Apologetics: Not In Vain

[BCSpace]

You know the contrary evidence, you posted in the thread (on another board) in which contrary evidence is dicussed; you tacitly accepted the premise of the contrary evidence. Please stop with your games.

 

Not at all. JS and Foster and Law had many angry disagreements over building finance which is how this all got started in the first place.  Notice that I was talking about the overall issue where as the respondent tried to limit it to the Constitution.

 

You've also posted no contrary evidence yet in this thread.  Message me when you are ready.

Edited August 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[foster]

Not at all. JS and Foster and Law had many angry disagreements over building finance which is how this all got started in the first place.  Notice that I was talking about the overall issue where as the respondent tried to limit it to the Constitution.

 

You've also posted no contrary evidence yet in this thread.  Message me when you are ready.

 

That is correct I have not posted the contrary evidence, for three main reasons:

 

1. You know of it,

2. You commented on it,

3. You tacitly treated it as true.

 

And as for your re-write of your posting on that board, which you address above; I beg of you, please stop with your games. 

 

In that thread, You quoted a derogatory comment about Joseph Smith and the Constitution, you commented directly to that point.  Do not try and claim on this board you were commenting on something different. But discussing this has gotten entirely pointless. The plain simple truth is, you know the contrary evidence as to the legality of the destruction, which you otherwise choose to ignore; which leaves us once again in the inconclusive realm as to the legality.

Edited August 28, 2013 by foster

[Calm]

That is correct I have not posted the contrary evidence, for three main reasons:

 

1. You know of it,

2. You commented on it,

3. You tacitly treated it as true.

 

BC is not the only one on this thread.....it may even be brand new to some here.

[cdowis]

Not on Dr. Shades' m o r m o n d i s c u s s i o n s . c o m board, no.  Btw, I urge more TBM's to post there with me so the Church has a better voice there as Church suggests we do. 

 

 

CFR that the church encourages us to post on this particular discussion group.  I know that Christ advised us, "Cast not your pearls before swine."

 

You got to use a little common sense when you decide how to use your time preaching and defending the Gospel.

Edited August 28, 2013 by cdowis

[boulder257]

We had an apostle visit our Stake and I wish I could remember which one because we've had several in the last few years, but he taught us the same thing, that when in doubt, remember the first things that caused us to believe.

 

This has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard when it comes to staying involved in a religion. Basically, he is telling you to avoid new information, learnings, and evidence and harken back to the day you didn't know those things. It would seem a faith that is centered in and around truth would want just that, truth, no matter what that truth meant.

[BCSpace]

CFR that the church encourages us to post on this particular discussion group.

 

 

I never made such a claim or intended it to look that way.  It is only me encouraging you to post on that particular board because that is where the jugular of antiMopologetics is.  As for the Church encouraging us to be more active on these venues overall, I would be disappointed if you still require a CFR for that.

 

I know that Christ advised us, "Cast not your pearls before swine."

 

You got to use a little common sense when you decide how to use your time preaching and defending the Gospel.

 

I can agree with that.  But I would also remind one that to whom much is given, much is required.  I think if you are strong, you should seek out the more challenging venues.

 

We had an apostle visit our Stake and I wish I could remember which one because we've had several in the last few years, but he taught us the same thing, that when in doubt, remember the first things that caused us to believe

.

This has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard when it comes to staying involved in a religion. Basically, he is telling you to avoid new information, learnings, and evidence and harken back to the day you didn't know those things. It would seem a faith that is centered in and around truth would want just that, truth, no matter what that truth meant.

 

The apostle did NOT say one should avoid those things.  But the recommendation is certainly valid.  It means he believes what the Church teaches, that there are spirtual witnesses and one should have them.  And there is certainly nothing wrong with reminding ourselves that we had one and we should seeking to remember and re-experience it especially to help us get through hard times.

Edited August 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

 

Not at all. JS and Foster and Law had many angry disagreements over building finance which is how this all got started in the first place.  Notice that I was talking about the overall issue where as the respondent tried to limit it to the Constitution.

 

You've also posted no contrary evidence yet in this thread.  Message me when you are ready.

