d4- How is that a response to my assertion?

Time, Petro? Do you even know what he spent his time doing? He was 14 Petro and could barely read. He had no access to resource materials and the preachers he heard were as ignorant as any around. The plates were gold Petro and the story was not changed. That is why they had not rusted or deteriorated! If it is so easy to come up with a new religion with all of the doctrines that were taught in the scriptures and early Christian writers, why don't you try it, and let us compare them.

I would have started my church because "God wanted me to". Is that not the way all the other start ups happened? I did not say it would be the Restored Gospel; I would just make the claim that God and Christ wanted me to start anew. Joseph had to wait until he had Priesthood authority and Keys conferred upon him, then the Church could be organized. Almost a year was long enough after all of the miraculous events that had transpired to that point.

The religious revivals could offer him nothing new. He knew nothing of Finney's vision and little of his grandfather's vision. When you are trying to feed yourself by earning a scanty living in his day, it does not leave any time to "craft" together a new religion. But that is all you can come up with. You arguments are so weak Petro but I realize that this is the best you can do! Joseph was never tripped up and the so called "fraudulent nature" of his work continues to spread around the world with many, many learned individuals among those who have joined the Church. Not to mention those members who have gone on to be outstanding scholars, scientists, etc. and as I am sure you have read, the Mormons are known for having the highest percentage by far of these types that do NOT turn their back on their religion the more educated they become. But they received their own testimony that Joseph was a prophet, the same way that the thousands who joined the Church did without ever meeting Joseph or have him speak to them (quite unlike Hitler and the German people). You should read what was "promised" to the people. You would not make such a stupid or uninformed statement.

Nothing of the materials you reference either looks like a duck, walks like a duck, or quacks like a duck, so it gains you no points. You simply put your hand over your eyes, ears and mouth and refuse to get engaged, up close and personal. Your time would then be spent much more profitably for you, that posting on the R&P board.

You can make no claim of any kind for the Book of Mormon until you read it Petro, which you are too lazy and fearful to do. Everyone of your theories have been debunked and any honest party would say so. Joseph did not know immediately that the stones had been switched and I still defy you to put pages in a hat, hold it up and bury your face in it and read it. You can not. Nor was there any place to hide any kind of a manuscript. Oliver had seen the hat many times before Joseph began to use it. It would have been very obvious that Joseph was trying to put something in it after they started. And by the way, papers make noise when they are being shuffled! Your explanations are neither factual or logical, but simply vain attempts to explain away what a "natural man", such as yourself, does not know how to handle. Joseph had no access to Haywood's book and why would Joseph dare to record claims and other information that could possibly be disproved in the future. Great walled cities inhabited by thousands of ancients with sophisticated sewerage, etc.? Give me a break, Petro. All of that work that you think Joseph did in "making up his story" would have been disproved in a relative short period of time. No intelligent individualwould take that gamble.

Calderwood is a very educated Mormon Scholar, but the Spanish Chronicles are not a Mormon work.

Your ministers are the ones who claim that the Trinity is a mystery as well as to where we came from and why we are really here. There is nothing but clarity in our doctrines as it regards Deity, where we came from, who we really are, why we are here, and where we are going! Something that does not exist in Nicene Christianity. You know what Jefferson and Franklin thought of your beliefs that the parent is the Child and the Child is also the Parent. That is the HIGHEST form of gullibility Petro. I would be ashamed if I were you.

Joseph accepted the scriptures as far as they were translated correctly And as you know, Ehrman has proven they WERE NOT! By the way, to bring you up to date, I called North Carolina U. And learned that Ehrman as taken a year's absence. But they did give me his e-mail address and I will cut and paste any reply I get back!

The House of Israel was Twelve Tribes, and the people of the Book of Mormon were from the tribe of Joseph is absolutely correct and there is no other "Stick" that anyone claims is the stick of Ephriam! These are two separate records, one of the tribe of Joseph and one of the tribe of Judah!

For your information, "commonly translated stick. The Hebrew word is etz, a generic word meaning 'wood' (there are other words meaning 'stick', 'staff', 'branch', or 'scepter'). This was wood upon which it was possible to write. Babylonian writing tablets of wood have been found hinged together and faced with wax, with writing engraved upon them. The sticks are of course as used in these verse referring to records or books. The record of Judah and the record of Ephraim, according to the prophecy, were to become one in our (the LDS Churches) hands. The stick or record of Judah is the OT and the stick or record of Ephraim (The Book of Mormon) is another testament of Jesus Christ and they are now woven together in such a way that as you pore over one, you are drawn to the other. As you learn from one, you are enlightened by the other. They are indeed one in our hands and Ezekiel's prophecy now stands fulfilled! Read it and find out Petro!

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/28/2010 8:43p).]

Go back before this post becausee I already have. By the way, have I told you what a miserable job you are doing with our baseball team this year. Coach needs some help, bad!

Um no you haven't. You are or I should say the author you are plagiarizing is trying to use isolated quotes of the Church Fathers to prove the LDS theology concerning the Deification of man ignoring the fact there are perfectly traditional/orthodox theology for these quotes.

For example the St. Athanasius quote used: “Is Man to Become God?”

As for the baseball team, if I'm to blame for the poor showing of the team this season does this mean I'm allowed to blame you for the poor showing of the football team that last few seasons?

quote:

---

Time, Petro? Do you even know what he spent his time doing?

---

Sure. He spent a little time working, a little time treasure seeking, and a bit more time considering his religious questions and trying to create his theological explanations.

quote:

---

He was 14 Petro and could barely read.

---

Not according to those who reference his Bible reading.

quote:

---

He had no access to resource materials

---

Sure he did. Although there wasn't an organized brick and mortar library system, there WAS a strong book trading program. And many of the books of the time covered religion and history, both of which would have helped Smith craft together his religious assumptions.

quote:

---

The plates were gold Petro and the story was not changed.

---

Oh Diamond how horribly you have been suckered on this. We have seen that due to the weight, it was physically impossible for the plates to have been made of Gold.

quote:

---

If it is so easy to come up with a new religion with all of the doctrines that were taught in the scriptures and early Christian writers, why don't you try it

---

Because I have more ethics and character than that, because I would feel guilty for leading others away from Christianity, and because I would never reject God in such a manner.

quote:

---

I would have started my church because "God wanted me to".

---

Of course in Smith's case, he knew that in reality, God wanted no such thing.

quote:

---

Is that not the way all the other start ups happened?

---

No it isn't.

quote:

---

Joseph had to wait until he had Priesthood authority and Keys conferred upon him

---

No. He simply was finishing up his theological claims and stories.

quote:

---

The religious revivals could offer him nothing new.

---

Of course they could. The revivals were occuring because there was so much discussion at the time about religion. Smith could learn from the revivals but even more, it is indication of just how much religious discussion was occuring at the time which certainly would have involved Smith.

quote:

---

He knew nothing of Finney's vision and little of his grandfather's vision.

---

Of course you have absolutely zero evidence to support that assumption. No Diamond, it would be entirely logical that Smith WAS aware of both his grandfather's and his father's visions. In fact, those visions from his elders are probably why he wanted so badly to have a vision of his own. In fact, the visions of others in his family, the use of occult magic, and the treasure seeking all created a perfect storm of a background for someone such as Smith to then cobble that all together into a new religion.

With regards to Finney, Smith almost certainly knew of him. In fact, Finney even came to Palmyra in 1831 to conduct a revival. And guess what happened less than a year after that event? Smith suddenly wrote his 1832 version of the First Vision.... Yet another amazing coincidence??? Only you believe that Diamond.

quote:

---

Joseph was never tripped up

---

Of course he was. His claiming that the plates were made of Gold even though such was impossible due to weight; his claims about the initial translations that he supposedly made with the Kinderhook plates even though they weren't real...

quote:

---

the so called "fraudulent nature" of his work continues to spread around the world with many, many learned individuals among those who have joined the Church.

---

There are 'learned' individuals who have also joined Islam, Scientology, Unification Church, or have become athiests. Does that somehow validate those religions as well? Of course not. And in the same manner, you can't validate YOUR theology based on this either.

quote:

---

thousands who joined the Church did without ever meeting Joseph or have him speak to them

---

Plenty have also joined other religions without ever meeting the religious founder face to face. Once again, this in no way validates the theology itself.

quote:

---

You should read what was "promised" to the people.

---

Promises such as them being told that they get to be Gods with their own planets and worshippers? And of course for the men, the promise that they can marry and sleep around with as many women as they want? Yes Diamond, Smith knew how to motivate others and how to use man's greed to bring in converts.

quote:

---

Nothing of the materials you reference either looks like a duck, walks like a duck, or quacks like a duck

---

Of course it does. But when confronted with such material, you simply run off screaming 'coincidence, coincidence'. No Diamond, the similarities between Finney's vision and Smith alleged vision are much more than 'coincidence'.

quote:

---

You can make no claim of any kind for the Book of Mormon until you read it Petro

---

Bull. Have you read the Quoran? Dianetics? The Unification Doctrine? And yet, having not read those documents mean that you can't make claims about those religions? Of course not. And in the same manner, I don't need to read through the BOM to understand that Mormonism is also a false religion.

quote:

---

Everyone of your theories have been debunked and any honest party would say so.

---

Nope. You have been so far unable to debunk even a single one.

quote:

---

Joseph did not know immediately that the stones had been switched

---

And yet again, you have absolutely ZERO evidence or facts to back up that statement. You choose to believe that only because it is what you want to hear.

quote:

---

I still defy you to put pages in a hat, hold it up and bury your face in it and read it. You can not.

---

Easy to do. Simply glance at the page as you pull your face into the hat and then simply repeat what you read and pretend that it is a translation. As you pull your head out of the hat to catch a breath or be hear more clearly, you move on to the next few sentences. Nothing difficult at all in such a con game Diamond.

quote:

---

Nor was there any place to hide any kind of a manuscript.

---

Says who? The people in that room who WANTED you and others to believe it was a spiritual event instead of a fraudulent one?

quote:

---

It would have been very obvious that Joseph was trying to put something in it after they started.

---

I'm sure that he already had the necessary pages hidden away before ever beginning.

quote:

---

Your explanations are neither factual or logical

---

And YOUR explanations that he was translating gold plates(never mind that the weight made this impossible, that he was using a magic rock to translate gibberish, that he refused to allow the plates be inspected by any experts, that the plates then disappeared so as to prevent inspection...you think all of that IS logical? You are truly delusional Diamond if you believe that mine isn't the logical position. Now you can believe what you want about Smith and his plates but there is not a chance in the world that you can base your believe on logic. Instead it will have to remain simply a matter of faith with you no matter how illogical.

quote:

---

Joseph had no access to Haywood's book

---

Again you are making a claim with no evidence to support it. Haywood's book came out prior to Smith making his claims and was published in Nashville. And it was just one of several books discussing those items that you now turn around and claim were never discussed prior to Joseph Smith. The facts, once again, simply don't back up your claims Diamond.

quote:

---

why would Joseph dare to record claims and other information that could possibly be disproved in the future.

---

For the same reason that he originally claimed that the plates were made of Gold. Because he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was and because he didn't count on the level of information sharing and research that occurs today showing that so many of his claims were in fact wholly unoriginal.

quote:

---

Calderwood is a very educated Mormon Scholar, but the Spanish Chronicles are not a Mormon work.

---

And yet it isn't the Spanish Chronicles but rather Calderwood's conclusions that you are banking on right Diamond? And those conclusions just happen to have been made by a Mormon who came in with an agenda...

Let's consider just how valid Calderwood's conclusions really were. There are certainly numerous critics of Calderwood but I realize that any who don't agree with you, will be immediately rejected by you as not counting. So instead, let's consider the review of Brant Gardner who just happens to be connected to BYU and works in their Maxwell Institute for Religious Studies. And what does Brant have to say about "Visions in the Dust"?

Calderwood has covered an impressive range of material and has done the proper work to read them in the original language. My issues with his work are not with his sources but with what he makes of them.

Unfortunately, Calderwood's arguments will be convincing only to those who are unaware of the methodological difficulties with the book's thesis. These underlying methodological issues are a serious flaw in an otherwise extensively researched and well-written book.

I confess that I am nervous when the introduction of any book on history blithely dismisses years of scholarship.

Additionally, when so much material appears to be "parallel" over such a vast expanse of time and different cultures, one wonders what thread holds them together. Calderwood suggests that it is the Book of Mormon, even though the Book of Mormon could not have influenced a geographic area so widely dispersed (where there is no known contact among different cultures) or have persisted through that length of time.

Calderwood sees only the parallels. He neglects to consider any other reason for the apparent similarities in his sources. In the historical materials from Mesoamerica, with which I am most familiar, I find much stronger evidence that it really was the common perceptual layer imposed by the Spaniards that created the parallels in the chroniclers' accounts.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=634

quote:

---

Your ministers are the ones who claim that the Trinity is a mystery

---

Only in reference to the fact that it is a connection that does not exist in earthly, biological creatures. But there is no mystery with regards to the Trinitarian concept being supported in Scripture.

quote:

---

There is nothing but clarity in our doctrines as it regards Deity, where we came from, who we really are, why we are here, and where we are going!

---

Of course. Because Joseph Smith desired a cut and dried theology that would provide him with all answers. So that is just what he put together. And his followers desired the same thing and were hooked in as a result. Not so different than Adam and Eve's desires to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

quote:

---

You know what Jefferson and Franklin thought of your beliefs

---

Jefferson basically rejected EVERYTHING in the New Testament that wasn't a direct statement from Christ. As such, he would been just as quick to reject Mormonism.

quote:

---

your beliefs that the parent is the Child and the Child is also the Parent.

---

There you go again trying to forced God to live by earthly, mortal rules. God doesn't have to play by your rules Diamond!

quote:

---

That is the HIGHEST form of gullibility Petro. I would be ashamed if I were you.

---

I have never been ashamed of my belief and faith in Scripture Diamond. Am I gullible because I am a Christian? Perhaps but I certainly don't believe so.

quote:

---

Joseph accepted the scriptures as far as they were translated correctly

---

In other words, Smith pick and chose what of scripture he wanted to include in his new religion.

quote:

---

And as you know, Ehrman has proven they WERE NOT!

---

Wrong. He has claimed that they were not but has proven nothing. But it is irrelevant as the things that he claims are changed are minor and not part of the core beliefs of Christian theology. I have challenged you several times to provide a single example of scripture that Ehrman thought was inaccurate which is of significance to Christian doctrine. And so far you have provided me with .... ZILCH! Typical level of support from Diamond.

quote:

---

But they did give me his e-mail address and I will cut and paste any reply I get back!

---

We have heard those promises before from you Diamond. The reality is that you have ALREADY been proven wrong by Ehrman's statements in his books. Your supposed attempts to talk to Ehrman is nothing more than a way to deflect an argument that you have already horribly lost.

quote:

---

people of the Book of Mormon were from the tribe of Joseph is absolutely correct

---

Absolutely incorrect and lacking in scriptural support.

quote:

---

These are two separate records, one of the tribe of Joseph and one of the tribe of Judah!

---

Also without the smallest bit of scriptural support.

quote:

---

The Hebrew word is etz, a generic word meaning 'wood' (there are other words meaning 'stick', 'staff', 'branch', or 'scepter'). This was wood upon which it was possible to write. Babylonian writing tablets of wood have been found hinged together and faced with wax, with writing engraved upon them.

---

WOOD Diamond. The word means wood! Absolutely nothing in any of that suggests that such a record would have been inscribed on plates of gold!!!

Additionaly, as I have already instructed you, within Ezekiel, there are several verses that reference written records. And every time, a word other than 'etz' has been used. So you are trying to suggest that Ezekiel suddenly decided to change his grammar and language style just for this one particular verse??? No Diamond, that is neither logical nor factual. In fact, reading the overall context of Ezekiel, it becomes even MORE clear that he was referencing the re-unification of the Northern and Southern kingdoms of Israel.

quote:

---

the stick or record of Ephraim (The Book of Mormon) is another testament of Jesus Christ

---

Yet another non-scriptural claim made up in the imagination of Joseph Smith Jr. and echoed by yourself Diamond.

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/29/2010 2:50p).]

Petro, obviously you have no idea what he was doing. He spent much time working on the family farm and with others, who claimed he was the best worker they had had. But, don't involve yourself too much Petro, just rely on your anti-Mormons sources who have always loved a lie as Thomas H. Taylor related in an interview with E. L. And William H. Kelley, March 1881, published in the Saints Herald, Plano, Ill., p.167. Mr. Taylor explained that he knew the Smiths very well and they were very nice men. Mr. Taylor said the only trouble was they were ahead of the people; and the people, as in every case, turned out to abuse them, because they had the manhood to stand for their own convictions. "I have seen such work all through life". "What did the Smiths do that abused them so?" "They did not do anything. Why! These rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed, and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there, they would have done the same to him......" "Why didn't they like Smith?" "To tell the truth there was something about him they could not understand. Some way he knew more than they did and it made them mad." "But a good many tell terrible stories, about them being rogues, and liars, and such things. How is that?" "Oh! They are a set of d----d liars. I have a home here, and been here, except when on business, all my life - ever since I came to this country - and I know these fellows. They make these lies on Smith because they love a lie better than the truth. I can take you to a great many old settlers here who will substantiate what I say."... They could never sustain anything against Smith."

As far as the book trading program, it did not exist on the edge of the western frontier and the Smiths had precious little time for reading. Remember, Mother Smith said that Joseph was NOT inclined to read much at all. You have only an opinion on this and no evidence what so ever to support your conclusions. Joseph, as strong as he was, could have run with 80 lb. of gold. He was in every bit as good a shape as a modern Ranger and he was so strong no one could beat him wrestling.

You may have a lot of things to slow you down in that endeavor of a new religion, but I don't think ethics and character are any of them. As a Nicene Christian, it shouldn't slow you down in leading others astray, as so many of your fellows have and as you attempt to do so even now. Now if you think Joseph "knew" that God wanted no such thing, what kind of a death wish did Joseph have to go against God's will? That is pretty strong stuff for some one 14 years old. But, Petro, you really are a fool if you believe that. And anyway, that is the way the other start-ups happened. It was just that most of their founders did not have to murder someone to get it off the ground like your hero, Henry.

