Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark unfortunately the Southern Baptist Conventions has endorsed the Tanners. If they are as bad as these folks are telling you that only hurts their reputation. I am reading Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts with Tal Davis & Sandra Tanner. R. Philip Roberts is the director of the Interfaith Witness Division of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Broadmen & Holman Publishers published the book.

I am not sure I can say the Tanners do what they do out of anything but honest mistakes. Because honestly to treat them as decievers doesn't leave them any room to repent. I pray God will soften their heart where he tried to soften pharoah's heart. Hopefully he will have more success. If they havn't found Jesus they are blind guides, false teachers. Really they would be if unsaved are no better than an unsaved false prophet. I really think they could admit some wrong, misinterpretations of quotes relating to the First Vision would be a good start.

Jesus died for everyone including the authors of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? I like the scripture from Jame's 2:12,13 which say's "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgement without mercy, that have shown no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgement." Isn't that a profound statement on mercy? When judging the Tanners I think we have to be merciful. In the end they face the same judgement as you, or I.

I am sorry you arn't satisfied with the answers you have read from FAIR or FARMS. Where specifically do you dissagree with the answers? Do you have an example of an error in a FAIR or FARMS article regarding their work? I am mostly satisfied with the answers myself. The burdon should be on you to prove an issue hasn't been addressed. Dissagreeing with, or rejecting an answer is not proof I have to reject the same article.

Honestly I admit you can like the Tanners work & find them convincing where I do not. My opinion is not better than your's. The issue should be about finding out where we are right & where we are wrong. Be open to admitting where you can the errors of the Tanners. Even if Mormonism is wrong the Tanners are human beings & nobody is right all of the time. Perhaps you can eventually feel ok with admitting some areas where you feel FAIR, or FARMs was right in some of their criticism. Are they right on any issue?

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

HI Dale

The issue should be about finding out where we are right & where we are wrong. Be open to admitting where you can the errors of the Tanners. Even if Mormonism is wrong the Tanners are human beings & nobody is right all of the time. Perhaps you can eventually feel ok with admitting some areas where you feel FAIR, or FARMs was right in some of their criticism. Are they right on any issue?

Have you read a thing I have written? Fair nor Farms have not gone point by point, they for the most part just address them in a general sense. I have posted many subjects in two chapters and posted many quotes, and all but one has been right on in context.

Your being tossed around like a rag doll Dale, all you have said is the Tanners are wrong and FAIR is OK. Show me where the Tanners are wrong, and if they are I'll agree, but to be fair you also admit when they are right? OK? Lets go through chapter two, you already said chapter one is OK.

Chapter 2

(1)The first part is about change, it speaks of the change in views on dancing, is that wrong?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark I have no problem with addressing issues in a general sense. What about their response is so general it's not devestating to Mormonism Shadow or Reality? What do you mean by general? I am just trying to understand your position a bit better. I don't feel very tossed right now.

Sincerely,

Dale

[rongo]

Hi Rongo,

If you want to start slinging mud then this thread will be smashed.

Hi, Markk!

Do you honestly feel that I have been slinging mud? I think I have confined myself to discussing possible lapses of integrity in the Tanners' writings (which is the topic of this thread). You requested examples, and I have been giving the ones I know about. Naturally, these aren't flattering to the Tanners, and I have not hidden my feelings about what I feel these examples demonstrate.

Are you ready to apply the same standards? Are you ready to go point by point with FAIR or FARMS and see how much they ignore to show of the "other side"? we would find the Tanners to be much more objective and fair.

Absolutely. I am confident that a point-by-point comparison of FAIR or FARMS material to examine accuracy and scope would withstand the most rigorous of scrutiny. I have written an article for FAIR, and am writing another, and I can tell you that the members of FAIR are very aware and self-conscious of how critics would treat potential articles. We peer review them for each other, and we are pretty rigorous, because, as you point out, we are painfully aware that critics would jump on us for using the very techniques that we complain about. In particular, we are very self-conscious about how we use ellipses ( . . .), lest we be accused of being dishonest or deceptive in using them (i.e., hiding damaging information, etc.). Also, effective persuasive writing anticipates the best responses of the contra side and tries to preempt them, and LDS apologists (good ones, anyway) do this. I think that FAIR and FARMS and SHIELDS do this well.

