Chapel Mormons

[Daniel Peterson]

It's not just pertaining to church history Dan, it is church history.

Yup. Precisely. It's part of the Church history I've known for decades. It's part of the Church history recounted in books on Church history. It's part of the Church history on display in the Museum of Church History and Art.

Your caviler attitude would be like putting Oswald's rifle in a museum in Podunk USA and never mention JFK was shot, only died, give me a break.

Sorry. No can do. There's no break or allowance for comparing the placement of Joseph Smith's pistol on display in the official museum of the Church, downtown in the largest population center of the Church, directly adjacent to the most frequented property belonging to the Church, with a full explanation of the role the pistol played in the history of the Church, to hiding Oswald's rifle in a provincial museum "in Podunk USA" without any explanation of its significance.

My supposedly "cavalier attitude" is of no relevance here. This is about a well-known fact of Church history that you didn't know, and about your effort to blame the Church for your failure to know it.

But wait a minute, it's my fault because as a child buying into Joseph going to death like a lamb to slaughter.

Nope. It's your fault that you didn't know something that you could have known.

It's also your fault, of course, that you've rejected the fact that Joseph went willingly to death like a lamb to the slaughter. I haven't. (I know better than to do so.)

Whats kind of ironic Dan is when a "critic" brings up an old quote from an old book the book is down played...remember our Gospel through the Ages discussion...yet when you want to prove a point you bring these books out of the attic and say it was there to read.

I don't remember "our Gospel through the Ages discussion," but it's simply true that very few people remember Milton R. Hunter any more, and, of those, even fewer remember his book The Gospel through the Ages.

But many of the sources cited -- not by me but by the FAIRwiki -- were anything but obscure in their day:

The Times and Seasons was the Church's official periodical in 1844. Discussing the supposedly hidden pistol in the Times and Seasons was a very odd way for the Church to cover it up, don't you think? Perhaps you believe that they should have discussed it on Radio Nauvoo? Blogged about it? Taken out television ads?

In 1857, the Deseret News Weekly was the Church's official publication in Salt Lake City and the Great Basin. It seems rather boneheaded for the Church to have sought to hide the story of the pistol in the Deseret News Weekly, don't you think? Of course, maybe they should have hired a skywriter to spell out the tale in puffs of cloud above the city?

In 1875, C. C. A. Christensen traveled throughout the Church with an exhibit of his huge panoramic paintings illustrating church history. It featured the supposedly secret, unknown pistol. But I agree with you that this was a very cunning way of concealing the existence of the gun from Utah's blind population.

Daniel Tyler's 1881 book cleverly covered the story of the gun up by talking openly about it, thus leaving non-readers completely uninformed. A fiendishly sly thing to do, don't you agree?

Likewise, it was devilishly cunning on the part of Church officials to conceal the story of the pistol by publishing articles that discussed it in popular periodicals like The Contributor (twice) and the Juvenile Instructor and for George Q. Cannon, first counselor in the First Presidency, to again let non-readers down by discussing it in his biography of Joseph Smith, and for the prolific writer B. H. Roberts to conceal the story from the illiterate by mentioning it in his biography of John Taylor.

And on and on it goes, the cynical campaign by various Church leaders to hide the story of Joseph Smith's pistol from those who can't or won't read by discussing it in various books and in article after article in the Church's official magazines.

How on earth could a poor fellow like yourself be expected to know of something that has been so systematically kept from him?

LoL, arrogance is a virtue in your case

Hah. You've proven my point yet again. How embarrassing that must be for you!

I suppose we will never actually discuss the topic with any substance

You've been buried in substance, pal.

it's much easier to divert with these silly rabbit trails of wit.

I like wit. If you prefer the lack of it, I suppose that's your prerogative.

[clairc829]

Where things become all the more problematic with the banal dichotomy, is in classifying people, like myself, who are genuinely undecided on, and even somewhat indifferent to, several of the key issues quieried in Shade's survey.

What is to be made of those of us who don't exactly fit either stereotype?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps you are an interple member or a chapnet member.

[Calm]

Seems like...again, your looking to fault the person listening, instead of the person teaching.

Is not what someone learns as dependent on him as his teacher?

If ten students fail a chemistry class in a class of a hundred due to their lack of knowledge of the text that is required reading for that particular class, is it the teacher's fault?

That it can happens is obvious, it has after all happened. The question is why it's happened.

