Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[dianaiad]

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.”

Oh, I’ve done that. Everybody’s used to me. I generally go on to explain the reason I said ‘believe’ rather than ‘know,’ though…

and in at least one meeting, everybody after me said the same thing. “I believe.”

but the problem is, we, who understand very well the difference between absolute knowledge and faith, have that concept so ingrained in us that it isn’t a disconnect when we tell each other ‘we know…’ because we also know what we mean when we say that.

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.”

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Yep, here’s another…

Joseph can’t be a martyr–even though the definition of ‘martyr’ does NOT have any requirement that the martyr not go down fighting–because of course Joseph Smith was a Mormon and Mormons are wrong, so no Mormon, no matter how willingly they went into captivity, no matter how completely they knew that doing so was going to be fatal, and no matter that the reason for the death IS religious…can possibly be a martyr. That would give them some perceived legitimacy that simply cannot be allowed.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Oh, addendum to your comment that Joseph was never put into a situation where he had the choice to give up his faith and live, or hold onto his faith and die. he was put into that situation quite a few times. The last time was one of them; had he not surrendered himself to this situation he KNEW he wasn’t coming back from, his people would have been attacked, incredible violence would have broken out…there may have been another option, but his own people asked him to do this, so he did.

I think that counts.

 

[AtticusFinch]

No thumbs.

Jesus had 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?

Not true. The term lamb, as it is used, rferes to meekness. Did you truly not know that?

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.

I never said he deserved to be killed. Is there a reason you cannot be honest? I simply said he was not meek. I also point out Joseph was not exactly innocent.

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 if someone declared himself mayor, general and everything else he could think of, armed a militia, and declared his town is ready for a fight, he would be arrested and out into prison…

and his access to the press would be sharply curtailed.

Yes, if Joseph were in jail, he would not have been able to destroy another person;s property for excerisizing free press

Perhaps Joseph would have been better advised to do that rather than simply destroy the press. Or start a militia, or marry 13 year old girls, etc etc

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.

There you go again with your dishonesty, dang, you Mormons are so predictable. Diane, I am an attorney, even the worst deserve a trial. And I fought for the right of Freedom of Press that Joseph walked all over. I am a disabled Vet, so you can stop with the silly drama

Actually, not…not when one is defending oneself against unlawful attacks.

lol…actually, so. It is ALWAYS illegal to have a weapon in jail. Is there a reason you try to justify illegal conduct?

But here you are again, claiming that Joseph deserved to be murdered because,

And there you go lying again. Now, you have never been one who can back up her claims, but please show me where I said he deserved to be killed. I have BEEN to Carthage. I have stood in the room. I have seen the bullet holes. Stop being dishonest.

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…

I know that. And if you were being honest, you would admit top the **** going on that riled people up. Now, I do not believe he deserved what happened to him, but you paint him as an innocent victim, and he wasn’t.

And it was JOSEPH under arrest for ‘treason.’

Yes…because he spat in the face of the US Constitution…

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

and no, I have never excused it. Again, if you can’t be honest, it makes it difficult yo have a discussion

I see. He knew he was going to be killed.

So did Jesus. But as for Joseph, of course he knew…he had done nothing but fly in the face of the law since he was convicted for treasure digging. He knew it would catch up to him. Jesse James knew he would be killed, Bonnie and Clyde knew…

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?

Actually, he tried running away first. He did not care for his people. he ran. He was shamed into coming back, then, in keeping with illegal ways, he took a gun into prison. And I am not “coming up” with anything. I am just being truthful

Joseph had been arrested and held in prison so many times, on so many bogus charges…

bogus? Would you like to prove that? Which times were on bogus charges? Could you provide the arrest records and trial transcripts? He was arrested for illegal conduct. He swindled a lot of people out of money in Kirtland. He took people’s wives, had sex with young girls, and violated the constitution. What bogus charges?

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

And thank YOU for confirmong what I have claimed about LDS dishonesty and whitewashing

 

[AtticusFinch]

Why in the world should he care?

um…because he claimned to be a prophet of God? Thank you. You have just proven he was not. He cared more about himself than anyone else. Heck, if he had given himself up like the lamb he claimed to be, Hiram would likely not have died or anyone else injured. Joseph is almost just as responsible for Hiram;s death as the mob was.

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.

Actually, historians have never been able to prove he hit anyone.

In fact, this is funny.

Only a Mormon would claim it is funny to violate the constitution, break the law, cause his brother to be killed, and be killed himself.

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

and only a Mormon would think the slaughter of women and children and unarmed men worth shouting in laughter for. At least Joseph had a gun, these poor folks had nothing.

Be very, very careful here, Atticus. Here you are excusing the mob shooting of Joseph because he destroyed a printing press.

you lie. I never excused anyone. I explained the circumstances. You act like Joseph was an angel and he was far, far from it

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.

Yep. Had Joseph done the honorable “lamb” thing, Hyrum would never have died.

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.

