Another Question for LDS

[gondolacrescent]

Joseph Smith running for US Presidency? Assassination?

He was lynched or about to be lynched–there were a lot of people that hated him–but not for the sake of Christ. He was a polygamist-and some of his wives were already married to other men. He was behind a bank failure involving fraud that ruined hundreds of people. He was a powerful man who got carried away with the effect of his astonishing charisma and charm-- and that was his undoing.

When he was shot, standing in a 2nd floor window well attempting to jump out of his holding cell, he’d already shot and killed two men outside his cell who were trying to get in to get him. The official history of the LDS church admits that Smith had a gun that’d been smuggled into him. He used it–he didn’t go like a “lamb to the slaughter” in imitation of Christ. Smith was killed trying to get away by any means possible-- including manslaughter.

 

[dianaiad]

There we go, retreating to the old tactic of deflecting issues by going on the attack. The Catholic Church has a lot of blood on its hands and I think it needs to acknowledge that, true, but let’s not get too far from the point here:

Since the issue is the moving of goal posts, it is not deflecting the issue by pointing at them as they get carried on by…

Thank you for proving my point; it all revolves around what you believe, not what’s actually a fact. I can believe that I’m Queen Victoria all day long but that doesn’t make it so, does it?

Indeed…and no matter how you spin it, having two hundred men attack a jail containing for (as they thought) unarmed men plus the jailor and his family with the stated and successful aim of murdering prisoners can NOT be characterized as 'Joseph being shot in the back as he attempted to escape the jail."

As well, it is incredibly disengenuous to portray, say, PAUL as a martyr when he attempted to escape his own death so vehemently…there is no reason to assume that a man who worked so hard to twist the legal system around to stay alive would not have resorted to other means, if those other means were available. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, did not avail himself of the very legal means he could have in order to avoid his death; HE was ‘dumb’ enough to put himself in the hands of his enemies. Paul avoided that as long as he physically could.

So why then is Paul a martyr…but Joseph not? Why is Peter, who not only sliced off an ear, but who, in a coward’s move, actually denied Christ three times, considered a martyr, but Joseph–who went through a LOT more pure torture than Peter did before his death, never once denied Jesus as the Christ–is not?

Ultimately the whole thing comes down to…well," Peter was a martyr because we like him, and Joseph Smith was not because we don’t. "

What I believe isn’t really at issue here as much as what can be demonstrated as fact and we know that Smith has been proven a miserable failure as a prophet. He’s really a prophet in name only since he couldn’t get even one single propecy correct, isn’t he?

He couldn’t?

Wow. News to me.

Lessee…he predicted, way back in 1832, that the Civil War would begin in South Carolina. True, in that same year South Carolina was all for the issue of ‘nullification’…and was agitating for secession. Joseph Smith is quite honest about the fact that it was this public controversy that sent him to ask God about it…but the issue of Civil War wasn’t really in anybody’s mind at the time. President Jackson calmed everybody down…

But in 1960, just as Joseph prophecied, South Carolina was the first state to secede, and the war began there. Thus, a prophecy fulfilled.

He prophecied that the Saints would do well in the Rocky Mountains…and oddly enough, it looks rather like we have.

There are a BUNCH of others, but for the purposes of disproving your claim, all that is required is one., and I gave you two.

Honestly, in this discussion, I don’t use my own standards; I use those laid out by Orson Pratt: “…convince us of our errors or doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God…” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Jan 1853, p 15)

If anything, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here because I use your texts, subscribe to FAIR, FARMS, the Nephi Project, and watch BYU TV. I’ve even been to LDS mass a few times. That’s the reason you can’t fool me.

Uhm, we don’t have mass.

That could explain part of the problem you have.

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph Smith running for US Presidency? Assassination?

He was lynched or about to be lynched

“Lynching” is a: not being shot…it’s being hung and there was absolutely no intention to hang there…b: murder is murder; there is nothing at all honorable about a lynching; in fact, the very word is an admission of fault. “Lynching” is never legal…it is ALWAYS murder.

–there were a lot of people that hated him–but not for the sake of Christ. He was a polygamist-and some of his wives were already married to other men. He was behind a bank failure involving fraud that ruined hundreds of people. He was a powerful man who got carried away with the effect of his astonishing charisma and charm-- and that was his undoing.

When he was shot, standing in a 2nd floor window well attempting to jump out of his holding cell, he’d already shot and killed two men outside his cell who were trying to get in to get him.

