Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[why_me]

Yes, the Catholic Church is very big on only one baptism. It doesn’t matter when you do them as long as it is a Christian baptism, which Mormons don’t have.
It took over 150 years before Mormonism got big enough and the exodus of Mormons to Catholicism got big enough for the Catholic Church to notice them and make a decision about their baptism.

I don’t think so. The mormon church is a restorationist church. Thus, it claims to be the church of chist, restored to the earth. The catholic church claims to be the church of christ which never left the earth. Here lies the problem. For other christian sects the mormon church was the interloper who dared to challenge their status. Thus, the catholic and protestant churches had a difficult time giving the mormon baptism a christian understanding.

But for the mormons it did not matter since to become a mormon a person needs to be baptised all over again. The exodus to catholicism has not been that high. However, the exodus of catholics to other religious faiths has been high if one considers the spread of penecostalism across latin america and in traditional catholic countries.

People will always be changing their religions to suit their needs and lifestyle.

 

[dianaiad]

I do not agree with the premise that shrines are meant only for the divine.

Your choice. Problem is, I do, (and so does the dictionary.) However, because of the definition of ‘shrine’ I use, if I say that we don’t have any in our homes, you will need to accept that.

Catholics do not limit veneration in such a way that a venerable grandma would be excluded.

Catholics may not. It seems to me that the definitions of dulia, hyper-dulia and latria (which are tightly associated with veneration) do so limit it, but what Catholics do is entirely up to them. However, we aren’t talking about what Catholics do. We’re talking about what Mormons do, and we do not venerate Grandma. In fact, we have no official, or traditional, sense of dulia and hyper-dulia. There is the worship we owe God through His Son Jesus Christ…and everything/everyone else gets something different. Honor and respect, yes. Veneration? No.

It is a different definition. On our side we have the dictionary, the official statements by different religious leaders (including yours) and what we actually do. On yours you have a broader interpretation of the word. If we AGREED with your definition, then yes, we have shrines and venerate things and people. Since we do NOT agree with your definition, and we ARE talking about what WE do, not what you think we do, then no, we don’t have shrines or venerate things and people, other than God…and we don’t have shrines to God in our homes, either, unless the entire home is meant to be one.

There is a qualitative difference between any dulia (love and respect for creatures) and latria (love and respect for God). There is no qualitative difference between my reverence for good parents and my reverence for the saints. Our views are not so restrictive as you seem to think they are.

Well, I can only go by what I read in the literature, aspirant. If you tell me that for Catholics dulia applies to good parents equally with saints, then it does. For us, however, it’s a big side step. We reserve reverence for God and the places and times we worship Him. Honor and respect are given to good parents and others to whom we wish to give it, and it’s not the same thing.

I dunno, perhaps it’s a product of our disparate world views. It’s quite a dichotomy you are pointing out here; for us it is quite literally God—and everything else. There is no range of creations that have men here, angels there, saints somewhere else–a range of different creations and accomplishments that set God’s creations apart from one another, and thus demand different treatments according to class, as it seems to be for you.

On the other hand, because of this range, (“class assignments” isn’t quite right but I can’t think of another way to put it, so let’s just go with that…) you have a system of respect and veneration that flows from one group to another. You talk about a qualitative difference between ‘dulia’ and ‘latria…’ and there may be. You also talk about there not being a qualitative difference between any sort of dulia. OK, I see that; It doesn’t change in quality so much as it does in intensity; a little on this end, for the couch who helped you gain confidence in yourself, so that you keep his picture with your first tennis trophy, to the deep and abiding reverence you have for Mary the mother of God at the other end (that is, hyper-dulia but still not latria). At least, that’s the impression I’m getting with this idea being presented to me about what shrines and reverence are, by you and others here. It seems like a seamless spectrum of respect and worship that is shared by everybody to some respect or other. Any lines drawn seem, at least by you, to be between levels of quantity, not quality.

