Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[ljam49]

A very interesting question - I assume that it is "Baptist" doctrine that any effort at self defense that results in the death of another is "Murder". Also it appears to me that you are siding with those that killed Joseph Smith and it is your witness (based on your understanding of the teachings of Christ) that his death was completely justified? Reason - Because Joseph attempted to defend himself and others.

I assume that you reject the writtings of Moses for this same reason.

Zadok

I do not agree with those that killed him I find their act as atrocious as any that is brought against anyone for their beliefs. Its all about character. I have been reading further in the letters sent from Joseph while in the Carthage jail and found this:

"We should have taken a habeas corpus before the high judge and escaped the mob in a summary way; but unfortunately for us the timber of the wall being very hard, our auger handles gave out, and hindered us longer than we expected; we applied to a friend, and a very slight incautious act gave rise to some suspicions, and before we could fully succeed, our plan was discovered; we had everything in readiness, but the last stone, and we could have made our escape in one minute, and should have succeeded admirably, had it not been for little imprudence or over anxiety on the part of our friend. The sheriff and the jailer did not blame us for our attempt; it was a fine breach, and cost the county a round sum".

Judging by this letter sent by him, they also tried to escape after turning themselves in to do the right thing. Amazing.

 

[ljam49]

They are a view good books published about that. Read Compton or Tanners, for example.

Yes, the Tanners have brought massive amounts of information out over the years and done a good job of showing there are things the LDS church wants to surpress because it is damning to the history of mormonim.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, the Tanners have brought massive amounts of information out over the years and done a good job of showing there are things the LDS church wants to surpress because it is damning to the history of mormonim.

The Tanners are a bad joke. Not even legitimate non-LDS scholars put any stock in what they have to say. One non-Mormon scholar, Lawrence Foster, who has studied Mormonism in depth, says that "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs... [They] seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative... [Until they] are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians."

And he's far from being the only one. Take Michael Quinn, for instance. As a former LDS historian who was excommunicated from the Church, he had the following to say about them: "Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide [a larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history."

Go ahead and quote the Tanners if you want, but don't pretend they ever were serious scholars. They are career anti-Mormons, and that's all they are. Pathetic losers pretending to be somebody.

 

[ljam49]

The Tanners are a bad joke. Not even legitimate non-LDS scholars put any stock in what they have to say. One non-Mormon scholar, Lawrence Foster, who has studied Mormonism in depth, says that "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs... [They] seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative... [Until they] are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians."

And he's far from being the only one. Take Michael Quinn, for instance. As a former LDS historian who was excommunicated from the Church, he had the following to say about them: "Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide [a larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history."

Go ahead and quote the Tanners if you want, but don't pretend they ever were serious scholars. They are career anti-Mormons, and that's all they are. Pathetic losers pretending to be somebody.

Its ok. I understand you are a mormon and cannot stand to hear anything negative about your religion. I myself am not that way, because I am very confident in what I believe. I read all of the books available at the SLC library and found that they were pretty much spot on and were able to find and publish alot of information that the LDS church fought to stop from being published.

 

[Smoke]

The Tanners are a bad joke. Not even legitimate non-LDS scholars put any stock in what they have to say. One non-Mormon scholar, Lawrence Foster, who has studied Mormonism in depth, says that "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs...

That's precisely what most of the Evangelical "debunkers" of Mormonism do, which is why I used to find them amusing. They have an almost complete lack of self-awareness. It's kind of funny for a while, but the show loses its charm after repeated viewings.

 

[Sola'lor]

Its ok. I understand you are a mormon and cannot stand to hear anything negative about your religion. I myself am not that way, because I am very confident in what I believe. I read all of the books available at the SLC library and found that they were pretty much spot on and were able to find and publish alot of information that the LDS church fought to stop from being published.

There's a difference between not standing to hear anything negative and using reliable sources.

 

[ljam49]

There's a difference between not standing to hear anything negative and using reliable sources.

If that is to say that the Tanners are not reliable, that is a matter of opinion. I only read what was available at the library, not all of their books.

 

[Katzpur]

Its ok. I understand you are a mormon and cannot stand to hear anything negative about your religion. I myself am not that way, because I am very confident in what I believe.

I hear negative stuff about my religion every day of the week. Something can be "negative" without being a lie. I don't personally care for lies. Why do you? The Tanners say what you want to hear and it doesn't matter to you whether their claims can be substantiated or not. It doesn't matter whether they are twisting the truth or telling only part of the truth. If you can rationalize your contempt for the Mormons because of what a couple of hate-filled pseudo-scholars have to say, I pity you.

I read all of the books available at the SLC library and found that they were pretty much spot on and were able to find and publish alot of information that the LDS church fought to stop from being published.

As far as you're concerned, the end justifies the means, doesn't it? Well, that being the case, the Tanners are right up your alley. Real scholars -- non-LDS, even ex-LDS -- have no respect for the Tanners' work. But hey, if you read it in a book at the SLC library, it must be "spot on," huh?

 

[Watchmen]

If Adam could have a non-literal death, then why couldn't he have had a non-literal life?

When did I say he couldn't have had a non-literal life? That's a distinct possibility and one I often lean towards.

 

[Watchmen]

Its ok. I understand you are a mormon and cannot stand to hear anything negative about your religion. I myself am not that way, because I am very confident in what I believe. I read all of the books available at the SLC library and found that they were pretty much spot on and were able to find and publish alot of information that the LDS church fought to stop from being published.

She posted quotes from neutral sources, I understand that might be a problem with you because it conflicts with your own biased view. Also, I doubt you read "all of the books available in the SLC library."

