Kavanaugh & Joseph Smith

[Doctor Steuss]

I find it deeply gratifying that we have a man in the White House who has the moral authority...

He's the best at moral authority, believe me, it's true. A lot of people are saying it.

[grindael]

Ok Doc,

So you think that there aren't any similarities and that I'm just doing this for what reason? Like I post political ____ here all the time? I've seen many religious threads up here on every esoteric thing that people believe or speculate about that really have little to do with Mormonism.

My observation is valid. It's about Joseph's defense of charges of sexual misconduct, the same thing Kavanaugh is doing. And Kish's comment about Joseph avoiding a real investigation that he claimed he would instigate... or force a trial of his own behavior ties into what is going on now. I find it fascinating and so I posted it here. Sorry if I broke some cardinal rule or that you feel it is too flimsy to discuss here.

What is wrong about discussing how Joseph defended himself against such allegations and comparing it with what is going on today, It happens all the time in this forum. But because this has a political flavor it's automatically unfit for this forum? Joseph ran for President also, so should anything discussed comparing that to current events be tossed out also?

Why did Law wait months to go to the law over Joseph's relationship with the Lawrences? He obviously knew about it long before he did so. Was he hoping to derail his Presidential bid? I'm sure some might have thought so at the time.

If there is such a problem with discussing these things here, I have no problem with getting this booted to the Spirit whatever. It wasn't my point to have a debate over that. If you don't see the uncanny parallel with their written defenses, all right, you don't. I heard the Kavanaugh statement read on TV and immediately was struck with how Joseph had also written up his defense against such allegations.

No need to get so snarky and bite my head off about it.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Grindael,

How in the world are the two situations even remotely parallel-y? For example, in the ex-Mormon world virtually all the allegations made by Joseph Smith's wives, nannies, paramours, and associates are believed. Even then you're talking about a documented pattern of behavior with incredibly credible 'witnesses', ie, people who lived with, were married to, or worked with Joseph Smith. To draw a parallel is really just an overreach.

But, hey. Why not? I had fun with the Stalinist Temple Architecture thread so you do you, friend.

- Doc

[grindael]

It was the written defense against the allegations, not the background. There are still people who believe that Joseph was innocent, the same as with Kavanaugh.

[grindael]

And I might add, why are the allegations against Smith believed? Because we have access to his personal diaries, writings, etc. Do we have such documentation with Kavanaugh?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It was the written defense against the allegations, not the background. There are still people who believe that Joseph was innocent, the same as with Kavanaugh.

I don't really know what to say that. I'd have to argue against convicting Kavanaugh based solely on someone's testimony, and then that'd just extend to the testimonies against Joseph Smith. It's akin to discussing one's distaste for spiders and for that reason we ought to hate centipedes, too. Because *reasons*...

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

And I might add, why are the allegations against Smith believed? Because we have access to his personal diaries, writings, etc. Do we have such documentation with Kavanaugh?

You're kind of making my argument for me. One is one thing, and the other is an entirely different matter. That's why I suggest it's a thinly veiled attempt to make a parallelism between two matters, two people, two eras that have virtually nothing in common.

- Doc

[grindael]

So the two written defenses have nothing in common in your mind? I get that. But how am I making your argument for you when you state that it must depend on whether people believe that Kavanaugh is guilty? What does that have to do with the responses? People believed both about Joseph at the time, same as Kavanaugh. I don't see your point at all.

Joseph wrote his defense in 1838. How does what people believe NOW have anything to do with that? As it turned out, Joseph was guilty of those things according to many. How will the Kavanaugh situation go? We have to wait and see.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So the two written defenses have nothing in common in your mind? I get that. But how am I making your argument for you when you state that it must depend on whether people believe that Kavanaugh is guilty? What does that have to do with the responses? People believed both about Joseph at the time, same as Kavanaugh. I don't see your point at all.

Because the witnesses for one thing were like an inside job for a bank robbery. All their statements were from people who, say, lived with the bank robber, were married to the bank robber, schemed with the bank robber, and they're all attesting to the accusation the bank robber was a bank robber. Adding to the fact there was extensive documentation of bank robbing from all involved.

The witnesses for the other thing are attesting that a doctor, for whatever reason, decided to rob a 7-11 when he was a kid, he had a drinking problem that led him to rob 7-11's, his buddies liked to rob 7-11's, and in fact there was a teenaged gang of 7-11 robbers. The witnesses state they were there, in one the 7-11s, and were robbed. None of the witnesses can tell you which 7-11, when it happened, there are multiple versions of their stories, no tapes, no loot, and they robbery took place 36 years ago. All the doctor can say is he didn't do it.

- Doc

[grindael]

So would that be the case IN 1838? About SEXUAL MISCONDUCT? We have Levi Lewis and Eliza Winters, we have Cowdery (labeled as a disgruntled colleague). It seems to me that you are putting all the Nauvoo stuff on what Smith wrote way earlier than that, I am looking at it from a contemporary perspective. As it was going on, like with Kavanaugh.

[grindael]

What if Fanny Alger had come forth at the time, what would she have gone through? What did Eliza Winters have to go through? She lost her slander case against Harris, who only accused her because of her being linked to Smith.

[grindael]

And then there's this, from Smith, from 1834:

" At the age of ten my father’s family removed to Palmyra, N.Y. where, and in the vi cinity of which, I lived, or, made it my place of residence, until I was twenty one—the lat ter part, in the town of Manchester.

During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and fol lies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outragious violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark, that, though, as I have said above, “as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,” I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I alude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.

This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add, that it is not with out a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfill a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation: and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the “Articles and Covenants” of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man “subject to passion,” and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!"

