Whether you grew up summers near Nauvoo is interesting, but not so relevant.
Then neither is your uncles third hand testimony against Joseph smith, got a journal, or just your memory of oral stories? As Godzilla has already invalidated oral histories unless backed up by something tangible on this thread...
I will allow that an argument could reasonably be made that at the time Smith was sitting in the Carthage jail, he might not have intended to break out of jail that evening. It is plausible that the rush of a mob numbering almost 100 hastened his plan - as well as his demise.
Why thank you so much for allowing dissent, LOL!
It is totally illogical for you or anyone to think you know what was in Joseph's mind. However, since Joseph had every expectation that in a court of law he would be exonerated there is no reason to break out of jail and run out to the waiting mob (file this in the you have got to be kidding file!)
But if Smith had no plans to shoot or threaten anyone, nor to try to escape from jail, why did he request the six-shooter that Cyrus Wheelock offered?
Um... Many people buy a gun when threatened. It's called self defense. I am even in favor of those who oppose me having the right and ability (including weapons) to defend themselves, you? (Do you really support the second amendment?)
Why did he not follow through on his own words and go as “a lamb to the slaughter”?
He came quietly to the jail, he could have made a stand in Nauvoo and made it a very costly thing to bring him in, the Nauvoo militia under his control was of a significant size. He expected to be protected, the Governor had given his word and Joseph assumed he would keep it. Then with all the changes, the mob being in the area, and the Governor deciding to give a speech and requiring all the troops to attend, well if anyone was not concerned for their safety, they would be an idiot.
Suicide and death by cop, you are correct, are not martyrdom.
Joseph was killed by a mob of armed men after being abandoned by the Governor (who removed all the troops who were supposed to protect the jail) this is martyrdom as it happened to may of the apostles. If Joesph had publicly renounced his calling and denied his vision from God he knew he would have been spared, he died for his faith. EG he was martyred. Whether or not you believe his faith does not matter a whit.
Neither is it martyrdom to be killed after having shot two men to death and wounded a third (as happened to J Smith).
Just like the Christians who died in the Colosseum?
The best face you could put on it would be dying in battle.
Hardly, maybe you just don know the meanings of the words you throw about so easily
Dictionary.com Martyr:
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
Words, they mean things, you should know what they mean before you use them, nothing in the definition says it has to be the "true" religion.
BTW, I did not go to an “Anti” site.
Congratulations!
I read books. Original materials.
Books are not always original materials...
They can be found in libraries. In some cases things can be ordered from LDS run depositories that wold probably shock you (and the quorum, too, if they knew what had not YET been removed or suitably altered to reflect the history they wish they had...)
Actually, I doubt if you could shock me, you see I've been at this (defending my church) a long time and while I am surprised, I am never shocked.
Anti - what a word fragment. You must be one of those Mormon antichristians, because you are against my posited arguments, therefore it follows that you must be against me, right?
Actually, Anti is an accepted abbreviation here, like ROTFLOL and JFTR, or IMHO, It means one who's only purpose is to tear down the opposition, not to spread their own version of religion or of a story.
Oh wait - it’s just a meaningless pejorative term to lend the appearance of discrediting any argument stemming from such a source.
Actually I explained it above, but it has become a pejorative term like cult (another word thrown around by those who do not know the meaning of the word
cult, all churches are cults by definition.)
Because after all, if the source is “anti mormon”, then that means they hate mormons are against all mormons and automatically all their referenced material is subjective, biased, lacking in truth, feeling, scholarship, etc...
Actually, if all they do is oppose us, then they are just as shallow as you describe. There are others who oppose us who are not "anti Mormon", the Catholic church is a good example, they say we (and all protestant churches too) are apostate and of the devil, however, they have an agenda and would rather advance that then argue interminably. The Catholics are also willing to recognize that we believe we are right and even work with us on a good cause. Many true Christians worked together on proposition 8 for example.
But if, in fact, the person is anti mormonISM, then they can fairly say that they love many of the mormons of today, simultaneous to detesting the doctrine to which they adhere (to varying extents)
The religious version of the support the troops, but not the commander? LOL!
That would be me. Anti “ISM”.
Whatever, as long as your purpose is just to oppose, anti is fine.
It is a significant stretch of the imagination to expect the non-mormon world to believe that every single book and historical document which does not reflect positively upon Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - is unavoidably and inalterably biased, dishonest, or incorrect.
I never said that and you never asked me my opinion of Joseph Smith. I am not of the opinion that Joseph Smith was a perfect man, far from it. But God has testified to me that he was his prophet.
Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that prophets... say in the old testament, were perfect men?
For my part, I have no doubt based upon the accounts of my late great-grandfather - given him by his father and uncles - that Smith and Young were scoundrels of the first order - You cannot “shoot down” their experiences.
