Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[AtticusFinch]

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.

Ah…so it was ok for a “prophet of God” to act just like anyone else? Using your logic, we should never prosecute killers because others have killed and gotten away with it. Seems YOU are the one with a funny sense of justice

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Main Entry: meek
Pronunciation: \ˈmēk
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse mjūkr gentle; akin to Welsh esmwyth soft
Date: 13th century

1 : enduring injury with patience and without resentment : mild
2 : deficient in spirit and courage : submissive
3 : not violent or strong : moderate

— meek·ly adverb

— meek·ness noun
from MW on-line

Yes those who are meek are vulnerable and person can’t “be” meek unless he is put in a situation where he can respond meekly. So the situation allows meekness but that doesn’t make meekness something imposed by others, it’s still a choice. I see the definition above showing it to be an internal characteristic or a way of responding to a situation not something that can be imposed upon a person. At least definitions 1 and 3 show that, I’m ignoring 2 since I can’t see Christ as “deficient in spirit and courage”

 

[AtticusFinch]

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

Yeah, but Peter, when he was martyred, did not act so selfishly as to get others killed with him. He died alone. And Peter never claimed he was better than Jesus, as Joseph did, Peter never had sex with young girls, swindled people out of money, got convicted for treasure digging, etc
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.

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?

You are claiming there is…show me the proof

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

Yes, I search for the truth

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.

Um, do you EVER read facts? Yes, they defended themselves against what they thought were indians (actually Mormons dressed like Indians). They were convinced by Mormons to lay down their weapons and peacefull file out, in the protection of Mormons. Once they had handed over their weapons, they were slaughtered. Really young children were taken by LDS families who kept them until forced to give them up. Please…READ TRUTH, not LDS apologetics

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.

Wrong yet again. You really should not be talking about law…you know so little

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.

I am not suggesting he not go. I am suggesting he do what Jesus and Peter did: Go alone and not risk the lives of others.

With the MMM, it was Lee’s fault…his,

how naive

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.

Not justifying anything. Again, just adding facts and perspective.

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.

Another lie. I have, in fact, said I disagree with the killing. I am just showing that he was no innocent victim

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.

You are excusing the massacre

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…

I find it just as sad that you excuse the slaughter of women and children

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.

um…I DID say that. More than once. But, you are a typical Mormon, you ignore what you do not like and twist what you need to. I wish, for once, a Mormon would say, Joseph was a criminal who broke the law, but he did not need to be killed. Instead, y’all always paint him as some sinless person who was martyred
I’ve never heard that from anybody. Not once.

you lie. I have said it more than once

Inevitably MMM comes up,

Only because y’all act like you were always victims

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,

There you go again, excusing the slaughter of women and children

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…

Because you lied. I have said several times I do not condone the murders

 

[dianaiad]

<snip to here, because this exchange covers the lot:>

dianaiad:

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.

Atticus, you have been making so many incorrect statements that show your utter ignorance of this issue, and have been telling me to ‘do my research…’ as if you knew what you were talking about. You proclaim yourself a legal expert, and spout legal opinions regarding this that nobody who has ever watched so much as a Perry Mason episode would credit…OF COURSE it is irrelevent to a court case what the victim’s past history or possible crimes might be, except to provide motive—and motive isn’t good for the defendent. Now you are laughing and asking me to prove that the men tried for the murder of Joseph Smith were found not guilty, given new clothes and celebrated?

…and you are actually telling me that you did ANY research into this matter at all?

As a lawyer, are you aware of a man called Dallin Oaks, former president of BYU, former Utah Supreme Court Justice, considered as a nominee to the US supreme court, former clerk for Earl Warren, interim dean of the University of Chicago Law School, chairman of the board of directors of the PBS…the man who got the J.Reuben Clark Law School going (which went from non-existant in 1971 to a top tier law school…8th in the nation under the Princeton Review) ?

Just listing his bona fides, here…he wrote a book entitled “Carthage Conspiracy: the trial of the accused Assassins of Joseph Smith.” It has a really ugly mustard yellow cover. While non-legal type Mormons read it for the subject covered, it’s a rather important book in legal circles because if its analysis of legal shenanigans of the time.