The dichotomy lies, I think, in the way Mormon thought is the polar opposite of this idea. That is, we do NOT divide God’s creations up the way you do; we do not believe in a separate class of beings called ‘angels,’ and another called ‘seraphim,’ and a third called “Saints,” and yet another called ‘devils.’ (and yes, I KNOW that saints are people, and not created separately. Let it be for the purpose of this. ) We believe that all of them are—us. God’s literal children. His offspring. Since we believe that, wouldn’t it seem to make more sense that we would have this seamless spectrum of veneration that goes from the least of us to the greatest? (shrug) in one sense, I suppose, it would. However, we do not. We reserve all veneration for God alone, in the sense of ‘type’ that I am getting from you. We just don’t grok ‘dulia.’ We honor one another, and respect each other and give greater honor and respect to those we think the most of, but for us, at least, there isn’t just a difference of degree between honor, respect, and veneration. It is a difference of TYPE. 'honor" is not the same thing as ‘veneration.’

I’m certain that you will find a LOT of flaws in this argument, and will want to pick it apart because you think I’m wrong about this thing or that, and you might be right about all of it. The problem is, it comes down to differences of definition. You have the right to define words and use them as you wish. So if you want to continue to think we have shrines and venerate grandma, I can’t stop you, and it looks as if according to your definition of both words, we do.

However, we do not use those definitions, and according to the definitions of both words that WE use (and you will find the definitions we use in the dictionary) we do not use shrines, we don’t venerate people and we worship only God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ. It would be very arrogant of me to insist that you use my definition of these words in terms of what YOU do. Please do not insist that I agree that I have shrines and venerate Grandma because you define those terms differently than I do.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t think so.

A Bishop in Montana who was presented with several catechumens who had a LDS baptism, was unsure if their baptism was valid. He posed the question to the Bishop of the Salt Lake diocese, “is a mormon baptism valid?”. The Bishop of the Salt Lake diocese informed the Bishop in MT that in the Salt Lake diocese, those with a LDS baptism are given a conditional baptism.

The Bishop over the MT diocese decided to write a dubium, presenting this question before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation then took the time (ten years) and effort to determine an answer to this question. The response is here.

 

[lax16]

I don’t think so. The mormon church is a restorationist church. Thus, it claims to be the church of chist, restored to the earth. The catholic church claims to be the church of christ which never left the earth. Here lies the problem. For other christian sects the mormon church was the interloper who dared to challenge their status. Thus, the catholic and protestant churches had a difficult time giving the mormon baptism a christian understanding.

But for the mormons it did not matter since to become a mormon a person needs to be baptised all over again. The exodus to catholicism has not been that high. However, the exodus of catholics to other religious faiths has been high if one considers the spread of penecostalism across latin america and in traditional catholic countries.

People will always be changing their religions to suit their needs and lifestyle.

whyme - No, the problem is not simply that the Mormons dared to challenge status or that they claim to be a restorationist church. You and I both know it is waaaay more than that and that the differences have been discussed and debated by many.

By the way, the Catholic Church doesn’t “claim” to be the Church that never left. It can prove it never did. For a person to say the Catholic Church fell into apostasy is strictly OPINION and cannot be proven. The evidence to prove that it has always existed is insurmountable.

But, hey, give it a go.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad- you’ve lost me on this one.

Oh, dear.

you wrote:

lax16:

…Joseph Smith is/was not the first man to die at the hands of his enemies (and certainly not the last).

To which I replied:

dianaiad:

Nor are we claiming that he was, Lax. We are simply responding to those who keep claiming that he was not.

Remember, the comments were pretty standard anti-mormon rhetoric about how Joseph wasn’t really murdered, he wasn’t really martyred, he actually died in a blazing wild west gun battle while trying to escape his just imprisonment for treason (he had ordered a printing press dismantled because the publisher was writing really scurrilous things about him, had plotted to murder him, and was calling for militias outside Nauvoo to come in and attack. True, under TODAY’S rules the publisher should only have been arrested and sent to Gitmo for an extended, open-ended stay, and this sort of thing had been done by other city councils to other newspapers of that day…and unlike those other city governments, Joseph Smith paid for the damage…but hey. Joseph was a Mormon, so of course when HE did this, it was treason and thus subject to the death penalty, don’t bother with an actual trial.)

