L
lax16
Guest
The information I read said he married two 14 year old girls. Not 13, true, but still…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
A lawsuit.by Reed C. Durham Jr.
The Nauvoo Expositor was the newspaper voice of apostates determined to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the spring of 1844. During the last few months of Joseph Smith’s life, an opposition party of disgruntled members, apostates, and excommunicants coalesced into a dissenting church. The principals claimed to believe in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel, but rejected what they termed Nauvoo innovations, notably plural marriage. Claiming that Joseph was a fallen prophet, the dissenters set out, through the Expositor, to expose the Prophet’s supposed false teachings and abominations. They held secret meetings, made plans, and took oaths to topple the Church and kill Joseph Smith. The publication of the newspaper was crucial to their stratagem.
When the press for the Expositor arrived in Nauvoo on May 7, 1844, it stirred great excitement among Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but there was no immediate interference. Within three days the owners, all leaders of the opposition movement, issued a broadside prospectus for their newspaper. One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding. Francis Higbee, one of the proprietors of the newspaper, set an ominous tone when he described Joseph Smith as "the biggest villain that goes unhung."
The literary quality of the paper was inferior. A contemporary non-Mormon critic described it as “dull or laughable,” with “lame grammar and turgid rhetoric” (Oaks, p. 868).* But the Expositor’s polemics against the Church and Joseph Smith were threatening and polarizing. The anti-Mormons were exultant about the Expositor, but Church members demanded that something be done.*
As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were “a public nuisance” and instructed the mayor “to remove it…without delay.” Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper. At 8:00 p.m. the marshal carried out the mayor’s orders (HC 6:432-49). That action, justified or not, played into the hands of the opposition. It riled anti-Mormon sentiment throughout Hancock County and provided substance for the charges used by the opposition to hold Joseph Smith in Carthage Jail, where he was murdered on June 27, 1844
lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm
Calling for the death of someone is not exactly free press. Lets see what happens today to any newspaper the incites people to act against another people and calls for some to be hung.
And if anyone went and just destroyed it, they would be put in jail, like, for example, Joseph was
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Yes. There are ways to do that. The lawful way is to get a court injunction. The unlawful way is to destroy it. That could a person put in jail.Not exactly. If an enemy begins to publish a rag to incite the masses against a people, that newspaper deserves to be shut down. Not to do so, could have meant the death of many innocent people living in Nauvoo. The nauvoo town council did the correct decision when one considers the persecution mormons experienced before they entered Nauvoo.
Oh…wait…it did
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Ah, Bagley again. That’s not second hand evidence. that’s fourth and fifth hand evidence.
lol…first, I did not care all that much for Bagley, but he presented decent information. Secind, funny how when it hurts your position, it is “fouth and fifth hand evidence” but when it fits your agenda, it is good evidence. Why not prove it was 4th and 5th hand evidence? Because you can;t.
The description of those letters is ALSO there. Bagly’s opinion of them is not proof that they do what he claims they do.
Fine. But you saying it does not prove anything means nothing. He has read them, you have not. Now, if you have proof he is a liar, present your evidence. Without proof, he should be taken at his word
After all, Bagly claims that Young’s mere presence in Salt Lake City proves that he was responsible, because he was establishing his alibi.
Silly. That is not the reason Bagley says BY was involved. It was deeper than that and, if you really read the book, you would know that
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
AtticusFinch;6419462:
Oh, by the way, I never claimed that anybody was being paid to lie. Would you care to show me where I did? I DID say that several of the murderers were given new clothes and feted. That wasn’t in payment for lying. It was a reward for murdering Joseph and Hyrum.I did more than that. The website had a copy of the newspaper in which the court case was published, complete with the publishing date, newspaper and all identifying information. The website itself is a very credible one. The book title was given to you, with the author. All quite legitimate references.
