A
AtticusFinch
Guest
You lie yet again. You have proven nothing. You make claims you can;t support and use a Mormon Apostle as your source. You are so tunnel visioned you neck has locked.
Again, go do some real study
- Status
Again, go do some real study
W
why_me
Guest
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
The discussion was not about what mobs did to Mormons, it was about Joseph. And I DID condemn his killing…geez, do they even teach y’all to read?
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Actually, to flagrantly violate the Constitution like Joseph did, who swore to UPHOLD the Constitution, it can be considered treason. Treason is a betrayal of trust or confidence. When he, an elected official, violated the consitution, it was a betrayal of trust and confidence
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
L
lax16
Guest
Has anyone read this yet about Mormon historical documents being sold at auction? Sounds interesting.
sltrib.com/ci_14297738?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
sltrib.com/ci_14297738?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
yes, it does. Apparently, some of the documents tend to show that BY was responsible for MMM
D
dianaiad
Guest
Lessee. I show you names, dates, titles of books, send you links to newspaper articles and official court documents…but I have 'proven nothing."
You make claim after claim that I refute with those names, dates, book titles, links to news articles and official court publications, and you say that I have proven nothing.
In fact, I even provided the source YOU used…
But have you given one source document, one court publication, one book, one article, one…anything but your own claims which I…uh, refuted?
No. You haven’t. You simply criticise one of my sources because the author is LDS. Never mind that he was ALSO a state supreme court justice, a law professor and a respected and admired figure in legal circles, and that the only thing I used his book to prove is that there WAS a trial for those accused of murdering Joseph Smith–and that in addition to that book (in anticipation, by the way, of this very stupid ploy you are now using) I give you a flamin’ LINK TO THE OFFICIAL COURT PUBLICATION OF THAT TRIAL, the only thing you can say is that the author is an LDS apostle?
It’s true, he picked that trial to examine because he was LDS. However, he couldn’t have picked that trial to analyze if the flamin’ trial HAD NOT HAPPENED.
And you haven’t given us one single reference to anything you claim. Not one. Not a hint of one. Not a sniff of one. None. Zip. Nada. Bupkis.
Come back when you have something.
oh,…like the name of the thirteen year old that Joseph was supposed to have married, for instance? Or some record of all those trials that resulted in guilty verdicts, proving that Joseph committed all the crimes you accuse him of??
Anything?
Something?
I would prefer something credible, but from you I’d take anything at all, just to begin the process.
W
why_me
Guest
Not exactly. If an enemy begins to publish a rag to incite the masses against a people, that newspaper deserves to be shut down. Not to do so, could have meant the death of many innocent people living in Nauvoo. The nauvoo town council did the correct decision when one considers the persecution mormons experienced before they entered Nauvoo.
W
why_me
Guest
by Reed C. Durham Jr.
The Nauvoo Expositor was the newspaper voice of apostates determined to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the spring of 1844. During the last few months of Joseph Smith’s life, an opposition party of disgruntled members, apostates, and excommunicants coalesced into a dissenting church. The principals claimed to believe in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel, but rejected what they termed Nauvoo innovations, notably plural marriage. Claiming that Joseph was a fallen prophet, the dissenters set out, through the Expositor, to expose the Prophet’s supposed false teachings and abominations. They held secret meetings, made plans, and took oaths to topple the Church and kill Joseph Smith. The publication of the newspaper was crucial to their stratagem.
When the press for the Expositor arrived in Nauvoo on May 7, 1844, it stirred great excitement among Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but there was no immediate interference. Within three days the owners, all leaders of the opposition movement, issued a broadside prospectus for their newspaper. One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding. Francis Higbee, one of the proprietors of the newspaper, set an ominous tone when he described Joseph Smith as "the biggest villain that goes unhung."
The literary quality of the paper was inferior. A contemporary non-Mormon critic described it as “dull or laughable,” with “lame grammar and turgid rhetoric” (Oaks, p. 868).* But the Expositor’s polemics against the Church and Joseph Smith were threatening and polarizing. The anti-Mormons were exultant about the Expositor, but Church members demanded that something be done.*
As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were “a public nuisance” and instructed the mayor “to remove it…without delay.” Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper. At 8:00 p.m. the marshal carried out the mayor’s orders (HC 6:432-49). That action, justified or not, played into the hands of the opposition. It riled anti-Mormon sentiment throughout Hancock County and provided substance for the charges used by the opposition to hold Joseph Smith in Carthage Jail, where he was murdered on June 27, 1844
lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm
Calling for the death of someone is not exactly free press. Lets see what happens today to any newspaper the incites people to act against another people and calls for some to be hung.
