Kenngo1969 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I'm actually good with this. As I said, I'm speaking of the broader principle of government by the voice of the people, however that can be properly expressed.It's all good. Just being precise.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) OK so you could say the Joseph recognized that what he did was wrong. If he lived long enough to pay the compensation, the church could have used it as a good example of a Prophet who did something wrong and took the steps to fix it. It could be seen as an example of a servant of God willing to abide by the law, even though what he did earlier may have been the proper and wise thing under the circumstances. Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Kenngo1969 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) So God knowingly sent Joseph to his death.I don't believe in a God who simply stands by and shrugs helplessly as His children are overcome by events He is powerless to stop. There are many things about which I don't presume to know His mind and will. It's only from a limited, mortal perspective that deaths seem tragic and untimely. I believe it was God who told Joseph that his days were numbered and that they would not be numbered less, and that all flesh is in God's hand. Edited November 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 So God knowingly sent Joseph to his death.I view it more as a matter of God allowing the people of that day their moral agency. They could have chosen to do right by refraining from killing the prophets and ceasing their oppression of the Saints. Throughout history there have been martyrs for the cause of Christ. This is just a latter-day example. I quote from Doctrine and Covenants 135:3-5: He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own eblood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not fseparated! 4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a alamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a bconscience cvoid of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.”—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it: 5 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been afaithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made bclean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I … bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the cjudgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood. The dtestators are now dead, and their etestament is in force.
Guest Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I wonder if the Church will be updating the instructional manuals since they have admitted that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in Nauvoo? "In early June 1844, some former Church members and enemies of the work printed a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor that published lies about the Prophet and other Church leaders." - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153–156 I think somebody owes William Law an apology. Two things, I knew during the discussions that he and the early Saints practiced polygamy, because I asked based on information I had been told. The one who told me to ask was sure thy missionaries would lie about it...they did not. Every Church history book I have ever read also poke of it. Our manuals have always taught that Joseph and other Church Leaders, as well as all who were commanded to do so. For almost a decade we have used "Teaching of the Presidents", and all who practiced polygamy lessons have included polygamy. When we study the OT and D&C, it is discussed very much. The old "Institute Manuals"...which I used for class prep included it. One can only wonder why so many of our critics in and out of the Church, who pride themselves on being experts on such matters have missed the 180+ years of Church printed material on the topic of polygamy...they ask time and time again; when will the Church include polygamy in "Church Manuals". Now to William Law's apology...the same man who with the aid of his brother led the mob that murdered Joseph, Hyrum and 20 days later another brother who became ill while trying to escape the same mob...cause Lucy Mack Smith to bury three sons in the weeks. Apologize to that "William Law"? Wow...just wow!
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Various people and entities pay "go-away" or "good-will" money all the time, even if they're not legally obligated to do so, and without admitting guilt or liability. Why do you think Joseph's willingness to compensate the press's owners for its destruction is any different? What evidence do you have that this is so?Hey, I was trying to put Joseph Smith in a positive light.
ERayR Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Two things, I knew during the discussions that he and the early Saints practiced polygamy, because I asked based on information I had been told. The one who told me to ask was sure thy missionaries would lie about it...they did not. Every Church history book I have ever read also poke of it. Our manuals have always taught that Joseph and other Church Leaders, as well as all who were commanded to do so. For almost a decade we have used "Teaching of the Presidents", and all who practiced polygamy lessons have included polygamy. When we study the OT and D&C, it is discussed very much. The old "Institute Manuals"...which I used for class prep included it. One can only wonder why so many of our critics in and out of the Church, who pride themselves on being experts on such matters have missed the 180+ years of Church printed material on the topic of polygamy...they ask time and time again; when will the Church include polygamy in "Church Manuals".Now to William Law's apology...the same man who with the aid of his brother led the mob that murdered Joseph, Hyrum and 20 days later another brother who became ill while trying to escape the same mob...cause Lucy Mack Smith to bury three sons in the weeks. Apologize to that "William Law"? Wow...just wow! More rep points than I can give. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 At the time, it was legal and moral. You cannot apply todays standards to those of the early 1800s. But of course, this has nothing to do with the claim that started this discussion. I find it strange that some claim the destruction of the Expositor was legal and that it's presentism to be bothered by it today. Clearly people in JS's day had a problem with it. Similar to when JS was imprisoned at Liberty Jail on a charge of treason against the state, JS was arrested for treason against the state and imprisoned in Carthage. It's an odd charge by todays standards but clearly the law back then considered the actions against the expositor to be against the best interest of the state. We can choose to believe that all charges were trumped up because they hated JS. There is truth to that but it's overly simplistic to assume that every person acted of one anti-mormon accord. What they did was wrong. JS wasn't the only one involved. There was a comment a while back that William Law owes Emma an apology for contributing to Joseph's death. Can someone explain how he contributed to JS death? Is the contribution simply the fact that he printed information which JS then participated in ordering the destruction of the press and then was jailed and then killed? Is that what is meant? If so...WOW. 1
