Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6435802:

Here you go for your own reading.

1 Legal Opinions and Analyses
Critics have questioned whether the city council’s ordinance and the mayor’s declaration and order were constitutional. One Mormon legal scholar Dallin H. Oaks has addressed the issue, and concluded that although the actions may not have been wise, they were in keeping with accepted legal practices of the time.

Some contend that critics are misjudging Nauvoo officials’ actions of the mid nineteenth century by applying legal standards of the late twentieth century. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was twenty four years away from being enacted in 1868Events January 3 Meiji Emperor declares " Meiji Restoration", his own restoration to full power, against the supporters of the Tokugawa Shogunate. January 10 Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu declares emperor’s declaration “illegal” and attacks Kyoto. Pro-Emperor, and that amendment’s incorporation of federal constitional rights against state and local governments was not enforced until 19311931 is the common year starting on Thursday. see link for calendar) Events January January 4 Female aviator Elly Beinhorn begins her flight to Africa January 6 Thomas Edison submits his last patent application. January 22 Sir Isaac Isaacs sworn in as the. Thus, the issue falls primarily on the constitution of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter, not the federal law of the United States such as the First AmendmentThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the Congress from infringing on five rights. These guarantees were that the government would not: Endorse any given religion or establish a state.

Some argue that even if the actions of the mayor were not illegal under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (because it was not governing law), they were illegal under the 1818 Constitution of Illinois. Among other constitutional rights included in the Illinois constitution, it prohibits ex-post facto laws (VIII.16) and provides for freedom of the press (VIII.22). Smith’s actions as mayor are not clearly illegal under either of those constitutional provisions. Freedom of speech is not absolute; there are in this case applicable limitations and restrictions on that right. The ex-post facto prohibition may apply because the city council passed an ordinanceOrdinance can mean: That which is ordained or decreed by fate or a deity such as Dharma of Buddism A law made by a non-sovereign body such as a city council or a colony. In France, a regulation adopted by the executive in a domain normally reserved for st regarding nuisances and then the mayor declared the Expositor press a nuisance only after, rather than before, the first issue had already been printed. However, the decision to declare the press a nuisance also rested in part on the editor’s stated and unretracted intentions going forward. The press was declared a nuisance in part because it was deemed that if it was not immediately unchecked, it would inflame Nauvoo’s Mormon citizens and lead to public disorder or a public disturbance. Assuming that the mayor’s declaration and order passed the ex-post facto legal hurdle, it also needed to meet the Nauvoo Charter’s requirement that new ordinances must be published under certain criteria and could only become effective 30 days after the ordinance was passed. This requirement was not met.

Another consideration is whether the common lawThis article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). The common-law legal system forms a major part of the law of many c rule of nuisance was applicable without the need to pass a nuisance ordinance nor run up against any ex-post facto restriction. Finally, the destruction of the press rather than merely taking the press into custody would have incurred a taking requiring just compensation from the city.

The Nauvoo council and mayor considered that the most pertinent and inflammatory allegation presented by the paper was that Smith secretly practiced “spiritual wifery” or polygamy. Although Church leaders condemned “spiritual wifery” and even excommunicated members for the practice, the doctrine of Plural Marriage was practiced, but not openly among members of the Church until a few years after they arrived in Utah in 1856

lol…yeah…that is what we need, legal analyis by Mormons on the illegality of Mormons

 

[sablouwho]

Thanks for the NT quote, Parker. I will (re) read it in the larger context to get a sense of what it is saying.

Another aside, it is pretty much accepted by many, many biblical scholars (not just Catholic ones, by the way) that Paul did not actually write Hebrews (as well as some of the other letters originally attributed to him). (Though I do indeed realize that the LDS printing of the KJV attributes Hebrews to Paul.)

