FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
Revision as of 11:40, 22 November 2016 by RogerNicholson (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{FME-Source |title=Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre? |category=Mountain Meadows Massacre }}...")
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
Klingensmith's testimony was considered to be worthless at the time of the trial
Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre. One reviewer discussed the problems with this witness:
How good is Klingensmith's testimony?...upon cross-examination during the first Lee trial, Klingensmith admitted that whatever passed between Lee and Young about the massacre was outside his hearing. His testimony was so worthless that U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard declined to recall Klingensmith for the second trial. Klingensmith also admitted to participating in the massacre. He turned state's evidence before Lee's first trial in exchange for a grant of immunity. He gave his testimony as a disillusioned apostate. Thus his 6 October 1857 account is very suspect, even without Young's denial." [1]
Notes