P
Prodigal1984
Guest
He was a Freemason… Most of their rituals are stolen from Freemasonry…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
St Agatha was an avowed virgin, meaning she had taken a religious vow. Relentless advances were aimed at her Christian vow. She was tortured and killed for her religious beliefs and practices.
H
Horton
Guest
Maybe if some of the women from Smith’s time had fought for their virtue as fiercely as our women saints and the men would have stood up to Smith to protect the virtue of their women, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.Agatha was killed by the pretext that she was a Christian, but in reality because she refused the sexual advances of the Governor of Sicily. Lots of women martyrs who were killed because of such things, and Christian men martyred because they sought to protect women.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Are you asserting that the governing body of Nauvoo, led by Smith, destroying a printing press in a country where freedom of the press is guaranteed, is analogous to a governing body enforcing capital punishment for removing an edict against practicing a religion, made illegal by the same governing body?
Or is the more truthful analogy, one where the governing bodies are enforcing the religious beliefs of the governing body?
And indeed, this was the practice of ALL monarchies, including Christian monarchies. At Nauvoo, Smith was trying to build a monarchy, declaring himself king, styling himself a new David.
No, there was no reason this would rile up the non-Mormons in the community who were less than 75 years out from the American Revolution, where the express thing was, we don’t want a king! And we don’t want a monarchy that destroys printing presses.
I’m not saying, these treasonous crimes against the US deserved mob judgement and penalties. But Smith certainly was no saint.
We know who our saints are. We know the history of Christian momarchies.
LDS tend to make weird analogies that are not like for like, in an attempt to cover for Smith.
Or is the more truthful analogy, one where the governing bodies are enforcing the religious beliefs of the governing body?
And indeed, this was the practice of ALL monarchies, including Christian monarchies. At Nauvoo, Smith was trying to build a monarchy, declaring himself king, styling himself a new David.
No, there was no reason this would rile up the non-Mormons in the community who were less than 75 years out from the American Revolution, where the express thing was, we don’t want a king! And we don’t want a monarchy that destroys printing presses.
I’m not saying, these treasonous crimes against the US deserved mob judgement and penalties. But Smith certainly was no saint.
We know who our saints are. We know the history of Christian momarchies.
LDS tend to make weird analogies that are not like for like, in an attempt to cover for Smith.
Last edited:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
In the case of the destroyed printing press, that’s exactly what was going on.
The price for standing up to Smith was excommunication, with Smith asserting publicly that the person(s) were of low character, morals, and influenced by evil. (Reminds me a lot of the current political climate in the USA.)
The price for standing up to Smith was excommunication, with Smith asserting publicly that the person(s) were of low character, morals, and influenced by evil. (Reminds me a lot of the current political climate in the USA.)
G
gazelam
Guest
What county would you be referring to? That certainly was not the United States in 1844. In 1833 the Supreme Court ruled in Barron vs. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights constrained only the Federal Government, not the States. With the passage of the 14th Amendment The individual States were required to abide by the Bill of Rights.Are you asserting that the governing body of Nauvoo, led by Smith, destroying a printing press in a country where freedom of the press is guaranteed…
Actually, I really enjoyed my Christian Momarchies 101 class at college.We know the history of Christian momarchies.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
After the murder of the two Smith brothers, a reporter for by the name of George T. M. Davis travelled to Nauvoo, where he interviewed locals, Mormons, former Mormons, and then published a 47 page booklet on the circumstances that culminated in the murder of the Smith brothers.
” They [Nauvoo Municipal Council], also, under a clause in their charter giving them the usual power granted to all city incorporations, “to define and abate nuisances,” passed an ordinance declaring a public newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, a nuisance, and ordered its abatement. Under this ordinance, the civil authorities, aided by a posse of two hundred strong, repaired to the building, where said press and materials was, and destroyed the same in the public streets. This press had issued but one number of the Expositor, and its destruction led to the excitement pervading a portion of our State for the last three weeks, and which resulted in the death of the authors of this high handed outrage upon THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.”
Like I said, Mormons will say anything to defend Joseph Smith, including asserting that Americans have not defended hard won freedoms. Brushing them off as not cherished until after Smith was dead. It’s revisionism and not truth.
” They [Nauvoo Municipal Council], also, under a clause in their charter giving them the usual power granted to all city incorporations, “to define and abate nuisances,” passed an ordinance declaring a public newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, a nuisance, and ordered its abatement. Under this ordinance, the civil authorities, aided by a posse of two hundred strong, repaired to the building, where said press and materials was, and destroyed the same in the public streets. This press had issued but one number of the Expositor, and its destruction led to the excitement pervading a portion of our State for the last three weeks, and which resulted in the death of the authors of this high handed outrage upon THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.”
Like I said, Mormons will say anything to defend Joseph Smith, including asserting that Americans have not defended hard won freedoms. Brushing them off as not cherished until after Smith was dead. It’s revisionism and not truth.
Last edited:
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
They EXCEL at historical revisionism whenever it comes to defending Smith or any other church leader. Will make any and all excuses for bad behavior. One set of standards applies to church leaders, and another to everybody else.Like I said, Mormons will say anything to defend Joseph Smith, including asserting that Americans have not defended hard won freedoms. Brushing them off as not cherished until after Smith was dead. It’s revisionism and not truth.
They are so quick to claim the Early Church was full of corruption in support of their total apostacy narrative, yet refuse to see the chaotic mess their own church was in from the very beginning, brought about by the bad conduct of Joseph Smith himself.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
Yeah, like marrying someone else’s wives. Can you imagine if two people in your ward, each with living spouses, requested that they be allowed to go to the temple and be sealed to each other? That would be apostasy by today’s standards.One set of standards applies to church leaders, and another to everybody else.