Hi, Sablouwho,
Thanks for the question. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 11),

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

By that set of verses, and by the statement of Abraham to his servants as follows in Genesis, it is clear that Abraham fully planned to return from Mount Moriah with a resurrected son Isaac who would be able to have children and thus would fulfill the promise Abraham had received concerning Isaac’s seed.

Genesis 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the (pack animal); and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Abraham was a man of certain integrity. He said he would return with his son Isaac, with full confidence in the resurrection as a promise from God, as well as full confidence in the promise that his promised seed would come through Isaac. Paul understood this.

 

[why_me]

why me;6435910:

lol…yeah…that is what we need, legal analyis by Mormons on the illegality of Mormons

Actually, you can find it here. It is not a mormon site. Also, when I pasted from the site it added information that was not in the link. Good luck in your catholicism…you are certainly a wonderful representative of your faith.

economicexpert.com/a/Nauvoo:Expositor.html

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6435924:

Actually, you can find it here. It is not a mormon site. Also, when I pasted from the site it added information that was not in the link. Good luck in your catholicism…you are certainly a wonderful representative of your faith.

thank you. I would like to say you are a wonderful rep of LDS, but you seem more like the ones who tried to kidnap my children when I left the Church

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6435924:

Actually, you can find it here. It is not a mormon site. Also, when I pasted from the site it added information that was not in the link. Good luck in your catholicism…you are certainly a wonderful representative of your faith.

economicexpert.com/a/Nauvoo:Expositor.html

Thanks for the link. It is from Canada. The article says even Oaks has waffled on his defense of Joseph destroying the press. Thanks for a link that shows you were wrong. My respect for you jumped a tad, even though you left that part out

 

[ParkerD]

Context is everything, and you have plucked something totally out of context.

I am assuming you are referring to the statement in the last column that says, “we will have nothing to battle against; but if they do not pursue that course, we shall be prepared for the warfare.”

Did you happen to overlook some statements made earlier in the same article? Like,

“we reserve the right to expatiate upon the respective claims–not on account of their politics – be they whig or democrat, but on account of a combination which we believe has for its object the utter destruction of the rights of the old citizens of the county, who have borne the heat and burden of the day; who have labored hard as pioneers of the county; who have settled and organized the county; who have rights that should be respected by every principle of honor and good faith, and whose wishes should be consulted int he choice of officers, and not have men imposed upon them, who are obnoxious”

They are obviously talking about how the residents of the area settle the area, and they saw their rights being destroyed. They also saw how they were having men “imposed” on them.

So basically I read it as…Ok, these mormon folk are pushing us, and we’re going to push back.

Maybe you should read the entire article, and then look at your statement regarding forceful action.

twopekinguys,
Just for the record, here is what I had written prior to your post above:

Originally Posted by ParkerD

That I will not do, but one can read on page 2 right hand column and on page 3 and see language that creates in the public mind the necessity of forceful action, despite the pretension of not doing so on the first page. By allusion to the Warsaw Signal, such action was also being fostered. It is sort of like saying, “We are all victims of a horrible situation and there is nothing we can do about it except print this newspaper, but we expect that the public will rally to support our cause.” It is a question of intent, and of what likely result could be expected as readers read the language and drew their conclusions by putting the two papers together.

I had read the quotes you pointed out, already. I think Dianiad and Why Me have explained the context of what I meant, and that the events that followed certainly did not show that the readers of the Nauvoo Expositor and the Warsaw Signal were not agitated and alarmed by what they read, to the point of being stirred up to action. The destruction of the press was not a cause to kill someone under the protection of the law–it was a pretext for the men to do what they already wanted to do.

Again, Why Me and Dianaiad have covered the topic well. I’m just letting you know that I had read and considered the “mild-mannered” statements that were scattered alongside the provoking statements. And again, just because you may be a thorough reader of a newspaper does not mean everyone is, or was in 1844. Have you ever heard of the “National Enquirer”?

 

[lax16]

You seem to be presenting this as an excuse for what happened to them, lax. It’s not.

