Best Sources Showing Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy

[BuriedTartaria]

It takes faith to believe in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

OMG

Historical experts and academic professionals conclude they are works of fiction. Right?

[Robin Hood]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

[Luke]

Many called Smith stubborn for refusing to admit that his father had initiated plural marriage. Zenos Gurley chastised him: "You absolutely refuse to believe the evidence that would convict [your father]" (Gurley, 6 Apr. 1879). When challenged in this way he typically responded, as he did to J. J. Barbour on 15 May 1878: "I am not positive nor sure that he was innocent" (Letterbook 1). When pressed further, Smith was known to have reacted more forcefully on occasion. For instance, Gurley questioned Smith's integrity and Joseph Smith III responded, "I tell you, brother, I have been cut to the quick, when brethren have affirmed that I did know that my father was guilty of practicing polygamy; and denied it because I was obstinate, and sinned against light and knowledge in so denying" (24 July 1879, Letterbook 2).

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_107.pdf

Even after travelling to Utah and interviewing women who claimed to have been married to his father, Joseph Smith III remained of the opinion that his father was innocent of the charge of plural marriage.
Like us, he couldn't prove it (it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative) but he was able to question those with first hand experience and determine the weight and value of the evidence he investigated.
Zenos Gurley did not know Joseph the Prophet, so I can see why JSIII resisted his claims. Gurley's opinion is of very little worth.

Gurley was older than both Joseph Smith III AND Joseph Smith Jr. He also had positive testimony from those close to Joseph, like William Marks. JSIII was just denying what was in front of him.

Gurley was a leading light of the Reorganisation long before JSIII got involved. He was not aquainted with JS Jun. and later left the RLDS.
He knew nothing of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and relied on second hand accounts.
If you read what William Marks said carefully you will see that he never claimed Joseph was involved in polygamy. He claimed Joseph knew about it and had decided to move against those practicing it.

Not true:

“The question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it. And after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and he Marks felt that it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.“ (Minutes of a Meeting, 2 May 1865, Council of Twelve Minutes 1865-67, RLDS Archives)

[AstonishingGrunt]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

As to the Temple Lot affidavits, you seem to be ignoring the context of the disposition of the general population, and especially the U.S. government regarding polygamy at the time. I would put little stock in the judge's dismissal given the environment.

As to Helen Mar Kimball, we have her words:

With all the false traditions in which we were born, and in consequence of the degenerate tide with which the human family has been drifting for generations past, and as the Lord had no organized priesthood on the earth, it is not to be wondered at that in our ignorance of His ways the feelings of our natures should rebel against the doctrine of a plurality of wives.

I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe — the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father [Heber C. Kimball], who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told. But suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue. … My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, “No, I wouldn’t!” I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it.

This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas. I was skeptical — his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions. This was just previous to his starting upon his last mission but one to the eastern states. Fearing that I might hear it from a wrong source, knowing, as he did, that there were those who would run before they were sent, and some would not hesitate to deceive and betray him and the brethren, he thought it best that I should hear it from his own lips.

The next day the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father’s testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Scenes in Nauvoo,” Woman’s Exponent 11, no. 5 (August 1, 1882): 39.)

I heard him [Joseph Smith] teach and explain the principle of celestial marriage. After which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.” This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Autobiography, 30 March 1881,” MS 744, CHL. Typescript and copy of holograph reproduced in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 482–87.)

IMO, an honest inquiry into this matter needs to consider Compton's In Sacred Loneliness to really get a feel for what the women married to JS had to say about this themselves.

[Luke]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

As to the Temple Lot affidavits, you seem to be ignoring the context of the disposition of the general population, and especially the U.S. government regarding polygamy at the time. I would put little stock in the judge's dismissal given the environment.

As to Helen Mar Kimball, we have her words:

With all the false traditions in which we were born, and in consequence of the degenerate tide with which the human family has been drifting for generations past, and as the Lord had no organized priesthood on the earth, it is not to be wondered at that in our ignorance of His ways the feelings of our natures should rebel against the doctrine of a plurality of wives.

I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe — the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father [Heber C. Kimball], who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told. But suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue. … My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, “No, I wouldn’t!” I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it.

