Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[ParkerD]

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?

Hi, Sablouwho,
Thanks for the question. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 11),

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

By that set of verses, and by the statement of Abraham to his servants as follows in Genesis, it is clear that Abraham fully planned to return from Mount Moriah with a resurrected son Isaac who would be able to have children and thus would fulfill the promise Abraham had received concerning Isaac’s seed.

Genesis 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the (pack animal); and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Abraham was a man of certain integrity. He said he would return with his son Isaac, with full confidence in the resurrection as a promise from God, as well as full confidence in the promise that his promised seed would come through Isaac. Paul understood this.

 

[why_me]

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.

The constitution was a wee bit different then. The problem at Nauvoo was that the printing press was destroyed and not that the paper was closed down. The printing press was considered private property.

Mormons had their private property destroyed for years and years before the case in Nauvoo. And no one was ever convicted for the destruction of private property. And no one to my knowledge were ever (name removed by moderator)risoned for destroying mormon private property nor were they found guilty of murder when mormon families were killed. Isn’t this hypocritical? I think so.

At Nauvoo, the mormon community were living in fear when news about the expositor being founded was known. They feared for their lives and rightly so.

 

[why_me]

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.

Actually this is not true. Destroying newspapers was not that uncommon back then. The constitution was a tad different back then. Also, newspapers can be sued for incitement and the Nauvoo Expositor was a major inciter. It was a hate rag founded by a man who had a grudge against Joseph Smith. Mormons were constantly burned out of their homes and yet, you remain silent. Such was religious freedom in america. And catholic churches on the east coast were also burned by narrowminded protestants. I suppose that that was okay too, right?

You like others also fail to understand that mormon newspapers were destroyed not to mention mormon homes. No problem there though, right?

 

[Sunstone]

Hi, Sablouwho,
Thanks for the question. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 11),

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

By that set of verses, and by the statement of Abraham to his servants as follows in Genesis, it is clear that Abraham fully planned to return from Mount Moriah with a resurrected son Isaac who would be able to have children and thus would fulfill the promise Abraham had received concerning Isaac’s seed.

Genesis 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the (pack animal); and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Abraham was a man of certain integrity. He said he would return with his son Isaac, with full confidence in the resurrection as a promise from God, as well as full confidence in the promise that his promised seed would come through Isaac. Paul understood this.

Just to clarify, ParkerD, you seem to be conflating “raised from the dead” with “resurrected.”

I would also take issue with the assertion that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, but that’s beside the point.

 

[why_me]

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

He as far from being an insider. He formed his own church and founded a newspaper that was antimormon. The first issue was also anticatholic refering to Joseph Smith as a grand inquisitor towering over the inquisition and ‘popery’. The way the articles were written the mob was ready to act. No doubt about it. And in fact they were heading to Nauvoo until they found out that Joseph Smith was in prison.

 

[why_me]

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.

You are correct. It is one thing to make a claim and then use language that can be considered inciteful as the Expositor language was. It was designed to get the outsiders not just to hate Joseph Smith but also any mormon leader. And in fact, Hyrum was also murdered in that prison by the mobs. Hyrum was considered a mormon leader.

 

[lax16]

Actually this is not true. Destroying newspapers was not that uncommon back then. The constitution was a tad different back then. Also, newspapers can be sued for incitement and the Nauvoo Expositor was a major inciter. It was a hate rag founded by a man who had a grudge against Joseph Smith. Mormons were constantly burned out of their homes and yet, you remain silent. Such was religious freedom in america. And catholic churches on the east coast were also burned by narrowminded protestants. I suppose that that was okay too, right?

You like others also fail to understand that mormon newspapers were destroyed not to mention mormon homes. No problem there though, right?

You claim that Americans should have been tolerant of the Mormons and allowed religious freedom to engage in polygamy. Today most of us, including Mormons, are not tolerant of the FLDS and their practice of polygamy.

In Jesus’ time, women were stoned for engaging in extra-marital affairs.