So? Your point is there was a trial. I never said there wasn’t. PLEASE LEARN TO READ
You were never clear about why they were given new clothes (which is still a payment). So, now you can porove they were given new clothes. Next, you can prove that they were given new clothes for murdering someone. I will wait for your proof…(a LONG TIME, since you can;t prove it)
You claim that Joseph married thirteen year old girls. You provide no proof of this. I gave you the names and ages of the youngest of his brides, information that disproves your claim.
Another lie. I even said IF I said married, I was misspoke because I meant to say had sex with. I discussed Fanny. LEARN TO READ
You call me a liar
Because you lie
when I told you that there was a trial and that the murderers were found not guilty. I prove to you that there was such a trial.
No, I said you lied when you said men were given new suits at the trial. I NEVER disputed there was a trial. I even mentioned that I read the book about it. I even mentioned that I saw the play about it. LEARN TO READ
L
lax16
Guest
Dianaiad - Do you know when the information regarding the historical documents will be published and in what form (book, letter)?From what I read, 'some of the documents" (bagly said ‘two’) indicate that a couple of Johnson’s soldiers accused BY of being complicit.
Not exactly the same thing.
I’ll await the text of those letters.
W
why_me
Guest
Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was only a man who had an unique calling. No one that I know who is mormon believe that Joseph Smith was perfect. In fact, even Joseph Smith himself admited that he was not righteous.I can’t remember ever seeing a Mormon admit that Joseph Smith ever did anything wrong. Catholics will openly speak about the sinful men in the Catholic Church’s history, but it seems Mormons have placed Joseph Smith above any wrongdoing whatsoever. That speaks volumes, whether you realize it or not. There was only one that was perfect and He was the only begotten Son of God. Joseph Smith, prophet or not, was ONLY a man, and all men are sinful, even if Mormons won’t admit to that about Smith.
When Joseph Smith and the mormons reached Nauvoo, his reputation was intact. Even the future editor of the Nauvoo Expositor found him to be a good man. Later this man would help found an antimormon newspaper but when Joseph and the mormons entered Nauvoo, he had no problems with him.
The problem here on this thread is the obnoxious attitude of a couple of catholics toward his murder by mobs. This is the problem. For catholics who supposively cherish life, not condemning the murder is hypocritical. And not condemning the mob for killing his brother smacks of cruelty. And here is the problem.
And not condemning the mobs for planning the destruction of Nauvoo because they hated mormons is also hypocritical. To understand mormon behavior one must understand the persecutioin they experienced by mobs as the mobs burned their property and killed them. But for some of the catholics here, that is okay. No problem.
The mormons of Nauvoo who were genuinely frightened that the mobs would return became concerned about the antimormon newspaper in their midst and the town council ordered its destruction. End of story.
W
why_me
Guest
Yes, with the barbarians at the gates lets get a court injunction from the state authorities. It may take a while since the state was not too hospitable toward the mormons, but hey, the mormons can wait it out.Yes. There are ways to do that. The lawful way is to get a court injunction. The unlawful way is to destroy it. That could a person put in jail.
Oh…wait…it did
And yet, here is the comparison of Joseph Smith with the Inquisition in the Nauvoo Expositor:
Code:
In the dark ages of Popery, when bigotry, superstition, and tyranny held universal sway over the empire of reason, there was some semblance of justice in the inquisitorial deliberations, which, however, might have been dictated by prudence, or the fear of consequences: but we are no longer forced to appeal to those states that are now situated under the influence of Popery for examples of injustice, cruelty and oppression -- we can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial department organized in Nauvoo, by Joseph and his accomplices, for specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian.
It was in Rome, and about the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III, ordered father Dominic to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics. But it is in this enlightened and intelligent nineteenth century, and in Nauvoo -- a place professing to be the nucleus of the world, that Joseph Smith has established an inquisition, which, if it is suffered to exist, will prove more formidable and terrible to those who are found opposing the iniquities of Joseph and his associates, than even the Spanish inquisition did to heretics as they termed them.