Never said that, either. I will pray for you to gain honesty

 

[AtticusFinch]

First, how exactly do you know the Fancher Party was “arrogant?” They weren’t. They were innocent families looking for a better life.

Second, Johnston;s Army was going to Utah because BY was breaking the law.

Third, BY absolutely knew. Yes, he said a feeble “don;t do it” too late. But Mormons back then did not do anything without his blessing. And his conduct after, when he kicked over the memorial and said they deserved speaks loudly as to his wishes.

 

[dianaiad]

Jesus had thumbs…

Jesus, being God (the Man to whom Satan said…if you jump off the cliff your Father will send angels to cushion your fall, and would turn the very stones to bread if you ask…could do anything He wanted to. For HIM, and Him alone, there is no such thing as helplessness. If He had but raised his smallest finger, His resistance would have been effective. For Christ, and Christ alone of all men, "like a lamb to the slaughter,’ means ONLY meekness.

Not true. The term lamb, as it is used, rferes to meekness. Did you truly not know that?

Yes…and the reason that the lamb is the symbol for that is it’s vulnerability. Meekness is something that is generally imposed, and it CERTAINLY means ‘imposed’ when you are talking about a lamb. As I have mentioned, it is possible to bring any man down; but Christ Jesus could not be made meek. He made Himself meek for our sakes.

I never said he deserved to be killed. Is there a reason you cannot be honest? I simply said he was not meek. I also point out Joseph was not exactly innocent.

He was certainly innocent of anything that deserved what he got, Atticus. Are you really saying that not being innocent of one thing makes it acceptable to be punished for something you ARE innocent of? Because believe me, when people come up with the ‘but he wasn’t innocent’ ploy, that is EXACTLY what they are saying. the fact that he may have been guilty of something at sometime is completely irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise.

And if someone declared himself mayor, general and everything else he could think of, armed a militia, and declared his town is ready for a fight, he would be arrested and out into prison…

Well then, why weren’t all the mayors, generals and everything else all the other mayors of the towns surrounding Nauvoo put in jail? Atticus, Joseph was a duly elected mayor and official of Nauvoo, whether YOU like that idea or not. As such, in that time, he had the power to do what every other town and county in the area did; form a militia. As for 'declaring that this town is ready for a fight…" Now, Atticus, since when is THAT a crime? After all, it was all the mayors and militias of the towns surrounding Nauvoo who were threatening one. that there was NOT one is not to the credit of those threatening neighbors. It was because Joseph gave himself up on a bogus charge, knowing he was about to be killed.

Yes, if Joseph were in jail, he would not have been able to destroy another person;s property for excerisizing free press

That was dishonest and disengenous of you, Atticus. Snipping something so that it looks like it says precisely the opposite of what it did say is a very big no no.

Perhaps Joseph would have been better advised to do that rather than simply destroy the press. Or start a militia, or marry 13 year old girls, etc etc

As I have mentioned, and you would know if you had any knowledge of American history, the militia was standard practice for western cities and counties of the time. What the flip do you think the Carthage Grays were? However, you are right, he SHOULD have thrown the publishers in jail. By the way, Joseph didn’t marry any 13 year olds. His two youngest wives were a lot closer to fifteen than thirteen, by the way. For instance, there is Nancy Winchester (who, by the way, may or may not have been his wife; there is no documentation as to the marriage. We believe that she was married to him because she was ‘sealed’ to him, along with six of his other wives, two years after Joseph’s death in the Nauvoo Temple." Most people put her age at that marriage when she was about fifteen. Helen Mar Kimble was just shy of her fifteenth birthday when she married Joseph a few months before his death.

There you go again with your dishonesty, dang, you Mormons are so predictable. Diane, I am an attorney, even the worst deserve a trial. And I fought for the right of Freedom of Press that Joseph walked all over. I am a disabled Vet, so you can stop with the silly drama

Thank you for your service, Atticus.

As for your being a lawyer…really? You should, then, have a better clue as to how legal history works, and how it worked THEN. You should know that judging what was done in 1844by the standards of today is ludicrous…AND you should know that Joseph’s destruction of the printing press was not unheard of, by any means. It may not be politically correct according to today’s standards, but given that this sort of thing was done several times back then by city counsels and governments, and the only time anybody reacted badly to the idea was when a MORMON did it, you can understand why I’m not taking your indignation too seriously.

{COLOR=“Blue”]lol…actually, so. It is ALWAYS illegal to have a weapon in jail. Is there a reason you try to justify illegal conduct?

long posts. to be cont…

It is always illegal NOW. ARe you sure it was illegal THEN, especially when it was a legal officer of the law (the jailor) who knew about it and condoned it’s presence?

 

[dianaiad]

Ok, this really IS too long…

atticus:

And there you go lying again. Now, you have never been one who can back up her claims, but please show me where I said he deserved to be killed. I have BEEN to Carthage. I have stood in the room. I have seen the bullet holes. Stop being dishonest.

