Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[twopekinguys]

according to this definition whyme isn’t catholic…

Now there is an understatement…

 

[2nd_Adam]

Within a few years they will begin to back away from the Book of Mormon, too, as the RLDS (Community of Christ) has done. In fact, they have already started. The LDS must abandon the Book of Mormon as a historical document if they are to survive as a church. Their members are quickly starting to see that the Book of Mormon has no basis in fact and never will. If the church leadership keeps insisting on belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon as a requirement for membership, they will lose the majority of their members over the next generation.

Thanks be to God for the internet!

This post is for me to mark this thread. So, what’s up with this?

 

[PaulDupre]

Did you ever get an answer to this question?

No, of course not. But then, I knew her statement was untrue and so I knew there would be no citation.

 

[PaulDupre]

This post is for me to mark this thread. So, what’s up with this?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Please restate.

 

[dianaiad]

Diania, what is it you’re not getting about JS killing two people?

That…he didn’t kill two people.

It is in your own church history, written by other mormons. One of your own presidents is stating that he was informed 2 died.

He was informed erroniously. It was wishful thinking, actually. Too bad.

If it is wrong, why is it in mormon church history?

What’s incorrect about it? He claims to have 'been informed." Whoever told him that was wrong. (shrug)

Just like JS’s boast about how great he was. Parker thinks he was misquoted, but yet it is in your church history.

After all these years since these events happened, don’t you think the church history would have been corrected along with the multitude of other things that have been changed?

What, we should now claim that the man was NOT informed that two men had died? He was informed of this. The fact that only one died…and that not for many months and well after the trial, doen’t alter the fact that he WAS ‘informed’ that more than one attacker died.

After all, I can inform you now that the sky is bright green. Now, if you write it down in your journal, you can say that you were ‘informed that the sky in California is bright green,’ and no matter what, you would be correct.

As it happens,the sky here happens to be very dark blue with bright white speckles, but that doesn’t change the fact that I just informed you that it was green, does it?

And yes, I do have respect for you. The majority of your responses appear to be genuine and sincere. There have been a few I haven’t cared for, but what the heck, we all have our moments. But what confounds me is that one one thread you are willing to compromise on JS being a martyr, and now you have done a 180. What is up with that?

WHERE did I “compromise” about that?

He was a martyr. What you don’t seem to understand is that I…and Mormons in general, come to think of it, don’t think that martyrdom automatically confers Sainthood (in the Catholic sense.)

A martyr is someone who is punished and/or killed because of his or her religious beliefs or because of his or her principles: ideology, politics. It doesn’t matter WHAT the martyr does to defend, or not defend, himself. The thing that makes a martyr is the intent of the people attacking, not the mindset of the one attacked.

In other words, the Christian who hit the lion over the head with his shoe in an attempt to keep from being eaten is JUST as much a martyr as the one who simply kneels there: both were placed in that position because of their religion.

 

[twopekinguys]

That…he didn’t kill two people.

He was informed erroniously. It was wishful thinking, actually. Too bad. What reference do you have for stating he was erroneouly informed?

What’s incorrect about it? He claims to have 'been informed." Whoever told him that was wrong. (shrug) What makes you claim this? Any references?

What, we should now claim that the man was NOT informed that two men had died? He was informed of this. The fact that only one died…and that not for many months and well after the trial, doen’t alter the fact that he WAS ‘informed’ that more than one attacker died.

After all, I can inform you now that the sky is bright green. Now, if you write it down in your journal, you can say that you were ‘informed that the sky in California is bright green,’ and no matter what, you would be correct.

As it happens,the sky here happens to be very dark blue with bright white speckles, but that doesn’t change the fact that I just informed you that it was green, does it?

The fact remains that this is still in your church history, with no refutiation on the issue. Again, if it is wrong, why is it there? Why no addenda? Again, more than one LDS source reported deaths from JS. I/we have provided you references from your own church history, and all you can do is say “he was misinformed”? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t carry any weight without any type of resource. I again pose the question. If you can change the BoM, change the D & C, etc. Why can’t you change the church history to reflect what you believe to be the truth? .

WHERE did I “compromise” about that?

Here is your final post from the “Do Mormons consider Smith to be a Maryr” thread. (Bolding mine)
dianaiad;5321557:

Since when is the face a ‘vital organ?’

Ok, I have to do some research. I am, however, on the way to see my daughters and won’t be checking in here for a week, so we’ll just have to let this one calm down a bit.

