@Sharrona - Isaiah 55:8 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither
are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." ......or don't you believe the
Sharonna - You dodged my question so I will ask it again: can God command what
He commands? In other words, can God give us "commands"? Does He or
does He not have the authority to do that? And if so, are those commands just
and moral? Always? Simply answer "yes" or "no". You dodged my question and then typed a lot of words/quotes that you do not
RE: Dan Maloy . A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one
wife,..”(I Tim 3:2).,The Apostles did not maintain any O.T. pattern of
polygamy and they and the early church condemned it.D&C 101:
4,”Inasmuch as this Church of Christ(JS) has been reproached with the
crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband”, also "(H of C,
vol. 2, pg. 247 August 1835.)JS was married Before D&C 132 July
1843. *Living Husband at the time,2 of 11*marriages. Lucinda Morgan Harris,
Marriage 1838 *husband George W. Harris. Presendia Huntington Buell marriage
1841 *husband Norman Buell.This scripture remained in the LDS canon
until 1876,The general body of the church were informed about polygamy in 1852,
at which time many practiced it because leaders like Brigham professed the
necessity of it for exaltation. Since ( July 1843), contradicted 101:4, It was
removed in 1876, when section 132 was placed in the new edition.
@ Sharonna - First, I said nothing about any 'member' of the LDS
church wanting to kill Joseph Smith. Second, you claim that some LDS members
did want to kill Joseph due to him committing "adultery". However, he
did not commit adultery. God commands what He commands, including, at times,
polygamy. To deny this is to a) deny what is written in your own Bible
(Abraham, etc) and b) deny the perfect righteousness and omnipotence of God, for
who are we to tell God what to do?
RE: Dan Maloy. Did Joseph go too far in destroying the Nauvoo Expositer's
printing press? Maybe. However, was he innacurrately and dishonestly slandered
many times in his life by "the press"? Definitely. Is that being taken
into account by the antagonists here? Nope. But,Whether Mormons
killed JS or not is unimportant many important Mormons wanted to by taking an
oath to kill him.. do to, many marriages/Adultery..
when you feel like killing me for so doing, as some of the people did who called
themselves brethren in the days of Joseph Smith, look out for yourselves, for
‘false brethren’ were the cause of Joseph's death, and I am not
a very righteous man”.(JoD v 3 p.49.)
CMTM, you responded to me, in part, as follows:"The one is the
church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil
was confused. ...."The Prophet Joseph Smith was confused about
nothing; he knew exactly what he was talking about and the purpose of his
mission.BTY, I belong to "the church of the Lamb of God .
Breaks my heart to see so many people claim that Joseph Smith was, in essence,
nothing more than a fool or a con man. Rubbish. He wasn't perfect, and
neither he nor any believing poster here claimed he was. However, he was what he
said he was: a prophet of God. Truth does not depend upon popularity, despite
what antagonists claim. Did Joseph go too far in destroying the
Nauvoo Expositer's printing press? Maybe. However, was he innacurrately and
dishonestly slandered many times in his life by "the press"? Definitely.
Is that being taken into account by the antagonists here? Nope.
@truthseeker,You posted: "North American Indian tribes are the true
remnant of the Book of Mormon peoples... and they didn't originate in
Central America, but are genetically tied to the Hopewell Mound Builders of
America's Heartland. DNA from the Mound Builders has Israelite DNA."What is your source of fake news, as there is no DNA connection. Also,
it seems dishonest and unchristian to plant aliens in other's family tree
in order to satisfy one's own superstions.
@Paula666 The article clearly compares today's attitudes with the past to
provide context for the press in Smith's time. But the "egregious
failure in logic" you argue against was never put forth. I take Joseph
Smith to be a prophet, but think Trump's whining about the press to be
annoying and a waste of time... to say the least. I did not perceive any logic
that tried convincing me that Trump is a "good person" or doesn't
deserve legitimate criticism. I did read into the article that perhaps we
modern folks take the existing political climate for granted... but that
doesn't necessarily lead to the same conclusions that you seem upset
about.As for today's press being "as partisan as" back
then is also an incorrect characterization of what the article says. It
actually says that the press was biased much more so and that our expectation of
objectivity has evolved. And why is that idea so "ludicrous"?
Certainly the attitudes of the press and the people were not identical to ours
now. So no, it's not a ludicrous idea. I recommend the Autobiography of
Benjamin Franklin for an enjoyable read & insight into the climate and ideas
expressed by the press back in those days.