You are presenting excuses for the mob and justifying his death by mentioning that he had abrogated the freedom of the press, married 13 year olds, formed militias…if you were NOT saying that he deserved to be killed over these things, then you, as a lawyer, know that those things, even if he were guilty of them, are irrelevent. . If we were talking about a woman who had been raped, and I started talking about her former lovers and the way she dressed, you’d be all over me like white on rice, BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVENT.

So is anything that Joseph may or may not have been guilty of. Remember also that he had NOT gone to trial, and according to your precious law, was innocent of anything…treason or even unlawfully destroying the printing press…until convicted.

The problem is, the mob knew he would not BE convicted. That’s why they killed him first.

Atticus, where is your head? Where are your research skills? These matters aren’t secret, for crying out loud, and as a lawyer you should have better access to the history than I do. How come I know these things and you don’t?

atticus:

I know that. And if you were being honest, you would admit top the **** going on that riled people up. Now, I do not believe he deserved what happened to him, but you paint him as an innocent victim, and he wasn’t.

Yes. He was.

He had not been convicted of anything. Even those things with which he had been charged were problematic. YOU may not like it, and what he did with the press may be illegal now, but they were not illegal THEN–else those town councils who applied the same remedy to nuisance publishers in their own towns would have had charges filed against them. However, as far as I am aware, none were. CERTAINLY none were charged with TREASON as a result.

 

[dianaiad]

and lastly…

Yes…because he spat in the face of the US Constitution…

No more than the folks who killed him did. In fact, a WHOLE lot less than the folks who killed him did, and considerably less than Gov. Boggs did, or any of the folks who decided they didn’t like the MOrmons did, and I would, personally, say that the entire federal government didn’t just spit on the face of the constitution, they drowned the thing in their saliva when the Senate refused to seat Sen. Smoot, or sent half the US Armed services after BY.

I don’t notice that you are complaining about that, though. You are simply excusing the murder of JS because he destroyed a printing press. Oh, and paid for the damages.

and no, I have never excused it. Again, if you can’t be honest, it makes it difficult yo have a discussion

Yes, you did. That is, by the way, precisely how defense attorneys used to defend their clients against rape charges, by claiming that the victim deserved it, or ‘asked for it,’ or wasn’t pure enough to complain about it…as if the rapists were justified in forcing themselves on a woman who wore her dress too short, or who had a lover, or walked in the wrong place…

and you are justifying JS’ murder by saying that he wasn’t innocent, that he messed with freedom of the press, that he formed a militia, that he was the mayor of a town, that he married thirteen year old girls…

Well, at the time, Atticus, his form of ‘messing with the freedom of the press’ had precedent that was unpunished, last time I looked it was not illegal to be a dully elected mayor, mayors of towns in Illinois and surrounding areas ALL had militias, and, by the way, he never married a thirteen year old girl.

…and even if any of the above were illegal and horrendous…and in the case of your last claim, true…what difference does it make? The facts are, Joseph gave himself up willingly, knowing that it was going to cost him his life. The men who were supposed to protect him actually joined the mob that killed him, and you are here justifying it by telling us how evil JOSEPH was.

Well, Hyrum didn’t destroy the printing press. Roberts didn’t. Nobody else in that room was mayor, or formed a militia, or married thirteen year olds. I suppose that their murders are also justified because JOSEPH BROKE A PRINTING PRESS???

Here’s the deal, Atticus. As a lawyer you know that if you tried in a courtroom what you are trying right here—to even bring UP what you don’t like about Joseph Smith in terms of the justification or legality of his murder, you’d get closed down so fast your eyes would be seeing gavels for weeks to come. It. Is. Irrelevent.

Therefore, when you bring these things UP, it can only be because you are excusing his murder; justifying it—and placing the blame for it on the head of the victim, not the heads of the murderers.

Of course, you would be in good company. the men who actually WERE arrested and tried for Joseph’s murder were found innocent, given new suits and money, and highly feted by the folks around them.

So did Jesus. But as for Joseph, of course he knew…he had done nothing but fly in the face of the law since he was convicted for treasure digging. He knew it would catch up to him. Jesse James knew he would be killed, Bonnie and Clyde knew…

you are equating the dismanteling of a printing press with the wholesale murders commited by Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde?

Really?

By the way, Jesus was tried and convicted of breaking the law of the land, y’know. I’m sure He was aware that He was doing so all along. In fact, most of the early Christian martyrs were convicted of crimes before they were killed. Brings up an interesting question, doesn’t it?

Actually, he tried running away first. He did not care for his people. he ran. He was shamed into coming back, then, in keeping with illegal ways, he took a gun into prison. And I am not “coming up” with anything. I am just being truthful

Interesting way you present that. Just how, ATticus, was he ‘shamed’ into coming back? Be careful, here.

bogus? Would you like to prove that? Which times were on bogus charges? Could you provide the arrest records and trial transcripts? He was arrested for illegal conduct. He swindled a lot of people out of money in Kirtland. He took people’s wives, had sex with young girls, and violated the constitution. What bogus charges?