From about 1831 to about 1838, when Gov. Lilburn Boggs signed the Extermination Order. You may not know about that one, but he made Mormons legal prey in Missourri; any Mormon, man, woman or child, caught within the state lines after a certain date was subject to being shot on sight. He then sent the militia after everybody to prevent them from leaving. NOT one of America’s proudest moments…by the way, this Extermination Order (and this was Bogg’s name for it, not ours!) wasn’t rescinded until 1976.

Between 8,000 to 10,000 Mormons were driven out of Missouri by that order.

Actually…Mormon women had the vote within their communities.They couldn’t vote in state or national elections, though. In fact, Mormon women have pretty much always had the vote, except when the federal government made Utah take it away from them in order to become a state. That lasted less than a year…they were given the vote BACK at the state constitutional convention.

Actually, according to the census, there may have been a few more men than women. On the other hand, the women comprised a far wider age range than men…and not too many twenty year old men would marry 50 year old widows, even in a polygamous relationship.

Let’s put it this way: After leaving Missourri, they went to Nauvoo. Nauvoo, at the time, became the nations’ third largest city after New York and Chicago.

No, I’m not making excuses. It’s not my style. It’s never okay to mistreat others as much as we’d all like to sometimes.

Thanks for the brief history lesson!

 

[lax16]

ParkerD- I am beginning to think you are ignoring me. I understand we all have the right not to answer someone if we don’t want to.

Is there a way to get my questions answered, maybe somewhere else?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi ParkerD- I think my post got buried. I have a few more questions to add.

1–Please explain why God would choose a prophet that would be OFFENSIVE to so many people? (Noah was not offensive to God, people just thought he was nuts. Also, Noah was proven “right” for all to see)

2–By choosing a prophet that people knew to be in violation of the Ten Commandments, God was setting JS up for failure. Why would God do that?

3–Please give examples of when God has ever asked a prophet to break a Commandment?

4–Please explain why God would want a prophet/religion that would break Commandments?

Lax16,
1–The “offensiveness” came when people merely read about Joseph Smith in his day. Many people who had read about him in newspapers, when they actually met him or heard him speak, changed their opinion quite dramatically. Today people who read his history may react in many different ways, depending on what parts of his history they read and whether a source gives a balanced picture or an already judged-and-condemned picture.

But yes, a “prophet” may be considered offensive to some people right off the bat, especially if they have been told all their life that there will be no more prophets on the earth and thus any so-called “prophet” must be a false prophet. Then all they are going to be looking for is proof that what they were taught is right, and when they do they will go on their way and say to themselves–“See, I knew I was right.” Especially is this true when their beliefs may be challenged by what a “prophet” teaches. It has to do with expectations. I doubt that I need to review with you that Christ was not accepted by many important people (such as the Sanhedrin) who thought they had every reason to reject His teachings based on their knowledge of the Old Testament writings and what they had been taught.

2–By that criteria, Abraham would have had to be considered a “failure” also with regard to “thou shalt not kill.” Joshua also. (They both responded by doing what God had commanded them to do, and it was contrary to what they knew to be true from the Ten commandments teachings. Yet, they did it anyway, or in Abraham’s case he was about to when he was stopped having “passed” the test of faith.)

God would do that because this life is indeed a test of faith, and that faith needs to be tried by some kinds of verification processes that bring people “to their knees” (in prayer) and “to their heart” (in real inner pondering to find out what their true motives are and whether the Holy Spirit can really be involved in their life to help them do things that their status quo desires would not lead them to do, like really repent of “hidden sins”.)

3–Abraham and Joshua. (But don’t anybody say that leads to a worry about an LDS prophet today saying such a thing needs to occur, because our faith is going to be tested by different things than their faith was tested.)

4–If you’re talking about plural marriage, then Jacob (Israel) had that in his life and it involved covenant marriages, and led to having the twelve tribes of Israel that are talked about throughout the Old Testament from then on, and are part of prophecies for the last days.