Remember, Oliver Cowdrey was there when John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, laid their hands on "their" heads and conferred the Holy Priesthood on them. Two people Petro, not one!

The only thing Joseph learned from these revivals was that the pretended good feelings that started the meetings fell apart when some of the ministers were more eloquent than the others and made more "sales". The not as successful ministers and their converts then attacked those more successful ministers and their new adherents. But the thing that got to Joseph the most was that each of them would interpret the same scripture so differently that it would almost destroy one's faith that the Bible could provide concrete answers for anything! That is why he decided to put God to the test and ask Him which of all the churches he should join. And you know the answer he received!

Neither logic or any evidence to support your conclusions. They bore no resemblance to each other. Finney came to Palymyra a year after the Church was organized and the Book of Mormon published. Not a shred of evidence to point of any "tripping up." Only your "logical" conclusions as to what had to have happened.

Yet in the Christian religion, it is the Mormon scientists who remain by far the most faithful to their religion. You can try to figure that out. I doubt that you have seen the following 3 part article:

Fruits of Mormonism: Extraordinary Production of Scientists

The Olympics showed Utah and Latter-day Saints to the world at their best, revealing that we are much more than many journalists and some of the public may have supposed.
Here's another myth-busting fact. For 80 years every study has shown that in relation to population Utah was number one in spawning scientists; that the scientists produced from Utah are much more LDS than the LDS proportion of the Utah population; and that two recent studies show that over 90 percent of the LDS scientists believe that "Joseph Smith, Jr. was inspired by God in the formation of the Mormon Church."
People only become scientists by proving their intellect, their rational pursuit of truth based upon demonstrable evidence, and their skepticism of that which is not readily credible. So the remarkable record of an overabundance of objective scientists who believe in and are faithful to and active in the Church must be astounding to people with frozen preconceptions. It appears that no other Church can demonstrate its overwhelming believability to scientists. This article provides you some stimulating facts that will help you in dealing with self-important scoffers.

Church Emphasizes Learning and Science

To understand the dynamic and positive impact of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) on people's lives, it is important to understand the LDS emphasis on learning in general and on science in particular. This is underscored by a few examples.

• LDS are repeatedly urged to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," and to "study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people."
• The first Church President, Joseph Smith, made it clear that "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He emphasized: "We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'."
• The second President, Brigham Young, admonished: "Let [the members] be educated in every useful branch of learning..."He wrote: "How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us!" He emphasized that: "'Mormonism' embraces all truth" including "scientific". He asserted: "Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."

LDS strong emphasis on learning and science has led to a remarkable record.
For example, in 1850, only three years after the first Mormons trudged some 1300 miles to the desolate Salt Lake Valley, they created the University of Deseret (now the University of Utah)—the first co-educational university (admitting women and men) west of the Mississippi River. Utah, which has always been predominantly Mormon, has always been at or near the top in the average number of years of education attained by its citizens. For example, it was reported in 1984 that Utah was highest of the 50 states in the "median number of school years completed by adult population", with 12.8 years. Utah was also first in "percentage of adult population with high school diploma". Despite an influx of immigrants into Utah, it continues to be high. In October, 1995, with 90.2 percent of adults age 25 and over having high school diplomas, Utah was fourth highest of the fifty states.

In 1994, Utah was the top state in both Advance Placement Exams taken, and those passed for college credit, in relation to the number of high school students—and Utah is consistently at or near the top. A recent study showed that in 1996, Utah tied North Carolina for the highest percentage of high school students who took upper level mathematics classes. The duties of citizenship are taken seriously. For example, a study of presidential elections from World War II through 1988 revealed that Utah had the highest average turn-out of voters of any state.

Production of Mormon Scientists

More specifically, in the production of scientists, LDS have been extraordinarily fruitful.
• Since science promotes objective rational thinking and progress, E.L. Thorndike, of Columbia University researched the states of birth of scientists listed in the 1938 edition of American Men of Science for the Carnegie Foundation. He found that Utah (which was majority LDS) was the highest producer of scientists as a percentage of the population of a state. Utah was 45 percent higher than the second highest state, Colorado, which also had LDS citizens.

Dr. Thorndike later studied the origins of outstanding men using Who's Who, Leaders in Education and American Men of Science. Utah again was the most productive state, far ahead of Massachusetts, the second ranking state. This study was published in The Scientific Monthly in 1943. Thus many of these high achievers were born in the 1800s, during which time, Utah was struggling to make the arid desert blossom as a rose. Despite privation, the teachings of the Church caused people to sacrifice and strive to obtain excellent education's and to contribute to the larger society.

• A study by H. E. Zabel of American Men of Science - 1944 found that Utah was again first as the birthplace of 1065 scientists per million. The second state was Colorado with 657 per million.
• The number of scientists in the 1949 edition of American Men of Science had nearly doubled since Thorndike's original study of the 1938 edition. A University of Utah doctoral dissertation by Richard T. Wootton showed Utah as the most productive of scientists, followed by Idaho, the state with the second highest LDS population.
• The number of scientists in the 1962 edition of American Men of Science almost doubled again. Despite almost quadruple the scientists in the original Thorndike study, Utah still had a commanding lead for first in the number of scientists born in the state per million population, followed by Idaho which had a large LDS population.
• Using a different approach, the University of Chicago Press published a study of the institutions from which scientists in the 1921 and 1944 editions of American Men of Science had obtained their undergraduate degrees. In relation to their number of graduates, Mormon-owned Brigham Young University (BYU) and Utah State and University of Utah produced future scientists at an average rate of 150 percent of the rates of MIT and Harvard, 200 percent of Stanford, 300 percent of Duke, 1,280 percent of University of Southern California, and 4,700% of Georgetown University.

• Science in 1974 published a study of those who had obtained Ph.D.s from 1920 to 1961 and the institutions from which they had obtained their baccalaureate degrees. The productivity of each state in producing future scholars was calculated. Utah ranked first of all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. in overall production of scholars. Significantly, it ranked 30 percent higher than the second highest state, Iowa. In sub-categories, Utah ranked first in producing future Ph.D.s in biological sciences, third in physical sciences, first in social sciences, second in education, and sixth in the arts and professions• The author, BYU Professor Kenneth R. Hardy, did a follow-up study of undergraduate origins of Ph.D. recipients from 1962 to 1981 and found that BYU continued to be extraordinarily productive of natural and social scientists and the Utah universities continued to rank first in producing men (but not first in women) who went on to obtain Ph.D.s.
• Richard Wootton, former President of the BYU Hawaii campus and professor emeritus of Arizona State University did a more recent study of the locations of the undergraduate degrees of American Men and Women of Science: 17th edition, 1990. Utah was again the top state in production of scientists and was substantially higher—21 percent—than the second highest state, Delaware.
• The results of the studies up to and including 1992 were so remarkable that I asked Dr. Wootton if he would be willing to redo his 1992 study in the year 2000 to see if his findings held up in the fast changing contemporary world. He proceeded to study the States that awarded undergraduate degrees to scientists listed in the 1998-99 Edition of American Men and Women of Science. Utah again was number one. However, its lead over second state, Delaware, undoubtedly influenced by the increasing number of children of Du Pont scientists who also became scientists, was narrowed.

Although other states' rankings changed, Utah has consistently been the highest state, and generally much higher than the second highest state, in producing achievers listed from 1920 to 1999. Also, Idaho, with the second highest percentage of Mormons, consistently ranked high in ratio of scientists who were born in Idaho to population.

To test the impact of the LDS Church, Wootton studied the proportion of LDS and non-LDS scientists from Utah in his studies of scientists. He found that LDS scientists were a substantially higher share of Utah produced scientists than the LDS percentage of the general population in Utah. For example, Wootton reported that the LDS proportion of Utah's population in 1906 was 55 percent. Whereas the proportion of Utah-born scientists who were LDS in Wootton's study of American Men of Science in 1949 was 76 percent - almost 40 percent higher than the LDS share of the population near the median birth year of the scientists.

Mormon Scientists Maintain Their Faith in Christ and His Re-established Church

Mormons Find Science and Religion are Compatible. So do these scientific leaders find their science undermines their religious faith? Generally not. Most of them continued to be active Church members and many also held leadership positions in the Church. For example, Henry Eyring, who published over 500 scientific articles, was a long time member of the General Sunday School Board for the whole Church.

LDS scientists generally reconcile science with their religion. In 1956, Richard Wootton found that 74 percent of Mormon scientists born in Utah believed that Joseph Smith was inspired by God in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (61 percent strong or very strong, 14 percent fair.) The same researcher found that in 1992 the proportion of LDS scientists who had received baccalaureate degrees from universities in Utah who believed that Joseph Smith was inspired by God in the formation of the Church was 91 percent (85 percent strong or very strong, 6 percent fair). Such a high proportion of faithful scientists seemed so improbable to some, that Wootton redid the study with a second sample - which confirmed the first sample.

Dr. Wootton redid the study using the 1998-99 edition of American Men and Women of Science with the same methodology. When asked if they believed that Joseph Smith was inspired by God in the formation of the Mormon Church, the proportion of believers was 94 percent (86 percent strong or very strong, 6 percent fair) - no decline, but even higher than in the previous studies. Virtually the same percentage believed that "Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person of the Godhead." Of the Utah spawned LDS scientists, 88 percent are active in the Church - more by 6 percent than were active when they were 18-25 years of age.

The astounding character of the widespread faith of LDS scientists in the restored Church is shown by the contrast of a national study of scientists in American Men and Women of Science. Only 40% believed in a God influenced by worship or in an afterlife with personal identity. This is less than half of the proportion of LDS scientists who find the claims of the restored Church credible and have faith.

The Wootton first study was based on birth in Utah. Since the data was not available by birth for the second study, it was based upon completion of undergraduate study at a university in Utah, Despite the ambiguity of a different method of identifying Utah spawned LDS scientists, it appears that there has been an increase in faith among LDS scientists from an already high earlier level. This seems partially attributable to the growth of scientific evidence of the validity of LDS scriptures done particularly by the Foundation for Research in Mormon Scriptures (FARMS). Many studies have also reinforced the fruitfulness of LDS beliefs and practices, such as the studies of non-Mormon UCLA professor James E. Enstrom that indicate that LDS high priests in California live 10 to 12 years longer, on average, than comparable non-Mormons.

It may also be of interest to note that some non-Mormon scientists have become increasingly willing to bare their own religious faith.

Not only do LDS scientists continue to be religiously active, but well-educated LDS generally are religiously active. Survey research indicated that 41 percent of Mormons with only elementary school education attend Church regularly. By contrast, 76 percent of LDS college graduates attend Church regularly and 78 percent of LDS who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attend Church regularly.
The novelty of the LDS correlation between education and religious faith and activity was illustrated when Harvard Professor David Riesman visited BYU campus in the 1960's. He was intrigued to find that Mormons with Ph.D.s lined up to obtain faculty positions at BYU. He noted, by contrast, that it was common for people from other Churches to feel liberated from their religion when they obtained Ph.D.s, and not to be motivated to teach at religious institutions of higher education
.
Scientists are Among Top LDS Church Leaders

Not only is there a remarkable record of many LDS becoming scientists while continuing to be religiously faithful, but leading scientists and engineers have been among the Church's leaders from its inception. The original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the early 1800s included Orson Pratt, a mathematician. When the Mormons first crossed the plains in 1847, Orson Pratt calculated the daily distances traveled as well as latitude, longitude and altitude.

Among subsequent Apostles were Dr. James E. Talmage, a geologist who studied at Lehigh and Johns Hopkins Universities; Joseph F. Merrill, who obtained his Ph.D. in Physics from Johns Hopkins, and John A. Widtsoe, a native of Norway who studied biochemistry at Harvard University and obtained his Ph.D. from Gottingen University in Germany, also in the 1800s. He served as President of Utah State Agricultural College and the University of Utah.

If we look at the Quorum of Twelve Apostles today, it may well be unique among leadership councils of churches for having scientists, engineers and prominent educators as a majority of its members. These Apostles include (alphabetically listed):

• Henry B. Eyring obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard, was a Sloan faculty fellow at MIT and taught nine years at Stanford University focusing on the management of scientists and technicians. He was also President of Ricks College and has served as Commissioner of Education for the LDS Church.
• Jeffrey Holland received his Ph.D. at Yale University, became Commissioner of Education for the Church and then was President of Brigham Young University. He served as President of the American Association of Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities.
• Neal A. Maxwell was Executive Vice President of the University of Utah, as well as Commissioner of Education for the Church.
• Russell M. Nelson. In addition to his medical degree from University of Utah, he obtained a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota where he was a member of the team that produced the first successful artificial heart and lungs to keep a patient's body functioning during heart surgery. He became Chief of the Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgery Division of the LDS Hospital and a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery. He is internationally recognized. For example, he was named Honorary Professor, Shandong Medical University, Jinan; Old People University, Jinan; and Xi-An Medical College.
• Dallin H. Oaks, a former law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, became a professor, and Associate and Acting Dean, at the University of Chicago Law School, He was also Executive Director of the American Bar Association Foundation, and then became President of Brigham Young University. He was President of the American Association of Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities. He was also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the national PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and has served as a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
• Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, obtained a doctorate from BYU and taught at universities in the Church Institute.
• Richard G. Scott, a nuclear engineer, completed the equivalent of a Ph.D. at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was instrumental in the establishment of the first peacetime nuclear power plant, and was co-editor of two books related to the construction and use of nuclear power plants. For 12 years he worked with Hymen Rickover in developing nuclear powered systems.

The other Apostles also came from distinguished backgrounds in business, management and law.

Among the second tier of General Authorities of the contemporary Church are such scientists as Dr. James O. Mason, former Director of the National Center for Disease Control.

Concluding Comments

LDS diligence in seeking and embracing all knowledge and wisdom has been fruitful. As a result, committed LDS:
• have exemplary health and live ten to twelve years longer than their countrymen;
• produce wholesome youth who tend to avoid drugs, alcohol problems and venereal diseases, and who are often athletes—as examples, this year, 8 Olympic contenders, including aeriel silver medal winner Joe Pack, were LDS representing 6 countries, and in the 1998 NCAA tournament, nine members of the top four basketball teams were LDS.
• have a high educational level and scientific orientation;
• work effectively and have high ability to sustain themselves economically, have produced successful multi-national businesses, and made Utah a world center of new computer software (as identified by the Economist magazine and others);
• have improved the quality of personal and family life, peace of mind, and harmony with others in the many countries in which Church members live;
• and generate productive, service-oriented citizens, loyal to their own laws and governments—of whom any country can be pleased and proud.

Hardly the profile of a religious cult that was built by gullible and ignorant individuals who were simply fixated on a dynamic leader. Here is the link: http://www.fruitsofmormonism.com/search/label/LDS%20and%20Science

Since you like to compare Joseph to these poor men, nobody joined Koresh or Jones with out meeting each of them.

They were never promised that Petro. You should learn when various doctrines were introduced, line upon line, precept upon precept.

Neither a coincidence no matter how much you wished that was the case. And as I said, what was the impact of Finney's vision. Absolutely nothing. Hardly anyone today even knows he ever existed.

We are not discussing the Quoran. Or Dianetics. Or the Unification Doctrine, but the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and it all centers around the Book of Mormon. That is why, if you had any sense, you would want to read it. You keep trying to mix apples and oranges.

Sorry Petro, but they have been debunked soundly. Your sad position is that you are on the wrong side of God, the scriptures, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Christian Writers, History, as well as LOGIC!

I believe the man who described the event, Oliver Cowdrey and I believe Joseph's wife when she described him as unlearned and incapable of writing a coherent letter, nor has any been produced to the contrary. Not to mention that in their cramped quarters, there was no room for a 531 page manuscript, which, when hand written would have been many, many more pages. No Petro, you are the one flailing about trying to come up with something that might stick, and like all the others before you, you have failed miserably!

That is not the way that Joseph translated. You really should read the accounts of his three scribes and you would see how silly your conclusions are. And of course, you fail to allow for the noise in the shuffling of the pages or the fact that the hat was easily visible and available for viewing. Neither it or the stone was secured. It was only the plates that were covered and a group of pages could not have been hid and then transferred back and forth with the scribe but a couple of feet away. The people in the room had no reason to lie and prevail upon others to feed and shelter them. And in the end, 11 witnesses saw the plates and three of them interacted with the Angel Moroni and they NEVER denied their testimony. And if money had ever been a motive, they could have received tons by revealing the fraud, which always happens when people are tossed out.

Actually you should read the account of Martin Harris and Professor Anthon. Martin Harris's wife was convinced that Joseph was a fraud and wanted some of the pages that Joseph had made copies of to take and validate. Here is the story:

Where Martin Harris went, whom he saw, and what happened are clouded in contradictory reports. He stopped at Albany, probably to see Luther Brandish, a New York state assemblyman with a reputation for knowledge of the Middle East. Someone referred Harris to the illustrious philomath Samuel Latham Mitchill, then vice president of Rutgers Medical College in New York City and famed as a "living encyclopedia," a "chaos of knowledge." Accounts vary as to whether he saw Mitchill or Charles Anthon, another scholar, first, or if he saw Mitchill before and after Anthon, but the Mitchell episode was of slight importance. According to Harris, Mitchill encouraged him and referred him to Anthon, where a more important exchange took place.

Martin Harris' account of the visit to Charles Anthon was included in Joseph Smith's 1838 history:

I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him. 65 He then said to me, 'Let me see that certificate.' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.(Joseph Smith History 1:6465).

Anthon denied that he had ever validated either the characters or Joseph's translation, though his two written accounts contradict each other on key points.For example:
in his first letter, Anthon refuses to give Harris a written opinion and in his second letter, Anthon claims that he wrote his opinion "without any hesitation" because he wished to expose what he was certain was a fraud.