Now me, I’m willing to **compromise **

on this one; I’ll let you waffle on acknowledging Joseph Smith as an official ‘martyr,’ if y’all will acknowledge that his murder was unjustified, unjust and heinous…and that he wouldn’t have been killed if it had not been for his religion; the folks who destroyed LDS printing presses, after all, were not only NOT murdered, but were actually praised.

He was a martyr. What you don’t seem to understand is that I…and Mormons in general, come to think of it, don’t think that martyrdom automatically confers Sainthood (in the Catholic sense.)

A martyr is someone who is punished and/or killed because of his or her religious beliefs or because of his or her principles: ideology, politics. It doesn’t matter WHAT the martyr does to defend, or not defend, himself. The thing that makes a martyr is the intent of the people attacking, not the mindset of the one attacked.

In other words, the Christian who hit the lion over the head with his shoe in an attempt to keep from being eaten is JUST as much a martyr as the one who simply kneels there: both were placed in that position because of their religion.

 

[ParkerD]

twopekinguys:
By the way, folks, Governor Thomas Ford wrote a history of Illinois, and in it he referred to the “martyred” Joseph Smith. He was in a position to know, since he had promised Joseph Smith protection by the state militia.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

That…he didn’t kill two people.

He was informed erroniously. It was wishful thinking, actually.

Too bad. What reference do you have for stating he was erroneouly informed?

Every single article that I have read supports the idea that, even though Taylor reported a third hand acount…“I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom I am informed, died…” That only one person, John Wills, MAY have died as a result of infection from his shoulder wound. In fact, that story was told second hand, as well. Other stories have all three men (and perhaps a fourth, who was also tried for the murder of JS, ) left the state.

There is no indication that anybody else died from his wounds.

The historical fact that three men were shot, and two lived long lives that were not ended by Joseph’s bullets.

What’s incorrect about it? He claims to have 'been informed." Whoever told him that was wrong. (shrug)

What makes you claim this? Any references?

Pick one. Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica. Any historical text. The only death for which Joseph’s bullet may have been responsible is that of John Wills. Please note; I didn’t say that JOSEPH was responsible. In fact, in the law today (as it was then) any person who is committing a crime and dies as a result is responsible for his own death. Therefore Wills is guilty of his own death. He shouldn’t have been a member of that mob, rushing to murder men HE thought were unarmed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the man, nor would I have cared had all three men died: it would not change the facts that they were two hundred men out to murder four men that they assumed were not armed.

dianaiad:

What, we should now claim that the man was NOT informed that two men had died? He was informed of this. The fact that only one died…and that not for many months and well after the trial, doen’t alter the fact that he WAS ‘informed’ that more than one attacker died.

After all, I can inform you now that the sky is bright green. Now, if you write it down in your journal, you can say that you were ‘informed that the sky in California is bright green,’ and no matter what, you would be correct.

As it happens,the sky here happens to be very dark blue with bright white speckles, but that doesn’t change the fact that I just informed you that it was green, does it?

The fact remains that this is still in your church history, with no refutiation on the issue. Again, if it is wrong, why is it there? Why no addenda? Again, more than one LDS source reported deaths from JS. I/we have provided you references from your own church history, and all you can do is say “he was misinformed”? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t carry any weight without any type of resource. I again pose the question. If you can change the BoM, change the D & C, etc. Why can’t you change the church history to reflect what you believe to be the truth? .

Your attempted point is ludicrous. Tell me, should we footnote every inaccuracy in every journal in the world? I would concede your point IF Taylor had actually stated that “two or three men had died.” Then a footnote correcting that would be appropriate. However, what he WROTE was that 'he had been informed that…" That was true. that IS what he was informed. To change that would be to lie; to pretend that everybody knew everything right then and there. Taylor’s writings show us how people felt at the time; what was being said, who knew what, or thought what, when. To change that would be indeed to change history.

What I don’t get is why you insist upon assuming that something a man wrote…a third hand account, would trump every newspaper, every historical document and every report since then? TAYLOR was very careful about what he wrote. "he understood (that is, he had first hand, or confirmed knowledge) that two or three had been wounded, but only mentioned that ‘he had been informed’ (that is, second or third hand information that he can’t attest to) that two had died.

I don’t get it, sir. You refuse to accept anything ELSE we claim to be true; why are you insisting upon this being true? Because it makes JS look worse?

