Kingston Group Mbrs Plead Guilty to Massive Fraud Case

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

OK, you don't believe God condemned it.  Fine.  Then He must have permitted it then, or else DC 132 was a complete lie.  

Moving on, you don't believe God forced Joseph to live it.  But Joseph said that God did force him to live it.  Was he lying?  Let's say for the sake of argument that he was lying and it was completely optional.  If he wasn't forced, why did he do it?  Why, for that matter, did anyone else do it?  We know that Brigham Young wasn't particularly pleased to do so -- he recorded that after hearing the revelation he kinda wished he were dead.  It was not enthusiastically embraced by Heber C. Kimball, either, was it?  So why did they all practice it, if they didn't have to?  Here's the thing that makes me believe that Joseph was telling the truth when he said an angel threatened him with a sword when he was dilatory about practicing plural marriage: virtually nobody in the highest levels of Church leadership wanted to, yet they all did, in the end.  If it were optional for Church leaders, why did none of them take the option of not living it?

Perhaps you know something about this that I don't know.  If you do please enlighten me.

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

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.

So, why didn't God rebuke Joseph and others over it?  The Lord had plenty of opportunity! Joseph got rebuked a number of times on other less fraught matters, and he was apparently not too shy to admit it.  But the "shenanigans" around keeping the practice of plural marriage under wraps were not condemned by God.  That I am aware of, at least.

Do you think that it should have been practiced openly from the moment that it started being practiced?  Perhaps it should have been.  I don't know the Lord's feelings on this, however, and neither do you.  I do know that sometimes the Lord has told his servants to delay revealing certain doctrines.  Happened in the New Testament. Happened in the present dispensation.

On the record, apparently DC 132 was read to Emma.  The revelation enjoined her to permit Joseph to obey the Lord in this matter.  The revelation was pretty clear about her needing to permit it to be lived by him.  But she, at the risk of being "destroyed," was most explicitly not a happy camper over it, and made it difficult for Joseph to practice it.  My reading of the situation is that he attempted to preserve some marital amity by not throwing it into her face -- and necessarily this would have involved deceit.  Should he have just told her to go jump in the lake and paraded his plural wives in front of her?  Perhaps he should have.  But neither you nor I are his judges in this matter.

You can go on feeling that plural marriage was not handled properly. For that matter, I am certain that it was lived unrighteously by some.  But just because it was lived imperfectly, or in a way that does not suit your (or my) sensibilities does not mean it was not commanded by God.  For what it is worth, my testimony is that it was commanded to be practiced by the Saints until God rescinded the command.  During that time it was surely unrighteously practiced by some.  But that doesn't mean that it was wrong, or that it wasn't a commandment to those who were told to practice it.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

You prove my  point on "small-minded" by wrongly confining what i said to LDS Church members or Utah Church culture, and even taking it personally.  That is exactly the problem.  We need to think big, on a grand scale, the way anthropologists and sociologists do, about small-minded American culture and political correctness.  That's what led most Americans to support the persecution of polygamous Mormons in the 19th century, of gays in modern America, and of polygamous cults in the Mormon corridor in modern America.  Yesterday's victims turn into the very monsters who pummeled their grandparents.  We all need to be less judgmental and narrow-minded.  We need to stop limiting our purview to just Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

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

I am analyzing what happened alongside what should have happened (in a perfect world), which we can now clearly see with 20/20 hindsight.  We cannot rewrite history, just as we cannot right all wrongs.  But it is obvious from our current vantage point that negro slavery was fundamentally wrong, and should never have been allowed in the 19th century -- just as it was not in England and Canada.  Why did they get it right while we got it wrong?

On the other hand, I can easily understand the heavy presence of slavery in ancient Athens or Rome.  I cannot fault those civilizations.  They simply had not come as far as our 19th century forebears.  We could not expect them to see the light.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, you don't believe God condemned it.  Fine.  Then He must have permitted it then, or else DC 132 was a complete lie.  

I believe that God allowed polygamy to be lived at times, but didn't command it or condemn it.  

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Moving on, you don't believe God forced Joseph to live it.  But Joseph said that God did force him to live it.  Was he lying? 

I don't know about the angel story (and have already posted my thoughts on that).  I do not believe that God forced Joseph to live polygamy.  But Joseph may have believed that he had to live it in order to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Joseph did tell lies in order for him to live polygamy, so it's sometimes difficult to tell what the actual truth is regarding that period of church history (in Nauvoo).  There was also a great deal of secrecy involved.

