Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[twopekinguys]

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”.

Sorry, my mind reading skills are a little rusty. You after all wouldn’t mention what text you were referring to.

Maybe you could enlighten us, because this little cat and mouse game just won’t work.

 

[AtticusFinch]

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Do such government agencies sometimes do dumb stuff, and stuff that is later repealed or found to be unlawful by a court of law?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.

lol…so…if it was lawful for Joseph to do what he did, then the mob actions against LDS were also lawful.

 

[AtticusFinch]

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.

Translation: Parker did what LDS always do…made a claim that cannot be backed up.

 

[AtticusFinch]

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.

lol…see? She justifies the killing of unarmed men, women, and children AND the kidnapping of younger children. Unbelievable. The fact that BY was behind means nothing to her

“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.

Deny BY had anything to do with it all you want. Anyone who knows BY knows better. And nothing that happened to the Mormons was nearly as bad as what the Mormons did at MMM

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.

BS. I served an LDS mission in a third-world country. It is NOT dangerous. Why do you need to be dishonest?

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.

You want a real story? When I went inactive, Mormons conspired to kidnap my children. They had my children. One of the men involved ended up in the hospital. The police were involved. THAT is fact. Based on how dishonest you have been, I would doubt you were stoned unless you acted there like you do here

People haven’t changed a bit.

No, you haven’t

 

[RebeccaJ]

Translation: Parker did what LDS always do…made a claim that cannot be backed up.

I doubt he ever read it before today.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

I found this a little interesting.(bolding mine)

The “mob” who sought to “drive and plunder” the Mormons in Jackson County, “in Missouri,” first destroyed their printing press and newspaper in 1833. Both the 1833 and the 1844 acts were blatantly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, of course. Whether or not the Missourians, in 1833, had first declared the Saints’ Evening and Morning Star, a “nuisance,” their action against the right of freedom of the press would have been just as abhorrent. Joseph Smith and the City Council of Nauvoo appear to have forgotten the illegalities of 1833

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/lds/wasp2.htm#060544

Seems like js thought he was going to do to the Expositor, what the missourians did to them. The only difference is, the people in Nauvoo didn’t take it laying down.

One of the interesting differences in all of this is that the press that was destroyed in Missouri, was done by a mob. The one in Nauvoo was destroyed at the direction of city officials.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, my mind reading skills are a little rusty. You after all wouldn’t mention what text you were referring to.

Maybe you could enlighten us, because this little cat and mouse game just won’t work.

Here are some of the quotes, but I list them reluctantly because doing so goes against my better sentiments as a human being and a lover of truth and goodness and light:

“Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical.” (p. 2)

“In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be metamorphosed into beasts by the Syren tongue? We answer that our country and our God require that we should rectify the tree.”

“We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;”

“We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding, we most solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall, with impunity, violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated, unless reason, justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave, though our lives be the forfeiture.”

“…without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders,”

“…wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction,” (p. 3)

“Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints:”

“But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore.”

“…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.”

One can allow oneself to bear in mind that newspapers are read quickly, non-carefully, and one sentence can be read and taken out of context as the whole meaning of an article. To read the above quotes is to read a set of statements that would ignite both fear and a cry of “not in Illinois will we let that happen”–even though the charges were trumped up charges. The people in surrounding areas were already familiar with charges being published in the Warsaw Signal. Now they were hearing from an “insider”–and thus were even more likely to be aroused which William Law would have had every reason to believe would happen.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Here are some of the quotes, but I list them reluctantly because doing so goes against my better sentiments as a human being and a lover of truth and goodness and light:

“Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical.” (p. 2)

“In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be metamorphosed into beasts by the Syren tongue? We answer that our country and our God require that we should rectify the tree.”

“We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;”

“We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding, we most solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall, with impunity, violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated, unless reason, justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave, though our lives be the forfeiture.”

“…without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders,”

“…wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction,” (p. 3)

“Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints:”

“But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore.”