Frankly, it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter whether one attacker died, none did, or three or more did. The issue is still the same. Joseph Smith was murdered, and was guiltless in the deaths of any attacker.

Here is your final post from the “Do Mormons consider Smith to be a Maryr” thread. (Bolding mine)

dianaiad:

Since when is the face a ‘vital organ?’

Ok, I have to do some research. I am, however, on the way to see my daughters and won’t be checking in here for a week, so we’ll just have to let this one calm down a bit.

Now me, I’m willing to compromise on this one; I’ll let you waffle on acknowledging Joseph Smith as an official ‘martyr,’ if y’all will acknowledge that his murder was unjustified, unjust and heinous…and that he wouldn’t have been killed if it had not been for his religion; the folks who destroyed LDS printing presses, after all, were not only NOT murdered, but were actually praised.

He was a martyr. What you don’t seem to understand is that I…and Mormons in general, come to think of it, don’t think that martyrdom automatically confers Sainthood (in the Catholic sense.)

A martyr is someone who is punished and/or killed because of his or her religious beliefs or because of his or her principles: ideology, politics. It doesn’t matter WHAT the martyr does to defend, or not defend, himself. The thing that makes a martyr is the intent of the people attacking, not the mindset of the one attacked.

In other words, the Christian who hit the lion over the head with his shoe in an attempt to keep from being eaten is JUST as much a martyr as the one who simply kneels there: both were placed in that position

I see. The problem is this: the fact that I said I would comprimise by letting YOU ‘waffle’ on the idea that Joseph Smith was a martyr in no way obligates ME to agree that he was not.

 

[twopekinguys]

Every single article that I have read supports the idea that, even though Taylor reported a third hand acount…“I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom I am informed, died…” That only one person, John Wills, MAY have died as a result of infection from his shoulder wound. In fact, that story was told second hand, as well. Other stories have all three men (and perhaps a fourth, who was also tried for the murder of JS, ) left the state.

There is no indication that anybody else died from his wounds.

The historical fact that three men were shot, and two lived long lives that were not ended by Joseph’s bullets.

What’s incorrect about it? He claims to have 'been informed." Whoever told him that was wrong. (shrug)

Pick one. Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica. Any historical text. The only death for which Joseph’s bullet may have been responsible is that of John Wills. Please note; I didn’t say that JOSEPH was responsible. In fact, in the law today (as it was then) any person who is committing a crime and dies as a result is responsible for his own death. Therefore Wills is guilty of his own death. He shouldn’t have been a member of that mob, rushing to murder men HE thought were unarmed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the man, nor would I have cared had all three men died: it would not change the facts that they were two hundred men out to murder four men that they assumed were not armed.

Your attempted point is ludicrous. Tell me, should we footnote every inaccuracy in every journal in the world? I would concede your point IF Taylor had actually stated that “two or three men had died.” Then a footnote correcting that would be appropriate. However, what he WROTE was that 'he had been informed that…" That was true. that IS what he was informed. To change that would be to lie; to pretend that everybody knew everything right then and there. Taylor’s writings show us how people felt at the time; what was being said, who knew what, or thought what, when. To change that would be indeed to change history.

What I don’t get is why you insist upon assuming that something a man wrote…a third hand account, would trump every newspaper, every historical document and every report since then? TAYLOR was very careful about what he wrote. "he understood (that is, he had first hand, or confirmed knowledge) that two or three had been wounded, but only mentioned that ‘he had been informed’ (that is, second or third hand information that he can’t attest to) that two had died.

I don’t get it, sir. You refuse to accept anything ELSE we claim to be true; why are you insisting upon this being true? Because it makes JS look worse?

Frankly, it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter whether one attacker died, none did, or three or more did. The issue is still the same. Joseph Smith was murdered, and was guiltless in the deaths of any attacker.

I see. The problem is this: the fact that I said I would comprimise by letting YOU ‘waffle’ on the idea that Joseph Smith was a martyr in no way obligates ME to agree that he was not.

You are stretching sooooooo far on all of this it is ridiculous.

All I am asking for is a referernce, and you’re coming back with nothing.

All you have to rely on is “may” and “he was misinformed”.

As far as footnotes, why not? You change every other document in your church, why not this one?

Again, we have already established that the killing of JS was wrong. No one is disputing that fact, try and stick with this part of the issue ok?

