Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 I hate it when people say things that are true yet not helpful to my cause. I also hate it when people feel passionately and therefore speak passionately against a perceived wrong. Yes, in this case the truth may be worse than overt falsehoods.I have in mind the truth being manipulated to purvey falsehood. It happens all the time, and it is never good, honorable or acceptable.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 I'm not sure why the need to defend Joseph at ask costs on this, some even going so far as to suggest God may have inspired him to destroy the press. IMO, it seems pretty reasonable to believe what Joseph did was wrong, but somewhat understandable considering what the Saints had gone through. I don't know if he ordered the press to be destroyed because he feared for their safety or because it spoke the unvarnished truth mixed with inflammatory rhetoric - probably a mix of both. I'm often reminded on this board that Joseph was "just a man" or was fallible - why can't this be one of his fallible moments?Why does it have to be?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 And opposing legal opinions are what lawsuits are made of. Each opinion as valid as the other until the courts rule otherwise.And after the martyrdom, the Nauvoo City Council was acquitted.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) If you check out the whole diary (which is suspiciously short) I think you'll notice that it reads like bad fiction. Nothing in it is credible. All of the characters are broadly drawn caricatures (especially William Law, who, unlike his real-life counterpart, is here a foul-mouthed drunkard). I think it was probably written in the early 20th century, based on expressions like "umpteenth" (which first came into use around the turn of the 20th century and gained prominence after WW1), "keep your eyes and ears open", and "faith promoting experience" (which, as far as I can tell, did not enter the Mormon lexicon until the 1880s). "Keep him posted" also seems out of place for 1844. Robert H. Daines described the provenance of the diary in a 2000 BYU devotional: "I should like to share with you an entry from the diary of my great-great grandmother. This is a record of a little-known experience of the Prophet Joseph—little known because this diary was lost for 30 to 40 years in my mother’s home in New Jersey. It was only rediscovered as they were preparing to move back to Utah in the late 1970s. This is a diary entry of Sister Sarah Stoddard." My guess is that it was created ca. 1920-1930.My check of the etymology of <umpteenth> bears out what Nevo is saying. It comes from <umpty>, which is early Morse code slang for a dash or M. It signified an undetermined large number, because M is the Roman numeral for thousand. Umpty or umpteenth came into use in World War I. The diary thus does not appear to be authentic. Edited November 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
The Nehor Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 You are so right You don't need to prove anything. You don't like what William Law said in the Expositor so clearly he must have provided support for murderers and consorted with murderers. Yeah, who needs proof?Forgive me if I am not invested in protecting the integrity of a man who fought against and agitated for the overthrow and deposition of the greatest spiritual giant since Peter and was almost certainly aware that there were men eager to kill him....that is assuming he did not take a more direct hand.No, instead we are supposed to be horrified and blubber about how his little newspaper got wrecked. Agitating against someone and stirring up hatred against that which is good is not a legal crime (nor should it be) but he is not innocent, just as those who agitated against blacks and indirectly supported the KKK with less virulent propaganda are not innocent of lynchings and cross burnings. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 You're being presentist. As described by BYU Studies about newspapers of this era: We only object to the style and tone now because of our modern cultural standards.If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times?
Anteojito Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times?
Anteojito Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times?
