Omissions and lies in The Restoration movie

[_sock puppet]

Hateful ignorant bigots as usual. Straining at a nat while swallowing the camel.

Hey, the Nats may be on a losing streak, but I won't have anyone besmirching their good name.

Ah, gee--or is that, ah, g?

[_sock puppet]

That's fine, I don't subscribe to their definition, although it's not far from mine. My definition of a lie is more of an affirmative statement of deceit, that's all. Is it possible to tell the *whole* truth when telling a story? Not really. If the story doesn't include what the weather was like that day, is it a lie? No. But that is part of the truth of that day, wasn't it? Omitting the fact that he was armed is a lot different though, and it's clear there's an agenda behind the omission. Just as there is with omitting the fact they drank wine the night before. But I don't go so far as to say the omission in and of itself is a lie.

That's cool.

I think for many on this board, the fact that the LDS Church doesn't even meet it's own proclaimed standard of honesty is the real issue...

Oh, like Jesus, you are bothered by hypocrisy.

[_Darth J]

Let's ask William J. McCorkle.

Fraudulantly trying to mislead to get gain is not the same thing as simply telling a story from ones past that may not include ALL details, a FULL HISTORY....

That sure would mean something if this wasn't a proselytizing vehicle intended to recruit and maintain people who pay tithes and give other financial contributions to the LDS Church.

If I talk about my Football career, but I don't tell every other aspect of my entire life including every little thing that might have occured during the periods I played football, but have no relevance to the football story, YOu really think I would be "lying"????

That depends on whether you omit details that change what actually happened. Like making yourself the star of the team instead of a second string player, for example. Maybe inviting a discussion about fraudulent sports stories isn't the best way to go when you're trying to defend the LDS Church, though.

Hateful ignorant bigots as usual. Straining at a nat while swallowing the camel.
People who find "offense" or "evil" where there is no offense or evil done or intended.
You are pond scum of the earth, and exactly the kind of people Wars are fought because of.

Say, does this movie explain why Joseph Smith was arrested, or even that he was arrested? Does it mention that he illegally suppressed the Expositor to cover up his illegal polygamy, or that truth was a defense to accusations of libel under the Illinois constitution? Or does it just portray him as an innocent, willing martyr for his religion?

Irony given that you are Atheists.
Guess most wars aren't cause by religions after all..... but instead caused by hateful bigoted and ignorant people like you.

How do you know everyone in this thread is an atheist? And who is going to prosecute this war over disputing your cherished beliefs?

[_canpakes]

It's a feel good spiritual based movie..... It's not designed to tell ALL FACTS...

I see. Kinda like when you buy a box of Twinkies, flip it over to read the ingredients, and see only the following listed: "Flour, stuff, and some tasty, feel-good things!".

Feeding one's spirit should be no different, apparently.

[_ldsfaqs]

Say, does this movie explain why Joseph Smith was arrested, or even that he was arrested? Does it mention that he illegally suppressed the Expositor to cover up his illegal polygamy, or that truth was a defense to accusations of libel under the Illinois constitution? Or does it just portray him as an innocent, willing martyr for his religion?

For an excommunicated "lawyer".... You sure don't know much about the law or the history of that event and other similar things of history.

1. It was the City Council who order the destruction of the press, not Joseph. Thus it WAS legal.

2. It was and IS a common practice for city's to enact laws and restrict activities that can cause violence and disturb the public peace.
This is why the Press was ordered to be destroyed.

3. The fact that Joseph and others were then killed, the Temple burned, and all other related events is in fact PROOF of the Nauvoo's City Council concerns were valid. Problem was, bigotry and hate, like the kind you have was already too powerful. Your ideological and moral buddies would have simply found another excuse to try and destroy the Church and murder, even if the press hadn't been destroyed.

4. Joseph didn't practice Polygamy..... He practiced the "Sealing Ordinance".... Learn the difference of what the actual history says, not your histerical fantasy ramblings.

[_RockSlider]

popcorn, where's the popcorn and maybe a soda?

[_Darth J]

Say, does this movie explain why Joseph Smith was arrested, or even that he was arrested? Does it mention that he illegally suppressed the Expositor to cover up his illegal polygamy, or that truth was a defense to accusations of libel under the Illinois constitution? Or does it just portray him as an innocent, willing martyr for his religion?

For an excommunicated "lawyer"....

Pretty sure I am still a member of the LDS Church.

You sure don't know much about the law or the history of that event and other similar things of history.

1. It was the City Council who order the destruction of the press, not Joseph. Thus it WAS legal.

I'm sorry, ldsfaqs, but the City Council ordering the destruction of the press does not make that act legal. It is the conformity of an act with established substantive and procedural law that makes it legal.

