Mormon Temple ceremony.

[sirkickyass]

True, but the press had been declared a "public nuisance" by the town council, and ordered to be destroyed. Keep in mind this was less than 60 years after the constitution was established, so what freedom of the press means was much less established than it is today. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor
"Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal. At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and local governments from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931."

This is, of course, the same rationale used by Governor Boggs to justify the Mormon Extermination Order. After all, if the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states then what's freedom of religion?

Needless to say, I'm unimpressed with using this as a justification unless Mormon's are willing to accept that Governor Boggs was justified as well. Of course, the Mormons of the time sent Porter Rockwell to kill Governor Boggs, which brings us back to Joseph's relationship with violence again. Full circle.

As far as I know, the press was mixing truth with fiction when it came to describing his relationships, and was almost certainly libeling Smith.

I don't know what your personal position is on Joseph Smith and polygamy, but I'm sure you'd have to agree that the evidence is mixed. In any event, I disagree that ordering the destruction of the printing press was justified.

No, I don't think so. According to the Taylor account you just linked to, he fired out the window after Hyrum Smith had been killed.



He was certainly *at* the window. But since there were apparently a whole bunch of mob members outside below the window, I don't think you could say there was any possibility of escape that way. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, there's speculation that he was trying to signal some Masons in the crowd, to ask them for help. And I've heard plausible speculation that he was there to intentionally draw the fire away from the two men in the room who were still alive (if so, it worked since the two men both survived).

I think we can all agree that there was a mob and a gunfight. I'm not certain it matters who fired first to anyone's point of view.

Where are your poll results to back up that "most LDS church members" aren't aware of some of these things in Church history.

Obviously anecdotal. I went through the church history year at Seminary and found the experience to be markedly uninformative (so much so that I stopped going to seminary the next year).

Then again, this was the same seminary program that informed me very seriously that the world was going to end sometime between 2000 and 2007, so I pretty much regard everything they said as false.

By the way it sounds like you have a somewhat distorted view of things, and may have some serious gaps in understanding the history of things.

That's ok, I feel the same way about most LDS apologetics. As colton and other long time members know, I'm not anti-Mormon.

Plenty of people I know understand the history of Oliver Cowdery. His relationship with the Church was not "wiped away" as you put it. He chose to no longer support the Prophet at the time and separated himself,

Gonna stop you here. Dude did not "separate himself." Dude was excommunicated.

and competed for leadership

This is something of a disputed issue. Prior to 1830, Joseph Smith allowed Cowdery and Hiram Page to participate in the process of revelation. You see fingerprints of this all over early portions of the D&C and culminated in D&C 28, where Joseph takes sole control over revelation. There is some evidence (although documentation on the early church is not easy to come by) that events prior to 1830 were used to justify later excommunication.

and disagreed with the Prophet on some issues along with some friends and family. The Church at the same time excommunicated him for his actions and choices. You cannot hold leadership in the Church if you are not a member.

Those issues being Joseph's willingness to blend church/state and at least one alleged Joseph Smith affair. In all honesty, it appears that he and Joseph and a personal falling out and he was excommunicated for it. In fact, that was a pattern and practice of the early church. Certainly the way the church talks about it is reflected in this general conference talk from 2001: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2001/10/some-great-thing?lang=eng.

There, Pres. Faust writes "But when the Prophet Joseph fell upon hard times, Oliver was critical of him and became estranged from him. Despite the efforts of the Prophet to reach out the hand of fellowship to him, he became hostile to the Prophet and the Church and was excommunicated 12 April 1838."

I believe that is a dishonestly incomplete account of what happened.

As to the next Prophet of the Church after Joseph, it was arranged and set up before Joseph died.

If you can produce any evidence that this is the case you will have made a LOT of money. These are exactly the kinds of documents that Mark Hofmann liked to forge because they don't exist.

The people that didn't like that chose to make some efforts to grab power,

Brigham Young being one of those people that chose to make efforts to grab power.

but it was not in accordance to how the Lord instructed Joseph to set things up. The Twelve Apostles were set up, and a seniority given. They were given all of the keys necessary to lead the church. The President and most senior of those Apostles was Brigham Young. They needed a certain number of apostles present to (not sure of the wording here) ordain? him the Prophet, but the Apostles were spread all over the world at the time. Before Brigham and the others could get back Sidney decided to call himself the "Guardian" of the Church and said there should not be a next Prophet but that he should be the guardian or protector and that is because he was the most senior of the First Presidency. There were many other claims for leadership of the church including a Stake President, and Joseph's son, Joseph III. It is obvious that many people either did not understand how the Church Leadership should move on in the future, or actively wanted the perceived power associated with that leadership.

Please cite any evidence prior to 1844 that it was established that the President of the 12 should ascend to leadership of the church. I suspect you can't because it doesn't exist.

In fact there is ample evidence as early at 1835, contained in minutes of the leadership of the church, that the 12 were not supposed to be a high body with authority to regulate local stakes and wards at all.

If anything, this is where the church membership is woefully misinformed and the exact nature of the succession struggle is papered over. You've stated verbatim what followers believe, most of which just isn't true. There was no set succession plan when Joseph died. That's a fact. Young's eventual ascendance to leadership was long contested and involved a lot of parliamentary tactics. The issue was unsettled enough that Young didn't even claim the presidency until 1847.

