Jeffery R. Holland and Executing Innocent People

[Guest]

In his recent General Conference talk LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland claimed that Joseph and Hyrum, faced with their imminent deaths, WOULD NOT have maintained their support for the Book of Mormon- had they been frauds- as it would have been risking blasphemy with the supreme being they were expecting to soon meet.

Clearly there is evidence that believers, deluded or otherwise, will go to their death for what they “believe” even if it is not true. This is a theory that Holland completely ignored. (see David Koresh, Jim Jones etc.)

But there are many problems with his exact argument (that the Smith’s as KNOWING FRAUDS would come clean)as well. Do we know they that they knew or thought they would die at Carthage? If they were frauds do we even know they really believed in a supreme being? How on earth does Holland presume to know what the Smith boys thought? (maybe only Fawn Brodie gets beat up over this)

But even putting that aside, I think Holland’s argument doesn’t hold up. I don’t really have a specific case to make my point but I am pretty confident that the following is true: of all of those put to death in the US that claim innocence to the very end….some are actually guilty (or the US is killing a whole lot of wrongly accused). Despite the fact these frauds are about to ‘meet their maker’ who knows the truth of their deeds, they still maintain the lie to their fellowmen— to the end. Why? Maybe they’re hoping for a eleventh-hour pardon. Perhaps despite knowing the truth they are too ashamed to admit it publicly. Some people are the kind to double down their bets when challenged rather than folding and some, because of pride or spite, may not want to give those bringing them down the satisfaction of an admission. Who knows?

Regardless of the reason I think it happens. At least some people— faced with their deaths— don’t stop being KNOWING FRAUDS and come clean on everything. Holland may say emphatically that Joseph and Hyrum “WOULD NOT” continue to lying about the Book of Mormon at Carthage but the truth is he has NO WAY of knowing.

Is it reasonable to think that a knowing frauds will always come clean when faced with death and eternal judgement?? Any other examples of those who do not/did not "come clean"?

[_Uncle Dale]

In his recent General Conference talk LDS Apostle
Jeffrey R. Holland claimed that Joseph and Hyrum, faced with their
imminent deaths, WOULD NOT have maintained their support for the
Book of Mormon- had they been frauds- as it would have been risking
blasphemy with the supreme being they were expecting to soon meet.
...

How was their experience at Carthage Jail any different from the various
dangerous situations they had found themselves in previously?

In the 1834 march of "Zion's Camp" to Missouri, Joseph saw several of
his paramilitary troops die in front of his eyes. They died because he
had commanded them to go off on an armed wild goose chase, in
which they never could have come out as the victors. Smith himself
was in some danger at that point. What would Elder Holland say about
that? -- Maybe that Joseph must have been a true prophet, and that
the Book of Mormon must have been true, or Joseph never would have put lives in
jeopardy, in sight of "the supreme being they were expecting to soon meet."

I don't buy it. Other impostors have risked their lives and immortal souls,
without backing down from their pretensions. History is full of various
pretenders-to-the-throne who died in battle (or risked their lives in battle)
for dishonest causes. The "prophet" James J. Strang died in an assassination
in which he had plenty of time to recant his pretensions, before eventually
passing away. Other examples of similar impostors might be cited.

Just what options were open to Joseph and Hyrum, while at Carthage Jail?

1. Admit the Book of Mormon was a fake, and be assassinated anyway?
2. Plead for mercy, while armed men were coming at them?
3. Promise to restore all that they had taken by imposition?

If the Book of Mormon were a fake ancient document, perhaps only Joseph
knew the facts in the case -- and if he would have created such a fake
scripture in the first place, he was probably not much of a God-fearer,
in 1830 or in 1844.

Elder Holland's assertion rest upon the notion that Smith believed and
followed his own religion -- at least to the point of fearing God's judgment.
I doubt very much that was actually the case. Elder Holland is wrong, again.