The Nauvoo Expositor was the newspaper voice of apostates determined to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the spring of 1844. During the last few months of Joseph Smith’s life, an opposition party of disgruntled members, apostates, and excommunicants coalesced into a dissenting church. The principals claimed to believe in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel, but rejected what they termed Nauvoo innovations, notably plural marriage. Claiming that Joseph was a fallen prophet, the dissenters set out, through the Expositor, to expose the Prophet’s supposed false teachings and abominations. They held secret meetings, made plans, and took oaths to topple the Church and kill Joseph Smith. The publication of the newspaper was crucial to their stratagem.
When the press for the Expositor arrived in Nauvoo on May 7, 1844, it stirred great excitement among Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but there was no immediate interference. Within three days the owners, all leaders of the opposition movement, issued a broadside prospectus for their newspaper. One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding. Francis Higbee, one of the proprietors of the newspaper, set an ominous tone when he described Joseph Smith as "the biggest villain that goes unhung."
The literary quality of the paper was inferior. A contemporary non-Mormon critic described it as “dull or laughable,” with “lame grammar and turgid rhetoric” (Oaks, p. 868).* But the Expositor’s polemics against the Church and Joseph Smith were threatening and polarizing. The anti-Mormons were exultant about the Expositor, but Church members demanded that something be done.*
As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were “a public nuisance” and instructed the mayor “to remove it…without delay.” Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper. At 8:00 p.m. the marshal carried out the mayor’s orders (HC 6:432-49). That action, justified or not, played into the hands of the opposition. It riled anti-Mormon sentiment throughout Hancock County and provided substance for the charges used by the opposition to hold Joseph Smith in Carthage Jail, where he was murdered on June 27, 1844
lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm
Calling for the death of someone is not exactly free press. Lets see what happens today to any newspaper the incites people to act against another people and calls for some to be hung.
D
dianaiad
Guest
From what I read, 'some of the documents" (bagly said ‘two’) indicate that a couple of Johnson’s soldiers accused BY of being complicit.
Not exactly the same thing.
I’ll await the text of those letters.
W
why_me
Guest
He can’t.
I just read hatred from him.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
He read them and said they support his contentions…or did you miss that? Oh…I forgot, your reading skills are not the best
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
lol…anyone who disagrees with a Mormon is full of hate. Had you really read what I typed, you would know I have no hate at all…He can’t.
but you NEED to see hate in me because it justifies your need to victims.
How truly pathetic
D
dianaiad
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ah, Bagley again. That’s not second hand evidence. that’s fourth and fifth hand evidence. The description of those letters is ALSO there. Bagly’s opinion of them is not proof that they do what he claims they do. After all, Bagly claims that Young’s mere presence in Salt Lake City proves that he was responsible, because he was establishing his alibi.
Never mind that he lived there, was about to be invaded there, and the state capital was there, according to Bagly the only reason for him to be there was to cover his behind. He makes a great many assumptions that are based upon his own dislike for Mormonism. You should understand that…after all, it’s why YOU are assuming that these letters MUST do what both you and Bagley want them to do.
As for me, as I said, I will await the text.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I never said I don’t like Mormons, themselves. Instead of answering the most simple question about Joseph Smith, you avoided the question all together and turned the discussion on to me.
I can’t remember ever seeing a Mormon admit that Joseph Smith ever did anything wrong. Catholics will openly speak about the sinful men in the Catholic Church’s history, but it seems Mormons have placed Joseph Smith above any wrongdoing whatsoever. That speaks volumes, whether you realize it or not. There was only one that was perfect and He was the only begotten Son of God. Joseph Smith, prophet or not, was ONLY a man, and all men are sinful, even if Mormons won’t admit to that about Smith.
I see irony in the ‘lying for Jesus’ statement, coming from a Mormon. I remember watching a video of a Mormon instructing young people, for what supposedly was for missionary purposes even though many Mormons denied that here. Anyway, the instructor told them, you don’t have to answer all their questions, you can answer the question they should’ve asked.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
- Status