He was found innocent on all of them, Atticus. As a lawyer, you know that this means the charges were bogus by definition. In fact, (speaking of spitting in the face of the constitution) he was sometimes rearrested for the EXACT charge of which he had just been found innocent before he could leave the courthouse by a different law officer, and was tried more than once for the same thing. Tell me, WHAT amendment does that particular practice violate, again?

And thank YOU for confirmong what I have claimed about LDS dishonesty and whitewashing

I"m not the one who is completely overlooking the egregous violoations of the constitution that were perpetrated AGAINST Joseph and the Mormons, but is attempting to justify the cold blooded slaughter of a man simply because you don’t like his religion.

That would be you.

 

[dianaiad]

Why in the world should he care?

um…because he claimned to be a prophet of God?

So, by the way, did Peter. He was a prophet of God, not God Himself.
AtticusFinch;6416106:

Thank you. You have just proven he was not. He cared more about himself than anyone else. Heck, if he had given himself up like the lamb he claimed to be, Hiram would likely not have died or anyone else injured. Joseph is almost just as responsible for Hiram;s death as the mob was.

Actually, historians have never been able to prove he hit anyone.

Oh, this is new. He shoots into the crowd three times, three men were injured…and our enemies make a real heyday out of the fact that one of 'em died later…and you are here claiming that there’s no proof that he HIT anybody?

Well, you just proved one thing. You certainly are a lawyer.

Only a Mormon would claim it is funny to violate the constitution, break the law, cause his brother to be killed, and be killed himself.

Oh, that’s not funny. You are.

and only a Mormon would think the slaughter of women and children and unarmed men worth shouting in laughter for. At least Joseph had a gun, these poor folks had nothing.

Are you claiming that the Fanchers had no weapons, Atticus? Good grief, I’m sorry, but at the risk of getting censured, that is THE most idiotic thing I’ve heard yet. They DID shoot back some, y’know. I wish they had been more successful.

you lie. I never excused anyone. I explained the circumstances. You act like Joseph was an angel and he was far, far from it

No, by accusing him of crimes completely unrelated to his murder, you are attempting to justify it. As a lawyer you know that this is wrong, but you are doing it anyway.

Yep. Had Joseph done the honorable “lamb” thing, Hyrum would never have died.

If he had refused to go, Hyrum would be alive…and so would he, but there would have been a great deal of OTHER blood shed.

Never said that, either. I will pray for you to gain honesty

Atticus, what I was doing with the MMM was ‘explaining the circumstances.’ You will notice that I went out of my way to absolve the Fanchers from culpability…(well, except for being terminally naive but that’s not SUPPOSED to be punishable by death). At no time did I claim that the Fanchers deserve what they got…they most certainly did not. AT no time did I condone what happened, because I certainly do not. What I did was establish motive, not excuse the conduct. What YOU are doing is excusing the conduct and justifying the deed, because you are claiming that it is Joseph’s fault that the mob murdered him.

With the MMM, it was Lee’s fault…his, and the people directly involved in the matter. Of course no act occurs in a vacuum…and of course people’s perceptions of Joseph figured very highly in his fate that day. People thought far worse of him then than even you do now, and that is why he was murdered.It does not, as are trying to do, JUSTIFY that murder.

What you can’t seem to see is that there is a very big difference between understanding the circumstances surrounding a deed—and AGREEING with those reasons. You, in the way you are presenting those reasons, are showing that you agree with them.

I understand the circumstances around the MMM, too. I understand the desperation felt by the Mormons who were facing what they were facing, having finally found what they honestly thought was, at last, a safe haven. I understand what happened.

but I’m not excusing them, and I’m CERTAINLY not blaming the Fanchers and attempting to justify that massacre. Motive is not justification.

You are frantically attempting to justify, excuse and find sympathy for the mob that murdered Joseph and his brother, by shifting the blame for those murders from the killers to the victims, and I find that both sad…

and typical. Believe me, this is a well rehearsed script. Just once I would like to see some anti-Mormon or critic say well, I think Joseph was a scoundrel, but nobody deserves that; it was wrong, and it was stupid, and Mormons deserve an apology for that.

I’ve never heard that from anybody. Not once.

You are extremely typical, Atticus.
“I don’t condone the mob…” followed by statement after statement doing just that, by talking about how evil Joseph was, and how horrible he was to break the printing press, or be a polygamist, or lose money, or actually have the nerve to have the only gun that would be fired in his defense against 200 attackers, or…you name it. In fact, come to think of it, you DID ‘name it,’ as if any or all of those things put together would get anybody the death penalty today…or even back then.

I would believe that you didn’t condone the killings if you actually ADDRESSED the guilt of the mob rather than go on and on about how completely Joseph deserved killing and had it coming to him, y’know.

Inevitably MMM comes up, as if this atrocity, that happened 13 years later and in large part BECAUSE of stuff like the mob killing of Joseph, and the Extermination Order, and Huan’s Mill, and the persecution of the Mormons that drove them from their homes not once or twice, but many different times, justified that persecution. It’s a confusion of cause and effect that absolutely astounds me.

