LDS Mountain Meadows Massacre: John D. Lee was a Scapegoat!

[LindaBerlin]

Did they ascertain their findings before the Spalding manuscript was found? The Spalding manuscript is not like the Book of Mormon. Have you even read the Spalding manuscript?

Actually, I didn't want to write about the Book of Lies, called the Book of Mormon, in this thread. But since you mentioned the Spaulding manuscript, and not everyone knows about it, and Mormons only know the history from a Mormon point of view, I would suggest that you open your own thread here. At the moment it should only be said that there were two versions of the book Spaulding, and the first version was published. While the second version of the book was stolen from the printer, a printer hired by Sidney Rigdon, who was suspected of stealing the manuscript. And, one has found parts of the manuscript, and compared it to the Book of Mormon. Here are three similarities:

The report is found:
In his novel, Spaulding writes that his accounts were hidden in a box found in an artificial cave on the top of an Indian burial mound not far from his home. Only a lever could lift a heavy stone door to allow access to the cave.
Joseph Smith claimed that he found the report in a stone box buried in a hill near his parents' apartment. And that he could access it by lifting through a lever a "stone of considerable size" that covered the box.
Both, "rediscovered reports," claim to contain a shortened account of the ancestors of today's Native Americans from ancient America (Manuscript Story p.2-4; Title page Book of Mormon), both written in ancient language, written on gold plates, and found in a hill near the place of residence. Chance?
Both reports report that the original was buried together with the short version, prepared for the time when non-Jews will inhabit the continent (Manuscript Story, p. 3-4; 1 Nephi 13:35), and both works appeal to the reader to study the work and testify of its truthfulness (Manuscript Story, p. 2-3; Moroni 10:4).
So that is the first general overview. But what about going into depth if we go into the depths? Let's see what we can find there!

From Jerusalem to America - or- A "funny" sea trip

Fabius, the first narrator in Spaulding's Manuscript Story, and Nephi, the first narrator in the Book of Mormon, begin their introduction by briefly introducing himself and his own, pointing out that they came from a good family of the ancient world, and that he was well-educated for the time (Manuscript Story, p. 4; 1. Nephi 19).
Spaulding immediately begins to tell of a sea voyage, while the people of the Book of Mormon (Lehi and his family) remained in the wilderness before they set sail. Both "sea reports" are strikingly similar.
Both groups have roughly the same size and number of women on board, and in both stories came a storm that lasted several days (four and five), begging God for help and being saved by God. Manuscript Story, p. 4-5; 1. Nephi 18:8-15). The difference between the manuscript of Spaulding and the Book of Mormon is that in Spaulding, travelers heard a divine voice from heaven telling them that they would surely reach their destination through gentle winds, while the "Book of Mormon People" got a special compass (called "Liahona") from God that would bring them safely to their destination, and that would only work with faith strength.

Arrival in America

In the manuscript of Spaulding, the travelling people arrived in America, rich in wild animals, using a democracy led by judges, possessing everything together, and believing in Christ. They didn't want to marry the "bronze-colored savages," but if they did, their children would be beautiful and white (parallels to the Book of Mormon are clear here). They also built a Christian church, along with the beginnings of their priesthood. (Manuscript Story p. 4-11)
In the Book of Mormon, too, people first find wild animals, come to believe in Christ (600 BC?), and build a Christian temple. They, too, use ruling judges, and have everything in common. They were banned from god from entering into mixed marriages, but in place of which, as in Spaulding, the children would become white and beautiful, the peoples of the Book of Mormon were originally white and beautiful, and became dark-skinned and lazy as a people through mixed marriages. (1 Nephi 18:25; 2 Nephi 5:16, 21-23; 3 Nephi 26:19)
Many parallels between the manuscript of Spaulding and the Book of Mormon use the method of inverse conceptual word arrangement to achieve certain goals. Goals that have something to do with racism in both books!
Spaulding and Smith also agreed on the description of the appearance of the "wilds": both said that they wore skins around the loins, shaved their heads, painted themselves red, and used slingshots, bows and arrows (Manuscript Story p. 11; Alma 3:4-5). Chance?

 

[LindaBerlin]

You have proven NOTHING. Let me ask you this when you recount something that happened in your past do you tell it word for word the same way every time? Of course not. I also resent the "always horny" reference you make about Joseph Smith. It is NOT true and name calling is against CF rules.