On thursday evening, the 18th of April, there was a council called, unknown to the Church, which tried, condemned, and cut off brothers Wm. Law, Wilson Law, and sister Law, (Wm's wife,) brother R. D. Foster, and one brother Smith, with whom we are unacquainted; which we contend is contrary to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, for our law condemnest no man untill (sic) he is heard.And lets face it…to compare Joseph Smith and leaders of the lds church with the Inquisition and to make it seem that they were worse than the Inquisition, would cause concern with the mobs because they were not that favorable to catholics (but tolerated them).
And here it continues:
Code:
We have received the last number of the "Warsaw Signal," it is rich with anti-Mormon matter, both editorial and communicated. Among other things it contains a lengthy letter from J. H. Jackson, giving some items in relation to his connection with the "Mormon Prophet." as also his reasons for the same. It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our acquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains. Our blood boils while we refer to these blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them. We deplore the desperate state of things to which we are necessarily brought, but, we say to our friends, "keep cool," and the whole tale will be told. We fully believe in bringing these iniquities and enormities to light, and let the majesty of violated law, and the voice of injured innocence and contemned public opinion, speak in tones of thunder to these miscreants; but in behalf of hundreds and thousands of unoffending citizens, whose only fault is religious enthusiasm, and for the honor of our own names and reputation, let us not follow their desperado measures, and thereby dishonor ourselves in revenging our own wrongs. Let our motto be, "Last in attack, but first in defence;" and the result cannot prove otherwise than honorable and satisfactory.Just what the mobs needed to hear. Yep, that would get their blood boiling to attack the town as they were prepared to do.
W
why_me
Guest
And murdered? We need to remember that his brother was murdered too. But for the mobs, it did not matter. The thirst for blood was desirable.A lawsuit.
And if anyone went and just destroyed it, they would be put in jail, like, for example, Joseph was
And here is some lawyer talk for you to follow:
Legal Opinions and Analyses
Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal.** At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and localities from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government, until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931. **Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America Page II of the United States Constitution Page III of the United States Constitution Page IV of the United States Constitution The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The Constitution of the United States is the supreme… Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public speech for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. … The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. … Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). … Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America Page II of the United States Constitution Page III of the United States Constitution Page IV of the United States Constitution The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The Constitution of the United States is the supreme… 1868 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar). … 1931 is a common year starting on Thursday. …
Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois, and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws (VIII.16) and a provision for the freedom of the press (VIII.22). It is not clear whether the city of Nauvoo’s actions against the Expositor violated the Nauvoo constitution’s freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows: 1818 is a common year starting on Thursday. … State nickname: Land of Lincoln, The Prairie State Other U.S. States Capital Springfield Largest city Chicago Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) Official languages English Area 149,998 km² (25th) - Land 143,968 km² - Water 6,030 km² (4. … An ex post facto law (Latin for from a thing done afterward or after the deed), also known as a retrospective law, is a law that acts retroactively, affecting facts or legal relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. …
"22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
“23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases.” (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23).
One Mormon legal scholar Dallin H. Oaks has addressed the issue, and concluded that the destruction of the press was permissible under Illinois constitutional law, as it was applied in the 1840s, on the basis that the Expositor may have been seen at the time as committing libel, or as being a public nuisance. Dallin H. Oaks Dallin Harris Oaks (born August 12, 1932) was born in Provo, Utah. … 1840 is a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). …
It is also unclear whether the destruction violated Illinois’ prohibition against ex post facto laws. On the one hand, the city of Nauvoo was applying a nuisance ordinance that existed before the Expositor went to press. On the other hand, it is open to debate whether the actions of the Expositor were clearly within the purview of that ordinance. Even without an ordinance, however, the city of Nauvoo could have relied upon the long-existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois “Takings Clause”, that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, that that just compensation be given. (Art. VIII, clause 11). An ex post facto law (Latin for from a thing done afterward or after the deed), also known as a retrospective law, is a law that acts retroactively, affecting facts or legal relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. …
As I said, the legal wait would be long and time was of the essence.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was only a man who had an unique calling. No one that I know who is mormon believe that Joseph Smith was perfect. In fact, even Joseph Smith himself admited that he was not righteous.