This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas. I was skeptical — his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions. This was just previous to his starting upon his last mission but one to the eastern states. Fearing that I might hear it from a wrong source, knowing, as he did, that there were those who would run before they were sent, and some would not hesitate to deceive and betray him and the brethren, he thought it best that I should hear it from his own lips.

The next day the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father’s testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Scenes in Nauvoo,” Woman’s Exponent 11, no. 5 (August 1, 1882): 39.)

I heard him [Joseph Smith] teach and explain the principle of celestial marriage. After which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.” This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Autobiography, 30 March 1881,” MS 744, CHL. Typescript and copy of holograph reproduced in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 482–87.)

IMO, an honest inquiry into this matter needs to consider Compton's In Sacred Loneliness to really get a feel for what the women married to JS had to say about this themselves.

Not to mention the fact that the Temple Lot Case verdict was overturned.

[Robin Hood]

Even after travelling to Utah and interviewing women who claimed to have been married to his father, Joseph Smith III remained of the opinion that his father was innocent of the charge of plural marriage.
Like us, he couldn't prove it (it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative) but he was able to question those with first hand experience and determine the weight and value of the evidence he investigated.
Zenos Gurley did not know Joseph the Prophet, so I can see why JSIII resisted his claims. Gurley's opinion is of very little worth.

Gurley was older than both Joseph Smith III AND Joseph Smith Jr. He also had positive testimony from those close to Joseph, like William Marks. JSIII was just denying what was in front of him.

Gurley was a leading light of the Reorganisation long before JSIII got involved. He was not aquainted with JS Jun. and later left the RLDS.
He knew nothing of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and relied on second hand accounts.
If you read what William Marks said carefully you will see that he never claimed Joseph was involved in polygamy. He claimed Joseph knew about it and had decided to move against those practicing it.

Not true:

“The question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it. And after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and he Marks felt that it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.“ (Minutes of a Meeting, 2 May 1865, Council of Twelve Minutes 1865-67, RLDS Archives)

And Hyrum made clear the revelation was nothing to do with current times, and was to do with ancient times and practices.
You missed that bit Luke.

[Robin Hood]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

As to the Temple Lot affidavits, you seem to be ignoring the context of the disposition of the general population, and especially the U.S. government regarding polygamy at the time. I would put little stock in the judge's dismissal given the environment.

As to Helen Mar Kimball, we have her words:

With all the false traditions in which we were born, and in consequence of the degenerate tide with which the human family has been drifting for generations past, and as the Lord had no organized priesthood on the earth, it is not to be wondered at that in our ignorance of His ways the feelings of our natures should rebel against the doctrine of a plurality of wives.

I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe — the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father [Heber C. Kimball], who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told. But suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue. … My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, “No, I wouldn’t!” I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it.

This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas. I was skeptical — his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions. This was just previous to his starting upon his last mission but one to the eastern states. Fearing that I might hear it from a wrong source, knowing, as he did, that there were those who would run before they were sent, and some would not hesitate to deceive and betray him and the brethren, he thought it best that I should hear it from his own lips.

The next day the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father’s testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Scenes in Nauvoo,” Woman’s Exponent 11, no. 5 (August 1, 1882): 39.)

I heard him [Joseph Smith] teach and explain the principle of celestial marriage. After which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.” This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Autobiography, 30 March 1881,” MS 744, CHL. Typescript and copy of holograph reproduced in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 482–87.)

IMO, an honest inquiry into this matter needs to consider Compton's In Sacred Loneliness to really get a feel for what the women married to JS had to say about this themselves.

Not to mention the fact that the Temple Lot Case verdict was overturned.

No it wasn't.
The Church of Christ were permitted to retain the property on appeal because of the law of adverse possession.
This was based on the fact that they had held and improved the property for a significant period and had paid taxes etc on it. It was nothing whatsoever to do with the verdict.
It was ironic in a way because the RLDS lost the temple lot based on the law of adverse possession, but retained the Kirtland Temple on the same basis.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Not to mention the fact that the Temple Lot Case verdict was overturned.

