DCP's newest attempt at revisionist history

[_Melchett]

Then enjoy hell.

Will there be cake?

Here's a sneak preview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A

Seems I'm friends with the Devil already!

[_Runtu]

Seems I'm friends with the Devil already!

Well, I don't know you enough to call you "friend," but we're definitely acquaintances. :)

[_Fence Sitter]

Father and mother believed him; why should not the children? I suppose if he had told crooked stories about other things, we might have doubted his word about the plates, but Joseph was a truthful boy. That father and mother believed his report and suffered persecution for that belief shows that he was truthful."

I suppose if claiming to find buried treasure by glass looking did not qualify as a "crooked stories" then finding the plates would not either.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Here's a sneak preview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A

Rowan Atkinson's stand up routine is pure comic genius. Glad to see we share tastes in comedy.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Holy Cow, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

We can trust Joseph Smith as truthful because he once testified in a court case, and the side he was testifying for won? Even more, we can REALLY trust him because the side he testified for was poorer than the side that lost?

I'm sure all of the lawyers on this board will tell you that if your side won in trial, that's damn near certain proof that the truth was on your side, and that any witnesses you called were 100% trustworthy.

This is the kind of crap that really hurts people who turn to apologists for testimony rescue. They read stuff like this and say to themselves, "Wait, this is supposed to be good evidence? If this is what the lead apologists are putting forward as evidence, maybe it's even worse than I thought."

[_Kishkumen]

Well right off the top of my head I would say using William Smith as a credible witness for anything is a really bad idea. Bushman doesn't even make it past the first page of chapter one in Rough Stone Rolling before he calls William "unstable".

Those were my thoughts exactly.

[_Equality]

Perhaps Prof. Peterson should listen to this classic podcast:
Was Joseph Smith Trustworthy?

[_Fence Sitter]

I wonder what, if any, relationship there is between Philastus Hurlbut and Jeremiah Hurlbut? It would also be interesting to see if any of the 12 jurors later on were part of the affidavits that Philastus collected. In the article Dan quotes Jeffery Walker as saying:

"this effectively meant that those qualified to be on the jury would be the more affluent and prominent men of the area. Ironically, none of the Smiths would have qualified to be a juror."

Perhaps this made the Smiths

look rather like the rural poor in Appalachia.

[_ldsfaqs]

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.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

I suppose that one man's Sealing Ordinance is another man's nasty filthy affair. By the way ldsfaqs when was Joseph sealed to Fanny? Did they use barns for temples back then? I am sure Emma found Joseph trustworthy with the hired help.