Yet Mormons act like he was. Even Joseph thought he was. He even said he had done more for the Church than even Jesus.
When Joseph Smith and the mormons reached Nauvoo, his reputation was intact.
Depends on who you talked to. If you talked to the people in New York, where Joseph was convicted of illegal treasure digging, the people in Ohio who lost all their money in his bank scandal, the people in Missouri where Joseph angered them and even raised a failed army to march from Ohio to fight them, I doubt they would agree with you
The problem here on this thread is the obnoxious attitude of a couple of catholics toward his murder by mobs.
That is because you can;t read. I have seen no one agree that he should have been murdered. People have just taken a stand against LDS painting Joseph as a innocent victim who was martyred. Joseph was far from innocent, illegally had a gun in prison, ran scared before being shamed into coming back, then put his brother and friends in danger by not really going like a lamb. He was a criminal, not an innocent victim. That is not to say he deserved the mob killing, he didn’t. But let’s be honest about what he was, ok?
This is the problem. For catholics who supposively cherish life, not condemning the murder is hypocritical. And not condemning the mob for killing his brother smacks of cruelty. And here is the problem.
Actually, it is an ongoing problem for Mormons who do selective reading. No one has approved of the killing, we just disapprove of how Joseph is wrongfully protrayed.
And not condemning the mobs for planning the destruction of Nauvoo because they hated mormons is also hypocritical. To understand mormon behavior one must understand the persecutioin they experienced by mobs as the mobs burned their property and killed them. But for some of the catholics here, that is okay. No problem.
Again, selective reading. That makes you just as dishonest. No one has approved of the what the antis did. But, you need, as most LDS do, to be a victim, so be it.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
First, I know of no Catholic who supports the Inquisition or any of the other atrocities committed over time, but you are truly being intellectually dishonest when you compare 12th Centry conduct in another country to what happened in the 1800s in the USA. There were lots of things people did back then in the 12th Centry in Europe that we would not accept. So, your analogy does not work. And it is intellectually dishonest.Yes, with the barbarians at the gates lets get a court injunction from the state authorities. It may take a while since the state was not too hospitable toward the mormons, but hey, the mormons can wait it out.
Yes, because that was the LEGAL thing to do. Stop making excuses for illegal conduct. Funny how you are so willing to make excuses for LDS illegal conduct, but condemn anyone else’s illegal conduct…
In the dark ages of Popery, when bigotry, superstition, and tyranny held universal sway over the empire of reason, there was some semblance of justice in the inquisitorial deliberations, which, however, might have been dictated by prudence, or the fear of consequences: but we are no longer forced to appeal to those states that are now situated under the influence of Popery for examples of injustice, cruelty and oppression – we can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial department organized in Nauvoo, by Joseph and his accomplices, for specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian.
Code:It was in Rome, and about the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III, ordered father Dominic to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics. But it is in this enlightened and intelligent nineteenth century, and in Nauvoo -- a place professing to be the nucleus of the world, that Joseph Smith has established an inquisition, which, if it is suffered to exist, will prove more formidable and terrible to those who are found opposing the iniquities of Joseph and his associates, than even the Spanish inquisition did to heretics as they termed them. On thursday evening, the 18th of April, there was a council called, unknown to the Church, which tried, condemned, and cut off brothers Wm. Law, Wilson Law, and sister Law, (Wm's wife,) brother R. D. Foster, and one brother Smith, with whom we are unacquainted; which we contend is contrary to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, for our law condemnest no man untill (sic) he is heard.
And lets face it…to compare Joseph Smith and leaders of the lds church with the Inquisition and to make it seem that they were worse than the Inquisition, would cause concern with the mobs because they were not that favorable to catholics (but tolerated them).
No, it just shows your intellectual dishonesty and need to do anything to justify JS
Plus, I am not aware of any Freedom of Speech or Press in the 12th Century…are you? I did not think so
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Not relevant. The law did NOT allow for people to just go destroy it when they wanted. THAT is the point. And your legal analyis is not cited and appears to be from a Mormon publication, so the analysis is already suspect. I never anticipate an LDS analysis with be fair and bias, based on the ones I have seen so far Either way, you are wrong.And murdered? We need to remember that his brother was murdered too. But for the mobs, it did not matter. The thirst for blood was desirable.