In other words, you see, the consensus seems to be that Joseph deserved what he got and while it was regretable, (perhaps…you know, I have only seen ONE person in the last year on this forum who hinted that just maybe the mob was guilty of something? Inevitably a statement like “I do not condone what the mob did…” is followed by language on how much JS deserved it and brought it all on himself. I’ve even seen a couple of people wish that they had been members of that mob.). All the blame is, of course, on JOSEPH because he actually (gasp) shot BACK. After all, he was SUPPOSED to be unarmed! Wasn’t he? How DARE he do that!

Ok, end of rant. ANYWAY, you next asked:
lax:

Was not what?

To which I responded with the relevent quote from you:

“the first man to die at the hands of his enemies, or the last…” or, to put it another way, murdered.

Are you caught up now?

 

[dianaiad]

Utah was a place of sanctuary for the early mormons. They arrived in the valley and began to settle their lives after years and years of persecution. But even in Utah, the early members were not free from outsiders who attempted to disrupt their lives. But the members were cautious and did not want to be persecuted all over again, especially by the federal government. .

The mormons had one wish throughout their early history: to worship god in their way and to do so in peace. But they were prevented from doing this and after the murder of their leader Joseph Smith and his brother, they moved to a place that was more or less separated from european-american civilization and began life anew.

And of course, the catholics found some peace in Maryland and one can see the catholic influence in that state.

And to this day, the mormons of utah, are suspicious of government thus, they tend to vote conservative and for less government.

While I will agree with you that Utah Mormons tend to be conservative and vote for less government, Why me, and while it is VERY true that Utah now, and for the last three decades has been, solidly Republican, it’s the Democrat’s fault. Utah was pretty solidly Democrat for a very long time.

Mormons as a whole seem to reflect the political views of the places where they live, not so much the religion they believe in…East Coast Mormons tend to be pretty solid liberals.

 

[dianaiad]

whyme - No, the problem is not simply that the Mormons dared to challenge status or that they claim to be a restorationist church. You and I both know it is waaaay more than that and that the differences have been discussed and debated by many.

By the way, the Catholic Church doesn’t “claim” to be the Church that never left. It can prove it never did. For a person to say the Catholic Church fell into apostasy is strictly OPINION and cannot be proven. The evidence to prove that it has always existed is insurmountable.

But, hey, give it a go.

I DO love irony…especially unintentional irony…

 

[lax16]

Oh, dear.

you wrote:

To which I replied:

Remember, the comments were pretty standard anti-mormon rhetoric about how Joseph wasn’t really murdered, he wasn’t really martyred, he actually died in a blazing wild west gun battle while trying to escape his just imprisonment for treason (he had ordered a printing press dismantled because the publisher was writing really scurrilous things about him, had plotted to murder him, and was calling for militias outside Nauvoo to come in and attack. True, under TODAY’S rules the publisher should only have been arrested and sent to Gitmo for an extended, open-ended stay, and this sort of thing had been done by other city councils to other newspapers of that day…and unlike those other city governments, Joseph Smith paid for the damage…but hey. Joseph was a Mormon, so of course when HE did this, it was treason and thus subject to the death penalty, don’t bother with an actual trial.)

In other words, you see, the consensus seems to be that Joseph deserved what he got and while it was regretable, (perhaps…you know, I have only seen ONE person in the last year on this forum who hinted that just maybe the mob was guilty of something? Inevitably a statement like “I do not condone what the mob did…” is followed by language on how much JS deserved it and brought it all on himself. I’ve even seen a couple of people wish that they had been members of that mob.). All the blame is, of course, on JOSEPH because he actually (gasp) shot BACK. After all, he was SUPPOSED to be unarmed! Wasn’t he? How DARE he do that!

Ok, end of rant. ANYWAY, you next asked:

To which I responded with the relevent quote from you:

Are you caught up now?

Yes, well done!

 

[lax16]

I DO love irony…especially unintentional irony…

Please show me where I have been “unintentionally ironic.”

 

[dianaiad]

Please show me where I have been “unintentionally ironic.”

