Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[Scott Gordon]

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

Treason? My, my. That seems a bit harsh.

My understanding is that they were simply copying what the Lieutenant Governor Boggs (of Missouri) and the sheriff and judge did to the LDS press, and what was a common occurrence on the Mississippi river against the abolitionist newspapers.

When you see everyone else doing it--including the government officials above you, you start to believe it is ok.

If Smith were arrested for treason on this (as he was) and if he hadn't been killed, he would have a clear case of selective prosecution.

How can you prosecute someone for doing the same thing that was done to them?

Scott

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

What law allows a mayor of a city to in just a few hours notice orders a police department on his sole authority to enter a private home of buisness and destoy personal property, while inciting the public to look on or help...all without Due Process? What I read of Oaks is that JS was with in the law to get rid of the news paper but broke the law for destroying the press....in any case JS was guiltyof a very bad crime, and it led to his death.

Mark

john 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Scott,

The law is what matters, and JS broke the law, and if others did, they did just that, they broke the law. Are you saying two wrongs make a right. I got some tools ripped off out of my truck, can I go and rip some body else off and justify that by saying somebod did it to me?

Come on Scott, is that what you teach yiur kids?

Mark

John 1;12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark law is important but also administering the law tempered with much mercy is also. I encourage you to be merciful in your attitudes about the destruction of the expositor. Considering Joseph Smith paid for his mistake it's time he was forgiven. Can you forgive him for following bad legal advice? They thought the publication was so disruptive that the law allowed for it's destruction. Nobody told anyone on the city council that the publication could not be legally destroyed. Dallin Oaks has the benifit of modern legal training & it's doubtful people on the city council had the same understanding of the issue.

Nobody is defending a wrong. Joseph Smith was right in treating the expositor as a public nuisance. He recieved a bad interpretation of the law that they had authority to destroy such a press. They were human. The destruction of the expositor does not prove Joseph Smith a false prophet. Human beings serve as servants of God & they make mistakes based on bad advice like any of us can. In this case the publication was out of line they did some home work & felt the solution was to destroy the press.

If it had gotten to court Joseph Smith would have argued the law as they understood it. If the court went against Joseph William Law would have gotten the property replaced & maybe some money. Perhaps jail time would have gone with it, or maybe it wouldn't. But the matter would have been resolved.

Would Joseph Smith if he had been convicted of a crime be any less of a prophet? No. I see this matter of Joseph's legal crimes as an excuse to hate him for some. I deeply respect Joseph Smith Jr. My respect for him doesn't mean he could do no wrong.

Sincerely,

Dale

[cdowis]

>....in any case JS was guiltyof a very bad crime, and it led to his death.

I was under the impression that someone was innocent until proven guilty.

Your post has the tone of judge, jury and executioner.

JS was killed, IMO, precisely because the mob knew that he would never be convicted of any crime. As Oakes points out, the law at that time is not the same that we have today. It is possible that an objective jury would have acquitted him, or, at worst, make him pay restitution.

But the mob, with the attitude you displayed above, already made their decision. I found your post very offensive, and indicative of your attitude towards my church and religion.

[Scott Gordon]

Hi Scott,

The law is what matters, and JS broke the law, and if others did, they did just that, they broke the law. Are you saying two wrongs make a right. I got some tools ripped off out of my truck, can I go and rip some body else off and justify that by saying somebod did it to me?

Come on Scott, is that what you teach yiur kids?

Mark

John 1;12

Getting tools ripped off is one thing. This is closer to what they believed was someone shouting fire in a theater. Do you have the right to remove that person?

Remember, this was a group that had been chased out of Independence. That is where the authorities destroyed their press and scattered the type. Five Hundred Men tarred and feathered the Bishop. Congress then passed a law that allowed them to purchase Far West--so they did. Then after they built that, they were run out of Far West (and Haun's Mill.) Their women were raped, men and children were killed, they lost their possession.

The good people of Quincy took them in. If they hadn't, many more would have died.

Then they purchased Nauvoo. Suddenly you have someone "shouting fire in the theater."