Perhaps it is against the rules to call Joseph Smith so, but the fact is that he had more than thirty wives alongside his legally trusted wife Emma. And that some of them were minors, others were already married to other men. Here are the short biographies of two wives of Smith (translated from my manuscript into English):

Zina Huntington Jacobs

Zina was born in Watertown, New York, the eighth child of William and Zina Baker Huntington, on January 31, 1821. The family met the Mormons in 1835 and were baptized, Zina on August 1, 1835, by Hyrum Smith. All moved to Nauvoo.
Shortly after the Jacobs family arrived in Nauvoo, Zina's mother died of malaria, like many of the first settlers to try to make the swamp dry and primordial.
A short time later, she met Henry B. Jacobs, a musician. They both fell in love. During this time, she met Joseph Smith, who taught her about the "law of polygamy," and bemused her to become one of his wives, putting Zina in conflict. On the one hand, she loved Jacobs, but on the other, the Prophet's offer was flattering to her. At the end of the conflict, she rejected Smith's request and married Jacobs on March 7, 1841.
If anyone thought that Smith respected her decision, he or she was wrong, because, as Louisa himself recounted, she received a message about her brother just a few months after Joseph's wedding ceremony, telling her that he would lose his life if Louisa did not agree to become his wife because "an angel with a drawn sword" had told him that. (Zina Young , "Joseph the Prophet His Life and His Mission as Viewed By Intimate Acquaintances", Salt Lake Herald Church and Farm Supplement, Jan. 12, 1895 ). And God himself demanded of HIM that Louisa should become his wife. This was nothing more than a subtle threat to make Louisa docile.
What did Zina do?
She obeyed the "will of God", which was the will of Joseph Smith, and "married" Smith on October 27, 1841 (other sources indicate April). Zina and Joseph did not talk about it, and met secretly for "un-sacred acts."
Henry, Zina's husband, knew nothing about everything, and continued to live with Zina in the same house. Jacobs said that everything Smith did was right and had God's blessing. If he had known that some of his children might not be of him, but of Smith, he might have spoken differently.
In the following years, Jacobs was sent by Smith on extended missionary trips to Chicago, New York, and Tennessee, from where he wrote to his wife and children, while his wife fulfilled their "marital duties" with Smith. Was that one reason Why Smith sent her husband on a mission? So that both undisturbed ****?
Jacobs missed his family, and boasted to his fellow missionaries, including John D. Lee, with "HIS" wife and "HIS" children, and how faithful, virtuous, and endearing he would be as a man and father.
Although still married to Jacobs, she married Brigham Young, the successor to Joseph Smith, after the death of Joseph Smith. On May 1, 1846, Jacobs was sent on a long-running mission to England, and Zina began to live openly as Brigham's wife.
Upon his return from England, Jacobs learned of his "new" marriage to Brigham Young, and struggled for a long time with his conflicting feelings. He, who still loved Zina, felt alone, but did not blame anyone, but thought that it was "God's will" and that everything was "his correctness."
Zina was engaged in several charitable and educational institutions, and became the third female president of relief society in the Church under Eliza Snow in 1880, the Mormon Women's Organization, its first counselor, and in 1888, after Snow died, the third female president of relief society. She died at the age of 80 on August 28, 1901.

Sarah Ann Whitney

Sarah Ann Whitney was born on March 22, 1825 in Kirtland, Ohio. It was used in the
List of the book The Wives of Joseph Smith as its 16th wife. She was the daughter of Newel and Elisabeth Whitney, and was 13 years old when the family left Kirtland, shortly after the Kirtland Bank collapsed, and followed the Mormon prophet, to whom they were unconditionally loyal to, to Missouri. Sarah and her family experienced the problems between Mormons and non-Mormons and moved frequently until they decided to move to Nauvoo in 1840
In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith and Newel Whitney became close friends, and after Sarah's parents were introduced by Smith to the law of the many heed, the "marriage" between Sarah and Joseph was arranged with the permission of the parents (Fawn Brodie, No man knows my history, p. 471; in addition to their own summoned statement of July 27, 1842, published in " Joseph F. Smith. , Jr.: Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage" by assuming that she "would have been the first woman to enter into a polygamous relationship with the permission of her parents."
According to Compton (p. 347), this "marriage" was concluded in order to connect the families after death
Fearing both the law and the wrath of his wife, Joseph Smith kept this "marriage" secret.
Sarah was persuaded to create a Joseph C. Kingsbury in a sham marriage arranged by Smith and others. Kingsbury wrote in your diary on April 29, 1843, that the purpose of the sham marriage was to "promote the purposes of God in these last days" (Kingsbury, p. 13).
After the death of Joseph Smith, Sarah's marriage to Kingsbury was dissolved, and she married Heber C. Kimball. She died in Salt Lake City on September 4, 1873.