I believe that this should be proof enough even for you.

As to the bit about the new clothes and the feting…that was also true; the defendants who didn’t have decent clothes were given them by the local Baptists, and the parties thrown were quite, I understand, rowdy.

However, you don’t have to go look up the book. Even I found the official record of the case, with the search terms “trial of the murderers of Joseph Smith” and ONE mouseclick, It got me here.

Atticus, you have shown me that you have not done your research. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the times, the practices of the times, or what happened. You are hiding behind minutia like mocking me for using the term ‘found innocent’ rather than 'not guilty…"

In fact, Atticus, you are exposed for the typical rabid anti-Mormon that you are. You haven’t even come up with anything really new.

go have a nice life.

 

[dianaiad]

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

What part of anything I wrote made you think that they had any culpability in it, AMD? I rather emphasized their innocence.

WHAT are you trying to pull?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

The onesidedness is obvious on this thread, in that Joseph Smith, or any other Mormon reknown by history, is being presented as doing absolutely no wrong.

Look at your last paragraph. Mormons did more than pack their belongings and move along. Not everything a Mormon, or group of Mormons, did was justified or moral as is being presented in every case raised.

Did Joseph Smith ever do anything wrong in the eyes of Mormons?

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6416613:

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.

Yes, I imagine that your research into the MMM is right up there with your research into the trial of the men who murdered Joseph Smith.

I think that I have shown your bias in this matter sufficiently, and for me, the conversation with you on this is over.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Atticus, you have been making so many incorrect statements that show your utter ignorance of this issue, and have been telling me to ‘do my research…’ as if you knew what you were talking about.

It seems anyone who disagrees with any version of Mormon history, presented by Mormons, is showing their ignorance according to you dianaiad.

Tell me, were there ever any Mormons, including Joseph Smith, that ever did anything wrong according to you? Please provide some examples, and feel free to ‘dumb it down’ for those of us who disagree with things already discussed.

 

[AMDGtoo]

What part of anything I wrote made you think that they had any culpability in it, AMD?

You said that you were careful to not include their “cupability”.

Well, according to the dictionary, “to be culpable” is to be responsible for wrong or error; to be deserving censure; to be blameworthy.

The women and children were hardly to be blamed. They were in fact ambushed by Mormon men. History has it that the women and children were lined up by the Mormon men to be led to safety. Then the Mormon men shot them in cold blood. And yes BY ordered it. (Lee was only the “fall guy”). Nothing was done without his permission.

I realized that the LDS used the same words we do, but with dissimiliar meanings (ex. “martyr” is a someone who died voluntarily as a witness for a cause, but the LDS see it as someone who died in a gun fight or from jumping out a window while calling others to help him escape). I just did not realize how pervasive this problem was. This LDS re-defining of words seems to infect all words, so real communication is really strained.

BTW, it’s AMDG, not AMD. It’s from the Latin phrase “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (To the Greater Glory of God). And I take offense at your “WHAT are you trying to pull?” comment. It seems that I’m not the one who is being deliberately deceptive.

 

[hosemonkey]

To me, the worst effect of the killing of JS and his henchmen was to hand the mormons a “martyr”. this magnified the importance of this deeply flawed man in the eyes of his followers and enhanced their sense of righteousness and unjust persecution that exists to this day. Killing him was a tactical error. He should have been tried for his many crimes and either imprisoned or executed (for treason) and his influence most likely would have faded, given the fact that he was no true prophet. As to mountain meadows, that was just an out and out atrocity, for which Brigham Young was responsible and for whom John D. Lee was the fall guy. An indelble spot on mormon reputation that they have never fully apologised for. JS was no “martyr”, no “innocent victim”, today he would have been convicted and sentenced to a long period of confinement for child molestation at least, but killing him in that fashion was a mistake. Understandable, but a mistake.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Atticus, you have been making so many incorrect statements that show your utter ignorance of this issue, and have been telling me to ‘do my research…’ as if you knew what you were talking about.