A clue as to what Anthon said may be found in Martin Harris' reaction. Martin was a shrewd farmer and businessman, and a man of some property. He often warred between belief and doubt. For example, Martin put Joseph to the test during the translation of the 116 pages with the seer stone:
Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet's knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, "Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt." Martin then confessed that he wished to "stop the mouths of fools" who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them
If Charles Anthon really did tell Martin that the characters and translation were bogus, it would therefore be very strange for Martin Harris to immediately return home, help Joseph translate the Book of Mormon, provide funds, and eventually mortgage his farm to help print it. On the other hand, Anthon clearly had no desire to have his name associated with "Mormonism," and so he has clear motives to alter the story after the fact.

Thus the scripture was fulfilled in Isa. 29: 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

You will learn that things are facts only when they are substantiated which you can not do concerning how Joseph got his ideas or manuscripts to copy. But, keep trying.

The "translations" of the Spanish Chronicles are not opinions or conclusions. The difference of opinion is as to where the Book of Mormon events took place. You should really read what the conquistadors, priests and colonizers had to say as to what they found in the late 1400s and 1500s.

Franklin and Jefferson would have immediately recognized the truth when they heard it for they realized that all of the Nicene Christian ministers at their time were basically a bunch of hucksters! God does not play by my rules but he does reveal himself and his Son through out the scriptures and never does he promote the absurdity the He is also his Child and His Child is also himself. Only fools believe that, but Plato and Lucifer would be pleased!

I have been proven wrong by nothing concerning Ehrman and you have do not even have the courage to even attempt to contact him yourself as to what transpired and what he learned. I have!! You have all of the scriptural support you need Petro but you refuse to read it. It is called the Book of Mormon, but you keep hiding.

You are amazingly ignorant or stupid or both to make the statement about the "sticks". Of course the sticks the parchment was rolled upon was wood! So what. No one has suggested that these sticks were made of gold. But they have found numerous writings in S.A. And the old world on metal plates. Gold was very plentiful in South America and it lasts the longest. They were never reunified were they? No other claim as to the stick of Joseph other than the Book of Mormon Petro so you will just have to learn to deal with it. I was wrong, you will simply run away from it. Here is the link and you can learn for yourself.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms4.pdf

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/30/2010 11:40a).]

quote:

---

Petro, obviously you have no idea what he was doing. He spent much time working on the family farm and with others, who claimed he was the best worker they had had.

---

And yet religion was an important part of life back then and Smith WOULD have had time and made time available for religious matters including his creation of a new religion. To pretend that in eight years, he didn't have time to manufacture his theories and claims is simply illogical.

quote:

---

But, don't involve yourself too much Petro, just rely on your anti-Mormons sources

---

Of course ANYONE who doesn't spout the Mormon propaganda is labeled as an anti-Mormon by you Diamond and their opinions automatically rejected. You decide on who to listen to not based on their facts or logic of their position but instead simply on whether they agree with you or not.

quote:

---

Why didn't they like Smith?" "To tell the truth there was something about him they could not understand. Some way he knew more than they did and it made them mad."

---

Actually I am sure that it had much more with the way he rejected scripture and Christianity.

quote:

---

But a good many tell terrible stories, about them being rogues, and liars, and such things. How is that?" "Oh! They are a set of d----d liars.

---

Except that the people turned out NOT to be liars. Documentation and facts, some from Mormon sources even, show that Smith WAS a liar in addition to being a fraud artist a wanted criminal, and an opponent of free speech. Those behaviors simply don't go over well here in the United States Diamond.

quote:

---

As far as the book trading program, it did not exist on the edge of the western frontier

---

So now you are forced to claim that Palmyra, NEW YORK was the edge of the western frontier in 1820s America? Yet more illogical claims that Diamond is forced to make in order to support his position.

quote:

---

You have only an opinion on this and no evidence what so ever to support your conclusions.

---

Just the same as you Diamond. The difference of course is that my opinion is based on logic while your's is based on desire.

quote:

---

Joseph, as strong as he was, could have run with 80 lb. of gold.

---

No he couldn't. The weight wouldn't have been distributed in a pack such as soldiers can do. Plus you are ignoring the fact that it has already been shown that if the plates were truly made of gold as Smith first claimed and you maintain, than they would have weighed much, much more than 80 lbs! No Diamond, yet another fact that proves Smith's claims were not true.

quote:

---

You may have a lot of things to slow you down in that endeavor of a new religion, but I don't think ethics and character are any of them.

---

Smith's lack of ethics and character certainly seems to have made it easier for him to start his religion.

quote:

---

As a Nicene Christian, it shouldn't slow you down in leading others astray, as so many of your fellows have and as you attempt to do so even now.

---

Yes we understand your rejection of Christianity Diamond. But if you consider preaching Christianity to be leading people astray, then I must claim guilt.

quote:

---

Now if you think Joseph "knew" that God wanted no such thing, what kind of a death wish did Joseph have to go against God's will?

---

And there we get to a key question. Did Smith's desire for power lead him to not care that he was rejecting God and Scripture? Or was delusional enough that he was in some way able to convince himself that he was following the will of God?

quote:

---

That is pretty strong stuff for some one 14 years old.

---

He wouldn't be the first or last teenager that focused on immediate greed and desire at the expense of spiritual life!

quote:

---

It was just that most of their founders did not have to murder someone to get it off the ground like your hero, Henry.

---

You are showing your complete ignorance of history when trying to imply that murder was required as part of Henry's theological claims. Of course you have never let facts get in the way of your arguments before so why should we expect for you to worry about them now?

quote:

---

Remember, Oliver Cowdrey was there when John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, laid their hands on "their" heads and conferred the Holy Priesthood on them.

---

You mean Joseph Smith's cousin? Oliver Cowdrey who claimed special powers with diving rods? Oliver Cowdrey who became second elder in Smith's new religion? What a non-surprise that he would have supported Smith's bogus claims...

quote:

---

The only thing Joseph learned from these revivals ....

---

What he learned was that religion was capable of creating passion in people and could be used to win people over. And so Smith created a religion that focused on the quest for knowledge and greed of man.

quote:

---

But the thing that got to Joseph the most was that each of them would interpret the same scripture so differently that it would almost destroy one's faith that the Bible could provide concrete answers for anything!

---

Could be. And THAT is why Smith than rejected those scriptures. It didn't have anything to do with a vision telling him that but instead was simply his personal opinion based on his experiences with the revivals.

quote:

---

That is why he decided to put God to the test and ask Him which of all the churches he should join.

---

Asking for guidance isn't 'putting God to the test'.

quote:

---

Neither logic or any evidence to support your conclusions. They bore no resemblance to each other.

---

Earlier you tried to explain away the similarities as simply 'coincidence'. Now you are attempting to deny that there are any similarities at all... Your desperation is forcing you to continually change your arguments Diamond.

Let's look at some of the similarities shall we:

Finney describes going into a grove of woods to pray. Smith claims the same thing.

Finney says that as soon as he began to pray out loud, God supposedly struck him 'dumb' and he felt a 'great sinking discouragement'. Smith similarily claimed that as soon as he began to pray, his tongue became 'bound' and he was unable to speak. He then felt that he was 'doomed to destruction'.

Finney claimed that he saw a flood of light. Smith then claims similarily that he witnessed a 'pillar of light'. Finney states that with the light, he was suddenly able to fulfill his vow of accepting God that day. Smith similarily claims that once enveloped with the light, he was "filled with unspeakable joy".

Finney claims to have then come face to face with Christ. Smith claims to have then come face to face with two God and also with Christ.

Finney also claims that he endured persecution for sharing his experience. Smith makes the same claim.

quote:

---

Finney came to Palymyra a year after the Church was organized and the Book of Mormon published.

---

And yet Smith didn't make any public claims regarding the details of his first vision until AFTER Finney's visit to Palmyra.

At least now you are aknowledging that Finney DID visit Palmyra. Kinda makes it tough for you to continue to insist that Smith knew nothing of Finney's vision though doesn't it? But then again, you are used to back pedalling aren't you?

quote:

---

Not a shred of evidence to point of any "tripping up."

---

Incorrect. It is FACT not opinion that Smith inspected the Kinderhook plates and made claims about their origin even though they were fakes. It is also FACT that he began 'translating' their content even though, again they were frauds. It is also a FACT that Smith first claimed the plates were Gold. And it is FACT that if such plates really were solid gold, they would have been to heavy to carry. No Diamond, the facts continually 'tripped up' Joseph Smith.

quote:

---

and that two recent studies show that over 90 percent of the LDS scientists believe that "Joseph Smith, Jr. was inspired by God in the formation of the Mormon Church."

---

Wow. 90% of Mormon scientists thing Smith was telling the truth? That of course means that even within Mormonism, 10% think that he was NOT telling the truth. Do you think 10% of the Mormon population overall also believes that Smith was lying?

If you want to try and validate your theology based on the opinion of scientists, why restrict your study only to those biased towards Mormonism? Why not ask ALL scientists? And if you do, what tiny, miniscule percentage of these learned men are going to think that Smith was being honest in his claims???

quote:

---

it is important to understand the LDS emphasis on learning in general and on science in particular.

---

And that is a GOOD thing. But it certainly doesn't validate your theology.

quote:

---

Since you like to compare Joseph to these poor men, nobody joined Koresh or Jones with out meeting each of them.

---

Bull! James Jones for example, was already in Guyana and yet continued to win converts at his Temples in San Francisco and elsewhere.

quote:

---

You should learn when various doctrines were introduced, line upon line, precept upon precept.

---

Yes I understand that the promises and theology of the Mormon religion is often a moving target based on the needs and desires of those in charge...

quote:

---

And as I said, what was the impact of Finney's vision. Absolutely nothing. Hardly anyone today even knows he ever existed.

---

Because he, unlike Joseph, didn't choose to reject God and Scripture and start up a new religion.

quote:

---

We are not discussing the Quoran. Or Dianetics. Or the Unification Doctrine,

---

But your arguments for Mormonism can be just as easily applied to those religious documents. You claim that no one is allowed to criticize Mormonism if the haven't read your religions 'holy' documents. And yet you don't apply that same such requirement when criticizing other religions. Yet more inconsistency on your part Diamond.

quote:

---

That is why, if you had any sense, you would want to read it.

---

Because I have sense and logic, I recognize that there is no value in reading such a fictional account.

quote:

---

I believe the man who described the event, Oliver Cowdrey and I believe Joseph's wife when she described him as unlearned and incapable of writing a coherent letter

---

Of course you do... because they are saying just what you DESIRE to believe. If either had said differently, you would have immediately rejected their statements.

quote:

---

Sorry Petro, but they have been debunked soundly.

---

You go ahead and claim that. But the fact that you cannot provide a single example of such 'debunking' is a good sign of the falsity of your claim.

quote:

---

Not to mention that in their cramped quarters, there was no room for a 531 page manuscript, which, when hand written would have been many, many more pages.

---

More assumptions on your part with zero to support them.

quote:

---

the hat was easily visible and available for viewing. Neither it or the stone was secured.

---

The outside of the hat probably WAS visible. The inside... not so much.

quote:

---

a group of pages could not have been hid and then transferred back and forth with the scribe but a couple of feet away.

---

Of course they could have.

quote:

---

And in the end, 11 witnesses saw the plates and three of them interacted with the Angel Moroni and they NEVER denied their testimony.

---

And of course their testimonies didn't remain consistent over time or with each other...

quote:

---

You will learn that things are facts only when they are substantiated which you can not do concerning how Joseph got his ideas or manuscripts to copy.

---

Yet another logic fail on your part Diamond. There are plenty of facts that remain unproveable. I can't PROVE that on May 17th, 1987, I drank several beers in the Dixie Chicken. But that doesn't mean that it is a FACT that I did so.

quote:

---

The "translations" of the Spanish Chronicles are not opinions or conclusions.

---

But the conclusions that Calderwood made ARE opinions. And I provided information DETAILING the fallacy of Calderwood's conclusions. You have yet to tell me what is incorrect in those criticisms of Calderwood.

quote:

---

Franklin and Jefferson would have immediately recognized the truth when they heard it

---

Which is why they would have laughed Joseph Smith out the door!

quote:

---

God does not play by my rules

---

And unfortunately for you, he also doesn't play by Joseph Smith's rules!

quote:

---

but he does reveal himself and his Son through out the scriptures

---

Which is why it is such a shame that you reject those Scriptures.

quote:

---

never does he promote the absurdity the He is also his Child and His Child is also himself.

---

Wrong yet again. As we have seen documented on this and other threads, the concept of the Trinity exists throughout Scripture.

quote:

---

I have been proven wrong by nothing concerning Ehrman

---

Sure you have. You have in fact been proven to be a LIAR with regards to Ehrman. You specifically stated on several occasions that alleged inconsistencies in the Bible are what cause Ehrman to become Agnostic. Of course he NEVER said any such thing. In fact, I even provide statements from his OWN books in which he said that he became Agnostic because of the continued presence of evil in this world. Now you could have claimed error and corrected your claim but instead, even after facing the evidence, you continued to promote the lie rather than admit a mistake. Once again, your ego does you in Diamond with regard to the complete lack of character and ethics that you exhibit out here.

quote:

---

you have do not even have the courage to even attempt to contact him yourself

---

There is no need as we ALREADY have his published statements. Your alleged attempts to contact him are simply attempts to avoid admitting that you lied.

quote:

---

You have all of the scriptural support you need Petro but you refuse to read it. It is called the Book of Mormon, but you keep hiding.

---

There is absolutely nothing Scriptural about the BOM. And refusing to read it or the Satanic Bible or Dianetics or the Quoran isn't hiding. It is simply recognition that all of those documents are attempts by Satan to lure Christians away from Christ's church.

quote:

---

You are amazingly ignorant or stupid or both to make the statement about the "sticks".

---

Never mind the fact that I provided plenty of factual support for my claims. Don't let evidence get in the way of your desired claims Diamond.

quote:

---

Of course the sticks the parchment was rolled upon was wood! So what. No one has suggested that these sticks were made of gold.

---

Which is yet another strike against any suggestion that the alleged plates of Gold were connected to the Ezekiel reference.

quote:

---

But they have found numerous writings in S.A. And the old world on metal plates.

---

Direct me to the evidence of any South American writings that were made on Gold plates Diamond. You can't do it.

quote:

---

No other claim as to the stick of Joseph other than the Book of Mormon Petro

---

Of course nothing in Scripture supports that assumption. But don't let reality intrude in your dream world Diamond.

quote:

---

so you will just have to learn to deal with it. I was wrong, you will simply run away from it.

---

Nah I never have to run away from your arguments. Instead I simply look at the facts and supporting documents which quickly show the errors in your claims and assumptions.

Now if you want to talk about running away, let's consider the fact that you are continuing to ignore the FACT that within Ezekiel, there are OTHER Hebrew words used when referencing writings and records. Again, it makes zero sense that Ezekiel would suddenly, for this one time only, use a completely different word to describe a record. No Diamond, neither the original verbiage nor the surrounding context support your claims with regards to this verse of Scripture. It is simply another situation in which Smith set out a belief and then tried to force fit Scripture to fit it instead of actually relying on Scripture to lead his theological beliefs!


[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/30/2010 2:13p).]

Petro, Joseph was not a liar and was convicted of nothing except by a jury's misapplication of the law that would have easily been overturned on appeal. It would have happened if Joseph had not had to flee for his life. Not a shred of evidence that he was a fraud. He lost money the same way everyone did in the bank collapses of his time.

Palmyra was on the edge of the Western frontier. Just a fact! Everyone, except you, who is familiar with history is aware of this fact!

But you will note that none of his friends or close associates ever noticed that trait in him at any time. Their testimony that Joseph was a prophet came about not from "his" claim, but by the compelling witness of the Holy Ghost. You have read also of the powerful impression he made on learned people who were not members of the Church such as Josiah Quincy. And for sure, he never come across as delusional. And what do you think his greed and desire was based around? It sure was not money. Do you really think that someone that young would sacrifice his family and wife and children for "power" of which he could not even imagined for himself. If you believe that, then you are the one who is delusional! But boy has his legacy lived on. If he had not been what he claimed to be, the Church that he restored would have been dead and buried long ago and you know it!

No Henry, just used the murder as part of the catalyst to start his own church. Now that is an example of "real" greed and desire!

Oliver was not Joseph's cousin! You really need to check your sources! But here is some more information that should help you. Oliver Cowdery left the Church (excommunicated) in 1838 but even when not a member of the Church, Oliver insisted on the truth of his testimony:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.
Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 23 March 1846
Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.
Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

To read more: Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony

But, what do we know about David Whitmer's witness who was also one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The attackers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If these people accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness following their excommunication from the Church.

I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.

The kind of passion that is usually created in Nicene Christian revivals wanes very shortly after the event. There is no comparison to the kind of emotion that Joseph created that did not disappear after the crowds dispersed and the lights went down, even among the many that never met him. It is interesting that so many of the Apostles of the early Church never met Joseph before they were baptized!

Then you praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, after you would have read it with "real" intent, should not be a problem for you. Why? Because you will get a positive witness if you follow the steps that are outlined.

Until you are willing to read both publications you can make no informed opinion that has any value whatsoever as to their similarities. I am sure that Joseph was never the first person in the world to go off and humble himself in prayer. God did not strike Joseph "dumb" or doom him to destruction - it was the Adversary for he now knew his time was going to be at an end. Joseph did not have to make a claim as to his persecution, it was a well recorded fact. Who cares if Finney visited Palymra? If happened well after the translation of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church. You and I don't even know if Joseph was in Palymra when Finney came through. Did Finney talk about meeting Joseph? No back peddling or even a need to Petro. But again, try to compare the works. One was a counterfeit and died and you can now see the results of Joseph's efforts! God was obviously unimpressed with Finney and his efforts!

As far as the Kinderhook Plates, they formed no basis for the Book of Mormon and I gave you your answer before concerning an attempt to translate the plates and here it is again: The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

All we can conclude from the Clayton account is that there was considerable interest in the plates, a variety of stories concerning them, and anticipation that Joseph might translate, as the conspirators claimed they hoped he would. Too bad Petro.

