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

[PaulDupre]

PaulDupre,
You still seem to be quite delighted with yourself that I didn’t agree with you when you said the Book of Mormon spoke of “great cities.”

Parker,
There are some things that aren’t about you. However…

It wasn’t that you “didn’t agree with me” that the Book of Mormon spoke of “great cities”. It is a fact that the BoM spoke of “great cities” (I cited about a dozen BoM passages with the exact phrase “great city”), you just didn’t know about it. Else why would you have declared “the Book of Mormon does not mention anything about great cities”.

Now I will expect an honest answer to this question: What did you have in mind (in terms of city size, complexity, anything at all) when you wrote the words “great cities”?

I did not write the words “great cities”, I merely quoted those words from the Book of Mormon. The writers of the BoM wrote those words, not I.

Remember that the discussion was involving archeological evidence. So you must have had something in mind to have thought that a “great city” would leave evidence behind of its existence.

When the bible (Book of Jonah) speaks of “Nineveh, that great city”, it says that Nineveh was so large that it took three days to walk across it.

The BoM speaks of great cities connected by a network of highways. It also speaks of horses, chariots, metal armor and steel weapons, and vast wealth of gold and silver and copper. It also speaks of battles in which thousands of soldiers died.

In the battle of Hill Cumorah alone, Mormon reports that 230,000 soldiers died on the Nephite side (he doesn’t mention how many died on the Lamanite side). By comparison, in modern times the single battle with the most casualties was Somme (WWII) with about 623,000 allies killed. Waa the Nephite civilization 1/3 the size of the combined modern Allied nations (US, UK, France, Soviet Union, etc)?

It would take a huge population with a huge economy to field an army of a quarter-million men. Where did that huge population and economy principally reside? The great cities, of course. It is only reasonable to think that those great cities must have contained at least hundreds of thousands of people to support such armies. That would be right in line with other ancient “great cities” like Nineveh, Jerusalem, Alexandria and others.

In light of the fact that such great cities must have existed in order to support the BoM story, we non-Mormons and ex-Mormons find it curious that no trace of such Nephite cites has ever been found. Many ancient cities, thought to have been mythical, have been discovered (Jericho and Troy spring to mind). Why have no Nephite cities been found?

Because they never existed.

 

[dianaiad]

First of all, if you look back, my posts were not the ones that were affected by the quote feature not working correctly, so try something else would you.

You are quite right about that. My deepest apologies…that was 2Adam, I think, who now resides in my ignore file. I got careless.

So basically what you’re saying is that you cannot refute what is in your church history.

What’s to refute? Taylor was informed that two or more men died. That’s true. He was so informed. Whoever informed him was wrong, but nevertheless, he was so informed. To pretend that he was NOT so informed, when he was, would be changing history, which you claim is a bad thing.

No suprise there. Funny how he is quoted as saying people died, but yet there is no quote of him retracting it. Again no suprise there.

Why should he retract it? He said he was informed. He should retract it and say that he was NOT so informed? That would be lying, y’know. It doesn’t matter how many people ultimately kicked the bucket…or did not. Someone told him that two or more did. That someone was wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was ‘informed’ that two or more had died.

The day before yesterday the world sorta stopped while everybody watched this weird looking helium balloon float fifty or so miles over Colorado. We were all informed that a six year old boy was in it, and we all held our collective breaths. Turns out that the kid was hiding in a box in his attic.

(shrug) never mind, the world had still been informed that he was in the balloon. We still held our breaths. It still affected us all…and the feelings we all had while watching didn’t suddenly become retroactively different because the kid was alive, and well, and hiding.

After all, isn’t it the victor who writes history?

Make up your mind. Do you want our history to reflect what happened at the time, or what did not? You can’t have this both ways.

Maybe you are the one who needs to get over the fact that JS did kill at least one in the shoot out, and the tired, very tired, in fact exhausting…misinformed, misquoted, mistranslated arguments are not working for you.