“…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.”

One can allow oneself to bear in mind that newspapers are read quickly, non-carefully, and one sentence can be read and taken out of context as the whole meaning of an article. To read the above quotes is to read a set of statements that would ignite both fear and a cry of “not in Illinois will we let that happen”–even though the charges were trumped up charges. The people in surrounding areas were already familiar with charges being published in the Warsaw Signal. Now they were hearing from an “insider”–and thus were even more likely to be aroused which William Law would have had every reason to believe would happen.

And none of that says “wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children” as you claimed it did.

 

[Xavierlives]

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’?

So I have to defend Joseph Smith if I want to continue this?

 

[ParkerD]

And none of that says “wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children” as you claimed it did.

Then that would be because the person doing the reading doesn’t have a heart. If they have a heart and read such language, they will react thinking they had better do something to stop the kinds of accused behaviors toward people, particularly women and children, living in a town near them, especially when one sentence warns them with the words “dare to come in contact with them.”

But I have no reason to have a conversation with you, anyway, about this or any subject, so think what you like, as far as I’m concerned. It really makes no difference to me.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here are some of the quotes, but I list them reluctantly because doing so goes against my better sentiments as a human being and a lover of truth and goodness and light:

“Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical.” (p. 2) Actually, it is Page 1, Column 6

“In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be metamorphosed into beasts by the Syren tongue? We answer that our country and our God require that we should rectify the tree.”
Page 2, Column 1

“We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;” Page 1, Column 6

“We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding, we most solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall, with impunity, violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated, unless reason, justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave, though our lives be the forfeiture.”
Page 1, Column 6

“.Many of us have sought a reformation in the church, …without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders,”
Page 1, column 3 You seem to have left a key part out.

“…wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction,” (p. 3) Page 2, Column 1

“Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints:”
Page 2 Column 1

“But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore.” Page 2 column 2

“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.”
page 4

One can allow oneself to bear in mind that newspapers are read quickly, non-carefully, and one sentence can be read and taken out of context as the whole meaning of an article. To read the above quotes is to read a set of statements that would ignite both fear and a cry of “not in Illinois will we let that happen”–even though the charges were trumped up charges. The people in surrounding areas were already familiar with charges being published in the Warsaw Signal. Now they were hearing from an “insider”–and thus were even more likely to be aroused which William Law would have had every reason to believe would happen.

Again, context is everything. In your first quote, you failed to consider the previous sentence.
" We most solemnly and sincerely declare, God this day being witness of the truth and sincerity of our designs and statements, that happy will it be with those who examine and scan Joseph Smith’s pretensions to righteousness; and take counsel of human affairs, and of the experience of times gone by"

It is obvious that they are wanting people to look at his past, as well as what was happening then. You have heard the old saying that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks right? Or, Forgiving doesn’t mean forgetting.

You second reference(in the stead…), if you keep reading the next few sentences you would read:

"We have called upon him to repent, and as soon as he shewed fruits meet for repentance, we stood ready to seize him by the hand of fellowship, and throw around him the mantle of protection; for it is the salvation of souls we desire, and not our own aggrandizement. "

Your next statement (We are earnestly seeking), You need to keep reading where it says.

“which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;”

Next is Without public exposition. I addressed that above, as you seem to have left out a key part of the writings.

 

[twopekinguys]

cont…

Wicked and perverted men quote, and the lo the wolf at the door. What would you want them to call someone who was essentially acting like a dicatator? There appears to have been oppression (previously quoted), along with the whole polygamy thing being denied publically, but practiced privately. These comments can hardly be considered a call for violence. But nice try.

Next comment, (but no one knows). If you read all of that, you will see it is talking about the whole polygamy thing, and the toll it took on the young woman. Again, hardly a call to violence.

God foresaken villians comment. Again, you left off a key part for context. Again, nice try, but far from a call for violence.

