ERayR Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Are you saying that it was Law's intent that the paper would rile up a mob and cause violence to the Saints in general and Joseph Smith specifically? Remember, it wasn't the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the paper and press. So Law's plan would have been to publish the paper, knowing Joesph Smith would order it's destruction and that would then be the catalyst to incite mob violence. Could you please document that the paper "didn't rile up the mob".
Anteojito Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 Could you please document that the paper "didn't rile up the mob".Sure, as soon as you document that Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14 year old girls. We will never really know if what was written in the paper riled up the mob or if it was the destruction of the paper and press that did it. In the paper, they stated in the introductory that they did not believe in or were looking for mob action and even stated that they felt it would be counterproductive
why me Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Are you saying that it was Law's intent that the paper would rile up a mob and cause violence to the Saints in general and Joseph Smith specifically? Remember, it wasn't the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the paper and press. So Law's plan would have been to publish the paper, knowing Joesph Smith would order it's destruction and that would then be the catalyst to incite mob violence. Law felt hurt and betrayed and so he began a newspaper whose sole aim was to disparage the mormon leadership. He was going to concentrate on polygamy and whoredoms and expose Smith as a vile, dispictable, devilish individual. And other leaders too. The mobs outside would love the paper and they would read much about smith and company that were not so complimentary. I could see headlines in the warsaw signal writing excerpts from the paper. It would be called an Insider's View of Mormonism. And yes, the mobs would be riled up. Such is tabloid media. The destruction of the press was a non-issue. The real issue for the mobs was joseph smith.
why me Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Sure, as soon as you document that Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14 year old girls. We will never really know if what was written in the paper riled up the mob or if it was the destruction of the paper and press that did it. In the paper, they stated in the introductory that they did not believe in or were looking for mob action and even stated that they felt it would be counterproductiveThe paper never had a chance to rile up the mobs because the press was destroyed. However, when we have a group of people who have been chased around by mobs, then seeking shelter by forming their own city with the mobs at the gates just waiting to come in and burn it....and then one has a disgruntled mormon attempting to found a paper that would print antimormon articles and let the world know about polygamy...well....what to do. However, Law could have printed his paper in neighboring town. But he chose Nauvoo. Why? Could it be because he wanted to stick it to the mormon leadership? 1
theplains Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Example please. One example being the short Godmakers cartoon film. It would have been better ifMormons themselves made a life-like movie explaining this part of their theology,regardless if it is fact or speculation. Thanks,Jim
ERayR Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Sure, as soon as you document that Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14 year old girls. We will never really know if what was written in the paper riled up the mob or if it was the destruction of the paper and press that did it. In the paper, they stated in the introductory that they did not believe in or were looking for mob action and even stated that they felt it would be counterproductive Why are you so obsessed with Joseph Smiths sex life?
JLHPROF Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Why are you so obsessed with Joseph Smiths sex life? Because people think if they can "prove" that Joseph had sex with his fourteen year old wives that it will cause a mass apostasy from the Church and prove he was a false prophet. It won't. 1
theplains Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Because people think if they can "prove" that Joseph had sex with his fourteen year old wives that it will cause a mass apostasy from the Church and prove he was a false prophet. It won't. The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube. Regards,Jim
Tacenda Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube.Regards,JimYes, not a good fruit there. Edited November 27, 2014 by Tacenda
Calm Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube. Regards,JimNice little antimormon video Edited November 27, 2014 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Sure, as soon as you document that Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14 year old girls. I am not the one anxious to peer into his marital activities. We will never really know if what was written in the paper riled up the mob or if it was the destruction of the paper and press that did it. In the paper, they stated in the introductory that they did not believe in or were looking for mob action and even stated that they felt it would be counterproductive Like maybe - We don't want you to indulge in any mob action on the Mormons but then again . . . .
ERayR Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube. Regards,Jim Yes, not a good fruit there. The fruit you speak of comes from anti-Mormon bigotry and activities not from the religious practices. 1
Anteojito Posted November 28, 2014 Author Posted November 28, 2014 The paper never had a chance to rile up the mobs because the press was destroyed. However, when we have a group of people who have been chased around by mobs, then seeking shelter by forming their own city with the mobs at the gates just waiting to come in and burn it....and then one has a disgruntled mormon attempting to found a paper that would print antimormon articles and let the world know about polygamy...well....what to do. However, Law could have printed his paper in neighboring town. But he chose Nauvoo. Why? Could it be because he wanted to stick it to the mormon leadership?"The paper never had a chance to file up the mobs because the press was destroyed..." I think you just proved my point. It was not the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the press. Law stated that he didn't condone mob violence in his paper. Unless you have something that he wrote or said to the otherwise, you are attaching motives to his actions without any proof.
Anteojito Posted November 28, 2014 Author Posted November 28, 2014 Sure, as soon as you document that Joseph Smith did not have sex with 14 year old girls. I am not the one anxious to peer into his marital activities. We will never really know if what was written in the paper riled up the mob or if it was the destruction of the paper and press that did it. In the paper, they stated in the introductory that they did not believe in or were looking for mob action and even stated that they felt it would be counterproductive Like maybe - We don't want you to indulge in any mob action on the Mormons but then again . . . . "Like maybe - We don't want you to indulge in any mob action on the Mormons but then again..." Do you have any real proof that was his intent? Unless you can show some real proof, you are just speculating.
ERayR Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 I think you just proved my point. It was not the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the press. Law stated that he didn't condone mob violence in his paper. Unless you have something that he wrote or said to the otherwise, you are attaching motives to his actions without any proof. This really works both ways. Insert something about rocks and glass houses.