I think you might want to consider how the information that I gave you concerning the Mormons and their academic achievements and contributions to society destroys you argument that the LDS Church is a "cult" like Koresh or Jim Jones, both of which is based on ignorance and seemed to appeal to the dregs of society. We are the most spiritual of all who claim to be Christians. We excel in education, competence, diligence, integrity, morality, compassion, etc. and of course being what Mr. Drucker discovered - THAT MORMONISM IS THE ONLY UTOPIA THAT EVER WORKED! I realize now Petro, watching the way you try to dismiss or explain things away, that if Drucker had joined the Church, you would have simply dismissed his statement as that of a new and biased Mormon convert. 90% is an amazing statistic and it dwarfs all of the Nicene Christian scientists and their professed beliefs that are a mile wide but only an inch thick. The emphasis on learning and science is the hallmark of a religion that is not afraid of truth and will embrace it where ever it is found. And after all that has been found, 90% still have their strong faith and activity. Your Nicene Christians fall away. Tsk! Tsk! This aspect and all of the other things that I have exposed you to are unlike any of the examples that you try to compare the Church to, and we simply dwarf Nicene Christianity measurements as a percentage of our membership. I guess I can say it this way; Healthy, wealthy and wise! Those are great validations of our theology. You have nothing you can trot out to compare with it.

The doctrines of the Restored Gospel were revealed line upon line, precept upon precept. Milk before meat! When we are discussing the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ vs. Apostate Nicene Christianity, the other philosophies have no place in the discussion and you know it. I have studied all of the Nicene Christian doctrines and I have read and studied the Bible on which they attempt to place the validity of these doctrines on. I have read the Book of Mormon numerous times as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Not only have you not, but you refuse to do so under the flimsiest of pretexts, which speak to how shallow your intellect is and how lazy you are! Read it and prove that not one scripture is not in strictest harmony with the Bible. Take the challenge Petro. All you have to risk is a little time, which employed as you are, you still have plenty of based on the time you spend on this board. I can promise you, if I were still employed at IBM, I would not have that kind of time.

quote:

---

Petro, Joseph was not a liar

---

Sure he was. Both he and Emma Smith lied repeatedly about his practicing polygamy before he eventually was forced to admit his involvement. We have already gone over the documents proving these lies. Do you need me to post them again?

quote:

---

and was convicted of nothing except by a jury's misapplication of the law that would have easily been overturned on appeal.

---

First, I am glad that you finally admitting that he WAS a convicted criminal. Second, there was never an appeal because Smith FLED from the authorities. Yet more indication of the complete lack of character of Smith! Third, there is zero evidence that ANY conviction that an appeal would have been overturned even if Smith had had the ethics to stick around.

quote:

---

It would have happened if Joseph had not had to flee for his life.

---

You sure have to make a lot of excuses when defending your leader don't you? It wasn't his life that was at stake but rather his freedom. And the reality was that Smith was simply too much of a coward to serve the time for the crime he had committed.

quote:

---

He lost money the same way everyone did in the bank collapses of his time.

---

He wasn't convicted of losing money....but of BANK FRAUD!

Petro, as far as Joseph being a liar, which is repeated often by the critics of Joseph, it is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.

It is too bad that you just choose to ignore the many attempts on his life. If he were a coward Petro, he would never have willingly crossed back over the Miss. to go to Carthage Jail, knowing that he was going to die, and explaining to his friends that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter but with a conscience clear of any offense towards man. You need to get the whole story Petro and here it is and it is most interesting and there was NO fraud:

The Kirtland Safety Society
by R. McKay White

There is a lot of material and analysis necessary to fully present an answer to criticisms against the Church regarding the Kirtland Safety Society. There is not time to cover it all in this presentation. I therefore refer you to FAIR's website, where a paper I've written will be posted. This paper contains everything in this presentation and more, and provides a full answer to the criticisms.

The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company is an important part of our church history, having, as it did, a significant role in the Kirtland apostasy. Yet, to date, it has received much more attention from anti-Mormons, or "the other guys", than from our own scholars and apologists. As a result, there are a large number of myths about the Safety Society that the other guys use to criticize Joseph Smith and destroy faith.

Today, I'm going to lay the episode wide open. We'll see the myths that have sprung from the creative minds of interested parties, the facts will be laid bare, and in doing so, we'll see why the Prophet deserves a good name.

I'm indebted to these faithful LDS scholars for their work on the Safety Society. They've provided invaluable information and insight. Sampson and Wimmer gave an informative analysis of the Safety Society's stock ledger book. Dale Adams examined the Safety Society's lack of a bank charter, and drew some conclusions from that. Scott Partridge explored the historical context of the Safety Society, with emphasis on the social and economic environment. Hill, Rooker, and Wimmer address some criticisms stemming from the Safety Society. Their focus was on whether Kirtland's economy was viable.

These works are important, but there are still some substantial holes in explaining the Safety Society and protecting the good names of Joseph Smith and the Church. In particular, further explanation is needed to justify the formation of the Safety Society in the first place and to explain Joseph Smith's involvement in the enterprise. The issue of legality needs to be addressed head on, and the possible causes of the Safety Society's failure need a more thorough treatment. These issues need to be treated comprehensively, in one work. These issues are based in economics and in the law. I am a lawyer and an economist. With this background, and the assistance of material previously unpublished, I will explode the criticisms stemming from the Safety Society and put these issues to rest, once and for all. The Safety Society can no longer be an excuse for antagonism against the Church.

It was a dark and stormy night; January 12, 1838. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saddled up their horses and fled Kirtland in the cover of darkness toward the state border, their saddlebags bursting with gold and silver. Though pursued 200 miles by an armed posse, the convicted outlaws escaped capture with their untold plunder. And thus was born the Legend of Joe Smith and the Wildcat Bank.

Wildcat Bank! That's what Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were fleeing from—the Kirtland Safety Society Wildcat Bank. You may be wondering—what is a wildcat bank? That's okay. We don't really have any anymore. All you need to know about wildcat banks is that they're very picky about their choice of real estate. For example, you might find one here....

Now, you may be asking yourself—wouldn't that be rather difficult to find? Well, you're right! But that's actually the whole idea. You see, once people give us their gold, silver, and copper coins, and we give them our bank notes, the only place they can redeem those notes for gold, silver, and copper is at the bank. So if they can't find the bank, we get to keep the gold and all that!

There's just one problem with ol' Joe Smith's wildcat bank—he wasn't very picky about real estate. In fact, he located his bank pretty close to a rather prominent building. Not only that, but he lived only a block away, and the house of his co-conspirator, Sidney Rigdon, was across the street. Thus begins, and thus ends, the myth of the wildcat bank.

Now, that one was pretty easy, so you can bet the other guys don't stop there. Didn't you know? The Safety Society was illegal! When Oliver Cowdery went to Philadelphia to get plates for printing bank notes, Orson Hyde was sent to the Ohio legislature to get a bank charter.

At the time, the hard money guys were in power, meaning they didn't like banks. As a result, Orson Hyde's application for a charter was rejected. Undeterred, the Mormons went ahead and formed one anyway, though they called it an "anti-bank", or joint-stock association. But that was illegal, wasn't it? Well, according to an 1816 Act it was.

I'm showing, for the first time, the actual statute under which Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were prosecuted and convicted. They appealed it, but the appeal was never heard because Joseph and Sidney were forced to leave the state.
Doesn't the conviction prove the Safety Society was illegal? The other guys like to say so, but by so doing they prove either they haven't actually researched the legal issue, or they have and are hiding it.

My Dad is a trial lawyer, and he has a good business arguing decisions like this one in the court of appeal and having them overturned. The court that convicted Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon got it wrong. How do I know? Well, I'm going to show you some more material that's never been published before.

This first is an extract from the Painesville Republican, January 19, 1837:
"It is doubted, however, by good judges, whether the [1816 Act] is now in force, or if in force, whether it is not unconstitutional, and therefore not binding upon the people."

This second is also from the Painesville Republican, February 16, 1837:
"The law of 1816 ... has long since become obsolete and inoperative....
"The law of '16 against private banking ... was rejected by the committee and was not republished by the legislature."

Now, this is just some of the evidence that the 1816 Act wasn't in force in 1837. To show I'm not going out on a limb, I'll show you some more.
Here are some other organizations that operated as banks around the same time as the Safety Society.

Various insurance companies...
And savings institutions.
The not-so-insignificant Ohio Railroad Company.
The Granville Alexandrian Literary Society, which even paid taxes levied by the state on banks.
The remarkable thing is that none of these organizations were prosecuted. Why weren't they, when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were? It couldn't be because of religious persecution. Well, it was. It was intended to get Joseph out of town, and it worked.

For decades, now, the other guys have presented the Safety Society as illegal, when it wasn't. That's strike two. But those other guys don't give up yet. They've got another claim.

The failure of the Safety Society proves Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet! Do you know why? Because Joseph Smith had a revelation that the Safety Society would stand until time immemorial, and it didn't! If there is such a revelation in favour of the Safety Society, no one's ever seen it except for one guy who claims he heard it once somewhere—Warren Parrish. We'll hear later about Warren Parrish and his bowie knife.
But there was a revelation by Joseph Smith about the Safety Society. Remember, Joseph Smith left the Safety Society in June of 1837 due to dishonesty on the part of other bank officers. In a conference on September 3, 1837, he said...

"I had always said that unless the institution was conducted on righteous principles it would not stand."

That prophecy came to pass when the Safety Society failed two months later.

Well, the other guys have one last chance to make something of all this. Are you ready for it? When Joseph Smith left, he filled his pockets with gold and silver coins!

First, if that were true you'd think he'd have had something to show for it. But that answer isn't quite good enough. What we need to do is get into why Joseph Smith established a bank in the first place.

At this point in the discussion we get into the risk of indulging in presentism. We can't do that. 1837 does not equal 2009 without cars and electricity. We need to remember that as we get into banks and money and their mysteries.

In your next High Priests group meeting, hold up a twenty dollar bill and ask why it's worth twenty dollars. If anybody gets the right answer, it'll be a lucky guess. Money has a very significant role in society, yet few every think about that. To see what we have money for, let's look at where we'd be without it.

Without money, we'd be stuck in a barter economy. In a barter economy, you can't buy and sell because you don't have any money to do that with. You can only trade one good for another. The trouble is, you have to have something worth trading. And even if you do, you have to find someone who wants what you've got, and that someone has to have something you want. Think of the poor soul who gets the ceramic chicken at the white elephant gift party. No chance of trading that one. Trade can be a long and costly process, and, frankly, there's a better way.

It took a long time, but eventually the ancient Sumerians figured out that if you gave a chunk of metal a unit of value, you could buy things with it. Thus began the idea that an object could represent a unit of value. It didn't have to be metal. The object could also be rocks, sea shells, or paper.

In 1837, they used gold, silver, and copper coins called specie, or hard money.
There were a lot of people in favour of hard money and nothing else, like those who rejected Orson Hyde's charter application. But an economy with only specie runs into some serious problems. While you wouldn't get a banking crisis, your economy can grow only as fast as you can mine gold, silver, and copper. And specie gets rid of barter only so long as there's enough specie to go around.

Consider a farmer just outside Kirtland. He needs some new equipment for his farm, so he hitches up his wagon and rides into town to the Newell K. Whitney Store. He and Brother Whitney work out what the equipment will cost. The farmer doesn't have enough specie. At that time, most farm families saw no more than $100 specie over the course of a year. So, the farmer signs a promissory note—an agreement to pay... In 30 days. The farmer has no problem with that, because he'll be selling some grain in 25 days.

But when that day comes, the buyer doesn't have enough specie. So the buyer signs a promissory note. The farmer goes back to Bro. Whitney and tries to give the grain buyer's note as payment for the equipment. But Bro. Whitney needs specie in order to pay his supplier in Cincinnati. Now the farmer is stuck, unable to pay what he owes to Bro. Whitney; and Bro. Whitney is stuck, unable to pay what he owes to his supplier. The shortage of specie causes a cash flow problem. Buying and selling becomes very difficult.

There were other problems, too. Suppose you're a farmer, newly baptized and move to Kirtland. As a farmer, you need to buy some land. A speculator is more than happy to sell, with payment due sometime in the future. You keep that due date in mind and work hard, putting in a good crop and making significant improvements to the land. You have a great crop, and are able to sell it for more than enough to pay the speculator. Your buyers can only give promissory notes, but that's not a problem. Most business on the frontier was done with promissory notes.

The speculator comes knocking and you proudly present him with your pile of promissory notes. But the speculator demands specie. He doesn't want to have to collect on all those notes. You don't have any specie, so the speculator kicks you off of his farm. And he keeps all the improvements you made. This is how Joseph Smith Sr. lost his farm.

The people in Kirtland weren't poor. It was just that they held only long-term assets, like land. They couldn't buy anything unless they could get someone to accept their promissory note. What they really needed was some way to transform their long-term assets... Into money. Banks solved these problems with the introduction of bank notes. Banks enabled farmers to borrow based on their long-term assets to meet their short-term obligations. They also increased the money supply, to get rid of the need to do business by promissory notes.

Suppose that in the Kirtland area there's a total of $10,000 in specie. A bank opens. People decide that bank notes are a lot more convenient to carry around than metal coins, so they deposit their specie and get bank notes in return. The bank issues a bunch more notes, too... Let's say $80,000 worth. These are put into circulation by loans, mortgages, buying promissory notes, and investing in local businesses. The money supply has increased by 8-fold. The money shortage is gone.

This is great! A bank sounds like a good idea, if you need one. Was there a money shortage in Kirtland? There was. Did Kirtland need a bank? It did. Here's why. First, Kirtland's economy was rapidly growing. The Kirtland area produced...
Dairy products
Sheep
Maple sugar
Grain
Cattle
Iron castings
Ash
Tanned hides
And brick.

It also enjoyed wide trade via the Ohio canal. When the canal's extension to Cleveland was completed in 1833, Kirtland's trade in wheat and flour increased ten-fold. A growing economy needs a bank. A bank provides money for expanding businesses and starting new ones. Kirtland also needed a bank to increase the money supply to meet growing money demand. The supply of specie grows very slowly—you have to mine a bunch of gold, silver, and copper, turn it into coins, and figure out a way to put it in circulation without it costing too much. The demand for money was increasing, due to an increasing population, increasing incomes, and rising prices.

Was this a problem in Kirtland? Yes.

Here, again, is some previously unpublished material:

"It is said they have a large amount of specie on hand and have the means of obtaining much more, if necessary. If these facts be so, its circulation in some shape would be beneficial to the community, and sensibly relieve the pressure in the market so much complained of." People had noticed the money shortage, and didn't like it. They welcomed an increase in the money supply.

Well, that's all fine and good. But we still have what the other guys say: "Joseph Smith used the Safety Society as a money making scheme! Do you know why? Because he was recklessly in debt! Joseph Smith wanted to print a bunch of worthless notes and use them to pay off his debts!"

Well, here are the facts about Joseph Smith's debts.

First, his assets were more than sufficient to meet his debts. The only trouble was that his assets were long-term.

Second, his debts weren't backroom deals. He couldn't have gotten the loans if his creditors didn't believe he could repay.

Third, most of his debts had co-signers.
Fourth, Joseph Smith was only secondarily liable for a lot of it.

Finally, he paid all his debts. When he left Kirtland, he left Oliver Granger in charge of his affairs, to settle all outstanding claims.

Ah, but Joseph Smith was crafty. He may not have been recklessly in debt, but he wanted to print a bunch of money to get himself rich!

Well, let's see just how rich the Safety Society made Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith was, along with three others, the largest shareholder of the Safety Society. All else equal, he would stand to lose the most if the Safety Society failed.

He also paid more per share than 85% of the shareholders. So he invested more money than probably everyone else. He really would lose the most in the event of failure.

If he was in it for money, he would have gotten out at the first signs of trouble. Instead, while the Safety Society was really struggling, he increased his subscription in order to try to help the Safety Society succeed.

That wasn't all. He also took out three loans on behalf of the Safety Society to give some added liquidity.

Finally, he also sold personal property for $5000 in order to give more help to the Safety Society.

So Joseph Smith actually lost a lot of money from the Safety Society.

But, that was just bad luck and bad investment sense. His intent was still to scam people out of their money. We know this because the Safety Society was clearly infeasible. No honest person would have even tried it. After all, Joseph Smith and his co-conspirators had no idea how to run a bank.
Well, let's step aside from presentism and look at it from frontier America in 1837. It was actually very common for banks to be started with little knowledge of how to run it, for the simple reason that anyone who did know how was already running one. The financial sector was still in its infancy, and they didn't have a nationwide network of universities churning out MBA grads every year.
No one starting a bank in Kirtland, 1837, would have had any more knowledge of how to do it than Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.
So what they did was a common undertaking for the time, and shouldn't be considered in whether it was feasible.

As argued previously, Kirtland's economy was booming. With all its economic activity, a bank was easily supportable.

Market pressures were creating demand for bank services. If the demand for a bank is present, then a bank is feasible.

Finally, the Safety Society had significant assets. True, most of it was land. But this was true of all banks at the time. There weren't many alternatives. They didn't have a stock market like we do today, or global trade in commodities. They had land.

So really, the Safety Society was as feasible as any other bank start-up. So, then why did it fail?

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon bungled it all up! They kept printing more and more notes until the Safety Society simply collapsed under them!

Let's look at the evidence:

Under Joseph Smith's management, the Safety Society printed about $100,000 in notes. It had a reserve of $21,000. This meant a reserve ratio of... a measly 21%. Pfft. Pretty low!

Let's look at Canada's largest bank. In 2008, it had a reserve ratio of 3%. And this was during a time of severe economic uncertainty, which, I might add, the Royal Bank has weathered very well.

Now, banks today are very different than banks in 1837. A 3% reserve ratio would not have been feasible in 1837. But 21% was very reasonable.

So no—Joseph Smith did not print an unreasonable amount of bank notes.
There are other ideas of why the Safety Society failed.

One is the 1837 banking panic and depression. The banking panic started in the eastern states in May of 1837, and swept west across the nation. While it did have a significant effect in Kirtland, the Safety Society's troubles started in January, well before the banking panic arrived. So that can't be the cause.

Another common idea is that it failed because it didn't have a bank charter. But there were many other organizations operating successfully as banks without a bank charter. So that can't be the cause, either.

I propose two causes.

