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

[why_me]

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.

The proof is in the details. It is known that two wounded mobsters got healed and the third may have died. Lets look at it this way: We have a mob. We have people in prison. The mob storms the prison and murders two people. Joseph fires his six shooter…three shots misfire and three hit the murderers. From there the story depends on eyewitness accounts and heresay. Someone comes up to John Taylor after the event and informs him that two have died. But where did that person get his information? From mobsters? How reliable would they be? Thus, John Taylor says that he was informed that two died. But he can not know for sure.

Now if the governor says that Joseph Smith was a martyr and if the governor does not say that JS killed two mobsters…well…that is good enough for me. And we must remember that no one blamed JS for defending himself. In fact, I am sure that the mob found that to be a brave act. As the mob charges up the stairs and fires through the door killing Hyrum Smith, Joseph holds his ground and fires six times at the mob. Of course he knows that six bullets were no match for 150 mobsters. But he fired anyway. He then attempted to jump from the window and by doing so, saved the life of two people still alive since the bullets went toward Joseph and not toward the two people in prison with him still alive and who were wounded by the initial storming. Now that is heroic and it was recognized as such.

 

[Arandur]

…
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.)

A good many if not most of the martyrs Catholics speak of and admire have gone to their deaths peacefully, witnessing openly to Christ to the end via prayer, testimony, and example, despite being killed outside the law. So I’m not sure your distinction matters. I don’t really recognize your distinction anyway, though, because blatantly unjust laws are not laws at all.

ParkerD, that’s the best you can come up with? That quote is the Expositor charging Smith and his group of being the ones to likely cause great problems through a violent Inquisition. It does not recommend violence to put Smith down. It and the other context gives warnings to the community about what they think Smith is up to. Their remedies are to expose and lead people away from Smith’s dangerous practices or false teachings, and possibly to charge him under the law with any criminal acts he has done. There’s no incitement to violence that I recall seeing, and none in your quote. As for whether some of their claims were libel, that would have to be proven. Accusations of libel are not cause for immediate suppression of freedom of speech/press. Only such things as direct physical threats and incitements to violence can be cause for that.

WhyMe, I think “insightful” might be the better term

Dianaiad:

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!!"

“Love thine enemy.” “Turn the other cheek.” “Father forgive them.” Jesus did not wish that his murderers die. Neither did the martyred apostles.

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

Interesting. This sounds rather contrary to the argument used against those who assert that the BoM is a-historical. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?”
Or the Great Apostasy, for that matter (which never happened, either).

 

[Kdesiel]

J.Smith Shot two people while in jail for criminal offenses. In his words he may have let on he was willing to go but his actions proved otherwise. When it came to facing his mortality, he pulled a gun and SHOT three people, he then ran to the window calling out a secret distress call receieved when he joined a secret society in hopes they would spare his life.
Why else would he have uttered the phrase?
If he was a willing lamb to the slaughter, why lash out with VIOLENCE?
I don’t condone the murder of J.Smith and his brother. It was wrong, it is a black mark in American History for sure. There is plenty that was done to the members of the LDS church early on that is an eyesore to American History. His murder and the murder of his brother were crimes.
He is not a martyr though. You can spin it all you want, you put as much lip stick and makeup on a pig as you like the end result is …its still a pig.
J.Smith intended to do bodily harm to members of the mob, out of self defense. He then tried to save his life by uttering the Mason Distress call. That is not a Martyr. Whether two three, or two hundred were killed by his hand is a moot point, the act of self preservation when faced with his ultimate demise is proof enough.

The Saviour is our ultimate example. His called servants, Apostles, Prophets whopve faced similar circumstances followed in his footsteps thus earning them the right to call themselves a martyr. They didnt’ stab people, kill or maim when faced with their demise. They peacefully went, as true lambs to the slaughter knowing their actions were in tune with the Master’s.

I feel like a broken record.
This thread is dead, unless one of the Mormons want to actually have a worthwhile discussion on the main topic?
History on that catagory proves otherwise as well.