Sure I can, give us names and stores and we'll do research just like you have done on Joseph. I'm sure we'll find something...
(if that didn't make you uncomfortable then you made them and this story up)
I too have relatives from the area and era. I am a descendant of Governor Liliburn Boggs (My mom had forbidden us to close the link, but apparently someone else is working on that line and the work is now in the computer in slat lake...) In case you don't know, Governor Boggs is the Governor in Missouri who signed the extermination order making it legal for anyone in Missouri to shoot a Mormon on sight. (Nice guy huh?)
You can only imagine the stories I could pull out of my family history, for I will not tell them.
I wanted to know for myself, I asked God and here I am, a Mormon, defending truth on the Internet in my spare time. (whoo'da thunk?)
Think for your self, check it out, your self, you never know...
It in fact only augments the truthfulness of my ancestors to have read (in countless books) since I became an adult, stories which paralleled what they passed to my great grandfather.
Have you actually read the
Book of Mormon? Not to impugn your ancestors, but only God knows for sure if Joseph was his prophet or not.
My great grandfather had eleven children, the youngest of whom was my (now late) grandmother, his only daughter, and I knew seven of her elder brothers and spent time around them and their many children.
Sounds like a great family, my mom and dad had seven, they have over fifty grandchildren now.
Whenever family reunions were held (about three summers out of every five through my childhood) the old men would sit around and talk about their dad’s recounting of his dad - their grandfather, great uncles and the tales of the old mercantile. I heard them so many times I could have told them myself - like any good oral history.
You know, I know a lot of stories from my grandpa about the depression and the many acts of compassion that were performed by and to my ancestors, how my great great granddad killed a deer with a pocket knife (it's true), stuff like that. I don't know why anyone would want to perpetuate a tale about something that is not uplifting.
The stories about the “mormon encounters” were not the only ones by a long stretch - but they were among the more popular, and memorable amongst a bunch of men who were by and large, Conservative Methodists or Baptists.
Again why were they popular? I could tell a ton of stories about how people have wronged me to my kids, I don't because I want the to grow up happy and well adjusted.
JFTR, My mom and dad were Methodist before they joined and I went to the Methodist church whenever I was staying with my relatives. I had a hard time remembering to bring a couple of bucks when we were going to go, LOL! (The LDS do not pass a plate.)
The point is, I have read plenty of books and magazines over the last three decades - a lot of it (but not all) from non-mormon sources, along with things that are chronicled in histories within the church archives.
Great! So have I...
There is a certain nagging consistency to accounts like those of my ancestors; one which runs parallel to other independently written histories.
Yep, there is a nagging consistency to people who say we are not the true church too. (LOL)
While consistency is good, the Jews were consistent who chose not to follow Jesus when he fulfilled the Law of Moses...
If what my ancestors had experienced was at wide variance with all other information you could find, I would be somewhat willing to give guys like Joe Smith a bit of leeway as “good guy...meant well, good intentions. just a little misguided at times...”
I could show you stuff, but I don't think you will listen, besides, it seems to me that there are three ways people look at Joseph Smith: 1) If you grew up Mormon, you tend to think, "well of course...", 2) If you grew up with people telling you, or if you left the church, or in anyway decided Mormons were wrong then no matter what you read you come out with "it's not true", 3) then there are those who actually read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it in faith, they obtain a testimony and know Joseph is a prophet of God.
But that is not the case. I have no reason NOT to trust the information passed to me by my great-grandfather. How about that he would sit around and tell such stories? why not tell stories about a horse race or an act of charity...
On the contrary it lines up closely with readily obtainable information that is considered historically accurate by all but those avowedly loyal to the LDS church and the demonstrably sanitized (embellished) portraits of Smith and Young.
LOL! Have you seen portraits of early church leaders in Christs day? Does anyone actually think they looked like that? It was not until recently that we found some actual photos of Joseph (and even those are debated) so you have a problem with the "soft focus" some people use, fine, I have that problem with some politicians, but I do not intend to tell my children stories about them...
If my Gr-Grandfather or his father were known in the family to have been incorrigible liars, then I would have taken it all with a grain of salt.
I am not calling them liars, I just don't think their story is historically accurate, I do think it accurately reflects their feelings, which is sad.
They liked their liquor on occasions, I know - but they told the cold hard truth about their own faults and those of others they had known over the years.
Did they ever speak of anyone's virtues?
I respect the dead - when and if they have earned that respect.
I respect the dead because they are not "here" to defend themselves. You know, someday you will be dead, I hope people do not treat you the way you are saying people should treat those who did not "earn" better" It's called being gracious, and kind.
I respect Joseph Smith and Brigham Young not one teensy iota.
That's too bad, they accomplished a lot temporally in the world, and you can see none of it because you grandpa told you some stories...
