DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

[_sock puppet]

ldsfaqs,

Polygamy or Celestial marriage may not be the best way to go when trying to defend Joseph Smith Jr as trustworthy.

Just a thought.

But it was the best JSJr could come up with.

[_Dr. Shades]

It was a Sealing ONLY, not the same as Plural and especially Polygamous Marriage. It's the entire reason he was able to be sealed to other mens wives, because it WAS ONLY Sealing, not actually Polygamous Marriage.

Hey ldsfaqs, do you mind if I get sealed to your wife? I promise it'll be ONLY sealing, and not actually polygamous marriage.

You don't mind, do you?

[_sock puppet]

Joseph WAS trustworthy..... You're all's perversion of history and facts of the events in question is not the same as him being a proven liar. We've taken those same events and show the WHOLE TRUTH that he wasn't a liar at all.

For example, when he said he and the Church wasn't practicing Polygamy when accused of it, he was being entirely honest. The Church nor him was practicing "Polygamy". They were practicing the Sealing Ordinance at the time, not even Polygamy. It was a Sealing ONLY, not the same as Plural and especially Polygamous Marriage. It's the entire reason he was able to be sealed to other mens wives, because it WAS ONLY Sealing, not actually Polygamous Marriage.

So who's the liars again? Anti-mormons like you all.

ldsfaqs, months ago, I started a thread and nary an LDS defender posted any response. But with all your talk of JSJr's relationships being ONLY Sealings, not actually Polygamous Marriage, I suspect you may just be the one to ask. My question is simple. It is three words: SEALED AGAINST WHAT?

I look forward to your reply. I am curious about what it is you think God will do to two people that are not SEALED to each other, particularly in the absence of marriage, polygamous or otherwise, that called for men like JSJr to be SEALED to other men's wives.

[_Some Schmo]

Joseph's plural marriages most certainly involved sex - from Fanny (Joseph was caught in the act!) on down.

But how much real sex can be involved from the Fanny on down?

Holy crap... I think being a member has stunted your imagination!

[_Buffalo]

All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.[/b]
.................

Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

Why should we rely on this third-hand account recorded years after the events, Ldsfaqs?

And by the way, the statement that "all we do have is third-hand accounts" is not true.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/Fan ... ltery.html

But, um, ur... you're just lying again! Because he said so!!!

[_Runtu]

Suppose I was physically attacked by an angry mob of apologists. A bystander has witnessed the crime, so the police ask for his testimony. The man testifies in court to what he saw, and his testimony is believed, and my attackers are convicted. Later, we find out that this man has cheated elderly widows out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But, not to worry. The court attested to his honesty when he testified at the trial. What's more, his brother says he is an honest man raised by honest parents. Ergo, no one can possibly question his honesty and integrity, and therefore, it's beyond reason to believe he cheated those lying old ladies.

[_Kishkumen]

Suppose I was physically attacked by an angry mob of apologists. A bystander has witnessed the crime, so the police ask for his testimony. The man testifies in court to what he saw, and his testimony is believed, and my attackers are convicted. Later, we find out that this man has cheated elderly widows out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But, not to worry. The court attested to his honesty when he testified at the trial. What's more, his brother says he is an honest man raised by honest parents. Ergo, no one can possibly question his honesty and integrity, and therefore, it's beyond reason to believe he cheated those lying old ladies.

Well said.

[_EAllusion]

If the American justice system has taught us anything, it is that the outcome absolutely vindicates the unwavering truthfulness of the winning side for all time.

On an aside, witness testimony is unique in that it is one of the least reliable forms of evidence, yet because of a quick in human psychology happens to be highly persuasive. This is a really serious problem for our criminal justice system. Innocent people are convicted all the time by juries because people don't know how to correct for the fallibility of their own brain and as a result overestimate the worth of witness testimony. The Supreme Court heard arguments on this issue because of its implications for people's due process rights. For someone who would like a prescriptive remedy to this situation*, it doesn't sound like it went well. It sounds like the justices granted the substance of the argument: that there is a large body of evidence that eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable but also incredibly persuasive to the average person. They appear to be unmoved by it.

*The remedy being allowing defense attorneys to make a case against eyewitness testimony as reliable whenever it is brought up as a reason to convict. Hopefully this would correct for the damaging and false belief that eyewitnesses constitute rock solid evidence in the minds of those deciding the fate of the accused.

[_Some Schmo]

If there's one thing I can take away from this article, it's that I'm completely justified in knowing that OJ Simpson is innocent. What a relief!

[_Madison54]

For example, when he said he and the Church wasn't practicing Polygamy when accused of it, he was being entirely honest. The Church nor him was practicing "Polygamy". They were practicing the Sealing Ordinance at the time, not even Polygamy. It was a Sealing ONLY, not the same as Plural and especially Polygamous Marriage. It's the entire reason he was able to be sealed to other mens wives, because it WAS ONLY Sealing, not actually Polygamous Marriage.

So...ldsfaqs,
What exactly was Brigham Young (and all the other leaders and Prophets) practicing? Was it different than what Joseph was practicing? Why would their "Polygamy" be lived differently than Joseph's?

Weren't they both Prophets of God living "The Principle" as it was revealed to Joseph Smith?

Also, why would you have trouble facing the fact that Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives but then have no trouble with BY and others having sex with their multiple wives? Different Principle? Different set of standards? Or....what???