Interestingly a part of the original letter from Joseph read, “The Book of
Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians
it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph
that was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto
them.” This has interesting ramifications as regarding the
geography of the Book of Mormon and DNA issues. Joseph understood the
"western tribes of Indians" (ie. west of New York, or Ohio, Missouri,
etc) to be the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples and also that
"America" (not the Americas) was their promised land. This is
consistent with Oliver Cowdrey's claim that the Hill Cumorah in New York is
the actual location of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites. There
is only one Hill Cumorah, and the church has consistantly taught that it is in
New York, not Central America. It also means that North American Indian tribes
are the true remnant of the Book of Mormon peoples... and they didn't
originate in Central America, but are genetically tied to the Hopewell Mound
Builders of America's Heartland. DNA from the Mound Builders has Israelite
Joseph wrote the letter to the American Revivalist and Rochester Observer which
was N.E. Saxton edited down dramatically. Joseph wrote back "I was
somewhat disappointed on receiving the paper with only a part of my letter
inserted," Saxton never replied.But Frederick G.
Williams copied the letter into Joseph Smith's letterbook, which is how we
know what the original letter said.
Hurts me to say this but President Trump and Joseph Smith had common
relationships with the media. So the history of objectivity in journalism went
from no objectivity to objectivity and is now back to no objectivity (national
media that is). A fascinating article Tad, thanks.
Interesting article. I do have a problem with the headline, though (which of
course was written by an editor and not the author). I can see that it is trying
to suggest parallels between current events, but it's badly misguided. Joseph Smith did not have a problem with "the media" because
there was no such thing in his lifetime. Let's ignore for the moment the
fact that there was no widely accepted standard of journalism or journalistic
ethics that would create a broad similarity of accepted practice from one
publication to another. The word "media" (plural of medium) refers to
the collection of various forms of news and entertainment: press, radio,
television, podcasts, etc. In Joseph Smith's day, there was only the press,
and even that term applied to the 1840s is misleading. Every paper was local and
its standards were determined by the owner-publisher.
GaryO,Clearly such murder is not acceptable. "What was done
here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable
departure from Christian teaching and conduct."Orrin Porter
Rockwell will have to answer for his actions (as will any gunfighter, Mormon or
not).As to Joe Hill, it appears to be a miscarriage of justice but I
am not deeply familiar with the facts.
It seems to me that this article's sole purpose is to justify Donald
Trump's behavior with regards to the press. The article seems to make the
case that Joseph Smith had trouble with a partisan press, and therefore anyone
today who has trouble with the press, is also being persecuted unfairly. To
argue that today's press is as partisan as it was in the early 18th century
is ludicrous except for a few outlets like Breitbart and its leftist
equivalents. But the more egregious failure in logic is that if a good person
was persecuted by the press, then all people who are persecuted by the people
are good people and do not deserve the persecution.
RE: Moresureword, (1 Nephi 14:10)." The biblical witness is clear and
convincing: Jesus Christ is the eternal Creator God (John 1; Col 1; Heb 1; Rev
1). Paul teaches that Jesus is the creator of all, including the angelic realm
to which Satan belongs (f. John 1:3). Jesus is thus Satan’s creator, not
his spirit brother.In contrast to Mormon Christology, But both the
scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed
offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers.” Ensign,
magazine.The one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is
the church of the devil
. JS was confused. e.g
,“Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God is singular number; and by adding
the word heim ,it renders it Gods.” ( H of C, 1844) ,Wrong Elohim the
construction is usually grammatically SINGULAR, the Hebrew God, but
grammatically plural when used of pagan divinities ). # 430 Strong’s
Hebrew .@ JS,” In the very beginning the bible shows there is
a plurality of Gods. Beyond the power of refutation”.(Hof C v. 6
p.476)Wrong, Genesis 1:1 Greek LXX In the beginning God (*o Theos, Grk. 2316).
Clearly God. *Nominative singular article
@Horseapple - Salt Lake City, UTMarch 16, 2017 9:33 a.m.Questions for us:Must the chronology of known facts always need to
be used in determining the veracity of truth?Can something be true
(or a fact) if it has roots in another's mind?Possible
answer:While one's perceived reality may be one's
reality; if it is not true then if it is not real. But, it does help explain
why some people are attended in mental hospitals getting help syncing their
perception with reality .
