1840s oppression of Mormons in Illinois

[ttribe]

LOL. I was in the process of responding to these questions when I got blocked.

First, the way I measure

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am struck by the number of fundamental civil rights the Church and its leaders must give up in order to avoid offending its critics.

It goes much deeper than just the church. But your point is well made.

[Scott Lloyd]

It goes much deeper than just the church. But your point is well made.

A teachers quorum adviser I once had put it this way: "Nobody kicks a dead dog."

[Analytics]

And thus, the end of the thread began.

I'll bow out of this thread now and let everybody else have their say.

But as a final word, Mormons aren

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'll bow out of this thread now and let everybody else have their say.

But as a final word, Mormons aren

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll bow out of this thread now and let everybody else have their say.

But as a final word, Mormons aren

[Vance]

Not at all.

Then why the "abusive husband" story?

[Glenn101]

I took a browse-by of Dale's extensive collection of articles, books, newspapers, etc. I chose to visit a couple of newspapers with articles circa 1840. I did this to distance myself in time from the 1844 chaos and see what sentiments existed concerning the Church at that time, only two years into the Nauvoo era. A John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat had an editorial reproaching some for persecuting the Saints for their religion. There was a news story in another periodical concerning a plaintiff, a "mormon preacher" who was suing a couple of men for a drubbing he had taken to stop his ministrations. I have not done an exhaustive search, but I do believe that anyone who does even a cursory search as I have will find more than ample evidence of and anti-mormon sentiment based upon religious beliefs broadcast through many reports from the periodicals in the areas around Nauvoo in 1840 and maybe even earlier.

Glenn

[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

[hagoth7]

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

...In looking at the paragraph the premise appears to be that JS made awful decisions and that Mormons were getting kicked out of the state. The conclusion is that mormons were being kicked out of the state because of the awful decisions. Regardless of whether or not you agree with either the premises or conclusion, how is the above circular logic?

1) Joseph made decisions.

2) He was killed.

3) The saints were subsequently kicked out.

Does that infer that the decisions in #1 were awful?

No. It doesn't. Unless it can be demonstrated that the outcomes were at least something other than what he intended, and/or that the outcomes would have been "better" (whatever one might deem as better) had he acted differently.

Since the latter two items haven't been proven, it's drastically jumping the gun to claim his decisions were poor.

This is why embedding the implication of awful or inept into the question itself makes the question circular.

A few additional problems with the premise - even if we bypass its circularity:

1) Joseph foretold #2 & #3. The fact that they were fulfilled then means...what?

2) Scripture did likewise. The fact that they were fulfilled then means...what?

3) Joseph's enemies had publicly sworn to have him killed. Precisely how would bringing political adroitness to a gunfight help? Are you saying he should have debated his way out of Carthage Jail? Were JFK, Abraham Lincoln, Sadat, Rabin, and the like killed because they were poor politicians? Inept?

Or was their fate traced to the fact that they were instead *very* politically effective? (i.e. the only way their opponents could oppose their political progress was to act outside the law.)

[handys003]

I would say it

[Scott Lloyd]

I took a browse-by of Dale's extensive collection of articles, books, newspapers, etc. I chose to visit a couple of newspapers with articles circa 1840. I did this to distance myself in time from the 1844 chaos and see what sentiments existed concerning the Church at that time, only two years into the Nauvoo era. A John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat had an editorial reproaching some for persecuting the Saints for their religion. There was a news story in another periodical concerning a plaintiff, a "mormon preacher" who was suing a couple of men for a drubbing he had taken to stop his ministrations. I have not done an exhaustive search, but I do believe that anyone who does even a cursory search as I have will find more than ample evidence of and anti-mormon sentiment based upon religious beliefs broadcast through many reports from the periodicals in the areas around Nauvoo in 1840 and maybe even earlier.

Glenn

You're probably aware of this, but John Wentworth was the newspaper editor to which Joseph Smith wrote the famous "Wentworth Letter" in which the Articles of Faith were originally penned.

[hagoth7]

Again - the premise of this thread is that if one is killed for one's politics - that thereby proves ones politics are faulty.

That premise merely demonstrates that the premise's logic is faulty.

And again - the premise of this thread is that if one's followers suffer due to one's leadership - that proves one is a poor leader.

Problem: if the people who knew him best suffered - and still honored his named....I'll take their testimony over armchair quarterbacking any day. That fact that he had people....willing to suffer without condemning him, suggests that he was no ordinary leader.

[Glenn101]

You're probably aware of this, but John Wentworth was the newspaper editor to which Joseph Smith wrote the famous "Wentworth Letter" in which the Articles of Faith were originally penned.

Yes, I am aware of it. His editorial seemed sympathetic to the LDS. I mainly noted it because it was in 1840 and is evidence of anti-LDS sentiment and persecution for the religious beliefs and not political activity.

Glenn

[hagoth7]

Having read a little bit of Gandhi...

I'm thinking about the Expositor episode.

And I suspect there is a generous measure of mercy in the decisions Joseph put into motion there, which offers a glimpse of the nature of Joseph Smith.

Hint: if memory serves, his enemies had already sworn to have him killed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I am aware of it. His editorial seemed sympathetic to the LDS. I mainly noted it because it was in 1840 and is evidence of anti-LDS sentiment and persecution for the religious beliefs and not political activity.

Glenn

Thanks for finding and presenting the evidence.

[USU78]

The victims of Joseph Smith's bad decisions were the Saints. I'm not blaming them.

Nice dodge.

You blame the slutty-looking girl in the miniskirt and tank top with raccoon eye makeup for what happened to her in the bushes on the SW corner of Old Main Hill at 2:00 am, too? I mean, after all, she made a lot of mistakes. She was practically begging for it.

And since she's President of Alpha Chi Omega, her real victims are the members of her sorority, when the psycho rapist attacks several of them in their house. It's her fault, after all, that somebody left the back door open and none of the bedrooms have locks.

[Analytics]

Because of my pathetic lack of self-control, I

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the president of the sorority manipulated the members of her sorority to dress up like sluts, get dunk, and wander around the alleys in the worst part of town all night long, I would in fact say that she was an awful sorority president who did in fact make awful decisions, and I would in fact say the victims of her bad decisions were the members of the sorority.

You aren't trying to say that JS made similar bad decisions as the predident of this hypothetical sorority are you?

[Analytics]

You aren't trying to say that JS made similar bad decisions as the predident of this hypothetical sorority are you?

No. Just trying to tweak USU

[Deborah]

No, I'm saying the Church

[Analytics]

To clarify. Church leaders should not get involved in politics, ie actively campaigning for a certain person. This doesn't preclude a church leader filling a political position, at which time his church duties are usually put on hold, as in the case of ETB.

Thanks for the clarification. It also depends upon how involved in politics we

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks for the clarification. It also depends upon how involved in politics we

[Analytics]

To some extent I can see why this makes sense. How could you be a VP of the country and have time to be an Apostle. You could not physically do both.

In principle it could be done, just as how ETB was both an apostle and a member of the cabinet. Joseph Smith was both President of the Church and mayor, and was prepared to be both President of the Church and President of the United States.

But would it be wise for the church to allow an apostle to get into the mud of presidential politics?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

They better not