Posted on 06/11/2010 9:44:43 AM PDT by Colofornian
you have your own standing army that rivaled the military of the USA in size and capability.
_______________________________________________
Joey Smith had his own private standing vigilante army (like the drug loads in Mexico)
He had at least 5,00 well trained guerillas...
The US army had about 8,000
Is it any wonder that the US government was concerned about the John Brown like Joey Smith ???
you have your own standing army that rivaled the military of the USA in size and capability.
_______________________________________________
Joey Smith had his own private standing vigilante army (like the drug loads in Mexico)
He had at least 5,000 well trained guerillas...
The US army had about 8,000 soldiers..
Is it any wonder that the US government was concerned about the John Brown like Joey Smith ???
Dude, no one is trying to shut you up. I cant censor anything you say.
You have an obsession with Mormons that you cant get rid of. Just because people think you’re obsessed and ask you why you only attack Mormons, doesnt mean we are trying to shut you down.
Maybe Im giving you tough love by telling you to let go of your hate. But you are only concerned with destroying Mormons.
Who has called for you to be silenced? You are a characature of what you wish you believed.
Also I have little concern about being silenced.
Outside of the fruitless efforts of LDS folk and a few of their non LDS friends who make efforts such as seen here on this very thread, the silent majoity know it is a bunch of hooey as we get glimpses of when non Inmans post.
Among the rest there are a large number of Christians who have seen nothing but the brochures who if and when they learn about the well hidden words of what the LDS has said about them, their Church and most of all the slander it spreads about their Savior would change their tune if not fully enjoin the battle that we as Christians were directed to fight against false doctrine and prophets.
How can you say Christian faith is not tied to denominations when Catholics and Protestants call each other cults here on FR?
And no, Christians dont denounce it, because they dont need to. Maybe the church denounced it, but it would be pointless for me to ask you to denounce something that someone else did who had the same beliefs as you. That is what this is about.
Did Jesus destroy a temple?
Did men decide which books made it into the Bible?
Where is your scrutiny of this?
And what if he was speaking for God? All you give is strawmen about what if he wasnt.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
(Thank you, all-knowing one...if you'd had only told us God gave you this gift of omniscience, we would have consulted you before posting...)
...makes no more sense than would my posting about the history of the Catholic church and it's proud record as a pseudo government over Europe and probable conspiracy against the Templars.
Please provide a parallel similar to my convo with RaiderSam in posts #19 & #25 -- that matches up. Perhaps you could come up with an example of present-day Catholics who openly and daily propagandize about a historical event where they are indeed still "proud" about how they carried out an immoral and criminal act.
If you can provide such an example, well, then, at least you have a basis for your comment.
The key Q here -- one that you've raised...and Grunthor raised in post #8, and tlb raised in post #13, is: Is it unfair to highlight contemporary Mormons over the actions that occurred 166 years ago?
I immediately wrote back to Grunthor that he raised a "good Q." So to answer that Q, we need to look at how contemporary Mormons describe these actions of 166 years ago.
(1) If you look at Lds professional apologists, they always try to justify Smith's actions as mayor of Nauvoo.
(2) If you look at the Lds Mormon church, they, too, when they deal with it at all, justify Smith and portray him as this proud heroic martyr -- NOT as a criminal jailbird in possession of two weapons that he fired in going out in his "blaze of glory." This propagandist portrayal extends to the Mormon church's ownership of the Nauvoo jailhouse where Smith was killed.
(3) If you merely ask your Mormon neighbor or co-worker, "How would you describe Smith's actions on June 10 and 11, 1844 -- when he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor? Moral? Immoral? Criminal? Legit?"
Ask away, and you'll see what I mean. I don't find Catholics who publicly, daily, go out of their way to present all of the Papal hierarchies (keyword, "all") of the past as above immoral acts. Nor do they then necessarily initiate false or horribly incomplete presentations that present the most villainous of Papal hierarchies in wonderful halo lights.
(If you know of examples, by all means, correct me on this).
And, since you concede that the Catholic church operated as a "pseudo government," it's difficult in European history to often tell where the law began and ended in regard to religious authority. (IOW, trying to hit the re-wind button & determine what constituted "only" immoral acts vs. acts deemed as "criminal.")
Bottom line...you have not drawn an equitable parallel.