 

[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.

Still waiting on that reference Parker.

Or is this another one of your imaginary statements that you “heard” somewhere?

 

[ParkerD]

Still waiting on that reference Parker.

Or is this another one of your imaginary statements that you “heard” somewhere?

Sorry you probably missed it. It was a short post at 10:54 am this morning, as follows:

Thomas Ford wrote his book, History of Illinois, 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.

 

[twopekinguys]

Sorry you probably missed it. It was a short post at 10:54 am this morning, as follows:

Thomas Ford wrote his book, History of Illinois, 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.

Thanks, I did miss the post.

Funny thing is, I’m from Illinois, not too far from Carthage and Nauvoo, and former Gov. Ford is far, far, far from infamous…lol

I’ll check it out, but like I said in an earlier post, I really wouldn’t rely on him as a person qualified to classify someone as a “Martyr”.

Again, thanks for the info.

 

[emseguin]

I will pray for those who believe in yet anohter ‘church’, this one founded by Joseph Smith, Jr, in 1830.
A man directed to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God’s dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. - tomorrow, it will be Joseph Smithsonian the 3rd with the 40 001 ‘church’, thus leading more people astray.

God be with you, peace of Christ

JMJ

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

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.

I would be well if you could learn how to use the quote function in this forum so that it would be possible to follow you.

Now, as to your claim.

No. The positive claim is yours; you claim that two or three of the attackers at Carthage died. The only thing you can come up with to back this up is a statement that Taylor ‘was informed’ that two or three died. He didn’t say who informed him of this. There is no evidence that anybody but Wills died.

Therefore, Taylor was misinformed.

If he was informed correctly, then you should be able to find some evidence of those deaths.

If you can’t, then…well, 'absence of proof is not proof of absence."

In other words, the absence of proof that someone died is NOT proof that someone did, and it doesn’t matter how much you twist this, sir, the proof is yours to find, and yours to give. Who died? When? Of what?

How in the name of all that is wonderful am I supposed to PROVE that these men did NOT die of their wounds, absent any evidence at all of their lives or deaths after that time? I mean, if someone can come up with a death certificate or two, wonderful…but you are the one who has to come up with them, not me.

Now, I have a question for you. What earthly reason would I have to want the record to say that only Wills died of his wounds? C’mon, get real. If I found out that Joseph actually had taken these guys out, I’d probably applaud. You are the only person in this conversation with a motive to prove his case; I don’t care either way, except for one small fact: history shows that if any of the attackers died, it was Wills only.

So get over it already.

 

[twopekinguys]

I would be well if you could learn how to use the quote function in this forum so that it would be possible to follow you.

Now, as to your claim.

No. The positive claim is yours; you claim that two or three of the attackers at Carthage died. The only thing you can come up with to back this up is a statement that Taylor ‘was informed’ that two or three died. He didn’t say who informed him of this. There is no evidence that anybody but Wills died.

Therefore, Taylor was misinformed.

If he was informed correctly, then you should be able to find some evidence of those deaths.

If you can’t, then…well, 'absence of proof is not proof of absence."

In other words, the absence of proof that someone died is NOT proof that someone did, and it doesn’t matter how much you twist this, sir, the proof is yours to find, and yours to give. Who died? When? Of what?

How in the name of all that is wonderful am I supposed to PROVE that these men did NOT die of their wounds, absent any evidence at all of their lives or deaths after that time? I mean, if someone can come up with a death certificate or two, wonderful…but you are the one who has to come up with them, not me.

Now, I have a question for you. What earthly reason would I have to want the record to say that only Wills died of his wounds? C’mon, get real. If I found out that Joseph actually had taken these guys out, I’d probably applaud. You are the only person in this conversation with a motive to prove his case; I don’t care either way, except for one small fact: history shows that if any of the attackers died, it was Wills only.

So get over it already.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here you go, another reference to a death caused by JS.

“Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm.”

• Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129

JS caused the wound that lead to an individuals death.

So let’s see, we have your church history saying he killed someone, and now we have a quote from a mormon elder showing he killed someone.

Understand it yet?

 

[Jerusha]

As I stated before, John Hay said that only four were wounded, and all survived. After all, it was only a “pea shooter”

 

[zerinus]

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means. Now suppose you are a Catholic (and a Mormon hater!), and you dropped dead tomorrow; and two years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and decided to do temple work on your behalf; what right do you, as a dead person, have to stop it? The answer is that you have none. What right do other Catholics have to stop it? None! What right has the Catholic Church? None! What right do they have even to be “offended” by it? Answer: None! It has nothing to do with them, and it is none of their business. If my dad was a Catholic, and I wanted to do temple work for him as Mormon, who cares that other Catholics don’t like it? I wouldn’t!

If you really wanted to go to the extreme, I suppose you could leave a will behind stating that after your death you don’t want to be baptized by proxy in a Mormon Temple. But even then, it is doubtful that will can be legally enforced. Who is going to enforce it? Those who inherit your estate will have to decide to enforce it; and if they (or one of them) became a Mormon, they can override it. There is no legal mechanism as far as I can tell that can prevent them from doing it. A dead person basically has not legal rights. All the rights belong to his or her descendants; and if they decided to have him baptized, there is nothing that anybody else can to about it. They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

 

[Jerusha]

They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

I read this post, and agreed with everything you said, EXCEPT the last sentence. People have every right to their feelings. Here you go again, in typical Mormon style, telling everyone that your feelings are supreme, and invalidating every one else’s.

Personally, I believe that the LDS church is haunted by the angry spirits of those who have been baptized against thier will. And the whole situation will be taken care of, but that is just my own opinion. Go ahead, baptize away.

Mormons make a science of offending people, and then call others’ reactions “persecution”.

 

[zerinus]

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means. Now suppose you are a Catholic (and a Mormon hater!), and you dropped dead tomorrow; and two years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and decided to do temple work on your behalf; what right do you, as a dead person, have to stop it? The answer is that you have none. What right do other Catholics have to stop it? None! What right has the Catholic Church? None! What right do they have even to be “offended” by it? Answer: None! It has nothing to do with them, and it is none of their business. If my dad was a Catholic, and I wanted to do temple work for him as Mormon, who cares that other Catholics don’t like it? I wouldn’t!

If you really wanted to go to the extreme, I suppose you could leave a will behind stating that after your death you don’t want to be baptized by proxy in a Mormon Temple. But even then, it is doubtful that will can be legally enforced. Who is going to enforce it? Those who inherit your estate will have to decide to enforce it; and if they (or one of them) became a Mormon, they can override it. There is no legal mechanism as far as I can tell that can prevent them from doing it. A dead person basically has not legal rights. All the rights belong to his or her descendants; and if they decided to have him baptized, there is nothing that anybody else can to about it. They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

I just realized that I have posted this on the wrong thread! Maybe the Mods can do me the favor of deleting it for me. I will repost it proper thread.

 

[zerinus]

I read this post, and agreed with everything you said, EXCEPT the last sentence. People have every right to their feelings. Here you go again, in typical Mormon style, telling everyone that your feelings are supreme, and invalidating every one else’s.

Personally, I believe that the LDS church is haunted by the angry spirits of those who have been baptized against thier will. And the whole situation will be taken care of, but that is just my own opinion. Go ahead, baptize away.

Mormons make a science of offending people, and then call others’ reactions “persecution”.

Sorry Jerusha. That post was a mistake. It should have been posted here. Feel free to reply to it there if you like.

 

[thecourt]

This is in reply to the original poster of this thread.

This has nothing to do with apostates. Unlike the different factions in Catholicisim or other churches, internally the rank and file members such as myself understand the attacks against the Book of Mormon. They have existed since the beginning and are nothing new.