If you’re talking about “adultery”, then I disagree that Joseph Smith committed “adultery” and I think it is demonstrated by DNA studies that have been done since, that Joseph Smith did not commit “adultery” with the wives of other men, but that he had “sealings” that were based on an understanding he had been allowed to have that was not fully developed regarding what “sealings” would be needed to help “exalt” people. “Revelation” does not necessarily come to a prophet all at once in perfect and final form. “Revelation” comes as a prophet asks questions, acts, asks more questions, acts some more, and so forth. Joseph Smith asked why Jacob (Israel) had plural marriage, and God answered with a revelation but it was not what Joseph Smith had been looking for–it was a “test” that he received rather than an explanation with no test attached. Yet it was a revelation that came “by degrees” and involved the sealing power that would be fully restored in 1836 but not be fully understood until the temple was operating in 1846, after Joseph Smith had been killed.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD- I am beginning to think you are ignoring me. I understand we all have the right not to answer someone if we don’t want to.

Is there a way to get my questions answered, maybe somewhere else?

(Earlier Quote):
Originally Posted by lax16
ParkerD- You are very generous when discussing the life of Joseph Smith. I would like to talk about God.

God, our Father, spoke to Moses and gave to the people of Israel the 10 Commandments. The Law of Moses, which is the moral foundation for Judaism and Christianity, COMMANDS that one shall not commit adultry nor covet thy neighor’s wife.

Because you often quote the OT, I will assume that you believe in the God of the Old Testament. Catholics believe that God is unchanging. He is consistent. There is no contradiction in His Word. He has never, nor will He ever, ask a person to go against the Law of Moses.

5–You provided examples from the Bible showing how God tested the faith of some. NEVER did God ask anyone of them to sin against Him and His Commandments.

By telling me, and the world, that God asked Joseph Smith to commit adultery, would mean that God changed and was ignoring His own commandments. This means, He is no longer the God of the Old Testament. And, therefore, not the God of the New Testament.

Please explain why God would would do this?
6–Tell me, WHEN and WHY did God change?
Do you have evidence, other than JS’s revelation and words, that God is a “changing God?”

Thanks!

5–I have explained that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac even though Isaac was to have the promised seed of Abraham, and that God asked Joshua to kill people even though Moses had received the commandment, “thou shalt not kill.”

I have also explained about “adultery” from the standpoint of other men’s wives as opposed to “plural marriage” with single women. I reiterate also that plural marriage and the iterative nature of revelation about sealings was a test of faith that I would neither want nor do I think it will ever be asked again. I think it was for a relatively brief period of time, and that we have enough tests of faith in our own lives now that that particular test does not need to be one of the present-day tests (other than a test of people’s being able to listen to the Holy Spirit well enough to look past the superficial “what they have been taught about Joseph Smith the man”) and really sincerely pray about some of the teachings that are present-day (not plural marriage and not blacks and the priesthood and not a bank crisis involving the speculation of speculative “investors” in the savings and loan, but teachings about Christ and His gospel and why we are here in this life).

6–Really do think about Joshua and what he was asked to do by God. Really do think about Abraham and what he was asked to do by God. Really do think about Jacob (Israel) and Rachel and Leah. Think also about the “law of circumcision” that became changed when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles and they began joining the church–but that accepting them into the church and accepting that they didn’t need to be circumcised was a difficult thing for many of the members and for some of the leaders, even after God taught about the change in the law through Christ and through the apostles.

Have a good day. I hadn’t had time to deal with all your questions until now, and had forgotten about them otherwise so thanks for re-asking. (My interest in answering your questions, by the way, is that you may consider that the LDS you may know in your personal life need not be judged as to “why in the world would anyone in their right mind follow a religion with a history such as one can read about Joseph Smith”–because they have followed real guidance involving the Holy Ghost unless they joined for family reasons, so my hope is that at least one such as yourself could give them the benefit of doubts about their beliefs so they could be looked at less caustically and less fearfully.)

