What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_sock puppet]

After the Mountain Meadows Massacre had taken place, to what extent would non-Mormons have been entitled to remember it and to act accordingly, I wonder?

If the US government had taken the decision (which I am glad they did not) to launch a punitive expedition against the LDS in the same way that they did against groups of Native Americans who had killed those encroaching on their land, I wonder whether whyme would have felt motivated to excuse the consequent massacres on the same 'remember the context' grounds that he habitually uses?

To understand MMM we need to look at context and what happened to the Mormons in their brief history up until MMM. And what do we see? A lot of persecution. I am sure that quite a few saints were shell shocked in Utah and they had a fear of foreigners. MMM was a crazed act but we still need to see the context of the event itself.

I'm all for context, but not window dressing something with excuses that have no nexus to the matter at hand.

[_Chap]

After the Mountain Meadows Massacre had taken place, to what extent would non-Mormons have been entitled to remember it and to act accordingly, I wonder?

If the US government had taken the decision (which I am glad they did not) to launch a punitive expedition against the LDS in the same way that they did against groups of Native Americans who had killed those encroaching on their land, I wonder whether whyme would have felt motivated to excuse the consequent massacres on the same 'remember the context' grounds that he habitually uses?

To understand MMM we need to look at context and what happened to the Mormons in their brief history up until MMM. And what do we see? A lot of persecution. I am sure that quite a few saints were shell shocked in Utah and they had a fear of foreigners. MMM was a crazed act but we still need to see the context of the event itself.

So if some gentiles whose relations had been massacred at Mountain Meadows had organized a similar revenge attack (which I am glad they did not do), you would be arguing here that we had to see the consequent massacre of (probably mostly) innocent LDS 'in context'?

Could you manage a straight yes or no here?

You see, I just want to know whether your 'contextual ethics' applies to everybody.

[_Kishkumen]

Now kish, I am a man of context. I see context in most things that happened to the Mormons. I even see context in polygamy. What you and the other critics need to see is context and intended and unintended consequences and actions. And you need to use your imagination more. It would help a great deal in your understanding of Mormon history and actions.

Yes, the magic of the word context is powerful. Simply mouth the words and your problems of evidence, logic, and arguments just fly away! If one but has the word context to make it sound like you are doing something rational, and then adds the free pass of imagining things to be any way you want them to be, then all is OK.

There is really not much left that will surprise me from you folks. You and Wade are two peas in a very vapid pod.

[_Darth J]

For some strange reason, the critics on this board just can not use their imagination and place themselves at that time at the scene. What happened to the Mormons in missouri had intended and unintended consequences for the saints and for the mobs. For the saints, they became suspicious of outsiders, esepcially those like Law who wished their leaders harm. And they saw the destruction of the expositor as a way to protect their freedom to worship freely and to protect their safety. .

And from their experiences in Missouri with their own presses and property destroyed saw the destruction of the Expositor as a justifiable act. Context is everything.

For some strange reason, you are using nothing but your imagination. You have abandoned all pretext of claiming that the Expositor printed any lies, and have now resolved that the way the Mormons were going to preserve their own rights was by violating the rights of others.

Despite your reliance on things you have imagined as a primary source, we know what the city council said. The minutes of the Nauvoo city council indicate that Joseph Smith and his underlings deemed the Expositor a nuisance and a menace specifically because it was supposedly printing lies.

Mayor suggested that the Council pass an ordinance to prevent misrep­resentations and libelous publications and conspiracies against the peace of the city........

Mayor said-"The conduct of such men and such papers are calcu­lated to destroy the peace of the city, and it is not safe that such things should exist, on account of the mob spirit which they tend to produce."

"Such papers" are libelous papers. Context is indeed everything, and the context is that the Expositor was telling the truth about what Joseph Smith was doing, and Joseph knew it, yet in his official capacity as mayor he was characterizing the Expositor as a danger because of "misrepresentations and libelous publications" that he knew to be the truth.