Those former members who have requested their membership records be removed or those excommunicated are probably involved.

Elder Holland, I submit further was not creating a divide with those of other faiths. Other faiths have never accepted the Book of Mormon’s witness of Jesus Christ and will continue to find something to attack the church with.

 

[PaulDupre]

This has nothing to do with apostates.

Those former members who have requested their membership records be removed or those excommunicated are probably involved.

Would you care to reconcile these two statements?

 

[PaulDupre]

Unlike the different factions in Catholicisim or other churches, internally the rank and file members such as myself understand the attacks against the Book of Mormon.

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.

While I was on my mission, my parents occasionally attended sacrament meeting at my ward (the reasons for that are very complicated). One Sunday, a Seventy came to speak. His topic was “ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ” (strangely, a quote from the very Catholic St. Jerome). During the course of his talk, the Seventy asked:

“How many of you have read the entire bible? Stand up if you have.” About one fourth of the attendees stood.

“How many have read the entire Book of Mormon?” Several sat down, a few more stood up.

“The Doctrine and Covenants?” All but a few sat down.

“The Pearl of Great Price?” All but one sat down. That one was my father.

There was a titter of laughter in the assembly. The Seventy looked a bit confused.

The seventy beamed “This faithful brother has read all of the standard works. He has used his time wisely to do the will of the Lord. I would venture to say that he knows our Savior better than anyone else in this ward.”

Now the congregation erupted in laughter. The Seventy, now completely at a loss, asked “Am I missing something?”

My father spoke up: “I’m a Catholic”.

The Seventy, completely deflated, said “Well it seems we’ve been outdone by an outsider. I suggest we all read our scriptures more.” Then he ended his talk.

 

[amontoya]

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.

While I was on my mission, my parents occasionally attended sacrament meeting at my ward (the reasons for that are very complicated). One Sunday, a Seventy came to speak. His topic was “ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ” (strangely, a quote from the very Catholic St. Jerome). During the course of his talk, the Seventy asked:

“How many of you have read the entire bible? Stand up if you have.” About one fourth of the attendees stood.

“How many have read the entire Book of Mormon?” Several sat down, a few more stood up.

“The Doctrine and Covenants?” All but a few sat down.

“The Pearl of Great Price?” All but one sat down. That one was my father.

There was a titter of laughter in the assembly. The Seventy looked a bit confused.

The seventy beamed “This faithful brother has read all of the standard works. He has used his time wisely to do the will of the Lord. I would venture to say that he knows our Savior better than anyone else in this ward.”

Now the congregation erupted in laughter. The Seventy, now completely at a loss, asked “Am I missing something?”

My father spoke up: “I’m a Catholic”.

The Seventy, completely deflated, said “Well it seems we’ve been outdone by an outsider. I suggest we all read our scriptures more.” Then he ended his talk.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

While I was on my mission, my parents occasionally attended sacrament meeting at my ward (the reasons for that are very complicated). One Sunday, a Seventy came to speak. His topic was “ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ” (strangely, a quote from the very Catholic St. Jerome). During the course of his talk, the Seventy asked:

“How many of you have read the entire bible? Stand up if you have.” About one fourth of the attendees stood.

“How many have read the entire Book of Mormon?” Several sat down, a few more stood up.

“The Doctrine and Covenants?” All but a few sat down.

“The Pearl of Great Price?” All but one sat down. That one was my father.

There was a titter of laughter in the assembly. The Seventy looked a bit confused.

The seventy beamed “This faithful brother has read all of the standard works. He has used his time wisely to do the will of the Lord. I would venture to say that he knows our Savior better than anyone else in this ward.”

Now the congregation erupted in laughter. The Seventy, now completely at a loss, asked “Am I missing something?”

My father spoke up: “I’m a Catholic”.

The Seventy, completely deflated, said “Well it seems we’ve been outdone by an outsider. I suggest we all read our scriptures more.” Then he ended his talk.

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.” 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”? 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.