You have images of your children being killed, your women being raped, the soldiers coming. What shall we do?

We can do what the HIGHEST officials in the land did to our press!!!!

I don't blame them a bit.

But since WHEN is destruction of private property considered TREASON!!!!???

A man burned down the newspaper in my town several years ago. He wasn't arrested for TREASON.

[rongo]

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

Hi, Markk!

I also own the work I speak of ! Maybe the page numbering isn't consistent between certain editions?

Quick checklist:

1. Does your volume set have "century one" or "period one" on the spines of the books?

2. Does your chapter three of volume one have the caption of:

a) THE NEPHITE RECORD DELIVERED TO JOSEPH---THE ANGEL'S WARNING---THE WORK OF TRANSLATION

or

THE BOYHOOD OF JOSEPH SMITH (my "b" keeps showing up as a "shades" . It's unintended).

The footnote in question (a large one) is footnote #8 of volume 1, p. 33 of A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so you should be able to find it regardless of different page numbering.

Let me know what you find!

[rongo]

Maybe one reason why Joseph Smith wasn't ever convicted of anything was his enemies' overreaching in their charges. Illegally destroying a press (and it's debatable as to whether or not it was illegal) is by no stretch of the imagination "treason." Would Joseph have been found "not guilty in the sense of the indictment?"

He appears to have been hauled into court 47 times, and never once convicted. And with hostile juries and judges to boot! Don't you think if they could have substantiated anything against him, they would have done it at least once?

Markk wrote:

in any case JS was guiltyof a very bad crime, and it led to his death.

Are you advocating the death penalty for destroying a press? Without trial of due process?

Do you advocate the death penalty even for treason? In what way was the destruction of the Expositor press treasonous?

[urroner]

When the Mormon press was destroyed earlier, were the perpretrators guilty of treason? I don't remember ever hearing those who are overjoyous in condemning Joseph Smith for the destruction of a press n Nauvoo ever condemning those who destroyed the earlier press. Interesting.

[bickertonite]

LDS Apostle L. Richards saying,..."There is not a honest man or woman in this world who loves the Lord who wouldn't join this Church if they knew what it was."

( as quoted in the desert news)

Take Care

Mark

John 1:12

Oh boy.There's a one sided claim. I love the Lord and I know the LDS Church for what it is,(more what it claims to be) and I am very proud to say that I am not a member, nor intend to be one.

On the subject of the Tanners, they, like many other anti-mormon groups simply have too much free time on thier hands and instead of making good use of it, mock what they don't understand nor care to understand. I personally know James Spencer who runs "Through the Maze" ministry in Boise, Idaho. And he even admits that he wishes that he would be doing something else, but he's caught in this web of anti-mormonism. I spent 7 years in the anti-world. It is not a pleasent place. Most are hate peddlers in the name of Jesus. Edward J. Dekker, of Issaquah, WA. and his "Saints Alive for Jesus" group is a perfect example of a hate peddler. Other groups such as Mormon Research Ministry, Utah Missions, Inc. are just parrot groups of these "Former Mormon turned evangelical groups." Neither of the MRM or UMI staff were ever members of the Utah or any other Restored Gospel Churches, yet they are the "authority" on mormonism. Pheh. I'm familiar with mormonism myself because it's all around me. My ex-wife and her family are mormon, as is my family.(all very active) While I never claim to be an expert, I do know more about mormonism than alot of these groups.

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

My book does not say period one, but is the same as all other respects, but in foot note 8 page 33 it speaks nothing of Pratt nor Lucy, it speaks of the HOTC and Millennial..etc as references in this work. Who wrote your foot note and what is the publishing date of your copy?

You wrote:

Are you advocating the death penalty for destroying a press? Without trial of due process?

Do you advocate the death penalty even for treason? In what way was the destruction of the Expositor press treasonous

?

No way! it led to his death (murder from now on) in that it was the straw that broke the camels back with those who murdered him. I believe one of the main reasons he was murdered was political, but thats for another thread.