And so Why Me is still stuck in the loop that the result that Joseph Smith caused by destroying the Expositor proves that that result would have happened if he had not acted in a way to cause that result.

One time, I told bcspace that something he said meant so much less than nothing that it caused a rip in the space-time continuum. I would like to congratulate Why Me on surpassing bcspace in that accomplishment.

[_sock puppet]

After the Mountain Meadows Massacre had taken place, to what extent would non-Mormons have been entitled to remember it and to act accordingly, I wonder?

If the US government had taken the decision (which I am glad they did not) to launch a punitive expedition against the LDS in the same way that they did against groups of Native Americans who had killed those encroaching on their land, I wonder whether whyme would have felt motivated to excuse the consequent massacres on the same 'remember the context' grounds that he habitually uses?

To understand MMM we need to look at context and what happened to the Mormons in their brief history up until MMM. And what do we see? A lot of persecution. I am sure that quite a few saints were shell shocked in Utah and they had a fear of foreigners. MMM was a crazed act but we still need to see the context of the event itself.

So if some gentiles whose relations had been massacred at Mountain Meadows had organized a similar revenge attack (which I am glad they did not do), you would be arguing here that we had to see the consequent massacre of (probably mostly) innocent LDS 'in context'?

Could you manage a straight yes or no here?

You see, I just want to know whether your 'contextual ethics' applies to everybody.

Application to everyone is a consistency ethic. I'm not sure why me honors such an ethic.

[_stemelbow]

Yep, once again I ask since the church manuals and teaching materials keep printing that the paper was destroyed for cause and printed lies.

Still waiting for some of the myth believers to point out the lies.

What church materials are we concerned about here.

I remember years ago this topic was brought to me. I found it interesting since at that time I had never read the issue put out by the Expositor. When I did, I was surprised by the rather tiny bit of hostility expressed, albeit I seem to recall some. Other than that, I didn't see it as a big problem like Joseph Smith and company did. Then again, i certainly have not been in their shoes (I've been threatened to be beat up or killed only a few times for religious views in my life). But in the end, it also was explained by Joseph Smith that if he is wrong then he'll answer to his wrong choice.

The whole affair was all rather unfortunate. It might have been interesting to see how things turned out if there was no destruction of the press.

Anyway see ya. love ya. Take care. Oh and if any of this was stated or whatever in this thread, then rest assured I didn't have the desire to read the whoel thing.

[_sock puppet]

For some strange reason, the critics on this board just can not use their imagination and place themselves at that time at the scene. What happened to the Mormons in missouri had intended and unintended consequences for the saints and for the mobs. For the saints, they became suspicious of outsiders, esepcially those like Law who wished their leaders harm. And they saw the destruction of the expositor as a way to protect their freedom to worship freely and to protect their safety. .

And from their experiences in Missouri with their own presses and property destroyed saw the destruction of the Expositor as a justifiable act. Context is everything.

For some strange reason, you are using nothing but your imagination. You have abandoned all pretext of claiming that the Expositor printed any lies, and have now resolved that the way the Mormons were going to preserve their own rights was by violating the rights of others.

Despite your reliance on things you have imagined as a primary source, we know what the city council said. The minutes of the Nauvoo city council indicate that Joseph Smith and his underlings deemed the Expositor a nuisance and a menace specifically because it was supposedly printing lies.

Mayor suggested that the Council pass an ordinance to prevent misrep­resentations and libelous publications and conspiracies against the peace of the city........

Mayor said-"The conduct of such men and such papers are calcu­lated to destroy the peace of the city, and it is not safe that such things should exist, on account of the mob spirit which they tend to produce."

"Such papers" are libelous papers. Context is indeed everything, and the context is that the Expositor was telling the truth about what Joseph Smith was doing, and Joseph knew it, yet in his official capacity as mayor he was characterizing the Expositor as a danger because of "misrepresentations and libelous publications" that he knew to be the truth.

