DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

[_LDS truthseeker]

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case.

If Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger occurred in 1833, it was before the sealing power was restored. Plural marriages are rooted in the notion of "sealing" for both time and eternity. The "sealing" power was not restored under LDS belief until April 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph and conferred the sealing keys upon him. There is no dispute at all among Latter-day Saints that prior to that time, the sealing power had not been on the earth since the time the Lord had removed it during the Great Apostasy. Thus, Joseph's "marriage" to Fanny Alger could NOT have been performed by anyone with the "sealing power" (unless it was done by Elijah himself, and no one that we are aware of has ever suggested that). No one on earth had authority either under the laws of man OR under the laws of God as understood and taught by the LDS Church to "marry" Joseph and Fanny. As a result, his marriage to her was a nullity from the beginning both in time and eternity, and any sexual relationship he may have had with her (and to which Oliver attested) can ONLY be fairly described as adulterous.

[_Darth J]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... d=fb_share

The Smiths called five witnesses, while Hurlbut called seven. Both Joseph Smith Jr. and his older brother Hyrum were called to testify.

Born on Dec. 23, 1805, Joseph had just turned 13 and, because of his young age, the court was obliged to determine his competency. Since he did, in fact, eventually testify, we can be sure that the court certified him to be, as the laws of the period stipulated, of "sound mind and memory," without "vicious intention," "maturity in crime" or "weak intellect."

Moreover, as the documents demonstrate, the Smiths prevailed in court. They won their case. And they did so, at least in part, on the basis of the testimony given by young Joseph Smith little more than a year before his First Vision.

Of course, that depends on which version of the First Vision story we are talking about.

As Jeffrey Walker summarizes the matter:

"The jurors, composed of the more affluent members of the community, found in favor of Joseph Smith Sr.'s claims against a much more prominent family. Even more important, this same jury, in conjunction with the local justice of the peace, found the young boy Joseph Smith Jr. to be both a credible and competent witness — something that some choose to dispute today. Yet there it is."

This is the kind of thing that I might have written as a parody of Mormon apologetics. And yet the ward newsletter actually printed this elaborate non sequitur to imply that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, God being extremely interested in his marrying lots of women and having his followers give him money and property, etc.

Since he did, in fact, eventually testify, we can be sure that the court certified him to be, as the laws of the period stipulated, of "sound mind and memory," without "vicious intention," "maturity in crime" or "weak intellect."

And since Hurlburt's seven witnesses did, in fact, eventually testify, we can be sure that the court also certified them to be of "sound mind and memory," without "vicious intention," "maturity in crime" or "weak intellect." Being found competent to testify has nothing to do with whether one is telling the truth, nor with credibility. In fact, even under the rules of common law, it's pretty hard not to be found competent to testify.

The judge in a trial, including back in those days, has a gatekeeper function over what evidence is going to be admitted. A finding of competence to testify basically means that a witness has sufficient knowledge to have perceived whatever he or she is going to testify about, that he or she understands being placed under oath (i.e., that there is a penalty for lying), and that he or she understands the difference between the truth and a lie. That last one is usually only a real issue with children, and it doesn't mean that the judge thinks that the witness is telling the truth. It only means, not in so many words, that the judge doesn't think you're crazy.

It is self-parody to make the apologetic argument that there is anything probative as to the truth claims of the LDS Church about 12 men on a jury in an 1819 civil case relying in part on Joseph Smith's competence and credibility, which is "something that some choose to dispute today." I don't know who the "some" are who today dispute his competence and credibility to testify in 1819 about whether Jeremiah Hurlburt owed his dad some money.

Joseph Smith, Jr. also appeared at an 1826 proceeding where he was bound over for trial on charges of fraudulent "glass looking." Since he did, in fact, eventually testify, we can be sure that the court certified him to be, as the laws of the period stipulated, of "sound mind and memory," without "vicious intention," "maturity in crime" or "weak intellect."

Joseph Smith, Jr. also appeared at an 1837 trial, where he was convicted of running an illegal bank. Since he did, in fact, eventually testify, we can be sure that the court certified him to be, as the laws of the period stipulated, of "sound mind and memory," without "vicious intention," "maturity in crime" or "weak intellect."

[_Darth J]

When Joseph Smith was 7 years old, he had surgery performed on his leg to remove an infection that had gotten into his bone. Although it was offered to him as a primitive anesthetic, young Joseph Smith refused to take any liquor.

Therefore, we can safely infer from this event that Joseph Smith never drank an alcoholic beverage in his life.

[_The Mighty Builder]

Daniel C. Peterson is a stupid ASS. His article simply demonstrates that Horny Holy Joe was an EXPERT LIAR from the earliest of age. It shows that no matter the setting as long as money is at stake for him or his family's gain he will LIE.

Way to go Danny, once again showing that Horny Holy Joe is a LIAR.

[_Buffalo]

When Joseph Smith was 7 years old, he had surgery performed on his leg to remove an infection that had gotten into his bone. Although it was offered to him as a primitive anesthetic, young Joseph Smith refused to take any liquor.

Therefore, we can safely infer from this event that Joseph Smith never drank an alcoholic beverage in his life.

Zing!