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Two things, I knew during the discussions that he and the early Saints practiced polygamy, because I asked based on information I had been told. The one who told me to ask was sure thy missionaries would lie about it...they did not. Every Church history book I have ever read also poke of it. Our manuals have always taught that Joseph and other Church Leaders, as well as all who were commanded to do so. For almost a decade we have used "Teaching of the Presidents", and all who practiced polygamy lessons have included polygamy. When we study the OT and D&C, it is discussed very much. The old "Institute Manuals"...which I used for class prep included it. One can only wonder why so many of our critics in and out of the Church, who pride themselves on being experts on such matters have missed the 180+ years of Church printed material on the topic of polygamy...they ask time and time again; when will the Church include polygamy in "Church Manuals".Now to William Law's apology...the same man who with the aid of his brother led the mob that murdered Joseph, Hyrum and 20 days later another brother who became ill while trying to escape the same mob...cause Lucy Mack Smith to bury three sons in the weeks. Apologize to that "William Law"? Wow...just wow!CFR that William Law led the Mob.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 CFR that William Law led the Mob.William Law's inflammatory rhetoric helped fuel the mob spirit that gripped western Illinois and culminated in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 There was a comment a while back that William Law owes Emma an apology for contributing to Joseph's death. Can someone explain how he contributed to JS death? Is the contribution simply the fact that he printed information which JS then participated in ordering the destruction of the press and then was jailed and then killed? Is that what is meant? If so...WOW.When someone through his inflammatory and libelous rhetoric helps inflame a mob spirit, you don't think he bears some culpability for the misdeeds of the mob? WOW!
Alan Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 The Nauvoo Expositor was wrong about Joseph and polygamy, and so is the church.
Guest Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Of course I have a problem with that. But that does not justify destroying William Law's pressThe odd thing is William Law was a member of the First Presidency, and knew what was going on long before that moment. Law knew that he would be putting all the Saints at risk...it was only when he did not get his way about something that he decided then to have a conscience and was already in league with those who would lead to kill Joseph. Or does the anti-Mormon websites not give "all the facts", or just the ones that they hope will destroy members faith in anything to do with the gospel? But of all the presses owned by members that were destroyed...no one faced any judgement for this, for the rapes for the killings. But when Joseph takes action to destroy a press in Nauvoo that's sole purpose at this time was to destroy the Church, to inflame passions of those who were already swearing secret oaths to kill Joseph and Hyrum. BTW, he did this because the city officials of which Joseph was mayor declared it a public danger, acting under the authority of the City's Charter...he deserved death?
Mystery Meat Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of any democracy. I've lived in a country with a dictatorship. You can clearly see the difference. To me it is a moral issue just as slavery is one. The Nauvoo Expositor stated that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy. Joseph Smith was indeed practicing polygamy and he was the one telling lies about it. As far as what else was printed in the paper, if Joseph Smith had issues about it, he could have sued. This is an offensive comparison. I have personally seen people shoved in the back of black vans and driven off never to be seen again for simply disagreeing with a regime. Yes, I too have lived in such a country and it is threatening and scary. To even mention such actions of terrible despots in the same category as Joseph Smith is laughable and naive at best; downright stupid or foolish at worst. Joseph Smith was not without his weaknesses, no doubt about it. Comparing his destruction of a printing press in the frontiers of 19th century America to the actions of dictators in the modern world who go to any and all ends to control speech...buh-bye credibility. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 When someone through his inflammatory and libelous rhetoric helps inflame a mob spirit, you don't think he bears some culpability for the misdeeds of the mob? WOW!Much of what William Law said was true despite the church's claims that they were lies. I know that's been debated already on this thread so I won't try to repeat it but much was true. He was a member of the 1st Presidency yet JS lied to him about the practice of polygamy. So much of his "inflammatory and libelous rhetoric" was true so no, I don't think he is to blame unless he was out meeting with and helping to organize the mob in attacking JS and the others at Carthage. If he was, I'd be willing to reconsider. William Law's name has been mud in the church for over 170 years and it turns out he was more right about Joseph's behavior than we wanted to admit. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Much of what William Law said was true despite the church's claims that they were lies. I know that's been debated already on this thread so I won't try to repeat it but much was true. He was a member of the 1st Presidency yet JS lied to him about the practice of polygamy. So much of his "inflammatory and libelous rhetoric" was true so no, I don't think he is to blame unless he was out meeting with and helping to organize the mob in attacking JS and the others at Carthage. If he was, I'd be willing to reconsider. William Law's name has been mud in the church for over 170 years and it turns out he was more right about Joseph's behavior than we wanted to admit.Inflammatory lies are yet more insidious and injurious when they are blended with ostensible fact. That you so readily excuse Law because some of what he said was true I frankly find appalling. 1