That is correct I have not posted the contrary evidence, for three main reasons:

 

1. You know of it,

2. You commented on it,

3. You tacitly treated it as true.

 

And as for your re-write of your posting on that board, which you address above; I beg of you, please stop with your games. 

 

 

 

Nope.  I only have two posts on that short thread. Here is what was said:

 

Someone else: Since there have been many, many, many threads about the Nauvoo Expositor, maybe we should talk about a few background ideas.

bcspace: Maybe we should finally realize that the issue has no bearing whatsoever as to the validity of the Church's truth claims.

 

And then:

 

bcspace being quoted: Maybe we should finally realize that the issue has no bearing whatsoever as to the validity of the Church's truth claims.

a different someone else (you?): No but it does speak to the Character of JS and his willingness to take a piss on the Constitution. You know, that inspired document?

bcspace: Not really. It speaks more to the nature of men and how they on both sides lost control. And that merely gives reason for the existence of Church in the first place.

 

If you want to interpret my remarks as referring only to the Constitution, I am correcting you now and one also can plainly see from my first statement that I am speaking of the overall issue plus YOU referred back to my original statement with the word "it" and therefore you are acknowledging my meaning of the overall issue as well.  Do we have to get Clintonesque on grammar here?  I think one can also clearly see why you did not want to post your remarks here.

 

So I invite you, once again, to start presenting an actual argument regarding the Navuoo Expositor instead of quibbling about how you may have misunderstood what I said.

Edited August 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[foster]

First and foremost, You will - and I demand of it immediately - cease any and all of your character assassinations and well poisoning. That you must resort to such practices evidences your desperation. I am not anyone you have quoted from that board.

 

Second, it is very telling, that you did not provide the context of the thread - what are you trying to hide from the readers here?

 

Third, the "it", since you have played the Clinton card, is the topic of that thread and the subject/idea/principle presented in the opening post of that thread.

 

Fourth, I have not misunderstood you. You are desperately trying to save face by accusing me of such.

 

Fifth, your first comment in that thread you quote the opening post - this evidences you know exactly what the topic was - which I add again, why are you hiding the context from the readers here?

 

Sixth, in a previous post in this thread you claimed to be referring to finances and such, which is utter hogwash since the thread on the other board is focused on one subject.

 

Your credibility is severely waning, if not entirely lost. As I stated, this has become pointless, you have resorted to baseness to save face. I will not be a part of your smoke and mirrors and uncouth intentional disrespectful behavior. 

 

These simple glaring facts still stand:

 

1. You know of evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

2. You commented on the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

3. You tacitly treated as true, the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

Edited August 28, 2013 by foster

[BCSpace]

Here is one of the questions presented to me.  As you can see, it matches Question #8 in the Swedish Rescue incident.  In this case, for answer I simply quoted from FAIR:

 

Why did Joseph Smith claim he was persecuted when there is no evidence he taught the FV to the members until at least  1838?  Even his mother did not mention anything about the FV in her journal or biography.

 

Joseph's mother recalled:

 

From this time [the First Vision] until the twenty-first of September, 1823 [when he saw the angel Moroni] Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists.  Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 78

 

William Smith, Joseph's brother remembered:

 

["]We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision. We were considered respectable till then, but at once people began to circulate falsehoods and stories in a wonderful way."  "W[illia]m. B. Smith's last Statement," [John W. Peterson to Editor], Zion's Ensign (Independence, Missouri) 5/3 (13 January 1894)

 

Thomas H. Taylor, was asked, ""What did the Smiths do that the people abused them so?" He replied:

 

They did not do anything. Why! these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there, they would have done the same to him. Now I don't believe like he did; but every man has a right to his religious opinions, and to advocate his views, too; if people don't like it, let them come out and meet him on the stand, and shew his error. Smith was always ready to exchange views with the best men they had. [Why didn't they like Smith?, asked the interviewer.]

To tell the truth, there was something about him they could not understand; someway he knew more than they did, and it made them mad. William H. Kelley, "The Hill Cumorah and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 167-68

Edited August 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[USU78]

First and foremost, You will - and I demand of it immediately - cease any and all of your character assassinations and well poisoning. That you must resort to such practices evidences your desperation. I am not anyone you have quoted from that board.

 

 

Lighten up, Francis.

