Want to Know what I Think?

[_KevinSim]

Does anyone want to know what I really think? About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Gordon Hinckley and Thomas Monson?

[_Sethbag]

Lay it on us.

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes. But please do so in a Rated PG fashion.

[_KevinSim]

Lay it on us.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, even in the court of public opinion, even O.J. Simpson, even Joseph Smith, even Brigham Young.

That's what I think.

[_Quasimodo]

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, even in the court of public opinion, even O.J. Simpson, even Joseph Smith, even Brigham Young.

That's what I think.

That's a noble thought, Kevin. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion doesn't work on noble principles. I don't think it works on any principles. It also seems to have more value and influence than the truth. It often doesn't matter what is true, only what people think is true.

That being said, we only have historic records to evaluate the motives and actions of those that have passed years before us. The court of public opinion is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people.

[_KevinSim]

That being said, we only have historic records to evaluate the motives and actions of those that have passed years before us. The court of public opinion is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people.

Why is that? Why is it that the court of public opinion in its current imperfect state "is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people"? Why don't people put some effort into coming up with another judiciary that gives some fairness guarantees to investigations of "those people"?

[_Quasimodo]

That being said, we only have historic records to evaluate the motives and actions of those that have passed years before us. The court of public opinion is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people.

Why is that? Why is it that the court of public opinion in its current imperfect state "is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people"? Why don't people put some effort into coming up with another judiciary that gives some fairness guarantees to investigations of "those people"?

That's kind of what we have here on this board. If someone makes a claim against Brigham Young (for example) that person will use some sort of historical evidence to prove their point. Historical evidence is all we have. If you or someone else cares to refute that claim you are free to do so, citing any historical evidence you might have.

The jury consists of those reading the posts.

[_Fence Sitter]

That being said, we only have historic records to evaluate the motives and actions of those that have passed years before us. The court of public opinion is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people.

Why is that? Why is it that the court of public opinion in its current imperfect state "is the only judiciary we have to come to some evaluation of those people"? Why don't people put some effort into coming up with another judiciary that gives some fairness guarantees to investigations of "those people"?

Probably because "those people" are unimportant and or unknown to the majority of people. What have you done to come up with another judiciary for L.Ron Hubbard, Ellen White or Warren Jeffs?

[_Nightlion]

All the ribaldry of social rascals in the days of Joseph are now sanitized and the ONLY reliable source for judging Joseph Smith.....???

I think I am gonna think more and have something to say about this. Pretty sure.

[_Quasimodo]

All the ribaldry of social rascals in the days of Joseph are now sanitized and the ONLY reliable source for judging Joseph Smith.....???

I think I am gonna think more and have something to say about this. Pretty sure.

Hi Night.

Those of us not privileged to hear the whispers of God only have historical documents to decide from.