 

[LindaBerlin]

I have often wondered how the mountain meadow massacre could have happened? Was the cause really the "Utah War," as Mormons claim? Or wasn't the reason for Brigham Young and Mormon leaders wanting to rule the area like kings? Far from any American law that would prevent them from polygamy, murders (law of blood atonement) and oppression of believers and non-believers?
Nothing happened in the territory of Deseret, of which Brigham Young had no idea. Mostly he gave the order.
And why did Brigham Young cover up the LDS involvement in the massacre, pushing it all to the Pajute Indians? And why did he end up betraying his own adopted son, but leaving the names of the other men unmentioned?
Was he afraid of being charged with conspiracy?

 

[Ironhold]

I have often wondered how the mountain meadow massacre could have happened?

The long and short of it is that in the 1850s, a posting to the Utah Territory held little in the way of pay or prestige, and so it didn't take long for Washington to start scraping the bottom of the barrel. Many federal appointees were therefore either incompetents & substance abusers who had been rejected for postings elsewhere or would-be culture warriors who intended to use their position to force the locals to more closely conform to Washington's norms.

By 1858, the general public was growing weary of this parade of foolishness coming from Washington. Things were so bad that one official in particular was regarded as a navigational hazard because of how often he could be found passed out drunk in the middle of the road.

Into this fray blundered a federal judge who saw a posting to Utah as a chance to be alone with his secretary, who was also his mistress. He was such a disaster as a judge that he would often have his secretary sit on his lap while holding court, yet was avowedly opposed to polygamy.

Things came to a head one night when one of that judge's servants brutally assaulted a local man who had been vocally critical of the judge's lifestyle choices. The judge was run out of the territory, and in order to hide his sins he immediately dashed off a false report claiming rebellion in the territory. For reasons that no one has ever been able to determine, President Buchanan immediately responded by ordering a 1,000 man army to the territory without even sending notice of intent, let alone an investigation.

Buchanan's haste meant that it wasn't until the mail riders servicing the Utah Territory came back with word of the incoming military force that anyone knew what was going on, and this caused a mass panic. A very, very large percentage of the people in the territory had survived persecution elsewhere, including Missouri and Illinois, and so were already on edge. That a popular leader in the church had recently been murdered in Arkansas (he'd won a contentious court case, and the person he fought it against responded by organizing a lynch mob) didn't help.

In this mass panic, anyone who was an "other" was automatically suspect by default. So when the Francher party blundered into the area and got trapped due to their poor planning (they'd deliberately not brought enough supplies to make the full trip in the belief that they could travel faster and just trade as they went), they found themselves in the middle of a major panic in a region where several top officials had survived horrific events and were looking for revenge.

Or wasn't the reason for Brigham Young and Mormon leaders wanting to rule the area like kings?

The original reason the church wanted to go Westward was because much of what is today the Western United States was still legally owned by Mexico. The idea was to find a spot of land so barren, so desolate, and with such little human contact that, it was believed, nobody in their right mind would try to physically force the church off of it. In this case, while Mexico owned the land, they weren't enforcing their claim and so the area was wide open.

When the United States claimed the region after the Mexican - American War, Young and the other leaders in the church responded by putting together a proposal for statehood, with the state of Deseret containing much of the Mexican Cessation - State of Deseret - Wikipedia - and waited. Washington refused to allow the church to have its own state, let alone a state so large, and instead made Utah (they chose the name) into a territory. They even forced Utah to be a "slave" territory as part of the pre-Civil War effort to maintain an equal number of "slave" and "free" jurisdictions.

Of note is that in the 1840s, the church actually explored the prospect of relocating to Texas because of how tense things were beginning to get in Illinois. The Handbook of Texas, a publication of the Texas State Historical Association, has an entry on the faith because of it: TSHA | Mormons

And why did Brigham Young cover up the LDS involvement in the massacre, pushing it all to the Pajute Indians?

The main conspirators among the local militia and local leaders struck a devil's bargain with the Paiutes: they'd help, but the Paiutes would take the blame. It was in fact communicated to Young that the Paiutes were the ones looking to assault the wagon train, and for reasons that have never been explained Young took this report at face value.