Please stop making this an issue of religious intolerance ONLY and acknowledge how strongly people feel/felt about polygamy. It is breaking the Ten Commandments.

Catholics don’t play the victim card. We know that as Christians were are going to face religious intolerance.

And, no, I don’t think that anyone should hurt, let alone kill, anyone due to religious differences. Jesus wouldn’t like it.

 

[why_me]

So, apparently, for LDS, if you get nervous, you have the right to go destroy what makes you nervous

No, not really. But the history of persecution does have an affect on the people who experienced the persecution. What people like you fail to see is that the mormons were persecuted for their religious belief, something that would fly in the face of the american constitution. No problem with that though, right? It is perfectly okay to burn people out, destroy their property and their churches as long it was mormon property. Right?

I do believe if you would put yourself in mormon shoes, you would also be a tad nervous as the barbarians were at the gates.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Rebecca, I’m getting very tired of this. We HAVE been down this road before, you know, and you are completely ignoring what I actually wrote in order to do your own smearing…and, quite frankly, LYING about things. For instance, I did not (as you are presenting here) claim that Law was in Carthage at the time of Smith’s death. In fact, I specifically mentioned that he was NOT a member of the mob. What I wrote, if you will be so kind as to actually read the words, was this: (I will emphasize the operative terms for you…)

"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. "

As for the sources I used? Why, William Law’s own journals. HE wrote that he was in Carthage the morning of the day Joseph was killed. He later wrote several letters expressing pride in his own contribution to Joseph’s death.

The FACT is, Law conspired to murder Joseph Smith. That is fact…he was caught at it and the only thing Joseph did about it was to destroy his printing press. (Oh, yes, and excommunicate him…) Law went to Carthage that June morning, and by his own account, had meetings with men who later admitted to being part of that mob.

He later wrote several letters and articles condemning Mormonism and Joseph Smith and, as I mentioned, was unabashedly proud of his role in Joseph’s death.

I figure that if Law’s diaries and letters are good enough sources for you to use, they are certainly good enough for ME to use, don’t you think?

Diana

 

[why_me]

You claim that Americans should have been tolerant of the Mormons and allowed religious freedom to engage in polygamy. Today most of us, including Mormons, are not tolerant of the FLDS and their practice of polygamy

This just wasn’t an issue of polygamy. It was an issue of power. Mormons represented a strong political block and this frightened the nonmormons where the mormons were settling. Most of the persecution was over power and control. Not polygamy. And yes, religious freedom was assured in the United States. In fact, most of the religious sects that migrated to america did so because they were persecuted in Europe and they wished to practice with religious freedom. The mormons were unduly persecuted during the Jacksonian era in american history. It would not have happened if Jefferson were president.

 

[why_me]

Rebecca, I’m getting very tired of this. We HAVE been down this road before, you know, and you are completely ignoring what I actually wrote in order to do your own smearing…and, quite frankly, LYING about things. For instance, I did not (as you are presenting here) claim that Law was in Carthage at the time of Smith’s death. In fact, I specifically mentioned that he was NOT a member of the mob. What I wrote, if you will be so kind as to actually read the words, was this: (I will emphasize the operative terms for you…)

"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. "

As for the sources I used? Why, William Law’s own journals. HE wrote that he was in Carthage the morning of the day Joseph was killed. He later wrote several letters expressing pride in his own contribution to Joseph’s death.

The FACT is, Law conspired to murder Joseph Smith. That is fact…he was caught at it and the only thing Joseph did about it was to destroy his printing press. (Oh, yes, and excommunicate him…) Law went to Carthage that June morning, and by his own account, had meetings with men who later admitted to being part of that mob.

He later wrote several letters and articles condemning Mormonism and Joseph Smith and, as I mentioned, was unabashedly proud of his role in Joseph’s death.

I figure that if Law’s diaries and letters are good enough sources for you to use, they are certainly good enough for ME to use, don’t you think?