No, not murdered. But put in jail, yes. But again, you have gone beyond your original point, which was the illegality of the press and how to handle it. I have adressed that. When you see the fallacy of your argument, you have to go beyond it and add “murdered”. How sad
As I said, the legal wait would be long and time was of the essence.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
I think former LDS Institute teacher, Grant Palmer’s book,An Insider’s Guide to Mormon Origins as well as LDS, Todd Compton’s book In Sacred Loneliness are the closest things to the LDS admitting that Joseph Smith was not better than everyone else–that he had “feet of clay”. Almost surprising that they did admit what they did and still be LDS (since usually when some LDS admits the obvious, he is simply excommunicated–I’m sure it doesn’t matter to those who are “ex-ed” since they no longer want to be associated with the LDS). Still, it seems to me that the LDS obstinancy about the truth (that you speak about) only applies to some of the LDS people, most are simply misled and then “strike out” to others.I have to agree with Prodigal Son1. Joseph Smith was guilty of much wrongdoing. mormons simply do not wish to acknowledge this fact. .
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Both Grant Palmer and Richard Bushman admit LDS History is nothing like it has been taught.
P
ParkerD
Guest
ProdigalSon1,I never said I don’t like Mormons, themselves. Instead of answering the most simple question about Joseph Smith, you avoided the question all together and turned the discussion on to me.
I can’t remember ever seeing a Mormon admit that Joseph Smith ever did anything wrong. Catholics will openly speak about the sinful men in the Catholic Church’s history, but it seems Mormons have placed Joseph Smith above any wrongdoing whatsoever. That speaks volumes, whether you realize it or not. There was only one that was perfect and He was the only begotten Son of God. Joseph Smith, prophet or not, was ONLY a man, and all men are sinful, even if Mormons won’t admit to that about Smith.
I see irony in the ‘lying for Jesus’ statement, coming from a Mormon. I remember watching a video of a Mormon instructing young people, for what supposedly was for missionary purposes even though many Mormons denied that here. Anyway, the instructor told them, you don’t have to answer all their questions, you can answer the question they should’ve asked.
I have seen the comments of several Mormon participants on this particular forum where they have written that they understood that Joseph Smith was not perfect, and that he himself said he was not perfect. I don’t think he was perfect, but when I read the kinds of accusations made against him then I think of the book of Acts and all the accusations made against Paul and against Peter, and realize that people whose toes are being “stepped on” or whose personal beliefs (especially if they happen to be in a leadership role such as occurred with some of those who accused Paul and Peter) have been questioned because of the new doctrine some of the people were accepting and believing–are often going to react by making false accusations and “trumped up” charges. That is human nature.
If you read the book of Acts, you will note that Paul didn’t respond by merely answering questions that were asked of him. He responded by telling his conversion story and testifying of Christ and of the reality of the resurrection. This is not called “lying”. This is called “talking about what is important”. I would think that his hope was that someone who happened to be listening might feel the Holy Spirit testifying of the truthfulness of his words and testimony, and that their life might be changed in some way as they heard true doctrine and their heart was softened if they listened with listening ears. He evidently did not think it was a waste of his time to answer differently than by merely answering any question that was put to him.
You might re-read the book of Acts, and think about it. One might well say, “That was a different case”, but there are enough similarities that one can learn from the similarities, even though the circumstances were different. People being unjustly accused, wrong imprisonments, no fair trials, attempts by some to turn the people against Paul and against Peter because of their beliefs.
