Question for Mormons about centrality of Jesus' death

[Moodshadow]

Jesus knew that the soldiers were only after him, and would leave his followers alone if he surrendered peacefully.

The mob made it clear that they were willing to kill anyone they came across if it meant killing JS.

Different situations.

Very different indeed. Jesus Christ was sinless, and there should never be any comparison between Him and Joseph Smith, ever, for any reason whatsoever, Smith's prideful boasting in the History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-40, and D&C 135:3 notwithstanding.

The angry mob mentality is and always has been an ugly one. Obviously the men who stormed the Carthage jail that day should have resorted to legal means to accomplish their desired objective, and let a court decide what the outcome should be. But they didn't, and I'm not sure that a Missouri court would have been exactly kind to Smith, anyway. But it's all moot now. He had both broken civil and defiled the laws of human moral decency, and the outraged citizens decided enough was enough and took the law into their own hands. It is tragic that multiple lives were lost, and you can believe that on Judgment Day that will be accounted for.

 

[Ran77]

Very different indeed. Jesus Christ was sinless, and there should never be any comparison between Him and Joseph Smith, ever, for any reason whatsoever, Smith's prideful boasting in the History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-40, and D&C 135:3 notwithstanding.

You should direct this comment to Dr. Steve then. He is the one that made the initial comparison.


:o

 

[Ironhold]

To begin with, D&C 135 was not written by Smith himself.

The section is actually a eulogy written by another member of the church (IIRC John Taylor, who was in the room with him) after Joseph's death.

Critics of the church, however, frequently jump right to that verse you mentioned without reading the entire section and so miss this.

I'm rather disappointed that you did the same.

The angry mob mentality is and always has been an ugly one. Obviously the men who stormed the Carthage jail that day should have resorted to legal means to accomplish their desired objective, and let a court decide what the outcome should be. But they didn't, and I'm not sure that a Missouri court would have been exactly kind to Smith, anyway.

Actually?

Sidney Rigdon was acquitted at trial on charges relating to the Missouri Conflict despite the jury and judge both being comprised of people avowed to be hostile towards the church.

O. Porter Rockwell, meanwhile, was released due to lack of evidence after neither Governor Boggs nor the court were able to solidly prove that he was behind a failed attempt on Boggs' life.

Given these two defeats, Boggs feared that the charges against the other church leaders who were in custody would not hold up in court.

...And so he ordered them to be summarily executed without trial.

A member of the state militia (there is speculation that it was General Andrew Dauniphan himself) realized that Boggs' order was both immoral and illegal, and so allowed Smith and the others to escape custody. Sadly, however, I have seen critics of the church falsely claim that Smith bribed his way out.

In contrast, there is every reason for Smith to believe that the Illinois government was willing to settle matters in a court of law, and up until the day of his death Smith was working with the governor as part of an ongoing investigation.

But it's all moot now. He had both broken civil and defiled the laws of human moral decency, and the outraged citizens decided enough was enough and took the law into their own hands. It is tragic that multiple lives were lost, and you can believe that on Judgment Day that will be accounted for.[/COLOR][/B]

From what I've seen, the destruction of the Expositor's printing press appears to have been the result of either a misunderstanding concerning the power allowed to city councils under the then-current laws of Illinois (Illinois law allowed "nuisance" presses to be seized) or a miscommunication somewhere between the council and the city official assigned the task.

Given this, even if Joseph was found guilty of "destruction of private property" (which, IIRC, was the original charge before the "treason" charge was retroactively tacked on by the court), he might well have been given a more lenient punishment.

 

[Moodshadow]

To begin with, D&C 135 was not written by Smith himself.

The section is actually a eulogy written by another member of the church (IIRC John Taylor, who was in the room with him) after Joseph's death.

Critics of the church, however, frequently jump right to that verse you mentioned without reading the entire section and so miss this.

I'm rather disappointed that you did the same.

Actually?

Sidney Rigdon was acquitted at trial on charges relating to the Missouri Conflict despite the jury and judge both being comprised of people avowed to be hostile towards the church.

O. Porter Rockwell, meanwhile, was released due to lack of evidence after neither Governor Boggs nor the court were able to solidly prove that he was behind a failed attempt on Boggs' life.

Given these two defeats, Boggs feared that the charges against the other church leaders who were in custody would not hold up in court.

...And so he ordered them to be summarily executed without trial.