The City Council ordered the destruction of the Expositor press, and the suppression of the paper itself, at the behest of Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith did in fact issue the order.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... order.html

To the Marshal of said City [Nauvoo], greeting.

You are hereby commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pi the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment; and if resistance be offered to your execution of this order by the owner or others, demolish the house: and if anyone threatens you or the Mayor or the officers of the city, arrest those who threaten you, and fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return thereon.
By order of the City Council,
JOSEPH SMITH, MAYOR

2. It was and IS a common practice for city's to enact laws and restrict activities that can cause violence and disturb the public peace.
This is why the Press was ordered to be destroyed.

No, it's utterly incorrect to assert that in the United States, it was common after the repeal of the Alien and Sedition acts to restrict freedom of the press that way. Particularly because as freedom of the press developed after the Bill of Rights was ratified, and was well established by 1844, both states and the federal government had rejected Blackstone's view that freedom of the press meant only a ban on prior restraint. The common view in American law by the time of Joseph Smith's thuggery was that truth was a defense to libel. The Illinois state constitution, ratified some 26 years before the Expositor incident, gave people in Illinois a substantive right to present truth as an affirmative defense to accusations of libel:

Illinois Constitution of 1818

Art. VIII

22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases.

That means that the publishers of the Expositor had a state constitutional right to a trial allowing them to present evidence of the truth of what they printed. Joseph Smith, as a government official, illegally deprived them of this right. It is not possible that Joseph Smith was not aware of these provisions of the Illinois state constitution, since he specifically referred to Article VIII in the city council proceedings regarding the Expositor.

Minutes of Nauvoo City council meeting, 5/10/1844

Mayor read from Illinois Constitution, article 8, section 22, touching the responsibility of the press for its constitutional liberty.

3. The fact that Joseph and others were then killed, the Temple burned, and all other related events is in fact PROOF of the Nauvoo's City Council concerns were valid. Problem was, bigotry and hate, like the kind you have was already too powerful. Your ideological and moral buddies would have simply found another excuse to try and destroy the Church and murder, even if the press hadn't been destroyed.

No, the retaliation against Joseph Smith and Mormons was a direct result of Joseph Smith violating freedom of the press, which was a very sensitive subject in Illinois after a mob murdered Elijah Lovejoy for printing abolitionist tracts. When the Warsaw Signal called for "powder and ball" against Joseph Smith, it was explicitly over the illegal suppression of the Expositor, not for any religious tenets. That doesn't make it right, but it does indicate that it was this, not religious persecution, that led to Joseph Smith's murder.

By the way, ldsfaqs, I am now two for two in the past year for telling people I know that they should attend the LDS Church if it makes them happy. That's the kind of vile bigotry I espouse. Just so I understand, when someone second guesses your religious beliefs, but doesn't do anything to you personally, that's vile bigotry, right?

4. Joseph didn't practice Polygamy..... He practiced the "Sealing Ordinance".... Learn the difference of what the actual history says, not your histerical fantasy ramblings.

Oh, well, then your church must have been lying in the Temple Lot lawsuit, when it offered the testimony of Joseph Smith's former plural wives in order to prove that they were actually married so they would have inheritance rights.

And your church must also have been lying when it put together an affidavit book of Joseph Smith's former plural wives to prove they were actually married, to rebut RLDS claims that these marriages were just symbolic (like you're doing now). Or maybe it's that whether or not the faithful position is that these were purported to be real, sexual marriages depends on what is convenient to assert at any given time.

[_suniluni2]

That's fine, I don't subscribe to their definition, although it's not far from mine. My definition of a lie is more of an affirmative statement of deceit, that's all. Is it possible to tell the *whole* truth when telling a story? Not really. If the story doesn't include what the weather was like that day, is it a lie? No. But that is part of the truth of that day, wasn't it? Omitting the fact that he was armed is a lot different though, and it's clear there's an agenda behind the omission. Just as there is with omitting the fact they drank wine the night before. But I don't go so far as to say the omission in and of itself is a lie.

That's cool.

I think for many on this board, the fact that the LDS Church doesn't even meet it's own proclaimed standard of honesty is the real issue...

I would agree; I was just answering the op.

[_mackay11]

How about the depiction of the translation process? That's not an omission, that's simply innacurate. Plates in the room, no head in hat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... inI#t=1125

[_Jesse Pinkman]

For an excommunicated "lawyer"....

That's quite an accusation there, Sparky. Where has Darth EVER stated that he was excommunicated from the Church?

He has stated that he no longer goes to Church anymore and disagrees with the doctrine. That is a FAR CRY from being excommunicated.