Thanks for proving that your church history as written on this issue is correct.

Now how did I do that? Church history states that Taylor was informed that two or more had died. Turns out that we only have evidence that one had. Therefore Taylor was misinformed, ipso facto.

As to ‘getting over’ anything…

What part of “I wish Joseph had been better armed” didn’t you GET?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
There are some things that aren’t about you. However…

It wasn’t that you “didn’t agree with me” that the Book of Mormon spoke of “great cities”. It is a fact that the BoM spoke of “great cities” (I cited about a dozen BoM passages with the exact phrase “great city”), you just didn’t know about it. Else why would you have declared “the Book of Mormon does not mention anything about great cities”.

I did not write the words “great cities”, I merely quoted those words from the Book of Mormon. The writers of the BoM wrote those words, not I.

When the bible (Book of Jonah) speaks of “Nineveh, that great city”, it says that Nineveh was so large that it took three days to walk across it.

The BoM speaks of great cities connected by a network of highways. It also speaks of horses, chariots, metal armor and steel weapons, and vast wealth of gold and silver and copper. It also speaks of battles in which thousands of soldiers died.

In the battle of Hill Cumorah alone, Mormon reports that 230,000 soldiers died on the Nephite side (he doesn’t mention how many died on the Lamanite side). By comparison, in modern times the single battle with the most casualties was Somme (WWII) with about 623,000 allies killed. Waa the Nephite civilization 1/3 the size of the combined modern Allied nations (US, UK, France, Soviet Union, etc)?

It would take a huge population with a huge economy to field an army of a quarter-million men. Where did that huge population and economy principally reside? The great cities, of course. It is only reasonable to think that those great cities must have contained at least hundreds of thousands of people to support such armies. That would be right in line with other ancient “great cities” like Nineveh, Jerusalem, Alexandria and others.

In light of the fact that such great cities must have existed in order to support the BoM story, we non-Mormons and ex-Mormons find it curious that no trace of such Nephite cites has ever been found. Many ancient cities, thought to have been mythical, have been discovered (Jericho and Troy spring to mind). Why have no Nephite cities been found?

Because they never existed.

Paul,
I just re-looked at the verses in the Book of Mormon where the words “great city” or “great cities” are used. It is as I had stated before on another thread. Those words are used in a way that is not describing the city size, but is describing what the inhabitants of the city themselves thought of their supposedly “great city”–and assuring them that it could be destroyed quickly by an act of nature or an army, and describes these events happening that destroy these supposedly “great cities”–they are buried or burned or destroyed.

You seem to have in your mind that a “great city” means something that would appear “great” to us today. That is not the connotation. There is no such meaning gleaned from the passages. They are small settlements–five to ten thousand people in them. There is no talk of a “network of highways” associated with those small settlements in the passages where “great cities” is used.

You seem to think that 230,000 killed in a battle of hand to hand combat required a bigger group of people around them to support them. Not so that battle. Every living person was armed and recruited to do battle who was old enough to use some type of weapon.

I think you bring the wrong expectation to your reading of the text. The connotation does not support your suppositions.

When I disagreed as to the Book of Mormon speaking of “great cities”, I was disagreeing with the connotation you brought to the question. Whenever I have read those passages, I have understood that the context is saying “small cities that you inhabitants think are supposedly so great and mighty”–because that is the connotation of the text. So I disagreed with you, and still do.

 

[Harpazo]

Maybe he didn’t have a chance. No man or woman should face death at the hands of another humbly or meekly. It would be a form of suicide if they did.

Hmm, yet that’s exactly what Christ our God did. Do you dare say that Christ committed suicide? Did not Christ preach humility? Did He not say “blessed are the meek?” I do not remember reading “blessed are the vengeful.”

