Kingston Group Mbrs Plead Guilty to Massive Fraud Case

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's more open. Have you read Hale's "Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Reputation"?

Yes.  I think I've read almost everything (if not everything) written by Hales regarding polygamy.  I'm not a fan of his, to be honest.  I believe he gets a lot right, but I also believe he makes a lot of assumptions and I disagree with some of them (such as his writings on "eternity only" sealings with no evidence that any of Joseph's marriages were these).  I think he's a good historian and has done some great work....but his writings are of course apologetic and I understand why he concludes some of what he does.  

I am for sure not convinced that Joseph needed to be coerced into being in the barn with Fanny 😛

Once again, each of has to come to our own conclusions here.  I respect other's opinions and know we will not all agree.

Edited July 31, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

He also convinced the Kimball family that if they allowed him to marry their daughter, their salvation would be assured.  

It was the father’s idea for his daughter to marry Joseph in this case, iirc, not the reverse. 

[Calm]

In regards to God commanding Joseph to marry other men’s wives....these marriages occurred at the beginning of his more consistent practice (no more major gaps of time). I am guessing God didn’t give him a lot of detailed instruction on how to proceed and Joseph probably didn’t ask until things weren’t working out like he hoped. 

I see sealings to married women as a possible attempt to continue the practice after the disaster of the Alger marriage while avoiding the biggest problem of being sexual with someone besides Emma. There is no solid evidence iirc these marriages involved physical relations as there is for the others (where women or family members describe the couple as spending the night together). Joseph and the families he was sealed with could have looked on it more like the Law of Adoption sealings that occurred later with men, meaning they were attempts to create extended families rather than a new family as would occur when he married a single woman. 

Otoh, polyandry may have been a step towards a more balanced form of polygamy and therefore included the option for women of having physical relations with more than one husband. It would have avoided much of the problem of younger and younger brides due to scarcity of older single women (as long as the men weren’t obsessed with individual ‘possession’ of children) and might very well have placed women in a stronger power position in regards to their husbands. Just as the men could favor a wife who was more accommodating to their choices, a woman could favor a husband who adapted more to her choices over others who tried to dominate her, this leading other husbands to become more adaptable to avoid alienation.  (BY’s easy divorce for wives, hard for husbands appears to have attempted to correct power imbalance to some extent.)

However, since in general the men and likely women wouldn’t tolerate polyandry, Joseph ended up switching to sealings with daughters of his friends (instead of wives) or independent women.  Or perhaps God gave him some further instruction that sealings were intended to be full marriages and  Joseph figured that wouldn’t work with married women, so switched to sealings only with single women. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

Let's talk about O-rings.

I like my onion rings dipped in my homemade avacado and jalapeno ranch.

[Damien the Leper]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems way too reductionist.  

I don't think we can attribute such a thing to Joseph Smith given his reluctance to practice it.  Brian Hales addresses this at some length here.  Some excerpts:

The overall narrative seems to have been that Joseph Smith was very reluctant about polygamy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Richard and Pamela Price would argue that JS fought polygamy.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I like my onion rings dipped in my homemade avacado and jalapeno ranch.

The Kingstons were the o-ring supplier for the shuttle that went kerplowie. Big scandal at the time.

[longview]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

The Kingstons were the o-ring supplier for the shuttle that went kerplowie. Big scandal at the time.

Seems the government bureaucrats were the ones that mandated the replacement of asbestos content of the o-rings to something more politically correct.  As a result the hot gasses vented outward between the booster rocket segments, causing the flames to ignite the big liquid fuel container.  The asbestos o-ring did perform properly in previous shuttle launches.

So the Kingstons were merely intermediaries between the manufacturers and NASA?

[USU78]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Seems the government bureaucrats were the ones that mandated the replacement of asbestos content of the o-rings to something more politically correct.  As a result the hot gasses vented outward between the booster rocket segments, causing the flames to ignite the big liquid fuel container.  The asbestos o-ring did perform properly in previous shuttle launches.

So the Kingstons were merely intermediaries between the manufacturers and NASA?

They made em with child labor, the story went. Ebeling, my old neighbor, took the fall, but he was the guy who warned against the whole thing. Really awful stuff.

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

They made em with child labor, the story went. Ebeling, my old neighbor, took the fall, but he was the guy who warned against the whole thing. Really awful stuff.