It is not required of me by G_d, and contrary to Young’s opinion, is not necessary for my salvation, therefore I will never respect them, let alone adulate them (like a majority of today’s mormons are indoctrinated to do.) They have done nothing to earn it nor deserve it.
Actually, it is, consider the following:
Matt. 7: 1-2 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mark 11: 25-26 25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Well, at least the Bible says so...
They were not good men - every man has his shortcomings and inconsistencies but the LDS church seems to want us all to believe those two were giants among all of mankind, uniquely lacking in the common failings of mere mortals.
See
Matt. 7: 1-2 listed above, you did not even know these men, yet you take it upon your self to be their judge and jury.
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, and if so do you believe it's OK for you to judge everyone? if so, why?
The simple unfortunate truth is they were more often VILE, self-serving abusers of power than not. They abused and lorded themselves over women regularly, acting like they were better than Solomon himself when they were neither one wise enough to be a servant to one of Solomon’s servants.
Again, you did not even know these men you are judging them on hearsay.
IMHO, I would rather in the last day have been accused of being to lenient with my fellow man for I have much to be forgiven of in my life, and most who know me consider me a good man...
I would not treat a dog I hated the way Smith treated some of his illegally married plural wives that he lied about having.
I would not treat anyone the way you are treating Joseph smith here, so? You are posting your opinion as fact, and I am compelled by my curiosity to ask, do you know the difference?
For crying out loud, DU, this P.O.S., Smith...
You have strong opinions of men you have never met, do not know and quite frankly, neither did those who "told you the story", yet you condemn them anyway in complete disregard of the Bible's teachings, which presumably you believe in. Interesting.
Publicly addressed himself to his accusers,on 26 May, 1844 - saying “[William Law] swears that I have commotted adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are...I am wuite tired of the fools asking me. A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives...I am innocent of these charges...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one. I am the same man and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”
When Smith made these public statements, he actally did NOT have seven wives.
He had not less than thirty three, perhaps as many as forty.
Further eleven of his wives were already wed to other men and cohabiting with them when Smith married them.
This is far removed from the facts which I admit are difficult to explain, kind of like those who claim that the ten commandments forbid polygamy when confronted with Moses' plurality of wives.
however, I will simply say that your rendition is factually challenged, this thread is about DNA and Indians, Remember?
I am going to cut out your rendition of Joseph's wives as it is irrelevant and factually at odds with reality, another thread some time?
<--Snip-->
Yeah, nothing like the exemplary character of Joe Smith and Brigham Young as a good model to look down upon!
and you certainly seem to be "looking down" on them to me...
At least it was all divinely sanctioned by the Lord, in the OT of the Bible.
Actually, if God does not change... then neither should his standard of righteousness.
Oh wait, that’s right - it wasn’t. I can cite many Bible verses which demonstrate that fact here - as well as the ones which amply demonstrate that polygamy as shown in the lives of OT characters (Lamech - the first recorded polygamist, Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah, David, Solomon,) reflects there as having been tragedy, suffering, or punishment directly related to polygamy - AKA “plural marriage”...but since those verses might not be “correctly translated” - it would not matter much to you.
Been there, had that discussion, and often, Google "
"mia gune" Greek" and (as of the time I write this response)) you will find the first result is a PDF file called
Husbandofonewife.pdf. this is a scholarly document written by a non Mormon about polygamy, you might be surprised, anyway, knowledge is power, read it please.
Far from supporting the misguided notion of a “Law of Abraham”, the accounts of these men’s lives portray lack of faith, disobedience, and in general seem to represent a discouragement of the practice.
Why in the world Smith and Young thought themselves better that any of those men, capable of improving upon those examples, and producing a better outcome - is a mystery to me.
Your logic here underwhelms me.
Smith and Young? It’s “Open Season” on their character, baby!
Spoken like a truly objective, rational, fanatic.
Move along...move along, nothing to respect there!
are you speaking of yourself? Very well...
Affirming, once again, that they are not good men - far from being truly sad (as you put it)...
I did not say that they were sad, it is your attitude that I find sad and unbecoming of any who claims to follow Jesus Christ.
Is truly wise...One who admires their life examples has fools for his spiritual models.
"A truly wise man can learn from even a fool" -- Confucius
I have learned something new here today.
I would rather try to emulate Jesus and fall short, than try to emulate Smith or Young and succeed.
On this I would actually agree with you...
At least I know which path will lead me into heaven.
Apparently, knowing it and taking it are two entirely different things.
When I read your post(s) I cannot help but picture a man walking the low road yelling loudly while pointing uphill "The high road is over there!" as he walks.
God bless.
It is totally illogical for you or anyone to think you know what was in Joseph's mind. However, since Joseph had every expectation that in a court of law he would be exonerated there is no reason to break out of jail and run out to the waiting mob (file this in the you have got to be kidding file!) Yet you take it upon yourself to know what was in Joey's mind.