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So, why didn't God rebuke Joseph and others over it? 

Well, there's no record of this taking place.  Of course, that does not mean that God was pleased with some of what took place regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.  

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You can go on feeling that plural marriage was not handled properly. For that matter, I am certain that it was lived unrighteously by some.  But just because it was lived imperfectly, or in a way that does not suit your (or my) sensibilities does not mean it was not commanded by God.

I agree.  And it also does not mean that God did command him to live polygamy or polyandry. 

I completely respect that you believe it was commanded.....I don't expect all to agree with me here and can only express what I believe.

Edited August 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

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) 

To the bold, women's intuition!

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe that God allowed polygamy to be lived at times, but didn't command it or condemn it.  

I don't know about the angel story (and have already posted my thoughts on that).  I do not believe that God forced Joseph to live polygamy.  But Joseph may have believed that he had to live it in order to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Joseph did tell lies in order for him to live polygamy, so it's sometimes difficult to tell what the actual truth is regarding that period of church history (in Nauvoo).  There was also a great deal of secrecy involved.

Well, there's no record of this taking place.  Of course, that does not mean that God was pleased with some of what took place regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.  

I agree.  And it also does not mean that God did command him to live polygamy or polyandry. 

I completely respect that you believe it was commanded.....I don't expect all to agree with me here and can only express what I believe.

Ditto.  👍

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold, women's intuition!

Of course, women's intuition is never wrong!

Except when it is. It is, sometimes. I've been married to women for the majority of my life, and there've been those times.

😄 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours 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/ 

 

 

Her 15 kids and sister wife denied it too.  Her father is the state senator that got polygamy upgraded as a felony last year.  Sounds like a highly questionable narrative.  Family drama played for sympathies and self benefit on all sides seems more likely.

She'd hardly be the first ex-fundamentalist to fabricate her story.  There's a whole show dedicated to doing it.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am analyzing what happened alongside what should have happened (in a perfect world), which we can now clearly see with 20/20 hindsight.  We cannot rewrite history, just as we cannot right all wrongs.  But it is obvious from our current vantage point that negro slavery was fundamentally wrong, and should never have been allowed in the 19th century -- just as it was not in England and Canada.  Why did they get it right while we got it wrong?

On the other hand, I can easily understand the heavy presence of slavery in ancient Athens or Rome.  I cannot fault those civilizations.  They simply had not come as far as our 19th century forebears.  We could not expect them to see the light.

Just curious, but Western civilization was never unique in practicing slavery. As far as I understand, it has been practiced on every continent for thousands of years and is still practiced on most of them today. Is slavery wrong everywhere or just for white people? Does it surprise you that Africa remains the continent with the highest incidence of slavery today? How often do we hear about this today? Why is slavery ONLY discussed in terms of the white man? Strange.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Her 15 kids and sister wife denied it too.  Her father is the state senator that got polygamy upgraded as a felony last year.  Sounds like a highly questionable narrative.  Family drama played for sympathies and self benefit on all sides seems more likely.

She'd hardly be the first ex-fundamentalist to fabricate her story.  There's a whole show dedicated to doing it.

Not all of the kids that I know of. Here's an interview with her, she explains what happened. She mentions Kody Brown was a character witness for her husband at one time, now I cannot stand the guy where I kept giving him kudos for keeping it all together. But sounds like it's a boy's club and like what is mentioned in the interview, women are like chattel to their husbands.https://www.whatloveisthis.tv/episodes/2019/ep1215.htm ETA: An article I read said only 5 kids sided with Mitchell "Kyle" Henderson.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Just curious, but Western civilization was never unique in practicing slavery. As far as I understand, it has been practiced on every continent for thousands of years and is still practiced on most of them today. Is slavery wrong everywhere or just for white people? Does it surprise you that Africa remains the continent with the highest incidence of slavery today? How often do we hear about this today? Why is slavery ONLY discussed in terms of the white man? Strange.

I don't see slavery as a race issue, and don't understand why you do, and most slaves in history and today have not been Black.  It is merely another demonstration of our utter hypocrisy that we have more slaves worldwide today than at any time in history.  Most people are in denial about it.  The major difference is that today people know that slavery is wrong and don't care.  They know that human trafficking is wrong, but won't lift a finger to stop it (or interfere with it).