I know you're an attorney, and probably know a whole lot more than I, so I need to ask. Why did it take two young people to take down the Kingston group? They first went to the Utah attorney general who looked the other way, and then this young couple did the only thing they could do and took it to the FBI, which proved to be much better! 

IMO, Utah shies away from anything to do with these polygamist groups. Just today I heard a case in the AUB polygamist group where a woman has opened up about her abuse, a mother of 15 children. Her husband severely abused her and denied it, even though she had her sister take photos. The judge in the case mentioned at the very beginning that they didn't want the word "polygamy" uttered even once. This makes me want to scream!https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/escaped-sister-wife-fights-for-bill-to-provide-assistance-to-victims/ 

 

 

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know, but there just may be more to "spiritual" wifery than lust.  I always get a kick out of Mark Twain's take on it:

 

Oh, good 'ol Samuel Clements - he manages to demean the saints even when he appears to be sympathetic...

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know you're an attorney, and probably know a whole lot more than I, so I need to ask. Why did it take two young people to take down the Kingston group? They first went to the Utah attorney general who looked the other way, and then this young couple did the only thing they could do and took it to the FBI, which proved to be much better! 

IMO, Utah shies away from anything to do with these polygamist groups. Just today I heard a case in the AUB polygamist group where a woman has opened up about her abuse, a mother of 15 children. Her husband severely abused her and denied it, even though she had her sister take photos. The judge in the case mentioned at the very beginning that they didn't want the word "polygamy" uttered even once. This makes me want to scream!https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/escaped-sister-wife-fights-for-bill-to-provide-assistance-to-victims/ 

 

 

Check out the history of the Short Creek joint raid by Utah and Arizona law enforcement. They jailed the men, "freed" the women and children, and a year later the men were out of jail, back with their families, and everyone was a confirmed paranoiac.

The problems of today can be traced back to that poorly thought out aggression, occasioned by dogooders kept up nights by the thought of all that polygamy going on.

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't.  Joseph was strongly reprimanded by God for far less serious failings than adultery.  To characterize polygamy as a pretext for adultery assumes the worst of Joseph.  And it means that he fabricated D&C 132 and falsely presented it as a revelation from God.

Just out of curiosity Smac - what is your take on D&C 132? I admit to not studying it in detail, but it is my perception that Joseph Smith did not teach it, and did not present it to the Church. I do believe that Joseph Smith taught that eternal marriage was essential to exaltation, but that is different from presenting D&C 132 to the Church. It seems we hear nothing about D&C 132 until Brigham Young presents it to the Church in SLC. I do not read D&C 132 as supporting the narrative of the essential nature of polygamy. If Joseph Smith was commanded to enter plural marriage, why didn't he present this central revelation of 132 to the Church? That seems to me to be a major stumbling block to the assertion.

It seems to me that JS did believe he was commanded to teach the principles of polygamy, but that even in this he failed. He publicly denied having more than one wife, and kept polygamy secret rather than teach it publicly. How does one square that with a belief that polygamy is essential to exaltation?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Just out of curiosity Smac - what is your take on D&C 132? I admit to not studying it in detail, but it is my perception that Joseph Smith did not teach it, and did not present it to the Church.

It was canonized in 1876.  

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I do believe that Joseph Smith taught that eternal marriage was essential to exaltation, but that is different from presenting D&C 132 to the Church.

A fair point.  It was made public after his death, in 1852.

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems we hear nothing about D&C 132 until Brigham Young presents it to the Church in SLC. I do not read D&C 132 as supporting the narrative of the essential nature of polygamy.

Nor do I.  I think obedience to God is the essential bit.

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If Joseph Smith was commanded to enter plural marriage, why didn't he present this central revelation of 132 to the Church? That seems to me to be a major stumbling block to the assertion.

I don't understand your question here.

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems to me that JS did believe he was commanded to teach the principles of polygamy, but that even in this he failed. He publicly denied having more than one wife, and kept polygamy secret rather than teach it publicly. How does one square that with a belief that polygamy is essential to exaltation?

I don't feel the need to reconcile these.  I am not persuaded the polygamy per se is "essential to exaltation."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Check out the history of the Short Creek joint raid by Utah and Arizona law enforcement. They jailed the men, "freed" the women and children, and a year later the men were out of jail, back with their families, and everyone was a confirmed paranoiac.