As the article notes, Joseph Smith wrote, "As Mr. Barstow has taken the
proper steps to obtain correct information," Smith wrote, "all that I
shall ask at his hands is that he publish the account entire, ungarnished and
without misrepresentation."Joseph should have addressed the
current Curriculum Committee. When they reprinted the Wentworth letter in the
lesson manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, they
edited out Joseph's explanation of Book of Mormon geography because Joseph
clearly stated the Book of Mormon took place in North America. Sadly, LDS scholars continue to insist on their Mesoamerican theory.
The Wentworth letter was edited from Orson Pratt's 1840 pamphlet. Joseph
Smith deleted Pratt's discussion of Central/South America and replaced it
with the clear declaration that the descendants of Lehi were the Indians living
in this country.Nevertheless, LDS scholars continue to reject what
Joseph taught in the Wentworth letter.
Questions for us: Must the chronology of known facts always need to
be used in determining the veracity of truth? Can something be true
(or a fact) if it has roots in another's mind?
Hey Twin Lights -RE: "I would hope that all of us, irrespective
of our opinions on Joseph Smith, can and would acknowledge that the murder of
two men for the destruction of property is simply not acceptable. Period. Full
stop."And the murder of a wagon train of innocent men, women,
and children passing through Utah is even less acceptable . . . Not to mention
who knows how many smaller non-Mormon groups and individuals murdered by the
so-called Mormon gunfighter Porter Rockwell and his Avenging Angels.
And the framing and execution of the labor activist Joe Hill? How acceptable was
that?Or is all that just "fake news?"To those
who might object, atrocities committed by Mormons are at least as pertinent to
the article as is the death of Joseph Smith.
And much like today's conflicts with the media, alternative facts were the
I would hope that all of us, irrespective of our opinions on Joseph Smith, can
and would acknowledge that the murder of two men for the destruction of property
is simply not acceptable. Period. Full stop.
Mhenshaw,"That same man also suggested that the salamander note was a
legitimate document and the word salamander might mean "angel".Ad
hominem attack. "This is not an ad hominem attack. It speaks of
the credibility of the man, and is a fact."The exact Nauvoo
Expositor quote -- 'War and extermination is inevitable!
'"As noted elsewhere, those are not his words. "Given that there's never been any federal or state law in US history
making "destruction of a printing press" a capital crime, I'd say
his conclusion that "it did not merit murdering Smith" is inarguably
correct."This is a straw-man argument.
Buddyroe," . . . . Since there was only one edition of this newspaper
it can be assumed mhenshaw is be thinking of some other newspaper. . . .
"______________________________The quote mhensaw cites is
actually by Thomas Sharp in an editorial in the Warsaw Signal on June 11, 1844.
Sharp was virulently opposed to Joseph Smith and was one of those indicted and
acquitted for the attack on Carthage jail.
mhenshaw wrote: "The exact Nauvoo Expositor quote -- "War
and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you
stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! To ROB men of their property and
RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make
his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!"Doing a word
search on the FairMormon text edition of the Nauvoo Expositor, none of the
unique words could be found (including: extermination, avenging, powder, ball).
Since there was only one edition of this newspaper it can be assumed mhenshaw is
be thinking of some other newspaper.
Conflicts with the media? Were we dealing with this same fake new that Donald
Trump is spouting about? It all starts to make a little more sense personality
wise. Two birds of a feather. Exposing fraud is a responsibility of the media
whether it is spewed by a so called profit of god or sitting president. Good on
the media for trying to keep the power hungry honest.
CMTM, you responded to me with 1 Nephi 14:10, regarding the church of the Lamb
of God and the church of the devil. I belong to the church of the Lamb of God.
Which church do you belong to?
Much of the discussion here center around The Nauvoo Expositor, one charge was
made by reader mhenshaw: "The problem wasn't whether the
Expositor was printing falsehoods. The problem was that the Expositor was pretty
explicitly calling for the assassination of Nauvoo's public officials,
starting with Joseph." The exact opposite seems to be the case
where on page 2 William Law (editor) stated:"That in all our
controversies in defence of truth and righteousness, the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal but mighty through God, to the pulling down of the strong holds
of Satan; that our strifes are not against flesh, blood, nor bones; but against
principalities and power against spiritual wickedness in high places and
therefore we will not use carnal weapons save in our own defence."
observator," . . . . Destruction of the press may not have been a wise
move, but it did not merit murdering Smith."______________________________It certainly did not. We have a system of
due process in this country. No one is justified in taking the law into his own
hands. That said, Joseph was reckless in exercising his authority as
a civic leader, first in ordering the Expositor’s press destroyed and
subsequently declaring martial law in Nauvoo. He was behaving like an autocrat
who was out of control in a volatile situation. That’s no justification
for vigilantism but I can see why his enemies felt they had cause to be
frightened of him.