Again, still waiting for your reference.

 

[twopekinguys]

By the way, folks, Governor Thomas Ford wrote a history of Illinois, and in it he referred to the “martyred” Joseph Smith. He was in a position to know, since he had promised Joseph Smith protection by the state militia.

Two things.

1. Got a reference?
2. IF he wrote it, he would be writing it as a member of government, and not a religous leader, which would hardly qualify him to make such an opinion.

 

[dianaiad]

I see. The problem is this: the fact that I said I would comprimise by letting YOU ‘waffle’ on the idea that Joseph Smith was a martyr in no way obligates ME to agree that he was not.

You are stretching sooooooo far on all of this it is ridiculous.

All I am asking for is a referernce, and you’re coming back with nothing.

Actually, sir, you are the one who has to come up with a reference, not me. Even the quote you have from Taylor states only that he ‘was informed’ that two may have died. He doesn’t say that he knows that they did (though he does say he knows that two or three were wounded, that being obvious because the three wounded showed up at their trials). He simply says that he 'was informed."

Well, there is one story that Wills may have died as a result of the wound to his arm, though the stories surrounding that are not all that credible. There is NO story or account anywhere that mentions the death of any other mob member. In fact, we don’t even have the death notice for Wills. Every account of this matter says merely that the other two 'left the state."

…and they left the state in rather better shape than they were when they attacked the jail, come to think of it. The townsfolk gifted them with new suits of clothing as a reward for killing Joseph and Hyrum.

So actually…the ball is in your court. where is the death notice of any of these guys? Where is there any indication that any of them died, except where Taylor writes that 'he was informed" that two of them may have done so?

You cannot prove a negative, m’friend. So it’s your problem. You prove that they did die of their wounds.

All you have to rely on is “may” and “he was misinformed”.[/qoute]

And you have less, since there is NO evidence that either of the other two died of their wounds.
The obligation of proving that they did so is yours, and claiming that they must have done because Tayler says that ‘he was informed’ that they were is…well, talk about hearsay!
twopekinguys;5829174:

As far as footnotes, why not? You change every other document in your church, why not this one?

Nice question begging. I think we are through here.

Again, we have already established that the killing of JS was wrong. No one is disputing that fact, try and stick with this part of the issue ok?

Again, still waiting for your reference.

 

[ParkerD]

Two things.

1. Got a reference?
2. IF he wrote it, he would be writing it as a member of government, and not a religous leader, which would hardly qualify him to make such an opinion.

Thomas Ford wrote his book, History of Illinios, after he was governor. It was published in 1854. See page 360 for the use of the word “martyred” to describe Joseph Smith’s death. He also lamented that his own name would live on in “infamy” for having been involved in the events leading up to the “assassination” of Joseph Smith.

He was a private citizen at that point. He died a few years later, a pauper. Two of his sons were later hanged as horse thieves. He did write a history book, though, and justified all of his reasoning and all of his actions.

People are entitled to their opinions, including having freedom of the press to state those opinions. Those opinions can differ from yours.

 

[Arandur]

People are entitled to their opinions, including having freedom of the press to state those opinions. Those opinions can differ from yours.

Apparently Joseph Smith and his inner circle at Nauvoo didn’t believe so when they destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

Lest I get dragged into some of this other debate, I accept your point about published opinions. And I don’t get bogged down about “how many men died from J. Smith’s bullets.” I don’t fault him for his self defense, and I do condemn his murder. I have explained differences in martyrdom and explained how some martyrs are more admirable, more Christ-like, than others in the manner in which they meet their end. Catholics generally uphold the highest examples and cite those martyrs the most, which is why we tend to hold up a higher standard for the title “martyr” as an honorific.

If “martyr” is a designation conferred by the acts and intent of the murderers wholly independent of the acts of the victim, then it is a designation that confers no special honorific. A civilian victim of war may be killed just for the “side” they hold allegiance to, yet that confers no special honor. Whereas a civilian who fights back against military aggressors in an attempt to defend someone else, or who stands in nonviolent protest for an ideal (like those massacred at Tiananmen Square) are heroes, and deserve the honorific title for the deeds they performed, not for the acts of their assailants.