The problems of today can be traced back to that poorly thought out aggression, occasioned by dogooders kept up nights by the thought of all that polygamy going on.

I recall back in the old days in San Francisco the SFPD would raid gay parties and make arrests only because the politicians wanted to keep gay people behind closed doors.  Can you imagine Short Creek style raids on same-sex couples?  Talk about hypocrisy.

Why would the LDS politicians persecute the polygamists, when they themselves had complained so bitterly at being persecuted by the Feds only a half-century earlier?

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I recall back in the old days in San Francisco the SFPD would raid gay parties and make arrests only because the politicians wanted to keep gay people behind closed doors.  Can you imagine Short Creek style raids on same-sex couples?  Talk about hypocrisy.

Why would the LDS politicians persecute the polygamists, when they themselves had complained so bitterly at being persecuted by the Feds only a half-century earlier?

Easy answer:  Utah's constitution was required to have a provision abolishing polygamy "forever."  The polygamists ceased contracting new marriages about the turn of the century (with a few late stragglers), and the new generation (my grandparents'), who grew up children of polygamists, were determined to be good Americans, even joining up in WWI in impressive numbers.  This included having no truck with the unauthorized polygamists who migrated down to Short Creek, hopping into Utah when Arizona cops came, and into Arizona when the Utah cops came.

An excellent read:  https://www.amazon.com/Kidnapped-That-Land-Polygamists-PUBLICATIONS/dp/0874804159

Edited August 1, 2019 by USU78

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

RT: It seems to me that JS did believe he was commanded to teach the principles of polygamy, but that even in this he failed. He publicly denied having more than one wife, and kept polygamy secret rather than teach it publicly. How does one square that with a belief that polygamy is essential to exaltation?

A:  I don't feel the need to reconcile these.  I am not persuaded the polygamy per se is "essential to exaltation."

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough. I was probably reading a little too much into your comments.

Quote

RT: If Joseph Smith was commanded to enter plural marriage, why didn't he present this central revelation of 132 to the Church? That seems to me to be a major stumbling block to the assertion.

A: I don't understand your question here.

Again, thank you for attempting to oblige me. 

You said: "We are mostly operating in a vacuum of data here.  Joseph Smith may have received clear and marvelous instruction to implement polygamy, such as was sufficient to overcome the aversion that so many of his contemporaries felt when they were first introduced to the concept.  He then married Fanny Alger, and did so using deception.  It was a spectacular failure on his part, by virtually every metric (except, perhaps, that he actually did obey the commandent).  He thereafter became very reluctant to continue the implementation of the practice, perhaps to such an extent that it imperiled his continued calling as a prophet.  Hence we get . . . an angel and a sword, since Joseph was apparently too reluctant to submit to other divine efforts to extract his obedience."

It seems to me you believe JS was commanded to enter into polygamy. If so, why would he not present D&C 132 to the Church? Indeed, it is even a stumbling block for my belief that JS was merely commanded to teach polygamy. In this he failed too. He received a revelation concerning it which he didn't present to the body of the Church. But I view this failing as less severe in that I believe polygamy is absolutely not essential to exaltation, and that perhaps JS felt the proper time to present the revelation was when the temple was completed, and sealings in mass could be performed. But if JS was commanded to enter polygamy even before a temple was completed, his teachings do not seem to comport with this commandment nor the revelation we know as 132. It just presents an inconsistency for me which I cannot reconcile. I understand your position from an attempt to reconcile it, but also acknowledging a vacuum of reliable data, so maybe you have nothing further to add..

I guess I am just pushing to collect more data on why people believe the narrative that JS was commanded to enter polygamy. I do realize there is certainly a plethora of quotes in Church history to that effect.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Easy answer:  Utah's constitution was required to have a provision abolishing polygamy "forever."  The polygamists ceased contracting new marriages about the turn of the century (with a few late stragglers), and the new generation (my grandparents'), who grew up children of polygamists, were determined to be good Americans, even joining up in WWI in impressive numbers.  This included having no truck with the unauthorized polygamists who migrated down to Short Creek, hopping into Utah when Arizona cops came, and into Arizona when the Utah cops came.