 

[sirkickyass]

He was arrested for something related to "money digging" in 1826, but not convicted of anything.
https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Smith,_Joseph#Smith.2C_Joseph:_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith

He was convicted. Here's the record.

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.
Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always declined having anything to do with this business.
Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel’s house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel’s, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man’s head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner’s skill.
Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to look, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.
McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.
Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner’s professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.

- Joseph Smith’s 1826 court transcript; see Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 501

As you can see from the above Stowel did in fact testify and the charges were not dropped.

The most damaging parts, are obviously the use of the stones and the particular method of looking at the stone by putting them in a hat. Those parts seem a little too familiar.

Again, this is an issue sensitive enough to the church that it was the subject of one of the more well-known Hofmann forgeries, and something the church purchased to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.

 

[nightmare3983]

This is, of course, the same rationale used by Governor Boggs to justify the Mormon Extermination Order. After all, if the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states then what's freedom of religion?

Needless to say, I'm unimpressed with using this as a justification unless Mormon's are willing to accept that Governor Boggs was justified as well. Of course, the Mormons of the time sent Porter Rockwell to kill Governor Boggs, which brings us back to Joseph's relationship with violence again. Full circle.

Regardless of Rockewell's interesting "denial" if you could truly call it that, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Rockwell of the assassination attempt.

 

[sirkickyass]

Regardless of Rockewell's interesting "denial" if you could truly call it that, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Rockwell of the assassination attempt.

I agree he was not convicted.

Are you actually claming he didn't take the shot?

 

[Hartsock]

Is it an assasination if it is against someone who has set out to kill your kind? Or is it a type of self defense?

 

[colton]

Okay so he did fire it and hit people but he was retaliating form being fired at and after they killed Hyrum.

It's not clear if he did in fact hit anyone. But yes, he fired the gun, and he quite likely was aiming for people so there's not much distinction to be made.

I think the problem with Joseph Smith history (along with all history especially religous) is that non-LDS dont really except LDS history since they have an angle in telling their side of the story. On the other hand other historians at the time seemed to be anti-mormon and they also are telling the story the way they want people to see it. You dont really have many neutral accounts of what happened. People have a reason to tell their version of a story.

Yes, good point.

For what it's worth, the best biography I've ever read is Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman. Looks like you can pick up a used hard cover copy for $10. That's a steal.
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith...351618954&sr=8-1&keywords=rough+stone+rolling

Bushman is LDS, but he's also a very well respected serious historian and professor (emeritus, now) at Columbia University. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bushman. I can't recommend the book highly enough.

 

[nightmare3983]

I agree he was not convicted.

Are you actually claming he didn't take the shot?

I'm claiming you don't know any more than I do who tried to take Boggs out.

 

[mellow]

To Gameface:
I thought this was the bait:

I've hesitated asking this, but I'd really like to know.
What do LDS posters here think about the popular notion that Joseph Smith was a convicted con-man before forming the church? Is that true?

And this was the hook.

So the stories of him using seer stones and money digging on people's farms then getting caught and convicted for it before he had a single follower is made up to discredit him?

If that was not your intention, I’m sorry. I clearly misunderstood your intentions, and was therefore wrong to accuse you of trolling.

 

[colton]

This is, of course, the same rationale used by Governor Boggs to justify the Mormon Extermination Order. After all, if the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states then what's freedom of religion?

Needless to say, I'm unimpressed with using this as a justification unless Mormon's are willing to accept that Governor Boggs was justified as well.

That wasn't a justification--I don't think destroying the Expositor press *was* justified--but just an observation that you can't judge 1840's actions by today's law. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article mentions an analysis done by Dallin Oaks when he was at U Chicago, who concluded that the action was not justified, even by the 1840's law. But to me at least, that seems like dealing with the unjustified press destruction should have been a civil and not a criminal matter. Not a reason to imprison Smith, and (obviously) certainly not a reason to assassinate him.

Of course, the Mormons of the time sent Porter Rockwell to kill Governor Boggs, which brings us back to Joseph's relationship with violence again. Full circle.

Not true. At least, I've never seen any compelling evidence that Porter Rockwell had anything to do with the Boggs assassination attempt.

 

[The Thriller]

Of course, the Mormons of the time sent Porter Rockwell to kill Governor Boggs, which brings us back to Joseph's relationship with violence again. Full circle.

For someone who prides himself on evidence and specifics, this statement raised my eyebrows just a bit.

What are "The Mormons" in this case? If we were to play generalizations, this would be like saying, "The Germans" killed "The Jews."

Secondly, what evidence do you have to prove that anyone from the Mormon Hierarchy ordered the assassination of Gov Boggs? As a lawyer, wouldn't you take into account the other political enemies that Boggs had at the time? Doesn't that at the very least raise some doubt as to the certainty that Rockwell committed that act for which he was accused of (and never found guilty of)?

Please provide the evidence you have that Joseph Smith ordered Rockwell to assassinate the Governor.