The whole point of this thread  is to take on the Tanners point by point in their book, and if we did do that objectivly we would find that they are right on most the time, and their subjective arguments are valid ones for the most part.

If people did do that, I am confident that things would prove to be pretty much how they've played out on this thread: Many of their stuff that looks good on paper falls apart upon close examination (especially the ommitted material replaced by those darn ellipses). Why has this not been done? Two reasons, I think. First, they really aren't relevant any more. Second, to do a thorough point-by-point examination is very time and effort intensive. Look at the ten or so First Vision quotes I cited, plus looks at their ommitted material. I could have listed over a hundred from my Journal of Discourses notes. And whether or not Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball really said that the Lord didn't come to Joseph Smith is not a major part of their cumulative attack on the Church. We're talking a separate 26 volume work of its own, and I'm not volunteering for it. I have other priorities.

[rongo]

Anyway thanks for the time, I'm enjoying this conversation.

Mark

John 1:12

I am, too, Mark!

If they stole something, that was wrong, and that is a sin, but I know they are not thieves---is that what you are implying?(give me a reference).  As far as the McKonkie thing, I remember seeing the document, but I can't remember what it was related to, please refresh me on that one before I comment?

In 1966, the Tanners removed without permission a microfilm from Church Archives and published copies of the contents. I don't know if it was returned; if anyone has more information on this, I'd love to hear it.

Basically, the significance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is controversial to this day. Hugh Nibley argued that the microfilm contained a hodge-podge of various things some brethren in Kirtland were experimenting with in an effort to practice and play with translating Egyptian writing (i.e., "by study, and also by faith," etc.). The microfilm contained one paper with Joseph Smith's name on it, and it was published in such a way as to make it appear that he was responsible for the simple contents (analogous to the notes and attempts of a novice foreign language student).

A photographic record of some of these documents was made on a single film strip by the Historian

[Smith]

The whole point of this thread is to take on the Tanners point by point in their book, and if we did do that objectivly we would find that they are right on most the time, and their subjective arguments are valid ones for the most part.

Most of the time? for the most part?

Sounds just like Satans tactics to me which he started with in the garden.....

[Markk]

HI Rongo,

What about BY and the church changing and surpressing papers and Journals and Church History? You didn't Bring that up...

Allot of those things are wrong you mentioned, and a sin. But I understand some of them, when your a member ofa org, that hides and supress's truths from you, it hurts and there is a part of you that really wants to expose what you feel are lies, so from that point, whether right or wrong the end would justify the means to many people, including myself to a point.

What did the McKonkie letter say?

I went to the first FAIR HTTP on this thread and it deals with Chapter 19 of S&R, that would be a good place to start?

Thanks

Mark

PS..What about BY and the Lucy Mack changes, does that put him in the D&C catagory....why or why not?

(edit) Also, so far theres only been one quote on this whole thread taken out of context, so I agree if we went point by point it would stay pretty much the same/

[rongo]

Hi Rongo,

What about BY and the church changing and supressing papers and Journals and Church History? You didn't bring that up...

A lot of those things are wrong you mentioned, and a sin. But I understand some of them, when you're a member of an organization that hides and supresses truths from you, it hurts and there is a part of you that really wants to expose what you feel are lies, so from that point, whether right or wrong the end would justify the means to many people, including myself to a point.

What did the McKonkie letter say?

. . .

PS..What about BY and the Lucy Mack changes, does that put him in the D&C catagory....why or why not?

Could you elaborate on what you feel has been suppressed by Church leaders respecting Church history?

Regarding Lucy Mack Smith's history, here is the reason given for Brigham Young originally ordering the publication halted:

Lucy Smith

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

Thank's for the McKonkie refresher, I remember now, I have some stuff on that somewhere. I really don't have a problem with that in that the stamp is really the issue, McKonkie was supressing, or at least attemping to, the Adam God theroy which was dynamite back them and rarly known in Zion. I would have more problem if they stole Microfilm, but I would understand and no way call them theifs. But It would be wrong, can you give me a reference?

Theres a whole lot of supression and changes I want to type up, I'll do it tomarrow, I'm tired, if you want a heads up read what BY did and said in S&R page 9 and 10.

