you have references that prove Clayton's diaries were doctored?  Yes or no......it's not that difficult....

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by ALarson

[Alan]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Alan, there's more in the letters, but I now have seen you refuse to look them up or read any contemporary resources provided in the past.  I just did a search on your past activity here regarding this topic and I am going to release you from the CFR (regarding you providing sources for your continuous claims that journals and diaries have all been "doctored"....most specifically you keep claiming that William Clayton's was, but then you can give no evidence that this took place when faced with an issued CFR).  it seems to be your MO on here to come on and make those claims as known facts and then you have nothing to back them up.

You will not seriously look at numerous contemporary sources that have been provided (on this thread and former threads).  Nevo gave you an entire list at one time.  I have given you two very credible contemporary sources as well.

You have every right to continue believing what you do.  But maybe it's best if you stop claiming things as known facts and then refusing to honor CFRs to back up those claims.

Do you have references that prove Clayton's diaries were doctored?  Yes or no......it's not that difficult....

 

My claim about known doctoring was actually referring to the official Church History. So, come on then, why would Bro. Brigham et al have the account doctored in order for it to say the opposite of what Joseph actually said? Why put words into Joseph's mouth that he didn't say? What could have been BY's motive if not to justify something of which Joseph did not approve?

Why did Brigham & Co lie?

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Alan said:

My claim about known doctoring was actually referring to the official Church History. So, come on then, why would Bro. Brigham et al have the account doctored in order for it to say the opposite of what Joseph actually said? Why put words into Joseph's mouth that he didn't say? What could have been BY's motive if not to justify something of which Joseph did not approve?

Why did Brigham & Co lie?

 

You specifically stated "journals" and in searching your past involvement here, you have specifically claimed that Clayton's journals were altered or rewritten or revised.

Here's just one thread (this link is to where Don Bradley is asking you for evidence for your claim and then I join the thread as well as others asking you for the same....you refuse to back up your claim and the thread is eventually closed because of that):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61120-contemporary-evidence-of-josephs-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209273716

I could continue posting more links to more threads where you did the same.  You make claims that you can't support and you also refuse to read any contemporary sources provided for you (or you claim they've all been "doctored" or "revised").   It's not possible to have an honest discussion with you on this topic and I should have remembered that!

This quote written to you from Nevo sums it up:

Quote

 

It's also quite bizarre when you think about it that a self-professed believing Latter-day Saint would imagine that Brigham Young and indeed almost the entire Quorum of the Twelve were egregious adulterers and covenant-breakers who perpetuated a lie for decades afterwards to cover their sins, and yet were still somehow fit to lead the Church after Joseph's death.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61120-contemporary-evidence-of-josephs-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209273585

 

 

I'm moving on now....

Edited January 29, 2019 by ALarson

[Alan]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You specifically stated "journals" and in searching your past involvement here, you have specifically claimed that Clayton's journals were altered or rewritten or revised.

Here's just one thread (this link is to where Don Bradley is asking you for evidence for your claim and then I join the thread as well as others asking you for the same....you refuse to back up your claim and the thread is eventually closed because of that):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61120-contemporary-evidence-of-josephs-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209273716

I could continue posting more links to more threads where you did the same.  You make claims that you can't support and you also refuse to read any contemporary sources provided for you (or you claim they've all been "doctored" or "revised").   It's not possible to have an honest discussion with you on this topic and I should have remembered that!

I'm moving on now....

Move on my friend, clearly you are uncomfortable with the question. In your world both Joseph AND Brigham were liars. Joseph lied about his position regarding polygamy and Brigham lied to cover up the lie.

How many more of our prophets, seers and revelators are economical with the truth?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Move on my friend, clearly you are uncomfortable with the question. In your world both Joseph AND Brigham were liars. Joseph lied about his position regarding polygamy and Brigham lied to cover up the lie.

How many more of our prophets, seers and revelators are economical with the truth?

All of them.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You specifically stated "journals" and in searching your past involvement here, you have specifically claimed that Clayton's journals were altered or rewritten or revised.

Here's just one thread (this link is to where Don Bradley is asking you for evidence for your claim and then I join the thread as well as others asking you for the same....you refuse to back up your claim and the thread is eventually closed because of that):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61120-contemporary-evidence-of-josephs-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209273716

I could continue posting more links to more threads where you did the same.  You make claims that you can't support and you also refuse to read any contemporary sources provided for you (or you claim they've all been "doctored" or "revised").   It's not possible to have an honest discussion with you on this topic and I should have remembered that!

This quote written to you from Nevo sums it up:

 

I'm moving on now....

That 2013 thread provides plenty of contemporary evidences and more have come to light.

At some point the onus has to be on the conspiracy theorists to eliminate the combination of contemporary AND non-contemporary evidences.

And simply stating "that reference doesn't count" seems ineffective.

[Tacenda]

On 1/26/2019 at 11:17 AM, Investigator 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)

  "...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (Joseph Smith)

• Joseph Smith refers people to extract from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage which disavows polygamy, stating that this is "the only rule allowed by the church." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 909 (1842).  See bottom half of left-hand column.

• Joseph Smith repeats again statement from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage to deny all allegations of polygamy being practice. Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 939 (1842)

•  Joseph and Hyrum Smith announce the excommunication of Hiram Brown, a member of the Church, for "preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan." Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423 (1844)

• Hyrum Smith, with full knowledge and consent of his brother Joseph, publishes statement categorically denying any teaching of plural wives or polygamy, and that all such teaching is false doctrine.

  • “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.”  Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844)

• Statement denouncing teaching of plural wives as fiendish. States that the spiritual wife system merely allows a man to be married to another wife for time and eternity if his first wife dies. Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715 (1844)  See bottom half of right column A.