I have no clue what you were taught in each specific case and only can show what was taught in general through pointing out teaching manuals that have indeed taught about the pistol since before I went to college in Institute (in Barrett's text as well as the current Church History in the Fulness of Times manual) as well as texts that were commonly in homes of individuals (though being in homes does not mean they were read). It appears that you lost interest in the Church prior to college age (or you would have progressed beyond priest). It would make sense that you lacked exposure to the topic in Institute class. That is not a bad thing in and of itself. I know many people who chose not to attend institue because of other worthwhile priorities in their lifes. I don't know too many of them blaming the Church for themselves not knowing what they would have known if they had attended however.

The class was there and you could have taken it either in through a class or personal study (I can say this for certain up to a certain age...IIRC about 65, I'll have to check with my relatives to see though I remember them speaking of their seminary classes....anyone know when Institute and seminary started?)

Whose responsibility is it if you don't take a chemistry class? The local community college? The chemistry professor? Or perhaps yourself.

Do you agree that if something is given in a student text, most assume the student is responsible for learning that knowledge...at keast at a college level? And if the Church encourages and even pushes each college age member (and sometimes adult) to attend those classes where they receive those texts, that there is an expectation set that those students will walk away from class with knowledge of what is in the texts?

If you are older than when Institue classes began, then the opportunities are likely much smaller though certainly there as is evidenced by the widespread placement of History of the Church in local meetinghouses and homes. The Barrett Book was first used in Institute classes in 1967, so anyone under the age of 60 at least has little complain about if they don't know about the gun.

PS: My husband who is a typical Utah Mormon if there ever was one in his upbringing (though his dad was a college professor, his mom a high school graduate, eight kids in the family, boys all went on missions, all got married in the temple) says he can't remember any account of the martyrdom that does not include Joseph Smith's attempt to save the life of his friends. That's how he views the pistol issue. I would not be surprised if this is a typical view and if it is, there is no reason for the Church to even attempt to suppress knowledge of it...and the evidence---the placement of the actual pistol in the Church History Museum where not only members, but thousands of nonmembers each year may view it, the teaching of and even picture in the current manual of the pistol's presence and it's use in institute manuals since 1967 and the mention of it in current primary and Sunday School manuals as well as online Ensign articles dating back years---shows no suppression by any standard.

just looked up a reference giving the creation of Institutes as 1927, though obviously at that time it wouldn't have been so widespread. In 1967, the time of the article, it gives the attendance to Institute as twice as many as then attending BYU, there were also more than a thousand early morning seminaries being taught for those who were not in release time areas. http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=4889&CISOSHOW=4863

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, as the bishop of a singles ward, there is probably not a week when I don't admonish my ward members to attend Institute classes. We even have an active ward committee tasked with the assignment of encouraging such attendance, and I've chosen two of my best, most consistent, and most reliable ward members to head that committee up.

Since I know for a fact that the pistol is covered in the Institute's history class, there can really be no excuse for any member of my ward not to learn about it. And I know that the other wards in my stake offer similar encouragement and have similar committees.

If there's an attempt by the Church to suppress this story, I certainly see no evidence of it.

[Calm]

But wait a minute, it's my fault because as a child buying into Joseph going to death like a lamb to slaughter.

I cannot speak to the Primary manuals of your day, but the only Primary manual today that mentions "lamb to slaughter" also mentions the gun seven short paragraphs below that comment, at most five minutes later if the teacher has decent control over the class.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

IIRC, Pahoran has already mentioned this.

[WalkerW]

Funny enough, I think a quote from Christopher Hitchens is in order here. This was from a debate over the Iraq War. In response to a question, Hitchens said the following:

"I don't require government permission to think something...I can go and read the books. And I can go on the Internet. And I can go and interview people, just as you all can, and come to your own conclusions. And not whine, whine, whine forever about "We were lied to"...Grow up, some of you, for heaven's sake."

I think this is applicable to this whole 'hiding history' discussion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is Maarkk an Internet critic or a chapel critic?

[WalkerW]

Is Maarkk an Internet critic or a chapel critic?

[mysteryman]

Yes I know the story, at least as told in the History of the Church. My point (another one Dan) is that Jesus could had had a legion of angels get Him out of His sacrifice, He stopped Peter, yet I was taught that JS went just as Jesus did to his death, which just is not true.