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
This is a P.S. to my last post. When I used the words “caustically and fearfully” at the end, I was not talking about your approach to the questions you asked, so I need to clarify that I was talking about how some questions come across on the internet and some accusations come across on the internet or in other written sources about LDS and their “strange” beliefs. Please accept my thanks that your questions have been forthright and considerate. I wish you all the best. Have a great day.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
This is a P.S. to my last post. When I used the words “caustically and fearfully” at the end, I was not talking about your approach to the questions you asked, so I need to clarify that I was talking about how some questions come across on the internet and some accusations come across on the internet or in other written sources about LDS and their “strange” beliefs. Please accept my thanks that your questions have been forthright and considerate. I wish you all the best. Have a great day.

Hi ParkerD and Thanks - Of course you know that I will have more questions!

I have not read posts dealing with adultry vs plural marriage, but I would like to. Do you remember what thread they were on?

I have decided that I don’t need to discuss Joseph Smith anymore, but rather the LDS concept of the nature of God.

I am still wondering about how God can change His mind and go against the Law of Moses and why he would set up a prophet for failure in the eyes of Jews and Christians, etc.

Is there a Mormon version of CAF?

 

[SGHumanist]

I can not for the life of me fathom why Mormons believe so strongly about Joseph Smith being a prophet. Even when you carefully show them the flaws of Joseph Smith, they remain completely bias for him. I don’t understand it. It’s like they care more about protecting a lie then surrendering to truth. Joseph Smith is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing. He dares to make so many believe so strongly in him, even though he himself knows he’s a liar. I believe Mormons believe the BOM because they see no more reason to not believe it than the Bible. Which shows me that their faith is weak in the Bible’s trueness. Many of us are certain there’s enough evidence to varrify what we believe.

I just got zapped for not following rules. This post says Joseph Smith is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing, Which shows me that their faith is weak , It’s like they care more about protecting a lie. I am not LDS, but live in Utah, and find Mormons to be quite acceptable as human beings.

Now what if I said Jesus was a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing, that Catholics lie, their faith is week, wouldn’t that kind of a statement break the rules
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I just got zapped for not following rules. This post says Joseph Smith is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing, Which shows me that their faith is weak , It’s like they care more about protecting a lie. I am not LDS, but live in Utah, and find Mormons to be quite acceptable as human beings.

Now what if I said Jesus was a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing, that Catholics lie, their faith is week, wouldn’t that kind of a statement break the rules
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

Do you realize you’re not supposed to post moderator actions?

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,
Just for the record, here is what I had written prior to your post above:

Originally Posted by ParkerD

I had read the quotes you pointed out, already. I think Dianiad and Why Me have explained the context of what I meant, and that the events that followed certainly did not show that the readers of the Nauvoo Expositor and the Warsaw Signal were not agitated and alarmed by what they read, to the point of being stirred up to action. The destruction of the press was not a cause to kill someone under the protection of the law–it was a pretext for the men to do what they already wanted to do.

Again, Why Me and Dianaiad have covered the topic well. I’m just letting you know that I had read and considered the “mild-mannered” statements that were scattered alongside the provoking statements. And again, just because you may be a thorough reader of a newspaper does not mean everyone is, or was in 1844. Have you ever heard of the “National Enquirer”?

First let me tell you that I have why me and diania on ignore. (Isn’t life wonderful!!) Even so, I can imagine that they took the same position as you. Always being the victim, it’s always someone elses fault, with some distortion thrown in. Also, what their interpretation was is irrelevant since my comments were addressed at you.

Why must you automatically assume the individuals of the time did not read the entire article(s), and in context? You may have read the mild mannered statements, but obviously didn’t consider them in the context that they were given. You were simply looking for something to justify what you already perceived. You even went so far as to grab only a portion of a sentence in order to make it appear inflammatory.