Similarly there’s a different in meaning depending on how you want to apply the term “martyr.” Applying it as a result wholly of the actions of assailants just denotes the type or intent of murder, reflecting nothing on the victim. If it is applied as a result of the actions of the victim, it can convey honor/admirable qualities of the victim. Catholics apply it in the latter sense, as an honorific title dependent upon the actions of the individual. And some actions are more admirable than others.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are stretching sooooooo far on all of this it is ridiculous.

All I am asking for is a referernce, and you’re coming back with nothing.

Actually, sir, you are the one who has to come up with a reference, not me. Even the quote you have from Taylor states only that he ‘was informed’ that two may have died. He doesn’t say that he knows that they did (though he does say he knows that two or three were wounded, that being obvious because the three wounded showed up at their trials). He simply says that he 'was informed."

Well, there is one story that Wills may have died as a result of the wound to his arm, though the stories surrounding that are not all that credible. There is NO story or account anywhere that mentions the death of any other mob member. In fact, we don’t even have the death notice for Wills. Every account of this matter says merely that the other two 'left the state."

…and they left the state in rather better shape than they were when they attacked the jail, come to think of it. The townsfolk gifted them with new suits of clothing as a reward for killing Joseph and Hyrum.

So actually…the ball is in your court. where is the death notice of any of these guys? Where is there any indication that any of them died, except where Taylor writes that 'he was informed" that two of them may have done so?

You cannot prove a negative, m’friend. So it’s your problem. You prove that they did die of their wounds.

It is proven by your own church history.

You m’friend have provided nothing substantial to prove that he was “misinformed”.

Maybe you should just use the magic eraser on your church history documents like you have on so many others. Like all of the changes to the BoM, and D & C. At least then there would be some sort of consistency.

You have proven that when confronted with issues that the lds don’t want to recognize, that you merely avoid providing valid proof. There are tons of examples of that on these threads, and you just keep reinforcing it.

If it was important enough for them to put it in the church history that he was “informed” of the deaths, don’t you think it is just as important to put in that he was “misinformed”? Poor editing skills to say the least.

I find it extemely funny that you want a death notice when you can’t even tell us who “informed” Taylor.

Show me an official church document that shows he was “misinformed”. I’m sure you can’t.

 

[dianaiad]

Apparently Joseph Smith and his inner circle at Nauvoo didn’t believe so when they destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

Lest I get dragged into some of this other debate, I accept your point about published opinions. And I don’t get bogged down about “how many men died from J. Smith’s bullets.” I don’t fault him for his self defense, and I do condemn his murder. I have explained differences in martyrdom and explained how some martyrs are more admirable, more Christ-like, than others in the manner in which they meet their end. Catholics generally uphold the highest examples and cite those martyrs the most, which is why we tend to hold up a higher standard for the title “martyr” as an honorific.

If “martyr” is a designation conferred by the acts and intent of the murderers wholly independent of the acts of the victim, then it is a designation that confers no special honorific.

That’s quite true. It doesn’t…except when the victim could have avoided the action by renouncing whatever belief or opinion he held that made him a target. Then it is an honorific; someone willing to die rather than betray his beliefs should be honored for that alone.

A civilian victim of war may be killed just for the “side” they hold allegiance to, yet that confers no special honor. Whereas a civilian who fights back against military aggressors in an attempt to defend someone else, or who stands in nonviolent protest for an ideal (like those massacred at Tiananmen Square) are heroes, and deserve the honorific title for the deeds they performed, not for the acts of their assailants.

Similarly there’s a different in meaning depending on how you want to apply the term “martyr.” Applying it as a result wholly of the actions of assailants just denotes the type or intent of murder, reflecting nothing on the victim. If it is applied as a result of the actions of the victim, it can convey honor/admirable qualities of the victim. Catholics apply it in the latter sense, as an honorific title dependent upon the actions of the individual. And some actions are more admirable than others.

OK, this may be so…but where does one draw the line in this? In THIS case, Joseph could have avoided his murder very easily, and, knowing that he would not survive, chose to give himself up. If he refused to allow himself to be murdered illegally without defending himself against that, how is it any less true that 1. he was killed because of his beliefs, and 2. that he could have avoided it, and therefore ‘went willingly?’

I contend that there is a great difference between going willingly to an unjust, but legal, execution (the way the early Christians did) and allowing oneself to be murdered by those outside the law. (The early Christians, by the way, did NOT do that. They hid, they worshiped in secret. They defended themselves against thieves, etc…) A martyr, perhaps, should behave in a meek fashion in the first instance (as Joseph did when he gave himself up to the law and told his people NOT to try to free him, or take their anger out on their neighbors) but there is no requirement that he not defend himself in the case of the second (as Joseph defended himself against unlawful murderers.)