Mark

I'm not getting your major malfunction here Mark. Ok, for some reason you had no idea that Joseph had gun at Carthage and used it when attacked like any real man would. So what is your point? You didn't know even though it has been hidden out in the open. Now you know, so whats the problem? Do you have something against a man defending himself, friends, and family with a gun? I am also not seeing your Jesus parallel. Jesus stopped Peter, so what? Peter would have likely been killed if he hadn't. If Jesus had some magical army of angels waiting to save him, well maybe Joseph did too. It does not help to speculate about who did or did not have some supernatural army waiting to save him. Furthermore the deaths are different. Joseph was gunned down in cold blood by a lynch mob, Jesus was given the death penalty for perceived crimes against the law.

[Bsix]

I'm not getting your major malfunction here Mark. Ok, for some reason you had no idea that Joseph had gun at Carthage and used it when attacked like any real man would. So what is your point? You didn't know even though it has been hidden out in the open. Now you know, so whats the problem? Do you have something against a man defending himself, friends, and family with a gun? I am also not seeing your Jesus parallel. Jesus stopped Peter, so what? Peter would have likely been killed if he hadn't. If Jesus had some magical army of angels waiting to save him, well maybe Joseph did too. It does not help to speculate about who did or did not have some supernatural army waiting to save him. Furthermore the deaths are different. Joseph was gunned down in cold blood by a lynch mob, Jesus was given the death penalty for perceived crimes against the law.

We can never predict of fully understand the matters that cause some to stumble and fall -- they are often completely subjective. I remember several years ago reading the exit story of a woman on RFM. She included in her narrative of reasons she left the fact that the motel room on her honeyroom night smelled of stale smoke. (Go figure.) Joseph's secret gun is interesting example.

Critics of the Church will tell us that they use emperical facts to prove Mormonism wrong. Logic...not emotion should drive the process of spiritual fact finding. (DNA is a supposed example -- you can't argue with the science.)

The secret gun does not fit into that category. How does Joseph having and using a gun prove that Mormonism is wrong? It does not. An emotional reaction to the discuovery of the gun is...well..emotional. The feeling of disappointment or disillusionment...or whatever is just as subjective and self-created as our critics claim faithful Mormons' spiritual feelings.

If someone wants to leave over the fact that Joseph had a gun...and used it in the moments before he was lynched...that is their right. I respect everyone;s right to choose what to believe. However, as an example of objective proof that the Church is untrue, I'm disinclined to accept the secret gun justification as a legitimate objective basis when it comes to my evaluation of Mormonism. .

Six

[Markk]

Hi Guys,

Wow, So here is another "Dan you made my point moment...pal (LoL on the pal). "It's my fault, it was my parents fault, and for those thousands or millions who didn't find out until late in life or after their conversion, or still don't know, it is their fault also, the church has no reason ability of not being clear and part of the martyrdom story in the very most of their 20th century publications until the Internet age. It is my fault I understood and was shocked in that I believed that JS went to his death like a lamb to slaughter as an example as Christ did. Again it's my fault."

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that the church did not make the full story as standard teaching and left it out of so many talks and official teaching manuals for a reason? I could care less if you answer this question but do me a favor and think about it, as far as I know according to the wiki quote, there was a hundred year stretch or so until it was published in an official teaching manual or often read publication. Question, has a GA in modern Mormonism, before say 2000, when discussing the martyrdom told the full story say in chapel or conference, I don't know? At any rate keep it up.

Best of the rest:

I am also not seeing your Jesus parallel. Jesus stopped Peter, so what? Peter would have likely been killed if he hadn't. If Jesus had some magical army of angels waiting to save him, well maybe Joseph did too. It does not help to speculate about who did or did not have some supernatural army waiting to save him

Classic,

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him (Peter), Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

My supposedly "cavalier attitude" is of no relevance here. This is about a well-known fact of Church history that you didn't know, and about your effort to blame the Church for your failure to know it

.

The Tanners did more to making this know than the Modern LDS church

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is Maarkk an Internet critic or a chapel critic?

Nice!

[Markk]

We can never predict of fully understand the matters that cause some to stumble and fall -- they are often completely subjective. I remember several years ago reading the exit story of a woman on RFM. She included in her narrative of reasons she left the fact that the motel room on her honeyroom night smelled of stale smoke. (Go figure.) Joseph's secret gun is interesting example.

