Sorry, but this Washington County prosecutor had over a year to prepare their case. They filed for and were granted Motions for Continuance twice to postpone proceedings.
Each time stating the victim’s emotional/mental state.
The third request for Continuance was denied.
Under the Sixth Amendment, the court must remain an equalizer where the state, the accused, and the accuser are bound by the *same* rules:
1) No Special Status:
Judge Winward’s ultimate ruling reinforced that while the court acknowledges victim trauma, **an accuser does not possess a supreme legal right to freeze the mechanics of democracy or hold a defendant’s liberty in limbo indefinitely**
2) The Constitutional Boundary:
The prosecution already waited an entire year to file charges to give the victim time to prepare.
The Defense successfully argued that granting another Motion for Continuance crossed the line from accommodating a witness to violating the foundational constitutional rights of the accused.
BOTH have rights.
In this country, you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Not the other way around.
One big mistake…
Defense counsel, Cara Tangaro, pointed out the stark irony that during the *exact dates* originally blocked out for a high-stakes felony jury trial, the accuser (Victim) was actively posting photos on social media celebrating her 21st birthday.
Ms. Tangaro made the case that these social media posts created "terrible optics" and it felt like a "slap in the face" to Kingston, who was legally bound by strict incarceration release conditions while waiting for his day in court.
In presenting these social media images, the defense successfully challenged the prosecution’s narrative that the victim was completely incapacitated by mental difficulties, suggesting instead a double standard in how the two parties were treating the gravity of the trial dates.
The judge made the right decision. If and when the prosecution is ready, they can re-file.
America is hosting the world‘s largest sleepover. And after watching 12 hours of foreigners, absolutely loving America I’m starting to suffer from FOMO.
Doctrinally, Latter-day Saints don’t treat “a prophet said it once” as automatic, permanent canon!
Words of a prophet are scripture when spoken…
“when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”
(D&C 68:4),
And binding doctrine/canon is established through the Lord’s order including common consent.
(D&C 26:2)
For the Church’s highest-level decisions, the revealed standard is UNANIMOUS agreement by the first presidency and Twelve apostles.
Every decision made by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve “must be by the unanimous voice” of that quorum (with an exception when it’s impossible to be otherwise;
(D&C 107:27)
(D&C 107:28–29)
And for something to become binding on the Church, it’s also done by “common consent” of the Church membership.
(D&C 26:2)
Canonization and church doctrine is established through united agreement of the First Presidency and Twelve, and then presented to the Church for sustaining.
So you can mock “Brigham got that wrong” as some special pleading.
But it’s literally applying the LDS standard for weighing teachings against the scriptures, the Spirit, and what the Church actually sustains.
Also, I’m not naïve…
For critics like you, anything said in Brigham’s defense will be met with scorn anyway.
But that reaction doesn���t change what Latter-day Saints actually mean by “scripture,” or how doctrine is established.
Joseph Smith didn’t “write himself into the Bible”.
The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) isn’t canonized as our Bible. We use the King James version, just like Joseph Smith did, and just like you do too.
The JST is an inspired interpretation and clarification of the KJV, not him inserting himself into the Bible.
Regardless, can you prove it wasn’t revelation? You’re assuming the conclusion.
If Joseph was a prophet, God could reveal clarifications about scripture.
If he wasn’t, and just a con-man willing to die to keep the fraud alive, you’d dismiss it either way.
So the real question is whether God called him, not whether God could reveal something like that.
Your objection assumes Joseph can’t receive revelation. But that’s the very point in dispute.
Hebrews 1:1-2:
Shows God’s ultimate Word is His son.
*Not* that God will never speak again.
It *doesn’t say* God would stop guiding His people.
In fact…
Acts 1:20-26:
Shows after Jesus was crucified, Matthias was called to replace Judas.
Showing ongoing Apostolic succession that.
((Where in the Bible does it say this pattern should stop?))
Ephesians 4:11-14
Shows the apostolic work is to be handed on generation to generation:
Ephesians 4:
11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”
12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13) TILL we ALL COME in the UNITY of the FAITH, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine…
Quick fact:
The Church doesn’t treat the JST as canon or the “official Bible” of the LDS faith.
It was never part of our canonized scriptures. Which are the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. The Joseph Smith translation was his own Bible study seeking further light and truth and knowledge through revelation. He didn’t have an ancient Hebrew manuscript that he was translating into English. He took an English KJV Bible, and sought out deeper understanding, impressions, personal revelation, and commentary and revealed insights on certain verses and passages.
Either way it’s not a book we study as a church or individually. People are welcome to purchase one and read it themselves, but it’s not part of our Cannon or Church dogma.
It’s there in the church online free library for anyone to read it. It’s hardly the smoking gun you’re looking for.