Of note is that the federal government did attempt an investigation in 1859. Young offered to assist the investigation, stating that he could use his authority as head of the church to compel witnesses to testify. But the investigation was hastily closed after a suspiciously short period, leading Young to conclude that the government had found no contradictory evidence. (General Johnston, the leader of the 1,000 man force, had so badly blundered his way through the entire "War" that Buchanan's entire administration was getting torn apart by critics who demanded to know how rag-tag militia could make a fool of the US Army. It's entirely plausible that Buchanan, or someone in his administration, feared that if the investigation exonerated the militia it would be impeachment or worse, and so halted the investigation before it could go any further.) There's no reason to believe that Young had any evidence of the militia's involvement until the investigation that happened 20 years later.

 

[He is the way]

If Joseph Smith had been a proper translator, he would not have taken over the translation errors in the KJV. Here are some examples, quoted in the book "The changing world of Mormonism" by J. and S. Tanner (pages 115 and the following):

One of the most serious mistakes the author of the Book of Mormon made was that of quoting from the book of Malachi many years before it was written. Below is a comparison of some verses which were supposed to have been written by Nephi sometime between 588 and 545 B.C., and some verses which were written by Malachi about 400 B.C. In Malachi 4:1 we read: "For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up...."
In the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 22:15, Malachi's words have been borrowed: "For behold, saith the prophet, ... the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned."
There are also portions of 2 Nephi, chapters 25 and 26, which are taken from Malachi.
About 600 years after Nephi was supposed to have written these words, Jesus appeared to the Nephites and said: "... Behold other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not" (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 23:6). Jesus then told the Nephites to "write the words which the Father had given unto Malachi, which he should tell unto them.... And these are the words which he did tell unto them, saying: Thus said the Father unto Malachi— Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ..." (3 Nephi 24:1).
"For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up ..." (3 Nephi 25:1).
These words, attributed to Jesus, very plainly show that the Nephites could not have had the words of Malachi until Christ came among them.

These were the scriptures they needed to write:

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 23:6 - 12)

6 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not.
7 And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept.
8 And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:
9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?
10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.
11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?
12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.

 

[He is the way]

I have often wondered how the mountain meadow massacre could have happened? Was the cause really the "Utah War," as Mormons claim? Or wasn't the reason for Brigham Young and Mormon leaders wanting to rule the area like kings? Far from any American law that would prevent them from polygamy, murders (law of blood atonement) and oppression of believers and non-believers?
Nothing happened in the territory of Deseret, of which Brigham Young had no idea. Mostly he gave the order.
And why did Brigham Young cover up the LDS involvement in the massacre, pushing it all to the Pajute Indians? And why did he end up betraying his own adopted son, but leaving the names of the other men unmentioned?
Was he afraid of being charged with conspiracy?

Going west was not a new idea that Brigham Young thought up, it had already been planed. Besides the members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints needed to get away from the mobocracy plaguing them in Nauvoo and other settlements.

 

[LindaBerlin]

@Ironhold
It is now known that Brigham Young moved to the later territory of Deseret with the Mormons because he was able to exercise his faith there (many, dominion over Mormons, law of blood atonement) unhindered, because the territory was then part of Mexico.
Mormons pretend to have been the victims of malicious persecution in the United States. This was partly the case, but in most cases because Mormons behaved antisocially. Here are three examples:

Nauvoo Bogus
Counterfeit money made in Nauvoo under the direction of some Mormons (including Brigham Young and Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum) was used to pay non-Mormons.

Joseph Smith the King
Fifty Mormons anointed JS as king. He wanted to be president of the United States, and wanted to pervert U.S. electoral law by electing all Mormons only to him, or to vote for him.

Brigham Young's reign of terror
As one of his wives, Ann Elisabeth Young, wrote in her book "Wife No. 19," the former Danite Wild Bill Hickman, with the consent of Brigham Young, carried out numerous murders of renegade Mormons and non-Mormons in Salt Lake City. Hickman was excommunicated in 1868, and although he testified against Young, Young was never tried because his power in Utah was so great.

 

[LindaBerlin]

Going west was not a new idea that Brigham Young thought up, it had already been planed. Besides the members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints needed to get away from the mobocracy plaguing them in Nauvoo and other settlements.