A member of the state militia (there is speculation that it was General Andrew Dauniphan himself) realized that Boggs' order was both immoral and illegal, and so allowed Smith and the others to escape custody. Sadly, however, I have seen critics of the church falsely claim that Smith bribed his way out.

In contrast, there is every reason for Smith to believe that the Illinois government was willing to settle matters in a court of law, and up until the day of his death Smith was working with the governor as part of an ongoing investigation.

From what I've seen, the destruction of the Expositor's printing press appears to have been the result of either a misunderstanding concerning the power allowed to city councils under the then-current laws of Illinois (Illinois law allowed "nuisance" presses to be seized) or a miscommunication somewhere between the council and the city official assigned the task.

Given this, even if Joseph was found guilty of "destruction of private property" (which, IIRC, was the original charge before the "treason" charge was retroactively tacked on by the court), he might well have been given a more lenient punishment.

I guess my wording was a little ambiguous, and I do apologize for that. I'm well aware that Joseph Smith did not pen D&C 135 posthumously. It matters not, however; the point stands - and it is obvious to anyone who reads it - that it was the intent of the church leader(s) who did write it to compare him with the Savior. And speaking of the Expositor, Smith himself boasted on another occasion of having excelled the Savior in keeping "...a whole church together." The following quote from chapter 12, pages 180-181 of Mormon Enigma, tells of both, and it's long but pretty interesting:

Emma became ill in the middle of May [1843]. By the seventeenth Joseph missed a caucus supporting his candidacy for President to be with her. Three days later she was described as "very sick" and Joseph spent most of the day with her. On the twenty-first Joseph rode out on the prairie with Porter Rockwell to escape an officer with a subpoena. William Clayton said Emma was angry because Joseph left her; Joseph's history reads, "I was at home towards night with Emma, who is somewhat better."

On the same day as Emma's improvement, Willard Richards came with the news that a grand jury in Carthage had a bill against Joseph for adultery that was established on the testimony of William Law. The charge was a blow, and it came only two days after Brigham Young, heber C. Kimball, and a hundred other loyal men had left Nauvoo for the East to campaign for Joseph's presidency. The bill from Carthage coupled with his own nagging ill health seem to have pressured Joseph greatly. In a speech on Sunday, May 26, he defended himself with angry exaggeration. He defied his opponents: "I have more to boast of than any man...I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam." Comparing himself to "Paul, John, Peter [and] Jesus," he asserted, "I boast that no man ever did a work as I...the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this!"

Joseph then produced a scapegoat for the predicament he faced. Although the "Voice of Innocence" was written in his office by W.W. Phelps, Joseph told the congregation that he never had any problems with the men who opposed him until "that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses." In the rambling discourse Joseph alternately defended himself, scoffed at William Law, and pleaded for his people's loyalty. "I have set your minds at liberty by letting you know the things of Jesus Christ. When I shrink not from your defence will you throw me away for a new man who slanders you? I love you for your reception of me."

During this period the men who supported William Law's attempts to reform the church had ordered their own printing press. William and Wilson Law, two brothers named Foster, and the two sons of Judge Elias Higbee opposed Joseph and they found other persons dissatisfied with the conditions in Nauvoo. They issued a prospectus for a new newspaper that promised to inform the readers of the "many gross abuses exercised under the pretended authorities of the Nauvoo City Charter." The publishers announced that they advocated the repeal of the Nauvoo charters and intended to "censure and decry gross moral imperfections wherever they may be found, either in the Plebian, Patrician, or self-constituted MONARCH."

The first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared on June 7, 1844. The front page stated, "We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained inthe Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true." But "We have many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however are taught secretly and denied openly...[which] considerate men will treat with contempt." The Expositor disclosed the methods by which women were approached to become plural wives and described the general situation of polygamous women in Nauvoo as seen through the eyes of the publishers. To challenge them, Joseph would have to make a public disclosure of plural marriage. The newspaper attacked Nauvoo's political system, criticized some church doctrines, and listed fourteen points of proposed reform.

Law had underestimated the devotion of Joseph's followers, who now saw Law as an enemy rather than a reformer. Joseph called a city council meeting to consider what should be done about the Expositor, and on June 10 the council issued an order to Joseph to "abate the said nuisance." Joseph ordered the marshal and the Legion to destroy the press. By eight o'clock in the evening a posse and a group of citizens gathered in front of the Mansion House to report that they had dumped the press, type, and printed sheets into the street. Joseph blessed them "in the name of the Lord" and promised that not a hair of their heads should be hurt. The publishers of the Expositor left town immediately.