[BCSpace]

These simple glaring facts still stand:

 

1. You know of evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

2. You commented on the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

3. You tacitly treated as true, the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

 

Your failure to show any of these, whereas I brought over the direct quotes from my posts, is telling.  I think the audience has enough information to judge now though if you have any actual quotes or references (you have provided none in this entire thread), I invite you bring them forth instead of relying on invective. 

 

I'm still curious as to why you refuse to make your case.  There are other apologists here who would be asking the moderation to ban you from their thread at the very least.  I am willing to be patient and see what you might be able to contribute.  I recommend you start providing actual quotes and references to back up your claims.  If your next post in this thread doesn't do just that, I will ignore you for the rest of this conversation because I am not interested in invective.  Just the facts ma'am.

Edited August 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[foster]

Usu were you the one who posted " JS and his willingness to take a piss on the Constitution. You know, that inspired document?". Is that your handy work? I thought not, does it anger you that I made the suggestion it was you? Do you, need to lighten up Francis? Please lighten up and remain silent when offensive accusations are directed at your character.

[foster]

edited out.

Edited August 28, 2013 by foster

[USU78]

Usu were you the one who posted " JS and his willingness to take a piss on the Constitution. You know, that inspired document?". Is that your handy work? I thought not, does it anger you that I made the suggestion it was you? Do you, need to lighten up Francis? Please lighten up and remain silent when offensive accusations are directed at your character.

 

Nope.  T'warn't me.

 

Your hyperbole is boring.

[BCSpace]

Here is another question that was brought up by this relative and my answer:

 

...when he tried to get one of the councilors in the first presidency, William Law’s wife Jane, to marry him?

 

Don’t forget Robert Foster and his wife also. It should be noted that Law and Foster were both chief city contractors in Nauvoo and they and Smith disagreed much over building finance which is how all this got started.  They then began making accusations against JS regarding their wives:

 

Bushman (2005, pp. 660–61) (noting that Smith claimed that Jane Law had proposed to him (660–61), citing Journal of Alexander Neibaur, May 24, 1844 (Smith claimed that Jane Law lured him into her house alone, embraced him, and proposed to him, but that Smith resisted her advances); also noting that Smith confronted Mrs. Foster with two witnesses and got her to say that during their dinner, Smith had made no sexual advances and had not "preached the spiritual wife doctrine" (530–31).)

 

An interesting statement regarding JS by Law before all this happened:

 

“I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it” William Law to Isaac Russell, 29 November 1840, Archives Division, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah, as cited in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1994), 11

 

At best, this is a “he said she said” case.  Non catastrophic to any of the Church’s truth claims imho.  Looking at the supposed polyandrous cases we discussed above and noting there was no cohabitation, I tend to believe Smith over Law and Foster who had other cause (the economic disagreements) to be angry.  Sex certainly has been a mainstay of criticism against JS, but the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

[foster]

These simple glaring facts still stand:

 

1. You know of evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

2. You commented on the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

3. You tacitly treated as true, the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is no contrary evidence as the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor,

 

 

Your failure to show any of these, whereas I brought over the direct quotes from my posts, is telling.  I think the audience has enough information to judge now though if you have any actual quotes or references (you have provided none in this entire thread), I invite you bring them forth instead of relying on invective. 

 

I'm still curious as to why you refuse to make your case.  There are other apologists here who would be asking the moderation to ban you from their thread at the very least.  I am willing to be patient and see what you might be able to contribute.  I recommend you start providing actual quotes and references to back up your claims.  If your next post in this thread doesn't do just that, I will ignore you for the rest of this conversation because I am not interested in invective.  Just the facts ma'am.

 

Do you like apples?

 

You commented on a thread titled "libel law and the Nauvoo Expositor" and you commented to the assertion(s)/merits of that thread - Proves simple fact 1.

 

You have admitted to commenting on that thread and I will add you quoted the opening post in your first response on that thread - Proves simple fact 2.

 

Your first response is a derailment of the thread and a tacit admission of the assertion of the thread and your second response is a comment to the assertions/merits of the thread and a tacit admission of the assertion of that thread - Proves simple fact 3.

 

I have the facts. How do you like them apples?

