Joseph Smith Megathread

[_AtticusFinch]

Can you please provide the news stories from California that called from killing Mormons? Were they anything like the call by BY to kill non Mormons?

Why would Mormons kill innocent emigrants?

Since the founding of their church in 1830, Mormons had been heavily persecuted and attacked. They had been chased from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois and then finally to Utah. In Missouri, at Haun's Mill, 18 Mormons had been massacred and 13 injured. The governor of Missouri had even issued an extermination order against the Mormons, forcing them to leave Missouri or be killed.

The church's founder, the prophet Joseph Smith, had been tarred and weathered, falsely accused and imprisoned several times, and ultimately killed alongside his brother.

In 1857 the federal government sent 1,500 United States troops to Utah to deal with what it thought was a rogue sect. Tensions were high in Utah in 1857.

Because of all the past persecution and fear of being attacked or imprisoned by federal troops, it's likely that local Mormons who participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre acted out of a deep fear and paranoia.

http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/

The newspapers in california were none to friendly to the polygamous Mormons in Utah.

Ah...and LDS site. Was hoping for something a tad more objective. But I forgot with whom I was dealing

[_Willy Law]

Strike out!

From a random sample, the average age-gap in years for marriages in the 1800s was 18.07.

Strike out!

Even the muslims agree:

the Quran, the Hadith, and Muslim scholar’s writings state that a Muslim husband can engage in sex with a child-bride before she has her first menses. Further, Muhammad actually did just this – he had intercourse with Aisha prior to her first menses!

God is great eh Simon?

A 49 year old man asks his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. His friend agrees. The man then visits his best friend’s house and speaks with the 6 year old daughter. Her parents watch as the he proposes marriage to the child. He is serious; he wants to marry the little girl and is asking for her consent. The little child says nothing; she only stares at him in silence.

The Islamic source materials state that Muhammad proposed marriage to Aisha when she was 6. He assumed her silence constituted her consent. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated his marriage with her. He was 52 and she was 9.

Joseph was aspiring to be Muhammad.
You know Islamic apologists are on the Muslim Discussions board right now saying "it was perfectly acceptable in those days."

[_why me]

Ah...and LDS site. Was hoping for something a tad more objective. But I forgot with whom I was dealing

I upgraded my post with another source. Yes, but then again you often use antimormon sites. Such is life but it doesn't change the facts on the ground at that time.

[_AtticusFinch]

but how about this explanation?

The massacre of the wagon train only had religious connotations if you consider the perpetrators loyalty to Brigham Young. The murders in this case were to cover up the robbery keeping the authorities in California from finding out who the true criminals (Mormons instead of Indians) were in this case. The abovementioned facts negate the incident as a religious act as far as I am concerned. The LDS Church has been covering up for Brigham Young since the day of the Massacre.
If you read Brigham Young's sermons during that time period you will find that he changed his religious beliefs to be attuned with his objectives at the time. He controlled his people with absolute terror and when they got out of line he had them dealt with appropriately. The wagon train was a very obviously, a wealthy one and he set up the political tone though his sermons creating the eventual demise of the wagon train. Brigham Young's only motive in wiping out the wagon train was just plain greed, and he wanted it to look like the Indians committed the atrocity.
Brigham Young maintained loyalty from his followers with blood atonement and polygamy. The ones that obeyed on special assignments were rewarded with a new young wife. The Apostates and failed Mormons were punished appropriately usually by the acceptable method of blood atonement, which involved the slitting of the victims throat.

Most of the bounty from the wagon train massacre was shipped to Brigham Young from the Cedar City Ward tithing room within 1month of the massacre. Within 6 months of the Massacre Brigham Young was seen driving one of the Fancher Parties fancy hand caved wagons around Salt Lake City.

In my opinion the massacre at mountain meadows was a Terrorist act motivated by their leader Brigham Young's greed and not a religious act at all. John D. Lee would have never murdered and robbed all the people in that wagon train without the complete prior approval of Brigham Young whether it be a religious act or not. The religious act was the Oath of Vengeance. (Recovery of the Victim's Bones)


http://1857massacre.com/

[_why me]

but how about this explanation?