NOTE: The above was typed, not cut and pasted, so any mistakes in the text/typos are mine. All spellings and punctuation, including ellipses, are exactly as they appear in the book.

 

[Ironhold]

If the whole "abate the nuisance" bit is an accurate quotation, then that would have left a lot of room for misinterpretation.

 

[Moodshadow]

If the whole "abate the nuisance" bit is an accurate quotation, then that would have left a lot of room for misinterpretation.

We're talking about people these faithful LDS authors referred to so discreetly (and understatedly) as Smith's devoted followers - including the notorious Nauvoo Legion, who stood always at the ready to defend their Prophet to the death. When he issued the command to "abate the nuisance," they knew exactly what he meant, and they obeyed without question. "Never mind the U.S. Constitution, here, Boys - you know what needs doing - wink, wink, - now get out there and do it!"

Your response made me chuckle and reminded me of Eliza R. Snow's snappy comeback when she was asked about her intimate relationship with Smith as his polygamous "wife:"

[quoting Angus M. Cannon] “‘I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death.’ I in turn said, ‘Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, ‘I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.’”

- Angus M. Cannon, statement, 25-26, see In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd Compton, p. 13

 

[Ironhold]

The "Nauvoo Legion" was the state-sanctioned town militia, not some band of brigands as you seem to imply it was.

 

[Moodshadow]

The "Nauvoo Legion" was the state-sanctioned town militia, not some band of brigands as you seem to imply it was.

Do you ever read any historical accounts that are not published by the LDS church?

 

[Ironhold]

Do you ever read any historical accounts that are not published by the LDS church?

Most of what I've read was not published by the church.

Heck, the Wiki article on the Nauvoo Legion begins with "The Nauvoo Legion was a state authorized militia of the city of Nauvoo, Illinois."

Why is it that people presume any work which negates criticisms of the church must somehow be published by the church itself?

 

[Moodshadow]

Most of what I've read was not published by the church.

Heck, the Wiki article on the Nauvoo Legion begins with "The Nauvoo Legion was a state authorized militia of the city of Nauvoo, Illinois."

Why is it that people presume any work which negates criticisms of the church must somehow be published by the church itself?

Wikipedia has never been a totally unbiased source of information, but that doesn't even matter. That the state of Missouri authorized a militia in Nauvoo is a meaningless attempt at an argument, since it was led by the mayor, none other than your beloved "prophet," who called pretty much all the shots in Nauvoo (yes, pun intended).

As for your question, no fair-minded person would make such a presumption. There are tons of non-church-generated positive things being printed about the LDS church, and for good reason: there are tons of positive things about Mormons. And maybe somewhere there are non-LDS publications that defend the church against criticisms. I haven't personally seen them, but if you told me that they exist, it wouldn't surprise me, and I wouldn't even question it. So maybe the answer to your question is that those non-LDS publications defending the church are so scarce that church leaders feel the need to take it upon themselves? Something to ponder...

 

[Ironhold]

That the state of Missouri

Nauvoo is in Illinois, not Missouri.

As for your question, no fair-minded person would make such a presumption.

Then I guess a rather alarming amount of your co-religionists are "not fair-minded", as I've been dealing with this for over a decade now, and have heard accounts of such matters going back even further.

I've literally seen critics of the church respond to different works by presuming the author to be Mormon or to be on the church's payroll; they cannot fathom any reason why anyone who wasn't a Mormon or accepting Mormon money would say anything positive about the church.

It's even happened here on the forums to where a source I cited was dismissed as being part of the "Mormon propaganda machine" because it challenged the popular narrative about Mountain Meadows.

So maybe the answer to your question is that those non-LDS publications defending the church are so scarce that church leaders feel the need to take it upon themselves? Something to ponder...

Actually, it's not that the works are "scarce".

It's that too many people - especially critics of the church - don't want to hear anything that challenges their mindset concerning the church being pure evil.

For example, consider the situation with the FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas. The original raid conducted by Texas Child Protective Services was national news, with the 24/ networks covering it non-stop. After all, here was this valiant government entity rescuing all of these children from this "wicked" organization.

Then news came out of Colorado that the phone call which launched the raid was a hoax and that the caller was a woman who ran an organization that was actively opposed to the FLDS. Meanwhile, the Austin-American Statesman newspaper began publishing reports to indicate that there were irregularities with how Texas CPS conducted the raid.