Actually, he didn’t kill anybody…though it is possible that one eventually died, we don’t have any hard evidence of that. It is certain that no more than one did…and in fact, Joseph may have wounded four, though we only have names for three. Are you telling me that you approve of the lynching?

The official history of the LDS church admits that Smith had a gun that’d been smuggled into him. He used it–he didn’t go like a “lamb to the slaughter” in imitation of Christ. Smith was killed trying to get away by any means possible-- including manslaughter.

Two things must be true for ‘manslaughter’ to exist. First, somebody must actually, y’know, die. The only deaths we are sure of in that attack are those of Joseph and Hyrum. Second, 'manslaughter" requires some culpability on the part of the killer–and attempting to defend oneself against traitorous attack is always honorable.

I have said this before, but the biggest regret I have about that incident is that Joseph wasn’t better armed. Every one of the men that attacked that jail that night are guilty of cold blooded murder, with all the penalties and consequences that go along with it.

 

[PaulDupre]

If they answer “no” what happens?
Do they re-take the test later?
Also, what if someone in the ward or neighborhood knew that the person being interviewed did one or more of these things, do they tell the Bishop or keep it to themselves?

When I was LDS, I became aware that a man whose family I home taught was beating his wife and molesting his daughters. His eldest daughter had aborted his baby and then left home and the church. I reported all this to the bishop (I was his 2nd counselor at the time). The bishop said he would “take care of it”. I expected that the man would be tried in a church court and disciplined. Instead, the bishop called the wife into his office and told her it was all her fault - she was not submissive enough or supportive enough. If she would just be a better wife, then her husband would not beat her or molest his daughters.

When I confronted the bishop about this, he threatened to haul ME into church court and discipline ME for undermining his authority.

Coincidentally (or maybe not ) this man was a wealthy business owner (and 7th-generation Mormon descended from one of the original LDS apostles) and one of the BIG tithe-payers in the ward. He held a current temple recommend. He still held it 6 months later when I left the cult.

So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

So as a martyr, I assuming he was following Jesus’ example, right? I believe it is in Mark where Jesus shot and killed two men before being killed himself, right?

Only in Islam and Mormonism is a martyr someone who dies while killing people.

 

[why_me]

Coincidentally (or maybe not ) this man was a wealthy business owner (and 7th-generation Mormon descended from one of the original LDS apostles) and one of the BIG tithe-payers in the ward. He held a current temple recommend. He still held it 6 months later when I left the cult.

So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood.

Paul

Of course, it would be nice to see some proof. However, as you are well aware, people do make mistakes. That being said, did this bishop make any right decisions? Now of course, your So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood comment leaves you wide open about the sex scandals that have hit the catholic church and continue to hit the catholic church. Any comments about the sex scandals that have continued to rock the catholic church? Now of course I could have used your words in bold black and wrote them in the same intent that you did…but replacing mormon church with catholic church but why would I?

It is so unbelievable how a catholic could write what I have bolded. Truly amazing.

 

[why_me]

Joseph Smith running for US Presidency? Assassination?

He was lynched or about to be lynched–there were a lot of people that hated him–but not for the sake of Christ. He was a polygamist-and some of his wives were already married to other men. He was behind a bank failure involving fraud that ruined hundreds of people. He was a powerful man who got carried away with the effect of his astonishing charisma and charm-- and that was his undoing.

When he was shot, standing in a 2nd floor window well attempting to jump out of his holding cell, he’d already shot and killed two men outside his cell who were trying to get in to get him. The official history of the LDS church admits that Smith had a gun that’d been smuggled into him. He used it–he didn’t go like a “lamb to the slaughter” in imitation of Christ. Smith was killed trying to get away by any means possible-- including manslaughter.

Well, this is not exactly true. Joseph Smith was murdered because the mob believed that without Joseph the lds church would disappear. They were wrong and of course, they realized this later. Of course, your account gleamed from a few critical sites on mormonism, is flawed. Question. why did the mob kill his brother in the same cell and attempted to kill the other two lds members in the cell too? Answer: They hated mormons because of all the inciteful reports in the neighboring newspapers. In fact, some comments on this thread can be compared with the hatred shown in yesteryear. It is amazing just what words worded in certain ways can do to respectable people: words can cause people to murder…just look at the Germans in the 1930’s.

And what is truly amazing is that some of these murdering mob members, probably went to their churches the next sunday. Now that is interesting, isn’t it?

 

[why_me]

Only in Islam and Mormonism is a martyr someone who dies while killing people.

I also think that in Judiasm they can also be considered martyrs. Of course, I don’t think that god condones suicide. By not defending themselves, when they did have the opportunity would have been suicidal.