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
I just re-looked at the verses in the Book of Mormon where the words “great city” or “great cities” are used. It is as I had stated before on another thread. Those words are used in a way that is not describing the city size, but is describing what the inhabitants of the city themselves thought of their supposedly “great city”–and assuring them that it could be destroyed quickly by an act of nature or an army, and describes these events happening that destroy these supposedly “great cities”–they are buried or burned or destroyed.

You seem to have in your mind that a “great city” means something that would appear “great” to us today. That is not the connotation. There is no such meaning gleaned from the passages. They are small settlements–five to ten thousand people in them. There is no talk of a “network of highways” associated with those small settlements in the passages where “great cities” is used.

You seem to think that 230,000 killed in a battle of hand to hand combat required a bigger group of people around them to support them. Not so that battle. Every living person was armed and recruited to do battle who was old enough to use some type of weapon.

I think you bring the wrong expectation to your reading of the text. The connotation does not support your suppositions.

When I disagreed as to the Book of Mormon speaking of “great cities”, I was disagreeing with the connotation you brought to the question. Whenever I have read those passages, I have understood that the context is saying “small cities that you inhabitants think are supposedly so great and mighty”–because that is the connotation of the text. So I disagreed with you, and still do.

Nope, that just doesn’t work. Want to know why? Because in the Book of Mormon, they differentiate between cities, villages and small villages:

7 Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah.

• Alma 8:7

Now, seeing as how the BoM authors did not confuse a great city with a small village, I don’t see how you could say that all their references to their “great cities” could really mean “small settlements”.

Parker, instead of just reading what FARMS and FAIR say about the Book of Mormon, why don’t you try really* reading *the Book of Mormon. Maybe then you wouldn’t keep embarrassing yourself like this.

Hint: Those Book of Mormon apologists you have been reading are handing you a load of ****. Think for yourself. READ for yourself.

 

[PaulDupre]

So my plea is to remember the 14 million LDS members in the world in our prayer for their ability to shake off the shackles of error.

If you mean those who self-identify as LDS, it is more like 4.5 million members. Many of the people on the roles of the LDS church (especially outside the U.S.) have no idea what the LDS church is nor do they even know that they are on the roles. Many more joined in an emotional fit or just to please the missionaries, only to sober up and realize within a few weeks that they made a big mistake and they promptly left the church. If they did not get their names taken off the records of the church, they are still counted as Mormons, even if they do not consider themselves LDS.

The LDS leadership inflates the membership numbers so as to create some legitimacy and excitement in the minds of the members. Most Mormons still claim that the LDS church is the fastest-growing religion in the world (by percent growth). That was true from 1971 through 1974 (largely due to hamburger baptisms and baseball baptisms), but since then other religions have grown much faster by percentage, most notably the Assemblies of God and the Seventh-Day Adventists. The sheer number of adherents to Catholicism and Islam make them far and away the fastest growing religions in the world by birthrate alone. But the “fastest-growing-religion” myth still survives in the LDS church, because it is faith-promoting and Mormons have itching ears to hear it.

LDS membership is actually shrinking daily.

The LDS need to change their strategy. They should adopt the attitude of “Nobody wants to be in our church because it’s THE TRUTH, and THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” That would work better than lying about membership statistics. It would play into the Mormons’ already-well-established persecution complex and paranoia.

 

[PaulDupre]

"why me:

Maybe he didn’t have a chance. No man or woman should face death at the hands of another humbly or meekly. It would be a form of suicide if they did.

Hmm, yet that’s exactly what Christ our God did. Do you dare say that Christ committed suicide? Did not Christ preach humility? Did He not say “blessed are the meek?”

No, not the Mormon Jesus. According to Brigham Young, Jesus was not only a polygamist, he was a karate black-belt as well. When the Roman guards came to arrest him, he executed a few flawless round-house kicks and used the “vibrating palm” technique to stop the hearts of some of the soldiers. But alas, there were too many for him, and after shouting “Is there no help for the widow’s son?”, he was taken into custody and crucified against his will. You see, the plan was for him to raise an army of his god-man children from his hundreds of wives (all of whom were queens and priestesses) and overthrow Rome, but because he was the Mormon Jesus rather than the real Jesus, he failed and was arrested.