Overturned? I thought the only reason the Church of Christ was awarded the land (even though the RSLD church was essentially claimed rightful successor to Joseph), was due to the statute of limitations, or in other words, they were awarded the land due to a technicality of having been on the land for decades.

[Robin Hood]

Not to mention the fact that the Temple Lot Case verdict was overturned.

Overturned? I thought the only reason the Church of Christ was awarded the land (even though the RSLD church was essentially claimed rightful successor to Joseph), was due to the statute of limitations, or in other words, they were awarded the land due to a technicality of having been on the land for decades.

That is correct.
It's called the Law of Adverse Possession.

[Artaxerxes]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

Why are we bound to agree with him? He read the affidavits and didn't believe them. I read them and I do. Why do I have to replace his judgment for my own? Isn't that the worst kind of appeal to authority?

[Robin Hood]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

Why are we bound to agree with him? He read the affidavits and didn't believe them. I read them and I do. Why do I have to replace his judgment for my own? Isn't that the worst kind of appeal to authority?

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Some of the women attended the hearing and their testimonies were destroyed in the cross-examination. Their stories fell apart.
That is the whole purpose of a court - to examine the evidence and get to the truth.

[Luke]

Gurley was older than both Joseph Smith III AND Joseph Smith Jr. He also had positive testimony from those close to Joseph, like William Marks. JSIII was just denying what was in front of him.

Gurley was a leading light of the Reorganisation long before JSIII got involved. He was not aquainted with JS Jun. and later left the RLDS.
He knew nothing of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and relied on second hand accounts.
If you read what William Marks said carefully you will see that he never claimed Joseph was involved in polygamy. He claimed Joseph knew about it and had decided to move against those practicing it.

Not true:

“The question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it. And after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and he Marks felt that it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.“ (Minutes of a Meeting, 2 May 1865, Council of Twelve Minutes 1865-67, RLDS Archives)

And Hyrum made clear the revelation was nothing to do with current times, and was to do with ancient times and practices.
You missed that bit Luke.

Except he told the people at the High Council meeting that they were to enter into that order of marriage.

[Robin Hood]

Gurley was a leading light of the Reorganisation long before JSIII got involved. He was not aquainted with JS Jun. and later left the RLDS.
He knew nothing of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and relied on second hand accounts.
If you read what William Marks said carefully you will see that he never claimed Joseph was involved in polygamy. He claimed Joseph knew about it and had decided to move against those practicing it.

Not true:

“The question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the doctrine of polygamy. President Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it. And after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and he Marks felt that it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.“ (Minutes of a Meeting, 2 May 1865, Council of Twelve Minutes 1865-67, RLDS Archives)

And Hyrum made clear the revelation was nothing to do with current times, and was to do with ancient times and practices.
You missed that bit Luke.

Except he told the people at the High Council meeting that they were to enter into that order of marriage.

But he didn't Luke, that's just it.

[Artaxerxes]

Fanny Alger
Helen Mar Kimball
The affidavits in the Temple Lot case
Zina Huntington
Eliza Snow
Marinda Johnson Hyde
The Partridge sisters
Louisa Beaman

Those are just a few of the well documented issues the deniers of JS as a polygamist have to deal with. The mental and evidential gymnastics necessary to do so strain credulity.

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

Why are we bound to agree with him? He read the affidavits and didn't believe them. I read them and I do. Why do I have to replace his judgment for my own? Isn't that the worst kind of appeal to authority?

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Some of the women attended the hearing and their testimonies were destroyed in the cross-examination. Their stories fell apart.
That is the whole purpose of a court - to examine the evidence and get to the truth.

I'm not sure which part of the rule of law requires that I agree with everything every judge says. Am I also required to be okay with abortion since judges say it's okay?

[Robin Hood]

Well, for a kick off, the judge in the Temple Lot case didn't believe the affidavits. In fact he expressed sympathy for the poor women pressured to sign them. So You would do well to ignore those as their provenance is poor. They were found in a court of law to be unreliable.
Some of these women you have named were the "authors" of these affidavits.

And you must be aware that Helen Mar Kimball clearly stated that her "marriage" to Joseph was actually a sealing in view of eternity. According to her there was never any question of a marriage in the physical sense.

