Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Also if you can't see that you made the comparison...I don't know what to tell you.You don't know what to tell me, because I did not make the comparison. My point was that I have lived in a country that had a dictatorship (like you did, good chance it was the same country or the one next to it) and I saw first hand what it is like not to have freedom of speech. To me freedom of speech is a moral issue not a legal issue. I think Joseph Smith violated William Law's freedom of speech. That does not mean that I think he was a dictator. Even though we have freedom of speech here, our government has violated that right. Again I do not think that the USA is a dictatorship
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Not at all the same and you know it. Not the same as what? Leading the mob? I never said it was the same. What Law did is quite bad enough on its own.
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 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.The National Enquirer does that all the time. Should we destroy their presses?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) The National Enquirer does that all the time. Should we destroy their presses?If they were in 1840s Nauvoo doing what the Expositor was doing, perhaps so. Or at least suppressed. And the Enquirer has been sucessfully sued, indicating we don't countenance libel, even today. Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 What is the point of this thread? So what you don't agree with JS. Big deal. Get in line. What he did do was illegal. No one here has said other wise. And even if they did so what. None of this proves anything.
cinepro Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) 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". Can you point to some of the lessons from the "Teaching of the Presidents" series that have mentioned polygamy (other than the Church ending polygamy)? As far as I know, the most in-depth treatment of polygamy is offered as an addendum (a slightly misleading addendum, I would add) to the Gospel Doctrine lesson on Eternal Marriage, wherein the teacher is told: The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson. So if that meets your standard of being mentioned "very much", then I guess we have different understandings of what "very much" might mean (i.e. once every four years only if the class members have questions, and then don't talk about it too much and use ambiguous and watered down info from them manual isn't "very much" in my book). No one has said that the Church never, ever mentioned polygamy ever. The problem is that it was seriously watered down, and the circumstances under which it was started and practiced in Nauvoo are what was totally ignored. Edited November 21, 2014 by cinepro 1
pogi Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) What is the point of this thread? I think this was his point: I think somebody owes William Law an apology. Sorry. Oh, wait, he's dead. Are we done here? Edited November 21, 2014 by pogi
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 If they were in 1840s Nauvoo doing what the Expositor was doing, perhaps so. Or at least suppressed. And the Enquirer has been sucessfully sued, indicating we don't countenance libel, even today.I agree and that is what Joseph Smith should have done - sued William Law and had their day in court.
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 What is the point of this thread? So what you don't agree with JS. Big deal. Get in line. What he did do was illegal. No one here has said other wise. And even if they did so what. None of this proves anything.I you read my first statement you will see what my point was.
Anteojito Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 I think this was his point: Sorry. Oh, wait, he's dead. Are we done here?Once again, making light of a good man's reputation.
Nevo Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) On what do you base that assumption? Just my reading of the situation. I don't think Joseph felt the least bit of concern over the (considerable) financial losses incurred by the Law brothers; in his mind, he was the injured party, not them. Moreover, Joseph wasn't big on apologies. An incident from 1841 shows how things might have played out had the state not intervened: The conflict between [Joseph] Smith and [John] Eagle began on October 23, 1841, when Smith got the Nauvoo city council to declare Eagle’s grocery store a public nuisance and to order its forcible “removal” from the city. The grocery was targeted primarily because its alleged sale of hard liquor violated a city ordinance, but it didn’t help that the building was an eyesore and located near the temple. . . . Joseph’s orders from the city council had been to put the house on rollers and move it outside the city limits. Instead, the prophet and his men tipped the house into a deep gully and smashed it to pieces against the bottom. Nor did Eagle have much in the way of legal recourse, since the court and city council were one and the same. Eagle was tried for assault and battery with Joseph Smith as one of the presiding judges. The court fined Eagle $35 for the assault, $30 more for contempt of court, and $8 for costs of suit. When Eagle and his business partner petitioned the city council for $125 to cover the loss of their property, the council voted to approve Joseph’s destruction of their property and to award no damages. Eagle did eventually manage to get his fines reduced, but only by $30. (http://www.withoutend.org/joseph-smiths-personal-feud-ringleader-carthage-mob/) Edited November 21, 2014 by Nevo 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Once again, making light of a good man's reputation.
pogi Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Once again, making light of a good man's reputation. No, I was making light of your suggestion. I don't really know anything about this man other than the fact that he published lies and propaganda against the prophet of God. He certainly didn't make an honorable living, how do you know he was a good man? Edited November 21, 2014 by pogi
Mystery Meat Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Once again, making light of a good man's reputation. Wait, whose the good man here?
Anteojito Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 No, I was making light of your suggestion. I don't really know anything about this man other than the fact that he published lies and propaganda against the prophet of God. He certainly didn't make an honorable living, how do you know he was a good man?Wait a minute, on one had you say you know nothing of the man and on the other hand you say that he didn't make an honorable living. I have yet to an example of a lie that he said about Joseph Smith.