He committed suicide by allowing himself to be crucified, rather than face his wives after losing to a bunch of soldiers who did not even have the dragon tattoo on their arms. It was a matter of honor, you see.

 

[why_me]

Hmm, yet that’s exactly what Christ our God did. Do you dare say that Christ committed suicide? Did not Christ preach humility? Did He not say “blessed are the meek?” I do not remember reading “blessed are the vengeful.”

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Andrew

I think that we can put Christ in a different category. He knew what was expected of him and he carried it out. He was the savior and he fulfilled his mission. However, even christ had a brief moment of doubts on the cross when he pleaded to the Father.

However, when looking at Jospeh Smith and what happened at the prison, one can see his bravery and martyrdom. For example, when the mob was storming up the stairs armed to the teeth and they began firing through the door, hitting Hyrum Smith, his brother, in the face with a bullet, Hyrum died almost instantly. Joseph along with the others fought the mob. Joseph had a six shooter and one of the other men had a cane and both fought the mob. Joseph fired his gun six times, three shots misfired and three hit their mark. He then ran to the window, drawing the fire of the mob who shot him in the back and the mob outside shot him in the chest. He then fell from the window and mob continued to fire bullets into his chest. By running to the window he drew the fire away from his two comrades who were still alive but wounded from the amount of bullets being fired. They both survived because the mob was after Joseph. Joseph was not just a martyr but a hero.

Now that is a hero’s martyrdom.

 

[why_me]

The LDS leadership inflates the membership numbers so as to create some legitimacy and excitement in the minds of the members. .

LDS membership is actually shrinking daily.

Well, how about some references? Actually it is the media who makes the claim that the lds church is the fastest growing church in the world. But I will still like to see some references about you wrote above. By the way, Paul, you seem to make the mistake most bitter exmormons make: predicting the downfall of the lds church. So far, I see no downfall. But keep hoping.

 

[why_me]

If they did not get their names taken off the records of the church, they are still counted as Mormons, even if they do not consider themselves LDS.

I wonder how many catholics are still on the roles who left the church for an another faith. I think quite many. You see, Paul, unless people resign from their faith, regardless of what they believe, they will still be counted on the roles. And that goes for catholics, mormons, jews, protestants, muslims etc.

It is just the way it is. But your bitterness can not make such a comparison.

 

[why_me]

It is a fact that the vast majority of LDS have never read the Book of Mormon. As the Mormons on these fora demonstrate, they have very little knowledge or understanding of the Book of Mormon.

We “apostates” seem to know it much better than the LDS themselves.

What? You mean the mormon ‘cult’ does not require its members to read the book of mormon and that many ‘cult’ members never read it? My gosh, what a strange ‘cult’ that is. I would think that the mormon ‘cult’ would indoctrinate their members in the book. I can’t believe their stupidity. Much better to indoctrinate the membership in the book of mormon if they want to exercise control.

Thank you Paul. Although I disagree with what you wrote, I couldn’ t resist taking it in the direction that I did.

 

[ParkerD]

Nope, that just doesn’t work. Want to know why? Because in the Book of Mormon, they differentiate between cities, villages and small villages:

Now, seeing as how the BoM authors did not confuse a great city with a small village, I don’t see how you could say that all their references to their “great cities” could really mean “small settlements”.

Parker, instead of just reading what FARMS and FAIR say about the Book of Mormon, why don’t you try really* reading *the Book of Mormon. Maybe then you wouldn’t keep embarrassing yourself like this.

Hint: Those Book of Mormon apologists you have been reading are handing you a load of ****. Think for yourself. READ for yourself.

Paul,
I never read FARMS, and only read FAIR articles once in a great while. I’m not embarrassed at all–having read the Book of Mormon over forty times–not counting the number of times any more (it was forty times as of fifteen years ago).