Anteojito Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times?Ok for the millionth zillionth time, what did he say that that was libelous? Has anyone one on this board actually read the Expositor? 1
omni Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times?If the Desert News published an inflammatory opinion piece on Warren Jeffs and his followers destroyed it's press, why you defend their actions? 1
Analytics Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 If that be the case, isn't it also ppresentist to condemn the suppression of such a viciously libelous organ on the position of abating a public nuisance as we might object to the suppression of a more respectable newspaper in more modern times? The supression of this allegedly "viciously libelous organ" was widely and strongly condemned to in 1844. The view at the time was that a free press was a vital check and balance against a city-sate where one man controlled the Church, the government, and the military. Outside of Joseph Smith and his most loyal followers, almost everybody at the time thought that the Nauvoo Expositor was providing this precise function. So if people who now think that Joseph Smith had no legal or moral right to destroy that press are guilty of presentism, does it follow that everybody other than Joseph Smith and his most loyal followers at the time were guilty of futurism? 1
Glenn101 Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The supression of this allegedly "viciously libelous organ" was widely and strongly condemned to in 1844. The view at the time was that a free press was a vital check and balance against a city-sate where one man controlled the Church, the government, and the military. Outside of Joseph Smith and his most loyal followers, almost everybody at the time thought that the Nauvoo Expositor was providing this precise function. So if people who now think that Joseph Smith had no legal or moral right to destroy that press are guilty of presentism, does it follow that everybody other than Joseph Smith and his most loyal followers at the time were guilty of futurism? Aren't you being a little selective here??? Where was the widespread condemnation (outside of the LDS community) of the destruction of the printing press in W.W. Phelps' own home and the tarring and feathering of Edward Partridge and Charles Allen in 1833??? Wasn't this a case of selective outrage on the parts of non-LDS??? Glenn 2
Anteojito Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 Aren't you being a little selective here??? Where was the widespread condemnation (outside of the LDS community) of the destruction of the printing press in W.W. Phelps' own home and the tarring and feathering of Edward Partridge and Charles Allen in 1833??? Wasn't this a case of selective outrage on the parts of non-LDS??? Glenn Aren't you being a little selective here??? Where was the widespread condemnation (outside of the LDS community) of the destruction of the printing press in W.W. Phelps' own home and the tarring and feathering of Edward Partridge and Charles Allen in 1833??? Wasn't this a case of selective outrage on the parts of non-LDS??? GlennThe destruction of W.W. Phelps' press and the tarring and feathering of Partridge and Allen was wrong. I think everybody today would agree with that. That does not change the fact that the destruction of Law's press was wrong too.
ERayR Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Has anyone one on this board actually read the Expositor? Yes
ERayR Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 If the Desert News published an inflammatory opinion piece on Warren Jeffs and his followers destroyed it's press, why you defend their actions? Presentism much.
volgadon Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The destruction of W.W. Phelps' press and the tarring and feathering of Partridge and Allen was wrong. I think everybody today would agree with that. That does not change the fact that the destruction of Law's press was wrong too. That is not what he was saying. He was saying that the outrage had more to do with anti-Mormon sentiment than a general, principled stance on freedom of the press. In other words, people were not too sad to see an organ of pesky Mormon expression silenced. 1
volgadon Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Ok for the millionth zillionth time, what did he say that that was libelous? Has anyone one on this board actually read the Expositor? Have you read any of the responses on the first page of this thread? In case you have forgotten, the answer is yes, you have read the responses. The following was mentioned: It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place? -- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the Lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father and mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God. -- They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front -- Positively NO admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep-laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable, but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, when in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached, that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently, and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings from the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it -- but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice, and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done, and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, "if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?" Her lot is to be wooed and won; her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed -- the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low! But no one knows of the mental malady that previously sapped her strength, and made her so easy a pray to the spoiler. She is like some tender tree, the pride and beauty of the grove -- graceful in its form, bright in its foliage, but with the worm praying at its heart; we find it withered when it should be most luxuriant. We see it drooping its branches to the earth, and shedding leaf by leaf until wasted and perished away, it falls in the stillness of the forest; and as we muse over the beautiful ruin, we strive in vain to recollect the blast or thunder-bolt that could have smitten it with decay. But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore. 3
Guest Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 So Joseph Smith said that William Law was immoral. Of course we all know that Joseph Smith never lied.You keep moving the goal post while the game is being played. William Law was angry because he was an adulterer. Plural wives was not enough so he just did polygamy the old fashioned way. Earlier William Law was "a good man" (your words), now "ok he lied, but so did Joseph". If you had taken enough time to research William as much as you did searching the net to find the glove that fits Joseph...you did so at the expense of ignoring that "William" had no clothes. William Law did what the did because if Joseph would not let him practice polygamy his way then he would seek to out Joseph in print! As I have pointed out, it was not Joseph's primary concerned for himself in the warm embrace of Nauvoo...it was for the wolves that were at her boarders ready to move in for the kill. People with whom William had already been in league with making blood oaths to not eat again until Joseph was dead. This is the man you seem so willing to paint as a Saint. A five min google of Law, will tell you the truth. Law was not trying to expose Joseph, but trying to settle the score at any cost. He did do it at the loss of lives, homes and the (Mormon) "trail of tears". Once the Saints were gone he could move in his co-conspirators in next door and burn down the Temple. But this was not uncommon then for people who just wanted to practice their faith and live in peace, as it still goes on today. Now the weapons are partial facts, a keyboard and the Internet. Everyday on the Internet more and more line up to kill Joseph and Hyrum again and again. Indeed, "his name will be had for good and evil among all the Nations of the earth".