The same national news organizations that were all over the story suddenly forgot that it ever existed.

In real life, the whole thing was a cluster foul-up. Texas CPS was in such a rush to make the big score that they themselves broke a number of laws and greatly over-stepped their authority. By the time everything was said and done, CPS had succeeded in violating the Constitution and several CPS bosses very nearly went to jail for contempt of court. Most of the adults in the compound had to be let go because what evidence CPS had gathered was either tainted, inadmissible, or inconclusive. Things were so bad that Jeffs himself could have potentially walked.

But because the national media never reported on any of this, I'm still having people accuse me of lying even after I cite the specific newspaper articles which debunk the official narrative of what went down.

 

[Ironhold]

Another thing I keep running into is accusations of sock puppetry.

Multiple posters of various faiths banding together to deal with a critic who is clearly and factually wrong?

We're more likely to have the critic accuse whoever is the more prominent Mormon in the group of creating all of the other user IDs as sock puppets to make the Mormon poster appear to have friends than we are to see the critic realize that if even their co-religionists are against them then something must be wrong.

 

[Moodshadow]

Nauvoo is in Illinois, not Missouri.

Well, duh. Totally my bad; I knew that, of course, and it was just a dumb, careless mistake.

Then I guess a rather alarming amount of your co-religionists are "not fair-minded", as I've been dealing with this for over a decade now, and have heard accounts of such matters going back even further.

I've literally seen critics of the church respond to different works by presuming the author to be Mormon or to be on the church's payroll; they cannot fathom any reason why anyone who wasn't a Mormon or accepting Mormon money would say anything positive about the church.

It's even happened here on the forums to where a source I cited was dismissed as being part of the "Mormon propaganda machine" because it challenged the popular narrative about Mountain Meadows.

Actually, it's not that the works are "scarce".

It's that too many people - especially critics of the church - don't want to hear anything that challenges their mindset concerning the church being pure evil.

For example, consider the situation with the FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas. The original raid conducted by Texas Child Protective Services was national news, with the 24/ networks covering it non-stop. After all, here was this valiant government entity rescuing all of these children from this "wicked" organization.

Then news came out of Colorado that the phone call which launched the raid was a hoax and that the caller was a woman who ran an organization that was actively opposed to the FLDS. Meanwhile, the Austin-American Statesman newspaper began publishing reports to indicate that there were irregularities with how Texas CPS conducted the raid.

The same national news organizations that were all over the story suddenly forgot that it ever existed.

In real life, the whole thing was a cluster foul-up. Texas CPS was in such a rush to make the big score that they themselves broke a number of laws and greatly over-stepped their authority. By the time everything was said and done, CPS had succeeded in violating the Constitution and several CPS bosses very nearly went to jail for contempt of court. Most of the adults in the compound had to be let go because what evidence CPS had gathered was either tainted, inadmissible, or inconclusive. Things were so bad that Jeffs himself could have potentially walked.

But because the national media never reported on any of this, I'm still having people accuse me of lying even after I cite the specific newspaper articles which debunk the official narrative of what went down.

Does it really have to be an us vs. them mentality? There are, always have been, and always will be, idiots in every cross-section of society, including probably every religion/church/sect/etc., of people, various races of people, various families of people, various tribes and ethnicities of people, and in every office and other workplace you could think of, etc., ad nauseam. Do you like being judged for what LDS (or indeed FLDS) idiots have said and done? I guess I can't speak for everyone, but my guess is that neither does anyone else here appreciate being judged for what non-LDS idiots say and do; it does work both ways, you know. That old Golden Rule thing - remember that? What in heaven's name do you expect anyone here to do about any of the above situations, for Pete's sake? Neither you nor we can do one single thing to rectify the wrongs that may be done by the press or anyone we read about therein, can we? What real good does it accomplish to rant about it here? If I may offer a suggestion, it would be that when you have a complaint that is applicable to something that a CF poster has written, you address it with that person and leave everyone else out of it, rather than (a) assuming we ALL automatically agree with everything that's being said; (b) crucifying the entire non-LDS population based on the words of that one person. Just address individual posters, please, and their individual remarks, and leave the ranting about the non-LDS world at large for your solitary moments. Thanks.

 

[Ironhold]

I've found that in all too many cases, change only happens when the people who keep company with the offenders are moved to act. The offenders will refuse to listen to a "cultist", but when their fellows get on them they are finally moved to consider their errors.