And you did that, too. In fact, Atticus, you didn’t miss a single anti technique on this one, right down to calling me a liar for saying that you condoned the murders…

when you have done everything in your power to do precisely that.

 

[dianaiad]

First, how exactly do you know the Fancher Party was “arrogant?” They weren’t. They were innocent families looking for a better life.

they were both those things, Atticus. I guess you weren’t paying attention to my description of the events. They were warned not to go on because Utah was about to be attacked by Johnson’s Army. they were told that nobody would sell them supplies, However, after they were told this, they came to a small town to buy supplies, and being refused them, they made quite a fuss, swearing and making some very unfortunate and insulting comments. This is when they threatened to send the California militia against Utah from the south if supplies were not given/sold to them immediately. You tell me; is that arrogance or simple and sheer stupidity? Here they were, having been WARNED, and now threatening to send yet ANOTHER army against a group of people who were about to be invaded by the US army?

I mean, really?

I don’t think the Fanchers really had a clue what they were rolling into, and they were behaving as if nothing at all was going on. It’s been over a hundred and fifty years, of course, but really…if you had been on that train, and had been told that the Mormons were expecting to be invaded (and it turns out that they actually WERE about to be invaded,) and would not sell to you, and were very jumpy…would YOU raise a stink in a town because they wouldn’t sell to you, and threaten to send a DIFFERENT army after them if they didn’t?

Just think about it. I think I understand where the Fanchers were coming from; for weeks they had been traveling with some men who claimed to be responsible for the murder of Parley P Pratt, and had been fed a pretty steady diet of anti-Mormon rhetoric. As I mentioned, those men had left the party, and the Fanchers themselves were generally good ‘trail guests.’ However, they did seem to be almost deliberately obtuse to the goings on around them. When it was finally brought home to them that the warnings they were given were SERIOUS, a few of them…acted out, I suppose. All verbal; I highly doubt that they had any intention of sending the California militia against the Mormons. However…

and then there were those rumors of the poisoned wells and the dead Piute children. No basis to those, but how were the MORMONS supposed to know that?

Second, Johnston;s Army was going to Utah because BY was breaking the law.

Actually, Atticus, no. He wasn’t. Do go do your research, if you don’t like what you find under ‘Johnson’s Army’ (which gets you the LDS perspective more often than not) try “Buchanan’s blunder” or “Buchanan’s folly.” BY and the Mormons were (as usual) being accused of a great many things of which they were completely innocent, and Buchanan sent the army out to cover his own political butt. I KNOW that the Mormons honestly felt like the whole thing was about them, and it certainly must have FELT like it was all about them…but in reality, they were just the dog that got wagged to get national attention away from Buchanan and his screwups regarding north/south relations. Either way, the Mormons were the ones who got clobbered, even though we actually, y’know, mostly won that one…and without firing a single shot at a soldier. If Lee had followed BY’s orders and let the Fanchers pass…

Well, he didn’t.

Third, BY absolutely knew. Yes, he said a feeble “don;t do it” too late. But Mormons back then did not do anything without his blessing. And his conduct after, when he kicked over the memorial and said they deserved speaks loudly as to his wishes.

Ah, quoting will bagley, are you?

You need to quote that a little better, Atticus…AND mention when the quote happened, and what was believed at the time. He said that the men in the party were the murderers of the prophets (refering to those men who had bragged about being in on the murders of Joseph, Hyrum and Pratt and who had left the party. Nobody at the time knew that they HAD left the party.) and may have deserved their fates, but that the deaths of the women and children weighed heavily on him. It was found out later that nobody in the Fancher train had anything to do with earlier persecution of Mormons.

…and you need to MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Either nobody did anything without BY’S approval, or they did. If they did NOT, then there was NOTHING FEEBLE about a "DON"T DO IT from BY’s hand, was there?

Since we DO have that, and we do NOT have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that BY knew about the massacre before hand, why are you automatically assuming that, of course BY knew and telepathically instructed Haight and Lee to go murder everybody in a wagon train?

Are you really that NUTS?

 

[why_me]

The martrydom of Joseph Smith is interesting. Critics on this thread assert that he was not a martyr because he fired three shots into a mob of a hundred as they stormed the prison to kill him. For the critics, Joseph Smith should have just stood there, with cross in hand, and faced his death peacefully as he watched his brother murdered.

To have such a reaction would condone suicide. As human beings we have an obligation to defend ourselves if our lives our threatened. To not do so, would be considered a form of suicide. I am sure that if the early christians would have been given swords to defend themselves against the lions, they would have used them. If fact, they had an obligation to use them if they were in possession of them.

 

[why_me]

Yes, if Joseph were in jail, he would not have been able to destroy another person;s property for excerisizing free press

Perhaps Joseph would have been better advised to do that rather than simply destroy the press.

.