 

[ParkerD]

Apparently Joseph Smith and his inner circle at Nauvoo didn’t believe so when they destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

Lest I get dragged into some of this other debate, I accept your point about published opinions. And I don’t get bogged down about “how many men died from J. Smith’s bullets.” I don’t fault him for his self defense, and I do condemn his murder. I have explained differences in martyrdom and explained how some martyrs are more admirable, more Christ-like, than others in the manner in which they meet their end. Catholics generally uphold the highest examples and cite those martyrs the most, which is why we tend to hold up a higher standard for the title “martyr” as an honorific.

If “martyr” is a designation conferred by the acts and intent of the murderers wholly independent of the acts of the victim, then it is a designation that confers no special honorific. A civilian victim of war may be killed just for the “side” they hold allegiance to, yet that confers no special honor. Whereas a civilian who fights back against military aggressors in an attempt to defend someone else, or who stands in nonviolent protest for an ideal (like those massacred at Tiananmen Square) are heroes, and deserve the honorific title for the deeds they performed, not for the acts of their assailants.

Similarly there’s a different in meaning depending on how you want to apply the term “martyr.” Applying it as a result wholly of the actions of assailants just denotes the type or intent of murder, reflecting nothing on the victim. If it is applied as a result of the actions of the victim, it can convey honor/admirable qualities of the victim. Catholics apply it in the latter sense, as an honorific title dependent upon the actions of the individual. And some actions are more admirable than others.

Arandur,
I don’t care in the least whether any person in the world considers Joseph Smith a “martyr” or not, but as to “freedom of the press,” I don’t think that means anyone can publish and distribute slander, especially when it is deliberately inciting violence against a group of people.

Here is a sentence from the Nauvoo Expositor that I don’t think was a legitimate use of “freedom of the press” (among many others):

“It was in Rome, and about the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III, ordered father Dominic to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics. But it is in this enlightened and intelligent nineteenth century, and in Nauvoo–a place professing to be the nucleus of the world, that Joseph Smith has established an inquisition, which, if it is suffered to exist, will prove more formidable and terrible to those who are found opposing the iniquities of Joseph and his associates, than ever the Spanish inquisiton did to heretics as they termed them.”

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, sir, you are the one who has to come up with a reference, not me. Even the quote you have from Taylor states only that he ‘was informed’ that two may have died. He doesn’t say that he knows that they did (though he does say he knows that two or three were wounded, that being obvious because the three wounded showed up at their trials). He simply says that he 'was informed."

Well, there is one story that Wills may have died as a result of the wound to his arm, though the stories surrounding that are not all that credible. There is NO story or account anywhere that mentions the death of any other mob member. In fact, we don’t even have the death notice for Wills. Every account of this matter says merely that the other two 'left the state."

…and they left the state in rather better shape than they were when they attacked the jail, come to think of it. The townsfolk gifted them with new suits of clothing as a reward for killing Joseph and Hyrum.

So actually…the ball is in your court. where is the death notice of any of these guys? Where is there any indication that any of them died, except where Taylor writes that 'he was informed" that two of them may have done so?

You cannot prove a negative, m’friend. So it’s your problem. You prove that they did die of their wounds.

It is proven by your own church history.

You m’friend have provided nothing substantial to prove that he was “misinformed”.

I don’t need it. The fact that he was misinformed is proven by the FACT that he was, well…misinformed. There is no, repeat, NO, evidence that anybody but Wills died of his injuries.

Now I will repeat this one more time. Please pay attention.

It doesn’t matter to me whether one died, two died, or if Joseph had somehow managed to mow down the entire mob of 200 with his three shots. If he had, I would be saying 'YEAH, GO, Joseph!!"

I have written right here on this forum that if I had a wish regarding this, it would be…that Joseph and his friends had been better armed. I am not a pacifist. I believe Joseph was absolutely in the right to shoot back. Since these murderers were aquited at the trial, their wounds were the only punishment they ever recieved for murdering Joseph and Hyrum. In fact, they were rewarded for those murders. This doesn’t sit very well with me.

the FACT is, though, that while it is possible that Wills died as a result of his injuries, there is no evidence that either of the other two did. None. Zip. Nada…and Taylor doesn’t claim that they did. He simply claims that he was informed that they had. Second hand reporting. Hearsay. He didn’t have any problems stating definitively that three had been INJURED, remember, so if he knew absolutely that two or three had died, that’s what he would have said, not that he had ‘been informed.’ that they had.

