malkie wrote:ldsfaqs wrote:1. Their "conclusion" is false when it says the indictment "provides evidence of Joseph's polygamy for which there is little actual evidence of otherwise".
This statement is entirely an "assumption". While Maria might have been "sealed" to Joseph, it doesn't necessarily mean they were actually sealed in Polygamy simply because she lived with him and Emma for a brief time when they were helping her handle her affairs etc. So, this isn't evidence of Polygamy at all, it's only evidence of Law "claiming" polygamy.
2. I would also like to point out, that Law made the same claims to the Nauvoo City Council, which included 2 non-mormons on it.
Clearly whatever "evidence" Law had against Joseph, wasn't good enough to them, because they ordered the destruction of the Expositor for spreading lies, inciting violence, etc.
3. Ultimately.... Joseph was submitted to about 30 Criminal Court processes and at least 30 Civil Court processes.
Yet, although plagued by bad advice and misfortune in a small number of business matters, the Prophet was never found guilty of any misconduct for ANY of the charges and trials against him.
A truly "guilty" man doesn't get off that much. I really wish anti-mormons used more common sense instead of relying on their feelings and hate for the church.
1. There was clearly enough evidence presented to allow the Grand Jury to indict Joseph Smith on charges of unlawful cohabitation, and/or adultery, and/or fornication.
Aside - Hundreds of LDS men were imprisoned for unlawful cohabitation.
2. Are you actually suggesting that the opinions of the Nauvoo City Council should be taken more seriously than a Grand jury? Can a city council issue valid indictments? Or quash valid indictments?
3. See comments by
grindael and
deacon blues. Also, did Joseph Smith not make use of writs of
habeas corpus, or simply running away, to avoid being brought to trial on a number of occasions?
1. That picture and events are some 50 years later..... Irrelevant....!
2. The Definition of the "cohabitation" is living under the same roof "as if married" or in other words, living under the same roof in an intimate relationship.
Cohabitating doesn't mean living under the same roof, it means shacking up with someone as an unmarried live-in relationship that some people are bound to do "as if married". In other words, it means people living together and getting the freak on etc. or similar, though not married. I.E. two people devoted to each other.
So, unless you can demonstrate Joseph was actually having some sort of "intimate relationship" with the woman in question, he couldn't not be convicted of such. Further, we aren't talking about "could have happened", but what actually happened. Joseph had some 30 Criminal cases against him, none of which he was convicted, and some the same amount of civil cases against him, only a small # he lost. What "might have happened" had he actually went to court on this issue is irrelvant, because we don't know. We don't know Law's evidence, but clearly from the City Council, he didn't have anything, but there was enough for them to slam him instead.
3. The point is, is if Law had any sort of real evidence of his claims, the Navuoo City Council which included non-mormons on it wouldn't have sent him packing and ordered the press shut down. He needed proof, he clearly didn't have any but his "beliefs". A Grand Jury doesn't need proof, they just need testimony, evidence. He clearly had enough for a mostly non-mormon jury to at least send the case to trial, but not enough for the mostly Mormon City Council to consider Joseph Guilty. Clearly, all Law had was hersay testimony, not actual evidence. Hersay would be enough back then for a Grand Jury, but not enough to convict, otherwise the City Councel would have convicted Joseph, not Law.