Ask why Mormons were so hated in Illinois and Missouri? Was it because of their faith, or not because of their behavior?
When you are the new one in the neighborhood, you usually try to integrate into the community, not to want to determine it!
Here is an interesting article about the Hauns Mill massacre, where many Mormons died:

Issues facing the Mormon Church: Hauns' Hill Massacre Victim Blaming

I quote from this:

BYU History Professor Alexander Baugh

“Because of the hostile activities, Jacob Hawn was appointed to go to Far West to seek counsel concerning whether or not they should continue to maintain the mill site and remain in the area,” “The Prophet informed him that they should abandon the mill so as to not risk the lives of the Saints living there. However, when Hawn returned, he reported that Joseph Smith said they could stay and maintain the mill.”

It is important to note that Joseph Smith had promised through revelation that Zion would be created in Missouri. It would be a place of peace. He also promised that God would fight their battles for them and be by their side. None of that happened.

The current LDS Church Leadership continues to create a mythology surrounding Joseph Smith and his life that fits their faith promoting narrative.

 

[LindaBerlin]

@He is the way,

That is exactly what I mean! During Christ's visit to America, Christ cites parts of the Sermon on the Mount, with Smith also taking over the KJV's translation errors.

 

[He is the way]

Ask why Mormons were so hated in Illinois and Missouri? Was it because of their faith, or not because of their behavior?
When you are the new one in the neighborhood, you usually try to integrate into the community, not to want to determine it!
Here is an interesting article about the Hauns Mill massacre, where many Mormons died:

Issues facing the Mormon Church: Hauns' Hill Massacre Victim Blaming

I quote from this:

BYU History Professor Alexander Baugh

“Because of the hostile activities, Jacob Hawn was appointed to go to Far West to seek counsel concerning whether or not they should continue to maintain the mill site and remain in the area,” “The Prophet informed him that they should abandon the mill so as to not risk the lives of the Saints living there. However, when Hawn returned, he reported that Joseph Smith said they could stay and maintain the mill.”

It is important to note that Joseph Smith had promised through revelation that Zion would be created in Missouri. It would be a place of peace. He also promised that God would fight their battles for them and be by their side. None of that happened.

The current LDS Church Leadership continues to create a mythology surrounding Joseph Smith and his life that fits their faith promoting narrative.

You said: Ask why Mormons were so hated in Illinois and Missouri? First tell me why Jesus Christ and His apostles were hated.

 

[He is the way]

@He is the way,

That is exactly what I mean! During Christ's visit to America, Christ cites parts of the Sermon on the Mount, with Smith also taking over the KJV's translation errors.

What translation errors are you referring to?

 

[LindaBerlin]

You said: Ask why Mormons were so hated in Illinois and Missouri? First tell me why Jesus Christ and His apostles were hated.

You don't want to mix the two seriously, don't you? Jesus and his apostles were a threat to public order for Romans and Pharisees. Joseph Smith and the Mormons were attacked for violations of the law (Nauvoo Bogus, destruction of the Expositor, and the Nauvoo Legion). And that Mormons under Smith and Young believed they were outside the U.S. law. Polygamy was a criminal offense in Missouri, Illinois, and many U.S. states. Smith practiced it since 1831, but publicly denied it.

 

[LindaBerlin]

What translation errors are you referring to?

I do not envision to write you a whole treatise on what was wrong in the KJV during the Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes), and for example in Luther's correctly translated. Here is just one example:

Blessed are the poor in spirit

In the Greek original it is written as:

τῷ πνεύματι tõ pneúmati

The KJV means poor in the Holy Spirit, it should be correctly translated, according to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

Blessed are the people who are humble in spirit.

Sounds very different, doesn't it?

Being "humble in spirit" was at that time understood as a human, compassionate action, without striving for power and recognition.

 

[He is the way]

You don't want to mix the two seriously, don't you? Jesus and his apostles were a threat to public order for Romans and Pharisees. Joseph Smith and the Mormons were attacked for violations of the law (Nauvoo Bogus, destruction of the Expositor, and the Nauvoo Legion). And that Mormons under Smith and Young believed they were outside the U.S. law. Polygamy was a criminal offense in Missouri, Illinois, and many U.S. states. Smith practiced it since 1831, but publicly denied it.

The hatred began when Joseph Smith told a minister that he had seen a vision and continued through the rest of his life:

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:21 - 25)

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.
23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

 

[He is the way]

I do not envision to write you a whole treatise on what was wrong in the KJV during the Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes), and for example in Luther's correctly translated. Here is just one example:

Blessed are the poor in spirit

In the Greek original it is written as:

τῷ πνεύματι tõ pneúmati

The KJV means poor in the Holy Spirit, it should be correctly translated, according to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

Blessed are the people who are humble in spirit.