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The supression of this allegedly "viciously libelous organ" was widely and strongly condemned to in 1844. The view at the time was that a free press was a vital check and balance against a city-sate where one man controlled the Church, the government, and the military. Outside of Joseph Smith and his most loyal followers, almost everybody at the time thought that the Nauvoo Expositor was providing this precise function. The fact is, bigotry in Jacksonian America -- and hatred of Mormons and Mormonism in particular -- was so pervasive, it is difficult-to-impossible to separate this supposed indignation you speak of from garden-variety anti-Mormonism. Where was the widespread condemnation of the destruction of the Mormon press in Independence, Mo.? 1
Nevo Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Aren't you being a little selective here??? Where was the widespread condemnation (outside of the LDS community) of the destruction of the printing press in W.W. Phelps' own home and the tarring and feathering of Edward Partridge and Charles Allen in 1833??? Wasn't this a case of selective outrage on the parts of non-LDS??? Here is a sampling of newspaper reaction to the hostilities in Jackson County in 1833: Some days since we announced to our readers by means of a letter from Missouri, that the Mormonite headquarters in Jackson county, in that State, had been broken up. The St. Louis Republican of the 9th inst. just received, gives the annexed particulars of the transaction. We can easily conceive that such an establishment would be quite a nuisance any where; but we must say, notwithstanding, that such a mode of breaking it up is illegal & riotous, however respectable may have been the individuals concerned. What avail our toleration principles, if no sect is to be endured but such as are free from extravagance and fanaticism. — New York Journal of Commerce, quoted in Erie Gazette, 5 September 1833. Some very extraordinary proceedings have recently taken place in Jackson county, in this State, against a sect of fanaticks called Mormons. These proceedings may find some justification in the necessity of the case, but they are wholly at war with the genius of our institutions, and as subversive of good order as the conduct of the fanaticks themselves. Perhaps, however, it was the only method which could have been effectually put in practice to get this odious description of population out of the way. Banished as they are from that frontier, it may well be asked to what place will they now remove; and will they enjoy any better security in the new abode which they may select? — St. Louis Republican, quoted in Erie Gazette, 5 September 1833. The Mormonites have been banished from their Mount Zion, at Independence, Jackson Co. Missouri. We will not pretend to justify the severe measures, which have produced this result, but from what we have known of the deluded sect in this region, we are prepared to believe, that they were exceedingly troublesome in Missouri. — Cincinnati Journal, quoted in Boston Recorder, 11 September 1833 . Although we have always viewed these Mormons with abhorrence, we are not prepared to justify such outrageous proceedings on the part of the citizens. The former have rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the land, in common with the latter, and should be as like protected in the freedom of conscience, and in the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and Property." We hope the Executive will interpose, & prevent a recurrence of these lawless outrages, and that the perpetrators of them may be brought to condign punishment. — Missouri Intelligencer, 16 November 1833. Our intelligence from the West by the mails is not so late as that brought by the steamboat Charleston. The Fayette Monitor corroborates the statement of Mr. Hyde, in relation to the violent proceedings of the Anti-Mormons, so far as the accounts of that paper extend. Houses and property were destroyed, and the Elders of the Church severely whipped by the mob, under cover of the night. It is impossible to foresee what is to be the result of this singular and outrageous violation of the laws. We fear that the party opposed to the Mormons will think themselves placed so far beyond the pale of the law as to continue utterly regardless of it, and eventually, by the power of numbers, be enabled to cut off the offending sect. . . . The facts are . . . notorious; and the Governor should, without delay, if he has not done it already, act upon them. He is bound to see that the laws are executed against all offenders. The power of the county not being available in this case—for almost all are concerned in the insurrection—the Governor should issue his Proclamation, calling out the Militia of the neighboring counties, to enforce the laws, and to quell the riot. He should give the requisite orders to the officers for that purpose; and do it with all alacrity. It is very evident, that unless some effective measures are adopted by him in this emergency, the lives of many valuable citizens will be sacrificed, and the State suffer an irretrievable injury. A rancorous, deadly, hostility has long existed between the parties, and unless the firmness and prudence of the Governor should be equal to the crisis, and the offending party be severely punished, we must expect to hear of the [continual] recurrence of such disgraceful proceedings. We have nothing to do with the original causes of the quarrel. There may be many worthless and intolerable members of the obnoxious sect; but the laws are equal to the punishment of all those who are guilty of violating them. It does not appear that they were appealed to at all prior to this contest. The Mormons are as much protected in their religion, their property, and persons, as any other denomination or class of men. We think that they acted perfectly right in offering the resistance which they did, and thus far they have the sympathy of this part of the community. — National Intelligencer, 30 November 1833. The disturbances in Jackson County.