Police generally find it too labor intensive to deal with real crime, and prefer to write easy traffic citations.  After all their elite bosses prefer that approach.  So why rock the boat?  If you really care, and, if you think that law enforcement should have a human face, you will lose your job or be passed over for promotion.  The sycophants quickly learn to go along to get along.  The code of silence is real.

Ask Nurse Webbles why it was so important for a detective and a lieutenant to illegally arrest her.  Why are we pillorying law-abiding, good citizens?  The real criminals are laughing up their sleeves.

[Tacenda]

23 hours 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/ 

 

 

Quoting myself because I need to correct my quote about the part where I said the judge didn't allow the word 'polygamy' in the case. This was actually another woman's case, not Nicole Henderson, but still happened.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see slavery as a race issue, and don't understand why you do, and most slaves in history and today have not been Black.  It is merely another demonstration of our utter hypocrisy that we have more slaves worldwide today than at any time in history.  Most people are in denial about it.  The major difference is that today people know that slavery is wrong and don't care.  They know that human trafficking is wrong, but won't lift a finger to stop it (or interfere with it).

Police generally find it too labor intensive to deal with real crime, and prefer to write easy traffic citations.  After all their elite bosses prefer that approach.  So why rock the boat?  If you really care, and, if you think that law enforcement should have a human face, you will lose your job or be passed over for promotion.  The sycophants quickly learn to go along to get along.  The code of silence is real.

Ask Nurse Webbles why it was so important for a detective and a lieutenant to illegally arrest her.  Why are we pillorying law-abiding, good citizens?  The real criminals are laughing up their sleeves.

Revenue generation. See fine schedule. More at Mantua speed trap.

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not all of the kids that I know of. Here's an interview with her, she explains what happened. She mentions Kody Brown was a character witness for her husband at one time, now I cannot stand the guy where I kept giving him kudos for keeping it all together. But sounds like it's a boy's club and like what is mentioned in the interview, women are like chattel to their husbands.https://www.whatloveisthis.tv/episodes/2019/ep1215.htm ETA: An article I read said only 5 kids sided with Mitchell "Kyle" Henderson.

😁 Anything on Doris' show requires being taken with a mountain of salt.  Not a shred of objectivity or rationality on there.  

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

😁 Anything on Doris' show requires being taken with a mountain of salt.  Not a shred of objectivity or rationality on there.  

Thanks for not watching the statements from Nicole herself and then passing judgement. I think Doris is a wonderful person myself. She was part of the Kingston group and ran away. So she helps those that are still stuck in these groups that are evil. 

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see slavery as a race issue, and don't understand why you do, and most slaves in history and today have not been Black.  It is merely another demonstration of our utter hypocrisy that we have more slaves worldwide today than at any time in history.  Most people are in denial about it.  The major difference is that today people know that slavery is wrong and don't care.  They know that human trafficking is wrong, but won't lift a finger to stop it (or interfere with it).

Police generally find it too labor intensive to deal with real crime, and prefer to write easy traffic citations.  After all their elite bosses prefer that approach.  So why rock the boat?  If you really care, and, if you think that law enforcement should have a human face, you will lose your job or be passed over for promotion.  The sycophants quickly learn to go along to get along.  The code of silence is real.

Ask Nurse Webbles why it was so important for a detective and a lieutenant to illegally arrest her.  Why are we pillorying law-abiding, good citizens?  The real criminals are laughing up their sleeves.

The issue of slavery is only discussed in the media in terms of race. It is never a discussed as a world problem that transcends race. I cannot understand why anyone would not consider it a race issue; particularly in the USA.

The university establishment has condemned Western Civilization  and everything it stands for because of the race issue leading the condemnation. The White man is the scourge of the entire world is the Left's lead-in to almost any topic. 

The rest that you mentioned I am in complete agreement. 

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The issue of slavery is only discussed in the media in terms of race. It is never a discussed as a world problem that transcends race. I cannot understand why anyone would not consider it a race issue; particularly in the USA.

Well, yes, if one is narrow-minded and politically correct (woke).  I see slavery as a worldwide human rights issue having nothing to do with race.  Now, if someone wants to discuss past slavery in the USA, I have no problem with that.  Current events is another matter.

