Jump to content

1840s oppression of Mormons in Illinois


Scott Lloyd

Recommended Posts

This is an outgrowth of the now-locked "MMM and Expositor" thread.

Analytics left the following message on my profile, probably because he was unable to post it on the thread:

Regarding exageration, [Joseph Smith's] decisions were in fact superlatively awful because they lead to the citizens of his city getting kicked out of the state. How can a mayor possibly fail the citizens of his city more than that? Calling his decisions superlatively bad isn
Link to comment

IMO just look at politicians today. The list is endless of awful decisions by any Mayor, Councilman Congressman or President or all out leaders through history. How can JS be any-worse than say President James Buchanan and his Utah war aka...Buchanan's blunder. How about the BP oil leak of today or the economic crisis facing the world now. Hey I know let's blame the bad decision on the Fleet Commander at Pearl Harbor or Custer's Last Stand. Analytics assertion are absurd hyperbole and trivial.

After thought. You know each decision leads to an action good or bad. Interpretation depends upon the viewer. Perhaps the idea that JS Smith destroying the Expositer was not really bad . Maybe it was good as it lead to the Saints getting away and going to Utah to flourish. HF has a habit of encouraging things that is not seen in forefront.

Link to comment

To moderators: I just noticed I misspelled Joseph's name in the subheading to this thread. Would you correct it for me? Thanks.

Also, would you change it to read: "Was Joseph to blame because he made bad political decisions?" I think that's clearer.

Thanks much.

Link to comment
This is an outgrowth of the now-locked "MMM and Expositor" thread.

Analytics left the following message on my profile, probably because he was unable to post it on the thread:

Regarding exageration, [Joseph Smith's] decisions were in fact superlatively awful because they lead to the citizens of his city getting kicked out of the state. How can a mayor possibly fail the citizens of his city more than that? Calling his decisions superlatively bad isn
Link to comment

This is a truly brilliant example of anti-Mormon circular logic at its finest. The Mormons weren't persecuted for their religion; they were driven out of Nauvoo and Illinois because of the political stupidity of Joseph Smith. How do we know that Joseph's political decisions were stupid? Because they resulted in the expulsion of the Mormons! And thus, the case is proven.

And this is a representative sample of the quality of analysis that Analytics brings to LDS history.

Regards,

Pahoran

"Circular logic" pretty much sums it up in two words.

Link to comment

This is an outgrowth of the now-locked "MMM and Expositor" thread.

Analytics left the following message on my profile, probably because he was unable to post it on the thread:

Regarding exageration, [Joseph Smith's] decisions were in fact superlatively awful because they lead to the citizens of his city getting kicked out of the state. How can a mayor possibly fail the citizens of his city more than that? Calling his decisions superlatively bad isn

Link to comment

Were any of his actions actually worthy of the violence that was instigated against him and the other innocent men in that jail?

He claims he's not justifying the violence, but the arguments he's making sure seem like rationalizations to me. His contention seems to be that religious leaders should keep their mouths shut about politics, and if they don't, any ill will that results is their own fault.

Link to comment

This is a truly brilliant example of anti-Mormon circular logic at its finest. The Mormons weren't persecuted for their religion; they were driven out of Nauvoo and Illinois because of the political stupidity of Joseph Smith. How do we know that Joseph's political decisions were stupid? Because they resulted in the expulsion of the Mormons! And thus, the case is proven.

And this is a representative sample of the quality of analysis that Analytics brings to LDS history.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hello pahoran,

I'm having difficulty understanding why the initial paragraph is circular logic. Here it is here:

Regarding exageration, [Joseph Smith's] decisions were in fact superlatively awful because they lead to the citizens of his city getting kicked out of the state. How can a mayor possibly fail the citizens of his city more than that? Calling his decisions superlatively bad isn

Link to comment

There is a fallacy in the premise that Joseph's bad decisions lead the people to being driven from the state. The "awful" decisions were in fact his following the commandments of the Lord. The fact is that certain people were not willing to let the Mormons live their religion in peace.