An excellent read:  https://www.amazon.com/Kidnapped-That-Land-Polygamists-PUBLICATIONS/dp/0874804159

I am not speaking of circumstances post-abolition, but specifically of the time when LDS members and leaders had not given up polygyny and were militant practitioners of it.  The persecution was pervasive and real, the decision in Reynolds a travesty.  There can be no excuse for that duplicity.   Moreover, just like same-sex marriage, polygyny should always have been legal under the U.S. Constitution.  There is no room for equivocation.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

........................

I guess I am just pushing to collect more data on why people believe the narrative that JS was commanded to enter polygamy. I do realize there is certainly a plethora of quotes in Church history to that effect.

That debate is moot.  Fact is that the Mormons practiced polygyny (and some other forms of sealing) on a grand scale, and are still known for it.  I find nothing odd about all that, even though I personally would not follow instructions to marry plural wives.  Culture is the huge stumbling block here, and people need to be far more pluralistic in their thinking.  At base we are such a small-minded, politically correct culture that it can be stultifying and empty.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not speaking of circumstances post-abolition, but specifically of the time when LDS members and leaders had not given up polygyny and were militant practitioners of it.  The persecution was pervasive and real, the decision in Reynolds a travesty.  There can be no excuse for that duplicity.   Moreover, just like same-sex marriage, polygyny should always have been legal under the U.S. Constitution.  There is no room for equivocation.

Cannonades, in being or threatened, can motivate a whole lot of equivocation.  Can't practice polygamy if you're dead.

[Damien the Leper]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

The Kingstons were the o-ring supplier for the shuttle that went kerplowie. Big scandal at the time.

Are you talking about Challenger? I have never heard of this. Do you have a source where I can read up on it? I'm not doubting you even a little. I just want to be informed. 

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Are you talking about Challenger? I have never heard of this. Do you have a source where I can read up on it? I'm not doubting you even a little. I just want to be informed. 

I've heard this is a myth, albeit a common one. I've seen it attributed to different polygamist groups. In the hearings it was Morton-Thiokol that manufactured the o-ring. There was a lot of Utah connections since Morton Thiokol's division doing the work was based here. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer based here, warned about the o ring six months before the disaster in a memo to managers at Morton Thiokol. While their headquarters are in Ogden, I believe they don't have much connection to any of the groups. Many of the key figures are Mormon. Doing a google search I can find the claims, but no evidence for the claims. The wiki page lists quite a few of their corporations but nothing related to NASA. 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Just out of curiosity Smac - what is your take on D&C 132? I admit to not studying it in detail, but it is my perception that Joseph Smith did not teach it, and did not present it to the Church.

You might want to check out W V Smith's book on D&C 132 by Kofford.

The revelation clearly wasn't intended for public distribution but primarily for Emma. However the text appears to be the fusion of several other revelations and perhaps ideas. It was because of Hyrum Smith's persusion that the text was produced and distributed. We have William Clayton in his diary recording that he wrote the pages of the revelation on July 12, 1843.

It's interesting, given our discussions in the other thread, that Hyrum tells Joseph to use the Urim and Thummim to get the text, but Joseph says he didn't need it "for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end."

After Hyrum read it to Emma and Emma called it lies, Joseph (who had told Hyrum that would happen) read it to several of the authorities that same day. Newel Whitney made a copy. Emma destroyed the original a few days later according to Clayton's later 1874 account. However copies apparently were distributed to most of the inner circle. Both Hyrum and Brigham Young had copies. Two other copies by Whitney's son currently exist. Hyrum apparently showed copies to many people and we have some of them mentioning this, including William Law. While it might not have been taught openly, the text appears to have been an open secret with many seeing it and discussing it. Both those opposed (e.g. Emma Smith, William Law) and those supportive.

So it wasn't open, since polygamy was secret until Utah. But it was pretty well known in Nauvoo.

I think one big question is when Joseph knew the text since I think it pretty clear elements of the text regarding getting Emma's permission he didn't follow. I think the usual interpretation is that he had to choose between God and Emma and chose Emma instead of divorcing her and practicing it more openly. (Not necessarily publicly, but without the subterfuge) 

Edited August 1, 2019 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Are you talking about Challenger? I have never heard of this. Do you have a source where I can read up on it? I'm not doubting you even a little. I just want to be informed. 