Diana

Oh diana, diana, this all will fall on deaf ears and it will be completely forgotten tomorrow when someone will claim the opposite, forgetting what you just wrote because it doesn’t fit the viewpoint of antimormon catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

Just to clarify, ParkerD, you seem to be conflating “raised from the dead” with “resurrected.”

I would also take issue with the assertion that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, but that’s beside the point.

(grin)

Well, with a screen name like ‘Sunstone,’ what else would you do but ‘take issue’ with this?

However, in this case, in regard to Abraham and Isaac, I would give parker a break; quite a few of the non-Mormon people on this forum fold stuff like Lazarus’ rise from the dead into the greater term ‘resurrection,’ whether that is an accurate term or not.

 

[Sunstone]

(grin)

Well, with a screen name like ‘Sunstone,’ what else would you do but ‘take issue’ with this?

However, in this case, in regard to Abraham and Isaac, I would give parker a break; quite a few of the non-Mormon people on this forum fold stuff like Lazarus’ rise from the dead into the greater term ‘resurrection,’ whether that is an accurate term or not.

Indeed.

 

[lax16]

This just wasn’t an issue of polygamy. It was an issue of power. Mormons represented a strong political block and this frightened the nonmormons where the mormons were settling. Most of the persecution was over power and control. Not polygamy. And yes, religious freedom was assured in the United States. In fact, most of the religious sects that migrated to america did so because they were persecuted in Europe and they wished to practice with religious freedom. The mormons were unduly persecuted during the Jacksonian era in american history. It would not have happened if Jefferson were president.

You can bring this back to religious persecution all day long and I will continue to remind you that TO THIS DAY, polygamy is looked at with disdain. The Mormons don’t like it either. I certainly wouldn’t expect Americans 1800 years ago to be as enlightened as they are today regarding religious tolerance.

How long did the Mormons reside in Missouri? How many Mormons were there? Women were unable to vote, so how many Mormon men were there? I know there must have been a shortage of men because my Mormon friend said that’s why they resorted to polygamy. Anyway, how many Mormon men were there to create a threat of power and control?

 

[AtticusFinch]

The constitution was a wee bit different then.

um…Freedom of the Press was one of the original 10. So, no, that part was not a wee bit different

The problem at Nauvoo was that the printing press was destroyed and not that the paper was closed down. The printing press was considered private property.

So, for Mormons, not only do they disregard the Constitution, they disregard private property

Mormons had their private property destroyed for years and years before the case in Nauvoo.

So that makes it right?

And no one was ever convicted for the destruction of private property.

Because they always left and did not pursue the issue most of the time

And no one to my knowledge were ever (name removed by moderator)risoned for destroying mormon private property nor were they found guilty of murder when mormon families were killed. Isn’t this hypocritical? I think so.

Ah…so what you are saying is, in the Joseph Smith translation, the Bible says, do unto as as they did unto you?

 

[dianaiad]

You claim that Americans should have been tolerant of the Mormons and allowed religious freedom to engage in polygamy. Today most of us, including Mormons, are not tolerant of the FLDS and their practice of polygamy.

Actually, We Mormons are alittle more forgiving of this sort of difference than our Baptist Texas Bible Belt friends are. Or else we learn from our mistakes, either way. The point is, it wasn’t the MORMONS who invaded the Texas FLDS compound.

As well, your position begs the question; it isn’t whether we ARE tolerant. It’s whether we SHOULD BE tolerant. I’m rather a fan of religious liberty, all things considered.

In Jesus’ time, women were stoned for engaging in extra-marital affairs.

Unless, of course, Jesus Himself was involved in the situation.

Please stop making this an issue of religious intolerance ONLY and acknowledge how strongly people feel/felt about polygamy. It is breaking the Ten Commandments.

Uh, no…it’s not, actually.

Catholics don’t play the victim card. We know that as Christians were are going to face religious intolerance.

OH piffle. If you call relating facts about persecution ‘playing the victim card’ then Catholics do it all the time. What is the saying “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?” Well, ONE of those ‘nothings’ that ‘good men’ do is NOT talk about religious intolerance, and protest it when it raises its very ugly head.