33 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The university establishment has condemned Western Civilization  and everything it stands for because of the race issue leading the condemnation. The White man is the scourge of the entire world is the Left's lead-in to almost any topic. .....................

Yes it has (at least in the humanities), and Prof Jordan Peterson (with whom I fully agree) rightly has little patience with that travesty.  And, yes, anti-White racism is now in fashion.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes, if one is narrow-minded and politically correct (woke).  I see slavery as a worldwide human rights issue having nothing to do with race.  Now, if someone wants to discuss past slavery in the USA, I have no problem with that.  Current events is another matter.

Yes it has (at least in the humanities), and Prof Jordan Peterson (with whom I fully agree) rightly has little patience with that travesty.  And, yes, anti-White racism is now in fashion.

Me? I could give a crap about black slavery other than as an historical curiosity  I have one non-Mormon great great grandfather, and he died in support of Union and against slavery.

I already gave, you see.

And we've found no evidence of any slaveholding in any lines going back to the XVIIIth Century.

I owe nobody for the sins of black slavers and black slave owners.

Edited August 3, 2019 by USU78

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Me? I could give a crap about black slavery other than as an historical curiosity  I have one non-Mormon great great grandfather, and he died in support of Union and against slavery.

I already gave, you see.

And we've found no evidence of any slaveholding in any lines going back to the XVIIIth Century.

I owe nobody for the sins of black slavers and black slave owners.

Some folks would call that "virtue signaling," but I have one up on you:  My people in Ohio operated part of the Underground Railroad (getting slaves to Canada at night).  Trouble is, if they had lived in the South, they probably would have been slave owners.  Is it true that all virtue is local?

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some folks would call that "virtue signaling," but I have one up on you:  My people in Ohio operated part of the Underground Railroad (getting slaves to Canada at night).  Trouble is, if they had lived in the South, they probably would have been slave owners.  Is it true that all virtue is local?

I think so. And we're not more and no less responsible for what the circumstances of our birth thrust upon us. Abraham. A slaveowner. Jacob. A slaveowner.

G-d appears to care little about economic systems, and a whole lot about individual virtue. We don't inherit sins. Or virtues. And we're responsible only for our own foulups.

Chide me for my pecadillos. I don't mind. I deserve it. But if you think I should pay for somebody else's sins because you get a motion you have inborn virtue and entitlement to compensation from me because I and just about everybody else descend from Charlemagne, you're a fool.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

........................ entitlement to compensation from me because I and just about everybody else descend from Charlemagne, you're a fool.

Wait a second:  You're descended from royalty too?  

[Vance]

On 7/31/2019 at 8:47 AM, USU78 said:

Let's talk about O-rings.

????

What am I missing?

 

[Vance]

On 8/1/2019 at 12:44 AM, 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?

So, political correctness destroyed two shuttles.

it really is deadly.

[Vance]

On 8/1/2019 at 6:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I am analyzing what happened alongside what should have happened (in a perfect world), which we can now clearly see with 20/20 hindsight.  We cannot rewrite history, just as we cannot right all wrongs.  But it is obvious from our current vantage point that negro slavery was fundamentally wrong, and should never have been allowed in the 19th century -- just as it was not in England and Canada.

Whoa there cowboy.  Some of the northern colonies had attempted to outlaw slavery but British authorities refuse to allow them to do so.  That was one of the reasons (although not the highest priority) for the Declaration of Independence, and was actually one of the line items of abuse in the original draft of that document.  It had to be removed to maintain unity throughout the colonies.

Quote

  Why did they get it right while we got it wrong?

"they" were not blameless in its whole instigation in this land.

The original draft of the Declaration is available on the internet.  Just compare it to the final draft for an enlightening experience.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Vance
more accuracy

[Vance]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:43 PM, USU78 said:

Me? I could give a crap about black slavery other than as an historical curiosity  I have one non-Mormon great great grandfather, and he died in support of Union and against slavery.

I already gave, you see.

And we've found no evidence of any slaveholding in any lines going back to the XVIIIth Century.

I owe nobody for the sins of black slavers and black slave owners.

All of the wealth, then accumulated as the result of by slavery in the U.S., was destroyed by the Civil War.   Every drop of blood drawn by the whip was equaled by that spilt on the battlefield. Reparations have already been paid in full.