Anteojito Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Wait, whose the good man here? William Law
pogi Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Wait a minute, on one had you say you know nothing of the man and on the other hand you say that he didn't make an honorable living. I have yet to an example of a lie that he said about Joseph Smith. Almost nothing - sorry. Like you I'm sure. I don't doubt that he probably had some redeemable qualities, most liars do. See post 2 and 5 for some of the mischaracterizations. Also, this is not a very nice thing to say about a recently murdered man: it was Smith's goal "to demoralize the world, to give it to Satan, his master..... He claimed to be a god, whereas he was only a servant of the Devil, and as such he met his fate." Looks like another lie to me. I can see why you like him though. As the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I withhold judgment from calling him "good" or "bad", I believe that is God's judgement, not mine. I can say that he said some bad things though. 2
Anteojito Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Almost nothing - sorry. Like you I'm sure. I don't doubt that he probably had some redeemable qualities, most liars do. See post 2 and 5 for some of the mischaracterizations. Also, this is not a very nice thing to say about a recently murdered man: Looks like another lie to me. I can see why you like him though. As the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I withhold judgment from calling him "good" or "bad", I believe that is God's judgement, not mine. I can say that he said some bad things though.Those look like opinions to me. I don't agree with them for the most part, but I can't classify them as lies. I do not adhere to that particular Sun Tzu quote. I think that history has taught that "The enemy of my enemy may be my future enemy" Saddam Hussein is a pretty good example of that.
cinepro Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) No, I was making light of your suggestion. I don't really know anything about this man other than the fact that he published lies and propaganda against the prophet of God. He certainly didn't make an honorable living, how do you know he was a good man? BYU Studies published an article about William Law years ago. It gives an interesting perspective on the man, since obviously we hear mostly about his fighting against the Church. The book "American Crucifixion" also gives an interesting history of Law. From the BYU Studies article, here is what the reporter for New York Observer had to say about him after visiting Nauvoo in 1842: William's abilities as a committed follower and leader as well as his improved financial status made him a natural choice for church service at nauvoo in 1841. With divine confirmation the Prophet Joseph Smith selected him as a counselor in the First Presidency. Shortly after this calling, one observer noted that "no man could be better fitted to his station" in the Presidency. William Law was considered to be a man "having great suavity of manners" and "amiability of character," "correct business habits," and "great devotion to the service of god." Edited November 22, 2014 by cinepro
Mars Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) This thread is a total facepalm. I know - don't be a board nanny, please engage people on their points instead of just dismissing them out of hand, be mature, et cetera - but... Facepalm. Edited November 22, 2014 by Mars 1
cinepro Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 No, I was making light of your suggestion. I don't really know anything about this man other than the fact that he published lies and propaganda against the prophet of God. He certainly didn't make an honorable living, how do you know he was a good man? Regarding his living: William Law wasted little time putting down roots at Nauvoo. With his brother Wilson as partner, he purchased properties, opened a store, and proceeded to build a much needed steam mill. A man of enterprise, William was dedicated to self improvement through shrewd investment and hard work. He saw in the large influx of Mormons to Nauvoo an opportunity personally to take advantage of the economic growth of the community. Though he was not wealthy, the native irishman was a man of means, and his influence among the Canadian saints now began to expand Churchwide as he assumed his new calling in the Presidency
cinepro Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) And here's a good summary of what, exactly, William Law got so upset about. Each of these has a paragraph or two of explanation in the article referenced above. William Law's justification for his position of dissent was based on at least five points of contention. First he alleged that Joseph Smith was defiant of state laws. A second allegation by William Law was that Joseph Smith sought to manipulate politicians for his own purpose. Third, the First Presidency counselor charged that Joseph Smith had allowed the established order of the church to be ignored in the excommunication trial. Fourth, William Law alleged that Joseph Smith had sought to control, by ecclesiastical authority, the financial affairs of the saints. Finally, William Law charged that Joseph Smith had introduced into the church false doctrines (publicly) and corrupt practices (secretly), thereby perverting his "priestly authority" and "forfeiting the holy priesthood." Specifically, the Irish convert manifested his repugnance to (1) "a plurality of Gods... [i.e.] other gods as far above our God as he is above us [and] that he wrought out his salvation in the flesh with fear and trembling the same as we do"; (2) "unconditional sealing up to eternal life" by life69 by the power of the priesthood, and (3) a plurality of wives. Edited November 22, 2014 by cinepro
Tacenda Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 CFR that William Law led the Mob.And Pa Pa please CFR that polgamy is discussed in the "Teachings of the Presidents". It was so not taught in our RS class. Maybe combine our CFR's to save your posts.
Tacenda Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 You don't know what to tell me, because I did not make the comparison. My point was that I have lived in a country that had a dictatorship (like you did, good chance it was the same country or the one next to it) and I saw first hand what it is like not to have freedom of speech. To me freedom of speech is a moral issue not a legal issue.I think Joseph Smith violated William Law's freedom of speech. That does not mean that I think he was a dictator. Even though we have freedom of speech here, our government has violated that right. Again I do not think that the USA is a dictatorshipI recently learned Joseph Smith charged a guy money for disagreeing (?) during a sermon. Sort of dictator like.
Recommended Posts