The first was a good old-fashioned bank run. When the Safety Society opened its doors, antagonists began collecting as many of its notes as they could. Then they took them in to the bank to redeem them for specie. The antagonists basically had the Safety Society at gunpoint. If it continued to redeem the notes for specie, they'd drain all the reserves and the Safety Society would fail. If it stopped redeeming notes, confidence in the Safety Society would plummet. As a result, its notes started trading at a steep discount. Enemies of the Church set out to make the Safety Society fail, and they were very effective.

The second blow was Warren Parrish. You'll recall I mentioned him earlier. Warren Parrish was an officer of the Safety Society. Joseph Smith started noticing that money went missing when only Parrish had access to it. Evidence seemed clear the money was being kept in Parrish's trunk. But before Joseph Smith could get a warrant to search it, the trunk disappeared. As Heber C. Kimball records, Parrish later admitted to embezzling $20,000. That's the equivalent of $475,000 today.

Let's get some perspective on this: Parrish embezzled $20,000. The Safety Society had a reserve of $21,000 in specie and notes from other banks. With that $20,000, Parrish could completely wipe out the Safety Society's liquid assets. That would ruin the Safety Society.

Do not take this as exaggeration. If you think it couldn't happen, think about these corporations, which had a significant portion of their liquid assets wiped out. And that wasn't by fraud, but by sheer bad management. Billions of dollars are now being injected to pay back what a modern-day Parrish stole. If they weren't, the banking sector would have collapsed, the same as the Safety Society.
And lest there be any doubt Parrish would do it, this is the same guy, who, in the middle of a meeting in the temple, stood with a group of other thugs, armed with pistols and bowie knives, and drove the Saints out of the temple in an effort to take it over.

So did Joseph Smith ruin the Safety Society? No. It was a coordinated attack by Church enemies, and fraud by the apostate Warren Parrish.

And that's it. The myths are gone. Poof. There's nothing to cover up, nothing to hide, nothing to be embarrassed about.

The Safety Society was in no way a wildcat bank. Everyone knew where the bank was and who its officers were. It was also legal.
Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The only revelation he had about the Safety Society was fulfilled—that it could not succeed unless managed based on the principles of righteousness.

The Safety Society was an honest endeavour for which Joseph Smith sacrificed greatly to help it succeed.

It was not bungled up or mismanaged by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon; they were prudent in what they did. Its failure was the work of antagonists and an apostate.

And those are the facts about the Safety Society.

Here is the link: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_The_Kirtland_Safety_Society.html

I hope you enjoy the read, Petro, for it is a very interesting story with some good economic lessons to boot!

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 5/1/2010 11:19a).]

quote:

---

Petro, as far as Joseph being a liar, which is repeated often by the critics of Joseph, it is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage.

---

In other words, Smith WAS a liar as you now aknowledge. And YOU in turn, were LYING when you claimed that he was not a liar. Or is this information that you were not aware of until I brought it to your attention? In other words Diamond, were you previously ignorant with regards to Smith's lying or did you instead simply choose to ignore the facts and makes claims that you knew to be false?

And with regards to his lying being repeated by critics.... Of course they do as it is a very good indication as to the lack of character of your religious leader which in turn is further indication as to the lack of validity of his entire theology.

quote:

---

It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan.

---

Of course not. For Smith realized that doing so would hurt his ability to bring in converts and would hurt his attempts to gain validity from Christians. Instead he chose to hide his religious beliefs from those people. So do you believe that GOD told Smith to lie Diamond or did Smith decide that all on his own?

quote:

---

Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.

---

Once again you are forced to make excuses. Do you think Diamond that Christ or his apostles attempted to hide the message of God or lie about what God was saying because they were worried about how people would respond??? The closest that we come to this was Peter's denial of Christ. And we can see that such action, while predicted by Christ, certainly wasn't encouraged or condoned by him.

quote:

---

It is too bad that you just choose to ignore the many attempts on his life.

---

There were very few attempts of any such sort. The Mormons, as part of their desire to play 'victim' simply ramp up every incident in hyperbole as yet another excuse to justify Smith's horrible lapses in character.

quote:

---

If he were a coward Petro, he would never have willingly crossed back over the Miss. to go to Carthage Jail

---

He went back because it was becoming more and more obvious just what a coward Smith truly was. According to the book "Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi":

Smith made plans to escape capture and flee to the Rocky Mountains. Orrin Porter Rockwell arrived with a message from his wife who urged her husband to return and give himself up because several of his followers were accusing him of cowardice. Smith returned to Nauvoo, spent the night, and in the morning was told that he had to report to Carthage by 10 a.m.

In other words, Smith realized that his true character was being recognized even by his followers and that his only chance to retain power was to go back to the jail.

quote:

---

explaining to his friends that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter but with a conscience clear of any offense towards man.

---

Do lambs going to slaughter use smuggled handguns when attacked?

Would Smith have been killed if he hadn't had the smuggled firearm? It is entirely possible. However the example of Christ and other martyrs certainly suggests that even in the end, Smith was entirely unwilling to sacrifice himself for his theology.

Let's talk about the reason he was jailed in the first place Diamond. Do you think that he was justified and of good character when he ordered the printing presses destroyed after they published an article critical of him?

quote:

---

Of course not. For Smith realized that doing so would hurt his ability to bring in converts and would hurt his attempts to gain validity from Christians. Instead he chose to hide his religious beliefs from those people.

---

And thus, "milk before meat" and the habitual obfuscation of their own theology by Mormons was born...

Sorry Petro, a lack of full disclosure is NOT lying. But keep trying. I am not having to make excuses but simply recognizing the realities of the situation. Peter, as you have just mentioned, besides playing the part of a sniveling coward while hiding, THREE Times denied even "knowing" Christ! Christ did not even initially disclose all of the "secrets" that he never discussed with his disciples (followers) but he did with his Apostles after his resurrection. Remember also in Amos 3: 7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, aut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." As well as in Matt. 13: 35 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

You really should study Joseph's history and learn for yourself the many planned attempts on his life as weell as the failed ones. He went back only because his wife entreated him to come back as well as some of his friends, claiming that things would be much easier on them if he came back. He stated that if his life meant no more than that to his friends, it sure did not mean that much to him. You might remember, The Nauvoo Legion, which he commanded and which wanted to protect him, and if necessary free him from confinement, he refused to allow. Even after his confinement, when they continued to urge him to accept their help, he refused to do so. The cowardice was on the part of the few that were afraid of the mobs. He never smuggled a gun in. A friend, on his own, smuggled one in, and Joseph accepted it, for he then realized that they were not only going to kill him, but his brother and his two friends, including John Taylor. He wanted to protect them if at all possible. He never shot it until Hyrum was shot in the head.

Many printing presses had been destroyed in Ill. It was not an unusual event. The reason the council shut the paper down and destroyed the press was the lies they were printing were designed to create riots and disorder. I have no problem with their actions at all.

As well as "milk before meat" Nixter, not only did Christ teach that way, but that was the way I taught the good Aggie that I baptized in Oct. 2008. He was home recently and is so excited about being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. In discussing his conversion, he stated that each new doctrine made perfect sense as the correctness of the frame of reference had first been established in his mind.

quote:

---

Many printing presses had been destroyed in Ill. It was not an unusual event.

---

Source

quote:

---

Many printing presses had been destroyed in Ill. It was not an unusual event. The reason the council shut the paper down and destroyed the press was the lies they were printing were designed to create riots and disorder. I have no problem with their actions at all.

---

Anything to promote the Kingdom of Joseph, eh?

No Nixter, anything to promote the Kingdom of God on Earth. Better known to you and others as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true and living Church on the face of the earth!

quote:

---

Many printing presses had been destroyed in Ill. It was not an unusual event.

---

Source & examples or I'm going to assume you're making stuff up as per usual for you d4.

Petro and others reading this thread, I think you all will find this enlightening concerning the events that happened in Carthage jail and witnessed by the only two who survived, one of which, John Taylor, was gravely wounded with four balls in him. He survived by getting knocked back into the room when, standing at the window, a ball hit him in the chest but struck his watch. One ball could never be removed. Only the cry "that the Mormons are coming" thus saved them as the mob fled. The question has been raised concerning whether Joseph was really a martyr, as they try to compare the circumstances of Jesus and Stephen to Joseph, conveniently overlooking the fact that only their lives were at risk and none of their friends!

I doubt that many of you are really familiar with one of the most sobering events in the History of the Church which is the time period leading up to Joseph Smith's martyrdom. During his last five days, Joseph communicated the word of the Lord on several occasions concerning events that were about to take place.

"Saturday, June 22, 1844] About 9 p. m. Hyrum came out of the Mansion and gave his hand to Reynolds Cahoon, at the same time saying, "A company of men are seeking to kill my brother Joseph, and the Lord has warned him to flee to the Rocky Mountains to save his life." However, due to the request of several of his associates and friends, as well as a letter from his wife, Joseph paused to consider the events.

Joseph said to Rockwell, "What shall I do?" Rockwell replied, "You are the oldest and ought to know best; and as you make your bed, I will lie with you." Joseph then turned to Hyrum who was talking to Cahoon, and said, "Brother Hyrum, you are the oldest, what shall we do?" Hyrum said, "Let us go back and give ourselves up, and see the thing out." After studying a few moments, Joseph said, "If you go back I will go with you, but we shall be butchered. While on their way back to Nauvoo, Joseph and his companions stopped at a hill:

Joseph paused when they got to the Temple, and looked with admiration first on that, and then on the city, and remarked, "This is the loveliest place and the best people under the heavens; little do they know the trials that await them."

So, what is a martyr? There is no question than an attempt has been made to shift or redefine the term and its definition. In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term "martyr".

Webster's New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as "a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles."

The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as "one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles."

Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever.

Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage. Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (See FAIR wiki article: Martyrdom in Christian history.) The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going "as a lamb to the slaughter" is false, since he fought back.

Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: The Silence of the Lambs. The term "lamb to the slaughter" simply refers to the inevitability of the final outcome. No matter how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.

Some critics like to claim that the Mormons are hiding history but The Church has not hidden this fact, but published it from the beginning and includes it in the History of the Church twice!

So what about Joseph's hidden gun?. The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to "expose" these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with "hidden" revelations or "secret" accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church.

Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his possession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the History of the Church:

In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.

Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians...
Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.

The next volume of the History of the Church tells the story from John Taylor's point of view:

"I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!'" He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged.

Again, if the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the History of the Church not once, but twice?

But, the critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer.
Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. However, this point is moot since the attackers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners... http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom/Joseph_fired_a_gun

Dr. Willard Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.

Future President John Taylor later composed the official announcement that now is part of church scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants and wrote the official account for the church historian's office.

He remembered batting down rifles as the mob pushed them through a crack in the door to the room at Carthage. President Taylor recalled Joseph Smith telling him, "That's right, Brother Taylor, parry them off as well as you can."

"These," President Taylor later wrote, "were the last words I ever heard him ever speak on earth."

He remembered watching Hyrum Smith fall first and his brother rushing to his side.

Worst of all, he would never forget the feeling he had when the other Carthage survivor, Willard Richards, told him Joseph Smith indeed was dead. "I felt a dull, lonely, sickening sensation," he wrote. "When I reflected that our noble chieftain, the prophet of the living God, had fallen and that I had seen his brother in the cold embrace of death, it seemed as though there was a void or vacuum in the great field of human existence to me, and a dark, gloomy chasm in the kingdom, and that we were left alone.

"Oh, how lonely was that feeling. How cold, barren and desolate."

But John Taylor recovered and while recovering from his wounds penned the wonderful words: "No man, save Jesus only, has done more for the salvation of man in this world, who has ever lived in it, than the Prophet Joseph Smith!." He later bore his personal tesimony concerning Joseph:

"I testify that I was acquainted with Joseph Smith for many ears. I have traveled with him; I have been with him in private and in public; I have associated with him in councils of all kinds; I have listened hundreds of times to his public teachings, and his advice to his friends and associates of the most private nature. I have been at his house and seen his deportment in his family. I have seen him arraigned before the tribunals of his country, and have seen him honorably acquitted, and delivered from the pernicious breath of slander, and the machinations and falsehoods of wicked and corrupt men.

I was with him living and I was with him when he died, when he was murdered in Carthage jail by a ruthless mob ... with their faces painted. I was there and was myself wounded; I at that time received four balls in my body. I have seen, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man - that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome - that his precepts were such as became a man of God - that his private and public character was unimpeachable - and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony. If it is disputed, bring me a person authorized to receive an affidavit, and I will make on to this effect. I therefore testify of things which I know and of things which I have seen" PD, 23-24, 1850

President Taylor also made these comments on Joseph Smith as a "Prophet". "If I did not believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I should not have been here. If he was a true prophet, and spake the word of the Lord, that is just as binding on the human family as any other word spoken by any other prophet. The scriptures tell us that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Gentlemen, I again say that Joseph Smith was a virtuous, high minded, honorable man, a gentleman and a Christian. BUT, he introduced principles which strike at the root of the corrupt systems of men. This necessarily comes in contact with their prepossessions, prejudices and interest; AND as they can not overturn his principles, they attack his character. And that is one reason why we have so many books written against his character, without touching his principles, and also why we meet with so much opposition. But truth, eternal truth, is invulnerable. It can not be destroyed, but like the throne of Jehovah, it will out ride all the storms of men, and live forever. -PD, 13, 1850

jk -Maybe this will help you out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy

I won't even get into the multiple Mormon Presses that were destroyed in Missouri with no outcry by any non-Mormons or legal action taken.

That is one, you claimed many.

Second, do you really want to compare the actions of Joseph Smith with that of an anti-abolitionist mob?

quote:

---

I won't even get into the multiple Mormon Presses that were destroyed in Missouri with no outcry by any non-Mormons or legal action taken.

---

Provide examples backed by a source(s) please. Just for the record I would not agree with the destruction of these presses either.

quote:

---

I won't even get into the multiple Mormon Presses that were destroyed in Missouri with no outcry by any non-Mormons or legal action taken.

---

I too would like to see the evidence of this. Surely Diamond, you aren't once again making claims with no evidence to support said claims?

Also, you are attempting to hide from the question I asked so let me try again: Do you think that Joseph Smith was justified and of good character when he ordered the printing presses destroyed after they published an article critical of him?

If Mormon printing presses were indeed destroyed as you allege, I have no problem condemning such actions as wrong and also un-American. You apparently are unable and/or unwilling to make the same condemnation when Joseph Smith was the instigator.

quote:

---

Sorry Petro, a lack of full disclosure is NOT lying.

---

So now you are forced to excuse Joseph Smith's behavior by using the 'Bill Clinton approach'??? No Diamond, it wasn't simply a matter of Smith not disclosing his polygamy, instead he lied and said that he did NOT support polygamy. Obviously, as much as Smith looked forward to the benefits of marrying and sleeping with multiple women, he wasn't nearly as willing to admit such to others. Yet another sign of the complete lack of character of your religion's founder!

quote:

---

Peter, as you have just mentioned, besides playing the part of a sniveling coward while hiding, THREE Times denied even "knowing" Christ!

---

And it was such a big deal that we all know about that event AND Peter immediately realized and understood the weakness in such a denial. Smith on the other hand, never was even willing to aknowledge such weakness and lack of character.

quote:

---

Christ did not even initially disclose all of the "secrets" that he never discussed with his disciples (followers) but he did with his Apostles after his resurrection.

---

Unlike Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ WAS NOT a liar. And it is an extremely weak argument you are making when you claim that because Christ didn't reveal all and total knowledge to man, Smith was therefore somehow justified in lying about his polygamist activities in order to save his religion...

quote:

---

You really should study Joseph's history and learn for yourself the many planned attempts on his life as weell as the failed ones.

---

What I have seen so far is that the alleged attempts on Smith's life had little to do with theology and more to do with the poor character of Smith. The 'wagon assasin' occured before Smith even created his religious doctrine so obviously it had nothing to do with his religious viewpoints. And much of the anger directed towards Smith actually revolved around his criminal actions such as his Bank Fraud or his destruction of printing presses.

You talk about all of these "planned attempts on his life"? Go ahead and provide evidence of these and the support that such alleged incidents had anything to do with religion instead of Smith's lack of character.

quote:

---

He went back only because his wife entreated him to come back as well as some of his friends

---

And why exactly did Emma want him to come back? Because he was being accused of cowardice by his own followers! But in aknowledging that he "only went back", are you also aknowledging that his initial plan was to once again flee to the Rocky Mountains?

You like to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ. And yet we don't see examples of Christ trying to flee in order to avoid physical harm no matter how unjustified the opposition might have been. If Christ had acted like Smith, he would never have been crucified but instead fled to the wilderness and beyond!

quote:

---

He stated that if his life meant no more than that to his friends, it sure did not mean that much to him.

---

And yet he still asked that the handgun be given to him when Cyrus Wheelock snuck the gun into the jail cell. Obviously Smith didn't have much faith in God watching over and protecting him. You would think that, if he was truly a prophet and messenger, he would have had such faith. But then again, if he knew that all of his religious claims were simply made up.... it certainly would explain his lack of faith in God's plan!

quote:

---

You might remember, The Nauvoo Legion, which he commanded and which wanted to protect him, and if necessary free him from confinement, he refused to allow.

---

Wrong. Smith in fact DID order the Nauvoo Legion to protect him. Consider the following passage from the journal of Allen Joseph Stout, one of the Nauvoo Legion company commanders:

And while they were in jail, Brother Joseph wrote an official order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the Legion and reserve him from being killed, but Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders, and we were kept in the city under arms, not knowing but all was well, until the mob came and forced the prison and slew Joseph and Hyrum Smith and wounded John Taylor severely.

Now I realize Diamond that you automatically reject everything that doesn't come from a pro-Mormon source. But Allan Stout's journal and comments come straigh from BYU and their Book of Abraham project. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/AStout.html

Of course we also have one of the jailers who wrote that when warned of the approaching mob, Smith simply stated that ""Don't trouble yourself ... they've come to rescue me", thinking that the mob WAS his Nauvoo Legion.

quote:

---

The reason the council shut the paper down and destroyed the press was the lies they were printing

---

And yet you don't bother to actually list what you claim were the lies being told...Typical Diamond.

quote:

---

I have no problem with their actions at all.