Also before I go on on Lucy's, you gave me a bad reference unless I am reading it incorrectly In the HOTC by Roberts are you saying Vol 1. page 33, I looked and didn't see what you wrote there? Can you give me a reference for your whole quote?

Mark

john 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark Mormonism changes & yes some documents were kept back from certain people. I don't consider restricting access to responsible people & types of scholars suppression. People overeacted to it. The stuffs not that bad. I don't consider those types of issues as errors of the MSOR book. I am thinking more of out of context quotations & conclusions rebutted by others.

Have you read the FARMs review of MSOR. Where do you think they were wrong? For me to not see the error you see as not an error I have to see the review as having errors in it.

Do you have an issue from the book that particularly bothers you?

Sincerely,

Dale

[cdowis]

>Elder McConkie told him that Brigham Young had taught AG in a few instances, but much more often had correctly taught the true stations of Adam and God.

FWIW.

Years ago I read a post where a woman in a nursing home related the story that her father had a conversation with BY. He told her father that he was going to "play a great joke" on the members of the church to see if they would actually believe that Adam was God the Father.

If true, it would appear that the joke got out of hand.

[Markk]

Hi dale

I don't consider restricting access to responsible people & types of scholars suppression.

What is it dale? What about members of the church that put their souls into what these guys say? If it is true it will stand, if not it won't, but to supress is wrong and shows there is something to hide.

I am thinking more of out of context quotations & conclusions rebutted by others

.

Like...? I haven't seem anything rebutted yet, have you? what?

Have you read the FARMs review of MSOR. Where do you think they were wrong?

Yes, and as I said over and over thet do not deal point by point. Dale the balls in your court, I have given you plenty of topics from the book and so far you have just agreed that they are OK, so grab a point and go for it, I suggested that we look at fair look at the review of the 10 chapter of the book, start there if you like?

Cdowis,

Great joke from the pulpit, I can't believe you wrote that. You just set back FAIR 20 years.

Mark

John 1:12

[rongo]

FWIW.

Years ago I read a post where a woman in a nursing home related the story that her father had a conversation with BY. He told her father that he was going to "play a great joke" on the members of the church to see if they would actually believe that Adam was God the Father.

If true, it would appear that the joke got out of hand.

This is problematic. The Adam-God proof-texts are of such a nature that, whatever one makes of them, they weren't a joke on the part of Brigham Young.

Besides, this really doesn't seem to be Brigham Young's nature, to see if he could play a big joke on people from the pulpit at General Conference.

[Nisfor]

This is problematic. The Adam-God proof-texts are of such a nature that, whatever one makes of them, they weren't a joke on the part of Brigham Young.

Besides, this really doesn't seem to be Brigham Young's nature, to see if he could play a big joke on people from the pulpit at General Conference.

The other thing that is "problematic" with this theory is that it can be extended out to cover the whole church. If people were willing to accept "Adam-God" as doctrine, but it was really all just a joke - who's to say that Joseph Smith wasn't just playing a joke about finding some golden plates, and it all just got out of hand. Man, that's a knee-slapper!

[rongo]

Hi Rongo,

Thank's for the McKonkie refresher, I remember now, I have some stuff on that somewhere. I really don't have a problem with that in that the stamp is really the issue, McKonkie was supressing, or at least attemping to, the Adam God theroy which was dynamite back them and rarly known in Zion. I would have more of a problem if they stole Microfilm, but I would understand and no way call them thieves. But it would be wrong; can you give me a reference?

Adam-God has been well-known and easily accessible since the 1850's. I think you are mistaken as to how "dynamite" this topic was or as to how "rarely known in Zion" it was in the 1980's (when the McConkie/England letter was written). McConkie wasn't supressing anything; he was telling a Church member and employee at a Church school to stop teaching something held to be false doctrine at a Church school. Charging McConkie with supressing the knowledge of the Adam-God controversy is kind of silly, isn't it?

My only reference for the microfilm incident is the Nibley one I quoted. My experience with them is that they won't go into any details about it. That's why I had hoped that maybe someone else could provide details on whether they returned it, what the aftermath was, etc. Since they published the microfilm and obviously didn't do it with Church permission, I don't think there's any question that their actions here were not what one would hope for from professed Christians. I found it interesting that you said you "would understand" if they did do it. Doesn't that go along with the D&C passage in question, that it's all right to be a little dishonest if that's what it takes to expose the "big dishonesty" in the Mormon Church?