Why are we bound to agree with him? He read the affidavits and didn't believe them. I read them and I do. Why do I have to replace his judgment for my own? Isn't that the worst kind of appeal to authority?

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Some of the women attended the hearing and their testimonies were destroyed in the cross-examination. Their stories fell apart.
That is the whole purpose of a court - to examine the evidence and get to the truth.

I'm not sure which part of the rule of law requires that I agree with everything every judge says. Am I also required to be okay with abortion since judges say it's okay?

Stop being an idiot.
You know very well what I mean.

[Artaxerxes]

Why are we bound to agree with him? He read the affidavits and didn't believe them. I read them and I do. Why do I have to replace his judgment for my own? Isn't that the worst kind of appeal to authority?

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Some of the women attended the hearing and their testimonies were destroyed in the cross-examination. Their stories fell apart.
That is the whole purpose of a court - to examine the evidence and get to the truth.

I'm not sure which part of the rule of law requires that I agree with everything every judge says. Am I also required to be okay with abortion since judges say it's okay?

Stop being an idiot.
You know very well what I mean.

I don't. He didn't believe the affidavits. I do. Why do I have to supplant my own judgment? When is that ever required? What is this theory of the rule of law that requires me to do so?

[Robin Hood]

Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Some of the women attended the hearing and their testimonies were destroyed in the cross-examination. Their stories fell apart.
That is the whole purpose of a court - to examine the evidence and get to the truth.

I'm not sure which part of the rule of law requires that I agree with everything every judge says. Am I also required to be okay with abortion since judges say it's okay?

Stop being an idiot.
You know very well what I mean.

I don't. He didn't believe the affidavits. I do. Why do I have to supplant my own judgment? When is that ever required? What is this theory of the rule of law that requires me to do so?

Because the women were cross-examined and their testimony fell apart.
Have you ever actually read the transcript of the trial?

[Artaxerxes]

I'm not sure which part of the rule of law requires that I agree with everything every judge says. Am I also required to be okay with abortion since judges say it's okay?

Stop being an idiot.
You know very well what I mean.

I don't. He didn't believe the affidavits. I do. Why do I have to supplant my own judgment? When is that ever required? What is this theory of the rule of law that requires me to do so?

Because the women were cross-examined and their testimony fell apart.
Have you ever actually read the transcript of the trial?

Now you're presenting a different argument. I'd like to stick with the first one. Does the rule of law require that we always agree with everything a judge says?

[Robin Hood]

Stop being an idiot.
You know very well what I mean.

I don't. He didn't believe the affidavits. I do. Why do I have to supplant my own judgment? When is that ever required? What is this theory of the rule of law that requires me to do so?

Because the women were cross-examined and their testimony fell apart.
Have you ever actually read the transcript of the trial?

Now you're presenting a different argument. I'd like to stick with the first one. Does the rule of law require that we always agree with everything a judge says?

Nice try!
No, let's get back to what we're really discussing. You claim to know more or at least as much as the judge in the case, which qualifies you to reach a different conclusion. You can only do this if you have all of the information available to you that the judge had. So, have you read all of the transcripts of the case? Have you?
If not you are disagreeing with the judgement based purely on your preconceived prejudices and on no other basis.
In other words, you are in no position to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the verdict, so your point is moot.

P.S. I have read it.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't. He didn't believe the affidavits. I do. Why do I have to supplant my own judgment? When is that ever required? What is this theory of the rule of law that requires me to do so?

Because the women were cross-examined and their testimony fell apart.
Have you ever actually read the transcript of the trial?

Now you're presenting a different argument. I'd like to stick with the first one. Does the rule of law require that we always agree with everything a judge says?

Nice try!
No, let's get back to what we're really discussing. You claim to know more or at least as much as the judge in the case, which qualifies you to reach a different conclusion. You can only do this if you have all of the information available to you that the judge had. So, have you read all of the transcripts of the case? Have you?
If not you are disagreeing with the judgement based purely on your preconceived prejudices and on no other basis.
In other words, you are in no position to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the verdict, so your point is moot.

P.S. I have read it.

I have made no such claim. But if you'd like to retreat from your argument, that's perfectly fine.