---

So you support freedom of the press ONLY as long as you agree with what they are saying... Otherwise you have no problem restricting their freedom of speech.... Certainly not very American of you Diamond...

Of course such suppression of free speech certainly isn't restricted to just you and Joseph Smith. Mormons are continually guilty of such actions. Just read some of the comments from the following Mormon historian:

In May 1984 my college dean told me he had been instructed by "higher authority" to ask me not to publish a paper I had just presented to the Mormon History Association. It was a historical survey of the public activity of general authorities in business corporations. The dean apologized for having to make this request. I agreed not to publish my presentation and told no one about the incident.


In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," three apostles gave orders for my stake president to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the church historical department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it.55 Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The stake president was also instructed "to take further action" against me if this did not "remedy the situation" of my writing controversial Mormon history.
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/faithful/chapter6.htm#chap6

quote:

---

As well as "milk before meat" Nixter, not only did Christ teach that way

---

Bull! Christ did not 'hide' his doctrines and message in order to bring in more members to his religion.

quote:

---

but that was the way I taught the good Aggie that I baptized in Oct. 2008.

---

So you hid the parts of Mormon doctrine that you thought would hurt your ability to convert this aggie... Yeah Diamond, that tactic coming from you doesn't surprise me in the least!



[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/3/2010 12:19p).]

Petro, I certainly believe that Joseph was justified and of good character; He thought that he had the authority under the Charter that Nauvoo was organized under. It was the city council that declared the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders' fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed. (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," Utah Law Review 9 (1965):874.)
This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927). Prior to Illinois, in Missouri that state was extralegal. There was a complete breakdown of all legal processes at every level. Until the end, no suits were brought against Joseph Smith or the saints there--because they didn't have to. ...There were many reasons for trouble in Missouri. One of the precipitating causes was that the Latter-day Saints were mostly northerners in a slave state.

But, opposition came to a head in July 1833, when W.W. Phelps published in the Evening & Morning Star at Independence a complete set of legal requirements for bringing freed slaves into the state. The locals considered this an affront to their culture. It was the last straw, on top of their other grievances. Although the Mormons had broken no law, they posed a dire threat. This called for "citizen action" by the older settlers. They destroyed the printing press, along with Editor Phelps' home. Bishop Edward Partridge was beaten, tarred and feathered, and dragged around town square. He never fully recovered from that brutality. (But the mob noted that no blood had been shed!)

Today, we call it mob rule. The locals called it "popular sovereignty" or "people in action." All lawsuits by LDS were apparently brought in vain. The closest that Church members came to any legal success was after destruction of their newspaper. Both Partridge and Phelps brought suit. As usual, the mob claimed "self defense." But this time the odds were against them: those two men against more than a hundred! Alexander Doniphan, their attorney, boldly defended the case--despite the risk of losing business from prominent non-LDS. The lawyers convinced the judge that these men had been wronged. So their clients "won" the case. But they were awarded only "one cent plus a peppercorn," or nominal damages. It was the legal equivalent of an insult. ("We believe you, but we detest you. Now get out!"... http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith.html

A lack of full disclosure has been practiced throughout history. Christ did not disclose everything about his Gospel to his Apostles at the beginning of their apostleship. Since Joseph also preached so strongly against adultery, they would have recognized the inconsistency and hypocrisy if they felt that he did not practice what he preached. But, he did share the commandment concerning Plural Marriage. You need to learn and understand that Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph's murder.

Of course you do not know how long it took Peter to realize the error of his ways. But, Christ was not a liar nor was Joseph, try as hard as you want in your attempts to make him so. Christ knew what he was doing in not revealing everything at one time, as did Joseph.

I wonder how many attempts were made on peoples lives because of "alleged" poor character? There was no bank fraud and you now have the proof to know so. End of your weak argument.

Joseph's mission was not to perform the Infinite Atonement as was Christ's. His mission was to restore the Ancient Church with the fullness of the Gospel in such a manner that it would never be lost again. Joseph was going into the wilderness to the Rockies to find the place that the Lord had prepared for the Saints. Joseph knew that the Lord was not going to let anything happen to him until he had done all that was necessary to establish His Church, and then at a future time the Lord would require Joseph to seal his testimony with his own blood, which he did.

Joseph did not ask for the gun, Cyrus voluntarily brought it to him. If his brother and two friends would have left, he would have not needed or wanted it. He had tried to get them to leave but they would not. His interest was in trying to protect them, NOT himself. Both John Taylor and Willard Richards, who were in jail with him and witnessed his death, were very aware of this fact. Joseph did not even fire the gun until his brother was killed.

When Joseph and only a few of his companions went into the uncharted wilderness, filled with hostile Indians, that is not my idea of fleeing to safety. He still had the Nauvoo Legion back at his home to protect him if he wanted. But he and Brigham Young had both received a revelation that the future safety of the Saints was in a place the Lord had prepared for them far away in the West in the midst of the Rocky Mountains.

You read and learn Petro as to what really happened:

This does not stop Quinn from later, in his timeline, acting as if his entire scenario is well-proven:
28 July. Jonathan Dunham, despondent about disobeying Smith's orders to rescue him from jail, commits suicide. Later disclosures indicate that Dunham, who was a captain of Nauvoo's police, major-general of the Nauvoo Legion, and a Council of Fifty member, accomplished the suicide by asking a native American friend (Lewis Dana, fellow member of the Fifty) to "kill and bury him."
No references are provided, a deficiency which reviewers have noted.

Joseph's orders to Dunham

June 17, 1844
Joseph issued three letters of instruction which impacted Dunham. The first was to John P. Greene, marshal of the city:

SIR.—Complaint having been made to me on oath that a mob is collecting at sundry points to make an attack on this city, you will therefore take such measures as shall be necessary to preserve the peace of said city according to the provisions of the charter and the laws of the state; and with the police and the Legion, see that no violent set is committed. General Dunham is hereby instructed to act with the Marshal in keeping the peace, according to law.

The second two letters addressed Dunham directly:
Complaint having been made on oath that a mob is preparing to make an attack upon this city and citizens of Nauvoo, and having directed the Marshal to keep the peace, you are hereby commanded to order the Nauvoo Legion to be in readiness to assist said Marshal in keeping the peace, and doing whatever may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the state and city....
You are hereby instructed to execute all orders of the Marshal, and perform all services with as little noise and confusion as possible, and take every precaution to prevent groups of citizens, &c., from gathering on the bank of the river, on the landing of boats or otherwise, and allay every cause and pretext of excitement as well as suspicion, and let your operations be efficient and decided.

June 18-21, 1844
On the 18th, Joseph declared martial law, and on the 20th "I went with my staff and Major-General Dunham to the prairie, to view the situation of the ground, and to devise plans for the defense of the city, and select the proper locations to meet the mob, and made arrangements for provisions for the city, instructing my agent to pledge my farms for the purpose." On the evening of the 22nd, Dunham was instructed to have the legion cohorts use entrenching tools to prepare the city's defense.

June 22, 1844
Joseph instructed Dunham by letter:
You will proceed without delay, with the assistance of the Nauvoo Legion, to prepare the background [Eastern part] of said city for defense against an invasion by mobs, cause the Legion to be furnished with tents, and make your encampment in the vicinity of your labor.

June 24, 1844
Joseph instructed Dunham to comply with the governor's order for the Nauvoo Legion to return state arms. The next day, Joseph and Hyrum surrendered themselves and went to Carthage.

Joseph's attitude going to Carthage

Joseph was safely away in Iowa with Hyrum. He returned to surrender himself to the Illinois governor, Thomas Ford, after being appealed to by Emma and others. Emma reported that Joseph said, "I will die before I will be called a coward." Joseph also remarked that "If my life is of no value to my friends [those in Nauvoo who were urging him to return for fear of the mob] it is of none to myself....if they had let me alone there would have been no bloodshed but now I expect to be butchered. Hyrum likewise remarked that "We had better go back and die like men." And, on the way out of Nauvoo to Carthage, Joseph was reported to say, "I go like a lamb to the slaughter."

Joseph's attitude in Carthage

Letter to Emma, 25 June 1844
There was a little mutiny among the "Carthage Greys"; but I think the Gov. has & will succeed in enforcing the laws. I do hope the people of Nauvoo will continue placid pacific & prayerful. N.B. Governor Ford has just concluded to send some of his malitia to Nauvoo to protect the citizens, & I wish that they may be kindly treated. They will co-operate with the police to keep the peace of the city. The Governors orders will be read in hearing of the police & officers of the Legion, as I suppose.

Joseph hopes Mormons will remain "placid, pacific, and prayerful." He notes that the state militia will keep peace in Nauvoo—a sure obstacle to any attempt to call out the militia.

Letter to Emma, 27 June 1844
Joseph wrote to Emma, from Carthage (8:20 am):
...I want you to tell Bro Dunham to instruct the people to stay at home and attend to their own business and let there be no groups or gathering together unless by permission of the Gov— they are called together to receive communications from the Gov— which would please our people, but let the Gov. direct. —Bro Dunham of course, will obey the orders of the Government officers, and render them the assistance they require....I am very much resigned to my lot knowing I am Justified and have done the best that could be done give my love to the children

Joseph is here forbidding assembly of the people, a necessary prelude to any attempt to rescue him or Hyrum.

Letter to Lawyer [Orville H.] Browning, 27 June 1844
Joseph's last known letter was to an attorney he wished to add to his legal defense:
Myself and brother Hyrum are in Jail on [a] charge of Treason, to come up for examination on Saturday morning 29th inst. and we request your professional services at that time, on our defence without fail....P.S. There is no ground of action, for we have not been guilty of any crime; neither is there any just cause of suspicion against us when facts are shown but certain circumstances make your attendance very necessary.

Conclusion
There is little good evidence from the extant documents that Joseph attempted to have the Nauvoo Legion rescue him. By contrast, he repeatedly ordered the militia to stay home and his followers to avoid assembling. He repeatedly expressed resignation as to his fate, and just prior to his martyrdom was seeking to add more legal help to his hearing two days distant—a strange choice if he expected to be liberated by the militia.
That Dunham would receive orders from Joseph and refuse to follow them seems incredible. It would also be strange for Stout to be the only primary source to learn of such orders. Why would Dunham tell anyone that he had refused an order from the prophet? Why would he tell Stout, a fierce supporter of Joseph? Why did others not hear of this and report it? Why was Dunham not blamed by other LDS members later?

Stenhouse tells the story, and claims that the order was found discarded on the ground—again, this seems incredible. Why would Dunham dispose of such an incriminating bit of evidence so carelessly? If it was found, why did Brigham Young or other Church leaders never hear of, mention, or save it? The entire tale sounds more like gossip or grumbling among a few who felt that the Mormons militia could have rescued Joseph if given the chance.

Dunham's death was reported in William Clayton's diary as follows:
Daniel Spencer has returned from the West. He brings word that Brother Jonathan Dunham died of a fever. Thus, the attribution of Dunham's death to suicide occurs later. Even if the suicide claim is accepted, Oliver Huntington's witness says that it was because Dunham felt guilty for being unable to fortify Nauvoo adequately before Joseph went to Carthage for the last time.

The weight of evidence cannot, at present, sustain the claim that Joseph commanded the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him. Errors, miscitation of sources, and typographical problems have further clouded this issue.

Here is the link:http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom/Nauvoo_Legion_to_rescue_Joseph

Christ did keep from his disciples that for which they were not ready to comprehend and accept. What do you think he taught the Apostles when he went off with them? Oh yes Petro, I "hid" the parts of the doctrine that would hurt his ability to understand and accept the basic principles of the Gospel of faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The same way your elementary teacher "hid" algebra from you while she was teaching you how to add, subtract and divide! (sigh)

d4 -

quote:

---

This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders' fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.

---

How many happened before Smith's actions against The Nauvoo Expositor? Also, the best way to control mob violence is to give it exactly what it wants, in other words the destruction of of the press?

You give one example of a mob moving against a Mormon press, you claim "multiple" such actions.

jkag89 - Bob can never admit any failings by Smith. To him it would lessen Smith's standing as a 'prophet'. He has the same blinders on with all mormon prophets and leaders (ex. his views on Romney).

Rab, Mitt is not a LDS "leader" as far as the Church is concerned. He has not been called as a General Authority and they are the only "real" leaders that can speak for the Church. He has been a wonderful bishop and Stake President.

quote:

---

Petro, I certainly believe that Joseph was justified and of good character;

---

You believe that because you want to believe it. But the evidence already presented indicates otherwise.

quote:

---

He thought that he had the authority under the Charter that Nauvoo was organized under. It was the city council that declared the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace.

---

A City Council that just happened to inlcude the vote of Smith AND just happened to be majority Mormon (If not all Mormon). And of course with Smith also serving as mayor, he is the one that actually issued the order to destroy the printing presses that had written bad (but true) things about him.

You are absolutely wearing blinders Diamond if you think there is anything American about someone using their governmental authority to stifle the speech and destroy the property of those who would dare speak out against him. That doesn't even have to do with religion but simply basic principles of American principles. But since Smith was the creator or your religion, you are forced to support his actions even in situations such as this in which he acts like a Soviet Premier instead of an American governmental leader.

You do realize don't you Diamond that one of the key opinions offered in the Nauvoo Expositor that upset Smith was it's claim that as both church president and Nauvoo mayor, Smith held too much power and was creating a theocracy. By his very actions in response, he proved that the newspaper was right!

quote:

---

was the city council that declared the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace.

---

They did so because they didn't like that the paper was revealing Joseph Smith's secrets. If this was really an issue of protecting the paper from mob violence, Smith could have utilized his Nauvoo Legion couldn't he? And yet he didn't do so and instead chose to repress those who were speaking out against him.

quote:

---

The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation

---

So the 1st Admendment didn't exist back then? No Diamond, it wasn't legal to restrict the freedom of the press even back then. The 1818 Constitution of Illonios in fact specifically addressed such a situation when it declared: "The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23).

Smith's decision to repress those speaking against him did indeed worsen a tense situation. It is that action taken by him that resulted in him being jailed and charged with rioting.

quote:

---

Until the end, no suits were brought against Joseph Smith or the saints there--because they didn't have to

---

Once he had been killed, you are right in that there was much less motivation to file suit. But if the owners of the printing press had chosen to do so, it certainly appears that they would have been succesfull.

quote:

---

They destroyed the printing press, along with Editor Phelps' home. Bishop Edward Partridge was beaten, tarred and feathered, and dragged around town square. He never fully recovered from that brutality. (But the mob noted that no blood had been shed!)

---

And when a mob destroyed a Mormon printing press, they were just as wrong as Smith was when he destroyed the press of his opponents. See Diamond, unlike you, I don't condome or condemn actions purely based on which side is taking the action. It was WRONG for ANY group to repress the free speech rights of another.

quote:

---

A lack of full disclosure has been practiced throughout history. Christ did not disclose everything about his Gospel to his Apostles at the beginning of their apostleship.

---

Christ never lied to his apostles the way that Smith lied about being involved with polygamy. There is absolutely no comparison between the two.

quote:

---

Since Joseph also preached so strongly against adultery, they would have recognized the inconsistency and hypocrisy if they felt that he did not practice what he preached.

---

BINGO! And to avoid that hypocrisy, Smith instead chose to lie about his activities.

quote:

---

You need to learn and understand that Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark.

---

Of course he was. He didn't have the discipline to NOT be a polygamist but also knew how poorly it would look to others and how much it would hurt his efforts to grow his religion. So he lied about his involvement and only brought in those that he thought would be more accepting of his practice or who desired to also sleep with multiple women under the guise of his religion.

quote:

---

He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it

---

...to those would would accept it! I am sure that he was. If he could convince everyone to be a polygamist, he wouldn't stand out as much.

quote:

---

This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him.

---

And we indeed see the damage and dissension caused by Smith's polygamy. Yes Smith was walking a very fine line trying to balance his own desires to have multiple lives against his desire to grow his religion...

quote:

---

Of course you do not know how long it took Peter to realize the error of his ways.

---

At least you are aknowledging the error Peter made in lying about his relationship with Christ. Such a shame that you are unwilling to similarily admit the error of Smith when he chose to lie about his polygamy!

quote:

---

But, Christ was not a liar nor was Joseph, try as hard as you want in your attempts to make him so.

---

Christ wasn't but Smith most certainly was. Do you need me to post the evidence YET AGAIN Diamond? For now, let's just look at the last time that we have documentation of Smith lying about polygamy, on May 26, 1844, just a month before he was killed:

"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.

You can find that particular mention in the "History of the Church", Vol. 6.

quote:

---

I wonder how many attempts were made on peoples lives because of "alleged" poor character?

---

You yourself are the one who referenced the various attacks on Smith. He hadn't created his religion yet at the time of the 'wagon assassin' so are left to wonder why someone supposedly hated him so much if not for his poor character. And we have already seen in this particular thread that his life was taken following his poor behavior with regards to his trying to destroy those who would speak out against him. And of course we also have seen how much tension was created as a result of his desire to have multiple wives. And let's no forget as well the anger that was created as a result of his bank fraud.

quote:

---

There was no bank fraud and you now have the proof to know so. End of your weak argument.

---

Of course there was. And once Smith was charged (and convicted) of bank fraud, he was forced to flee Ohio.

quote:

---

Joseph knew that the Lord was not going to let anything happen to him until he had done all that was necessary to establish His Church

---

And yet Smith's actions in the jail cell indicated that Smith's faith in God taking care of him was not nearly so strong as he claimed!

quote:

---

Joseph did not ask for the gun, Cyrus voluntarily brought it to him.

---

And Smith was quick to request it when it was offered to those who had been jailed!

quote:

---

If his brother and two friends would have left, he would have not needed or wanted it.

---

Wrong on both counts.

quote:

---

Joseph did not even fire the gun until his brother was killed.

---

Which is even more indication that Smith didn't use the gun as protection but rather for vengenance!

quote:

---

When Joseph and only a few of his companions went into the uncharted wilderness, filled with hostile Indians, that is not my idea of fleeing to safety.

---

People fleeing the law often end up having to flee into wilderness or less civilized areas. One of the penalties in being a criminal and law breaker.

quote:

---

He still had the Nauvoo Legion back at his home to protect him if he wanted.