Oh, I’ve heard of the Enquirer, it reminds me very much of the Time and Seasons, and The Wasp. Your point is irrelevant.

 

[ParkerD]

First let me tell you that I have why me and diania on ignore. (Isn’t life wonderful!!) Even so, I can imagine that they took the same position as you. Always being the victim, it’s always someone elses fault, with some distortion thrown in. Also, what their interpretation was is irrelevant since my comments were addressed at you.

Why must you automatically assume the individuals of the time did not read the entire article(s), and in context? You may have read the mild mannered statements, but obviously didn’t consider them in the context that they were given. You were simply looking for something to justify what you already perceived. You even went so far as to grab only a portion of a sentence in order to make it appear inflammatory.

Oh, I’ve heard of the Enquirer, it reminds me very much of the Time and Seasons, and The Wasp. Your point is irrelevant.

Twopekinguys,
My point has been that as people read they form immediate opinions, even as they may read something that refutes the opinion they have formed. They don’t change their opinion mid-stream. If something they have read confirms what they already had heard as a rumor, they will believe the rumor and believe the statement that confirms the rumor.

The history really did happen. Men were placed in jail, had been told by the governor their lives were not in danger and they would be protected even though they had plenty of reason not to believe the governor (and were correct), and two of those men were killed by men with painted faces who did storm the jail. After those two men were killed, the people living around Nauvoo did not stop their agitation against the LDS people–they continued it by lawless behavior and by warning the LDS that they needed to leave Nauvoo including leave their homes in the dead of winter with no place to go obviously since they had no second home, and those people had children some of whom died because of the winter exposure to the elements.

So the history says the people doing the reading of the papers were taking the inflammatory statements and believing them and believing they needed to do some pretty drastic actions–inhumane actions. That is the history, and it happened.

Peace to all. I live for the future and the present–not the past.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD- it might interest you to know that many years later Law was interviewed by the SL Tribune. He said in this interview that had he known the chain of events that occurred…the destruction of the press, the resulting death of Smith…he would never have printed the Expositor. The reporter says he was very sincere in this statement.

Law’s intent was to bring to light the criminal and immoral activities of Smith and the higher leaders in mormonism. He believed that Smith should have been tried in a court of law. He did not foresee the wrath that Smith would visit on him. The freezing of his property in Nauvoo so he could not sell it, an attempt on his life, the destruction of his property (the press). He and his wife fled for their lives, leaving everything they owned behind, to Ohio.

He did not foresee that reactions to his paper, by mormons and non-mormons alike, would bring death to Smith.

 

[Lapell]

I can not for the life of me fathom why Mormons believe so strongly about Joseph Smith being a prophet. Even when you carefully show them the flaws of Joseph Smith, they remain completely bias for him. I don’t understand it. It’s like they care more about protecting a lie then surrendering to truth. Joseph Smith is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing. He dares to make so many believe so strongly in him, even though he himself knows he’s a liar. I believe Mormons believe the BOM because they see no more reason to not believe it than the Bible. Which shows me that their faith is weak in the Bible’s trueness. Many of us are certain there’s enough evidence to varrify what we believe.

As is my custom, I reply to the OP before having read the other posts. I was amazed when exchanging letters as I p(name removed by moderator)ointed that there exists no Biblical passage announcing the coming of a Prophet by name, even less by calling him by his name, son of a man by this specific first name like you find in the BOM about a “Joseph son of Joseph”, and that Umim and… is it Tummim?.. anyhow, are not a tool to predict a specific thing but a tool to decide between two things or persons or group of things or of persons, the young men were like,"If we can’t rely on the BOM, what can we rely on? The Bible seemed not to be seriously considered as a reliable source. I was surprised.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
My point has been that as people read they form immediate opinions, even as they may read something that refutes the opinion they have formed. They don’t change their opinion mid-stream. If something they have read confirms what they already had heard as a rumor, they will believe the rumor and believe the statement that confirms the rumor.