I have never referred to any FAIR article to figure out the meaning of the words “great cities” or “great city.”

Take, for example, the “city” of Ammonihah you have made reference to. Alma 16:9 calls it a “great city” (but again, that is a derogatory term used to describe what the people living there think about their own city.) In the same verse, it says “every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness.” This fulfilled their own incriminatory statement in Alma 9:4 that mocks Alma even if “thou shouldst prophesy that this great city should be destroyed in one day.”

So how many people lived in that “great city” of Ammonihah? It never says.

The book of Alma talks about many “cities” and about their defense, but for example when the king-men rebelled and a group among them attempted to escape, “there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword.” (Alma 51:19) These people had been gathered from more than one city. “Four thousand” is clearly represented to be a large number, not a small number.

Alma 56:28 talks about “ten thousand men” who comprised Helaman’s defense forces, who had been gathered from many cities and from a force of 2,000 sent from the “land of Zarahemla”. Then Alma 57:6 talks about an additional “six thousand men” who were sent from the “land of Zarahemla, and from the land round about.”

Nothing I read in any of that indicates that cities as the term was used by the writers of the history of that time period comprised a larger population than (guessing) 5,000 to 15,000 people per city. Yet Ammonihah had been referred to as a “great city”.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul,
I never read FARMS, and only read FAIR articles once in a great while. I’m not embarrassed at all–having read the Book of Mormon over forty times–not counting the number of times any more (it was forty times as of fifteen years ago).

I have never referred to any FAIR article to figure out the meaning of the words “great cities” or “great city.”

Take, for example, the “city” of Ammonihah you have made reference to. Alma 16:9 calls it a “great city” (but again, that is a derogatory term used to describe what the people living there think about their own city.) In the same verse, it says “every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness.” This fulfilled their own incriminatory statement in Alma 9:4 that mocks Alma even if “thou shouldst prophesy that this great city should be destroyed in one day.”

So how many people lived in that “great city” of Ammonihah? It never says.

The book of Alma talks about many “cities” and about their defense, but for example when the king-men rebelled and a group among them attempted to escape, “there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword.” (Alma 51:19) These people had been gathered from more than one city. “Four thousand” is clearly represented to be a large number, not a small number.

Alma 56:28 talks about “ten thousand men” who comprised Helaman’s defense forces, who had been gathered from many cities and from a force of 2,000 sent from the “land of Zarahemla”. Then Alma 57:6 talks about an additional “six thousand men” who were sent from the “land of Zarahemla, and from the land round about.”

Nothing I read in any of that indicates that cities as the term was used by the writers of the history of that time period comprised a larger population than (guessing) 5,000 to 15,000 people per city. Yet Ammonihah had been referred to as a “great city”.

Paul,
Additionally, when Moroni writes an epistle to Pahoran, the chief judge in the city of Zarahemla, and is angry that a larger army hasn’t been sent to assist him, he describes the land of Zarahemla and the cities in close proximity with these words: “ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness…” (Alma 60:22) So what was the population of Zarahemla at that time? “Thousands”. What was the population of the cities around the city of Zarahemla? “Tens of thousands”–which in my mind (remember, you actually said I should think as I read, and I actually do think as I read) means there are perhaps ten thousand per city and perhaps five or six cities in close enough proximity to Zarahemla that Moroni has written with the thought process that Pahoran should be recruiting men in those cities to help protect the Nephites from the Lamanite and Nephite dissenter incursions.

 

[dianaiad]

It is a fact that the vast majority of LDS have never read the Book of Mormon. As the Mormons on these fora demonstrate, they have very little knowledge or understanding of the Book of Mormon.

:ehh: You have GOT to be kidding. Paul, you have just completely destroyed any shred of credibility you ever had as an expert in Mormons and Mormonism.