Joseph, after seeing his brother shot dead, picked up the pistol and fired his six shooter against a mob of a hundred black painted faces. I would have done the same. Would you?

 

[why_me]

This is what Diana is referring to.

It is simply an illustration of the ephemeral nature of the teachings of the LDS church. They are denying the teachings of BY, who was accepted as a prophet during his times. Given what we now know of him, this is perfectly reasonable. However, he WAS A PROPHET.

I don’t think that anyone is denying anything. People buy his discourses which by the way has a disclaimer that I have posted elsewhere. Now since that disclaimer was made decades ago I think that many mormons are aware just what these journals are.

 

[why_me]

This is what Diana is referring to.

It is simply an illustration of the ephemeral nature of the teachings of the LDS church. They are denying the teachings of BY, who was accepted as a prophet during his times. Given what we now know of him, this is perfectly reasonable. However, he WAS A PROPHET.

The Journal of Discourses are great reading material, but you must remember that even when the discourses were given by LDS Apostles and Prophets “in the name of Jesus Christ,” that doesn’t mean that they’re anything more than “personal opinion.”

Here is what Brigham said about his being a prophet:

Brigham Young repeatedly denied being a prophet!

Journal of Discourses, 5:177
“I do not profess to be a Prophet. I never called myself so; but I actually believe I am, because people are all the time telling me that I am.”

Journal of Discourses, 13:166
“It has been remarked sometimes, by certain individuals, that President Young has said in public that he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet.”

Times and Seasons, 5:618
"You are now without a prophet present with you in the flesh to guide you; but you are not without apostles

It seems that Brigham did not consider himself a prophet.

But here is something interesting too:

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

Of course, mormons consider BY a prophet. But BY was a humble, genial and benevolent man.

 

[dianaiad]

When I was LDS, I became aware that a man whose family I home taught was beating his wife and molesting his daughters. His eldest daughter had aborted his baby and then left home and the church. I reported all this to the bishop (I was his 2nd counselor at the time). The bishop said he would “take care of it”. I expected that the man would be tried in a church court and disciplined. Instead, the bishop called the wife into his office and told her it was all her fault - she was not submissive enough or supportive enough. If she would just be a better wife, then her husband would not beat her or molest his daughters.

When I confronted the bishop about this, he threatened to haul ME into church court and discipline ME for undermining his authority.

Coincidentally (or maybe not ) this man was a wealthy business owner (and 7th-generation Mormon descended from one of the original LDS apostles) and one of the BIG tithe-payers in the ward. He held a current temple recommend. He still held it 6 months later when I left the cult.

So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood.

Paul

Paul,

…

I don’t believe this story.

Diana

 

[why_me]

Paul,

…

I don’t believe this story.

Diana

I do think that something is missing in this story. But…people do and say stupid things. But to condemn the mormon priesthood because of it, as Paul did, is not correct.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I think the problem here is that the conclusion is predetermined: if you pray over the Book Of Mormon and find it not to be true, the problem is obviously with you, not with the faith. The only acceptable answer is that it is, indeed, true.

I have a copy of the book of mormon. Why would anyone pray over a book that basically tells you at the beginning that anything in it that is contradicted by the Bible is wrong or something (You know what I mean, those dumb little mormon prefaces).

 

[SirThomasMore]

Indeed…and no matter how you spin it, having two hundred men attack a jail containing for (as they thought) unarmed men plus the jailor and his family with the stated and successful aim of murdering prisoners can NOT be characterized as 'Joseph being shot in the back as he attempted to escape the jail."

Joseph was in jail for breaking the law. He had a gun in jail, also very illegal. He was shot by an illegal mob as he tried to flee by jumping out of a window, after firing at the mob.

As well, it is incredibly disengenuous to portray, say, PAUL as a martyr when he attempted to escape his own death so vehemently…there is no reason to assume that a man who worked so hard to twist the legal system around to stay alive would not have resorted to other means, if those other means were available. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, did not avail himself of the very legal means he could have in order to avoid his death; HE was ‘dumb’ enough to put himself in the hands of his enemies. Paul avoided that as long as he physically could.

Let’s be totally honest. He DID tried to twist the system, going before LDS judges to avoid paying for the laws he broke. When it was clear that illegal tactic did not work, he tried to run away, but was shamed into returning to face justice. It is a real shame that he was illegally murdered, I would have loved to see a REAL trial.