• "...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411) Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844.  

“The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law, Joseph's [Joseph Smith, Jr.] second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the prophet.... On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock County Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with Maria Lawrence ‘in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26.... As polygamy was illegal under U.S. law, Smith had little choice but to repudiate the practice.”

- In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 476-477

[Alan]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

All of them.

So when we get down to it, the main difference between you and I is that you believe that all of our PSR's are liars, whereas I don't.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That 2013 thread provides plenty of contemporary evidences and more have come to light.

At some point the onus has to be on the conspiracy theorists to eliminate the combination of contemporary AND non-contemporary evidences.

And simply stating "that reference doesn't count" seems ineffective.

I agree.  There are a lot of contemporary sources, but when one refuses to study them or continues to claim they've all been "doctored" or "revised" (with no evidence to back that claim up), it's not possible to have an honest, real discussion about this topic with them.  They simply want to believe that Joseph never lived polygamy so strongly, that they won't look at the evidence and records objectively.  

So one has to ask them why they've remained in this church and not joined the Community of Christ church?  What they are accusing Brigham Young and others of doing is a pretty horrible thing, IMO (read Nevo's quote above to Alan....).  They pretty much believe the leaders involved lied, deceived and slandered Joseph Smith....and that Brigham forced good women to lie.

Edited January 30, 2019 by ALarson

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  There are a lot of contemporary sources, but when one refuses to study them or continues to claim they've all been "doctored" or "revised" (with no evidence to back that claim up), it's not possible to have an honest, real discussion about this topic with them.  They simply want to believe that Joseph never lived polygamy so strongly, that they won't look at the evidence and records objectively.  

So one has to ask them why they've remained in this church and not joined the Community of Christ church?  What they are accusing Brigham Young and others of doing is a pretty horrible thing, IMO (read Nevo's quote above to Alan....).  They pretty much believe the leaders involved lied, deceived and slandered Joseph Smith....and that Brigham forced good women to lie.

Whereas you believe that Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God, was a liar, while all of those who succeeded him in church leadership were better than him because they weren't liars. As for your "forced good women to lie" remark, I already explained how that could have happened... you obviously didn't read it. Shame, you might have learned something.

Mind you, you will no doubt be aware that a US judge did indeed find that women who testified in his court that they were married to Joseph Smith were lying.

So Joseph was a liar, the women who lied told the truth, Brigham changed a lot of doctrine and practice in the church... but not this one. Strange world you live in.

[Alan]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:17 PM, Investigator 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)

  "...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (Joseph Smith)

• Joseph Smith refers people to extract from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage which disavows polygamy, stating that this is "the only rule allowed by the church." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 909 (1842).  See bottom half of left-hand column.

• Joseph Smith repeats again statement from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage to deny all allegations of polygamy being practice. Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 939 (1842)

•  Joseph and Hyrum Smith announce the excommunication of Hiram Brown, a member of the Church, for "preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan." Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423 (1844)

• Hyrum Smith, with full knowledge and consent of his brother Joseph, publishes statement categorically denying any teaching of plural wives or polygamy, and that all such teaching is false doctrine.

  • “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.”  Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844)

• Statement denouncing teaching of plural wives as fiendish. States that the spiritual wife system merely allows a man to be married to another wife for time and eternity if his first wife dies. Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715 (1844)  See bottom half of right column A.

• "...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411) Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844.  

It's ok Investigator, those who have ears to hear will listen. The rest.... well let's just say those who are convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Whereas you believe that Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God, was a liar, while all of those who succeeded him in church leadership were better than him because they weren't liars. As for your "forced good women to lie" remark, I already explained how that could have happened... you obviously didn't read it. Shame, you might have learned something.

Mind you, you will no doubt be aware that a US judge did indeed find that women who testified in his court that they were married to Joseph Smith were lying.

So Joseph was a liar, the women who lied told the truth, Brigham changed a lot of doctrine and practice in the church... but not this one. Strange world you live in.

You not wanting Joseph Smith to have lied about polygamy does not magically turn him into a monogamist

CFR regarding the bolded claim.

[Analytics]

On the morning of Sunday May 26, 1844, Joseph Smith told the Saints:

"The last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me."

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-19

In context, Joseph was claiming that he could prove that he was not practicing polygamy; his personal history and the scribes that wrote it gave him an alibi supported by witnesses and contemporaneous records against any possible allegation of polygamy at any time from 1841 through 1844. This indicates that he wasn't just being secret about his polygamy--he was actively having his clerks falsify his history as they wrote it so that the general membership of the church would never know about it.

[Alan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You not wanting Joseph Smith to have lied about polygamy does not magically turn him into a monogamist

CFR regarding the bolded claim.

Oh come on! The Temple Lot case. How can you not know about that, but still think you've got the low-down on Joseph's marital status? That's the problem with so many people on here... they have only ever read one side of the story.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You not wanting Joseph Smith to have lied about polygamy does not magically turn him into a monogamist

CFR regarding the bolded claim.

FYI, Alan does not respond to a CFR (from what I've seen in the past).  He posts things as if they are a fact and then wiggles out of any CFR issued.

But, I am interested to see if he has anything too regarding a US Judge stating that the women who testified in the Temple Lot case "were lying". 

Hopefully, he can back up this statement of his with a source:

Quote

Mind you, you will no doubt be aware that a US judge did indeed find that women who testified in his court that they were married to Joseph Smith were lying.

Alan?

Edited January 30, 2019 by ALarson

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Alan said:

Oh come on! The Temple Lot case. How can you not know about that, but still think you've got the low-down on Joseph's marital status? That's the problem with so many people on here... they have only ever read one side of the story.

If you can't answer the CFR, you need to retract your claim.