And, no, I don’t think that anyone should hurt, let alone kill, anyone due to religious differences. Jesus wouldn’t like it.

No…and if nobody talks about it when it happens, it won’t stop, either. There’s another saying…Santana…’ those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

If we do not remember these things, they WILL be repeated. That is an absolute given.

 

[AtticusFinch]

No, not really. But the history of persecution does have an affect on the people who experienced the persecution. What people like you fail to see is that the mormons were persecuted for their religious belief, something that would fly in the face of the american constitution.

for their religious belief? Maybe a little. But mostly for other things. Mormons woukd move into a community and start taking it for their own. They formed large voting blocks, they were often overbearing. Later, it was due to polygamy and a little fear of the Mormons who now had their own army. Some of it was for the losing all they had in Joseph’s banking scandal. You tend to paint Mormons always as the victims.

No problem with that though, right? It is perfectly okay to burn people out, destroy their property and their churches as long it was mormon property. Right?

Naaa…its ok to act like you are indians, then kill unarmed families and kidnap the youngest children

I do believe if you would put yourself in mormon shoes, you would also be a tad nervous as the barbarians were at the gates.

in a town with its own army? lol

 

[AtticusFinch]

Rebecca, I’m getting very tired of this. We HAVE been down this road before, you know, and you are completely ignoring what I actually wrote in order to do your own smearing…and, quite frankly, LYING about things.

lol…Diana, you are the LAST person who should complain about someone lying.

For instance, I did not (as you are presenting here) claim that Law was in Carthage at the time of Smith’s death. In fact, I specifically mentioned that he was NOT a member of the mob. What I wrote, if you will be so kind as to actually read the words, was this: (I will emphasize the operative terms for you…)

"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. "

um…that makes him part of the mob…even if not an active one at the time of the gunfight

The FACT is, Law conspired to murder Joseph Smith. That is fact…he was caught at it and the only thing Joseph did about it was to destroy his printing press. (Oh, yes, and excommunicate him…) Law went to Carthage that June morning, and by his own account, had meetings with men who later admitted to being part of that mob.

He later wrote several letters and articles condemning Mormonism and Joseph Smith and, as I mentioned, was unabashedly proud of his role in Joseph’s death.

I figure that if Law’s diaries and letters are good enough sources for you to use, they are certainly good enough for ME to use, don’t you think?

Let’s be a little more clear on History. Joseph ordered the press destroyed. When warrants were issued against him, Joseph’s LDS judges cancelled them. That was also illegal. Then Joseph decalred Martial Law and called his 5000-strong militia to duty and to be armed. That was an act of war. Again, stop painting Joseph as an innocent victim.

 

[why_me]

why me;6435592:

The constitution was a wee bit different then.

um…Freedom of the Press was one of the original 10. So, no, that part was not a wee bit different

The problem at Nauvoo was that the printing press was destroyed and not that the paper was closed down. The printing press was considered private property.

So, for Mormons, not only do they disregard the Constitution, they disregard private property

Mormons had their private property destroyed for years and years before the case in Nauvoo.

So that makes it right?

And no one was ever convicted for the destruction of private property.

Because they always left and did not pursue the issue most of the time

And no one to my knowledge were ever (name removed by moderator)risoned for destroying mormon private property nor were they found guilty of murder when mormon families were killed. Isn’t this hypocritical? I think so.

Ah…so what you are saying is, in the Joseph Smith translation, the Bible says, do unto as as they did unto you?

Here you go for your own reading.

1 Legal Opinions and Analyses
Critics have questioned whether the city council’s ordinance and the mayor’s declaration and order were constitutional. One Mormon legal scholar Dallin H. Oaks has addressed the issue, and concluded that although the actions may not have been wise, they were in keeping with accepted legal practices of the time.