Yet you can prove nothing I have said is incorrect. The fact is, it is ALL correct, YOU just are so blinded you refuse to see it. When I ask you to prove something, you won’t. When i ask for references, you have none. I am still waiting on other topics for you to step up to the plate, and you don’t. So, I DO know what I am talking about. Pity is, you are clueless.

You proclaim yourself a legal expert, and spout legal opinions regarding this that nobody who has ever watched so much as a Perry Mason episode would credit…

Prove it. Again, another accusation with no proof. Nothing I have said about the law is wrong. If you believe it is, PROVE IT…

OF COURSE it is irrelevent to a court case what the victim’s past history or possible crimes might be, except to provide motive—and motive isn’t good for the defendent.

Again, not true. While a victim;s past might be shielded in a rape case (RAPE SHIELD LAWS) Joseph Smith was not raped…he, in fact, did the raping. But, in a case like Joseph’s, his past would certainly be relevant. Go to law school and get back to me

Now you are laughing and asking me to prove that the men tried for the murder of Joseph Smith were found not guilty, given new clothes and celebrated?

You made the claim, back it up.

…and you are actually telling me that you did ANY research into this matter at all?

Sure. I have read where originally, the LDS Church said it was indians. Then, it may have been one Mormon, now they finally admit to more facts and have stopped lying.

As a lawyer, are you aware of a man called Dallin Oaks, former president of BYU, former Utah Supreme Court Justice, considered as a nominee to the US supreme court, former clerk for Earl Warren, interim dean of the University of Chicago Law School, chairman of the board of directors of the PBS…the man who got the J.Reuben Clark Law School going (which went from non-existant in 1971 to a top tier law school…8th in the nation under the Princeton Review) ?

Just listing his bona fides, here…he wrote a book entitled “Carthage Conspiracy: the trial of the accused Assassins of Joseph Smith.” It has a really ugly mustard yellow cover. While non-legal type Mormons read it for the subject covered, it’s a rather important book in legal circles because if its analysis of legal shenanigans of the time.

I believe that this should be proof enough even for you.

LOLOLOLOL…Yeah, a Mormon Apostle is the person who’s word I should take? You have got to be kidding. Fine…Bagley is a author and historian. Use him.

Problem is, I can’t. I read his stuff, I read stuff by LDS, I read stuff from non-LDS. I saw September Dawn and was disgusted by the protrayal of Mormons. I am fair. But you, as a Mormon, want me to take the word of a Mormon Apostle? You are not as bright as I originally thought.

You Mormons always shade and hide the truth. For years we were taught that Joseph had a sheet between him and his scribe as he translated the Book of Mormon. Only recently have LDS Historians admitted that Joseph likely never even looked at the plates, because his head was buried in his hat looking at the Ummin and Thummin. You really need to do some unbiased studying.

As to the bit about the new clothes and the feting…that was also true; the defendants who didn’t have decent clothes were given them by the local Baptists, and the parties thrown were quite, I understand, rowdy.

Prove it. And without using a Mormon author.

Atticus, you have shown me that you have not done your research. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the times, the practices of the times, or what happened. You are hiding behind minutia like mocking me for using the term ‘found innocent’ rather than 'not guilty…"

You have been proven wrong and ill-informed, so you do what people like you always do, tell the person who proved you wrong that they do not know anything.

In fact, Atticus, you are exposed for the typical rabid anti-Mormon that you are. You haven’t even come up with anything really new.

How could there be anything new? You have shown yourself to be an ill-informed Mormon blindly drinking the grape koolaide. I prove you wrong, so you, very immaturely, catagorize me as rabid anti-Mormon. How funny. I was LDS. My cousin, Dean Jessee, was Church Historian. My ex-in-laws, who I still love deeply, are LDS. My best friend is LDS. I still carry my Patriarchal Blessing and my Line of Authority. Am I rabid? Really? You can;t defeat my arguments, so you label me in an effort to excuse my telling of facts? Silly girl, I am not rabid. I am not even anti-LDS. I simply will not sit here and let you whitewash history.
go have a nice life.