 

[dianaiad]

Hmm, yet that’s exactly what Christ our God did. Do you dare say that Christ committed suicide? Did not Christ preach humility? Did He not say “blessed are the meek?” I do not remember reading “blessed are the vengeful.”

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Andrew

Actually, Jesus Christ did precisely that. He committed suicide. Or submitted Himself willingly to be the ulitmate sacrifice for us. Either way, it was HIS choice, utterly.

He could have avoided His fate right up until the instant He stopped breathing. He is God; He did not have to suffer for even a second. Unlike the Christians who followed Him, HE could have walked out of the jail, destroyed His bonds, healed His wounds…every step He took on that journey He deliberately chose to take, and He had to keep choosing to take that path every instant of it.

The early Christians who were martyred lost their freedom of choice very early; it didn’t matter whether they accepted their deaths meekly or fought like the lions they were tossed to–they were going to be killed; it was as inevitable as gravity.

But Christ? Can you imagine going through all that…knowing that at any instant you COULD walk away?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, how about some references? Actually it is the media who makes the claim that the lds church is the fastest growing church in the world. But I will still like to see some references about you wrote above. By the way, Paul, you seem to make the mistake most bitter exmormons make: predicting the downfall of the lds church. So far, I see no downfall. But keep hoping.

Actually, the 'fastest growing church in the world" is Islam, at 1.58% per year, mostly by the birth rate.

The fastest growing churches in the USA, according to the “Christian Post” (who, by the way, does NOT like reporting this, since they are very much against both faiths) are the Jehovah’s Witnesses at 2.25% growth in 2008, and the CoJCoLDS, with a1.56% growth rate in the US. They then follow this news (they put ‘church’ in quotes when referring to either group…it’s funny).

In fact, the entire article is pretty funny…the writer, while she is being honest about the growth rates of the groups, writes like she’s not only drinking vinagar, she’s writing with it. Oh, she does NOT like reporting what she is reporting…

She spends a full paragraph distancing herself (and Christianity as a whole) from both groups, then goes on to list Catholic growth rate at .87% growth, Southern Baptists at .22%, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (wow, THAT’S a mouthful…talk about covering all the bases!) at .21% growth, and the Assemblies of God at .19% growth.

The Episcopal church dropped by 4.15% and the Presbyterians by 2.36%…well, the article goes on. If you want to check it out, go here.

So, well…while the Mormons aren’t the 'fastest growing church in the world" or even in the USA, we are still growing, percentage wise, almost twice as fast as the Catholics are.

Or not…who can keep up with the statistics? 2009 numbers may be different. You guys may pick up a few, we might…whatever.

 

[why_me]

So, well…while the Mormons aren’t the 'fastest growing church in the world" or even in the USA, we are still growing, percentage wise, almost twice as fast as the Catholics are.

Or not…who can keep up with the statistics? 2009 numbers may be different. You guys may pick up a few, we might…whatever.

If I had a dollar for every time an antimormon has claimed that the lds church is losing members or that the lds church is falling a part I would be a rich person. They repeat the information like a cultish mantra, and yet, I see no evidence of the lds church vanishing into thin air. But the antimormons do have it on their wish list.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are quite right about that. My deepest apologies…that was 2Adam, I think, who now resides in my ignore file. I got careless.

What’s to refute? Taylor was informed that two or more men died. That’s true. He was so informed. Whoever informed him was wrong, but nevertheless, he was so informed. To pretend that he was NOT so informed, when he was, would be changing history, which you claim is a bad thing.

Why should he retract it? He said he was informed. He should retract it and say that he was NOT so informed? That would be lying, y’know. It doesn’t matter how many people ultimately kicked the bucket…or did not. Someone told him that two or more did. That someone was wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was ‘informed’ that two or more had died.

The day before yesterday the world sorta stopped while everybody watched this weird looking helium balloon float fifty or so miles over Colorado. We were all informed that a six year old boy was in it, and we all held our collective breaths. Turns out that the kid was hiding in a box in his attic.

