Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[AtticusFinch]

Atticus,
To assume that freedom of the press means that a newspaper or newsletter being sent to a widespread audience and being given to other newspapers to spread the same message, wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children, is to assume an erroneous belief about the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was never intended to mean to allow for encouraging the killing of innocent people through public media. I would think any student of United States history and constitutional law would understand that.

Hogwash. IF there were calls for that kind of conduct, the proper thing to do, if you are within the law, is to get an immediete court injunction to stop the printing of newspapers until a hearing is held. What was done was against the law. You seem to decry mob conduct only when it is against what you like and not when the mob is LDS.

 

[dianaiad]

But it still leaves the question of people taking the law into their own hands…

YOU may not like it, but Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council did do this in a way that was lawful to them. Later court action might have the right to repeal what they did, but YOU do not have the right to decide that a city council ‘took the law into their own hands’ erroniously. After all, the law WAS in their hands. That’s part of the job of being the city council.

Do such government agencies sometimes do dumb stuff, and stuff that is later repealed or found to be unlawful by a court of law? Sure. I hope that this…thing…that was done to us yesterday is eventually found to be one of those things. However, JUST like this…thing…that was done to us yesterday, what happened with the printing press was done lawfully according to the city charter and has never been found to be unlawful by any court.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, folks killed Mormons, so the Mormons killed folks. Makes perfect sense.

Refering to the MMM again, I see. I don’t think you want to compare numbers, Xavier. You really, really, REALLY do not want to compare numbers and incidents. Doesn’t it seem odd, even to you, that the ONLY such event you can point at is the MMM? I can list event upon rape upon murder upon theft upon persecution upon violence upon mob action…and you have one incident. True, the MMM was an atrocity, and rings in the imagination. However, that’s it. That’s all you have, and I can bury you in what was done TO us, as opposed to that. In fact, our ‘loving neighbors’ took more innocent lives and ensured the death of more children in one signature than nine or ten MMM’s took.

…and I, at least, regret and deplore the MMM. I have never once, in the last year or so of being on CAF, had a single person say 'I don’t condone…" whatever it is they aren’t condoning…without following it up with some form of 'but they DESERVED it!"

 

[AtticusFinch]

Refering to the MMM again, I see. I don’t think you want to compare numbers, Xavier. You really, really, REALLY do not want to compare numbers and incidents. Doesn’t it seem odd, even to you, that the ONLY such event you can point at is the MMM? I can list event upon rape upon murder upon theft upon persecution upon violence upon mob action…and you have one incident. True, the MMM was an atrocity, and rings in the imagination. However, that’s it. That’s all you have, and I can bury you in what was done TO us, as opposed to that. In fact, our ‘loving neighbors’ took more innocent lives and ensured the death of more children in one signature than nine or ten MMM’s took.

…and I, at least, regret and deplore the MMM. I have never once, in the last year or so of being on CAF, had a single person say 'I don’t condone…" whatever it is they aren’t condoning…without following it up with some form of 'but they DESERVED it!"

Again, Diana lies. First, I said on several occasions that I do not condone any wrong done to LDS people. Second, I have NEVER said they deserve it.

What I HAVE done is correct the record when LDS paint Joseph as an innocent victim, AND when they cry out against mob conduct, I remind them of MMM. When I do, people like Diana seem to justify MMM. Unarmed men, women and children were brutally murdered and young children kidnapped. Frankly, in all the history of what happened TO Mormons, was there EVER an incident as bad as MMM.

 

[ParkerD]

Please provide a quote from the Expositor that backs up what I put in bold. It is available online, here.

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

 

[Xavierlives]

Then why did you decide to make it an ‘argument’?

Well, err… I believe it was you that was trying to make it less than a sword. I’m just making it a sword again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, err… I believe it was you that was trying to make it less than a sword. I’m just making it a sword again.

A ‘dirk’ is much less than a ‘sabre’.

From the two different types, as translated from the Greek below:

Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Probably of foreign origin; a sabre, that is, a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively): - sword.

 

[Xavierlives]

Refering to the MMM again, I see. I don’t think you want to compare numbers, Xavier. You really, really, REALLY do not want to compare numbers and incidents. Doesn’t it seem odd, even to you, that the ONLY such event you can point at is the MMM? I can list event upon rape upon murder upon theft upon persecution upon violence upon mob action…and you have one incident. True, the MMM was an atrocity, and rings in the imagination. However, that’s it. That’s all you have, and I can bury you in what was done TO us, as opposed to that. In fact, our ‘loving neighbors’ took more innocent lives and ensured the death of more children in one signature than nine or ten MMM’s took.

…and I, at least, regret and deplore the MMM. I have never once, in the last year or so of being on CAF, had a single person say 'I don’t condone…" whatever it is they aren’t condoning…without following it up with some form of 'but they DESERVED it!"

