DiscussMormonism.com

From the church. https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-r ... TCIrwWTyX4


Courtesy Rushclock On Reddit.https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... rds_found/

• Looking at the depositions, they claimed Hyrum Smith couldn’t be believed if he was under oath on anything involving Joseph Smith,” Glankler said. “It was a generic lack of trust, which was based on their prejudice.
• “There’s a lot of antagonistic feelings there, a lot of anger there. Essentially their testimony is, you cannot trust a Latter-day Saint, you cannot believe a word they say,” said Mahas.
• “You expect that people are going to have biases that will be present in their testimonies or other documents. That is just part of what you have to wade through as a historian. What is unusual here is that many of these witnesses just come out and say it like that,” Mahas said. “They are swearing in court that Joseph and his associates cannot be believed because they are Latter-day Saints.”
• This seems to be the death knell for the case, said Mahas. The defense attorneys submitted Bennett’s testimony in September 1843, and Joseph’s attorneys stopped their work on the case, either because Joseph decided it was not worth it, or the attorneys believed they were not going to win.

Fantastically interesting thanks for pointing us to it! It's stuff like this that makes history come alive and see a much more complete picture. The people were correct in saying you simply can't trust the Latter Day Saints since by this time polygamy was becoming known, and all the sworn secrecy was getting out, and they were lying about their intentions and politics, etc. Today is precious little different, at least for the leaders and apologists as the archives and past 1300+ pages of this message board clearly attest. The LDS for some parts were rascals then as they are now.

The spin machine wasted no time playing the victim card with this case record.

Doesn’t mention anything about why Joseph trusted a man who didn’t pay his debts to act as a traveling purchasing agent. Maybe this is a clue as to why no one trusted the Mormons in general. Don’t pay debts. Lie, steal, cheat. Etc. Looked at from an objective angle, Joseph and his agents did not engender trust. The article doesn’t even attempt to address the “why” behind Missourians mistrusting all Mormon leaders. I bet they had damn good reasons!

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:25 pm

From the church. https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-r ... TCIrwWTyX4


Courtesy Rushclock On Reddit.https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... rds_found/

• Looking at the depositions, they claimed Hyrum Smith couldn’t be believed if he was under oath on anything involving Joseph Smith,” Glankler said. “It was a generic lack of trust, which was based on their prejudice.

or perhaps, based on their experience in dealing with Mormons--the prejudice might lie in discrediting as "prejudice" those that claimed Hyrum could not be believed about anything involving Joseph Smith.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:25 pm

[*]“There’s a lot of antagonistic feelings there, a lot of anger there. Essentially their testimony is, you cannot trust a Latter-day Saint, you cannot believe a word they say,” said Mahas.

Sort of like in every place Joseph Smith led his merry band of followers. Perhaps there's a pattern there. What's the one common element to not getting along in New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois--oh, Mormons. That's it. One might also ask himself or herself why would God lead his chosen people to areas where they would clash with the locals?

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:25 pm

[*]“You expect that people are going to have biases that will be present in their testimonies or other documents. That is just part of what you have to wade through as a historian. What is unusual here is that many of these witnesses just come out and say it like that,” Mahas said. “They are swearing in court that Joseph and his associates cannot be believed because they are Latter-day Saints.”

Hmmm. The more of them, the more each corroborates the others, the more damning of the Mormons dealings and behaviors.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:25 pm

[*]This seems to be the death knell for the case, said Mahas. The defense attorneys submitted Bennett’s testimony in September 1843, and Joseph’s attorneys stopped their work on the case, either because Joseph decided it was not worth it, or the attorneys believed they were not going to win.
[/list]

Often is the case when a slew of witnesses line up to testify against a party.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:17 pm

Maybe this is a clue as to why no one trusted the Mormons in general. Don’t pay debts. Lie, steal, cheat. Etc. Looked at from an objective angle, Joseph and his agents did not engender trust.

You're right on the money! It was always about the money beginning with treasure digging and writing the Book of Mormon. Money, money, money!

Smith righteously cheated and swindled the Gentiles for his own purposes.

D&C 64 wrote:27 Behold, it is said in my laws, or forbidden, to get in debt to thine enemies;

28 But behold, it is not said at any time that the Lord should not take when he please, and pay as seemeth him good.

29 Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business.

In other words, it's okay to cheat and lie for the Lord! Smith spent his whole life lying and cheating others. It was his character!

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:17 pm

The spin machine wasted no time playing the victim card with this case record.

Doesn’t mention anything about why Joseph trusted a man who didn’t pay his debts to act as a traveling purchasing agent. Maybe this is a clue as to why no one trusted the Mormons in general. Don’t pay debts. Lie, steal, cheat. Etc. Looked at from an objective angle, Joseph and his agents did not engender trust. The article doesn’t even attempt to address the “why” behind Missourians mistrusting all Mormon leaders. I bet they had damn good reasons!

Joseph had many of his bases covered with the Happiness letter.

"but we cannot keep ALL the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received! That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, Thou shalt not kill; at another time he said, Thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of Heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."