What credible witnesses were there against Smith AT THAT TIME? It seems now, that Kavanaugh is changing his story to match this, (through his attorney).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So would that be the case IN 1838? About SEXUAL MISCONDUCT? We have Levi Lewis and Eliza Winters, we have Cowdery (labeled as a disgruntled colleague). It seems to me that you are putting all the Nauvoo stuff on what Smith wrote way earlier than that, I am looking at it from a contemporary perspective. As it was going on, like with Kavanaugh.

Well, I'm thinking of all the testimonies, whether they were in court, written for a book or newspaper, but clearly I'm not being exhaustive in outlining all of Smith's accusers and then trying to draw a parallel between how they were treated in the 19th century to how witnesses are treated today. What I'm saying is the people who were involved with Smith had a VERY different relationship and existed at a very different time than what we have here in 2018 with Kavanaugh and his accusers.

Smith was a religious leader schtupping his followers along with other chosen men. It was a basically a sex ring.

Kavanaugh is a federal judge being accused of seuxal assault when he was a teen.

Trying to draw an inference that we treat today's accusers the same way Smith's accusers were treated is an overreach, imo. I'm saying the two situations and the witnesses were so different that trying to draw any sort of inference is useless at best, and kind of a political cynicism at worst.

- Doc

[grindael]

Doc,

I don't see it that way and don't think things have changed much. Regardless of their profession, this is a case of an influential man being accused of sexual crimes or questioning their moral character from their youth. It is just interesting to me that Joseph went through the same process (being accused, etc) as Kavanaugh and that their responses were so strikingly similar and how it plays out with Kavanaugh will be interesting to see, IMHO.

And what is interesting to one, may not be to another. Peace out.

And again, what Smith did in Nauvoo (the sex ring) hadn't happened yet in 34 & 38).

[Kishkumen]

Trying to draw an inference that we treat today's accusers the same way Smith's accusers were treated is an overreach, imo. I'm saying the two situations and the witnesses were so different that trying to draw any sort of inference is useless at best, and kind of a political cynicism at worst.

Smith tried to smear his accusers, and the same is still done to women who accuse men of sexual crimes. Blasey Ford received death threats. Granted, these threats did not come from Kavanaugh, whereas Smith did his own dirty work. I am not sure all that much has changed. Of course the two situations are not perfectly parallel, but there are similarities, because the atrocious behavior of many men toward women is still very much the same.

[grindael]

If Smith's moral character claims had been successfully destroyed in 34 or 38, what would have been the impact? I think it's entirely relevant to what is going on with the Supreme Court.

[grindael]

Let's not forget that Smith later was running for President.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trying to draw an inference that we treat today's accusers the same way Smith's accusers were treated is an overreach, imo. I'm saying the two situations and the witnesses were so different that trying to draw any sort of inference is useless at best, and kind of a political cynicism at worst.

Smith tried to smear his accusers, and the same is still done to women who accuse men of sexual crimes. Blasey Ford received death threats. Granted, these threats did not come from Kavanaugh, whereas Smith did his own dirty work. I am not sure all that much has changed. Of course the two situations are not perfectly parallel, but there are similarities, because the atrocious behavior of many men toward women is still very much the same.

What you view as someone being smeared I view as a man having the right to defend himself. Why am I not seeing any concern for Kavanaugh's reputation being smeared? Once the allegation is done half the country is just going to believe the accuser, so it's not like they're not getting support or believed if under 100% of people don't believe them or just want something provable beyond an accusation. In fact, there's a remarkable amount of support for Ms. Ford, as witnessed just by the posters on this board. That should gladden your heart.

For example, if you were accused by someone in your field (I'll keep it vague out of respect for your off-board life), I'd fully expect you to defend yourself if you were innocent. While some may be sympathetic to an accuser, can you imagine the level of distress and turmoil you'd go through if you were innocent? Your peers would probably side with an accuser, or at least verbally signal to one another a #believethem. The accuser's peers would probably side with the accuser. You're really starting out at a mental, emotional, and probably legal hole given the circumstances. Imagine your surprise if you have some people state something to the effect of, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's figure out some facts here, and figure out why this is happening, who this person is, and who the accused is.", and those people are viciously attacked for wanting to weigh both sides of a very serious allegation?

Whatever the case may be I still maintain using a current political event, drawing a parallel to Joseph Smith, and then concluding the current political event is ____ because the witnesses aren't believed is just political cynicism with a veneer of parallelism to it can be discussed on the Terrestrial forum.

- Doc

[grindael]

Whatever the case may be I still maintain using a current political event, drawing a parallel to Joseph Smith, and then concluding the current political event is ____ because the witnesses aren't believed is just political cynicism with a veneer of parallelism to it can be discussed on the Terrestrial forum.

- Doc

Yeah, I get that, you keep repeating it. And you can speculate all you want about my motives, but I've stated them. I didn't drag anything political into this, that was others. I simply made a comparison of their written defenses because I was struck by the similarities. My feelings about what is going on NOW, were in response to others. But I've tried to draw it back to the written defenses over and over again.

Think what you will.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yeah, I get that, you keep repeating it. And you can speculate all you want about my motives, but I've stated them. I didn't drag anything political into this, that was others. I simply made a comparison of their written defenses because I was struck by the similarities. My feelings about what is going on NOW, were in response to others. But I've tried to draw it back to the written defenses over and over again.

Think what you will.

The title of your thread is:

Kavanaugh & Joseph Smith

And then you give two examples that clearly show what you're up to with an ending statement of:

Some things never change...

WHAT?? Lol, c'mon.

- Doc

[grindael]

YOU are making it political. I'm focused on the allegations and responses. What should my title have been? And yes, some things never change.

You interpret it the way YOU want. That's ok, but you're wrong.