1840s oppression of Mormons in Illinois

[Analytics]

Calling something an axiom does not make it one. A normative definition of the word axiom is "a statement universally accepted as true." The very existence of this thread

[Analytics]

As a recap, this topic began on another thread with Lamanite asking the following question:

We can certainly discuss the socio-political climate of the time. We can discuss religious persecution. But we don't need to use context to excuse a major screw up.

Can we view this event from our current vantage point and simply say, "perhaps we were wrong? Looking back maybe we shouldn't have destroyed that press." And then resist the urge to start talking again.

Scott replied,

In an atmosphere of mob violence, it's hard to condemn suppression of a libelous and inflammatory publication. You have a lot more reasoning and persuading to do before you even come close to convincing me, Lamanite.

Of course my view is that Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

I was using this definition of the word axiom. "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." Not that there is any reason to believe that I have any idea of what my point was.

The problem, of course, is when you define your terms in such a way as to rationalize a circular argument, and then insist that the argument is not circular.

As an example, the whig papers were kind to the Saints when they thought they had Joseph Smith's endorsement. When Joseph Smith then endorsed Hyrum's revelation that they should vote against Walker, thereby costing Walker the election, the Whigs became very upset at the Mormons. You think it is the post hoc fallacy to infer that it was Smith's betrayal of Walker that caused the Whigs to turn against the Mormons?

How about a citation re: the revelation from Hyrum, the alleged "betrayal" of Walker, etc.?

Other things certainly played a part. I've never said or implied that they didn't.

Any acknowledgment of the obvious role of rampant bigotry, mob mentality, hostile defectors, etc. has been conveniently absent from your assertions, in which you've tried to paint the victims as being to blame.

How about when Hyrum Smith announced he had a revelation that the Saints should vote for Hoge after Joseph had promised Walker his vote, and Joseph said that he didn't personally receive that revelation, but that Hyrum's revelations were reliable.

How about a cite? (By the way, that is generally contemplated in a call for references.)

I'm getting bored with this conversation.

Yeah. What a drag it is to be called on one's circular logic and a priori assertions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course my view is that Joseph Smith

[Analytics]

The problem, of course, is when you define your terms in such a way as to rationalize a circular argument.

Of course you know more than anybody (except perhaps Pahoran), what I was trying to say and why.

How about a cite? (By the way, that is generally contemplated in a call for references.)

Try the following quote on for size.

Some of the confusion implicit in this situation became explicit in 1843 when Smith, in order to obtain the services of Cyrus Walker as a defense attorney, agreed to vote for him for the legislature. He did so personally. But shortly before the election Hyrum Smith announced, undoubtedly with Joseph

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course you know more than anybody (except perhaps Pahoran), what I was trying to say and why.

You defined axiom as "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."

Assumed by whom? You? You make an assertion and assume it without proof. Then you draw a conclusion based on the premise you have assumed without proof. That is the very definition of circular reasoning.

Try the following quote on for size.

The address in which Joseph apparently approved Hyrum's revelation, saying,

"Brother Hyrum tells me this morning that he has had a testimony to the effect that it would be better for the people to vote for Hoge; and I never knew Hyrum to say he ever had a revelation and it failed,"

is the very same one in which he said, "I am not come to tell you to vote this way, that way or the other." In that same speech, he went on for an entire paragraph lauding Cyrus Walker, saying, "He is an old friend, and I'll vote for him," and telling of how Walker had stood up for Joseph and made his enemies beg his pardon and return pistols that had been taken from him.

Taken as a whole, the speech seems as much an endorsement for Walker as it does an endorsement of Hyrum's reported revelation. The only thing that can be definitely concluded from it is what Joseph said at the outset: "I am not come to tell you to vote this way, that way or the other."

The speech can be read in its entirety, by the way, in History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 526.

Sure, they told the Saints the truth about how Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy in defiance of the Church

[Pahoran]

From there, the conversation has degraded to the current state, where we have Scott and Pahoran not only arguing that the mob wasn

[Analytics]

You defined axiom as "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."

Assumed by whom? You? You make an assertion and assume it without proof. Then you draw a conclusion based on the premise you have assumed without proof.

Exactly. Somebody who was discussing in good faith and had taken a course or two in deductive logic would have said,

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly. Somebody who was discussing in good faith and had taken a course or two in deductive logic would have said,

[Analytics]

"Sound" and "valid" in this context are synonymns.

That is patently false. The context of this is formal deductive logic. In that context, valid and sound have very precise, distinctive meanings. Somebody who was talking with me in good faith and had a rudimentary understanding of deductive logic wouldn

[Scott Lloyd]

That is patently false. The context of this is formal deductive logic. In that context, valid and sound have very precise, distinctive meanings. Somebody who was talking with me in good faith and had a rudimentary understanding of deductive logic wouldn

[Analytics]

What in the way of rigor needs to be added in order to bring us to a greater understanding of why your argument is not a circular argument?

Since you asked, I

[Pahoran]

Anyway, I

[Scott Lloyd]

Since you asked, I

[Analytics]

No, Analytics. That's not why your argument is circular. You are trying to rewrite the past.

The two claims upon which I have focused are these: First, you're claiming that it was Joseph's political decisions that incited most of the hatred. Second, you're claiming that the hatred proves that his political decisions were in fact awful.

Just because you have focused on those two claims doesn't mean they constitute a complete and fair rendering of my point of view.

So you accuse me of what you call "slight of hand." How slight? I presume you meant to say "sleight of hand."

Thanks for the English lesson. It was a pleasant surprise to find something worthwhile in your post.

We can construct a hypothesis and conclusion from your argument as follows:

Hypothesis: Joseph Smith and his people were hated and oppressed.

Conclusion: He made bad political decisions.

Just because you can cherry pick a hypothesis and a conclusion from what I've said doesn