Some contend that critics are misjudging Nauvoo officials’ actions of the mid nineteenth century by applying legal standards of the late twentieth century. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was twenty four years away from being enacted in 1868Events January 3 Meiji Emperor declares " Meiji Restoration", his own restoration to full power, against the supporters of the Tokugawa Shogunate. January 10 Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu declares emperor’s declaration “illegal” and attacks Kyoto. Pro-Emperor, and that amendment’s incorporation of federal constitional rights against state and local governments was not enforced until 19311931 is the common year starting on Thursday. see link for calendar) Events January January 4 Female aviator Elly Beinhorn begins her flight to Africa January 6 Thomas Edison submits his last patent application. January 22 Sir Isaac Isaacs sworn in as the. Thus, the issue falls primarily on the constitution of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter, not the federal law of the United States such as the First AmendmentThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the Congress from infringing on five rights. These guarantees were that the government would not: Endorse any given religion or establish a state.

Some argue that even if the actions of the mayor were not illegal under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (because it was not governing law), they were illegal under the 1818 Constitution of Illinois. Among other constitutional rights included in the Illinois constitution, it prohibits ex-post facto laws (VIII.16) and provides for freedom of the press (VIII.22). Smith’s actions as mayor are not clearly illegal under either of those constitutional provisions. Freedom of speech is not absolute; there are in this case applicable limitations and restrictions on that right. The press was declared a nuisance in part because it was deemed that if it was not immediately unchecked, it would inflame Nauvoo’s Mormon citizens and lead to public disorder or a public disturbance. Assuming that the mayor’s declaration and order passed the ex-post facto legal hurdle, it also needed to meet the Nauvoo Charter’s requirement that new ordinances must be published under certain criteria and could only become effective 30 days after the ordinance was passed. This requirement was not met.

Another consideration is whether the common lawThis article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). The common-law legal system forms a major part of the law of many c rule of nuisance was applicable without the need to pass a nuisance ordinance nor run up against any ex-post facto restriction. Finally, the destruction of the press rather than merely taking the press into custody would have incurred a taking requiring just compensation from the city.

The Nauvoo council and mayor considered that the most pertinent and inflammatory allegation presented by the paper was that Smith secretly practiced “spiritual wifery” or polygamy. Although Church leaders condemned “spiritual wifery” and even excommunicated members for the practice, the doctrine of Plural Marriage was practiced,

 

[dianaiad]

You can bring this back to religious persecution all day long and I will continue to remind you that TO THIS DAY, polygamy is looked at with disdain. The Mormons don’t like it either. I certainly wouldn’t expect Americans 1800 years ago to be as enlightened as they are today regarding religious tolerance.

You seem to be presenting this as an excuse for what happened to them, lax. It’s not.

How long did the Mormons reside in Missouri?

From about 1831 to about 1838, when Gov. Lilburn Boggs signed the Extermination Order. You may not know about that one, but he made Mormons legal prey in Missourri; any Mormon, man, woman or child, caught within the state lines after a certain date was subject to being shot on sight. He then sent the militia after everybody to prevent them from leaving. NOT one of America’s proudest moments…by the way, this Extermination Order (and this was Bogg’s name for it, not ours!) wasn’t rescinded until 1976.

How many Mormons were there?

Between 8,000 to 10,000 Mormons were driven out of Missouri by that order.

Women were unable to vote,

Actually…Mormon women had the vote within their communities.They couldn’t vote in state or national elections, though. In fact, Mormon women have pretty much always had the vote, except when the federal government made Utah take it away from them in order to become a state. That lasted less than a year…they were given the vote BACK at the state constitutional convention.

so how many Mormon men were there?

Actually, according to the census, there may have been a few more men than women. On the other hand, the women comprised a far wider age range than men…and not too many twenty year old men would marry 50 year old widows, even in a polygamous relationship.

I know there must have been a shortage of men because my Mormon friend said that’s why they resorted to polygamy. Anyway, how many Mormon men were there to create a threat of power and control?

Let’s put it this way: After leaving Missourri, they went to Nauvoo. Nauvoo, at the time, became the nations’ third largest city after New York and Chicago.