Critics of the Church will tell us that they use emperical facts to prove Mormonism wrong. Logic...not emotion should drive the process of spiritual fact finding. (DNA is a supposed example -- you can't argue with the science.)

The secret gun does not fit into that category. How does Joseph having and using a gun prove that Mormonism is wrong? It does not. An emotional reaction to the discuovery of the gun is...well..emotional. The feeling of disappointment or disillusionment...or whatever is just as subjective and self-created as our critics claim faithful Mormons' spiritual feelings.

If someone wants to leave over the fact that Joseph had a gun...and used it in the moments before he was lynched...that is their right. I respect everyone;s right to choose what to believe. However, as an example of objective proof that the Church is untrue, I'm disinclined to accept the secret gun justification as a legitimate objective basis when it comes to my evaluation of Mormonism. .

Six

Hi Six,

I both agree and disagree with what you wrote. It is subjective, but not automatically a "stumble and fall", in my case I would say it's being set free. That aside, I just want to make it very clear if the gun thing was the ONLY issue of what I feel are mis-truths, false teachings, and deceptions I would still be a member of the church. If you read my original post I was clear to say it was the Start of my Exodusfrom the church. In the end I'm not sure I could point to any one thing that led to my losing by "testimony" or belief in the church, it just piled up to a point where I just understood that the church had two faces and for what ever reason you choose to tag this understanding on, being my fault or the "church's, it happened.

Take care

Mark

[wenglund]

Hi Guys,

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that the church did not make the full story as standard teaching and left it out of so many talks and official teaching manuals for a reason?

Yes...the reason the full story is not taught as often and as extensively as you may suppose it should, is because the Church leaders have wisely determined that there is more pertinent material to be taught during the limited class time--material better suited to fulfilling the three-fold mission of the Church and assisting people in coming to Christ and becoming like Christ.

But, I suppose that to your way of thinking, your ignorance on this point (i.e. your apparent cluelessness as to the intents and purpose of the Church and the relative irrelevancy of the pistol disclosure to the salvation and exaltation and advancement of man), is also the fault of the Church?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Yes...the reason the full story is not taught as often and as extensively as you may suppose it should, is because the Church leaders have wisely determined that there is more pertinent material to be taught during the limited class time--material better suited to fulfilling the three-fold mission of the Church and assisting people in coming to Christ and becoming like Christ.

But, I suppose that to your way of thinking, your ignorance on this point (i.e. your apparent cluelessness as to the intents and purpose of the Church and the relative irrelevancy of the pistol disclosure to the salvation and exaltation and advancement of man), is also the fault of the Church?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Why teach the martyrdom at all then? Are you saying that there is not enough time to add a paragraph to the lesson book, or another 3 minutes to a lesson? How does the martyrdom story without the pistol parts lend ..."to the intents and purpose of the Church and the relative irrelevancy of the pistol disclosure to the salvation and exaltation and advancement of man...?"

No matter what the church does or says, there will always be arguments like this...why? I believe that it is necessary for the cohesiveness of the church and it's survival to the hearts and minds of the saints. To say that the church just blew it on this subject and to just come out and say Smith's larger than life persona didn't blend with all the facts of his death probably would just put this to rest, all these lame excuses just add fuel to the fire.

Take care

Mark

[Mordecai]

it just piled up to a point where I just understood that the church had two faces

The Church doesn't have two faces. Individuals may have two faces. There may be some Church history (which doesn't define the Church, as history is open to interpretation and things change)that is inconsistent with expectations. So what? From my experience the leaders of this Church are the least hypocritical, most genuine people in the world. There is nothing two-faced about them. What do I care that Joseph Smith had a gun? He was in prison peacefully awaiting trial, when a mob of a hundred plus people went in to kill him... for what? Because they didn't like his teachings. He could have run away, instead of going to trial. But he didn't. A martyrdom is a martyrdom, whether he was carrying a gun or not. The distortions of ex-Mormons when sanctimoniously preaching to present Mormons just affirms that I ought to remain a member of this Church and not join the "enlightened" ex-Mormon church, who can't stop accusing and pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. If your beliefs are so great, you wouldn't be here trying to justify them via attacks on our Church.