JLHPROF Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube. Regards,Jim Yes, not a good fruit there. Anything featuring/produced by Doris Hansen and her hatred spewing vitriol is nothing more than anti-mormon propaganda....and the woman at the end - my sister was best friends with her daughter. Let's just say that polygamy was not the issue there.This documentary is NOT a representative legacy of Joseph Smith's polygamy anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of the gospel of Christ. 1
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 "Like maybe - We don't want you to indulge in any mob action on the Mormons but then again..." Do you have any real proof that was his intent? Unless you can show some real proof, you are just speculating.No, I am inferring. When a mobster comes to your business and asks for protection money to keep anything from being damaged do you assume he means what he literally said or do you infer something else?
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 "The paper never had a chance to file up the mobs because the press was destroyed..." I think you just proved my point. It was not the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the press. Law stated that he didn't condone mob violence in his paper. Unless you have something that he wrote or said to the otherwise, you are attaching motives to his actions without any proof.Well, if he did not say it then he most certainly did not intend to rile anyone up. If there is one thing murderous mobs are known for it is a great grasp of nuance and sticking exactly to what their propaganda says. Calling for action but piously asking for no violence does not excuse you from the results. How exactly did Law suggest Joseph be removed? What was he thinking? To peaceably convene the Twelve and try Joseph for his membership? To calmly wait for the next election and vote Joseph out of being mayor? What did Law want to happen that the mob took too far?
LinuxGal Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Because people think if they can "prove" that Joseph had sex with his fourteen year old wives that it will cause a mass apostasy from the Church and prove he was a false prophet. Why would they say that makes him a false prophet when they refuse to acknowledge that this below makes him a false prophet? D&C 84:4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
JLHPROF Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Why would they say that makes him a false prophet when they refuse to acknowledge that this below makes him a false prophet? D&C 84:4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. - not false at all. Different meaning of generation. It will still happen. Christ made the same kind of prophecy in Matt 24:34.
Sleeper Cell Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 The fruit of his actions left a harmful legacy, even to this day. See "Lifting The Veil Of Polygamy"on youtube. Regards,Jim Yes, not a good fruit there. Why wouldn’t that also be fruit of the actions of Abraham and Jacob and their “harmful legacy?” For that matter, why not blame Joseph Smith’s polygamy on them, as well?
tonie Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) Well, if he did not say it then he most certainly did not intend to rile anyone up. If there is one thing murderous mobs are known for it is a great grasp of nuance and sticking exactly to what their propaganda says. Calling for action but piously asking for no violence does not excuse you from the results. How exactly did Law suggest Joseph be removed? What was he thinking? To peaceably convene the Twelve and try Joseph for his membership? To calmly wait for the next election and vote Joseph out of being mayor? What did Law want to happen that the mob took too far? Is it possible that the "Oath of Vengeance" could have riled the Saints up to commit MMM? "After the exodus to Utah, ordinances usually reserved for the temple were performed in the Endowment House, while temple construction was in progress. In a late recollection, David H. Cannon described the instruction at the Endowment House in regards to vengeance: To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations [sic] and in that language we importune our Father, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus. Although the religious stress was on letting God perform the actual vengeance, individuals sometimes imagined they might be called upon to take a more active role. This phenomenon reached a low point after the rhetorical hyperbole of Mormon Reformation." Edited November 28, 2014 by tonie
ERayR Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Is it possible that the "Oath of Vengeance" could have riled the Saints up to commit MMM? "After the exodus to Utah, ordinances usually reserved for the temple were performed in the Endowment House, while temple construction was in progress. In a late recollection, David H. Cannon described the instruction at the Endowment House in regards to vengeance: To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations [sic] and in that language we importune our Father, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus. Although the religious stress was on letting God perform the actual vengeance, individuals sometimes imagined they might be called upon to take a more active role. This phenomenon reached a low point after the rhetorical hyperbole of Mormon Reformation." I think that they were able to distinguish between praying for and administering it themselves.
Jeanne Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 A question. If anyone knew that there was someone in the bishopric that was having "marital" relations with a 14 year old..like, would you say anything at all? Marital is probably the wrong word in this day and age but that being said, Elizabeth Smart was just 14 years old..amazed at the mental gymnastics that is played here because Joseph Smith was a prophet. I would think that plenty of you would have a hard time sustaining a bishop that did this ...wouldn't you? But it was okay for JS.Tired of the "different times" excuse. It is wrong. Godwin's Law fulfilled. Thread closed.
Sleeper Cell Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 A question. If anyone knew that there was someone in the bishopric that was having "marital" relations with a 14 year old..like, would you say anything at all? Marital is probably the wrong word in this day and age but that being said, Elizabeth Smart was just 14 years old..amazed at the mental gymnastics that is played here because Joseph Smith was a prophet. I would think that plenty of you would have a hard time sustaining a bishop that did this ...wouldn't you? But it was okay for JS.Tired of the "different times" excuse. It is wrong. And what if that bishop took his 14 year old daughter on a long, dangerous journey to settle in a remote area of a third world country. And also used his ecclesiastical position to influence other members of his congregation to do the same. And suppose, as a result, she and many of the other children died the first year, including some as young as 3 years old. Would you participate in an annual event that, in part, commemorated him and the others for their child endangerment and child abuse, if not downright criminal homicide? By the way, how was your Thanksgiving dinner? 1
Recommended Posts