Have a good day.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I asked for examples of Joseph Smith’s mistakes, or imperfections, instead people have stated, ‘he made mistakes’, without giving any examples. What you have done is elevate Joseph Smith to being of the same level as the Apostles.ProdigalSon1,
I have seen the comments of several Mormon participants on this particular forum where they have written that they understood that Joseph Smith was not perfect, and that he himself said he was not perfect. I don’t think he was perfect, but when I read the kinds of accusations made against him then I think of the book of Acts and all the accusations made against Paul and against Peter, and realize that people whose toes are being “stepped on” or whose personal beliefs (especially if they happen to be in a leadership role such as occurred with some of those who accused Paul and Peter) have been questioned because of the new doctrine some of the people were accepting and believing–are often going to react by making false accusations and “trumped up” charges. That is human nature.
If you read the book of Acts, you will note that Paul didn’t respond by merely answering questions that were asked of him. He responded by telling his conversion story and testifying of Christ and of the reality of the resurrection. This is not called “lying”. This is called “talking about what is important”. I would think that his hope was that someone who happened to be listening might feel the Holy Spirit testifying of the truthfulness of his words and testimony, and that their life might be changed in some way as they heard true doctrine and their heart was softened if they listened with listening ears. He evidently did not think it was a waste of his time to answer differently than by merely answering any question that was put to him.
You might re-read the book of Acts, and think about it. One might well say, “That was a different case”, but there are enough similarities that one can learn from the similarities, even though the circumstances were different. People being unjustly accused, wrong imprisonments, no fair trials, attempts by some to turn the people against Paul and against Peter because of their beliefs.
Have a good day.
Joseph Smith had a different ‘gospel’ than Peter or Paul. Peter and Paul were truly martyred, without violent resistence. Other than the mention of one wife’s mother, neither of the two you name had multiple wives, according to the scriptures.
My response to ‘lying for the Lord’ was to a Mormon poster who insinuated that against Catholic posters. While Paul spoke of milk before meat, he did not hide things from anyone. He openly preached a FULL Gospel.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
Really? I mean REALLY?ProdigalSon1,
I have seen the comments of several Mormon participants on this particular forum where they have written that they understood that Joseph Smith was not perfect, and that he himself said he was not perfect. I don’t think he was perfect, but when I read the kinds of accusations made against him then I think of the book of Acts and all the accusations made against Paul and against Peter, and realize that people whose toes are being “stepped on” or whose personal beliefs (especially if they happen to be in a leadership role such as occurred with some of those who accused Paul and Peter) have been questioned because of the new doctrine some of the people were accepting and believing–are often going to react by making false accusations and “trumped up” charges. That is human nature.
If you read the book of Acts, you will note that Paul didn’t respond by merely answering questions that were asked of him. He responded by telling his conversion story and testifying of Christ and of the reality of the resurrection. This is not called “lying”. This is called “talking about what is important”. I would think that his hope was that someone who happened to be listening might feel the Holy Spirit testifying of the truthfulness of his words and testimony, and that their life might be changed in some way as they heard true doctrine and their heart was softened if they listened with listening ears. He evidently did not think it was a waste of his time to answer differently than by merely answering any question that was put to him.
You might re-read the book of Acts, and think about it. One might well say, “That was a different case”, but there are enough similarities that one can learn from the similarities, even though the circumstances were different. People being unjustly accused, wrong imprisonments, no fair trials, attempts by some to turn the people against Paul and against Peter because of their beliefs.
Have a good day.
You compare the criticism of the Apostles in Acts to the things Joseph did and was accused of?
wow. I will even say it backwards, “wow”.
I do not EVER recall Peter or the others accused of having sex with young girls, stealing men’s wives, fraud (in the bank scandal), etc. I never heard Peter or the others claim to have done more for the Church than even Jesus, I never heard about Peter or the others setting themselves up in little fiefdoms,. assuming lots of power, heaping titles on themselves (Mayor, General, Prophet, etc). I never read about Peter or the others buolding an army and marching somewhere (like JS did from Ohio), I never heard of Peter or the others getting angry at things they called and destrooying printing presses, I never heard of Peter or the others telling the other Christians, “God said for y’all to build me a house.”
Parker, you have a strange sense of comparison.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Atticus,Really? I mean REALLY?