I have read many excerpts of it, but no, I have not read all 1600-some odd pages of transcript. I found it a tad dry.

[Robin Hood]

Because the women were cross-examined and their testimony fell apart.
Have you ever actually read the transcript of the trial?

Now you're presenting a different argument. I'd like to stick with the first one. Does the rule of law require that we always agree with everything a judge says?

Nice try!
No, let's get back to what we're really discussing. You claim to know more or at least as much as the judge in the case, which qualifies you to reach a different conclusion. You can only do this if you have all of the information available to you that the judge had. So, have you read all of the transcripts of the case? Have you?
If not you are disagreeing with the judgement based purely on your preconceived prejudices and on no other basis.
In other words, you are in no position to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the verdict, so your point is moot.

P.S. I have read it.

I have made no such claim. But if you'd like to retreat from your argument, that's perfectly fine.

I have read many excerpts of it, but no, I have not read all 1600-some odd pages of transcript. I found it a tad dry.

Then I accept your conceding of the argument.

[Artaxerxes]

Now you're presenting a different argument. I'd like to stick with the first one. Does the rule of law require that we always agree with everything a judge says?

Nice try!
No, let's get back to what we're really discussing. You claim to know more or at least as much as the judge in the case, which qualifies you to reach a different conclusion. You can only do this if you have all of the information available to you that the judge had. So, have you read all of the transcripts of the case? Have you?
If not you are disagreeing with the judgement based purely on your preconceived prejudices and on no other basis.
In other words, you are in no position to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the verdict, so your point is moot.

P.S. I have read it.

I have made no such claim. But if you'd like to retreat from your argument, that's perfectly fine.

I have read many excerpts of it, but no, I have not read all 1600-some odd pages of transcript. I found it a tad dry.

Then I accept your conceding of the argument.

I certainly concede nothing. I'm unaware of any logical principle that says that one must have read all 1600 pages of a transcript to have an opinion on the veracity of portions of it. If you'd like to set out the logic of that principle, you are certainly welcome to.

[Robin Hood]

Nice try!
No, let's get back to what we're really discussing. You claim to know more or at least as much as the judge in the case, which qualifies you to reach a different conclusion. You can only do this if you have all of the information available to you that the judge had. So, have you read all of the transcripts of the case? Have you?
If not you are disagreeing with the judgement based purely on your preconceived prejudices and on no other basis.
In other words, you are in no position to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the verdict, so your point is moot.

P.S. I have read it.

I have made no such claim. But if you'd like to retreat from your argument, that's perfectly fine.

I have read many excerpts of it, but no, I have not read all 1600-some odd pages of transcript. I found it a tad dry.

Then I accept your conceding of the argument.

I certainly concede nothing. I'm unaware of any logical principle that says that one must have read all 1600 pages of a transcript to have an opinion on the veracity of portions of it. If you'd like to set out the logic of that principle, you are certainly welcome to.

Some advice; when you're in a hole... stop digging.

[Artaxerxes]

I have made no such claim. But if you'd like to retreat from your argument, that's perfectly fine.

I have read many excerpts of it, but no, I have not read all 1600-some odd pages of transcript. I found it a tad dry.

Then I accept your conceding of the argument.

I certainly concede nothing. I'm unaware of any logical principle that says that one must have read all 1600 pages of a transcript to have an opinion on the veracity of portions of it. If you'd like to set out the logic of that principle, you are certainly welcome to.

Some advice; when you're in a hole... stop digging.

I see you're retreating from your argument once again. Probably a good call.

[Robin Hood]

Then I accept your conceding of the argument.

I certainly concede nothing. I'm unaware of any logical principle that says that one must have read all 1600 pages of a transcript to have an opinion on the veracity of portions of it. If you'd like to set out the logic of that principle, you are certainly welcome to.

Some advice; when you're in a hole... stop digging.

I see you're retreating from your argument once again. Probably a good call.

Anyone reading this thread will clearly see that you tried to take it off on a tangent in order to avoid the issue. The fact of the matter is that your argument against the courts findings against the evidence of the affidavits was that you disagreed with it.
That's it. That was the sum total of your argument.
Each to their own I guess.