You do realize that mormon printing presses were equally destroyed by mobs. Did you know that? And no one faced trial. Destroying printing presses was not uncommon back then. This was a trumped up charge against Joseph. Likewise, you do realize that countless mormon homes were destroyed and know one faced trial for destroying private property. Why? Can you please tell me as a lawyer?

You seem to be a little hypocritical in your interpretation of justice.

The mormons move to Nauvoo to be safe and secure from the mobs. A former antimormon decides to open a newspaper hyper critical of mormonism and its leader Jospeh Smith. Not to be read by mormons but by antimormons who already wanted to chase the mormons out of Nauvoo and burn the city. For public safety the Nauvoo Town Council orders the shut down of the paper. What is the problem? If the germans would have destroyed the nazi printing presses, maybe the holacaust would not have happend.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You do realize that mormon printing presses were equally destroyed by mobs. Did you know that? And no one faced trial. Destroying printing presses was not uncommon back then. This was a trumped up charge against Joseph. Likewise, you do realize that countless mormon homes were destroyed and know one faced trial for destroying private property. Why? Can you please tell me as a lawyer?

You seem to be a little hypocritical in your interpretation of justice.

Frontier justice was not exactly fair.

Yea, everyone knows the Bible teaches an eye for an eye and to never turn the other cheek. Two wrongs always makes a right.

 

[why_me]

Yea, everyone knows the Bible teaches an eye for an eye and to never turn the other cheek. Two wrongs always makes a right.

The point. my friend, is the onesidedness of the critics. No mention of the countless mormon homes that were burned and destroyed by mobs. No sense of injustice. No mention of those facts at all. No mention of the destruction of mormon printing presses by the mobs. None.

However, when the Nauvoo Expositor is shut down, the sense of injustice takes over and the call for respecting private property is heard from the critics. And yet, private mormon homes do not apply to respecting private property.

When the mobs come to burn your home, be sure to turn the other cheek. And actually, the mormons did turn the other cheek…when that was done to them. They gathered what belongings they had left and moved.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Jesus, being God (the Man to whom Satan said…if you jump off the cliff your Father will send angels to cushion your fall, and would turn the very stones to bread if you ask…could do anything He wanted to. For HIM, and Him alone, there is no such thing as helplessness. If He had but raised his smallest finger, His resistance would have been effective. For Christ, and Christ alone of all men, "like a lamb to the slaughter,’ means ONLY meekness.

There you go again making claims you cannot support. Like a lamb means meekness to EVERYONE

Yes…and the reason that the lamb is the symbol for that is it’s vulnerability. Meekness is something that is generally imposed, and it CERTAINLY means ‘imposed’ when you are talking about a lamb. As I have mentioned, it is possible to bring any man down; but Christ Jesus could not be made meek. He made Himself meek for our sakes.

And Joseph allegedly did miracles. Joseph was allegedly called of God. What you are saying is that Joseph was not really a prophet or, at the very least, that Joseph did not have enough faith.

He was certainly innocent of anything that deserved what he got, Atticus. Are you really saying that not being innocent of one thing makes it acceptable to be punished for something you ARE innocent of? Because believe me, when people come up with the ‘but he wasn’t innocent’ ploy, that is EXACTLY what they are saying. the fact that he may have been guilty of something at sometime is completely irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise.

Nope…what I am saying is, Joseph was a criminal. He did not deserve what he got, but neither was he just an innocent victim. He flaunted the law all the time. He was no lamb…he was a wolf.

Well then, why weren’t all the mayors, generals and everything else all the other mayors of the towns surrounding Nauvoo put in jail?

Because they did not do what Joseph did. Again, learn your history.

Atticus, Joseph was a duly elected mayor and official of Nauvoo, whether YOU like that idea or not.

Not important if I like it or not. Joseph used people. He would say, “God told me you all are supposed to uild me a house” and they did it. He said, “I am supposed to be mayor”, and they did it. Pretty cool

As such, in that time, he had the power to do what every other town and county in the area did; form a militia. As for 'declaring that this town is ready for a fight…" Now, Atticus, since when is THAT a crime?

Since the beginning of this country. Ask David Koresh

That was dishonest and disengenous of you, Atticus. Snipping something so that it looks like it says precisely the opposite of what it did say is a very big no no.

Nope, It is true. Had he done the honorable thing, he would not have been in a position to trample on the Constitution.

As I have mentioned, and you would know if you had any knowledge of American history, the militia was standard practice for western cities and counties of the time. What the flip do you think the Carthage Grays were?

I know history just fine. But Militias were designed to protect the United States, not a group of people who set themselves apart from the US. Joseph did not create the militia to protect against enemies to the nation, he got the militia for his own private army, a la David Koresh

However, you are right, he SHOULD have thrown the publishers in jail. By the way, Joseph didn’t marry any 13 year olds.

Did not say he married all the 13-year olds. But after he was caugfht having relatons with Fanny Alger, he came up with the whole polygamy thing.

Thank you for your service, Atticus.