So why then is Paul a martyr…but Joseph not? Why is Peter, who not only sliced off an ear, but who, in a coward’s move, actually denied Christ three times, considered a martyr, but Joseph–who went through a LOT more pure torture than Peter did before his death, never once denied Jesus as the Christ–is not?

Because Paul and Peter were not criminals. They did not invent polygamy as a way to get women, they did not cheat people out of money, they did not seek personal glory as mayor, general, president, they did not break the law. And how very odd you would use Peter’s cutting of an ear to compare to Joseph. Peter did what he did trying to PROTECT Christ. Joe fired an illegal weapon blindly into a mob to try to save himself

Ultimately the whole thing comes down to…well," Peter was a martyr because we like him, and Joseph Smith was not because we don’t. "

No, it is much deeper than that

Lessee…he predicted, way back in 1832, that the Civil War would begin in South Carolina. True, in that same year South Carolina was all for the issue of ‘nullification’…and was agitating for secession. Joseph Smith is quite honest about the fact that it was this public controversy that sent him to ask God about it…but the issue of Civil War wasn’t really in anybody’s mind at the time. President Jackson calmed everybody down…

lol…look at news articles from those days. I have. EVERYONE was predicting war. EVERYONE figured it would start in South Carolina. Joe did not give a prophesy, he just recited news articles.

He prophecied that the Saints would do well in the Rocky Mountains…and oddly enough, it looks rather like we have.

He also said they would do well in Kirtland and in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Joe had already planned to move West, and he had a habit of predicting the Saints would do well each time they moved. Law of averages says he would finally get it right.

There are a BUNCH of others, but for the purposes of disproving your claim, all that is required is one., and I gave you two.

He also predicted the world would in the 1800s. He also said Patten would go on a mission, he also said their were men on the moon, he also said a lot of others that never came true. The only ones that came true were obvious ones.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Of course, it would be nice to see some proof. However, as you are well aware, people do make mistakes. That being said, did this bishop make any right decisions? Now of course, your So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood comment leaves you wide open about the sex scandals that have hit the catholic church and continue to hit the catholic church. Any comments about the sex scandals that have continued to rock the catholic church? Now of course I could have used your words in bold black and wrote them in the same intent that you did…but replacing mormon church with catholic church but why would I?

It is so unbelievable how a catholic could write what I have bolded. Truly amazing.

Sigh, more deflection. I saw so much of this when I taught 4th grade. “Well, Billy did it too!”

Sigh.

The difference is, we don;t make excuses for our Priests. We don;t deflect back to Mormons when asked about it. I have no respect fopr the priests and they should all be in prison. No excuses. No deflections. If only Mormons could do that

 

[SirThomasMore]

Well, this is not exactly true. Joseph Smith was murdered because the mob believed that without Joseph the lds church would disappear.

Prove it. Prove THAT was the reason

They were wrong and of course, they realized this later. Of course, your account gleamed from a few critical sites on mormonism, is flawed. Question. why did the mob kill his brother in the same cell and attempted to kill the other two lds members in the cell too? Answer: They hated mormons because of all the inciteful reports in the neighboring newspapers. In fact, some comments on this thread can be compared with the hatred shown in yesteryear. It is amazing just what words worded in certain ways can do to respectable people: words can cause people to murder…just look at the Germans in the 1930’s.

People were killed. I have my doubts that anyone would have been, except maybe Joseph, had Joseph not fired that gun. They would rushed the cell and probably taken Joseph, probasbly killed him. It would have been cold-blooded murder. But had Joseph not fired, it is possible no one but Joseph would have been killed.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Paul,

…

I don’t believe this story.

Diana

lol. Diana NEVER believes any story that paints the LDS in a bad light. Several members here have recounted bad things that happened to them, she calls all of liars.

 

[MelanieAnne]

When I was LDS, I became aware that a man whose family I home taught was beating his wife and molesting his daughters. His eldest daughter had aborted his baby and then left home and the church. I reported all this to the bishop (I was his 2nd counselor at the time). The bishop said he would “take care of it”. I expected that the man would be tried in a church court and disciplined. Instead, the bishop called the wife into his office and told her it was all her fault - she was not submissive enough or supportive enough. If she would just be a better wife, then her husband would not beat her or molest his daughters.

When I confronted the bishop about this, he threatened to haul ME into church court and discipline ME for undermining his authority.

Coincidentally (or maybe not ) this man was a wealthy business owner (and 7th-generation Mormon descended from one of the original LDS apostles) and one of the BIG tithe-payers in the ward. He held a current temple recommend. He still held it 6 months later when I left the cult.

So much for the inspired unpaid (and untrained) Mormon priesthood.