UD

[_MCB]

The attack at the Carthage jail wasn't about the Book of Mormon.

It was about the destruction of a printing press, the "consecration" (theft) of the property of locals to finance Mormon efforts, the threat of Mormons in politics, Mormon men intimidating women (some married) into concubinge, calumny against those who refused, murder of those who tried to leave or talked about what was going on, etc.

Sorry, Carthage is just a sleepy little town and county seat to me. I don't know what the fuss is about.

If Joseph Smith and family and friends would have admitted the Book of Mormon to be a fraud, it wouldn't have made a penny's worth of difference.

[_harmony]

:confused: The attack at the Carthage jail wasn't about the Book of Mormon.

It was about the destruction of a printing press, the "consecration" (theft) of the property of locals to finance Mormon efforts, the threat of Mormons in politics, Mormon men intimidating women (some married) into concubinge, calumny against those who refused, murder of those who tried to leave or talked about what was going on, etc.

Sorry, Carthage is just a sleepy little town and county seat to me. I don't know what the fuss is about.

If Joseph Smith and family and friends would have admitted the Book of Mormon to be a fraud, it wouldn't have made a penny's worth of difference.

Whose property was taken? Was non-LDS property taken?

[_MCB]

Whose property was taken? Was non-LDS property taken?

Non-LDS property, livestock was stolen so that LDS members could pay their tithes. Isaac Galland sold forged quit-claim deeds to the Mormons. Most of these deeds were to the "Half-Breed Tract", a Sac Fox reservation across the river.

However, LDS were also required to sign over much of their property to the LDS church. If they left, they lost any use of this property.

So theft was frequent, and only the Mormon leadership was immune.

[_harmony]

Whose property was taken? Was non-LDS property taken?

Non-LDS property, livestock was stolen so that LDS members could pay their tithes. Isaac Galland sold forged quit-claim deeds to the Mormons. Most of these deeds were to the "Half-Breed Tract", a Sac Fox reservation across the river.

However, LDS were also required to sign over much of their property to the LDS church. If they left, they lost any use of this property.

So theft was frequent, and only the Mormon leadership was immune.

You have documentation for this, right?

[_MCB]

Sure, this is all stuff I have read. The theft of livestock issue is the primary one that people bring up back home, just through family stories. Certainly not enought to justify murder.

I won't quote the others, but most of the information is available at UD's websites. I really don't have the time right now to find the exact places.

Joseph Smith certainly wasn't guilty for everything that happened. I believe that he was only a figurehead. There were others who deserved what he got much more than he did. IMHO

[_harmony]

Sure, this is all stuff I have read. The theft of livestock issue is the primary one that people bring up back home, just through family stories. Certainly not enought to justify murder.

Back home?

I won't quote the others, but most of the information is available at UD's websites. I really don't have the time right now to find the exact places.

Dale? Can you help out here?

Joseph Smith certainly wasn't guilty for everything that happened. I believe that he was only a figurehead. There were others who deserved what he got much more than he did. IMHO

Joseph was guilty of enough. I just wish he'd have lived. I think things would be quite different now, if he'd have lived. What we have today is Brigham's vision, not Joseph's.

[_Dr. Shades]

Joseph was guilty of enough. I just wish he'd have lived. I think things would be quite different now, if he'd have lived. What we have today is Brigham's vision, not Joseph's.

If Joseph had lived, we most likely wouldn't have any Mormonism at all.

[_MCB]

Back home?

........
I was raised in Hancock County Illinois. My father's mother's father's family has lived there continuously since 1837, and maybe before.

Joseph was guilty of enough. I just wish he'd have lived. I think things would be quite different now, if he'd have lived. What we have today is Brigham's vision, not Joseph's.

Exactly

Yes, with Joseph Smith as figurehead, if they had taken the time to unravel who was really responsible, it would have unraveled quickly enough, especially if Rigdon had been given the opportunity to speak from the witness stand.