The Many Vicious Lies About Joseph Smith...The $50 Challenge

[_Themis]

If the authors are saying something that isn't true even though they may think that it is, does that make it true? If it doesn't, isn't the net result a lie, an untruth, whether they know it or not?

It only makes it an untruth, not a lie if they believe it. The other problem is you cannot establish that Joseph was not a fallen prophet. You only have what you believe. You cannot even establish it as an untruth regardless of how anyone else wants to view it.

So in this regard when it is said that the church is intentionally misleading its primary children we might allow for a bit of leniency and give the curriculum writers the benefit of the doubt. You would assume that there are those on the writing committees that know of the objective truths of the Nauvoo Expositor and yet see, from their point of view and that of the church, that the BIG LIE...Joseph being a fallen prophet and/or being a wicked man...is the take away from that first and only issue. And they see that as the lie.

There is much more then that, and the lies Joseph and some others were upset about were not really about him being a fallen prophet. Even you should know this. I only suspect some in the church may know some of what they say is not true.

When I read through the Nauvoo Expositor years ago, I didn't see much, if anything at the time, that I saw as being nonfactual. So I think that if you design the question the way that you have and in accordance with the writer of the blog referred to, you're putting yourselves in safe territory. But if you open it up a bit to look at the BIG LIE then things change.

It's just a belief you have, not one you have established at all.

by the way, if I can get the fifty bucks I'll donate it to a worthy charity. Come on guys. It's a net win for everyone. Otherwise that fifty bucks is just sitting in someone's wallet

You have yet to even got into the ball park of establishing your weak attempt of Joseph being a false prophet. You cannot establish that William did not believe Joseph was a fallen prophet. He wasn't even an anti-Mormon. All you have done is focus on something that wasn't even the major parts of the expositor. You should pay us $50.

[_mentalgymnast]

All you have done is focus on something that wasn't even the major parts of the expositor.

I realize that. But I think that this added dimension/viewpoint which I have been harping/concentrating on is an important one to focus on. So you're right, that's pretty much "all [I] have done".

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

All you have done is focus on something that wasn't even the major parts of the expositor.

I realize that. But I think that this added dimension/viewpoint which I have been harping/concentrating on is an important one to focus on. So you're right, that's pretty much "all [I] have done".

Regards,
MG

And you have failed to establish anything other then your willingness to employ mental gymnastics.

[_mentalgymnast]

And you have failed to establish anything other then your willingness to employ mental gymnastics.

I wouldn't expect to establish anything except that there are other viewpoints besides your own. Whether for better or for worse is always in the eye of the beholder.

And yes, I am willing to employ mental gymnastics. That's how I keep rather flexible as I get older. I'd hate to atrophy or tighten up.

I highly recommend the practice.

Regards,
MG

[_mackay11]

I don't know what your .8% figure represents, DH, but the Church isn't primarily about giving material assistance to the poor, though it does in various ways. Members are encouraged to give separately for that.

Themis, feel free to give your own definition of anti-Mormon that you think better represents conventional usage. Does Steelhead have the profession or avocation of fighting against the Church or trying to draw people away from it? What he said doesn't show that.

MT's primary function isn't to promote truth, certainly not in any full or balanced way.

I didn't say anything about the Church's value being unique, but its value is tied to its religious claims and practices.

Instead they just plough $millions into a university that subsidises the education and cultural indoctrination of the Utah rich kids while asking their third world members to take out a loan with the church to get a basic education. Classy church.

[_Kent]

Bitter!

[_Fence Sitter]

So I think that we can agree that even though there are objective truths in the Nauvoo Expositor, it was the connection and/or accusation, even if stated as an opinion, that Law made in regards to Joseph's purported failed prophethood and/or being a wicked man that the church sees as a lie/untruth. So in this regard when it is said that the church is intentionally misleading its primary children we might allow for a bit of leniency and give the curriculum writers the benefit of the doubt. You would assume that there are those on the writing committees that know of the objective truths of the Nauvoo Expositor and yet see, from their point of view and that of the church, that the BIG LIE...Joseph being a fallen prophet and/or being a wicked man...is the take away from that first and only issue. And they see that as the lie.

So they say what they said.

When I read through the Nauvoo Expositor years ago, I didn't see much, if anything at the time, that I saw as being nonfactual. So I think that if you design the question the way that you have and in accordance with the writer of the blog referred to, you're putting yourselves in safe territory. But if you open it up a bit to look at the BIG LIE then things change.

There's probably a lesson to be learned in there somewhere...

Regards,
MG

Couldn't this very same response be used by a faithful RLDS today? And if it were would you then define at least some of the accusations against Jeffs as lies or maybe even as another "Big Lie"?

[_Themis]

I wouldn't expect to establish anything except that there are other viewpoints besides your own. Whether for better or for worse is always in the eye of the beholder.

I understand there are other view points. It still doesn't establish what I said above.

And yes, I am willing to employ mental gymnastics. That's how I keep rather flexible as I get older. I'd hate to atrophy or tighten up.

I highly recommend the practice.

No Thanks. It just leads to wacky beliefs.

[Guest]

When I read through the Nauvoo Expositor years ago, I didn't see much, if anything at the time, that I saw as being nonfactual. So I think that if you design the question the way that you have and in accordance with the writer of the blog referred to, you're putting yourselves in safe territory.

MG, i hope you haven't lost sight of the fact that it wasn't the OP or blog post that "designed the question" this way. they are only dealing with the matter as framed by the LDS Church in its own lesson materials. in addition to the already cited Primary Lesson Manual, the D&C Study Guide says, "In early June 1844, some former Church members and enemies of the work printed a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, that published lies about the Prophet and other Church leaders."

instead of torturing the definition of "lies", why not encourage the Church to change its wording to something defensible along the lines of inflammatory or nuisance?

[_palerobber]

i'm sure the $50 answer can be found in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30710

Regardless of the "opinion" rejections/pieces by Fence Sitter and Equality in this thread link, I stand by what I said at that time. Here are the relevant cut and pastes from that thread:

...I identified what would be considered to be a lie by believers. The Expositor strongly suggests that Joseph was a fallen prophet because of his unorthodox teachings.

-----------

What others may have believed or been convinced of in regards to the Expositor's "opinions" may have been relevant at that time, however. Never underestimate the power of an editorial stance taken in the newspaper. Opinion pieces have a lot of influence on people's beliefs and actions.

-----------

The net effect of the "opinions" expressed in the Expositor were the same as if the editors were stating cold, hard fact.

Opinion=lies.

...from the perspective of those individuals claiming the Nauvoo Expositor was printing lies, they're...looking at the innuendo and the pointing fingers of Law and others towards the prophet as being a fallen apostate/sexual deviant, as being the LIE.

------------

So again, when the church says that the Expositor printed lies in regards to Joseph Smith, I think that they are referring to the BIG LIE, from their point of view, that is, that the Expositor was exposing Joseph as a fallen prophet, when indeed he wasn't. Again, whether he was or wasn't, the church, it could be assumed, looked at the main thrust of the first issue of the Expositor being just that...the lie that Joseph was a fallen prophet and a wicked man.

So...is this good enough for fifty bucks?

Regards,
MG

besides that not qualifying as a lie, another problem with your theory is that there's nothing in the historical record to suggest that "fallen prophet" was a particular concern of the Nauvoo City Coucil when considering whether the Expositor was a nuisance.