Paul

I have a somewhat similar tale, although I (obviously) did not hold a church position.

I personally know a woman who was raped by a man. Both of them were Mormons, wealthy, and Temple Recommend holders. The woman reported it to the local church hierarchy. It ultimately was reported to the First Presidency in a letter she wrote to them. She had a group of us who were close friends of hers proofread the letter before she sent it.

Now, while I know this is a classic he said/she said story, there is not a doubt in my mind that she was telling the truth, because that is the kind of person she is. In contrast, her attacker did not have the same reputation.

But nothing was done by anyone. There was no church discipline of any kind. The rapist continued to hold his Temple Recommend and participate in church positions and activities as if nothing had happened. The only change in the status quo was that his victim moved several hundred miles away to limit the likelihood of a repeat attack.

I found the hypocrisy absolutely stunning.

 

[MelanieAnne]

lol. Diana NEVER believes any story that paints the LDS in a bad light. Several members here have recounted bad things that happened to them, she calls all of liars.

Indeed. She’s called me one too. Quite some time ago in connection with another thread I reported a fact told to me by someone I personally know, that HE knew from personal observation. It was about a Mormon Apostle and it portrayed said Mormon Apostle in an unflattering way (and possibly a “grounds for excommunication” way, but I don’t know that for sure.)

This was apparently unwelcome information, and so Diana called me a liar. She also went on to say very nasty, albeit imaginary, things about Catholic hierarchy. It is a mystery to me why this person is allowed to continue to post on these fora when she has such a history of calling other forum members liars.

I can understand people being upset at unwelcome news. I can also understand the urge to defend those persons you admire and question unflattering reports. What I cannot understand is the reflexive response to such situations of calling someone a liar.

A liar is someone who *knowingly * communicates false information. A person who innocently reports information that later turns out to be false did not lie, they were merely misinformed. “Lie” implies an intent to deceive. The fact that information is merely unwelcome to the recipient does not convert that information to a “lie”. Yet that has been a persistent characteristic of many Mormons posting to these fora, many of whom have been banned, and some, such as Diana, who have not been. Or at least not yet.

As for me, I do not take kindly to anyone impugning my integrity. Diana was promptly added to my ignore list. I don’t do this because I am a coward, or because I can’t handle persons of her ilk. I did it for a couple of reasons:

1. 
   *]Life is too short to put up with such persons if you don’t have to. Dialog with persons who reflexively label anything they don’t like as a “lie” is not productive. In fact, it is a waste of time, at least in my opinion.
   *]If most people, if not everyone, put such persons on their ignore list, the ignored persons would basically have no one to communicate with on these fora beyond eachother, and so, perhaps, they would go away.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Indeed. She’s called me one too. Quite some time ago in connection with another thread I reported a fact told to me by someone I personally know, that HE knew from personal observation. It was about a Mormon Apostle and it portrayed said Mormon Apostle in an unflattering way (and possibly a “grounds for excommunication” way, but I don’t know that for sure.)

This was apparently unwelcome information, and so Diana called me a liar. She also went on to say very nasty, albeit imaginary, things about Catholic hierarchy. It is a mystery to me why this person is allowed to continue to post on these fora when she has such a history of calling other forum members liars.

I can understand people being upset at unwelcome news. I can also understand the urge to defend those persons you admire and question unflattering reports. What I cannot understand is the reflexive response to such situations of calling someone a liar.

A liar is someone who *knowingly * communicates false information. A person who innocently reports information that later turns out to be false did not lie, they were merely misinformed. “Lie” implies an intent to deceive. The fact that information is merely unwelcome to the recipient does not convert that information to a “lie”. Yet that has been a persistent characteristic of many Mormons posting to these fora, many of whom have been banned, and some, such as Diana, who have not been. Or at least not yet.

As for me, I do not take kindly to anyone impugning my integrity. Diana was promptly added to my ignore list. I don’t do this because I am a coward, or because I can’t handle persons of her ilk. I did it for a couple of reasons:

1. 
   *]Life is too short to put up with such persons if you don’t have to. Dialog with persons who reflexively label anything they don’t like as a “lie” is not productive. In fact, it is a waste of time, at least in my opinion.
   *]If most people, if not everyone, put such persons on their ignore list, the ignored persons would basically have no one to communicate with on these fora beyond eachother, and so, perhaps, they would go away.

1. 
   Having my own horrid experience when I left the LDS Church, I believe what you posted AND what others have posted regarding THEIR experiences. Not because I want to believe the bad, but because I have seen the bad and have no reason to doubt you.