It’s your job to prove that they died. It has to be, because it is not possible to prove a negative.

I repeat.

It. Is. Not. Possible. To. Prove. A Negative.

YOU have to prove that these men died as a result of gunshot wounds taken while they were murdering Joseph Smith.

Good luck with that.

 

[why_me]

Apparently Joseph Smith and his inner circle at Nauvoo didn’t believe so when they destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

Well, actually, the Nauvoo Expositor printed rather inciteful articles about the mormons. And the Nauvoo Council decided to shut down the newspaper after one issue. They read the paper and saw the nature of the articles and for the safely of the mormons, the paper was permenantly closed. And rightly so.

Lets look at it this way. After suffering terrible persecution the mormons decide to set up shop in Nauvoo. They build homes, businesses, schools, streets etc. And they all want to live in peace and security. Suddenly, a mormon apostate opens a newspaper with inciteful language against Joseph Smith and the mormon church in their city. This paper will be read by non-members who already do not like the mormons and who as it turns out would eventually hate them so much that they murdered their leader. Certainly such a mob could very easily bring their hate into Nauvoo and cause damage.

So a decision is made to destroy it. Joseph could have actually saved lives by the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. And in that regard he is a martyr.

 

[why_me]

YOU have to prove that these men died as a result of gunshot wounds taken while they were murdering Joseph Smith.

Good luck with that.

I may add that very few people were coming forward and claiming that they were part of the mob. And all the stories coming out at that moment were tainted including the one John Taylor received. Not to mention the number of bullets that were being fired by the mob. At any given time with such chaos, a mob member’s bullet could have wounded Wills. I don’t think that they had our forensic evidence back then.

 

[twopekinguys]

It is proven by your own church history.

You m’friend have provided nothing substantial to prove that he was “misinformed”.

I don’t need it. The fact that he was misinformed is proven by the FACT that he was, well…misinformed. There is no, repeat, NO, evidence that anybody but Wills died of his injuries.

Now I will repeat this one more time. Please pay attention.

It doesn’t matter to me whether one died, two died, or if Joseph had somehow managed to mow down the entire mob of 200 with his three shots. If he had, I would be saying 'YEAH, GO, Joseph!!"

I have written right here on this forum that if I had a wish regarding this, it would be…that Joseph and his friends had been better armed. I am not a pacifist. I believe Joseph was absolutely in the right to shoot back. Since these murderers were aquited at the trial, their wounds were the only punishment they ever recieved for murdering Joseph and Hyrum. In fact, they were rewarded for those murders. This doesn’t sit very well with me.

the FACT is, though, that while it is possible that Wills died as a result of his injuries, there is no evidence that either of the other two did. None. Zip. Nada…and Taylor doesn’t claim that they did. He simply claims that he was informed that they had. Second hand reporting. Hearsay. He didn’t have any problems stating definitively that three had been INJURED, remember, so if he knew absolutely that two or three had died, that’s what he would have said, not that he had ‘been informed.’ that they had.

It’s your job to prove that they died. It has to be, because it is not possible to prove a negative.

I repeat.

It. Is. Not. Possible. To. Prove. A Negative.

YOU have to prove that these men died as a result of gunshot wounds taken while they were murdering Joseph Smith.

Good luck with that.

Sorry, but the burden is on you dear one.

You are the one that made the statement that Taylor was “misinformed”.

Prove it.

You made the claim, Prove it.

You are just using a worn out, tired old tactic that many mormon posters have used in the past and have failed at.

I provided you with quotes from your own church history, as well as a statement from another church elder (on the other thread), and all you can come up with is he was misinformed.

Try backing up your claim for a change. Parker tried something similar on one of the other threads, and he was busted for making things up, and so was TheCourt. The same thing is happening here.

Paul and I have both asked you for your reference several times, and yet you have provided absolutely nothing.

How sad for you. Really, how sad.

Give me one, just one reference that even hints at Taylor being misinformed.

By the way, you really can’t think that your statement, “The fact that he was misinformed is proven by the FACT that he was, well…misinformed” is any kind of an argument can you?

I hate to say it, by I’m actually kind of embarassed for you.