As for your being a lawyer…really?

Yes. Really.

You should, then, have a better clue as to how legal history works, and how it worked THEN. You should know that judging what was done in 1844by the standards of today is ludicrous…AND you should know that Joseph’s destruction of the printing press was not unheard of, by any means.

You are wrong. It was against the now, it was against the law then. You havfe a funny habit of excusing law breakers that yopu like. Freedom of Press was violated. Destruction of property was against the law as well. And even if others did it, I thought Joseph was not like others? Even Joseph said he was better than Jesus

{COLOR=“Blue”]lol…actually, so. It is ALWAYS illegal to have a weapon in jail. Is there a reason you try to justify illegal conduct?

long posts. to be cont…

It is always illegal NOW. ARe you sure it was illegal THEN,

Yes. Look it up

especially when it was a legal officer of the law (the jailor) who knew about it and condoned it’s presence?

Yes. The jailer was wrong. Look it up

 

[AtticusFinch]

Ok, this really IS too long…

You are presenting excuses for the mob and justifying his death by mentioning that he had abrogated the freedom of the press, married 13 year olds, formed militias…

Again, you are being dishonest. You come across painting Joseph as some innocent victim of mob action. He was a criminal who was killed by a mob. And since you seem to justify Joseph’s actions by saying “lots of printing presses were destroyed” then YOU have justified the mob, because in the west, it was VERY common for people to take justice in their own hands and do lynchings, etc. So, by your own justifications, you have justified the mob.

if you were NOT saying that he deserved to be killed over these things, then you, as a lawyer, know that those things, even if he were guilty of them, are irrelevent. . If we were talking about a woman who had been raped, and I started talking about her former lovers and the way she dressed, you’d be all over me like white on rice, BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVENT.

No, it isn’t. It is admissable in court. Joseph was a criminal. He should have had a fair trial. He didn’t. He should not have been killed. He was. But don;t sit there and claim he was some innocent victim who went like a lamb.

So is anything that Joseph may or may not have been guilty of. Remember also that he had NOT gone to trial, and according to your precious law, was innocent of anything…treason or even unlawfully destroying the printing press…until convicted.

Yet he destroyed the Press without a fair hearing. Funny how you only want one-way justice…

Atticus, where is your head? Where are your research skills? These matters aren’t secret, for crying out loud, and as a lawyer you should have better access to the history than I do. How come I know these things and you don’t?

The problem is, by your posts, you show you do not know much. You do not know the law, you do not know what really happened. You blindly follow without knowing the truth.

 

[AtticusFinch]

No more than the folks who killed him did. In fact, a WHOLE lot less than the folks who killed him did, and considerably less than Gov. Boggs did, or any of the folks who decided they didn’t like the MOrmons did, and I would, personally, say that the entire federal government didn’t just spit on the face of the constitution, they drowned the thing in their saliva when the Senate refused to seat Sen. Smoot, or sent half the US Armed services after BY.

Again, I like your admission that Joseph was not a prophet who was above others. He was a common criminal like those you continually compare him with. But Joseph would not have been killed had he not trampled on the Constitution

I don’t notice that you are complaining about that, though. You are simply excusing the murder of JS because he destroyed a printing press. Oh, and paid for the damages.

Not excusing anything. Just adding perspective. I have already said he did not deserve to be killed by the mob. I would have preferred a trial. Yet, your dihonesty continues.

Yes, you did. That is, by the way, precisely how defense attorneys used to defend their clients against rape charges, by claiming that the victim deserved it, or ‘asked for it,’ or wasn’t pure enough to complain about it…as if the rapists were justified in forcing themselves on a woman who wore her dress too short, or who had a lover, or walked in the wrong place…

Again, to combat your dihonesty, I did not say he deserved it, I am just showing he was not some innocent victim. Besides, you have already justified the mob.

and you are justifying JS’ murder by saying that he wasn’t innocent, that he messed with freedom of the press, that he formed a militia, that he was the mayor of a town, that he married thirteen year old girls…

Another lie. Sigh…what is it with mormons?

Well, Hyrum didn’t destroy the printing press.

And he would still be alive if Joseph had cared more about them than he did himself

Here’s the deal, Atticus. As a lawyer you know that if you tried in a courtroom what you are trying right here—to even bring UP what you don’t like about Joseph Smith in terms of the justification or legality of his murder, you’d get closed down so fast your eyes would be seeing gavels for weeks to come. It. Is. Irrelevent.

You are wrong. Most of what Joseph did would be relevant. You should truly not talk about things about which you have no knowledge

Of course, you would be in good company. the men who actually WERE arrested and tried for Joseph’s murder were found innocent, given new suits and money, and highly feted by the folks around them.

lol…prove it.

So did Jesus. But as for Joseph, of course he knew…he had done nothing but fly in the face of the law since he was convicted for treasure digging. He knew it would catch up to him. Jesse James knew he would be killed, Bonnie and Clyde knew…

you are equating the dismanteling of a printing press with the wholesale murders commited by Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde?