Re the explanations proferred in this article re the genesis of the LDS Articles
of Faith, I think those who were quoted likely overlooked a far simpler source:
The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church. One can observe by reading
the Methodist Articles that Joseph Smith apparently just reworded them and
called them his own. Heck, Smith didn't even bother to call them anything
other than "Articles" as the Methodists had. Depending on one's
perspective, Smith was a master at cribbing materials from others and
reorganizing them for his own purposes (see e.g. The Late War, View of the
Hebrews, Swedenborg's "three degrees of glory," the Bible, etc.)
Further, we know Smith was familiar with many tenets of the Methodist Church,
since he joined that church and added his name to the roles, even after he had
ostensibly been told by God in the Sacred Grove to join none of the churches
because all were in error.
>>As for Dallin Oaks's legal argument, it is extremely flawed, not
to mention extremely biased. Given that there's never been any
federal or state law in US history making "destruction of a printing
press" a capital crime, I'd say his conclusion that "it did not
merit murdering Smith" is inarguably correct.>>That same
man also suggested that the salamander note was a legitimate document and the
word salamander might mean "angel".Ad hominem attack. Elder
Oaks was a Chicago Law School graduate; served as a Utah Supreme Court justice;
and was, at one point, officially listed as a potential Supreme Court pick. So
unless someone in this discussion can claim comparable legal credentials, I
think I'll favor Oaks' research and legal reasoning and conclusions
over anything I'm likely to read here.
>>They did not call for anyone's death.The exact Nauvoo
Expositor quote -- "War and extermination is inevitable!
Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL
DEVILS! To ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have
no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND
BALL!!!""War and extermination?" "avenging"?
"Powder and ball"? It would take an unreasonably charitable reading of
that quote to think that the Expositor's publishers weren't calling
for Joseph's assassination (especially when that's exactly what
happened shortly thereafter).>>As for Dallin Oaks's
legal argument...he suggests that freedom of the press was not considered as
sacred as it is now. This is fallacious...No it's not. For
example, the Sedition Act of 1798 allowed the US government to arrest authors of
"seditious writings" that criticized government leaders. Thomas
Jefferson let that expire a few years after, but it shows that even some
Founders didn't consider press freedom absolute.And the mobs
certainly didn't consider it sacred, given that they destroyed Mormon
presses at will.
RE: observator, “*they decided on assassination instead. Destruction of
the press may not have been a wise move, but it did not merit murdering
Smith.”The death of JS I remember what Joseph said, a short
time before he was slain in one of the last sermons I ever heard him preach.
Said he, “Men are here today who are seeking my blood, and they are those
who have held the[Mormon}*Priesthood and have received their washings and
anointing’s; men who have received their endowments.” I saw the
faces of those men at that time, and they had a hand in slaying the Prophet .
(JoD v 4 p 149). Wilford Woodruff, December 21, 1856.Brigham
Young comments on it.
” when you feel like killing me for so doing,
as some of the people did who called themselves brethren in the days of Joseph
Smith, look out for yourselves, for ‘false brethren’ were the cause
of Joseph's death, and I am not a very righteous man”.(JoD v 3
obervator"A University of Chicago law professor named Dallin
Oaks (yes, that one) determined in the above article that destroying the printed
pages of the Nauvoo Expositor was a legal action under the interpretation of
freedom of the press at the time."That same man also suggested
that the salamander note was a legitimate document and the word salamander might
mean "angel".For what its worth.
mhenshaw,"The problem wasn't whether the Expositor was
printing falsehoods. The problem was that the Expositor was pretty explicitly
calling for the assassination of Nauvoo's public officials, starting with
Joseph. "They did not call for anyone's death. observator,"Destruction of the press may not have been a wise move,
but it did not merit murdering Smith."He was not killed
explicitly for destroying the expositor. The proprietors were not, as far as
anyone can tell, part of the mob. I'm not sure how one can explain such a
blunderous move on the part of Smith and claim he was inspired, but I would love
to hear the argument.As for Dalin Oaks's legal argument, it is
extremely flawed, not to mention extremely biased. In it he suggests that
freedom of the press was not considered as sacred as it is now. This is
fallacious, and one only need read the language of the expositor for evidence
this was not the case, they wrote, "until we can enjoy those glorious
privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have guaranteed
to us- freedom of speech, and liberty of the press..."