Edited August 28, 2013 by foster

[Tacenda]

I just listened to a tape of the Givens and Richard Bushman who spoke at a meeting for members that struggle with faith.  Terryl Givens bore a great testimony of the church about what JS instituted as a belief that no other faith was believing at that time and currently, except for one of the items the Universalists were teaching.  It made me wonder that through history maybe there were many Joseph Smiths.  And why not believe him?  If we're to believe the other prophets in the scriptures.  One of the them mentions the prophet Moses doing some pretty bad things but yet he supplied us with the Ten Commandments. 

 

I guess as long as the church provides a way to Christ through faith, love, service and worship, why not the LDS church?  As long as I'm not believing something that will send me or my family to hell I guess.  And if in the bible the Saviour says to become as He is, perfect.  Then maybe that might mean we'll be Gods or maybe it won't.  No one knows for sure, except Joseph himself.  And he could have been speaking as a man and not as a prophet at the time he mentions it.              

[foster]

Tacenda you present a valid question. Why not Luther, Muhammad (Peace be upon Him), or any other religious leader. That is essence is the question Joseph Smith took to the grove. We all must have a "grove" moment. There is only one source that can let us know the truth, it is up to each of us to ask.

Edited August 28, 2013 by foster

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Here is another question that was brought up by this relative and my answer:

 

 

 

...when he tried to get one of the councilors in the first presidency, William Law’s wife Jane, to marry him?

 

Don’t forget Robert Foster and his wife also. It should be noted that Law and Foster were both chief city contractors in Nauvoo and they and Smith disagreed much over building finance which is how all this got started.  They then began making accusations against JS regarding their wives:

 

Bushman (2005, pp. 660–61) (noting that Smith claimed that Jane Law had proposed to him (660–61), citing Journal of Alexander Neibaur, May 24, 1844 (Smith claimed that Jane Law lured him into her house alone, embraced him, and proposed to him, but that Smith resisted her advances); also noting that Smith confronted Mrs. Foster with two witnesses and got her to say that during their dinner, Smith had made no sexual advances and had not "preached the spiritual wife doctrine" (530–31).)

 

An interesting statement regarding JS by Law before all this happened:

 

“I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it” William Law to Isaac Russell, 29 November 1840, Archives Division, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah, as cited in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1994), 11

 

At best, this is a “he said she said” case.  Non catastrophic to any of the Church’s truth claims imho.  Looking at the supposed polyandrous cases we discussed above and noting there was no cohabitation, I tend to believe Smith over Law and Foster who had other cause (the economic disagreements) to be angry.  Sex certainly has been a mainstay of criticism against JS, but the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

The problem is, is that this was a known practice of Joseph's from even friendly sources.  John Taylor and Heber C Kimball both reported that Joseph asked for their wives.  We know that Miranda Hyde married Joseph while Orson was off on a mission.  We also have reports from Sarah Kimball and Sarah Pratt that Joseph made an unwanted proposal.  Do we know all the facts in the matter? Probably not.  Enough to form judgement? Probably not. Enough to make some type of proposal to Jane Law plausible or even likely? I think so.

Edited August 28, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BCSpace]

The problem is, is that this was a known practice of Joseph's from even friendly sources.  John Taylor and Heber C Kimball both reported that Joseph asked for their wives.  We know that Miranda Hyde married Joseph while Orson was off on a mission.  We also have reports from Sarah Kimball and Sarah Pratt that Joseph made an unwanted proposal.  Do we know all the facts in the matter? Probably not.  Enough to form judgement? Probably not. Enough to make some type of proposal to Jane Law plausible or even likely? I think so.

 

It just illustrates to me the great lengths our "critics" will go to find some way to smear JS.  While it is true we don't have much evidence, the evidence there is points to the fact that there is little if anything in the way of any actual impropriety.

 

Miranda continued to have children by Orson.  In fact, the sealings to JS by married women seem to have little if any effect on their lives with their current husbands.  Thus we can and should infer that these sealed relationships were not likely to be polyandrous in the sense that the critics want everyone to believe, but rather for eternity and not for time.

[boulder257]

It just illustrates to me the great lengths our "critics" will go to find some way to smear JS.  While it is true we don't have much evidence, the evidence there is points to the fact that there is little if anything in the way of any actual impropriety.