[Markk]

The Church doesn't have two faces. Individuals may have two faces. There may be some Church history (which doesn't define the Church, as history is open to interpretation and things change)that is inconsistent with expectations. So what? From my experience the leaders of this Church are the least hypocritical, most genuine people in the world. There is nothing two-faced about them. What do I care that Joseph Smith had a gun? He was in prison peacefully awaiting trial, when a mob of a hundred plus people went in to kill him... for what? Because they didn't like his teachings. He could have run away, instead of going to trial. But he didn't. A martyrdom is a martyrdom, whether he was carrying a gun or not. The distortions of ex-Mormons when sanctimoniously preaching to present Mormons just affirms that I ought to remain a member of this Church and not join the "enlightened" ex-Mormon church, who can't stop accusing and pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. If your beliefs are so great, you wouldn't be here trying to justify them via attacks on our Church.

Hi Mordecai,

So what? From my experience the leaders of this Church are the least hypocritical, most genuine people in the world.

Then why won't they address the problems within the church and discuss and define the controversial subjects that are addressed on boards like this. What was the last book by a GA that digs into and defines core LDS doctrines...Mormon Doctrine? Religious Truths Defined? I'm really not sure? The LDS leadership has ceased to define LDS doctrines and left it up to Internet hacks. Why don't they clear up things like LGT, DNA, was God a man as we are, or not, does Elohim have a father,...etc? are they good men? sure, the most genuine people in the world?...hardly

What do I care that Joseph Smith had a gun? He was in prison peacefully awaiting trial, when a mob of a hundred plus people went in to kill him... for what? Because they didn't like his teachings.

Again not the whole story, JS had just ordered the destruction of someones personal property because he didn't like what they wrote about him. By those standards DP or even "way" lesser so myself, should have the right to go breaking our critics computers. He broke the law. He also had some serious issues with other personal behavior issues, he was a self proclaimed General of a well armed army that obviously threatened others sense of security. Does this justify the mobs action, no way, but lets just get the story right.

Take care

mark

[Deborah]

Again not the whole story, JS had just ordered the destruction of someones personal property because he didn't like what they wrote about him.

You really ought not to follow the anti-party line, which is based on false information. Joseph was in his perfect legal right, given his position in the community, to destroy the press for the potential slander and civil unrest it would have caused.

[Pahoran]

I am flattered that you have been following my posts so closely that you have become intimately familiar with my positions on Mormon things. (Honey, is that you?)

Be flattered; it's not as though the pattern is particularly obscure.

That's your example of marginalizing and dismissing an opponent - that someone in a debate will counter LGT arguments by arguing that a large group of other members do not believe in them?

You know you are deliberately downplaying this. It's not just "a large group of other members," it's "all the real Mormons." As one of the supporters of this obviously dishonest stereotype spelled out, "Chapel Mormons" = actual believers, and "Internet Mormons" = mental gymnasts.

Wow, if that's all it takes to marginalize and dismiss LGT arguments, then I guess critics have been approaching this debate all wrong.

They certainly have been; but not for the reasons you think.

And it is most revealing, isn't it, that you think the right way to approach the debate is to "marginalize and dismiss LGT arguments."

My experience has been that members can be roughly grouped based on how they view certain doctrines (many of which are listed in Shade's questionnaire).

Speaking of which, were you aware that when he actually tried it out, his so-called "Internet Mormons" scored right in the same area as the "Chapel Mormons?" And that, in response, instead of manning up and admitting that the concept was flawed, he simply shifted the dividing line to compensate?

Yeah, it's a devastating response to apologetic arguments. Whenever a critic is losing an argument, he need only drop the terms "chapel mormon" and "internet mormon" and the apologist is completely marginalized and dismissed.

What a load of bunk.

I agree that it is a load of bunk.

And that is precisely why Shades came up with it.

Just as it is precisely why anyone bothers to defend it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Why teach the martyrdom at all then? Are you saying that there is not enough time to add a paragraph to the lesson book, or another 3 minutes to a lesson? How does the martyrdom story without the pistol parts lend ..."to the intents and purpose of the Church and the relative irrelevancy of the pistol disclosure to the salvation and exaltation and advancement of man...?"

Seriously? You can't think of the obvious answer to these questions? Astounding.