I’m guessing MMM was the ambush and killing of those wayfayers. Whether Brigham Young ordered it or not, makes no difference. Killing is Killing. I have said it time and again that one atrocity is equal to any other. When someone puts aside his faith to kill another, nothing good is gained. As to events or times of Mormon persecution is completely irrelevant. We can not say those persecutions were done in the name of any other faith (just as you will likely disclaim the Mormon involvement in the ambush).

The only real thing of interest is your continued use of these events as some Mormon merit badge that you wear. I haven’t heard of any Mormons being killed lately. I haven’t heard of any Mormons being taken to the town square and being whipped, but I can name a Christian from my former hometown who was killed for being a Christian. I’m not continually bringing that forward as an example of tension between faiths. It is a testimonial moment. It is a story to tell of a love that a man had enough to share his faith and was eventually killed.

 

[Xavierlives]

A ‘dirk’ is much less than a ‘sabre’.

From the two different types, as translated from the Greek below:

Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Probably of foreign origin; a sabre, that is, a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively): - sword.

Yes. I saw it the first time you posted it. But a sword is a sword. In this case we are talking about an instrument that can take off an ear. In this case it was taken off with a sheathed sword. Christ told him to re-sheath the sword and then He said, “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” We aren’t talking about a penknife or a butter knife. We are talking about an item that requires a sheath because it is sharpened and can inflict somewhat instant injury with slight effort.

While your belief that this is something other than a sword is interesting, we can see that if I weilded a machette in ancient times, it would be called a sword. If I wielded a swiss army knife, it might even be called a sword. But to cut someone’s ear off with my swiss army knife, I’d need someone to hold the victim down and I’d need a few moments. I wouldn’t need any assistance with a machette and I’d be able to do it somewhat instantly because it is sword-like.

 

[twopekinguys]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes. I saw it the first time you posted it. But a sword is a sword. In this case we are talking about an instrument that can take off an ear. In this case it was taken off with a sheathed sword. Christ told him to re-sheath the sword and then He said, “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” We aren’t talking about a penknife or a butter knife. We are talking about an item that requires a sheath because it is sharpened and can inflict somewhat instant injury with slight effort.

While your belief that this is something other than a sword is interesting, we can see that if I weilded a machette in ancient times, it would be called a sword. If I wielded a swiss army knife, it might even be called a sword. But to cut someone’s ear off with my swiss army knife, I’d need someone to hold the victim down and I’d need a few moments. I wouldn’t need any assistance with a machette and I’d be able to do it somewhat instantly because it is sword-like.

What you fail to recognize is that one, such as the Apostles had, could have been a ‘tool’ of the times. Under the old covenant it’s easy to understand a tool like a sacrificial knife, which would have been sharpened to the point it could have caused an instant injury with slight effort like cutting an ear off with one strike, would have been an item all Jewish men carried.

Part of the definition of the Greek to English translation is ‘figuratively war, judicial punishment’. From this, one can easily make the case that Christ was telling them, ‘those who live by violence, shall perish by violence’, no matter what weapon, or tool, was used.

This all came up through some Mormon’s justification of Joseph Smith using a hand gun and still being considered a ‘martyr’. Is this the reason you’re taking up the ‘argument’?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

While your belief that this is something other than a sword is interesting, we can see that if I weilded a machette in ancient times, it would be called a sword. If I wielded a swiss army knife, it might even be called a sword. But to cut someone’s ear off with my swiss army knife, I’d need someone to hold the victim down and I’d need a few moments. I wouldn’t need any assistance with a machette and I’d be able to do it somewhat instantly because it is sword-like.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.

Commentary of Cornelius Lapide

A question is raised, what was this sword ? merely a knife (culter), or a military sword (ensis), or an ordinary sword (gladius)? The Fathers are in favour of ensis.5 S. Hilary says that the sword was ordered to be sheathed, because He was about to destroy them with no human sword, but with the word of His mouth (Rev_1:16, Rev_19:15). S. Ambrose explains the two swords (Luk_22:38) mystically, as the Old and New Testaments, with which we are armed against the wiles of the devil.
But writers on all sides explain these two swords allegorically as the twofold power of the Church, temporal and spiritual (see Extrav. “Unam sanctam” De Majoritate et obedientia). And again by the sword is denoted excommunication, which cuts off a man from the Church.

Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.

 

[twopekinguys]

Please provide a quote from the Expositor that backs up what I put in bold. It is available online, here.

Check out this website for some of Joe’s good ol ramblings too.

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/lds/wasp2.htm#052944

Make sure you read this one though.

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/lds/wasp2.htm#052944

 

[ParkerD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot. William Law had in the recent past been a counselor to Joseph Smith in the First Presidency of the LDS church. I was speaking of other language than the sentences you quoted, but to think William Law was writing as though “Mormon folk” was from an outsider perspective, then that is clearly incorrect. He had been totally an “insider”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Check out this website for some of Joe’s good ol ramblings too.

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/lds/wasp2.htm#052944

Make sure you read this one though.

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/lds/wasp2.htm#052944

Megalomania.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

Paranoia. What people “might” do.