 

Miranda continued to have children by Orson.  In fact, the sealings to JS by married women seem to have little if any effect on their lives with their current husbands.  Thus we can and should infer that these sealed relationships were not likely to be polyandrous in the sense that the critics want everyone to believe, but rather for eternity and not for time.

 

Honest question: What was the point of Joseph Smith having polyandrous relationships, especially if the wives had productive relationships with their previous/current husbands? I don't understand what this was meant to accomplish or why God thought it would be a good idea.

 

Second honest question: Was this ever acceptable in biblical times? We know that polygamy was at one point, but was polyandrous relationship ever permitted?

 

Thanks for taking the time to educate me on this subject.

[rpn]

 

Honest question: What was the point of Joseph Smith having polyandrous relationships, especially if the wives had productive relationships with their previous/current husbands? I don't understand what this was meant to accomplish or why God thought it would be a good idea.

It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding about sealings that Wilford Woodruff cleared up after a revelation saying that people should be sealed to their own families, not the most righteous person they knew.  (See your Teachings of the Pres. manual for Wilford Woodruff.  The revelation mention is in the intro and in the lesson on sealings.)

[boulder257]

It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding about sealings that Wilford Woodruff cleared up after a revelation saying that people should be sealed to their own families, not the most righteous person they knew.  (See your Teachings of the Pres. manual for Wilford Woodruff.  The revelation mention is in the intro and in the lesson on sealings.)

 

Okay. So you are saying that at one time the church believed that they should be sealed to their family and the most righteous person they knew?  Just for the record I am not Mormon, just trying to learn. So, I don't have the reference material you mention. But, I will look it up. Thank you.

Edited August 29, 2013 by boulder257

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding about sealings that Wilford Woodruff cleared up after a revelation saying that people should be sealed to their own families, not the most righteous person they knew.  (See your Teachings of the Pres. manual for Wilford Woodruff.  The revelation mention is in the intro and in the lesson on sealings.)

The problem I have with the OP is the statement that "The answers we have available to us always lay to rest anti Mormon criticism in the minds of the intellectually honest." Your interpretation is a valid one.  It very well may be the right one. However there is no current doctrine or official statement to back you up. It makes sense for you, but doesn't make sense for others. How can we know it is the right one? If this was the right interpretation why doesn't the church release some type of statement to that effect? I prefer a much humbler approach that acknowledges the difficulties and messiness.  The bottom line is that Joseph's implementation of plural marriage was messy and likely included many mistakes, Almost everything associated with it is hard to understand.  The church is essentially silent on the issue leaving us to basically fend for ourselves.

 

Like Nephi of old I feel compelled to declare, I don't know the meaning of all things, but I know that God loves his children. I can't say that I accept the answers we have available to us - does that make me intellectually dishonest?

 

*While responding to your post rpn, I did not mean to imply that you endorse BCSpace's every statement in his OP

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It just illustrates to me the great lengths our "critics" will go to find some way to smear JS.  While it is true we don't have much evidence, the evidence there is points to the fact that there is little if anything in the way of any actual impropriety.

 

Miranda continued to have children by Orson.  In fact, the sealings to JS by married women seem to have little if any effect on their lives with their current husbands.  Thus we can and should infer that these sealed relationships were not likely to be polyandrous in the sense that the critics want everyone to believe, but rather for eternity and not for time.

So if you found out that you were not going to be with your wife for eternity and would in fact be sealed to another wife for eternity, this would have little if any effect on your life?

 

Interestingly your interpretation is different from rpn who said these were dynastic sealings and were a mistaken implementation of the sealing principle. Which apologetic answer is it intellectually dishonest to reject?

 

How is an eternity sealing any better than a for time sealing? If the prophet came to you and said that he just wanted your wife for eternity and that you could keep her for the next 40 years how does that change anything? She is now just on loan to you for a while. Why did Joseph need her in the eternities? Why did he need so many wives sealed to him? I personally find rpn's view much more palatable than yours but the bottom line is that we don't know. We will likely never know (until we die). I'm with Givens on this one.  I love Joseph but have no testimony of polygamy in the hereafter.