I believed it was treason because Smith was Lt General of a large army (Militia), and mayor and induced a city council to order a marshall to dystroy private property. He broke the first ammendment right of the constitution by evolking the rights of a private establisment and denying them their constitutional right of freedom of the press.

He was wrong Rongo, and the evidence is clear, don't fall into the same mind set of others and lose clear objectivity ( BY made a joke about Adam god).

JS was guily of a very serious crime, did he deserve death?, no, did he deserve a fair trial? of course, but it's clear from both a legal and moral point of view, that JS commited a crime that is very serious.

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark put yourself in Joseph's shoes. Why would you have made a choice different from his? The idea to destroy the expositor was floated as a perfectly legal option for them to act on. I see no proof he or anyone else thought the decision was illegal. I see no prior knowledge on his part or anybody elses part that they can't can't for legal reasons have it destroyed. I just don't see him as being the bad guy for making the decision I would in his place.

No prophetic direction was claimed, or involved in making the decision. Joseph allowed a vote to be made by the city council about what to do. They dug out the books & made a choice based on common feeling of what they had no other option but to do.

There's no need to defend him for his or anybody elses legal mistake.

Sounds to me like he was charged with treason on not because of the consitution but because of others abuse of the constitution. They wanted to kill him & they abused the constitution to get him into their death grasp. Sounds to me like he got nothing close to constitutional protection, or an intended fair trial. Sins happened all over.

Why do you feel Joseph Smith if he was a true prophet would not have made the decision to destroy the Expositor? If you can't prove that making the decision proved him a false prophet the Tanners are way of base in using that example against Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. This counts as a huge example of an error in the above discussed book.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

If I was in Josesph shoes and the lid was going to be blown that I was having extra marital relations, I would probably freak out, and if I was a general of a army and mayor of a town and self proclaimed prophet of a religous people I might take power into my own hands, but i would hope I would do the right thing and just tell my wife I screwed up.

Give me the data that they made their choice from, from a legal point of view? Are you saying that JS didn't know that breaking into and smashing someones personal property was wrong? According to the quote you gave how long did they have before they made their choice? 2 hours? They didn't think, he didn't think, he acted in a irrational way and broke the first ammendment right of freedom of the press and committed treason as a public offical and commander of a military force using his power to breach the constitution. Your argument is not rational or based on facts, it is a emotional plea for your spiritual leader. The tanner did not make thuis stuff up, they have only quoted LDS history.

Mark

John 1:12

[urroner]

Give me the data that they made their choice from, from a legal point of view? Are you saying that JS didn't know that breaking into and smashing someones personal property was wrong?

So Mark, if you were given data that the law of the time allowed Joseph Smith to do so, would you be willing to give up this argument ow would you continue to apply standards of today to events of over a hundred and sixty years ago?

[Markk]

Hi,

Sure? Go for it, I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, I am totally basing my argument by my undersatnding of the first ammendment. You must also show how it was legal for JS to use the milita also, I believe that is the treason charge?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Mark,

I misread the cite from the website that cited Dallin Oaks. They did have legally every right to seize the papers issues & destroy them. He felt they only overstepped their bounds in destroying the actual physical press. So they had every legal right to close down the publication. He had no legal right to continue to publish further issues. The item from Dallin Oaks citing the law it refers to "no wanton or unnecassary destruction of property could be permitted..."

http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/nauvexpo.htm

That above citation from the above article sounds kind of vague to me. The press was designed to stir up violence. It wasn't a peaceful publication. I look at the word wanton in my small New Websters Dictionary & it says things like lewd; malicious; extravegant; unprovoked..." Certainly William Law provoked the action. I don't see anything in the cite that say's property associated with such libelous presses can never be destroyed. Where does the citation clearly say that property in that extreme case could not be destroyed? I don't see Joseph Smith Jr. looking at what he had to do by law the same way as what Dallin Oaks interprets the law as saying. Nobody see's things in the same way.