Well, I wrote a post responding to the statement that faith and knowledge were not the same thing, and that in a very strict sense, epistimologically speaking, knowledge is an entirely different thing than is belief, even extremely strong belief. I agreed with that.

Mormons have this habit of saying 'I know the church is true" (and yes, I do that too!) when in reality we all mean ‘we have incredibly strong belief that it’s true and we do our best to live as if it’s true.’ “Knowledge” is a very, very different kettle of fish. Knowledge is something that can be proven empirically. God appearing to you personally, taking you by the hand and giving you a guided tour of heaven…THAT’S knowledge. However, you aren’t going to be able to prove to anybody ELSE that He did that.

Your unintentional irony comes in this: that you assume, because of what you believe to be true, that anything WE believe is imply misplaced belief; false and thus not provable no matter how strong the evidence is that we base our beliefs on.

At the same time, because your own beliefs are so strong, you assume that the evidence you believe is ‘proof.’ It’s not. It’s evidence…but the interpretation of that evidence may lead us to very different conclusions. “Proof” is about knowledge…the sort I"m talking about that is different from even the strongest of belief. I can show you the things that make me believe in an apostasy, and you dismissed it as ‘just an opinion…’ whereas, because you believe in the evidence you see against an apostasy, you call it ‘proof.’

That’s irony…you said, basically, that the evidence you believe in is proof, but the evidence everybody else believes in is ‘just opinion.’ what’s the real difference? Belief…yours, vs. mine…

And that is classic irony. In reality, neither one of us can prove our positions in the way you claim.

 

[lax16]

Well, I wrote a post responding to the statement that faith and knowledge were not the same thing, and that in a very strict sense, epistimologically speaking, knowledge is an entirely different thing than is belief, even extremely strong belief. I agreed with that.

Mormons have this habit of saying 'I know the church is true" (and yes, I do that too!) when in reality we all mean ‘we have incredibly strong belief that it’s true and we do our best to live as if it’s true.’ “Knowledge” is a very, very different kettle of fish. Knowledge is something that can be proven empirically. God appearing to you personally, taking you by the hand and giving you a guided tour of heaven…THAT’S knowledge. However, you aren’t going to be able to prove to anybody ELSE that He did that.

Your unintentional irony comes in this: that you assume, because of what you believe to be true, that anything WE believe is imply misplaced belief; false and thus not provable no matter how strong the evidence is that we base our beliefs on.

At the same time, because your own beliefs are so strong, you assume that the evidence you believe is ‘proof.’ It’s not. It’s evidence…but the interpretation of that evidence may lead us to very different conclusions. “Proof” is about knowledge…the sort I"m talking about that is different from even the strongest of belief. I can show you the things that make me believe in an apostasy, and you dismissed it as ‘just an opinion…’ whereas, because you believe in the evidence you see against an apostasy, you call it ‘proof.’

That’s irony…you said, basically, that the evidence you believe in is proof, but the evidence everybody else believes in is ‘just opinion.’ what’s the real difference? Belief…yours, vs. mine…

And that is classic irony. In reality, neither one of us can prove our positions in the way you claim.

Not so. If I said to you that Joseph did not have a vision or revelation, that would be my opinion. As I told the Mormon missionaries, who am I to say whether or not a person has had a vision/apparition etc? I don’t feel that I can make that statement because I happen to believe in apparitions and I was not there. (I have my reasons for not believing JS but I am not stating it as a fact).

This is different. I do not feel strongly about there not being an apostasy dianaiad, because I WANT TO. I am an avid reader/researcher of any topic I can get my hands on and have been studying different religions for years. Not to prove them wrong, but to see if they could be right. All of the records, historical and Church, prove that the Catholic Church has existed since the time Jesus started it. People can disagree with how good a job the CC has done over the years, and obviously many people do, but to deny its very existence is absurd.

Like I said, the evidence that I have read is insurmountable. If someone could provide proof of an apostasy, I would love to read it. Notice I said “proof” and “read” not “feel” and “hear.”

