Cat Tale
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 222
I dunno, I never seem to have a problem with knowing the difference between the speculation and documentation from Randfan or most others on this forum, and I'm LDS. Usually, if there's a citation it's documentation, if there isn't it's speculation. I may occasionally not fully understand a question they're asking me, but we usually work it out.
The problem is, Mr. Anderson's article lost all my respect when he had to ask why there was a resurgence of interest in the 1826 trial 46 years after the fact, and then says that it was because there was a change in society, something that you appear to now be arguing as well. Sure the feelings of society have changed, that's the point, but it's not what I believe caused the resurgence of interest in Mormonism, that was POLYGAMY! The resurgence of the trial, in my opinion, is that there became a greater interest in Mormonism in general, and Joseph Smith in particular (the prophet who received the revelation). Thus his testimony about being a glass-looker was of great interest to the people of the US, and it was capable of being used to excite the people against Mormonism.
In 1862 Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy act that prevented the practice of polygamy in the territories. Wikipedia
And the Supreme Court 1878 decision on Reynolds vs the US. Wikipedia
According to the Church curriculum manual on The Teachings of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, p. xi "In 1882 The United States Congress passes the Edmunds Act, making plural marriage a felony and prohibiting polygamists from voting, holding public office, or performing jury duty."
All this time the Church is taking center stage, and for the most part, in very negative light. I mean is it really any great surprise that the records should be of interest between 1873 and 1883
I personally still don't understand, and have asked numerous times, why it's so important whether or not Joseph Smith was convicted of being a glass-looker. Whether he was convicted or not, he admits it in his own testimony in the Purple papers, if indeed the Purple papers are legit. Why is it so difficult for you to simply say, we don't know whether or not he was convicted? Personally, that's my opinion. From what little evidence there is, there is no existing testimony or verdict other than hearsay written up after the fact, with no existing documents with actual testimony, am I correct? Has the original handwritten testimony been found? or are we just arguing hearsay. We can argue hearsay till the cows come home, but it's a no-win situation without the actual documents, so both LDS and non-LDS don't win points. So why debate it as if you're gonna win? Sometimes it's okay to just say, "we don't know."
We can also argue whether or not he was charged as a glass looker, but I think that's one thing that's not in dispute. It may be that the initial charge was vagrancy, but look at the Judge Neely Bill at the top of the FAIR page, it says "People vs Joseph Smith the Glass Looker." I think initially it was vagrancy, but they broke the vagrancy charge down to be more specific, since vagrancy could imply such a large number of things. If anything, that would address why Joseph told about being a glass-looker in the Purple papers would show is that Joseph Smith told the truth in court, of course again, that's presuming that the papers really did exist. If all we're arguing is a newspaper article, that's mere hearsay... not arguable in a court of law since it can't be cross-examined.