Joseph build a magnificent city out of the swamp. Nauvoo was second only to Chicago in size and importance. It was a great accomplishment and to call his decisions awful is to leave out the great achievement this was. Many non-Mormons lived in the city and all lived in peace and harmony until apostates came in and started telling lies and stirring up the people. It wasn't Joseph's awful decisions but it was the awful decisions of those who had a grudge and were bent on destroying the Prophet and the church.

Link to comment

There is a fallacy in the premise that Joseph's bad decisions lead the people to being driven from the state. The "awful" decisions were in fact his following the commandments of the Lord. The fact is that certain people were not willing to let the Mormons live their religion in peace.

The fact of the Utah Lighthouse Ministries, the various counter-cult operations, and Analytics own presence on these boards demonstrates that certain people are not willing to let the Mormons live their religion in peace- even today.

Joseph build a magnificent city out of the swamp. Nauvoo was second only to Chicago in size and importance. It was a great accomplishment and to call his decisions awful is to leave out the great achievement this was. Many non-Mormons lived in the city and all lived in peace and harmony until apostates came in and started telling lies and stirring up the people.

And Brigham and his people did the same thing in the Utah deserts- and suffered the same influx of people willing to lie, to foment hatred, and to abuse the ignorance of non-Mormons in order to garner wealth and power.

It wasn't Joseph's awful decisions but it was the awful decisions of those who had a grudge and were bent on destroying the Prophet and the church.

As was demonstrated again and again in New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and finally, in Utah.

Link to comment

He claims he's not justifying the violence, but the arguments he's making sure seem like rationalizations to me. His contention seems to be that religious leaders should keep their mouths shut about politics, and if they don't, any ill will that results is their own fault.

Good heavens..... That's like my Ex-Wife!

She does all kinds of bad things to hurt our family and relationship, and I try everything possible and with much patience to show her love, to reason with her, etc., and THEN when I eventually get angry, somehow according to her "I'M" the "bad guy" in the marriage.

My wife thought the same thing.... She thought I should just keep my mouth shut and have a smile on my face, and if I spoke up, that made ME and evil husband, a poor provider, etc. etc. when she was the one causing all the problems and refused to change her behavior.

That's like bad guys calling the "Cops" the actual bad guys for simply doing their jobs.

Or liberals calling Bush, the Military, Corporations, and America "evil" simply because we are standing against Fanatical Islam, taking the fight to them.

Or another example, it's like Anti-Mormons calling mormons "intolerant" simply because we EXIST, yet THEY are not intolerant when they engage in all their anti-mormonism, or that we are actually "equally" intolerant as they. Pure poppycock!

Moral relativism and equivalency will be the death of us.

Link to comment

This is an outgrowth of the now-locked "MMM and Expositor" thread.

Analytics left the following message on my profile, probably because he was unable to post it on the thread:

How about it? Was Joseph Smith to blame for the oppression perpetrated on his people because he made bad political decisions?

In my view, the above reasoning reminds me of the hypothetical husband who beats his wife, then blames her for making him mad because she objected to his verbal abuse.

Scott i agree with you but it is more like a swarm of bees taking over the walls of your house, if you had let them have the house there would have been no problem.

Link to comment

The fact of the Utah Lighthouse Ministries, the various counter-cult operations, and Analytics own presence on these boards demonstrates that certain people are not willing to let the Mormons live their religion in peace- even today.

...

1. Do you propose that those with contrary views be removed, or remove themselves, from the board? Does the "Welcome & Come On In!" apply only to those who agree with you?

2. Do you see any way in which Mormons do not let others live their religion in peace?

Link to comment

How about it? Was Joseph Smith to blame for the oppression perpetrated on his people because he made bad political decisions?

I would say partially, yes. However, the issue is much more complex than that. Joseph made some mistakes, Nauvoo's neighbors made some mistakes. The Warsaw Signal certainly certainly stirred things up. Everyone made mistakes and it was the confluence of a myriad of factors that led to the expulsion of the Saints from IL.