You don’t know me well enough to know that when I ask someone to bring on a good, logical (based on facts) argument about something, I mean it. I am not being ironic, I do not have my mind closed, and I would love to find someone who can provide a logical argument for the apostasy. That being said, scriptural interpretations cannot be overused in this discussion because they are an opinion of the person interpreting them.

Like I said, bring it on.

 

[lax16]

Wow! What a game, huh Cougar fans?!

 

[AtticusFinch]

Joseph claimed he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. Not many lambs carry pistols.

But let’s be clear: Joseph was violating alienable rights in getting rid of a press he did not like. And the press had every right to print what it wanted. If joseph did not like it, there were legal ways to deal with it.

And to carry a pistol while in jail is a crime. I am not excusing those who killed Joseph and Hiram, but be honest, Joseph was violating the law when he accepted and carried a pistol while in custody.

And yes, Joseph shot his weapon blindly, not caring who he might have hit.

And before any Mormon claims illegal ambush, be cautious. Mountain Meadows was not exactly a legal undertaking.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormons have this habit of saying 'I know the church is true" (and yes, I do that too!) when in reality we all mean ‘we have incredibly strong belief that it’s true and we do our best to live as if it’s true.’

Then perhaps you all should start saying what you really mean. I dare you the next time you give a talk in church to end with “I believe the church is true.” I can just see the gasps in the congregation–“She doesn’t know the church is true? Oh, her testimony must be weakening. Quick, we need to get her some help!” Then your bishop tells your home teachers to make a special visit to your house to assertain why you only “believe” and don’t “know.”

I always thought that’s one of the things Mormons felt they had up on all us Gentiles. They “know,” whereas we only “believe.”

 

[Chris-WA]

Joseph claimed he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. Not many lambs carry pistols.

But let’s be clear: Joseph was violating alienable rights in getting rid of a press he did not like. And the press had every right to print what it wanted. If joseph did not like it, there were legal ways to deal with it.

And to carry a pistol while in jail is a crime. I am not excusing those who killed Joseph and Hiram, but be honest, Joseph was violating the law when he accepted and carried a pistol while in custody.

And yes, Joseph shot his weapon blindly, not caring who he might have hit.

And before any Mormon claims illegal ambush, be cautious. Mountain Meadows was not exactly a legal undertaking.

I also do not think it’s proper to call Joseph’s death a martyrdom. It was a terribly gruesome murder, but not a martyrdom–certainly not in the same sense of the early Christians (and countless others throughout the ages) who freely went to their deaths rather than deny Christ. I don’t think Joseph was put in the situation to deny his faith and live, or hold onto his faith and die. And he did physically fight back, so martyrdom is probably not an accurate term to describe what he did. Did he deserve what he got?–certainly not. Was he an innocent victim?–no.

 

[Chris-WA]

Then perhaps you all should start saying what you really mean. I dare you the next time you give a talk in church to end with “I believe the church is true.” I can just see the gasps in the congregation–“She doesn’t know the church is true? Oh, her testimony must be weakening. Quick, we need to get her some help!” Then your bishop tells your home teachers to make a special visit to your house to ascertain why you only “believe” and don’t “know.”

I always thought that’s one of the things Mormons felt they had up on all us Gentiles. They “know,” whereas we only “believe.”

 

[dianaiad]

lax:

You don’t know me well enough to know that when I ask someone to bring on a good, logical (based on facts) argument about something, I mean it. I am not being ironic, I do not have my mind closed, and I would love to find someone who can provide a logical argument for the apostasy. That being said, scriptural interpretations cannot be overused in this discussion because they are an opinion of the person interpreting them.

Like I said, bring it on.

Exactly what would you consider to BE proof?

…and what do you consider to be proof that there was no apostasy?

For instance, I would consider the following to be a VERY strong indication of an apostasy; the closed canon.

You see, Jesus Christ was not the last person to recieve revelation and say 'thus saith the Lord" in the NT. After His death and resurrection, He GAVE revelation (well, He could…that was rather the point…) to many different men, and when those men wrote that revelation down, it became scripture by definition. It was accepted as such.

Paul, who was NOT one of the original apostles, had a very definite OT type revelation on that road to Damascus, FROM Christ. This indicates to me that revelation did not cease.