The massacre of the wagon train only had religious connotations if you consider the perpetrators loyalty to Brigham Young. The murders in this case were to cover up the robbery keeping the authorities in California from finding out who the true criminals (Mormons instead of Indians) were in this case. The abovementioned facts negate the incident as a religious act as far as I am concerned. The LDS Church has been covering up for Brigham Young since the day of the Massacre.
If you read Brigham Young's sermons during that time period you will find that he changed his religious beliefs to be attuned with his objectives at the time. He controlled his people with absolute terror and when they got out of line he had them dealt with appropriately. The wagon train was a very obviously, a wealthy one and he set up the political tone though his sermons creating the eventual demise of the wagon train. Brigham Young's only motive in wiping out the wagon train was just plain greed, and he wanted it to look like the Indians committed the atrocity.
Brigham Young maintained loyalty from his followers with blood atonement and polygamy. The ones that obeyed on special assignments were rewarded with a new young wife. The Apostates and failed Mormons were punished appropriately usually by the acceptable method of blood atonement, which involved the slitting of the victims throat.

http://1857massacre.com/

There is no context in this source. And that is my point. When the context is known, the event takes on a different meaning and understanding. And as I know and you know, you will never recognize the context in your posts because it is not in your DNA to do so and it does not fit into your game plan.

[_AtticusFinch]

Ah...and LDS site. Was hoping for something a tad more objective. But I forgot with whom I was dealing

I upgraded my post with another source. Yes, but then again you often use antimormon sites. Such is life but it doesn't change the facts on the ground at that time.

Ah....with yet another pro-LDS site...again, not very objective.

And I do not post from anti-LDS sites. I post the truth, unwashed by LDS holy oil and unadorned with LDS Satanic panties

[_AtticusFinch]

but how about this explanation?

The massacre of the wagon train only had religious connotations if you consider the perpetrators loyalty to Brigham Young. The murders in this case were to cover up the robbery keeping the authorities in California from finding out who the true criminals (Mormons instead of Indians) were in this case. The abovementioned facts negate the incident as a religious act as far as I am concerned. The LDS Church has been covering up for Brigham Young since the day of the Massacre.
If you read Brigham Young's sermons during that time period you will find that he changed his religious beliefs to be attuned with his objectives at the time. He controlled his people with absolute terror and when they got out of line he had them dealt with appropriately. The wagon train was a very obviously, a wealthy one and he set up the political tone though his sermons creating the eventual demise of the wagon train. Brigham Young's only motive in wiping out the wagon train was just plain greed, and he wanted it to look like the Indians committed the atrocity.
Brigham Young maintained loyalty from his followers with blood atonement and polygamy. The ones that obeyed on special assignments were rewarded with a new young wife. The Apostates and failed Mormons were punished appropriately usually by the acceptable method of blood atonement, which involved the slitting of the victims throat.

http://1857massacre.com/

There is no context in this source. And that is my point. When the context is known, the event takes on a different meaning and understanding. And as I know and you know, you will never recognize the context in your posts because it is not in your DNA to do so and it does not fit into your game plan.

lol....then you did not read the website. Not surprising, it is truthful

[_why me]

Ah....with yet another pro-LDS site...again, not very objective.

And I do not post from anti-LDS sites. I post the truth, unwashed by LDS holy oil and unadorned with LDS Satanic panties

The historical context is the historical context. It is just the way it is. But critics never mention it. Much better to ignore it and strike away at the LDS church.

I don't wear any Satanic panties nor do I use Holy oil. However, I have used holy water in the catholic church. Does that count as Satanic too?

[_AtticusFinch]

Ah....with yet another pro-LDS site...again, not very objective.

And I do not post from anti-LDS sites. I post the truth, unwashed by LDS holy oil and unadorned with LDS Satanic panties

The historical context is the historical context. It is just the way it is. But critics never mention it. Much better to ignore it and strike away at the LDS church.

I don't wear any Satanic panties nor do I use Holy oil. However, I have used holy water in the catholic church. Does that count as Satanic too?

lol...nice try. If you had truly used holy water, your flesh would have burned.

[_Willy Law]

Simon, Do you believe section 132 to be the words of Jesus Christ as Joseph claims them to be?

Bump for Simon