What would Jesus do, and how would He do it?

There's a whole lot of supression and changes I want to type up; I'll do it tomarrow.  I'm tired. If you want a heads up, read what BY did and said in S&R page 9 and 10.

Too bad the Tanners' stuff isn't on CD-ROM for copying-and-pasting! I don't envy you, brother! I've said before that I don't like typing, and copying-and-pasting off of a CD-ROM is so much more convenient.

Also before I go on on Lucy's, you gave me a bad reference unless I am reading it incorrectly. In the HOTC by Roberts, are you saying Vol 1. page 33? I looked and didn't see what you wrote there? Can you give me a reference for your whole quote?

It's really on page 33 of volume 1, as a long footnote. I'm looking right at it in the book right this second. Honest! I'm not supressing anything! I think the problem is that the footnotes in GospeLink are given at the end of the chapters without telling what page they are on, so the only way to get a page number for a footnote is to have the actual book.

Looking forward to the additional info from you on BY and the suppression of Lucy's history!

Take care!

[cdowis]

>This is problematic. The Adam-God proof-texts are of such a nature that, whatever one makes of them, they weren't a joke on the part of Brigham Young.

At the beginning, it was a test for the members, but it then took on a life of its own. BY wanted to see how far it would go, and then it just went too far.

Remember tht this contradicted his teachings previously.

>Besides, this really doesn't seem to be Brigham Young's nature, to see if he could play a big joke on people from the pulpit at General Conference.

You are very familiar with BY's life and personality, are you.

I don't have the exact reference but he spoke from the pulpit and warned the people not to believe everything they heard, even from leaders of the church.

Also he took an active role in the "profitable prophet" joke with the "drunken" JS on ------ who was that guy from Wales? Dan something.

Anyway, this is the only theory which seems to explain something that is otherwise inexplicable.

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark the reviews of the Tanners errors is correct unless you have examples to prove otherwise. The balls in your court not in mine. I asked you to prove that the errors of the Tanners were not errors. I don't agree to all their commentary. Certainly they are in error assuming their religion is the true religion just because they raise real issues. These issues have been addressed. Are you admitting to not having read the review of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? The Tanners raise issues trivia fashion & they were answered point by point in the same way.

Raise a topic you feel they are wronged on & I will read what you say in their defense. I want to discuss the reviews. I see their errors as well documented. I found the responses to them entirely satisfactory.

Do you have anything from the book you felt proved Mormonism false? I am not getting mixed up in grace alone because a couple of unsaved people raise a few legitimate issues. They are no different than a couple of prolific atheists to me.

On Adam God to me that's no worse than others false God's. If the Tanners are unsaved they don't have the true God themselves so shouldn't get stuck on Adam God. (Deut. 13:1-5) Telling us about Adam God only leads us to the wrong Christianity. Many havn't found any Christianity but instead have found atheist beliefs. The book has led many people to nothingism & false religion. To me these are the points I can make against the book as a whole. The book has been dynamite for it has blasted away many souls far from the true God.

I am convinced they are not saved but have a false assurance of salvation. I guess what they say would have more effect on me if I felt they passed the Barean test.(Acts 17:11) Grace alone was not orthodox Christianity prior to Martin Luther. The book Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up? by David Bercot documents that everybody mixed grace & works prior to the reformation. http://www.scrollpublishing.com If they teach the wrong gospel then how can we know they have the true God?

So does Mormonism change? Yes. But does it make an unchangeable church that has changed the early churches grace & works teachings any less changeable. Have you read Guess Who Wants To Have You For Lunch yet? The book documents the churches view on the Trinity was radically altered.

What do you have to say in response to accusations & examples of the Bible being tampered with. What The Inspired Version is at http://angelmessage.org/care documents the many examples the early Christians pointed to. Do not these examples beat the Book of Mormon changes. And John Tvedtnes FAIR talk The Mistakes of Men further documents examples based on a study of variants in Bible manuscripts.

Religion has changed & nobody's religion is unchangeable. I fully expect if the Tanners had the true religion that they would have a religion immune to serious change.

Sincerely,

Dale

[rongo]

You aren't very familiar with BY's life and personality, are you?

