CWK #31: Just about the sex? Mormon polygamy.

[Kishkumen]

So, I guess this means you chuckled because William Clayton’s account doesn’t support your pet views?

Cute.

I chuckled because I see inconsistency in the way everyone treats the evidence. Not one comment was made about how it might be problematic to rely on the witness of a polygamist in Brighamite Utah. The data is just slapped up there as though it speaks for itself. That doesn't cut it.

[Dr. Shades]

So, I guess this means you chuckled because William Clayton’s account doesn’t support your pet views?

Cute.

I chuckled because I see inconsistency in the way everyone treats the evidence. Not one comment was made about how it might be problematic to rely on the witness of a polygamist in Brighamite Utah. The data is just slapped up there as though it speaks for itself. That doesn't cut it.

Please give us your opinion on what he wrote. Do you think he told the truth, do you think he lied, or do you think he embellished the truth a little?

[Kishkumen]

Please give us your opinion on what he wrote. Do you think he told the truth, do you think he lied, or do you think he embellished the truth a little?

It is clear that Clayton is highly motivated to establish the provenance of the revelation, probably in the context of the upcoming Reynolds case, to establish the centrality of polygamy to the Mormon faith. The plan to use a case against Young's secretary as a means of testing the anti-polygamy act of 1862 meant the Mormon leaders had to have their ducks in a row. So, it is at the very least an account shaped by those particular motivations, if I am correct about the history of it.

[Markk]

Please give us your opinion on what he wrote. Do you think he told the truth, do you think he lied, or do you think he embellished the truth a little?

It is clear that Clayton is highly motivated to establish the provenance of the revelation, probably in the context of the upcoming Reynolds case, to establish the centrality of polygamy to the Mormon faith. The plan to use a case against Young's secretary as a means of testing the anti-polygamy act of 1862 meant the Mormon leaders had to have their ducks in a row. So, it is at the very least an account shaped by those particular motivations, if I am correct about the history of it.

Are you stating that the Reynolds case was in the process in 1843 Nauvoo? Well, that is a new one on me. The Reynolds case was heard in the late 1870's,....are you asserting that Joseph, Hyrum and Clayton were preparing for this in 1843 Navuoo by Smith dictated the N&ELC to his scribe?

in my opinion Clayton was scribe being told what to write, so Hyrum could take it to Emma, despite Joseph's confidence that she would buy it. It was a personal thing that was for Emma, I find it hard to believe it was a thought out document for a future case hoping to be brought before the the Supreme Court.

But please show me how they were preparing for a case that was to be brought before the SCJOTUS some three and a half decades later. Was Reynolds even a member of the church then and how old was he and how many plural wives did he have if he was, I would have to look. My recollection of the case, and I could be off here, is that GR was a scape goat of sorts so to speak by the BY/Taylor presidencies, and even did time for being so.

Anyways that is a interesting view.

[Kishkumen]

Are you stating that the Reynolds case was in the process in 1843 Nauvoo?

Take the time to read and follow the exchange before you contribute, Markk. I am not going to repeat myself because you are lazy.

[sock puppet]

It is clear that Clayton is highly motivated to establish the provenance of the revelation, probably in the context of the upcoming Reynolds case, to establish the centrality of polygamy to the Mormon faith. The plan to use a case against Young's secretary as a means of testing the anti-polygamy act of 1862 meant the Mormon leaders had to have their ducks in a row. So, it is at the very least an account shaped by those particular motivations, if I am correct about the history of it.

Are you stating that the Reynolds case was in the process in 1843 Nauvoo? Well, that is a new one on me. The Reynolds case was heard in the late 1870's,....are you asserting that Joseph, Hyrum and Clayton were preparing for this in 1843 Navuoo by Smith dictated the N&ELC to his scribe?

in my opinion Clayton was scribe being told what to write, so Hyrum could take it to Emma, despite Joseph's confidence that she would buy it. It was a personal thing that was for Emma, I find it hard to believe it was a thought out document for a future case hoping to be brought before the the Supreme Court.

But please show me how they were preparing for a case that was to be brought before the SCJOTUS some three and a half decades later. Was Reynolds even a member of the church then and how old was he and how many plural wives did he have if he was, I would have to look. My recollection of the case, and I could be off here, is that GR was a scape goat of sorts so to speak by the BY/Taylor presidencies, and even did time for being so.