You compare the criticism of the Apostles in Acts to the things Joseph did and was accused of?
wow. I will even say it backwards, “wow”.
I do not EVER recall Peter or the others accused of having sex with young girls, stealing men’s wives, fraud (in the bank scandal), etc. I never heard Peter or the others claim to have done more for the Church than even Jesus, I never heard about Peter or the others setting themselves up in little fiefdoms,. assuming lots of power, heaping titles on themselves (Mayor, General, Prophet, etc). I never read about Peter or the others buolding an army and marching somewhere (like JS did from Ohio), I never heard of Peter or the others getting angry at things they called and destrooying printing presses, I never heard of Peter or the others telling the other Christians, “God said for y’all to build me a house.”
Parker, you have a strange sense of comparison.
I don’t have much time to spend on a conversation with you here, but I have noticed that you are informed and have given ample thought to your own decisions about any matter related to Mormonism, so this is fine and you are fine in the decisions you have chosen to make. I wish you well in your life, and that you will indeed be a follower of Christ in deed as well as in word. You can do that in your chosen beliefs, especially by reading the Bible and following its teachings with love in your heart. All the best to you in those efforts.
I wrote that there are some similarities. I didn’t write that the case histories are the same. Joseph Smith said plural marriage or celestial marriage to more than one woman, was revealed to him as something he needed to do in order to please God. The principle was “following revelation from God, despite what others think.” Many, many people of course believe Joseph Smith was not receiving revelation. He himself said that he was, and that he did. Many of his followers, who testified that they were followers of Jesus Christ, still followed Joseph Smith even though they may have had personal reservations about a doctrine that seemed contrary to what they had been taught and believed all their life about marriage. (They could refer to Jacob–Israel–and his marriages and realize that there was a time when such was practiced and sanctioned by God. They were students of the Old Testament as well as of the New Testament.) They had felt the Holy Spirit testifying to their heart that here on the earth in their own presence was a prophet who had been called of God. Some had gained that witness by reading the Book of Mormon, and realizing that such a book came from God and not man.
It’s kind of funny and ironic that you would write about “fiefdoms” and write about “Peter”. Clearly, Peter didn’t place himself on a pedestal, and he wrote that Christ was the chief corner stone whom the builders had rejected. Yet he testified of Christ with boldness, and he led the people in temporal matters as well as in spiritual matters.
Others, after Peter had been killed, did indeed place him on a pedestal and create “fiefdoms” and insist that their authority placed them in a position to “heap titles on themselves” or on someone they wanted to have the people follow without question. They had to ignore Peter’s epistle wherein he wrote Who was the Rock, in order to do it, but their interest was motivated by “proving” who was a legitimate leader in the organization of the church. It seems not to have been motivated by seeking to have the people follow the Holy Spirit and find out for themselves what God wanted them to do.
I assure you that I follow what God wants me to do in my life–not perfectly, but with enough assurance that I am comfortable with the process of repentance and change in life and personal knowledge that Christ is indeed the Savior of imperfect people, myself included, and His position involves helping people change their lives for the better, every day as much as they will allow that change in their hearts. I love that process. I am totally grateful for that process. It is exciting and wonderful.
Have a pleasant, beautiful day.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If plural marriages was done ‘in order to please God’, why has that teaching changed within Mormonism?I didn’t write that the case histories are the same. Joseph Smith said plural marriage or celestial marriage to more than one woman, was revealed to him as something he needed to do in order to please God. The principle was “following revelation from God, despite what others think.” Many, many people of course believe Joseph Smith was not receiving revelation. He himself said that he was, and that he did. Many of his followers, who testified that they were followers of Jesus Christ, still followed Joseph Smith even though they may have had personal reservations about a doctrine that seemed contrary to what they had been taught and believed all their life about marriage. (They could refer to Jacob–Israel–and his marriages and realize that there was a time when such was practiced and sanctioned by God. They were students of the Old Testament as well as of the New Testament.) They had felt the Holy Spirit testifying to their heart that here on the earth in their own presence was a prophet who had been called of God. Some had gained that witness by reading the Book of Mormon, and realizing that such a book came from God and not man.