I like to think I am, although I can always learn more. I have read all 26 volumes of Journal of Discourses (Brigham Young accounts for 1/3 of the talks, although he doesn't appear hardly at all after volume 19, having died in 1877. The latest talk in JoD is from 1887).

My first-born son has Brigham as a middle name, and I wanted to name him Brigham as a first name. Mrs. Rongo vigorously objected.

In short, I'm a big fan of Brigham Young.

Remember tht this contradicted his teachings previously.

AND afterwards. There are about six "puzzling" Adam-God quotes, and hundreds of "orthodox" ones. Brigham Young taught the correct position of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael (Adam), as we understand it today. I don't think it's necessary to try to explain what he meant or said as a joke or a test (I do have some ideas on this, but that would be for another thread).

I don't have the exact reference but he spoke from the pulpit and warned the people not to believe everything they heard, even from leaders of the church.

Also he took an active role in the "profitable prophet" joke with the "drunken" JS on ------ who was that guy from Wales? Dan something.

Anyway, this is the only theory which seems to explain something that is otherwise inexplicable.

He did warn the people on many occasions that they are responsible for confirming through the Spirit everything they were taught, and that we don't teach blind faith. You're absolutely right on this. I am completely unaware of Brigham Young carrying on the "profitable prophet"/drunk Joseph joke with Dan Jones or anyone else. If you have a source for this, I'm all ears.

The "profitable prophet"/drunk Joseph stuff appears to stem from anti-Mormon literature from the 1840's, notably Henry Caswall's exposes. This is from Hugh Nibley's thrashing of Caswall in "The Myth Makers:"

Caswall: "Although a married man and the father of a large family, Joseph Smith is notoriously addicted to several kinds of gross debauchery. He has often been intoxicated; and has sometimes justified his inebriation by asserting, with characteristic invention, 'that it was necessary that he should be seen in that condition to prevent his followers from worshipping him as a God.' " (Caswall, Prophet of the 19th Century, 222.)

Reporter 2: You say "often intoxicated." Can you give us a few examples?

Caswall: Certainly. "About the year 1840, at a political meeting in Nauvoo, Joseph became intoxicated, and was led home by his brother Hyrum. On the next Sunday he acknowledged the fact before his assembled congregation." (Parrott, Veil Uplifted, 22.)

Reporter 2: You got that story from the Mormons?

Caswall: Of course not. It was told me in Iowa

[lwyatt]

Hi Wyatt,

Why is there still so much confusion about this? All of these accusations, or "truths" told by the Tanners have been asked and answered time and again by many people, not just those here at FAIR or over at FARMS, or any other LDS affiliated group.

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

If all the Tanners did is steel a microfilm, which may or may not be true, then they are doing alright, I've certainly done worse, and I'm not a bad guy. What would you say is worse, stealing a micro film or ordering a city council to destroy personal property? get my point, and if you want to make it personal what's worse, stealing a micro film or a man having a lustfull thought of a women on TV or elsewhere, even with out action, if thats the case we are all as men in trouble. Don't get me wrong, if they stole it, you have every right to call them on it, and it's wrong, but be carefull when you say things like..." What would Jesus do, and how would He do it?" especially in the glass house of LDS history.

Believe me I'm not accusing you of suppressing, I own the HOTC by Roberts (1957) And I am looking right now and it's not here, what printing are you looking at?

I believe the AG was a big thing, in my 34 years in the church I never heard of it, my family who is a very good LDS family and very big LDS family who have Bishops and stake presidents and even a Patriarch never heard of it until I let them kknow about it 14 years ago, now days they know but many have their ears covered like cdowis, but in the late fifty and early sixty's and evn later it was a unknown for the most part. I''ll have to tell you the story about a faithful member friend of mine who brought it up in a quarum meeting and handed copies out and a man had a fit and he thought he was going to have a stroke.

I'll type out some changes later, but you gave me a Idea, Im'going to UTLM to see uf they have some online...Thanks

mark

john 1:12

[rongo]

Believe me I'm not accusing you of suppressing, I own the HOTC by Roberts (1957) And I am looking right now and it's not here, what printing are you looking at?

