Tal Bachman DECIMATES a popular apologetic

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Only Joseph Smith was named in the arrest warrant ....

Hyrum and others were also named in the original writ for riot. Both Joseph and Hyrum were named in the later writ for treason.

... yet these men fired into the building knowing that it was filled with innocent men.

Those in the jail not under arrest chose to be there, knowing how volatile the situation was. I admire their bravery.

Joseph Smith was incarcerated only for the charge of "treason," a non-bailable offense.

Actually, it was a "bailable" offense, but could only be fixed by a circuit judge (the closest was a day's ride away from Carthage). Given the serious charge of treason, however, bail would have been unlikely.

He had bailed out on other offenses all related to the Nauvoo Expositor.

Correct. A $500 bail for each was posted, but the writ of treason (for declaring martial law in Nauvoo) was issued before they could get out of town, and they were re-arrested.

I ask you, since RFM won't let me post, what act did Smith undertake which would have likely led to his conviction for treason?

The treason charge related to Joseph's declaring martial law in Nauvoo (and perhaps mobilizing the Nauvoo Legion, but I'm not sure this was part of the formal charge).

Or, do you seriously believe that Smith didn't need a trial, and that he was appropriately lynched.

I don't think anyone can be "appropriately lynched." What happened in Carthage was wrong, under any standard, in my opinion. I simply cannot fathom the hatred that must exist to turn ordinary law-abiding citizens into murderous savages (like the Carthage Greys, but the same could be applied to the Mormons who participated in the MMM).

by the way, the legal information above came from Dallin Oaks's and Marvin Hill's Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, pp. 15-19.

[_The Dude]

Tal addressed one of the apologists' favorite arguments: The anti-presentist argument. You know, the which goes "It's wrong to judge Joseph Smith by our modern 21st Century moral standards. We must judge Joseph Smith by his own 19th Century standards."

The problem with this apologetic stance, according to Tal, is twofold:

FIRST, this implies that society is becoming increasingly moral as time goes on. Or, in other words, we are all becoming more moral than we were before. HOWEVER, the prophets and apostles repeatedly and obsessively tell us that our society's morals are getting worse all the time, that this generation is more wicked than the one in the days of Noah, etc. So, which is it? Are the apologists right and modern society more moral than ever before, or are the prophets right and modern society is less moral than ever before? [Or is this another instance of Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism?]

SECOND, let's look at how Joseph was judged by his own 19th Century standards: They killed him! They couldn't even wait for a FAIR trial! According to 21st century standards, he was immoral and dishonest, but according to the morals of his own society, he was so bad that they outright killed him!

Kudos to Tal for putting it all into perspective.

FIRST- I think it is an instance of Internet Mormon vs. Chapel Mormon. The Chapel Mormons are the ones who really think morality has always been the same, and modern society is getting worse. They don't have to use the apologist's appeal to presentism fallacy, because they simply dismiss any claim that makes Joseph Smith look bad as an anti-Mormon lie. Most Internet Mormons have a more sophisticated grasp of the evidence (relatively speaking) and therefore use more sophisticated means to justify the actions of the founding prophet. There may be other problems with the presentism fallacy, but I don't thing this is quite right.

SECOND- Joseph Smith was killed by a mob acting outside the law. That immoral act was as worse, in my opinion, than anything Joseph Smith did, and cannot be used to exemplify the judgement of 19th century standards.

I enjoy Tal's style, but the RfM board is not sufficient to challenge him when his logic strays. I wish he would come over here and play with us for a change.

[_Yoda]

I enjoy Tal's style, but the RfM board is not sufficient to challenge him when his logic strays. I wish he would come over here and play with us for a change.

Does anyone have his email address? He would probably enjoy Shades' and Kevin's board.

[_Jason Bourne]

Before you call anyone a moron, it would behoove you to understand what the thread is about. This thread isn't about Joseph's sojourn in Liberty Jail. This thread is about the difficulty in comparing morals between 19th and 21st century American society. Try to figure out the topic before you make disparaging comments about the posters and the board in general.

Well I understand the subject and I noted that the argument maed in more of a broad context the Herr Bachman made it.

Shades was pointing out that Joseph was killed by the society at the time, a society that we are told was, by definition, better than our current society, since our current society is worse than the one that killed the Christ.

Where are we told this?

And incidently, Joseph was shot while trying to escape, not lynched.

Yes he was shot but not while trying to escape. Unless you call trying to jump out the window while men are storming the room your ae a prisoner in and shooting guns at you in trying to escape. Joseph was not trying to escape when the men stormed the room. Try not to distort things.


Jason

[_rcrocket]

It's not the unwritten rules that are the most helpful; it's the written ones. On this forum (Terrestial) we like to keep things civil, although we aren't perfect at that either. Sorry if you felt I was coming down too hard on you.

Where is the written rule which says I should not respond to a statement in the opening thread?

Don't go about apologizing to me. I am Null H.

[_gramps]

I think it would be great to get Tal over here. You can find his e-mail attached to any of his posts at RfM. Does someone want to invite him? Maybe Dr. Shades?

[_Mister Scratch]

Null! I thought that was you. It was the "you guys just talk about FAIR!" comment that clued me in. Welcome! I bet you never thought you'd see me say this, but I missed you, old friend.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am Null H.

Welcome, Bob -- long time, no hear.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And incidently, Joseph was shot while trying to escape, not lynched.

Huh? Joseph didn't "try to escape" until a mob invaded the jail and shot at him and killed his brother. And, technically, Joseph was "lynched" (usually refers to a hanging, but can be applied to any form of mob justice where there is no due process of law, such as in Carthage).

[_harmony]

And incidently, Joseph was shot while trying to escape, not lynched.

Huh? Joseph didn't "try to escape" until a mob invaded the jail and shot at him and killed his brother. And, technically, Joseph was "lynched" (usually refers to a hanging, but can be applied to any form of mob justice where there is no due process of law, such as in Carthage).

I thought Lynched = hanged illegally. If that's not so, just disregard what I said.