(shrug) never mind, the world had still been informed that he was in the balloon. We still held our breaths. It still affected us all…and the feelings we all had while watching didn’t suddenly become retroactively different because the kid was alive, and well, and hiding.

Make up your mind. Do you want our history to reflect what happened at the time, or what did not? You can’t have this both ways.

Now how did I do that? Church history states that Taylor was informed that two or more had died. Turns out that we only have evidence that one had. Therefore Taylor was misinformed, ipso facto.

As to ‘getting over’ anything…

What part of “I wish Joseph had been better armed” didn’t you GET?

Poor poor Diania,

You’re just trying to dance around the issue. JS did kill someone. It is that plain and simple.

1. It is in your history, and you have failed to prove your statement that he was “misinformed” You have failed to show how you know he was misinformed.
2. You obviously missed post 209, which shows another mormon source showing that someone was in fact killed by shots from JS. Or was he misinformed too?

Misinfomed
Misunderstood
Mistranslated
Misquoted
Mistreated

How many times do we have to hear these lame arguments?

 

[dianaiad]

Poor poor Diania,

You’re just trying to dance around the issue. JS did kill someone. It is that plain and simple.

OK, it looks like he may have. Good for him. He did NOT, however, 'kill two or three," much as I would have cheered that. You claim to have an interest in historical accuracy. Your passion for it seems a little selective, though, when it suits your purposes.

1. It is in your history, and you have failed to prove your statement that he was “misinformed” You have failed to show how you know he was misinformed.

He was misinformed because we have no evidence to show that more than one of the attackers died of wounds recieved…and the only evidence we have that ONE died is hearsay.

1. You obviously missed post 209, which shows another mormon source showing that someone was in fact killed by shots from JS. Or was he misinformed too?

Misinfomed
Misunderstood
Mistranslated
Misquoted
Mistreated

How many times do we have to hear these lame arguments?

I"m having great difficulty keeping my temper…and keeping my language within bounds. After all, you seem to be very free with the personal insults. However…

Joseph only was able to get off three shots before the gun misfired. Three. All witnesses attest to that. There were only three attackers with wounds that can be confirmed who were tried: John Wills (shot in the arm, and the only one for which we have any evidence of death as a result), Willaim Voras, shot in the shoulder, William Gallaher, shot in the face…and POSSIBLY another man, a Mr. Allen, for whom no wound is actually reported. The only reason he is included in the list of wounded is because he was one of the men indicted for murder.

The only person who mentions Townsend is Governor Ford, in his “History of Illinois,” in spite of what post #209 states. Reed Blake only says that Joseph shot three men. HE doesn’t name them. Oddly enough, and the story of Townsend is EXACTLY like the story of John Wills, which name Governor Ford does NOT use, though he gets the other two right. The conclusion, then, is that Townsend = Wills.

Unless of course you think that Joseph managed to wound five men with three shots, three of them in the arm…Mills, Townsend and Wills, Wills and Townsend both dying from the arm wound nine months later, and …er…MILLS, shot in the arm???

When neither Mills nor Townsend were indicted? When in fact, there is no “Mills?”

Yes, it was confusing. Yes, many stories went around, but we are in a better position to look than Br. Taylor was.

Joseph shot three times.
We have evidence for wounds in three men; arm, shoulder and face.
The man shot in the arm was named Wills, or Mills, or Townsend.
The man who, evidently, died nine months later was named Wills or Townsend.

Unless, of course, that you can swallow the idea that Joseph shot five men (let’s not forget Mr. Allen) with three bullets, three of them in the arm, two of whom died five months later of a wound in the arm. Quite a feat of shooting, and wow, what a coincidence, having two men shot in the arm die at the same time, nine months later? Gee, sounds almost like divine justice or something.

We don’t have any evidence at all that anybody else died.

I suggest that you get over the matter. Or…how about this: Many Catholic Popes have declared scientific ‘facts’ that turned out to be, well…not true. Should you go back in history and change, say, the trial of Galleleo to make him NOT spend so many years under house arrest because it turns out that, well, the church was wrong about punishing him?