 

[Stoked]

Is it an assasination if it is against someone who has set out to kill your kind? Or is it a type of self defense?

That is an interesting moral question that I can see being argued each way.

 

[Siro]

I would like to ask an off-topic question about the LDS church, and I don't want to start another thread and get accused of stirring **** up again.

I know someone who joined the church last year and found it not to be to her liking. She looked up information of how to officially leave, and she was told that she could send a letter asking for her name to be removed from their member's records. The source warns however that she could be excommunicated instead of simply removed. She's wondering about the differences between the two. Why would it matter whether she got excommunicated if all she wants is to leave the church?

 

[mellow]

He was convicted. Here's the record.



As you can see from the above Stowel did in fact testify and the charges were not dropped.

The most damaging parts, are obviously the use of the stones and the particular method of looking at the stone by putting them in a hat. Those parts seem a little too familiar.

Again, this is an issue sensitive enough to the church that it was the subject of one of the more well-known Hofmann forgeries, and something the church purchased to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.

I'm a bit confused, was he found guilty of being disorderly or an imposter or both? Which statute did the judge use to base his ruling on, there is no citation in the record provided. How much time did he serve or was he fined?

I'm not sure why the seer stone is damaging, the seer stone is known commonly by both historical documentation and popular lore.

 

[The Thriller]

In general, I think this shows some of the weaknesses in what we call "history."

History is written on past events by biased folks relying on incomplete data.

In 100 years folks will write and analyze about events transpiring today. None of it will ever be complete or 100 % accurate. There will always be questions left unanswered and room for controversy.

 

[Stoked]

I would like to ask an off-topic question about the LDS church, and I don't want to start another thread and get accused of stirring **** up again.

I know someone who joined the church last year and found it not to be to her liking. She looked up information of how to officially leave, and she was told that she could send a letter asking for her name to be removed from their member's records. The source warns however that she could be excommunicated instead of simply removed. She's wondering about the differences between the two. Why would it matter whether she got excommunicated if all she wants is to leave the church?

Not really. The only difference I can see is if she ever wanted to participate in the church again. Seing as how she is leaving the church I do not see that as a problem.

Basically it is quitting or getting fired lol. Either way the end result is the same.

 

[Siro]

Not really. The only difference I can see is if she ever wanted to participate in the church again. Seing as how she is leaving the church I do not see that as a problem.

Basically it is quitting or getting fired lol. Either way the end result is the same.

Ah okay. Thanks.

 

[colton]

He was convicted. Here's the record.

As you can see from the above Stowel did in fact testify and the charges were not dropped.

Interesting. Unless my memory is faulty, that's literally the first time I've seen something claiming to be an official court record that indicated Joseph Smith was convicted.

But... I seriously mistrust your source. A quick web search found these two reviews of the Abanes book by the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).
https://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=1&id=475
https://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=16&num=1&id=527

They are scathing, and indicate that Abanes played fast and loose with the truth throughout his book.

If you can find an official record of that transcript, as in one from an actual court, then I'll believe it. But I'm not going to accept it as fact quite yet.

...

For what it's worth, I did some additional searching just now, and found this website which has a lot more info: https://www.omninerd.com/articles/The_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith_Jr/print_friendly

Assuming the info on that site is accurate, the document that's treated as fact by Abanes is apparently under much dispute. It surfaced in 1873, claiming to have been torn from the docket book, and was published in London. So it's basically unverifiable.

edit: actually reading a bit more on that omninerd website, the document is not just unverifiable, but there seems to be good reason to seriously doubt the authenticity of the guilty pronouncement part of the document. From that website:

The inclusion of the guilty verdict at the end seems disjointed and has been argued by some to be "a later inclusion" or "an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes."76 77 Gordon A. Madsen points to the record’s consistent reference to Smith as "prisoner" except for the judgment where he is called "defendant,"78 while Paul Hedengren believes it is inappropriate for pretrial hearings to pronounce judgment.79 If, in fact, it was a pre-trial setting, the pronouncement of guilt would not indicate an indictment or verdict, but that a three Justice "Special Court of Sessions" would be held.

 

[colton]

I agree he [Rockwell] was not convicted.

Are you actually claming he didn't take the shot?

I claim that he didn't take the shot. Do you have any evidence otherwise? The grand jury that failed to indict him didn't.

 

[colton]

I would like to ask an off-topic question about the LDS church, and I don't want to start another thread and get accused of stirring **** up again.

I know someone who joined the church last year and found it not to be to her liking. She looked up information of how to officially leave, and she was told that she could send a letter asking for her name to be removed from their member's records. The source warns however that she could be excommunicated instead of simply removed. She's wondering about the differences between the two. Why would it matter whether she got excommunicated if all she wants is to leave the church?

The two are basically the same. At least, I can't think of any difference between them except for connotation in the terms. (Excommunication is usually the term used for someone that got "kicked out" rather than left voluntarily.) Either way, if she ever does want to rejoin the church, I think she'll have to jump through the exact same hoops.

 

[Gameface]

I agree he was not convicted.

Are you actually claming he didn't take the shot?

Well, Rockwell didn't shot at people, if he shot them they got shot, according to his own words.