---

But he was quickly realizing that even with his bodyguards, his dream of a theocracy wouldn't be able to occur in civilized territory where he would be forced to adhere to existing state and federal laws.

quote:

---

Joseph's orders to Dunham

---

And you think Diamond that your referenced letters make Smith look better and LESS theocratic and power hungry??? No Diamond, it shows just the opposite.

quote:

---

Emma reported that Joseph said, "I will die before I will be called a coward."

---

Aknowledgement that the only reason Smith returned is because he was being accused of cowardice by his followers and NOT because he had any faith that God would protect him...

quote:

---

Joseph is here forbidding assembly of the people, a necessary prelude to any attempt to rescue him or Hyrum.

---

But we have no indication that Smith was including the Nauvoo Legion in that order.

quote:

---

That Dunham would receive orders from Joseph and refuse to follow them seems incredible.

---

I read up on the Hoffman forgeries which apparently include the Dunham letter. Unlike you Diamond, I have no problem admitting when I am offering up opinions that turn out to be based on bad or false information. And this is one of those instances it would appear. But let's keep in mind that the fact that this letter was forged in no way means that Smith DIDN'T order such a rescue. We simply don't have this evidence to confirm it. But we still DO have the claim of the jailer who declared that Smith thought that the mob coming to the jail was actually HIS mob come to rescue him!

quote:

---

Rab, Mitt is not a LDS "leader" as far as the Church is concerned. He has not been called as a General Authority and they are the only "real" leaders that can speak for the Church. He has been a wonderful bishop and Stake President.

---

He's a leader in this country who happens to be mormon. And that seems to be enough for you to put on your mormon blinders (ex. the thread that was deleted where you referenced his support for the Mass. healthcare program).

Petro, the "evidence" that you have presented is misleading and false and there is much more solid evidence to the contrary! Sorry about that for you. Suggest you reread what young John Taylor wrote. He talks about all of the close time for years that he was with Joseph and what he observed. Here it is again. A true first hand account by someone who had every right to have been disillusioned after what transpired in Carthage Jail. This was not right after Joseph's murder but after gret reflextion later:

"He later bore his personal testimony concerning Joseph:

"I testify that I was acquainted with Joseph Smith for many years. I have traveled with him; I have been with him in private and in public; I have associated with him in councils of all kinds; I have listened hundreds of times to his public teachings, and his advice to his friends and associates of the most private nature. I have been at his house and seen his deportment in his family. I have seen him arraigned before the tribunals of his country, and have seen him honorably acquitted, and delivered from the pernicious breath of slander, and the machinations and falsehoods of wicked and corrupt men.

I was with him living and I was with him when he died, when he was murdered in Carthage jail by a ruthless mob ... with their faces painted. I was there and was myself wounded; I at that time received four balls in my body. I have seen, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man - that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome - that his precepts were such as became a man of God - that his private and public character was unimpeachable - and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony. If it is disputed, bring me a person authorized to receive an affidavit, and I will make on to this effect. I therefore testify of things which I know and of things which I have seen" PD, 23-24, 1850

President Taylor also made these comments on Joseph Smith as a "Prophet". "If I did not believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I should not have been here. If he was a true prophet, and spake the word of the Lord, that is just as binding on the human family as any other word spoken by any other prophet. The scriptures tell us that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Gentlemen, I again say that Joseph Smith was a virtuous, high minded, honorable man, a gentleman and a Christian. BUT, he introduced principles which strike at the root of the corrupt systems of men. This necessarily comes in contact with their prepossessions, prejudices and interest; AND as they can not overturn his principles, they attack his character. And that is one reason why we have so many books written against his character, without touching his principles, and also why we meet with so much opposition. But truth, eternal truth, is invulnerable. It can not be destroyed, but like the throne of Jehovah, it will out ride all the storms of men, and live forever. -PD, 13, 1850

Remember, Joseph could not have done it by himself so be honest and blame the City Council that Joseph was only a part of. If Joseph was the kind of man you like to characterize as, he could have all those involved in the Expositor arrested and shot while resisting arrest. The City Charter gave them the authority and it was practiced many times over in different place with no charter authority.


Suggest you read the Charter that made Nauvoo a city state. Remember that it was the city council that declared the Expositor A public nuisance and threat to the peace. Joseph quoted from Blackstones Commentaries of the Law in regards to "nuisance" as the Expositor with its lies and half truths threatened to bring the countryside down on the Mormons! This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders' fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed. (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," Utah Law Review 9 (1965):874.)
This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927). Dallin H. Oaks. A law professor for 10 years at the U. Of Chicago Law School and Utah Supreme Court judge studied the situation and because it was declared a public nuisance and threat to the peace that gave the City Council they felt the right to act as it did. That case was to be argued in Court but Joseph did not have his day in court as he was murdered and left unguarded by the Governor who had promised to give him protection. The mob in Missouri did not have a Charter that gave them even a pretext of the right to do so. But the Missouri mob set the example.

Christ never lied nor did Joseph lie. Try to get over it Petro! You forgot to present the rest of the facts Petro but here they are: ... "But, he did share the commandment concerning Plural Marriage. You need to learn and understand that Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph's murder..."

Whether they accepted it or not, plural marriage was obviously not a "secret"! He did not have to walk a "fine line". Even non LDS historians have come to the conclusion that it was not "lustful" desires that motivated Joseph and the doctrine of Plural Marriage. To begin with Joseph distinguished between authorized celestial marriage and the illegal practice of bigamy or the radical theology of spiritual wives. By denying his involvement, he was trying to wall off John C. Bennet's lascivious schemes for enticing young women into illicit relations from the carefully regulated performance of priesthood marriages. He told those that he taught it to that "this is a revelation from God to your prophet. Seek your own inspiration, and you will know yourself. If you deny it you will loose your blessings".

Of course Peter made a huge error in denying the Christ. There is no comparison with what you are trying to make with Joseph. Plural Marriage is not adultery. Joseph was hated and persecuted in his own community for claiming that he had a vision of God and Christ as well as with the Angel Moroni and the Gold Plates, and of which there were numerous attempts to find them by different mobs. There was NO bank fraud and you are now a liar for you know full better. But, I know that you LOVE a lie better that the truth. That is why a murderer who started your church is such a hero to you.

It was Joseph's responsibility to avail himself of preservation of his life. The Lord had not yet said it is time to die. I am sure none of the ancient Apostles knew the exact day of their death. But Joseph's actions was based on trying to protect his friends. I am sure you would not understand that. When Joseph discovered that they boasted they would all be killed then he accepted the gun. As I said earlier, If his brother and two friends would have left, he would have not needed or wanted it, and I am exactly right on both accounts. It was not fired until one of the bullets from the guns which had already been fired, killed Hyrum. There were still two more friends that Joseph was trying to protect.
"People fleeing the law often end up having to flee into wilderness or less civilized areas" don't have the second largest standing army in the U.S. at their disposal. Thus there wasno need to "flee". If he was "fleeing" he would have had a much larger party go with him.

The LDS Church has always been a theocracy with a blend of democracy. It is the "law of common consent". Emma's statement was only a part of Joseph's reason for coming back. But, if he were a coward, as you keep trying to suggest, he would have kept on going. You can not have it both ways Petro. That was the Nauvoo Legion which consisted of the able bodied men in Nauvoo. There was no one else that could have rescued him, if that was what he desired!

We have no corroboration as to whether that was what the jailer thought Joseph was thinking, or that is what he actually said. And when you compare it to the weight of evidence that he did not send for the Legion, it has very little weight. If it had been me and I thought I needed rescuing, the Legion would have been camped out of sight and ready to spring into action at the slightest indication of a hostile mob forming! And I would have had every member of the mob killed on the spot! But that is the actions of the "natural" man which is what you think Joseph and all of his followers were.

quote:

---

Petro, the "evidence" that you have presented is misleading and false and there is much more solid evidence to the contrary!

---

Nope. You call my evidence misleading only because you don't like what it is pointing out about your dear leader. And you have yet to be able to refute the evidence that I have provided. AND you also have yet to produce any of this "more solid" evidence.

quote:

---

Suggest you reread what young John Taylor wrote.

---

You obviously don't understand that there is a difference between factual evidence and testimonials from followers of Joseph Smith!

quote:

---

President Taylor also made these comments on Joseph Smith as a "Prophet". "If I did not believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I should not have been here.

---

EXCEPT that we know that John Taylor became President of the Mormons after Brigham Young AND we know that he had at least seven wives all of whom he apparently had carnal knowledge with based on his 35 children. And of course we also know that one of his children was one of the first Presidents of the Seventy, his wife was a member of the first General Presidency of the Young Women Organization and one of his daughters was leader of the Relief Society. No Diamond, the Mormon organization provided John Taylor with both power, numerous sexual partners and a sustenance for he and his family. There were PLENTY of reasons for him to have continued as a Mormon that have zero to do with the his faith in the Mormon theology.

Let's not also forget that John Taylor, like Joseph Smith, was also a liar when it came to the issue of polygamy. In 1850, in a desperate attempt to gain more Mormon converts from England, John Taylor used the 1835 issue of the D&C to convince potential converts that rumors about Mormon polygamy were not true. Never mind that he already had his seven wives at the time.....

quote:

---

Remember, Joseph could not have done it by himself so be honest and blame the City Council that Joseph was only a part of.

---

Joseph was a voter in the City Council, AND Mayor of the city, AND the majority (if not all) of City Council members were Mormons and so therefore looked to Smith just not as a governmental leader but also their religious leader. So be honest Diamond and aknowledge that Smith was the one with the power to decide whether or not those printing presses were going to be destroyed!

quote:

---

Joseph was the kind of man you like to characterize as, he could have all those involved in the Expositor arrested and shot while resisting arrest.

---

Sure he could. But what would have been the point when, by destroying the printing presses, he was able to achieve his goal of stopping anyone from printing the truth about him?

quote:

---

The City Charter gave them the authority and it was practiced many times over in different place with no charter authority.

---

First, it appears that you are still trying to justify their actions by claiming that other people were also acting illegaly. That doesn't make it any less illegal or right. Second, what evidence do you have that the City Charter gave them the right to do any such thing? You certainly haven't provided it to us yet... And third, what they did was in direct violation of the Illinois Constitution. Are you really trying to claim that any city within a state has the authority to override and ignore the laws of their State Constitution???

quote:

---

Suggest you read the Charter that made Nauvoo a city state.

---

Sure I will. Give me the link.

quote:

---

The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.

---

Which was a violation of the Illinois Constitution and therefore illegal.

quote:

---

A law professor for 10 years at the U. Of Chicago Law School and Utah Supreme Court judge studied the situation and because it was declared a public nuisance and threat to the peace that gave the City Council they felt the right to act as it did.

---

I assume that the law professor that you are referencing is Dallin Oaks? You forgot to mention Diamond that Dallin Oaks just happens to be Mormon didn't you?

However, even as with his bias, let's consider what Dallin Oaks had to say about Smith's order to destroy the printing presses:

“The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured…. there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass.” (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)

And from a seperate article by Oaks: ”[Smith] urged that the newspaper be declared a nuisance and destroyed without judicial process, a procedure supported by Blackstone." Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith p. 15

Yeap Diamond, even your own sources report that what Smith did was illegal. So the question becomes: Did you know this and simply choose to ignore that part of Oaks legal opinion? Or did you once again simply read the headline without actually reading what Oaks had written?

quote:

---

Christ never lied nor did Joseph lie.

---

Christ didn't but, as I have already shown, Smith most certainly DID lie. Are you saying that Smith did NOT make the statement I referenced on 5/26/1844 and that the "History of the Church" authors are lying in making such a claim?

quote:

---

You need to learn and understand that Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark.

---

Of course he was. He didn't have the discipline to NOT be a polygamist but also knew how poorly it would look to others and how much it would hurt his efforts to grow his religion. So he lied about his involvement and only brought in those that he thought would be more accepting of his practice or who desired to also sleep with multiple women under the guise of his religion.

quote:

---

He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it.

---

...to those would would accept it! I am sure that he was. If he could convince everyone to be a polygamist, he wouldn't stand out as much.

quote:

---

This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him.

---

And we indeed see the damage and dissension caused by Smith's polygamy. Yes Smith was walking a very fine line trying to balance his own desires to have multiple lives against his desire to grow his religion...

quote:

---

Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.

---

Which is why he felt forced to hide his polygamist activities for as long as he did. Obviously even among some of his closest friends, loyalty didn't always win out over truth!

quote:

---

One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph's murder..."

---

Then you will be willing to reference that source for review and analysis right Diamond? No I didn't think so!

quote:

---

Whether they accepted it or not, plural marriage was obviously not a "secret"! He did not have to walk a "fine line".

---

That's exactly what he was attempting to do (as was John Taylor) when they lied about their involvement in polygamy.

quote:

---

Even non LDS historians have come to the conclusion that it was not "lustful" desires that motivated Joseph and the doctrine of Plural Marriage.

---

And yet you choose to provide no evidence of this....

quote:

---

By denying his involvement, he was trying to wall off John C. Bennet's lascivious schemes

---

So now you FINALLY aknowledge that Smith DID deny his involvement..... When he denies doing something that he actually IS doing.... that is called lying Diamond! Now do you want to backpedal and try and claim that his lying was justified? Go for it but you obviously have absolutely NO case in claiming that he wasn't lying in the first place when even you aknowledge that such occured....

quote:

---

he was trying to wall off John C. Bennet's lascivious schemes for enticing young women into illicit relations

---

No. He was trying to avoid people and potential converts from discovering that he, Joseph Smith, was involved in such illicit relations with numerous women.

quote:

---

Of course Peter made a huge error in denying the Christ.

---

Sure he did as did Joseph Smith in denying that he was practicing polygamy. The difference is that we both recognize that Peter was wrong and did what he did out of fear and weakness. You however are unwilling to do the same about your dear leader.

quote:

---

Plural Marriage is not adultery.

---

Sure it is.

quote:

---

There was NO bank fraud and you are now a liar for you know full better.

---

Of course there was. And Smith, along with Sidney Rigdon were eventually convicted of running an illegal bank.

quote:

---

That is why a murderer who started your church is such a hero to you.

---

God and Christ started my church Diamond.

quote:

---

It was Joseph's responsibility to avail himself of preservation of his life. The Lord had not yet said it is time to die.

---

So now you are backpedalling from your earlier claim that Smith was only fighting to preserve the life of others. So noted.

You appear to be under the false assumption that I think that Smith was wrong to use his gun... I think he was entirely justified under the circumstances.

quote:

---

When Joseph discovered that they boasted they would all be killed then he accepted the gun.

---

Who made that claim and where is your evidence to support such a statement?

quote:

---

As I said earlier, If his brother and two friends would have left, he would have not needed or wanted it

---

And yet you just got through saying that it was "Joseph's responsibility to preserve his life". Yet more inconsistency on your part Diamond.

quote:

---

"People fleeing the law often end up having to flee into wilderness or less civilized areas" don't have the second largest standing army in the U.S. at their disposal.

---

So you think that Smith and his 3,000 Nauvoo Legion could have withstood the actions of the US military? Yet another indication that you are completely out of touch with reality.

quote:

---

Emma's statement was only a part of Joseph's reason for coming back. But, if he were a coward, as you keep trying to suggest, he would have kept on going.

---

Not at all. Smith WAS a coward but he also was power hungry. And he realized that if continued to flee, the religion that he had created would most likely fall apart.

quote:

---

We have no corroboration as to whether that was what the jailer thought Joseph was thinking, or that is what he actually said.

---

No we don't. But we also have no evidence to dispute such a statement and no known reason why that jailer would have lied about what Smith supposedly stated.

quote:

---

And when you compare it to the weight of evidence that he did not send for the Legion

---

What evidence? A letter to his wife? Looks to me like it is every bit as likely that Smith was simply trying to build his defense that he had had nothing to do with any rescue attempt once it had occured. He was simply crafting together an alibi in advance for the rescue attempt that he believed to be coming to break he and the others out of prison.

quote:

---

If it had been me and I thought I needed rescuing, the Legion would have been camped out of sight and ready to spring into action at the slightest indication of a hostile mob forming!

---

And perhaps that is exactly what Smith thought was occuring.

quote:

---

But that is the actions of the "natural" man which is what you think Joseph and all of his followers were.

---

Certainly. Because there is nothing about Smith's life to indicate that he was anything but a natural man. And there is plenty of evidence to indicate that from an ethical standpoint, Smith wasn't even much of a man to begin with!

Petro, I have seen no real "evidence" that you have presented that is not false and/or misleading. You choose to reject all first hand as well as eyewitness accounts that are contrary to what you desperately hope is correct. Too bad, for it will not work for you as you will eventually learn. John Taylor's accounts are as factual as you can get as he was there and experienced much terrible pain and suffering. He saw how Joseph handled the events in Carthage jail as did Willard Richards. If they had sseen a character such as you believe Joseph was, they would have been long gone and you know it. At that time John Taylor was a young man and could have easily picked up on his previous profession as a Methodist minister.

Do you remember how and why he and his wife even joined the Church? "John Taylor's destiny as a preacher and missionary for the Church was foreshadowed early in life when as a young man in Milnthorpe, Westmoreland County, England, he saw a vision of an angel blowing a trumpet and proclaiming an important heavenly message. This manifestation caused him to remark to his companion, "I have a strong impression on my mind, that I have to go to America to preach the gospel! In 1832 he immigrated to Canada, where he joined a Methodist group and met Leonora Cannon, who accepted his proposal of marriage after seeing a vision of herself happily married to him.
The Taylors began studying the Bible with a small group of Methodists who felt that their church teachings diverged from the scriptures. Soon after this, Elder Parley P. Pratt was sent to Toronto as a missionary with the promise that he would find a group prepared to receive the gospel. Brother Taylor, though finding among his colleagues much opposition to the "Mormon" sect, was determined to hear the elder out; he attended and copied eight of Elder Pratt's sermons in order to compare them later with the Bible. Finding these lectures to conform perfectly, he and his wife joined the Church and were followed by many others in their group.
Soon after the Taylor's conversion, John made a visit to Kirtland and met the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Prophet also visited Toronto and became better acquainted with Brother Taylor, who had been given leadership of the Church in Upper Canada. In 1837, following the disfellowshipping of apostle John Boynton, Joseph Smith wrote John Taylor a letter calling him to the Quorum of the Twelve..."