Look at the current FAIR & ULM court dispute you have two different sets of lawyers saying the law means totally different things. Who is right & who is wrong? Dallin Oaks offered one modern opinion. He wasn't there nor was he privy as to what advice Joseph Smith was or was not given at the time. But anybody with legal expertise around Joseph Smith told him the press could be destroyed. Joseph Smith did not break the law as he was told the destruction was within the law. No proof is offered by the Tanners that Joseph Smith nor anyone else did not have what was thought to be reputeable legal advice that it was ok to destroy the press.

The issue then becames interpretations of the city councils & others motives in ordering the destruction which you feel was an intent to break the law. I feel he understood the law differently than Dallin Oaks. And if he understood the law differently right or wrong he is not proven to be insincere. Who of the two of us is right & who is wrong? Does it matter? I hope you can resolve this matter in your heart because to me it's no big deal. Joseph Smith should not be treated as a criminal under are legal system untried men are innocent until proven guilty.

I guess if I don't feel it was wrong to destroy the press I can't judge negatively Joseph Smith actions in that regard. I don't see the above issue as what I would call an error in MSOR. If they said it was illegal to seize the papers & destroy them they are mistaken. They may be right that it was wrong to destroy the actual press. As the matter never got to court we will never know what the decision of the courts would have been. Do you have the page number from MSOR which you got the above issue that concerned you?

I don't see this issue as a make or break it issue for Mormonism Shadow or Reality?. I allow Jerald & Sandra Tanner the right to be right on some issues & wrong on others. I know people in both the LDS & Community of Christ Churches who are just as human.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

HI Dale

The Tanners and Wyatt are doing it the correct way, they are following the law, know What if the Tanners or wyatt formed a milita and stormed their homes and smashed their computers and were running for president, and were prophets and were generals of said milita?

JS could have got a injuction to stop the printing of the paper, and went through due process. Instesd he chose to violate the constitution by calling up the milita and provoking a riotous situation.

Plus W. Law was upset in that he claimed that JS was going after his wife, which may very well be true. he was dloser to JS than any of us, he knew the man and he was ticked...it is much deeper than you let on.

Bottom line, in hindsite, JS commited treason for using a state milita to violate the constitutional rigts of a person and buisness, not to mention and civil suites.

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark let's move on to another topic that interests you that might be an error from the book. I just feel we need to vary topics on this post.

I don't feel Joseph Smith needed to do anything else than what he did. He had the matter decided on in the city council. Although if you have any information that the law required him to get an injuction I would hear. Dallin Oaks research sounds like they did everything they needed to do to destroy the seized papers. It doesn't sound like Dallin Oaks felt they needed an formal injunction to shut down publication & destroy the papers. He didn't see the law as being restricive on how they handled the matter. Surely if he saw them as making a mistake their he was honest enough to admit it.

I am trying to be fair to the MSOR authors everywhere where I can. Just because I dissagree with them doesn't mean I believe in being indecent towards them. They are human beings & can get things wrong along with those in the restoration churches.

Do you know of another topic where they are accused on an errors. The first Vision issue is one where they get accused of distorting issues. I am interested in hearing your response to any FAIR rebuttal to them you have read on that topic.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

Chapter 19 would be a good place to start in that it deals with J, and has a FAIR rebuttal, although I would like to go point by point in order?

Mark

John 1;12

[Meta]

Do you want to know the truth? ( a honest question) Are you strong enough to test your faith? I'ts not always easy, infact it's very difficult.

2 Cor 5

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

Gal. 3

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

My friend, do you have any idea how egotistical and worldly you sound when you talk about taking a chance with someone elses faith?

(still reading this thread...wow its long)

[Markk]

Hi Meta,

"Faith is by Hearing, and Hearing is by the word of God"

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

! John says we are to test all things, there are many scriptures like these and examples of the apostles and others reasoning fron the scriptures.

Do we live by faith? yes, but the word of God is the basis for our faith, our bench mark. "For there is a way that seams right to men, but in the end is death".