Already having one. A great one, in fact.

 

[AtticusFinch]

What part of anything I wrote made you think that they had any culpability in it, AMD? I rather emphasized their innocence.

WHAT are you trying to pull?

Then you have shown you know nothing

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6417352:

Yes, I imagine that your research into the MMM is right up there with your research into the trial of the men who murdered Joseph Smith.

I think that I have shown your bias in this matter sufficiently, and for me, the conversation with you on this is over.

Silly girl. Of course I have bias. You have shown yours. We all have a bias.

The difference is, I research all sides, you read a Mormon author and figure you know it all.

Grow up. This is the adult table.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems anyone who disagrees with any version of Mormon history, presented by Mormons, is showing their ignorance according to you dianaiad.

Tell me, were there ever any Mormons, including Joseph Smith, that ever did anything wrong according to you? Please provide some examples, and feel free to ‘dumb it down’ for those of us who disagree with things already discussed.

Prodigal Son, Atticus went on and on about how horrible Joseph was…and you are accepting everything he said, aren’t you?

Even though he said that Joseph married 13 year old girls—he didn’t. Even though he is so uninformed about the events surrounding the issue that he, a lawyer, was not aware that men were tried for Joseph’s murder–men who, by the way, later in life not only admitted their involvement but who were quite forthright and proud of it–who were found ‘not guilty’ at their trial.

Disagreeing with LDS INTERPRETATION of history is a matter of opinion and attitude. However, complete and total ignorance of actual, provable historical facts is not ME being difficult. It’s Atticus forming opinions, and expressing them, as a result of incomplete and faulty evidence–and being unwilling to look at facts.

You don’t like Mormons. You don’t like Mormonism. You don’t like Joseph Smith. I get that.

However, not liking any of the above is no excuse for lying and mistating actual historical facts in order to discredit any of the three. In fact, if you have to resort to such things, it makes reasonable people wonder if the actual truth would be all that discrediting, y’know?

that’s the problem with ‘lying for Jesus.’ It tends to backfire when you get caught.

 

[dianaiad]

You said that you were careful to not include their “cupability”.

No. I wrote, (and I quote…) “You will notice that I went out of my way to absolve the Fanchers from culpability.”

Not exactly the same thing as being 'careful not to include their culpability. ’ In fact, it is a very different thing.

The only reason I can think of for your mistaken reading of that one is, perhaps, that as a Catholic the word ‘absolve’ means, theologically to ‘forgive.’ However, AMD, please remember that ***I am not a Catholic. ***“Absolve” is more likely to mean 'recognize that there is no responsibility/fault." as in “free from any question of guilt.” (dictionary definition.) ‘found innocent’ ‘vindicated.’ It is the word used when a judge clears an innocent person from all hint of guilt.

In other words, AMD, what I wrote, and what you deliberately skewed to mean something else because you have a very biased eye, is that in no way do I believe that the Fanchers are culpable for what happened to them, or that they deserved what happened to them, and I said that frequently and with emphasis. Got it?

I’m irritible this morning…but even if I were NOT irritible this morning, I’d still be tempted to tell you to learn to read, and for crying out loud get a dictionary when you DO.

Well, according to the dictionary, “to be culpable” is to be responsible for wrong or error; to be deserving censure; to be blameworthy.

Right. and to absolve someone from culpability means that you don’t think that they WERE responsible for wrong or error, or are blameworthy.

The women and children were hardly to be blamed.

You are quite right. They were not. There’s plenty of blame to go around for this one; the majority of it devolving (yeah, go look that one up…) upon Haight, Lee and the men who did the killing. Nobody on the Fancher train bears any of it.

They were in fact ambushed by Mormon men. History has it that the women and children were lined up by the Mormon men to be led to safety. Then the Mormon men shot them in cold blood. And yes BY ordered it. (Lee was only the “fall guy”). Nothing was done without his permission.