As you refer to the plural marriages of the Old Testament, please provide some examples of a man taking another man’s wife as his own, while the other man was still alive?
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
]Have a pleasant, beautiful day.Atticus,
I don’t have much time to spend on a conversation with you here, but I have noticed that you are informed and have given ample thought to your own decisions about any matter related to Mormonism, so this is fine and you are fine in the decisions you have chosen to make. I wish you well in your life, and that you will indeed be a follower of Christ in deed as well as in word. You can do that in your chosen beliefs, especially by reading the Bible and following its teachings with love in your heart. All the best to you in those efforts.
Thank you. I hope you truly study the Bible as well. And take a look at true LDS history
I wrote that there are some similarities.
There are NO similarities. The are truly NO similiarities. The ONLY thing that you could consider is that they were criticized. But that is misleading. It is like saying that John Dillinger and Abe Lincoln were similar because they both died by gunshot.
I didn’t write that the case histories are the same. Joseph Smith said plural marriage or celestial marriage to more than one woman, was revealed to him as something he needed to do in order to please God.
Yes. He SAID. And that was after being caught in compromising situations with other women. Bill Clinton heard what JS did and said, “why didn;t I think of that?”
The principle was “following revelation from God, despite what others think.” Many, many people of course believe Joseph Smith was not receiving revelation. He himself said that he was, and that he did.
So did the “prophet” for Bahia, so did the “prophet” for SDA, so did Mohammed so did Jim Jones, so did…etc etc etc
They had felt the Holy Spirit testifying to their heart that here on the earth in their own presence was a prophet who had been called of God.
So did the followers of Bahia, SDA, Islam, Jim Jones, etc.
Some had gained that witness by reading the Book of Mormon, and realizing that such a book came from God and not man.
So did the readers of Bahai writings, Mary White’s writings, the Koran, etc…
It’s kind of funny and ironic that you would write about “fiefdoms” and write about “Peter”. Clearly, Peter didn’t place himself on a pedestal, and he wrote that Christ was the chief corner stone whom the builders had rejected. Yet he testified of Christ with boldness, and he led the people in temporal matters as well as in spiritual matters.
Yes, without giving himself titles, without destroying people’s possessions, without claiming he was better then Christ, without gathering welath, without telling people God told him that they were supposed to build him a house, etc etc etc
Others, after Peter had been killed, did indeed place him on a pedestal and create “fiefdoms” and insist that their authority placed them in a position to “heap titles on themselves” or on someone they wanted to have the people follow without question. They had to ignore Peter’s epistle wherein he wrote Who was the Rock, in order to do it, but their interest was motivated by “proving” who was a legitimate leader in the organization of the church. It seems not to have been motivated by seeking to have the people follow the Holy Spirit and find out for themselves what God wanted them to do.
Christ was clear who the Rock was. But again, you are talking apples and oranges…the fact others did to peter what JS did to himself shows their differences. Peter was in it for God, JS was in it for himself
I assure you that I follow what God wants me to do in my life–not perfectly, but with enough assurance that I am comfortable with the process of repentance and change in life and personal knowledge that Christ is indeed the Savior of imperfect people, myself included, and His position involves helping people change their lives for the better, every day as much as they will allow that change in their hearts. I love that process. I am totally grateful for that process. It is exciting and wonderful.
I know you are doing what you think is right. The followers of Mary White, Bahaulah, Mohammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, have all believe, or are believing, the same thing.What all of you must do is look at where the teachings differ from what you are taught and what Jesus taught. This is why new books are so dangerous. They typically are written to bring in new doctrines. This is why Joseph’s first vision story has 9 different versions. He kept trying one till it worked. Look at even the simplest things. Jesus said to use wine for the Sacrament, you use water. Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, you believe, not just in marriage in heaven, but multiple wives in heaven. Jesus said no one comes to Father but thru HIM, Joseph claimed he had done more for the Church than even Jesus. And the list goes on and on.
You, too
- Status
- Not open for further replies.