I’m sorry, but all of the comments you supplied, when read in context, do not in any way appear to be a call for violence. If anything, they give the impression that they tried resolving the issue(s), but were blown off.

You are right, newspapers can be read quickly, but to think that the things you quoted would have been easily gleaned by a casual reading is totall absurd. Especially when you consider the formatting of the paper. Sorry, but that is a leap of monumental proportions.

 

[ParkerD]

cont…

I’m sorry, but all of the comments you supplied, when read in context, do not in any way appear to be a call for violence. If anything, they give the impression that they tried resolving the issue(s), but were blown off.

You are right, newspapers can be read quickly, but to think that the things you quoted would have been easily gleaned by a casual reading is totall absurd. Especially when you consider the formatting of the paper. Sorry, but that is a leap of monumental proportions.

People do not read newspapers with a fine tooth comb. If they have a bias already, and a key phrase jumps out at them, then the key phrase is what they will remember and what they will think is the essence of the story. This is human nature. People do “jump to conclusions”, and sometimes it is a jump of monumental proportions as I have seen many times on these forum questions and what people write. People feed their bias. They look for what justifies themselves and what justifies an opinion they have already formed.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Then that would be because the person doing the reading doesn’t have a heart. If they have a heart and read such language, they will react thinking they had better do something to stop the kinds of accused behaviors toward people, particularly women and children, living in a town near them, especially when one sentence warns them with the words “dare to come in contact with them.”

geez, in one post you claim they are promoting killing children, then, when you can;t provide ANY proof of that, you response is to “dare to come in contact with them”? How can they be killed if no one comes in contact with them? Really, Parker…if you are going to make claims, you and Diana need to back them up.

But I have no reason to have a conversation with you, anyway, about this or any subject, so think what you like, as far as I’m concerned. It really makes no difference to me.

Yes, run from truth. Be afraid to face someone who actually knows the truth, and will actually require you to back up your outlandish claims. That’s ok. I would be that way, too, if I were you. That is typical LDS conduct, as Diana has also revealed

 

[twopekinguys]

People do not read newspapers with a fine tooth comb. If they have a bias already, and a key phrase jumps out at them, then the key phrase is what they will remember and what they will think is the essence of the story. This is human nature. People do “jump to conclusions”, and sometimes it is a jump of monumental proportions as I have seen many times on these forum questions and what people write. People feed their bias. They look for what justifies themselves and what justifies an opinion they have already formed.

Obviously you don’t know very many people who read the newspaper.

I know many many people that read the newspaper (several papers as a matter of fact) that do in fact read it with a fine tooth comb.

Many people will skim the paper for something that jumps out at them, then they will read the enitre article. It really isn’t that difficult of a concept.

Yes, people do jump to conclusions, and yes sometimes they are big ones. You have demonstrated that quite well.

Yes, people feed their bias (some more than others), and look for things to justify an opinion. Again, you have demonstrated this quite well.

But, as I said, context is your fried. If you read something you thought was inflammatory, don’t you think it would make sense to at least read what was said right before, or right after? This is something that you obviously did not do when you posted those quotes. In fact, you did it to a point where you even left off part of the sentence where it changed the context completely.

Some people do jump to conclusions. However some people thrive on doing it.

 

[twopekinguys]

Then that would be because the person doing the reading doesn’t have a heart. If they have a heart and read such language, they will react thinking they had better do something to stop the kinds of accused behaviors toward people, particularly women and children, living in a town near them, especially when one sentence warns them with the words “dare to come in contact with them.”

But I have no reason to have a conversation with you, anyway, about this or any subject, so think what you like, as far as I’m concerned. It really makes no difference to me.

Now Parker don’t be that way.

You are doing it again. When faced with things you can’t respond to, or don’t want to, you take your marbles and go home.

Remember, we had this conversation quite a while ago.

 

[twopekinguys]

Now Parker don’t be that way.

You are doing it again. When faced with things you can’t respond to, or don’t want to, you take your marbles and go home.