But like I’ve said before, if Brother Joe were around today he’d be excommunicated from the very church that he invented.
G
gazelam
Guest
You make it sound like Mr. Davis is some altruistic journalist just trying to assist the public in its right to know.After the murder of the two Smith brothers, a reporter for by the name of George T. M. Davis travelled to Nauvoo, where he interviewed locals, Mormons, former Mormons, and then published a 47 page booklet on the circumstances that culminated in the murder of the Smith brothers.
Here’s what Davis said about the Latter-day Saints in his own words:
“From the day of their [the Mormons] coming to that of their final exodus from the State [Illinois], I never ceased to raise my voice, or employ my pen against them.” (Autobiography of the late Col. Geo T. M. Davis, page 73)
“The reward for my independent and persistent antagonism toward Mormonism was to incur, for the time being, the displeasure, with very few exceptions, of my political friends who were members of the Legislature; and to entail upon myself the remorseless and implacable hatred of this evil sect. Against the latter, I warred with increasing determination so long as they retained the slightest foothold in the state of my adoption.” (Autobiography of the late Col. Geo T. M. Davis, page 76)
Wouldn’t it be better for you to make your case in this debate forum to use an impartial source?
Stephen168
New member
No, it is possible and likely to write against a group of people factually. I think it would be better for you to refute the facts and the conclusion instead of making an ad hominem attack against Colonel Davis.Wouldn’t it be better for you to make your case in this debate forum to use an impartial source?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
First, you made a claim that freedom of the press was not important to American citizens during the early 1840s and now you have changed the subject to that of a reporter. The reporter is not the subject of the conversation. Liberty of the press and its importance in mid 19th century America is. The religious views of the reporter have nothing to do with your assertion that Americans didn’t cherish constitutional liberties until after Smith’s death.
Second, if you have a contemporary Smith supporter who spoke in support of liberty for the press, then that would be something, wouldn’t it? Nauvoo was the antithesis of American freedoms.
Second, if you have a contemporary Smith supporter who spoke in support of liberty for the press, then that would be something, wouldn’t it? Nauvoo was the antithesis of American freedoms.
Last edited:
R
RuthAnne
Guest
My husband told me that Joseph Smith had 40 wives. How did he do that? Wasn’t it against the law?
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Yes it was against the law. How did he do it? Just like Warren Jeffs or David Koresh or any other cult leader, Joseph was running a theocracy where he had all the power. He could do whatever he wanted. The law in Navoo was whatever he said it was. He kept polygamy hidden from his first wife Emma for some time, lying to her about what was going on. When she found out the truth, she was furious. Then Joseph suddenly had another revelation from God saying Emma would be destroyed if she didn’t accept his new wives. As far as how he was able to marry so many— in some cases he would threaten the young woman’s extended family with eternal consequences if the woman did not agree to the marriage proposal. In other cases he would send married men away on missions for the church and then marry their wives while they were gone. Sounds pretty great, right? Mind you, this is the FOUNDER OF THE MORMON RELIGION we are talking about.
Now the first publication of the Navoo Expositor by fellow Mormons, who were fed up with Joseph’s crimes, exposed these and other shady activities by Joseph for all to read about. Joseph didn’t like that one bit, so being the ruler of a theocracy, he had the printing press destroyed. Couldn’t let the truth get out. This of course led to his death shortly thereafter at the hands of an angry mob who didn’t appreciate somebody burning down the free press in America.
Now the first publication of the Navoo Expositor by fellow Mormons, who were fed up with Joseph’s crimes, exposed these and other shady activities by Joseph for all to read about. Joseph didn’t like that one bit, so being the ruler of a theocracy, he had the printing press destroyed. Couldn’t let the truth get out. This of course led to his death shortly thereafter at the hands of an angry mob who didn’t appreciate somebody burning down the free press in America.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
I remember talking to John Singer, who was more of a martyr than Brother Joe, a few days before he was gunned down by the Utah Highway Patrol and sheriff’s. I asked him about the Article of Faith that states belief in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. Mr. Singer told me that article meant “the good laws” not all laws. I suppose that’s how Mormonites still look at it. They only believe in obeying the laws that they agree with. John Taylor had a bounty on him and died a fugitive of the law. Bring-em Young didn’t care about the laws. I remember as a youth sitting in general conference and listening to and being a bit disturbed by stories of Mormonites who were praised for disobeying the laws. Lies, deceitfulness, lawlessness, etc. are all fruits of Mormonism.
Last edited:
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Clearly a load of bunk by Gazelam as it says right in the preamble of the Navoo Expositor:First, you made a claim that freedom of the press was not important to American citizens during the early 1840s
It seems William Law and his friends believed that freedom of the press was very important BEFORE Joseph burned down their printing press. And I’m quite sure they weren’t the only ones who felt as much. But hey, as Gazelam pointed out, Joseph did burn it down in a democratic way, so I guess it was o.k.…which nature’s God and our country’s laws have guarantied to us-freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the right to worship God as seemeth us good.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
And William Law’s wife was one of the women Brother Joe tried to seduce.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
There are also Jewish martyrs, both before and after Jesus. Some of them became martyrs because they were murdered for refusing to convert to Christianity.
Last edited:
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Funny when I read the story of Joseph’s ‘martyrdom’ on the LDS website they failed to mention that part. It was all everyone else’s fault and Joseph did nothing wrong.
L
Lemuel
Guest
Brother Joe visited Jane several times when he knew that William would not be around. He propositioned her to be his plural wife and to share half of her love with him and she could still give William the other half. She refused multiple times. Both her and William testified that this happened. Joe, on the other hand, claimed that Jane threw her arms around his neck and propositioned him. I wonder why he was even in a situation with her where this would have taken place, anyway.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.