The Gal. verse you quoted..."Gal. 3:2, read the whole chapter incontext, it was to the "foolish Galations" who were being deceived by those preaching another Gospel and Paul goes on to say..."And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Meta, its by the Word of God that we gain faith in Christ, by reading and knowing, and with the help of the HS He will guide us, but if our feelings and experiences contridict the written word of God then it's not of God, so we can test our faith and as the Word says "study and show ourselves approved..." and " and be ready for a answer to the hope that is in us with gentleness and fear.'" This can only happen through a Honest study and by testing what we belive by the written word of God.

Hope thsi helpd

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Mark,

The Like A Lamb section has been dealt with in Joseph Smith Martyr or Muderer on as a FAIR article. It wasn't a direct answer to them but they are wrongI find critics definitions of martyr very restrictive. That seems like the article points out an error in the chapter. Lambs fight they don't submit willingly when going to the slaughter. Joseph Smith actions in protecting himself was consistent with the true facts about Lambs & slaughter.

I glanced at the chapter headings & couldn't see anything else I wanted to debate we had not already. Ch. 20 is my favorite because on the Virgin Birth they cite sources like Doctrines of Salvation & Mormon Doctrine to deny the Virgin Birth. But I flt the ignored Doctrines of Salvation 1:19 & Mormon Doctrine 822 which affirms Christs conception was caused via the spirit. I left my copy of Mormon Doctrine at my church & I hope the page was correct. I don't know how else that can be described but abused sources & out of context quotations. They couldn't deal with the quotes so they ignored quotes that they couldn't prove denied the Virgin Birth. I agree with the Tanners there were 19th century denials of the Virgin Birth.

I see no way of either source teaching Mary remained a virgin just because she knew no man. If she knew no man she new no god-man or she wasn't a virgin period.

The Tanner abuse of citations in ch. 20 caused me to doubt they were honest people. I have since met persons like Jerald & Sandra Tanner who are sincere but don't know what they are talking about either. So I give them the benifit of the doubt I assume they are just confused people. Is Jesus the author of confusion? No. I take their confusion on issues as a sign they have bought into a false claim that Mormons arn't Christian.

How can you explain the left out citations that affirm the Virgin Birth? Sincere or not their integrity level has fallen in my eyes because they are just misunderstand real LDS doctrine. They picked out a few quotes that might deny the virgin birth while suppressing major quotes from two important & popular LDS books?

I thought only LDS leaders suppressed material? What is an out of context quotation but one method of suppressing positive materialf from the quote you wish to make sound negative? On the Doctrines of Salvation book they cite page 18 & ignore the other quote on page 19. It say's "Christ Conceived By Power of Holy Ghost." And then Alma 7:10, Luke 1:34-35 & Mathew 1:18 was then cited in support of that statement. I note the Tanners cited page 18 & ignored the clarifying notes on the next page.

Does not that example qualify as a major error in the book regarding two abused sources? They cannot be ignorant of the other quotes but must be suppressing them for some reason.

I count several errors in ch. 20.

1.Confusing 19th century denials of the Virgin Birth with modern LDS doctrine which is different. LDS actually believe Jesus is God's biological offspring but correctly teach the conception took place via the spirit.

2.Suppressing Quotes

3.Out-of context quotations

Why should I trust them on that issue? Why should I consider them anything but blind guides? If they are false teachers why should I follow them? The book mixes truth with error.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale

I'll comment on your post more after i read both the fair and Tanners work on them, but off the top of my head do you really beleive that JS was saying that he was going to Jail to "fight like a sheep"? You don't believe he said that in context to the death of Christ? Who did not fight and was the Lamb of God. You have got to use your noggin and think these things out Dale.

So the all of the other points in chapter 19 are OK and true?

mark

john 1;12

Edit, please give me location of exact errors so I can respond

[cdowis]

>What if the Tanners or wyatt formed a milita

Are you saying that the Nauvoo militia was not chartered by the state, and that JS illegally created the militia? That he simply created his own army, and had no legal authority?

Is that your point? Otherwise your question makes no sense. It is based on a false premise because the Tanners have no such legal authority.

[Dale]

Mark the FAIR article presents the answer better than I can on the Lamb To The Slaughter issue.