Sounds very different, doesn't it?

Being "humble in spirit" was at that time understood as a human, compassionate action, without striving for power and recognition.

So this is a catch 22 situation. If it was not quoted as it is in the Bible it is wrong and if it is it is still wrong.

So tell me, how many translations of the Bible have it as "Blessed are the people who are humble in spirit"?

 

[He is the way]

You don't want to mix the two seriously, don't you? Jesus and his apostles were a threat to public order for Romans and Pharisees. Joseph Smith and the Mormons were attacked for violations of the law (Nauvoo Bogus, destruction of the Expositor, and the Nauvoo Legion). And that Mormons under Smith and Young believed they were outside the U.S. law. Polygamy was a criminal offense in Missouri, Illinois, and many U.S. states. Smith practiced it since 1831, but publicly denied it.

Mormons were being unrightfully attacked long before the polygamy and Expositor issues.

 

[LindaBerlin]

The hatred began when Joseph Smith told a minister that he had seen a vision and continued through the rest of his life:

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:21 - 25)

Oh heaven, throw brain down!
It has been proven that this story was invented, whether by Smith or someone else, is not so important.
I say this for these reasons:

In 1831, in response to the Kirtland news, the Palmyra Reflector wrote that Joseph Smith had 'seen God multiple times and in person':
"It is well known that Joseph Smith never pretended to have any dealings with angels until long after the alleged discovery of his book, and that the manipulation by him or his father went no further than the alleged ability to see miracles in a seer's stone.

No one in Joseph's family believed him seriously when he said that the church that was part of his family was wrong. Lucy, Hyrum, and Samuel Smith remained active church members until 1828, and even Joseph Smith confirmed that even in 1832 no one believed him.
His mother Lucy wrote a letter to her brother in 1831 in which she described the Book of Mormon in great detail, but mentioned the First Vision with NO WORD.
Oliver Cowdery, then the secretary of Joseph Smith, wrote with the help of Joseph Smith an article for the church magazine Messenger and Advocate in which he wrote about the history of the Church at that time. There, too, there was no word on the First Vision, but mentions that the religious revival began when Joseph Smith was 17 years old, that is, around 1823, which was also confirmed by newspaper publications and church records, and begins with the visit of the angel Moroni as Joseph's first apparition.

Moment! Wasn't Smith 15 years old, according to the History of the Church?
In the Mormon church archives include invaluable treasures about the First Vision, such as the "Weird Report," first published in 1865, whose authenticity was initially questioned but then confirmed by church historians. The report is not dated, but estimated age is likely to be 1831 or 1832, and was handwritten by Joseph Smith, in which he writes:
" ... I cried out to the Lord for grace, for there was no one else to turn and receive grace, and the Lord heard my cries in the wilderness, and as I called upon the Lord in my 16th year, a pillar of light came from above, brighter than the midday sun, and rested upon me, and I was filled with the Spirit of God, and the Lord opened the heavens to me, and I saw the Lord and He spoke to me. And he said, Joseph, my son, your sins are forgiven you, go your way, walk in my law, and keep my commandments. Truly, I am the Lord of glory, I have been crucified for the world, so that all who believe in my name may have eternal life. Behold, the world is now in sin, and not one does good, they have turned away from the gospel, and do not keep my commandments, they approach me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, and my wrath is kindled against the inhabitants of the earth, I will visit them for their wickedness, and bring to pass what I have spoken through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. Verily, I come quickly, as it is written by me, in a cloud, enveloped by the glory of my Father. And my soul was filled with love, and for many days I could rejoice with great joy, and the Lord was with me. But I couldn't find anyone who wanted to believe the heavenly vision..."