The history really did happen. Men were placed in jail, had been told by the governor their lives were not in danger and they would be protected even though they had plenty of reason not to believe the governor (and were correct), and two of those men were killed by men with painted faces who did storm the jail. After those two men were killed, the people living around Nauvoo did not stop their agitation against the LDS people–they continued it by lawless behavior and by warning the LDS that they needed to leave Nauvoo including leave their homes in the dead of winter with no place to go obviously since they had no second home, and those people had children some of whom died because of the winter exposure to the elements.

So the history says the people doing the reading of the papers were taking the inflammatory statements and believing them and believing they needed to do some pretty drastic actions–inhumane actions. That is the history, and it happened.

Peace to all. I live for the future and the present–not the past.

See, thats where you and I differ. You read looking for the negative, something to grab onto to justify feeling persecuted.

I on the other hand, read and look for the positive, as in how they had tried to resolve things before it got to being published in a paper. I also see how they had legitimate grievences that weren’t being addressed, so they pursued the next option. A grass roots effort.

Remember, that is exactly how this country got it’s start. Standing up to oppression. Do the Boston Tea Party, and the Revolutionary war ring any bells with you? The people who were being opressed didn’t sit and whine about how persecuted they were, they did something about it.

Before you say it, yes, there was oppression in Nauvoo. In one of the links I posted earlier, it talked about how there was an ordinance that said if anyone said anything bad about good ol joe, that he/she could face a fine of $100.00 and/or impisionment. It also talked about jailing innocent tourists, and interrogating them for their reasons of visiting Nauvoo.

Stop and think for a minute. Doesn’t that smack of oppression?

Quite frankly, the whole “whoa is me, we’re always persecuted” thing has grown qutie old, and is not nearly as effective as you might hope it to be. It might be a good thing to step up and say yes, maybe we brought some of this on ourselves.

I also find it interesting that you have claimed to have read so many things, including the Bible from cover to cover, yet you can’t read an entire news article, let alone the whole paper. You say you have read the Bible cover to cover, and can glean all of the insights contained, but you can’t do that with a newspaper?

 

[ParkerD]

See, thats where you and I differ. You read looking for the negative, something to grab onto to justify feeling persecuted.

I on the other hand, read and look for the positive, as in how they had tried to resolve things before it got to being published in a paper. I also see how they had legitimate grievences that weren’t being addressed, so they pursued the next option. A grass roots effort.

Remember, that is exactly how this country got it’s start. Standing up to oppression. Do the Boston Tea Party, and the Revolutionary war ring any bells with you? The people who were being opressed didn’t sit and whine about how persecuted they were, they did something about it.

Before you say it, yes, there was oppression in Nauvoo. In one of the links I posted earlier, it talked about how there was an ordinance that said if anyone said anything bad about good ol joe, that he/she could face a fine of $100.00 and/or impisionment. It also talked about jailing innocent tourists, and interrogating them for their reasons of visiting Nauvoo.

Stop and think for a minute. Doesn’t that smack of oppression?

Quite frankly, the whole “whoa is me, we’re always persecuted” thing has grown qutie old, and is not nearly as effective as you might hope it to be. It might be a good thing to step up and say yes, maybe we brought some of this on ourselves.

I also find it interesting that you have claimed to have read so many things, including the Bible from cover to cover, yet you can’t read an entire news article, let alone the whole paper. You say you have read the Bible cover to cover, and can glean all of the insights contained, but you can’t do that with a newspaper?

I guess I must have forgotten to tell you, evidently, that I don’t feel persecuted nor do I feel the need to explain why I don’t. Got it? I have never in my life felt “persecuted”–not once.

What boggles my mind is why someone has any interest at all in someone who died 165 years ago when it has no bearing whatsoever on their life. His life has a bearing on my life–a very important one, so I have an interest, but I see no reason for yours.

Have a good day.