In my mind, Joseph's biggest mistake was that he brought John C. Bennett into his inner circle before fully vetting the Bennett's integrity. IMO, Bennett's "expose" on Joseph's polygamy is what got the whole ball rolling and it put the entire Church on the defensive.

Link to comment

And, there goes the voice of religion from the arena of public discourse....

Dude. My thesis is simply "the Church embraces wise policies." I then listed a few of those policies and explained why I think they are wise.

I'm shocked that you are arguing with me about this. Do you really think the Church is foolish to embrace these policies?

Link to comment
How about it? Was Joseph Smith to blame for the oppression perpetrated on his people because he made bad political decisions?

When someone call tell me Joseph was perfect, I will happily concede that he in no way had any part to play in the Saint's persecution. However, because we know he was indeed fallible, we should be discussing to what degree his humanity played a part. IMO, if our choices are somewhere on the continuum of large degree and lesser degree- Joseph exists on the "lesser" end of the scale.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

Dude. My thesis is simply "the Church embraces wise policies." I then listed a few of those policies and explained why I think they are wise.

I'm shocked that you are arguing with me about this. Do you really think the Church is foolish to embrace these policies?

There is a fallacy in your thesis in which you believe your polices are accurate. They are not.

Link to comment

Rightly or wrongly, having high church leaders as government leaders creates the appearance of a conflict in interest. High church leaders shouldn

Link to comment

You mean like former Governor Mike Huccabee, who in his early years was a pastor and denominational leader as well as president ever of the Arkansas Southern Baptist State Convention, the largest denomination in Arkansas. Oh, and who was also running as President of the U.S.

When I first moved to a little town in Nebraska, I was amused that during election time the descriptions of all the politicians were written up, describing in detail their religious affiliation and activity.

Sorry you can't deny a person the right to participate in politics because of his religious standing; it's part of our culture.

I'm not attempting to deny any person the right to participate in politics for any reason.

I'm arguing that the policies the Church has established for itself are wise.

Link to comment

This is a truly brilliant example of anti-Mormon circular logic at its finest. The Mormons weren't persecuted for their religion; they were driven out of Nauvoo and Illinois because of the political stupidity of Joseph Smith. How do we know that Joseph's political decisions were stupid? Because they resulted in the expulsion of the Mormons! And thus, the case is proven.

And this is a representative sample of the quality of analysis that Analytics brings to LDS history.

Regards,

Pahoran

Very well said.

Link to comment

When someone call tell me Joseph was perfect, I will happily concede that he in no way had any part to play in the Saint's persecution.

And church scholars agree that the saints actions in many cases contributed to the animosity against them. Indeed the saints were chided by the Lord for their actions.

But to say that their actions were sufficient to lead to the many atrocities committed against them is taking things completely out of proportion. The worst enemies of the church weren't the rough and tumble crowd who lived around them, but those defectors within the church whose hatred roused up those crowds through lies and half-truths.

Link to comment

There is a fallacy in the premise that Joseph's bad decisions lead the people to being driven from the state. The "awful" decisions were in fact his following the commandments of the Lord. The fact is that certain people were not willing to let the Mormons live their religion in peace.

Joseph build a magnificent city out of the swamp. Nauvoo was second only to Chicago in size and importance. It was a great accomplishment and to call his decisions awful is to leave out the great achievement this was. Many non-Mormons lived in the city and all lived in peace and harmony until apostates came in and started telling lies and stirring up the people. It wasn't Joseph's awful decisions but it was the awful decisions of those who had a grudge and were bent on destroying the Prophet and the church.

Hello Deborah and pcarthew,

The above indicates that you disagree with one of the initial premises which is fine. My question had to do with pahorans claim that the original paragraph contained circular logic. Just disagreeing with one of the premises doesn't make the initial claim circular logic.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...