No matter what the church does or says, there will always be arguments like this...why? I believe that it is necessary for the cohesiveness of the church and it's survival to the hearts and minds of the saints. To say that the church just blew it on this subject and to just come out and say Smith's larger than life persona didn't blend with all the facts of his death probably would just put this to rest, all these lame excuses just add fuel to the fire. Take care, Mark

Actually, the reason that there are such lame "arguments" like what you have been interjecting here, is because people like you just don't get it. For the life of you, you can't seem to figure out what really matters and what the gospel is really all about. Oh well....that's got to be the Church's fault.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Danzo]

For the record, I was raised in california and I had a knowledge of the gun. I don't remember where it heard it first, but certainly before the internet. I Don't know what difference it makes, whether there was a gun or not. Most summaries of the event that I have read don't mention it. Most Detailed accounts do mention it. I can see if no one took the time to read a detailed account, they might miss the fact. There might be alot of supprises for someone who has never taken the time to read a detailed account of anything

[Pahoran]

For the record, I was raised in california and I had a knowledge of the gun. I don't remember where it heard it first, but certainly before the internet. I Don't know what difference it makes, whether there was a gun or not. Most summaries of the event that I have read don't mention it. Most Detailed accounts do mention it. I can see if no one took the time to read a detailed account, they might miss the fact. There might be alot of supprises for someone who has never taken the time to read a detailed account of anything

Thank you Danzo; I think you have nailed the real issue here.

Summaries do tend to leave out a lot of details. If they didn't, they wouldn't be summaries at all, and we'd have to call them something else. Therefore, it is trivially easy to find some detail a summary has left out, and accuse it/its author/the church that publishes it of "deceiving" or "suppressing" or some such thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[clairc829]

Thank you Danzo; I think you have nailed the real issue here.

Summaries do tend to leave out a lot of details. If they didn't, they wouldn't be summaries at all, and we'd have to call them something else. Therefore, it is trivially easy to find some detail a summary has left out, and accuse it/its author/the church that publishes it of "deceiving" or "suppressing" or some such thing.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly its like asking if the church is hiding what color of pants Joseph had on, it is just not that important of a detail to always list in all accounts of the murder of Joseph.

[Mordecai]

Then why won't they address the problems within the church and discuss and define the controversial subjects that are addressed on boards like this.

So they are hypocritical and two-faced, because they won't obsess over a bunch of controversial issues? It seems to me, they have a job to do, which they do. What gives you the right to redefine what their job should and should not be, and then, without them even knowing that their job has officially been redefined by the all-important Markk, call them hypocrites and two-faced for not living up to your standards?

What was the last book by a GA that digs into and defines core LDS doctrines...Mormon Doctrine? Religious Truths Defined? I'm really not sure? The LDS leadership has ceased to define LDS doctrines and left it up to Internet hacks. Why don't they clear up things like LGT, DNA, was God a man as we are, or not, does Elohim have a father,...etc? are they good men? sure, the most genuine people in the world?...hardly

I just don't see where you get the right to tell them what their job is. I know Church doctrine, and their job is not to clarify every doctrine other than saving doctrines. If it's not a saving doctrine, it's not necessarily in their jurisdiction. Why do you obsess over obscure doctrines that do not save anyone? Why do you impose your irrational standards on GA's who don't know you nor do they care to know what your standards for them are, and then claim they're hypocrites and 2 faced for not living up to your irrational standards?

...not the whole story, JS had just ordered the destruction of someones personal property because he didn't like what they wrote about him.

At that time, he was within his legal right to destroy that property in response to the libel and what he perceived to be a threat. How about you get the story straight? Feel the need to lie about a man who died for his beliefs and whose teachings have influenced so many people for good?

he was a self proclaimed General of a well armed army that obviously threatened others sense of security. Does this justify the mobs action, no way, but lets just get the story right.

He wasn't a self-proclaimed general. He was a general, period. That as a general, he had an army should be no surprise. We do have the right to bare arms. I think he was killed, because he was a threat to people's POWER. There was no impending attack against anyone, and you know that. But you feel the need to blame the vary EXISTENCE of an army as some sort of justification? Lots of people have armies. When they are attacked without provocation (other than having an army), do you say that the existence of that army makes that attack understandable? There is a reason we have a right to bare arms. Considering the history of enemies of the Church raping, occasionally killing and often intimidating and destroying property, Joseph Smith more than had a right to bare arms. He had a responsibility.

Peace,

Mordecai

[Deborah]

He wasn't a self-proclaimed general. He was a general, period. That as a general, he had an army should be no surprise.

Not only that but the state required as part of the city charter that they have a militia.