One of the differences to the more well-known First Version from the Pearl of Great Price is that only the "Lord" is mentioned here. God the Father was not mentioned anywhere. Mormon apologists try to argue that Joseph Smith gave a "short version" of the First Vision here, and therefore did not mention God. But who among us had ever seen God? Wouldn't we want to tell the world about it?
In The Diaries of 1835/36 by Joseph Smith, another First Vision is found, which reads as follows:

" So confused in the Spirit, I retreated to a quiet forest where I submitted to the Lord, asking with understanding (if the Bible is true) and you will be received, knocked on, and you will be opened, sought, and you will find, and also if some of you lack wisdom, please God, who likes to give to all men and does not reproach anyone. Information was what I most wanted at the time, and with the firm confidence to get it, I called the Lord for the first time at the above-mentioned place, or in other words, I made a useless attempt to pray. My tongue seemed to swell in my mouth so I couldn't speak, I heard a noise behind me as if someone was approaching me. I tried to pray again, but I couldn't; the running noises seemed to get closer and closer, I jumped on my feet, looked around, but I didn't see anyone, or anything that could have produced these running noises. I knelt down again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosened; I called the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared over my head, which soon rested upon me and filled me with indescribable joy. A figure appeared in the middle of this column of flames, capturing everything around and yet eating nothing. Soon a second figure appeared like the first: He said to me, Your sins are forgiven you. He also testified to me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first message ..."
. God and Christ appeared here, but also angels, which are not to be found in the official version of the Pearl of Great Price.

In another version of Joseph Smith, only angels appeared. No God or Jesus.

 

[LindaBerlin]

So this is a catch 22 situation. If it was not quoted as it is in the Bible it is wrong and if it is it is still wrong.

So tell me, how many translations of the Bible have it as "Blessed are the people who are humble in spirit"?

German:
Luther 1912; Elberfeld Bible, Unified Translation (" Einheitsübersetzung", translation by Catholic and Evangelical Biblical Scholars)

English:

The living Bible, English Standard version (not perfect, but meaningful)

 

[LindaBerlin]

Mormons were being unrightfully attacked long before the polygamy and Expositor issues.

True, but these attacks all had a history. Here is an example from the "Kirtland Period":

Mormons tried to buy land, mostly with the help of lawyers and straw men. And at a fraction of the value. Residents of the Kirtland area resisted, especially after some Mormons threatened them. The non-Mormons responded to the violence of the Mormons, who in turn also reacted with violence. So it rocked up. In my view, both sides are to blame.
Smith then founded Kirtland Bank, for which he had no state approval. He claimed the bank would succeed by pretending to have received a revelation about it. Mormons and non-Mormons invested in the bank, and the bank speculated with that money.
Then the bubble collapsed, and Smith filed for bankruptcy.

Fawn Brodie:

"To the chaos of Ohio's banking system, Joseph's Safety Society has now... Most signatories paid five and six times more than normal for land in the booming city of Kirtland. According to the Painesville Telegraph, Joseph Smith estimated his own land in Kirtland at '300,000 and explained that the bank's total capital included lands within two square miles." (No Man Knows My History, New York, 1957, p. 195)

Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, said that, according to A. Metcalf, Kirtland Bank was a hoax (Ten Years Before The Mast, as quoted in A New Witness For Christ In America, Vol. 2, p. 348), and that Harris only began to lose his relibehes to Joseph Smith.
One of Kirtland Bank's bank officials, Warren Parrish, even accused Joseph Smith of fraud, because Smith always talked about having a cash and ten times as much cash and bonds in the vaults, and another 10,000 of Kirtland banknotes in circulation. (Letter to Zion's Watchman, printed on March 24, 1838, as quoted in No Man Knows My History, p. 197)
Because Mormons were buying on credit, and living on borrowed money, often wasteful, believing that the Kirtland Bank was the blessing of God, bankruptcy hit them out of the blue.

Fawn Brodie:

"The tipping of the Kirtland Bank triggered a hornet's nest. The creditors swarmed Joseph, armed with threats and arrest warrants. He was terribly indebted. There is no way to know how much he and his leading elders had borrowed, as loyal Mormons did not leave a detailed account of their own claims. But the local non-Mormon creditors, to whom he could not repay, sought a series of trials against the Prophet, which the Court of Geauga County duly recorded. These reports tell a story of problems that would have destroyed the reputation and broken the spirit of a lesser person.
Thirteen charges were brought against him between June 1837 and April 1839 in order to claim sums totalling almost 25,000 dollars. The damages claimed amounted to almost $35,000. He was arrested seven times in four months, and his supporters heroistly managed to get a 38,428 bail. Of the thirteen indictments, only six were heard in court – about '12,000 out of '25,000. In the other seven, either the creditors were compensated or they won it for no-shows.
Joseph had many additional debts that never led to a court hearing. A few years later, he made a list of outstanding Kirtland loans, which amounted to more than $33,000. Add to that the two large loans of '30,000 and '60,000, which were taken out in New York and Buffalo in 1836, it seems that the Mormon leaders owed non-Mormon persons and companies well over '150,000.' (No Man Knows My History, p. 199-202)