—We are glad to receive more pacific accounts from the county of Jackson, in which such disgraceful broils have recently taken place. We understand that the Mormonites have determined to oppose no further armed resistance to the dominant party, and that they were rapidly leaving the county and their homes, with the intention of forming another community elsewhere. They are determined, however, to prosecute the citizens engaged in hostilities towards them, and for the depredations committed upon their property, and, in this event, those who have disregarded all law may be made to feel its heaviest penalties, both in their persons and fortunes. The Mormonites have, undoubtedly, adopted the best course which was left to them; and all alarm has subsided in that county. All our accounts, we are happy to say, concur in one thing, that the original statement as to the number killed, was much exaggerated. The most authentic and latest account which has reached us, puts down the number at six—two of the citizens and four of the Mormonites, and a great many wounded. This statement was brought by the steamboat Dove, from Independence, seat of justice of Jackson county. Many reports prevailed, even in that quarter, as to the extent of the loss of life; and the first rumors may have well gained circulation without any sinister motive in those who gave credence and publicity to them. We are informed that an authentic statement of all the occurrences which have disgraced that county, may be shortly expected. It was to be made out by some very respectable gentlemen of the county—who have, from beginning to end, taken no part in the contest—and in whose veracity every confidence may be placed. Such a statement is due to the people of Missouri, whose reputation must suffer in the eyes of all good men; and may remove much of the odium which at present attaches to one of the parties engaged in this disreputable contest. — St. Louis Republican, 22 November 1833, quoted in Manufacturers and Farmers Journal and Providence and Pawtucket Advertiser, 12 December 1833. THE MORMONITES.—Some further particulars, relating to the conflict between the Mormonites and the people of Jackson county in Missouri, are given in the St. Louis papers. It is said, that one of the Judges of the circuit, and several civil officers, were thrown into prison in consequence of an attempt to interfere, and detained for some hours: and that the Lieut. Governor had been driven out of the county. Almost all the people of the county are concerned on one side or the other, so that it is supposed that the militia of the neighboring counties will be called out by the Governor, to enforce the laws. The treatment of the Mormonites is described as extremely outrageous, and they are commended in some of the papers of St. Louis for their resistance. — Boston Recorder, 14 December 1833.See http://lib.byu.edu/collections/19th-century-mormon-article-newspaper-index/; also, Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 608n57: "Even the obstreperous Ohio newspaper editor E. D. Howe was convinced that the proceedings 'on the part of the people of Jackson county, was in total disregard of all law, and must be condemned by all.'" Edited November 23, 2014 by Nevo 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) If the Desert News published an inflammatory opinion piece on Warren Jeffs and his followers destroyed it's press, why you defend their actions?Well, your analogy is quite problematic: -- There is scarcely any resemblance between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Warren Jeffs band. -- The Deseret News is hardly prone to the sort of actions perpetrated by the Nauvoo Expositor. -- We find ourselves more than a century-and-a-half removed from the time, setting and circumstances of 1840s Nauvoo. I find it amusing when someone, to make a point, contrives the most outrageous analogy he can think of for comparison. it betrays some desperation. Edited November 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Analytics Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The fact is, bigotry in Jacksonian America -- and hatred of Mormons and Mormonism in particular -- was so pervasive, it is difficult-to-impossible to separate this supposed indignation you speak of from garden-variety anti-Mormonism. Where was the widespread condemnation of the destruction of the Mormon press in Independence, Mo.? Regarding your first point, that’s like declaring “the hatred and bigotry against President Obama is so persuasive in modern America, it is difficult-to-impossible to separate the supposed indignation regarding any given issue from garden-variety anti-Obamaism.” I concede that when somebody’s political opponent does something wrong, it can be hard to distinguish whether any given criticism is driven by an objective analysis of the facts or by simple prejudice. That doesn’t change the fact that when such people persuasively articulate their grievances, and when the articulation of the grievances still rings true 170 years later, it’s superlatively weak to claim that people who now agree with what was said 170 years ago are somehow guilty of “presentism.” Regarding your second point, on July 20, 1833, a “citizens committee” in Independence met. They didn’t like the Mormons immigrating into their territory en masse, the prospects of the outsiders wielding too much political power, and specifically the abolitionism that W.W. Phelps was promoting in his paper. The citizens committee had a vote, and decided that if W. W. Phelps didn’t agree to stop printing his paper, they would destroy his press. After giving the ultimatum, Phelps declared he had the right to print his paper (he must have been guilty of futurism too), and vowed to continue printing. With that, the citizens committee carried out what they had resolved to do and destroyed the press. So now you are defending the actions of the mob, and would accuse me of “presentism” if I said there was something wrong with this. I find that bizarre.