And so Why Me is still stuck in the loop that the result that Joseph Smith caused by destroying the Expositor proves that that result would have happened if he had not acted in a way to cause that result.

One time, I told bcspace that something he said meant so much less than nothing that it caused a rip in the space-time continuum. I would like to congratulate Why Me on surpassing bcspace in that accomplishment.

And the best part, why me, is that since JSJr knew that the polygamy and the Council of Fifty allegations in the Nauvoo Expositor were true, JSJr was a bald faced liar in telling the Nauvoo City Council that the Expositor had printed libelous lies, to incite the City Council to back his malignant, oppressive designs towards William Law and his partners. JSJr no doubt disliked the opinions and the tone of the Nauvoo Expositor, but in his official capacity as mayor to lie to the city council to incite them to a riotous ordinance--well, we know certainly where the disorderly malcontent heart was--in JSJr, 'man of god'.

[_Chap]

After the Mountain Meadows Massacre had taken place, to what extent would non-Mormons have been entitled to remember it and to act accordingly, I wonder?

If the US government had taken the decision (which I am glad they did not) to launch a punitive expedition against the LDS in the same way that they did against groups of Native Americans who had killed those encroaching on their land, I wonder whether whyme would have felt motivated to excuse the consequent massacres on the same 'remember the context' grounds that he habitually uses?

To understand MMM we need to look at context and what happened to the Mormons in their brief history up until MMM. And what do we see? A lot of persecution. I am sure that quite a few saints were shell shocked in Utah and they had a fear of foreigners. MMM was a crazed act but we still need to see the context of the event itself.

So if some gentiles whose relations had been massacred at Mountain Meadows had organized a similar revenge attack (which I am glad they did not do), you would be arguing here that we had to see the consequent massacre of (probably mostly) innocent LDS 'in context'?

Could you manage a straight yes or no here?

You see, I just want to know whether your 'contextual ethics' applies to everybody.

Application to everyone is a consistency ethic. I'm not sure why me honors such an ethic.

I am not really interested in knowing whether a particular technical term applies to whyme or not.

For me, it's simpler.

Whyme has asked us to apply a particular way of thinking to certain LDS, in the hope that we may think less badly of some things they did.

If he isn't prepared to apply that kind of approach to the apparently bad behaviour of non-LDS, then it is pretty clear that his real reason for wanting us to think less badly of the LDS in question is simply because they were LDS, not because it is possible to make their apparent badness go away so long as we think about it right.

For most people, that would pretty well do away with any claim he could make to be arguing from a moral position rather than just rooting for the LDS side.

[_Jason Bourne]

So if some gentiles whose relations had been massacred at Mountain Meadows had organized a similar revenge attack (which I am glad they did not do), you would be arguing here that we had to see the consequent massacre of (probably mostly) innocent LDS 'in context'?

Could you manage a straight yes or no here?

You see, I just want to know whether your 'contextual ethics' applies to everybody.

I really think my head is about to explode. After reading all the mental gyrations Why Me goes through ( and that while flip flopping, contradicting himself, bringing in issues that have no bearing on the topic at hand) he now comes up with this dandy.

I can't take it. I just cannot take it.

Light cotton anyone?

[_why me]

So if some gentiles whose relations had been massacred at Mountain Meadows had organized a similar revenge attack (which I am glad they did not do), you would be arguing here that we had to see the consequent massacre of (probably mostly) innocent LDS 'in context'?

Could you manage a straight yes or no here?

You see, I just want to know whether your 'contextual ethics' applies to everybody.

I really think my head is about to explode. After reading all the mental gyrations Why Me goes through ( and that while flip flopping, contradicting himself, bringing in issues that have no bearing on the topic at hand) he now comes up with this dandy.

I can't take it. I just cannot take it.

Light cotton anyone?

I don't want to be a party poop here, but I did not make the above comment. Chap did.