In fact, it is proof that revelation did not cease upon Christ’s death and resurrection. It continued.

There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, in the NT that gives even the tiniest hint that revelation…the very public revelation that Paul got…was supposed to cease. None. Zip. Nada.

but…it did. the Catholic church claims that it did. EVERYBODY claims that it did. Now the Catholic view of this seems to be that this is ok; public revelation stopped because it was supposed to----but WHO SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO???

The verse everybody keeps quoting to me that is supposed to PROVE that there was to be no more revelation is written down by a man who was writing AS A RESULT of exactly that sort of revelation. In fact, as I have written over, and over, and over again, if revelation was supposed to cease upon the advent of Christ, we wouldn’t know a single thing ABOUT Him, because HE, Himself, never wrote a single word save that dust doodle thing.

All of the accounts we have of Him appearing to His desciples after His resurrection are the very EPITOME of revelation…so obviously it continued…and WHO SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP?

but it did. It simply…petered out.

cont. on next post…sorry about that…

 

[dianaiad]

con’t from previous post…

There are only two things that could cause that, and it is a true dichotomy (such things do exist.) One: it was supposed to; there was a definitive end, with an announcement that here it ends and you are on your own as far as public revelation resulting in scripture is concerned; that all the information has been given and the church doesn’t need anything else to continue through the eternities.

Either that, or it wasn’t supposed to end…people simply stopped listening.

For option one, we have a few problems; first, as I mentioned, there is nothing in the scriptures that says this sort of thing would end. “Surely the Lord God would do nothing except He revealeth it unto His servants, the prophets.” …and since ‘revealing’ things to His servants the prophets is HOW Christ continued to do things after His death and resurrection, doesn’t that give some hint that He was continuing the idea? He certainly never indicated that He was going to change the methods any. Second, even if He were going to do that, when DID He do that? No announcement, no…hey, folks, I’m done talking to you except individually, no nuttin’. It just…stopped.

Yet the church didn’t stop adding stuff to doctrine, policies and practices. Catholics, I know, have Holy Tradition that they hold equal to scripture for determining doctrine and policy, but at the same time they use it, they are rather clear about the idea that there is no public revelation. Even with the doctrine of papal infallibility they deny the idea of revelation. It may be impossible for a Pope to be wrong when he talks about morals and faith, but they don’t tell us how he can be RIGHT…how does he know that, absent exactly the sort of public revelation y’all insist does not happen any more?

So for these reasons, I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that public revelation was supposed to stop. I just can’t.

Which leaves…it wasn’t supposed to stop, but people simply stopped listening. And that, lax, is the very definition of apostasy. It’s also something that, unlike any hint that public revelation was supposed to cease, WAS predicted in the NT. Quite emphatically, actually.

Now I’m aware that Catholics can, or at least claim they can, follow the historic line from one bishop to another all the way back. That’s not at issue. What IS at issue is, was there, in that long line of one man transferring authority to another, who gave it to a third…a break in it? One man, or two, or three, who took that one step too far away from the teachings and authority of the early church, so that what he passed on to his successor isn’t what was given to him?

We believe that yes. there was that break. It was predicted. Y’all were TOLD it would happen. It did.

That is what I firmly believe to the point of saying “I know it happened,”…that strong faith that holds in the face of all ‘evidence’ to the contrary. It doesn’t make sense other wise.

That does NOT mean that the CAtholic church was ‘the church of Satan’ or anything like that, or that their leaders were actually aware all of this time that this happened. They did the best they could, and their best was very good indeed. Public revelation may have ceased, but there were plenty of people who still paid attention to the private sort.

but lax, don’t tell me that you can prove that the apostasy did not happen, because, my friend, that would mean that you believe that you can convince ME that it did not happen. Good luck with that.

By the way, in all this, I don’t for a moment think that what I have said will convince you in the face of your own faith. However, I do hope you will think about what I did say, and perhaps see the force of the argument we have, so that you won’t go around saying that our beliefs are merely opinion but that you have absolute proof of yours. We are both working on belief and faith, not proof and knowledge–and the final proof of either is going to come from God, not from you or me.