I looked around and could only find stuff on Ebeling.  I remember seeing the Kingston o-ring story on local broadcast news.  This has been quite a few years.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That debate is moot.  Fact is that the Mormons practiced polygyny (and some other forms of sealing) on a grand scale, and are still known for it.  I find nothing odd about all that, even though I personally would not follow instructions to marry plural wives.  Culture is the huge stumbling block here, and people need to be far more pluralistic in their thinking.  At base we are such a small-minded, politically correct culture that it can be stultifying and empty.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the Church history to the extent that JS practiced polygamy. I believe it is not a sin to the extent that 132 is followed, but I find a commandment to enter it inconsistent with 132, so I am always interested in how others reconcile that. However, I personally do not care for the narrative that polygamy is necessary for exaltation, and if I got my way, I would snuff it out of the Church, but i do believe it is a valid part of Church history - I am not proposing to censor Church history. I just feel this narrative has done a lot of damage in the Church. If you are calling me small-minded to this extent, I would certainly vehemently oppose your assertion, but I think that is a debate for another thread, and I don't really care to engage in it. 

If you are calling Church members a small-minded culture, I would tend to agree, but I believe it is born out of a teaching to be obedient to Church leaders. Getting the right balance there is essentially a private matter. Personally, I follow Church leaders unless I see good reason not to, and then pray for guidance. I think it also depends where one is. That was not my experience as a child in Florida, but then those were very different circumstances. There is a definite Church culture in Utah which I do find stultifying to some extent. I have always felt the outsider in Utah, but I do realize there are reasons for that. 

[Stargazer]

On 7/31/2019 at 6:13 PM, ALarson said:

I believe Joseph was a good man.  I also believe that polygamy was not forced upon him by an angel with a drawn sword threatening his life if he didn't practice it (especially since he already was apparently living polygamy and had taken a second wife prior to that time).  I know you can argue that it wasn't "force", but that's how he presented it to the women he was trying to convince (and others)....like he feared for his life if they wouldn't agree to marry him.

I've seen no convincing evidence that Joseph was reluctant to marry most of the women he married (possibly all of them).  I do see quite a few lies and a lot of deceit involved in what took place though.....so it is difficult for me to honestly determine what was the truth and what were lies during that Nauvoo period.  So much was done in absolute secrecy as well.  For me, it's a pretty ugly period of church history and also evidence to me that our leaders are also men and are definitely not infallible.

You don't believe that plural marriage was not forced upon him by an angel with a drawn sword. 

OK, do you believe that the Father and the Son appeared to him in the Sacred Grove? That the angel Moroni appeared to him several times?  That he and the Three Witnesses saw an angel and heard the voice of God testifying of the truth of the Book of Mormon?  That he and Sidney Rigdon had a vision in which they saw and heard Jesus Christ (DC 76). 

Is there any convincing evidence that any of those thing occurred?  I'm sure there is none.  Doesn't mean that they didn't happen.  

Polygyny was never ever condemned in any verse in the Old Testament.  It was never ever condemned in any verse of the New.  Plenty of things were forbidden in both books, but curiously, not that.  On that basis alone, it would have been very peculiar that it would have been condemned in the last dispensation, when everything was supposed to be restored.  I've tried to find anything authoritative that suggests that God doesn't like polygyny, in principle.  My dislike of it notwithstanding, I can only conclude that it is not against God's law, except when He says not to practice it.  You disagree, of course, and there we are.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Polygyny was never ever condemned in any verse in the Old Testament.  It was never ever condemned in any verse of the New.  Plenty of things were forbidden in both books, but curiously, not that.  On that basis alone, it would have been very peculiar that it would have been condemned in the last dispensation, when everything was supposed to be restored.

I haven't stated that I believe polygamy was or is condemned, have I?  I don't believe that God has condemned it or would as long as it's practiced among consenting adults without any lies or deceit or abuse involved.  I also don't believe that God would command or try to force a person to live polygamy though either.

 

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I've tried to find anything authoritative that suggests that God doesn't like polygon, in principle.

Ok.  I agree that there's no record of God stating that he does not "like" polygamy.  However, lies and deceit and betrayal are another matter, IMO.  

Or do you believe Joseph didn't lie to or deceive or betray Emma (and others)?

Those are what I believe are not from God.

Edited August 1, 2019 by ALarson