Really? Yet we have no history of BY having ordered it, and we DO have a letter from him telling them to let the train pass. Your claim that "BY ordered it because ‘nothing was done without his permission’ is your bigotry speaking. You are assuming that because he did not forbid it, then of course he ordered it because nobody did anything without BY’s permission—

oops.

Problem there. We have this letter from BY telling them to let the train alone. Which they either ignored or didn’t wait for…either way, it knocks your stupid claim all hollow; the train was attacked. BY said not to attack them. Whether you like it or not, AMD, that is absolute proof that Mormons could, and did, do things without BY’S permission.

I realized that the LDS used the same words we do, but with dissimiliar meanings (ex. “martyr” is a someone who died voluntarily as a witness for a cause, but the LDS see it as someone who died in a gun fight or from jumping out a window while calling others to help him escape). I just did not realize how pervasive this problem was. This LDS re-defining of words seems to infect all words, so real communication is really strained.

this is quite ironic, given that this post began with you accusing me of writing something I wrote the precise OPPOSITE of.

BTW, it’s AMDG, not AMD. It’s from the Latin phrase “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (To the Greater Glory of God). And I take offense at your “WHAT are you trying to pull?” comment. It seems that I’m not the one who is being deliberately deceptive.

You may resent it, but you just answered it…what you are up to is pure twisting deceit, taking what I wrote, mistating it, and pretending that I actually said exactly the opposite of what I DID say. I was hoping that it was not deliberate, but since you took the time to look up the meaning of "culpibility,’ you could…and should…have also looked up the meaning of ‘absolve,’ and actually read what I actually wrote. You want to hug your bitterness and resentment to yourself, and justify it.

You would rather present what you think I wrote because that makes you feel righteously indignant, and gives you yet another excuse to hate and dispise Mormonism.

…and Mormons.

 

[dianaiad]

To me, the worst effect of the killing of JS and his henchmen was to hand the mormons a “martyr”. this magnified the importance of this deeply flawed man in the eyes of his followers and enhanced their sense of righteousness and unjust persecution that exists to this day. Killing him was a tactical error.

Well, all the above is true. Except of course that I don’t see the ‘flawed’ part. It WAS a pretty stupid thing to do…

He should have been tried for his many crimes and either imprisoned or executed (for treason) and his influence most likely would have faded, given the fact that he was no true prophet.

Problem, that. You see, save once, Joseph Smith was never convicted of any crime, and that once was controversial. There is no way he would have been convicted of treason. In fact, it was highly unlikely that he would even have faced trail on that charge. The only reason he was charged with it is that they couldn’t charge him with anything else that would require his imprisonment. The mob knew that.

As to mountain meadows, that was just an out and out atrocity,

Agreed.

for which Brigham Young was responsible

No. There is no proof that BY was responsible, or ordered it. The only written evidence we have of this is the letter from him telling them NOT to do it.

and for whom John D. Lee was the fall guy.

That’s partly true, though Lee was definitely the leader of the attacking force. Haight was the more responsible party, I believe. However, the only thing the church could do to HIM was excommunicate him, which they did.

An indelble spot on mormon reputation

Yes. It is.

that they have never fully apologised for.

That could be because you want us to apologize for stuff we did NOT do. What was done was bad enough, but you want more.

But I’ll tell you what; this demand of yours would make more sense if anybody would actually stand up and ‘fully apologize’ for all the hell we were put through, that set the stage for this; you know, Haun’s Mill, Carthage murders, Extermination orders, forced removals, like that. There is a lovely two mile stretch of Mississippi coastline that I, personally, would like back.

JS was no “martyr”, no “innocent victim”, today he would have been convicted and sentenced to a long period of confinement for child molestation at least, but killing him in that fashion was a mistake. Understandable, but a mistake.

“understandable.”

Well, that says the whole thing. WE must 'fully apologize for…what, Brigham Young ordering the MMM? Why should we when he didn’t order it?

We should apologize for ‘covering it up,’ when it wasn’t we, but the army and the non-Mormon governor who took BY’s place, who did that?