A newspaper is a perfectly legal means to express one’s views, and is protected by the constitution. You have no response but a fear tactic.

The real fear, Smith was exposed for who he really was.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot. William Law had in the recent past been a counselor to Joseph Smith in the First Presidency of the LDS church. I was speaking of other language than the sentences you quoted, but to think William Law was writing as though “Mormon folk” was from an outsider perspective, then that is clearly incorrect. He had been totally an “insider”.

He still considered himself an insider, and to think he wished to call a mob on his own people is ludicrous.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m guessing MMM was the ambush and killing of those wayfayers. Whether Brigham Young ordered it or not, makes no difference. Killing is Killing. I have said it time and again that one atrocity is equal to any other.

Yes. It is. It is not, however, equal to ALL others.

What happened to the Fanchers is, while primarily the fault of those who actually killed them, ALSO the fault, and the result, of all those atrocities that came before…the ones committed against us. In fact, the only people in the MMM who were innocent of what happened there WERE the Fanchers…unless you can call being terminally naive a fault worthy of death. I, personally, don’t.

When someone puts aside his faith to kill another, nothing good is gained. As to events or times of Mormon persecution is completely irrelevant. We can not say those persecutions were done in the name of any other faith (just as you will likely disclaim the Mormon involvement in the ambush).

“disclaim Mormon involvement?” How can I do that? Mormons did it! I CAN, and will, deny that it was ordered by BY or any other high ranking church authority, and I CAN, and will, claim that the action was only incidental to religion; that is, the motive was anger, and revenge, and pure rage…and that in return for years of exactly the sort of persecution you claim is irrelevent. These people were, they thought (and correctly…), after being chased entirely out of the nation they loved, being invaded by half the armed forces OF that nation, for no other reason than that people thousands of miles away couldn’t stand to see them practice their religion as they saw fit. There was no place left for them to go, and a few of them—broke. They should NOT have. By doing so they dishonored themselves and the religion they espoused. There is no excuse for what they did, no matter what the reason.

Those whose actions pushed these men past their limits have considerably less excuse than this.

The only real thing of interest is your continued use of these events as some Mormon merit badge that you wear. I haven’t heard of any Mormons being killed lately. I haven’t heard of any Mormons being taken to the town square and being whipped, but I can name a Christian from my former hometown who was killed for being a Christian. I’m not continually bringing that forward as an example of tension between faiths. It is a testimonial moment. It is a story to tell of a love that a man had enough to share his faith and was eventually killed.

YOu haven’t heard of it because you haven’t been paying attention. Being a Mormon missionary is not QUITE as dangerous as being on the front lines in Iraq, but it ain’t exactly a canoe ride on a calm lake, either.

I, personally, have been stoned…with real rocks, and have been spit at, and other things. I’ve told my stories here before and won’t get into them again.

…and if you want REAL persecution, go back a year and take a good look at what happened to the polygamists in the FLDS compound. Some of those families are STILL separated—and I"m talking about the monogamous ones, not the polygamous ones.

People haven’t changed a bit.

 

[dianaiad]

He still considered himself an insider, and to think he wished to call a mob on his own people is ludicrous.

Rebecca…I cannot believe…

Oh. Wait…I’m afraid I can believe it. HOW many times have we gone through this history? William Law had conspired to kill Joseph and Hyrum, and was caught doing so. He had been excommunicated. How could he POSSIBLY, after having been excommunicated and plotting to kill JS, consider himself 'an insider?" In fact, he became an intense and violent enemy, and called down all sorts of nasty things on his Mormon neighbors.

In fact (and we’ve gone through THIS one before, as well…) He was in Carthage the morning of the day the mob murdered JS…and while there he had quite a few meetings with the Carthage grays and the others who were in on the killing. He personally wasn’t a member of the mob, but he sure made certain that he spoke to nearly everyone who WAS.

Given this, don’t you think your wide eyed defense of the man here is more than a little disengenuous?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca…I cannot believe…

Oh. Wait…I’m afraid I can believe it. HOW many times have we gone through this history? William Law had conspired to kill Joseph and Hyrum, and was caught doing so. He had been excommunicated. How could he POSSIBLY, after having been excommunicated and plotting to kill JS, consider himself 'an insider?" In fact, he became an intense and violent enemy, and called down all sorts of nasty things on his Mormon neighbors.

In fact (and we’ve gone through THIS one before, as well…) He was in Carthage the morning of the day the mob murdered JS…and while there he had quite a few meetings with the Carthage grays and the others who were in on the killing. He personally wasn’t a member of the mob, but he sure made certain that he spoke to nearly everyone who WAS.

Given this, don’t you think your wide eyed defense of the man here is more than a little disengenuous?

Diana, the sources you provide for this usual smearing of those who leave mormonism, have nothing but hearsay and mormon gossip behind them. His own journals show he was not in Carthage at the time of Smith’s death.

Shall we venture down the path of Smith propositioning Law’s wife for marriage? You can defend it and then tell us how LDS are against polygamy.