Um... Many people buy a gun when threatened. It's called self defense. I am even in favor of those who oppose me having the right and ability (including weapons) to defend themselves, you? (Do you really support the second amendment?)
DUh, he was in custody, I see a lot of guns smuggled into our jails today - gotta support the 2d amendment.
Joseph was killed by a mob of armed men after being abandoned by the Governor (who removed all the troops who were supposed to protect the jail) this is martyrdom as it happened to may of the apostles.
On June 27th, 200 armed men stormed the jail. The jailer saw the mob and told Smith. Smith, assuming they were the Nauvoo Legion, told the jailer they were coming to rescue himThe General.
Hardly, maybe you just don know the meanings of the words you throw about so easily Dictionary.com Martyr:
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
Note the terms carefully DU, it is that context thing.
First and foremost – what charges was he in jail for – being a mormon or because he unlawfully ordered the destruction of the Smith-critical Nauvoo Expositor and committed the capital offense of treason by declaring martial law. It was the latter DUh.
Did he willingly or did he fight his death? Was it for his religion or because he was leader of a rebellion
Right, arrested for treason and ordering the destruction of a newspaper printing press. The General’s religion was secondary importance to him at the time. He was intent upon building a theocracy and had even been crowned king.
Joseph was killed by a mob of armed men after being abandoned by the Governor (who removed all the troops who were supposed to protect the jail) this is martyrdom as it happened to may of the apostles. If Joesph had publicly renounced his calling and denied his vision from God he knew he would have been spared, he died for his faith. EG he was martyred. Whether or not you believe his faith does not matter a whit.
Martyr comes from the Greek to witness (martys). The act of witnessing is called martyia in the Greek and signifies a legal testimony. Because of the fact at the time of the apostles and the patristic fathers that the act of giving testimony of Christ resulted in death and often an ignoble death, the term "martyr" began to be synonymous with death because of being a Christian.
Was Joseph killed as a direct result of his testimony of Christ and the Church? Smith was not asked to renounce his faith or die. No, joey was jailed because he destroyed a printing press of a paper that divulged his polygamous acts and declared martial law. This together with the atrocities that the Mormon's took part in, in the killing of innocents in Missouri and the rise of the political and physical threat from the Nauvoo legion etc, the locals could be construed as acting out of fear for their lives.
Actually, it is, consider the following: Matt. 7: 1-2
Mark 11: 25-26
Well, at least the Bible says so...
What DU fails to list are scriptures that tell Christians to judge – we are called to Judge righteous judgement (John 7:24). Paul writes:
1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
1Co 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
We are to identify and judge false teachers and prophets (Mt 24:11, 24; Mk 13:22; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1).
As a mormon who is improperly uses Matthew 7:1 DU is himself guilty of the very sin he is accusing the Christian? Certainly the DU believes that his position is correct (that people should not speak out against Mormonism), but what right does he then have to tell others that what they are doing is also wrong. Is this not passing judgment? Indeed this is a certain contradiction, and if his interpretation of Matthew 7:1 is correct, then there is condemnation falling right back on DU’s head.
This is far removed from the facts which I admit are difficult to explain, kind of like those who claim that the ten commandments forbid polygamy when confronted with Moses' plurality of wives.
Fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that Moses’ first wife was still alive at the time. Remember, Moses was well over 80 at this time and Zipporah was very old as well. To say otherwise is an assumption not supported in the Bible.
Been there, had that discussion, and often, Google ""mia gune" Greek" and (as of the time I write this response)) you will find the first result is a PDF file called Husbandofonewife.pdf. this is a scholarly document written by a non Mormon about polygamy, you might be surprised, anyway, knowledge is power, read it please.
If knowledge is power, your generator is out of fuel. You continue to promulgate a lie concerning the translation and contex of the scriptural passage. It is clear to greek scholars that mia is an cardinal number. Your link championing your cause argues it is an indefinite article. In one of the examples given (Mt 8:19) its is used eiv grammateuv or a scribe denoting a singular. In fact all three of his examples are the same – denoting a singular individual or city or item. His faultly logic then tries to place an indefinitie article into 1 Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6 as as husband(s) of a wife. Here the author’s Greek errs, stating the passage as mia gune aner is more literally translated one woman man . Paul would be contradicting himself if he were refering to polygamy since it as inappropriate for all Christians, not just elders (1 Cor 7:2)
I Timothy 5:9 tells that the enlisted widow (a widow supported by the church) must have been the "wife of one husband." The construction of these two verses is identical. They are written within the same context by the same author. Therefore, it the two verses should be viewed similarly. Thus the translators yielded the passage wife of one husband, not wife of A husband.
No, it is apparent that this scholarly document has erred in the consistent application of the use of mia in this passage.
Finally, his application (husband of a wife) fails to recognize that even as an indefinite article, the word still carries the concept of one, as his earlier examples prove.