Anyways that is a interesting view.

"WILLIAM CLAYTON. “Salt Lake City, February 16th, 1874.”

[Markk]

Are you stating that the Reynolds case was in the process in 1843 Nauvoo?

Take the time to read and follow the exchange before you contribute, Markk. I am not going to repeat myself because you are lazy.

Well you are suggesting a lot here, without much explanation. You are implying, even if ignorantly, that The N&ELC is just a later fabrication, and not the commandment of God, a revelation, as the church teaches. This opens up a huge can of worms.

The copy of the document is dated 1843, as I already showed you and keeping the context of the document, which maybe you have forgotten we discussed. I won't call you lazy as you seem to believe I am, I'll just say you have a hard time objectively looking at evidences that contradict your bias' or just forgetful. Also it was published in the DN in 1852, so it certainly existed if anyone wanted to use it as precedence, and it was published as doctrine before the the Supreme Court heard the case. If it was canonized just for that reason, again lets go fishing because we have plenty of worms.

What I am seeing is that Clayton's affidavit compliments the history of the copy in possession of the church, and Joseph preaching the covenant in his day.

I am with Shades, I have no Idea why you chuckled?

Thanks

[Kishkumen]

Well you are suggesting a lot here, without much explanation. You are implying, even if ignorantly, that The N&ELC is just a later fabrication, and not the commandment of God, a revelation, as the church teaches. This opens up a huge can of worms.

Of course it opens up a huge can of worms. You just want to slap up a 1874 testimony about events in the 1840s and leave the issues attendant on that discrepancy of dates unaddressed.

The copy of the document is dated 1843, as I already showed you and keeping the context of the document, which maybe you have forgotten we discussed. I won't call you lazy as you seem to believe I am, I'll just say you have a hard time objectively looking at evidences that contradict your bias' or just forgetful. Also it was published in the DN in 1852, so it certainly existed if anyone wanted to use it as precedence, and it was published as doctrine before the the Supreme Court heard the case. If it was canonized just for that reason, again let's go fishing because we have plenty of worms.

I don't believe you are lazy as a habit. I thought you were being lazy by cobbling together some weird response that treated the 1874 witness as an 1840s document, even though you were the one who did the quoting, and I chuckled about the date shortly thereafter.

I think we all have a hard time objectively looking at evidences that contradict our biases, you included. Moreover, you do not seem to realize that slapping up quotes from websites is not the same thing as doing research or history. I find it further funny that ex-Mormons who are so eager to question the veracity of evidence in some cases will embrace it unquestioningly when it seems to back them up. I have seen some nutty contradictions of this type.

The July 1843 revelation has a complicated history and the scholarship on it is complicated. I don't have a handle on it at present, and I doubt you do either. You just cling to the things that you want to believe to be accurate to support your own point of view. I have read scholarship that suggests Kingsbury's copy was not the first, and I have read scholarship that attributes a copy to Whitney and Kingsbury. I personally have no idea what Kingsbury's handwriting looks like, and, honestly, I think anyone would be a fool to take the LDS Church's word on this kind of thing without doing due diligence.

Hey, it may be that this is the actual factual first copy of the revelation from the very hand of Kingsbury in July 1843. And, I would definitely concede that it is when I have done my due diligence on it. But, that due diligence would be a heck of a lot more than simply accepting what the LDS Church has to say about it on face value.

What I am seeing is that Clayton's affidavit compliments the history of the copy in possession of the church, and Joseph preaching the covenant in his day.

I have no doubt that Smith taught and practiced polygamy in his day. That's not the issue, in my view.

I am with Shades, I have no Idea why you chuckled?

Thanks

I have given several clear answers to that question. You can review my post above. I chuckle at people who think they are doing history when all they do is rely on the judgment of others.

[Dr. Shades]

I don’t see how Clayton’s recollection of events in any way contradicts what we know about the revelation. What am I missing, or where is the contradiction?

[Kishkumen]

I don’t see how Clayton’s recollection of events in any way contradicts what we know about the revelation. What am I missing, or where is the contradiction?

Sigh. Good grief, Shades. I am glad you support the Book of Mormon Witnesses in the accuracy and fidelity of their testimonies.

Yikes.