If you have not read this, it will give you a good insight into the Character and capacity of the man that Brigham Young said "had one of the strongest intellects that can be found and was a powerful man":

He told of an incident in which John Taylor was in Columbus, Ohio, as a missionary. A group of troublemakers had decided they would interrupt his service to tar and feather him. Knowing of their intentions, Church members tried to dissuade Elder Taylor from holding the service, but he declined to take their advice.
"Now, this Britisher selected a topic that shows his skill," Elder Perry said, "lecturing his audience about the blessings of freedom of the American Constitution, and the valor of their forefathers who fought for liberty and about the yearnings of people all over the world that want to live under the American flag. He laid the groundwork of patriotism for this people.

"Then he said quietly, 'I'm informed that some of you want to tar and feather me for my religious opinions. Is this a boon you've inherited from your fathers? Is this liberty?' Then he said, 'Gentlemen, I am ready. Come with your tar and feathers; your victim is ready. And ye shades of venerable patriarchs, gaze upon the deeds of your degenerate sons. Come, gentlemen. Come, I say. I am ready.' They sat in their seats and listened to him preach for the next three hours."
Elder Perry told of John Taylor's coming to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1837, where there was a bitter spirit of apostasy among Church members. One of them so affected was Parley P. Pratt, who as a missionary in eastern Canada had been the instrument of Brother Taylor's conversion.

John Taylor told Elder Pratt: "I now have the same testimony that you once rejoiced in. If this work was true six months ago, it is true today. If Joseph Smith was a prophet then, he is a prophet now."

Sister Perry spoke of John Taylor as a family man.
She said that in addition to being a fearless defender of the faith, devoted follower of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a founder of Church periodicals, apostle of the Lord and, finally, president of the Church, he was also "a devoted family man, a faithful and gracious husband to his wives, and beloved father and teacher to his children."

"Perhaps John Taylor met the challenges, and they were continuous and many, of plural marriages and multiple families as well as any of this dispensation, and he did so with a sense of equity and grace. He looked with deep love, affection and delight upon his large family and envisioned the day when he would be beside them again as priest and king in the celestial exaltation."

In a tribute to his ancestor, Brother Cardall said of the relationship between Joseph Smith and John Taylor, "Where the Savior had John the Beloved, Joseph had John the devoted."
Of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, Brother Cardall said, "Of all that could have been with Joseph, it was Hyrum the loving brother, Willard [Richards] the loyal friend and John the devoted disciple."

Wounded in the attack on the jail, John Taylor lived, "an eye- and an ear-witness to an event both terrible and magnificent," he said. "For the remainder of his life and beyond, John could testify as no other could of that fateful day." Here is the link:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/55931/John-Taylor-called-champion-of-right.html

By killing them there would have been no one to continue to spread lies about him or file suit! Right? I am sure as energetic as you are in trying to prove the Church false, you can find the link to the Nauvoo City Charter. It is too bad you don't employ the same amount of energy to really investigate the Church.

I assumed that you knew who Dallin Oaks was. The City Council felt because of Blackstone's commentaries on the law that they had the right to do so. It was an issue that should have been argued in court but the anti-Mormons did not want to take the chance that Joseph might succeed and they knew that when they had him in their power, they could murder him

You can not teach a religious principle, and all that is required, to someone who will neither listen to it or accepts it. But Joseph tried and was more than willing to do so. Plural marriage was a hard commandment for some of the members of the Church who apostatized and turned against Joseph as they thought he was now a "fallen" prophet. Joseph faced the same challenges when he received the revelation on the "Three Degrees of Glory". Members were very angry over the fact that their persecutors could possible escape eternal damnation and they left Joseph over this! The same way that the followers of Christ turned away when they did not approve of his doctrines.

I am glad to see that you make the statement that truth overcomes loyalty because if you are honest, then you must accept the testimony of the Eleven Witnesses" some of which turned against Joseph over this principle, never denied their testimony concerning their interaction with the Angel Moroni and seeing and handling the gold plates. You can't have it both ways Petro, try as you might! Here is how an honest man seeks, finds and acts upon "truth". http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&nav=859&sourceId=6f3ebe335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

If Joseph was trying to walk a "fine line" and had a libido he could not control, he would have simply stashed mistresses around like the typical Nicene Christians did who wanted additonal women.. He would have acted as John C. Bennet did, a recent convert.. As I said, "Even non LDS historians have come to the conclusion that it was not "lustful" desires that motivated Joseph and the doctrine of Plural Marriage", and you can read Bushman's book "Rough Stone Rolling" and get the information for yourself.

Your ignorance about plural marriage and claiming it is the same as adultery is truly amazing as well as amusing. The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both married and potentially monogamous. The Greek in the New Testament is not as definitive as the critics might wish. The text can "be read as excluding (a) the single, (b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, [or] (d) those remarried after being widowed. The words can also convey the connotation 'devoted solely to his wife.'"One's attitude toward polygamy will probably influence the interpretation one chooses—but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is an interpretation.

In any case, Latter-day Saints agree that the 'standard' instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see Jac. 2:30).
However, critics go too far when they conclude that early Christians believed in an absolute prohibition on plural marriages.

Tertullian

As I think, moreover, each pronouncement and arrangement is (the act) of one and the same God; who did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted; not without a reasonable ground for the extension (of that indulgence) in the beginning, and the limitation of it in the end. Tertullian's perspective is strikingly similar to Jac. 2:30, in which monogamy is the norm, but God may command exceptions to "raise up seed."

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr argued that David's sin was only in the matter of Uriah's wife, and echoed a common early Christian idea that marriage was a "mystery," or sacred rite of the type which Latter-day Saints associate with temple worship:

And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this. Justin saw the patriarchs' marriages not as corruptions or something which God 'winked at,' but acts with significant ritual and religious power.

Augustine

Even Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:
Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it.

Conclusion

The Latter-day Saints do not take their doctrine from ancient Christian writers, but from canonized scriptures and the living prophets. However, the perspectives of early Christians demonstrates the plural marriage was not the absolutely forbidden idea that some modern sectarians might wish it to be.

This is the link:http://en.fairmormon.org/Early_Christians_on_plural_marriage

Here are some more examples of approved plural marriages in the OT:

Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6).
Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9).
Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chron. 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chron. 13:8-12) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chron. 13:16-18).
Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" (2 Chron. 24:3). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" (2 Chron. 24:16).
If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

Sorry Petro, a Murderer started the church you most strongly identify with. Neither God or Christ had anything to do with it. I am glad to see that you now identify God and Christ as separate entities!

Read more about the eyewitness account by John Taylor. Remember that Joseph said that his trip to Carthage would result in his slaughter and that he was going as a lamb to the slaughter. Up to that time Joseph was to do all that he could to preserve his life and the Lord would do the rest until that appointed time for his martyrdom.

The Nauvoo legion would have handled anything in Illinois. That is why the people fled in terror to Quincy and other distant places because they thought the Mormons would massacre them. And if they were not led by Christ, they would have!

You make no sense in trying to claim that Joseph was a coward and also power hungry. Why should he care that his "made up" religion would fall apart when he would not be alive to enjoy the fruits of his labors and all of his wives, etc. Just another of your weak attempts to have it both ways. It doesn't fly Petro.

The overwhelming evidence is that the jailer's statement is totally out of context compared as to what happened and was reported. The reason is that the jailer, as well as many others, lied over and over concerning Joseph and it is their testimony that you choose to believe, because you, yourself, prefer a lie. I am sure you forgot that neither John Taylor or Willard Richards knew that help was coming and for sure Joseph would have told his dear friends. They reported nothing and neither expressed their disappointment that the Legion did not show up on time or at all like they were supposed to!

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 5/7/2010 11:38a).]

d4 - Take note on how the article you linked cited the Church Fathers. Noticed how it gives the actual work cited and even the chapter.

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb...

South park, "All about the Mormans"..

jk - I thought you would appreciate that!

By the way, since we are talking about the present and the future in A&M Baseball (as it is not over "yet" and Football, you get credit for this baseball season and I will take the credit for the football team this fall. They are both in the same calender year. Fair enough?

I hope you will now follow that example, it only enhances the argument you present if it is sound.

As for A&M sporting events, I go by school year not calendar year.

quote:

---

Petro, I have seen no real "evidence" that you have presented that is not false and/or misleading.

---

The facts and evidence HAVE been presented but you have simply chosen to ignore it. You claim these various facts are false? Show me your evidence to support such a claim? You claim that my evidence is misleading? Such a statement certainly implies that even YOU accept that they are facts but simply don't like what they suggest about your dear leader.

quote:

---

You choose to reject all first hand as well as eyewitness accounts that are contrary to what you desperately hope is correct.

---

Nope. But I certainly take with a huge grain of salt any such testimonies from those who we can all recognized as potentially biased sources. You would do exactly the same if it was testimony about ANY theology OTHER than Mormonism. You have simply chosen not to be objective in your analysis.

quote:

---

John Taylor's accounts are as factual as you can get as he was there and experienced much terrible pain and suffering.

---

And I have not disputed a single fact that Taylor put forth. It is only his OPINIONS that I am less willing to accept at face value, understanding that Taylor had motiviations that make him a very biased source.

quote:

---

He saw how Joseph handled the events in Carthage jail as did Willard Richards.

---

And what FACT about Taylor and Smith's time in the jail cell have I disputed? None.

quote:

---

If they had sseen a character such as you believe Joseph was, they would have been long gone and you know it.

---

Nope. Because as already pointed out, Taylor had plenty of motivation to stand by the Mormon theology which had nothing to do with spiritual validity.

quote:

---

Do you remember how and why he and his wife even joined the Church? ...he saw a vision of an angel blowing a trumpet ...met Leonora Cannon, who accepted his proposal of marriage after seeing a vision of herself happily married to him....Finding these lectures to conform perfectly, he and his wife joined the Church

---

So a man and woman each claim to have had a vision and this draws them together. And later they find a religion that also is entirely based on the claims of a vision by another man... It makes perfect sense why, as a result, Taylor and his wife would want to join Smith. Not because there was any spiritual authenticity but simply because in Smith, they were finding a kindred soul with respect to visions and their rejection of Christianity.

quote:

---

the man that Brigham Young said "had one of the strongest intellects that can be found and was a powerful man"

---

I don't doubt that Smith had quite an itellect. Which is why it is so inconsistent for you to have gone on and on claiming that Smith wasn't smart enough to have created his theology. And with regards to being a 'powerful man', I also have no doubt. It appears that his quest for such power is what drove him in the direction that he went!

quote:

---

Of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, Brother Cardall said, "Of all that could have been with Joseph, it was Hyrum the loving brother, Willard Richards the loyal friend and John the devoted disciple."

---

And yet you expect us to accept John Taylor's opinions as unbiased and objective??? Sorry Diamond but once again, your own sources have tripped you up and destroyed your arguments.

You have mentioned a lot about John Taylor but you apparently 'forgot' to mention the lies that Taylor was caught in with regards to polygamy and his statements back in England. Want to address the issue?

quote:

---

By killing them there would have been no one to continue to spread lies about him or file suit! Right?

---

Wrong in all respects. First, nothing that was being reported in the Nauvoo Expositor was a lie. Second, there were many, many people besides just those attached to the Expositor who were willing to spread the truth about Smith that he so badly wanted to hide. Yes he could have ordered them killed. But in doing so, he would have brought about an even stronger response against Nauvoo. Instead, he destroyed the printing presses realizing how difficult it would be for the paper to be distributed without such equipment.

quote:

---

I am sure as energetic as you are in trying to prove the Church false, you can find the link to the Nauvoo City Charter.

---

I can and I have. But then again, YOU are the one who issued the challenge to read it only to be found out as not even having a link to the information that you thought so important!

But since you wanted me to read it, let's look at the key point of the charter which you would prefer to ignore:

Sec. 5. The Mayor, Aldermen and Councilors, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation that they will support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State and that they will well and truly perform the duties of their offices to the best of their skill and abilities. We have already seen Diamond that the Illinois Constitution specifically mentioned printing presses and stated that 'no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof.'

quote:

---

It is too bad you don't employ the same amount of energy to really investigate the Church.

---

I do. And that is why it becomes so easy to dismiss Smith's claims as false and non-divine.

quote:

---

I assumed that you knew who Dallin Oaks was.

---

Then why did you go out of your way to tell me that Oaks was "A law professor for 10 years at the U. Of Chicago Law School and Utah Supreme Court judge"? No Diamond, you didn't hide the fact that Oaks was a Mormon because you thought I already knew but rather because you knew that the additional information wouldn't help your argument. You aren't really concerned about presenting the facts as you are about winning the argument based on your very selective offering of information. But as usual, you fail in your attempt to hide the facts.

quote:

---

The City Council felt because of Blackstone's commentaries on the law that they had the right to do so.

---

They might have but that doesn't mean that they were right does it? Even Oaks the Mormon agrees that they overstepped their authority.

quote:

---

It was an issue that should have been argued in court

---

Which was why Smith was in jail. In other words, Smith's actions are what directly led to his being in that Carthage jail cell.

quote:

---

the anti-Mormons did not want to take the chance that Joseph might succeed

---

Nah. It wasn't because there was any real chance that his lawbreaking would be dismissed. Instead it was simply a matter of a mob deciding that they had had enough and taking the law into their own hands. They were wrong as are most mobs, and Smith certainly deserved his day in court. But Smith was just as wrong and just as much a lawbreaker when he attempted to stifle the freedom of speech of those who opposed him.

quote:

---

You can not teach a religious principle, and all that is required, to someone who will neither listen to it or accepts it. But Joseph tried and was more than willing to do so.

---

Of course he did. Every gullible convert he could draw in increased his power by just a little more.

quote:

---

Plural marriage was a hard commandment for some of the members of the Church who apostatized and turned against Joseph as they thought he was now a "fallen" prophet.

---

Yeap. They recognized that they had been duped and it wasn't spiritual divinity but rather sinful temptations that was driving Smith. And knowing that his actions would betray him is why Smith in turn, tried to lie about his involvement in polygamy.

quote:

---

I am glad to see that you make the statement that truth overcomes loyalty

---

Actually what I said was that loyalty doesn't ALWAYS win out over truth as was the case when many of Smith's original followers eventually rejected him.

quote:

---

you must accept the testimony of the Eleven Witnesses" some of which turned against Joseph over this principle, never denied their testimony

---

Not at all. First, no man wants to admit that he was tricked/conned and is potentially partially responsible for leading thousands away from God. And they certainly would not want to face the potential anger and potential retribution from those who were mislead based on false testimonies. Second, we don't know who in that group were aware of Smith's false claims and who was being duped themselves. As such, we don't know which ones rejected Smith because they had known all along that Smith was a fraud and which ones rejected him only because they eventually suspected that he was a fraud or at least that some of his continued claims were fraudulent.

quote:

---

If Joseph was trying to walk a "fine line" and had a libido he could not control, he would have simply stashed mistresses around

---

But then he would have had to keep his activities secret from Emma and his followers. But by trying to claim that he had spiritual authority to sleep with multiple wives, he had an excuse for when he was found out!

quote:

---

As I said, "Even non LDS historians have come to the conclusion that it was not "lustful" desires that motivated Joseph and the doctrine of Plural Marriage"

---

And I am still waiting for any evidence to back up that claim.

quote:

---

Your ignorance about plural marriage and claiming it is the same as adultery

---

Actually plural marriage as practiced by the Mormons was almost worse in that they were attempting to use God as an excuse to justify their carnal desires.

quote:

---

Here are some more examples of approved plural marriages in the OT:

---

The key point being that it was during Old Testament times. And of course it is also important to note that in not a SINGLE one of your examples, did God suggest or make lawful polygamy. Now as you point out Abraham also had concubines. Are you therefore suggesting that such would be OK today Diamond???

quote:

---

Sorry Petro, a Murderer started the church you most strongly identify with.

---

Sorry Diamond but Christ was not a murderer.

quote:

---

I am glad to see that you now identify God and Christ as separate entities!

---

Different entities? Not at all. They are different COMPONENTS of the SAME entity.

quote:

---

The Nauvoo legion would have handled anything in Illinois.

---

Short term, they would have. Just as short term, the Rebel South was able to handle the Yankee North. But if the Nauvoo Legion had presented a military challenge to the United States, their time would have been quite limited and the Mormons understood that. Such is the reason that they eventually chose to leave to Utah rather than stay in the more settled parts of the USA.

quote:

---

You make no sense in trying to claim that Joseph was a coward and also power hungry.

---

Of course I do. You simply don't want to aknowledge such behavior by Smith.

quote:

---

The overwhelming evidence is that the jailer's statement is totally out of context compared as to what happened and was reported.

---

What overwhelming evidence do you have as you certainly have yet to present it?

The fact that the Nauvoo Legion didn't rescue Smith certainly doesn't mean that such a plan wasn't discussed or in play. A letter to his wife certainly doesn't represent overwhelming evidence either.

quote:

---

The reason is that the jailer, as well as many others, lied over and over concerning Joseph

---

Over and over? You choose not to believe what the jailer claimed was a statement by Joseph. What other lies do you think the jailer was telling Diamond? And what proof do you have that a single one of the jailer's comments was a lie?

quote:

---

it is their testimony that you choose to believe, because you, yourself, prefer a lie.

---

Not really. Everything that we know about Smith makes it entirely plausible and logical that Smith DID believe that a rescue attempt was in action leading him to make the comment claimed by the jailer. It also could have been nothing more than wishful/hopefull thinking on Smith's part. And it is also entirely possible that the jailer either misunderstood or even flat out lied. Neither of us has enough evidence to know which of the above is the actual truth. The difference between us however is that I am willing to accept that any of the above MIGHT be true. You on the other hand, choose to reject ANY action that doesn't portray your dear leader in the most favorable light possible. I have no problem being objective.... you, not so much.

quote:

---

I am sure you forgot that neither John Taylor or Willard Richards knew that help was coming

---

Once again, you have no way of knowing that.