Remember, we had this conversation quite a while ago.

Parker’s quotes or “I’m taking my marbles and going home”:

So what if you don’t like the book? I don’t care.

I just don’t care. It isn’t worth my time, at all.

It’s no big deal to me whether he was quoted correctly or not on that statement. I just don’t care.

To each their own.

But now that I know you won’t be expecting responses, that 's fine. All the best to you.

But people like you won’t see it. It is hidden from your view by your choice, which is just fine–choose as you wish. That’s what this life is all about. Free will.

You have what you want, and that’s fine with me.
So it’s no big deal to me.

You have the knowledge you want, and want no more. Fine, keep what you have, and run with it.

You’ll be fine, and I am certainly fine, though you probably don’t think so. I care not a whit about that.

Well, jump on whatever bandwagon you want to jump on. It is absolutely of no concern to me.

'Tell you what–just disregard the whole subject. It makes absolutely not a tiny bit of difference to me.

 

[lax16]

ParkerD- You are very generous when discussing the life of Joseph Smith. I would like to talk about God.

God, our Father, spoke to Moses and gave to the people of Israel the 10 Commandments. The Law of Moses, which is the moral foundation for Judaism and Christianity, COMMANDS that one shall not commit adultry nor covet thy neighor’s wife.

Because you often quote the OT, I will assume that you believe in the God of the Old Testament. Catholics believe that God is unchanging. He is consistent. There is no contradiction in His Word. He has never, nor will He ever, ask a person to go against the Law of Moses.

You provided examples from the Bible showing how God tested the faith of some. NEVER did God ask anyone of them to sin against Him and His Commandments.

By telling me, and the world, that God asked Joseph Smith to commit adultry, would mean that God changed and was ignoring His own commandments. This means, He is no longer the God of the Old Testament. And, therefore, not the God of the New Testament.

Please explain why God would would do this?
Tell me, WHEN and WHY did God change?
Do you have evidence, other than JS’s revelation and words, that God is a “changing God?”

Thanks!

Hi ParkerD- I think my post got buried. I have a few more questions to add.

Please explain why God would choose a prophet that would be OFFENSIVE to so many people? (Noah was not offensive to God, people just thought he was nuts. Also, Noah was proven “right” for all to see)

By choosing a prophet that people knew to be in violation of the Ten Commandments, God was setting JS up for failure. Why would God do that?

Please give examples of when God has ever asked a prophet to break a Commandment?

Please explain why God would want a prophet/religion that would break Commandments?

 

[twopekinguys]

I just found this quote:

“They passed an ordinance to punish, with fine and imprisonment, all persons guilty of disrespectful words concerning Joseph Smith! One man was actually fined $100 under this ordinance, and reversed it on appeal to the State Circuit Court!”

Quoted from Southern Literary Messenger Pg 647

olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1840mag1.htm

There are more interesting things there

 

[sablouwho]

Besides the Abrahamic test, one can find examples of various faith tests.

It would have taken great faith for the people who saw the change happen to Paul (from being Saul), to accept that he ended up having a significant leadership role after having been such a persecutor of the members of the church–especially for him to be selected as an apostle.

It took great faith for Noah to spend years building an ark when everyone thought it was a ridiculous thing he was doing.

It took faith for Jacob to not walk away from the deviously schemed “I didn’t choose her” marriage to Leah after seven years of hard work, and instead to go ahead and accept his covenant marriage to her and work seven more years for his covenant marriage to Rachel.

These are examples of doing something as a test of faith that did not make logical sense given the circumstances, and required exercising faith in God and in His promises and in making covenants with God that secure the faith and show its vitality in a person’s life.

Side note–It’s interesting to me that the examples given above are, according to historical-critical method, NOT held as literal history, or in the case of Jacob is eponymous writing.

As for Abraham, Parker, can you help me out with something you said–I am wondering how you concluded that Abraham would have known that Isaac could be resurrected?