Should constitutionally protected freedom of the press actually include
knowingly printing falsehoods and outright lies? Should that freedom
include lazy, shoddy reporting of unverified "news"?The real
answer should be YES but must put the onus on the consumer to take everything
you read, watch, or hear "with a grain of salt" as the saying goes.Given the above freedoms of the media, two results invariably occur:1)over time, informed consumers will ascertain which news sources are
reliable. Political persuasion will be a major factor in that choice.2)far
too many consumers will remain in their ignorance, many of whom will vote with
no information whatsoever or will simply not take the trouble to vote.
Oaks, Dallin H. "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor." Utah Law
Review 9 (Winter 1965):862–903.A University of Chicago law
professor named Dallin Oaks (yes, that one) determined in the above article that
destroying the printed pages of the Nauvoo Expositor was a legal action under
the interpretation of freedom of the press at the time. However, destruction of
the press itself went too far, and the owners of the equipment probably could
have sued for damages. However, instead of a lawsuit, they decided
on assassination instead. Destruction of the press may not have been a wise
move, but it did not merit murdering Smith.
For the author of this article to make the assumption that todays media take an
objective approach to reporting the news is about as funny as watching SNL make
fun of Trump.The political bias and public smearing agenda of todays
MSM is obvious as it is sickning. Whether its FOX, MSNBC, CNN, Breitbart doesnt
matter they all have their own political agenda and it greatly affects and
persuades the divisiveness we see in todays culture.There is more
racism today and hate coming from the minority groups and marxist educators that
have our young people confused and pointed in the wrong direction.Never in our history has there been controversy over bathroom equality, based
on gender confusion. 50 years ago if you had wrote a book based on this subject
it would be considered a fictional book, but today its fact.The
media has been used to persuade and misguide the populace into false naratives
back in Joseph Smiths time and its still happening today.Hence that
is why we refer to it as fake news, a common theme in todays world, beware of
the news you read, because it just might not be true.
Freedom of the press isn’t conditional on the press being responsible
although it ideally has a social duty to the public to be such. It doesn’t
even require it to be accurate although it certainly has a duty to be that as
well. It simply guarantees that the press is to be free of government attempts
to police it.Washington and Jefferson were two of the greatest
advocates for a free press. Yet both in turn were at times savaged by elements
of the press of their day. In making freedom of the press part of the Bill of
Rights, the founders risked making an act of trust, not trust in the press as an
institution, but trust in the people to hear it all, sort it out, and in their
own time and way arrive at their own sense of truth.
RE: moresureword . A “creed” is an authoritative set of fundamental
beliefs; and Mormons have one, just as other religions do. In addition, many
Mormons forget what the Prophet Joseph Smith taught about honoring and
respecting other people’s beliefs: “allow all men [to] worship how,
where, or what they may. “(1 Nephi 14:10)."And he said
unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the
Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso
belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church
which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth"
all their creeds were an abomination in his sight .... He again
forbade me to join with any of them (Joseph Smith - History )If all their
creeds are an abomination, why is much of the Nicene Creed to be found in
D&C 20:17-28? The Nicene Creed is also based almost entirely on
scripture, much more so than the Articles of Faith. Almost every phrase is taken
word for word from the Bible. All phrases have Biblical supporting scriptures
"Every Mormon child sets out to memorize them. Virtually every Mormon
missionary knows them. The list, known as the Articles of Faith, were first
published 175 years ago this month and later canonized.
Smith said God
told him in the First Vision that creeds were an abomination.
Latter-day Saints have no creed .
“creed” is an authoritative set of fundamental beliefs; and Mormons
have one, just as other religions do. In addition, many Mormons forget what the
Prophet Joseph Smith taught about honoring and respecting other people’s
beliefs: “allow all men [to] worship how, where, or what they may.
>>And I'm curious, can someone tell me what the expositor wrote
that was untrue?The problem wasn't whether the Expositor was
printing falsehoods. The problem was that the Expositor was pretty explicitly
calling for the assassination of Nauvoo's public officials, starting with
Joseph. It's one thing to be politically biased. It's
another to incite people to violence.
Joseph Smith was a virtuous and honest man.
Conflicts with the media?He destroyed a printing press which led to
his being jailed for treason against the state of Illinois.And
I'm curious, can someone tell me what the expositor wrote that was untrue?
Today's media is much better than it was in the first have of the 19th
century. There are exception, those owned by Rupert Murdoch leave much to be
desired, particularly the tabloids he owns in the U K.
@California Steve:Yes--I am thinking the exact same thing. "Objective
Press" seems to be an oxymoron.
I didn't know objectivity was a policy adhered to today by the press.