Hey, I think I know why you can't find it! Roberts edited the official HOTC (with footnotes by him). The "Comprehensive History of the Church" (the one I cited) was also written by him and was more in depth (and covered up to 1930 instead of 1847 like the HOTC). By "in depth," I don't mean to imply that the other one wasn't "in depth," but while I like both of them, they both serve different objectives. I'll bet you're looking in the one with 7 volumes, in which case, you'll never find it on page 33 of volume one!

Your point about the stealing of a microfilm needing to be put in perspective is well-taken. I hope you can see, though, why we who don't believe the Tanners' version of Church history, events, policies, teachings, etc. don't take kindly to being accused of underhanded actions with records in light of their record as well. And bad as I think their actions have been, it's not "theft" in the same sense as what we would think of as "theft." Their actions are done in the name of ideology and agenda (and they would say, for the greater good or a good cause), which is what section 10 of the D&C describes the rationale as being.

I hope you are able to find online versions and thus spare yourself from some strenuous typing!

Good night!

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

I own the work you speak of and it's just not there, where did you get your data?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark the Nauvoo Expositor was a libelous publication & the city council acted according to their understanding of the law. Under are legal system Joseph Smith had to be treated innocently until proven guilty in court. The law allowed for the destruction of the press as they understood it. William Law knew he had a weak case or he would have allowed the courts alone to convict Joseph Smith Jr. of polygamy. Instead he tried to convict Joseph Smith Jr. in the court of public opinion without a fair trial.

If polygamy was of God then D.&C. 132 stands as unimpeachable evidence that Joseph Smith was innocent before God. If he was in error he was a human like David or Solomon,ect. But wrong or not he was a U.S. citizen who had rights which William Law ignored. Action had to be taken to deny a case Joseph Smith Jr. felt had no legal merit, After his death the best evidences & witnesses of Joseph's polygamy did make it to court & were rejected for lack of evidence & contradictory information.

Why do the Tanners cite extensively from the Temple Lot case but ignore the decision of the Judge in the case which legally exonerated Joseph Smith of polygamy? Without legal merits in the charges he thought at most they were possible sports in nest hiding.

So basically under U.S. law William Law had published a case classifiable as libelous. If he had convicted Joseph in court then he could publish the Expositor. Instead he sidestepped the law attacking Joseph in the press. No rights of William Law were violated in the least.

Joseph Smith considering the violonce which ended in the taking of Joseph Smith's life he had to take firm action against the Expositor William Law gave him no other legal choice.

As far as Joseph Smith's other beliefs regarding sealing, plurality of God's ect that was a matter for the church to convict Joseph Smith of heresy. The LDS accepted the ideas including polygamy according to it's laws. The Community of Christ rejected it according to their laws. The only item where his beliefs were a violation of a law is if he were convicted of polygamy. But if the claim's were so weak that Joseph Smith had no reason to claim guilty then he wasn't guilty end of story. Either laws were violated by Joseph Smith, or they wern't.

A book pointing out problems in polygamy evidences is Joseph Fought Polygamy by Richard & Pamela Price. http://www.restorationbookstore.org it's under JSFP in the index. The book has material in it directly contradictiong some of the Jerald & Sandra Tanner Research on plural marriage & Joseph Smith Jr. Unfortunately I have seen Vision articles which refute several stories like the Martha Brotherton allegations. But they might be scanning them for online reading in the near future. A non-traditional RLDS view is Joseph Smith 3rd Pragamatic Prophet by Rodger Launius.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

The city council, with Hyrum in the middle of it, and by order of JS, commited treason by breaking the constitution of the United States. If you don't like what people write about you, even if it was not true, which I believe is not the case here, you can file for damages or more in a civil suit. You don't get the militha as Lt general, mayor, and religous leader, form a mob of citizens and destroy public (edit...private) property and violate ones constitutional rights. And no, JS was a public figure, possible presidential canidate, lt general, and mayor.

You wrote:

The law allowed for the destruction of the press as they understood it

What Law? Did they receive a trial before the press was destroyed?

Treason Dale, no way around it.

Mark

John 1;12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark we must agree to dissagree. Dallin Oaks did a study that showed it was within the law to call it a public nuisance. He felt it was a mistake to destoy the press was wrong. But as I see it the decision to destroy it was neccessary. But if they made a partial legal mistake in taking it down I stand partially corrected.

Here's a link to where I found my info. http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/nauvexpo.htm

Sincerely,

Dale