Not sure about Ohio, but in Independence Missouri it was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_and_Morning_Star
In any discussion, there's usually 2 sides plus sometimes a third neutral "peacemaking" side. You haven't taken a neutral position on this thread. Instead, you've rushed to the side of a contemporary people group who still defend that it was "proper" for the destruction of the freedom of the press.
We haven't seen you indicate how "horrible" of an act this was. In fact, your first post (#17) was full of trying to change the subject of this thread. In that post, and post #27, you've gone "on the offense" against the messenger who posted it. You'd like for this thread to be a thread about me (more changing the subject).
Whenever posters want to talk more about the messenger than the historical news or message original in the thread, the alarm should go off for people, because a "let's talk about something else...other religious history...your religious background" is tantamount to sequestering anything but actually staying on topic.
I didn't invent this act in history.
I wasn't the journalist writing for the Warsaw Messenger on June 11 and again on June 12 in writing this.
Nor am I among the people group or its allies still defending it 166 years later.
And it seems you are more than bothered to read about this act of history, and thereby attach blame to the messenger.
So, tell us, which side are you on? Did you favor this destruction or not?
Do you favor the opinion of people who still defend this act 166 years later or not?
Without making it personal, who has called for you to be silenced?
As for Catholics being proud, what about destroying the property of the money changers in the temple, then forcing them to leave?
I havent once defended the Mormons’ actions on this thread.
And you completely ignored the question of who has called for you to be silenced.
I havent once defended the Mormons’ actions on this thread. [Post #52]
And comparing Smith and his henchmen carrying pistols, bowie knives, sledge hammers, muskets, destroying a publishing house and setting fire to its contents is somehow comparable to Jesus & His actions toward money changers how again?
If comparing this to Jesus-like behavior isn't "defending Mormons," I'd like to see how sharp Lds attorneys are!
Boy, you made it easy. Without me even having to focus on your previous posts, you give me a fresh example!
BTW, I could have sworn this site we post on is called "Free Republic." The power of a free republic being able to freely express -- and freely condemn -- those who act as censors like Joseph Smith & his henchmen did on June 10-11, 1844.
Somehow, I just don't sense your "outrage" over anti-Free Republic behavior.
Provocation never seems to have equal distribution. For example, you've been more provoked by my thread-posting than by anti-Free Republic behavior 166 years ago...which, unfortunately, is coupled with millions of people living today who defend and promote that series of events as heroic martyrism.
Well, that's what a Free Republic is all about. You don't have share my provocations.
I just find it a bit ironic that here this site we post on is called "Free Republic." The power of a free republic being able to freely express -- and freely condemn -- those who act as censors like Joseph Smith & his henchmen did on June 10-11, 1844. Somehow, I just don't sense your "outrage" over anti-Free Republic behavior. Somehow, you've reserved that provocation for me.
Mormons still follow the teachings of this man and consider many of his writings as scripture, equal to or greater than the bible.
They will vehemently defend and excuse his actions. Just watch...
“They will vehemently defend and excuse his actions. Just watch...”
Would you ping me when it does? I’d like to see their argument.
You asked me for an event Catholics are proud of, and I gave you one. That is not defending what the Mormon’s did.
Have a nice day
You betcha.
Excuse me? I was under the notion that JESUS was the one who unleashed on the people turning his temple into a place of commerce. When again did the Catholics do this?
"As for Catholics being proud, what about destroying the property of the money changers in the temple, then forcing them to leave?" [RaiderSam, post #51, responding to post #48]
Excuse me? I was under the notion that JESUS was the one who unleashed on the people turning his temple into a place of commerce. When again did the Catholics do this? [T Minus Four, being provoked like I just was!]
Raider, I started to give you the benefit of the doubt...thinking, well, maybe he wasn't comparing Jesus' actions in the temple to Mormons destroying publishing houses at all! Maybe I jumped the gun in responding...So I looked, well, sure enough he was responding in post #51 to post #48...just as he said he did in post #57. So I looked at what events I asked for in post #48:
I said: ...about a historical event where they are indeed still "proud" about how they carried out an immoral and criminal act. If you can provide such an example, well, then, at least you have a basis for your comment.
So, I'm like T Minus Four. EXCUSE ME??? I asked for a religious group who was NOW proud of somebody carrying an "immoral" public act -- and you give us Jesus vs. the moneychangers in the temple as some "example?" Do you know that Jesus actually reads these words?
You're giving Jesus as the "exemplar" of "immoral" actions? REALLY???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.