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph claimed he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. Not many lambs carry pistols.

No thumbs.

However, it’s obvious that you have never been a farmer or a sheepherder and never had to bring a 'lamb to the slaughter." They fight back, too. I’m quite certain that a lamb capable of holding a pistol would use it. The point of being a lamb to the slaughter isn’t that they don’t fight back. It’s that fighting back wouldn’t do any good. Did fighting back do Joseph any good?

What’s more to the point here is that a lamb has no clue what’s happening to it until it is too late…and then it’s struggles are ineffectual. Joseph KNEW what was going to happen to him. He told enough people that this would happen, and guess what? He was right.

But let’s be clear: Joseph was violating alienable rights in getting rid of a press he did not like. And the press had every right to print what it wanted. If joseph did not like it, there were legal ways to deal with it.

Yep, and here is yet another person who claims that Joseph deserved to be murdered in his cell because he destroyed the printing press (the destruction of which he paid for) of a man who had plotted his murder and was asking militia from outside the town to come in and attack Mormons. You realize that THIS is a crime at the moment, right? If someone today plotted murder, and fomented unrest in the community, he would be arrested and put into prison…and his access to the press would be sharply curtailed. Perhaps Joseph would have been better advised to do that rather than simply destroy the press.

Who knows? Whatever, here you are, claiming that Joseph’s actions deserved the death penalty without recourse to a trial. Dang, you guys are predictable.

And to carry a pistol while in jail is a crime.

Actually, not…not when one is defending oneself against unlawful attacks. But here you are again, claiming that Joseph deserved to be murdered because, well, when someone came to murder him he actually SHOT BACK with an ‘illegal’ pistol. Gee, Atticus, would you care to tell me who was around to shoot back FOR him? Most of the mob was made up of the Carthage Grays, the militia that was supposed to be protecting him…

And it was JOSEPH under arrest for ‘treason.’

I am not excusing those who killed Joseph and Hiram,

Don’t look now, but you just, uh, did.

but be honest, Joseph was violating the law when he accepted and carried a pistol while in custody.

I see. He knew he was going to be killed. He told everybody. He was told the night before that his life was in peril, and the pistol was smuggled into him because everybody around him knew that the very guards who were supposed to be protecting him were going to be holding the guns aiming AT him…and the best you can come up with is this?

Joseph had been arrested and held in prison so many times, on so many bogus charges…on more than one occasion, in direct violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, he was found ‘not guilty’ on one charge only to be arrested on the IDENTICAL CHARGE by a different authority. He sometimes had to be found innocent two or three times before the point got through. He was never found guilty of anything, y’know, save once and even THAT one is controversial.

But how very obliging of you to confirm for me what I was telling lax you guys do.

And yes, Joseph shot his weapon blindly, not caring who he might have hit.

Why in the world should he care? It’s not like he had time to formally introduce himself to everybody who was shooting at him at the time–and those men HAD just murdered his brother. He must have been shooting to some purpose, though, because he only got three shots off, and he did hit three of the shooters.

Not that it was hard, they were all yelling and shouting and shooting their way into the room through a narrow landing and door. It would have been rather hard to miss. You can’t possibly be serious about that one.

In fact, this is funny.

And before any Mormon claims illegal ambush, be cautious. Mountain Meadows was not exactly a legal undertaking.

It only wanted the MMM. (shouting in laughter…)

Be very, very careful here, Atticus. Here you are excusing the mob shooting of Joseph because he destroyed a printing press. You realize that Hyrum, the other man who was murdered that day, and the other two men there had nothing to do with the destruction of that press, right? Yet Hyrum died, and one of the others was severely wounded. If Joseph had not finished the situation the way he did, they would ALL have been killed.

So you are saying that it was permissible for the mob to do this, even to innocent men, because one of them had destroyed a printing press.

cont. on next post (of course…you KNEW I’d have a rant for you on this one! my favorite hobby horse and all…)

 

[dianaiad]

here’s the rest of it…I’m surprised this didn’t take THREE posts.