Should the church go back and change what Pope Innocent III did about the Albegensians because, well, she woudn’t do that now, and it was, well, the wrong thing to do? After all, it’s church history, it MUST have been right., Right?

People are people. They can be mistaken. Taylor’s words are not scripture. If he was misinformed, it simply means that he was misinformed.

 

[twopekinguys]

OK, it looks like he may have. Good for him. He did NOT, however, 'kill two or three," much as I would have cheered that. You claim to have an interest in historical accuracy. Your passion for it seems a little selective, though, when it suits your purposes.

Not selective at all

He was misinformed because we have no evidence to show that more than one of the attackers died of wounds recieved…and the only evidence we have that ONE died is hearsay.

Whatever floats your boat on this one.

I"m having great difficulty keeping my temper…and keeping my language within bounds. After all, you seem to be very free with the personal insults. However…

I think you need to re read. How are these personal insults? They are merely the tactics I, and many others have observed mormon posters using.

Joseph only was able to get off three shots before the gun misfired. Three. All witnesses attest to that. There were only three attackers with wounds that can be confirmed who were tried: John Wills (shot in the arm, and the only one for which we have any evidence of death as a result), Willaim Voras, shot in the shoulder, William Gallaher, shot in the face…and POSSIBLY another man, a Mr. Allen, for whom no wound is actually reported. The only reason he is included in the list of wounded is because he was one of the men indicted for murder.

The only person who mentions Townsend is Governor Ford, in his “History of Illinois,” in spite of what post #209 states. Reed Blake only says that Joseph shot three men. HE doesn’t name them. Oddly enough, and the story of Townsend is EXACTLY like the story of John Wills, which name Governor Ford does NOT use, though he gets the other two right. The conclusion, then, is that Townsend = Wills.

Ok Sherlock, if you say so, but personally I think it was Mrs. Peacock, with a hammer in the study.

Unless of course you think that Joseph managed to wound five men with three shots, three of them in the arm…Mills, Townsend and Wills, Wills and Townsend both dying from the arm wound nine months later, and …er…MILLS, shot in the arm???

When neither Mills nor Townsend were indicted? When in fact, there is no “Mills?”

How do you know there is no “Mills”? Not every birth or death was recorded back in those days.

Yes, it was confusing. Yes, many stories went around, but we are in a better position to look than Br. Taylor was.

Joseph shot three times.
We have evidence for wounds in three men; arm, shoulder and face.
The man shot in the arm was named Wills, or Mills, or Townsend.
The man who, evidently, died nine months later was named Wills or Townsend.

Unless, of course, that you can swallow the idea that Joseph shot five men (let’s not forget Mr. Allen) with three bullets, three of them in the arm, two of whom died five months later of a wound in the arm. Quite a feat of shooting, and wow, what a coincidence, having two men shot in the arm die at the same time, nine months later? Gee, sounds almost like divine justice or something.

Hey, JFK and Gov. Connoly were both hit by the same bullet right? One died, one didn’t. See, stranger things have been known to happen.

We don’t have any evidence at all that anybody else died.

I suggest that you get over the matter. Or…how about this: Many Catholic Popes have declared scientific ‘facts’ that turned out to be, well…not true. Should you go back in history and change, say, the trial of Galleleo to make him NOT spend so many years under house arrest because it turns out that, well, the church was wrong about punishing him?

Ah, but there’s a difference. We aren’t trying to duck the whole Gallileo thing.

Should the church go back and change what Pope Innocent III did about the Albegensians because, well, she woudn’t do that now, and it was, well, the wrong thing to do? After all, it’s church history, it MUST have been right., Right?

Again, I don’t see anyone trying to duck the issue.

People are people. They can be mistaken. Taylor’s words are not scripture. If he was misinformed, it simply means that he was misinformed.