 

[Watchmen]

If that is to say that the Tanners are not reliable, that is a matter of opinion. I only read what was available at the library, not all of their books.

Yes. And the opinion of neutral sources is that the Tanners are lame.

 

[ljam49]

I hear negative stuff about my religion every day of the week. Something can be "negative" without being a lie. I don't personally care for lies. Why do you? The Tanners say what you want to hear and it doesn't matter to you whether their claims can be substantiated or not. It doesn't matter whether they are twisting the truth or telling only part of the truth. If you can rationalize your contempt for the Mormons because of what a couple of hate-filled pseudo-scholars have to say, I pity you.

As far as you're concerned, the end justifies the means, doesn't it? Well, that being the case, the Tanners are right up your alley. Real scholars -- non-LDS, even ex-LDS -- have no respect for the Tanners' work. But hey, if you read it in a book at the SLC library, it must be "spot on," huh?

Considering the fact you do not do anything more than make a guess as to what it is I agree with that the Tanners say shows your inability or blantant disregard for anything said so that you may proceed for your opinions. If I wanted to believe lies I would believe that after people die they can still be saved, or that works get me to heaven, or that American Indians (lamenites) are the descendants of Jews, or that Joseph Smith said that all sects are wrong and going to hell and only mormons are right, or that John the Apostle and three Nephites have been left to roam the earth spreading the gospel and healing people. But like you I don't personally care for lies.

 

[Katzpur]

Considering the fact you do not do anything more than make a guess as to what it is I agree with that the Tanners say shows your inability or blantant disregard for anything said so that you may proceed for your opinions.

Suit yourself. As I said before, legitimate scholars do not recognize them. That's all I'm saying.

If I wanted to believe lies I would believe that after people die they can still be saved, or that works get me to heaven, or that American Indians (lamenites) are the descendants of Jews, or that Joseph Smith said that all sects are wrong and going to hell and only mormons are right, or that John the Apostle and three Nephites have been left to roam the earth spreading the gospel and healing people. But like you I don't personally care for lies.

See, in one short sentence you took five shots at LDS doctrine and only hit the target once. Your degree of accuracy varied in the other instances. Does that make you a liar or does it just make you wrong? Or do you even understand the distinction between being wrong and lying?

 

[Katzpur]

I read all of the books available at the SLC library and found that they were pretty much spot on and were able to find and publish alot of information that the LDS church fought to stop from being published.

I have one question for you, ljam, and you might as well know right up front that I am going to repeat it as many times as necessary until I get an answer:

What information did the Tanners find and publish that the LDS Church "fought to stop from being published"? I want specifics and I want sources. This is really going to be good. :yes:

 

[ljam49]

Suit yourself. As I said before, legitimate scholars do not recognize them. That's all I'm saying.

See, in one short sentence you took five shots at LDS doctrine and only hit the target once. Your degree of accuracy varied in the other instances. Does that make you a liar or does it just make you wrong? Or do you even understand the distinction between being wrong and lying?

If I wanted to believe lies I would believe that after people die they can still be saved

Teaching of Joseph Smith, Church History:

All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the the Celestial kingdom of God.

that works get me to heaven

2 Nephi 25:23 "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (works)

American Indians (lamenites) are the descendants of Jews,

Teachings of Joseph Smith, Church History:

The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our wester tribes of Indians.
(This is further backed by the BoM's stance that it is a lineage of Jews)

Joseph Smith said that all sects are wrong and going to hell and only mormons are right

Teaching of Joseph Smith, Church History, Sundry question asked of Joseph:

Will everybody be damned but mormons? Joseph's reply; yes.

John the Apostle and three Nephites have been left to roam the earth spreading the gospel and healing people

3 Nephi 28 gives the full story on this.

Do you not know the history and scripture of your own affiliation?

 

[Katzpur]

It's late and I'm heading off to bed. I'll respond to your last post tomorrow. It looks like I'm going to have to spend a good deal of time correcting some of your misconceptions. You're full of them aren't you? On the other hand, maybe before I get a chance to get back to you, someone who keeps later hours than I do will want to take the time to answer tonight.

For now, though, let's get back to some unfinished business. I posted a question for you, ljam and you have not answered it. For the second time:

What information did the Tanners find and publish that the LDS Church "fought to stop from being published"? I want specifics and I want sources.

 

[McBell]

2 Nephi 25:23 "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (works)

Fail.

The verse flat out states that one is saved by grace...

 

[ljam49]

It's late and I'm heading off to bed. I'll respond to your last post tomorrow. It looks like I'm going to have to spend a good deal of time correcting some of your misconceptions. You're full of them aren't you? On the other hand, maybe before I get a chance to get back to you, someone who keeps later hours than I do will want to take the time to answer tonight.

For now, though, let's get back to some unfinished business. I posted a question for you, ljam and you have not answered it. For the second time:

What information did the Tanners find and publish that the LDS Church "fought to stop from being published"? I want specifics and I want sources.

I did not see a post asking that question. I will go back and look where it popped up. So since I just seen this for the first time, I don't have the books in my hands, I would not be able to answer that at this point. Save that question for a future post. I just had a major surgery and am at home healing and it may be some time before I go back to the library. I am restricted from driving under doctors orders until April. There will be no corrections for the last post. Everything was straight from LDS church history or the BoM. Only out would be the normal "those are not authorized writings" bit, or "thats not valid for us anymore" excuse. LDS history is alot more incriminating than supporting.

 

[tumbleweed41]

LDS history is alot more incriminating than supporting.

As is Christian history as a whole. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

 

[ljam49]

As is Christian history as a whole. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

Open another thread. This one is a discussion on mormonism.