Now we have the Fancher party, a completely innocent group of immigrants (who were a little on the arrogant side, but that’s not supposed to be a capital offense either) who showed up at the wrong time, having kept company with the ENTIRELY wrong people, but who were, themselves, absolutely innocent.

We also have Johnson’s Army coming to occupy Utah, arrest BY and haul him back to Washington, and pretty much continue the…stuff…that the Mormons had just run from. Every single Mormon in southern Utah had faced the sort of persecution you can’t even imagine; every single one of them had been shot at, lost family members either to mobs or to the trip; MOST of them had lost fingers, toes or noses to frostbite, and they were all aware that this army was coming. The Fanchers HAD kept company with a group of men who bragged about killing Joseph (oh HO…chickens coming home to roost, perhaps?) and Parley P. Pratt, and who were looking forward to reaching SLC where they were going to 'finish the job."

Like the cowards they were, they split off from the train before it reached Utah, but the men who ATTACKED them did not know that. There were rumors of the Fanchers poisoning wells that the Indians used. There were rumors all over the place.

Because of Johnson’s Army, the people of Utah were told to stop selling their produce to wagon trains; to store it away, and to burn their crops so that the army couldn’t use them. the Fanchers were TOLD that they would not be able to buy supplies, and they were TOLD that they were driving into a war zone…but they went anyway. When they came into a town and found out that guess what…they really COULDN’T buy supplies, they were somewhat…abusive and arrogant, and threatened to send the California militia up from the south to attack the Mormons.

Oh, my word, these people were completely innocent of wrong doing, but brother, every time I learn more about what happened, I am more and more tempted to put them up for a Darwin award.

So what we have here is a clueless bunch of farmers who did everything they could possibly to to irritate a people who were about to be attacked by HALF of the US Armed forces, who had been driven out of the nation they loved, who had lost their homes more than once, who had suffered physical injuries and trials most Americans now can’t really wrap their minds around, and then they go and THREATEN them?

Great googly moogly.

Even then, though, the people in southern Utah didn’t know what to do about this, so they sent to BY to ask him what to do. BY sent a letter back saying 'let them pass."…but the letter came too late. Lee and his group had attacked and massacred the Fancher train. It was one of the nastier massacres of the west. The Fanchers didn’t deserve it, the attackers should not have done it, and it is a stain upon our history that will never leave.

However, it is the only such stain we have…and for you to excuse what happened to Joseph because of something that happened over thirteen years LATER is really reversing cause and effect. In fact, if Joseph had NOT been murdered at Carthage, if things like Haun’s Mill and Pratt’s murder…if the rapes and false imprisonments hadn’t been rampant…if there had been no "Extermination Order…’ if Buchanan hadn’t needed to cover his own political tracks by pulling a ‘wag the dog’ ploy…MMM would simply never have happened.

Sorry…I know that this isn’t exactly a politically correct attitude for a Mormon to take, but really; it would not have. My own personal opinion is that if this had been anybody BUT the Mormons, all hell would have broken loose a whole lot sooner. We put up with a great deal before someone went postal, y’know, and nobody else ever did.

By the way, just as an aside and before you start screaming 'cover up!" the way I know you are dying to do, the reason Lee wasn’t executed until twenty years after the massacre is because BY stepped down from the governorship and the feds appointed a non-Mormon governor to handle things. Between the non-Mormon governors and the army, nobody who COULD investigate DID investigate; the church no longer had the authority. It wasn’t until a pro-Mormon governor took office that any justice at all was done.

In the MEANTIME, under the military presence in Utah, the Indians got very short shrift indeed. You want to talk about a massacre? Try the Bear Lake massacre in Cache Valley. I know about that one very well, since my family settled that valley, and had to deal with the aftermath. Nobody spared the children under eight in that one…but who cares? They were only Indians, and it was the military, not the Mormons. We just cleaned up after, took care of what few survivors there were, and made very certain that the feds couldn’t move them away from their homes.

By the way, did you miss the part where BY said ‘don’t do it…’ to an attack on the Fanchers?

Bet you did. Just wanted to repeat that.

(sigh) Well, I think that just about took care of a weeks worth of diatribe in two lengthy posts.