Nevo Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) His advisers told him it was legal and he had offered to compensate the owners for the loss of property which speaks IMO to his intent being more likely moral than immoral. And afterward, Joseph was quite willing to monetarily compensate the owners for the destruction of the press. It should probably be mentioned that the offer of compensation for the destruction of the press (and type, and office furnishings, etc.) was made while Joseph was sitting across from Governor Ford in Carthage Jail on 26 June 1844 facing charges of riot and treason. Willard Richards recorded the exchange in his journal: "Gov came here to enforce the Law on all people. Gov expressed his feelings about the destruction of the press. Joseph spoke of imprisonment in Mo and spoke of the Constitution. Joseph said we were willing to pay for it." Had things gone differently and had Joseph not found himself in the position he was in on 26 June, I think it's highly unlikely that he would have been "quite willing" to make restitution to the Law brothers. Edited November 21, 2014 by Nevo 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) It should probably be mentioned that the offer of compensation for the destruction of the press (and type, and office furnishings, etc.) was made while Joseph was sitting across from Governor Ford in Carthage Jail on 26 June 1844 facing charges of riot and treason. Willard Richards recorded the exchange in his journal: "Gov came here to enforce the Law on all people. Gov expressed his feelings about the destruction of the press. Joseph spoke of imprisonment in Mo and spoke of the Constitution. Joseph said we were willing to pay for it." Had things gone differently and had Joseph not found himself in the position he was in on 26 June, I think it's highly unlikely that he would have been "quite willing" to make restitution to the Law brothers.On what do you base that assumption? And if you are right, of what great moment is it? If Joseph had not been aware until that moment that he was liable for damages from the destruction of the press, so what? Does that make his willingness to make restitution any the less valid or sincere? Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
HappyJackWagon Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Inflammatory lies are yet more insidious and injurious when they are blended with ostensible fact. That you so readily excuse Law because some of what he said was true I frankly find appalling.What did he say that was untrue? The examples stated above were opinion, not fact. So what factual statements did he make that were incorrect? If your information and sources are good I will change my opinion. But now, it appears to me that Law was correct in what he said. At that point the mobs clearly went too far and of course were unjustified in their murders.
Mystery Meat Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 How come I get the impression that this issue is much more complicated than many, if any, are willing to acknowledge?
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 This is an offensive comparison. I have personally seen people shoved in the back of black vans and driven off never to be seen again for simply disagreeing with a regime. Yes, I too have lived in such a country and it is threatening and scary. To even mention such actions of terrible despots in the same category as Joseph Smith is laughable and naive at best; downright stupid or foolish at worst. Joseph Smith was not without his weaknesses, no doubt about it. Comparing his destruction of a printing press in the frontiers of 19th century America to the actions of dictators in the modern world who go to any and all ends to control speech...buh-bye credibility.Maybe you should read all my posts. I was talking about the freedom of speech being a moral issue like slavery is. No where did I say that Joseph Smith was a dictator. If you are offended it is because you chose to be offended
Mystery Meat Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Maybe you should read all my posts. I was talking about the freedom of speech being a moral issue like slavery is. No where did I say that Joseph Smith was a dictator. If you are offended it is because you chose to be offended Please see: How come I get the impression that this issue is much more complicated than many, if any, are willing to acknowledge?
Mystery Meat Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Maybe you should read all my posts. I was talking about the freedom of speech being a moral issue like slavery is. No where did I say that Joseph Smith was a dictator. If you are offended it is because you chose to be offended Also if you can't see that you made the comparison...I don't know what to tell you.
canard78 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 William Law's inflammatory rhetoric helped fuel the mob spirit that gripped western Illinois and culminated in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.Not at all the same and you know it. Is there any indication that a mob execution was ever on Law's agenda?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 What did he say that was untrue? The examples stated above were opinion, not fact. So what factual statements did he make that were incorrect? If your information and sources are good I will change my opinion. But now, it appears to me that Law was correct in what he said. At that point the mobs clearly went too far and of course were unjustified in their murders.Selective, slanted presentation of fact, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric, can be and often is more damaging than overt falsehood. And I don't care so much about changing your opinion so much as I do about keeping the record straight.
Recommended Posts