While non-Mormons wanted to assert their right, Mormons pretended that this self-inflicted crisis was a "persecution of their faith."
Moreover, Mormons had some strange business practices at the time. In a revelation from Joseph Smith, which he did years before the founding of Kirtland Bank, he had God say the following:
"It is forbidden in my laws to make debts with one's enemies. But look, it has never been said that the Lord cannot take where he pleases, and give as he thinks it is.
Since you are commissioners, you are in the Lord's service and that what you do according to the will of the Lord is a matter of the Lord." (Doctrine and Covenants, section 64, verses 27-29)
While Mormon opponents claimed at the time that Joseph Smith allowed Mormons to borrow from non-Mormons without having to repay it, Mormons claimed that Joseph Smith WOULD HAVE ALWAYS been honest in money matters.

Fawn M. Brodie:

"In the spring of 1841, he compiled a list of his outstanding commitments and found a total of more than 70,000, in addition to another of '33,000 from the Kirtland Days. It is therefore not surprising that he looked with interest at the Bankruptcy Act passed by Congress in 1841 to alleviate the plight of the debtor class." (No Man Knows My History, p. 266)

An Illinois lawyer who learned of Bennett's charges from the newspaper thought it would be good to investigate the allegations, so J. Butterfield made his way to Nauvoo to investigate. He reported the results of his investigations to the Treasury's lawyer, C.B. Penrose, in a letter:
"On the 8th day of last Sept., I left Chicago for Nauvoo, the residence of Joseph Smith & Hyrum Smith, applicants for the benefits of the Bankruptcy Act, to obtain the necessary evidence to confront them, as I informed you that I would do so in my letter of the 7th of last Sept. Upon my arrival in Nauvoo, I undertook a very thorough investigation into the transfers of property carried out by Joseph Smith on the evening of his application for the benefits of the said law, and I HATTE OVER MY EXPECTATIONS, SUCCESS; I found that after the adoption of the Bankruptcy Act and after he had collected the debts, the court ruling was therefore issued in favour of the United States against him, voluntary transfers of properties of a level that would be far enough to comply with the said judgment, to HIS WOMEN and his SMALL CHILDREN and friends without any consideration; I found that ALL statements made by Gen. Bennett in relation to JOSEPH SMITHS, THE RELATED TRANSFERS OF HIS PROPERTY were TRUE, and that there were MANY OTHER RELATED OVERRAGATIONS that were not mentioned by him... I am ready to cite THE SPECIAL ACTS OF JOSEPH SMITHS so that they will prevent his liberation." (Letter from J. Butterfield, U.S. Attorney for the District of Illinois, to C.B. Penrose, Attorney of the Treasury, of Oct. 13, 1842, found in the National Archives of the United States, Reports of the Attorney general of the Treasury, Report Group 206, MicrofilmCopy)

The attempt to prevent Joseph Smith from benefiting from the Bankruptcy Act was crowned with success, as evidenced by a letter written by Butterfield to Penrose on August 6, 1844.
Decades later, Mormons were heavily indebted, and only their escape from Nauvoo to the West after the death of Joseph Smith to the "Territory of Deseret", today's Utah (as well as parts of Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming), saved the Mormons from complete bankruptcy.

 

[Ironhold]

@Ironhold
This was partly the case, but in most cases because Mormons behaved antisocially.

Uh... No.

It's *far* more complicated than what you say.

For example, one key issue that led to the violence in Missouri was the fact that while Missouri was classed as a "slave" state, most Mormons - including several top leaders - were opposed to slavery, with one Mormon publication even extending an open invitation to all free blacks who could make their own way. This was a major point of contention between the Mormon settlers and the native residents, as the rapidly-growing Mormon population meant that if the church gained a majority it could lead to them voting to end slavery.

Other issues included the commune-style economic system in which members tended to trade among themselves, jealousy over how quickly the Mormons were building up, the usual stock-standard issues of religious ignorance, and the Mormons' distrust of outsiders. Tensions were *already* high at the time of the Salt Sermon, where a sermon issued against dissenters was taken by outsiders to be a call for war.

This eventually led to the Gallatin Voting Battle, where a mob tried to prevent Mormons living in Gallatin County from voting in an election. This incident is what kicked off the "Missouri Conflict".

Seriously... what sources are you getting your information from? Even non-Mormon sources, like Furniss' work, make this quite clear.