cinepro Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) You keep moving the goal post while the game is being played. William Law was angry because he was an adulterer. Plural wives was not enough so he just did polygamy the old fashioned way. Do you have any references for your claim that William Law was an adulterer? Are you confusing him with John C. Bennett? Interestingly, I can't find a single charge of adultery against Law, even in the charges of his excommunication (he was ex'd for "rebellion", not adultery). This is also from the BYU Studies article: The question that had plagued William Law was how far to push his denunciation of polygamy. Seeing no hope of a reconciliation, William resolved to save the church from error by exposing the leviathan to the Nauvoo populace. He seized upon his damning evidence, and in late May and early June 1844, he legally charged Joseph Smith with adultery and publicized the nature of the prophet's polygamous teachings and practices in the pages of the Nauvoo Expositor. But William Law badly misjudged the mentality of the Mormon people. He had not recognized their corporate solidarity or the tremendous love and support extended to Joseph Smith as the Lords mouthpiece. Much to his dismay, his open attack on the church leader further alienated him and labeled him as a bitter enemy of the restoration. It's interesting that this article frames the Expositor as being for the Saints, not for the anti-Mormons (although the fact that it was published and distributed in Nauvoo would certainly indicate as much). Edited November 23, 2014 by cinepro
Anteojito Posted November 24, 2014 Author Posted November 24, 2014 You keep moving the goal post while the game is being played. William Law was angry because he was an adulterer. Plural wives was not enough so he just did polygamy the old fashioned way. Earlier William Law was "a good man" (your words), now "ok he lied, but so did Joseph". If you had taken enough time to research William as much as you did searching the net to find the glove that fits Joseph...you did so at the expense of ignoring that "William" had no clothes. William Law did what the did because if Joseph would not let him practice polygamy his way then he would seek to out Joseph in print! As I have pointed out, it was not Joseph's primary concerned for himself in the warm embrace of Nauvoo...it was for the wolves that were at her boarders ready to move in for the kill. People with whom William had already been in league with making blood oaths to not eat again until Joseph was dead. This is the man you seem so willing to paint as a Saint. A five min google of Law, will tell you the truth. Law was not trying to expose Joseph, but trying to settle the score at any cost. He did do it at the loss of lives, homes and the (Mormon) "trail of tears". Once the Saints were gone he could move in his co-conspirators in next door and burn down the Temple. But this was not uncommon then for people who just wanted to practice their faith and live in peace, as it still goes on today. Now the weapons are partial facts, a keyboard and the Internet. Everyday on the Internet more and more line up to kill Joseph and Hyrum again and again. Indeed, "his name will be had for good and evil among all the Nations of the earth".Where did I say "ok he lied but so did Joseph"? Where did you get " William Law did what the did because if Joseph would not let him practice polygamy his way then he would seek to out Joseph in print! " I think you maybe confusing William Law with John C. Bennett.
omni Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Presentism much.Because it was completely normal and acceptable to destroy printing presses in the 1840's? The "presentism" argument for any and all apologetic defenses really needs be put out to pasture.
Recommended Posts