We should apologize for…what, then? That it happened at all? Well, yeah. And we did. However, I see no need to apologize for those things for which we were not guilty. Was this an atrocity?

Absolutely. I see the reasons…but reasons are motives, not excuses. I see where the blame should be spread to many areas. Do you think that the USA will ever apologize to the Mormons for sending Johnson’s army out to cover Buchanan’s ***? Have there been any apologies from any of YOU for the sort of things that were done that set the stage for this?

Hell.

It took the Catholics over two millenia to absolve the Jews from the death of Jesus, and to apologize for being anti-semitic. Given this, I think you should…y’know…get a grip.

 

[dianaiad]

Yet you can prove nothing I have said is incorrect. The fact is, it is ALL correct, YOU just are so blinded you refuse to see it. When I ask you to prove something, you won’t. When i ask for references, you have none. I am still waiting on other topics for you to step up to the plate, and you don’t. So, I DO know what I am talking about. Pity is, you are clueless.Already having one. A great one, in fact.

I spent quite a bit of time not only proving that nearly everything you said was incorrect, I provided names and citations.

I think that you have lost all sense of reality.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6417536:

Silly girl. Of course I have bias. You have shown yours. We all have a bias.

The difference is, I research all sides, you read a Mormon author and figure you know it all.

Grow up. This is the adult table.

I read an author that you didn’t bother to read…

In fact, I’ve read quite a few things you haven’t bothered to read…and pretty much everything you DID read; remember that I recognized where you got some of your stuff from.

…and unlike you, I cited both. You have cited nothing, but keep making incredibly inaccurate statements without any support or proof. I shoot them down and cite my sources.

Of course I am biased…but unlike you, the support for my bias is something other than my imagination and standard anti- sources.

You claimed that JS married thirteen year olds. I proved you wrong. In fact, I have proven you wrong with every single claim and derogatory remark you’ve made so far, AND I did it by citing sources. Your law professors would take your JD back if they could see your argument here, and you know it.

So…if this IS an adult table, act like it. Show sources. Provide proof.

Shoot, I’d settle for anything besides one of your wildhair pronouncements.

 

[why_me]

Ah…so it was ok for a “prophet of God” to act just like anyone else? Using your logic, we should never prosecute killers because others have killed and gotten away with it. Seems YOU are the one with a funny sense of justice

Your sense of justice is one sided. I explained to you that mormon homes and other property were burned to the ground and yet, no one was punished for destruction of private property. Also, mormons were murdered by mobs and no one was persecuted for murder. All of this occured before the mormons moved to Nauvoo. But they had the memory inside them.

Mormons move to Nauvoo to seek safety and comfort and freedom to worship their religion. An antimormon begins to open a newspaper which intention is to incite nonmormons against the mormons. The Nauvoo town council orders the closure of the newspaper. Mormons overwhelmingly support this decision because they understood the danger facing them from the mobs just waiting for an excuse to invade Nauvoo and burn it to the ground. What is the problem? The problem came because the printing press was destroyed. Joseph apologizes for this act and offers to pay for the damages.

Should the newspaper have been closed. You bet it should have been closed. It would be the same if a neo nazi newspaper would begin printing inside a jewish community. It would deserve to be closed also.

You have not condemned the actions of antimormon mobs which destroyed the private property of mormons nor have you condemn the murder of mormons by the mobs.

 

[why_me]

To me, the worst effect of the killing of JS and his henchmen was to hand the mormons a “martyr”. this magnified the importance of this deeply flawed man in the eyes of his followers and enhanced their sense of righteousness and unjust persecution that exists to this day. Killing him was a tactical error. He should have been tried for his many crimes and either imprisoned or executed (for treason) and his influence most likely would have faded, given the fact that he was no true prophet.

Difficult to try someone for treason when no treason was commited. And what many crimes did he commit? Please give us some of these crimes that could have been proven in court.

Yes, too bad about the tactical error. And yet, perhaps if you were around back then, you would have been a part of the mob. You certainly have their mentality against the mormons.