I am saying that crimoinals always knew they were going to die…Joseph did not make some amazing prophesy
Really?

Yes

By the way, Jesus was tried and convicted of breaking the law of the land, y’know. I’m sure He was aware that He was doing so all along. In fact, most of the early Christian martyrs were convicted of crimes before they were killed. Brings up an interesting question, doesn’t it?

Difference is, Jesus went willingly so that his followers would not be hurt. Joseph got his friends killed and wounded. Brings up an interesting point, doesn’t it?

Interesting way you present that. Just how, ATticus, was he ‘shamed’ into coming back? Be careful, here.

He was. Yoiu should know that.

bogus? Would you like to prove that? Which times were on bogus charges? Could you provide the arrest records and trial transcripts? He was arrested for illegal conduct. He swindled a lot of people out of money in Kirtland. He took people’s wives, had sex with young girls, and violated the constitution. What bogus charges?

He was found innocent on all of them, Atticus.

Not true. First, in law, NO ONE is found “innocent”. SWee how little you know? They are found guilty or not guilty. And not guilty is not even close to innocent. And no, he wasn’t. He was convicted more than once and ran from the law on other occasions. Again, you should know this

As a lawyer, you know that this means the charges were bogus by definition.

Another falsehood.

And thank YOU for confirmong what I have claimed about LDS dishonesty and whitewashing

I"m not the one who is completely overlooking the egregous violoations of the constitution that were perpetrated AGAINST Joseph and the Mormons, but is attempting to justify the cold blooded slaughter of a man simply because you don’t like his religion.

And yet another one…

That would be you.

 

[AMDGtoo]

what I was doing with the MMM was ‘explaining the circumstances.’ You will notice that I went out of my way to absolve the Fanchers from culpability.

In the Mountain Meadow Massacre, women and children, murdered in cold blood had culpability for their own ambush by the Mormons?! :::shakes head:::

 

[AtticusFinch]

they were both those things, Atticus. I guess you weren’t paying attention to my description of the events.

Your description? LOLOL…and where did you get it? I have actually read a lot on this topic. They were not arrogant at all. They were trying to get to a better life the best way way they could.

They were warned not to go on because Utah was about to be attacked by Johnson’s Army. they were told that nobody would sell them supplies, However, after they were told this, they came to a small town to buy supplies, and being refused them, they made quite a fuss, swearing and making some very unfortunate and insulting comments.

U huh. And where did you get this info? LDS sources? They did what every group of people did, they found towns and asked for supplies. Mormons did that on their way to Utah. Luckily, no one faked being indians and slaughtered all of them.

I don’t think the Fanchers really had a clue what they were rolling into

I agree. They had no idea they werre going into a land of Mormons to be slaughtered

Just think about it. I think I understand where the Fanchers were coming from; for weeks they had been traveling with some men who claimed to be responsible for the murder of Parley P Pratt, and had been fed a pretty steady diet of anti-Mormon rhetoric.

Prove it. Your problem is, you read LDS rhetoric and claim it as fact. All Mormons did was try to find ways to justify the slaughter of women and children

and then there were those rumors of the poisoned wells and the dead Piute children. No basis to those, but how were the MORMONS supposed to know that?

um…they had a “prophet” who talked with God?

Actually, Atticus, no. He wasn’t. Do go do your research, if you don’t like what you find under ‘Johnson’s Army’ (which gets you the LDS perspective more often than not) try “Buchanan’s blunder” or “Buchanan’s folly.”

I have done my research. I just tend to use more sources than what my “church” puts out. Sending the Army into Utah was stupid. It was worse than stupid. I love how the Mormons harrassed the Army. One of my personal heroes, Porter Rockwell, was a large part of it. But that does not mean BY was not breaking the law.

If Lee had followed BY’s orders and let the Fanchers pass…

He carried out BY’s orders. he slaughtered them

Ah, quoting will bagley, are you?

I’m not. I have read a lot on this. BY kicked over the memorial and said they deserved it. It is documented. Do some research

You need to quote that a little better, Atticus…AND mention when the quote happened, and what was believed at the time. He said that the men in the party were the murderers of the prophets (refering to those men who had bragged about being in on the murders of Joseph, Hyrum and Pratt and who had left the party. Nobody at the time knew that they HAD left the party.) and may have deserved their fates, but that the deaths of the women and children weighed heavily on him. It was found out later that nobody in the Fancher train had anything to do with earlier persecution of Mormons.

Really? I thought he was a prophet? He should have known. Regardless, he showed his intent. He kicked the memorial over and said they deserved it…those innocent women and children deserved it, in his eyes. That is fact.

…and you need to MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Either nobody did anything without BY’S approval, or they did. If they did NOT, then there was NOTHING FEEBLE about a "DON"T DO IT from BY’s hand, was there?

lol…are you truly this naive? Of course BY ordered it…then of course he sent the late note in an effort to show he didn’t. Are you truly this naive?