A Mopologetic Tactic Backfires Yet Again at "SeN"

[Gadianton]

Billy Shears has scrubbed SeN's bowl so clean that the Church will pay him to return to the fold just to get him back on ward janitor rotation. Shears has shown that unless you grew up Mormon in Sandy Utah, you will never accept the author's reasoning about Ford. Seatimer gets so unhinged at one point that he declares he will always side with Smith. Sure, but then what is the point of the argument if it's only good for people who side with Smith no matter what? You didn't have to have the argument, you could have just said Joseph Smith is the best, case closed. Hardened skeptics are one thing, by why would any reasonable non-member without the ax to grind buy into it? The author near the end declares he has no interest in learning more about Ford, as if that's the best he can personally do to make sure people today don't know anything about Ford! lol.

Having spent some time on the thread and the comments, the overall weirdest part about the thread is the whole celebration of "the Martyr" -- the Church has purchased the jail and the Mopologists are going to dwell on Smith's last hours and the many injustices he endured. They shall look at pictures of the jail and visit it, and become angry over it. You know what this is, right? "looking to the tomb" or "worshiping the cross". Basically, they are guilty of the very thing they chastise Christianity for when they insist Christians are hyper focused on Jesus's death.

Strangely, this thread appears to validate Smithmas in an important way. Perhaps the Mopologists aren't moved by "the cross" because they don't really care that much if Jesus died. Sure, he was important, but he lived a long time ago, while the crimes against Joseph Smith are comparatively fresh. Perhaps if they consider the great pain they feel over Joseph Smith at Carthage they can understand better why Christians contemplate Golgotha. At any rate, I think this disparity in outrage over the demise of Joseph Smith vs. Jesus proves that Joseph Smith is a deity of sorts and these thoughts must circle in their minds during the last weeks of December.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Billy Shears has scrubbed SeN's bowl so clean that the Church will pay him to return to the fold just to get him back on ward janitor rotation. Shears has shown that unless you grew up Mormon in Sandy Utah, you will never accept the author's reasoning about Ford. Seatimer gets so unhinged at one point that he declares he will always side with Smith. Sure, but then what is the point of the argument if it's only good for people who side with Smith no matter what? You didn't have to have the argument, you could have just said Joseph Smith is the best, case closed. Hardened skeptics are one thing, by why would any reasonable non-member without the ax to grind buy into it? The author near the end declares he has no interest in learning more about Ford, as if that's the best he can personally do to make sure people today don't know anything about Ford! lol.

Having spent some time on the thread and the comments, the overall weirdest part about the thread is the whole celebration of "the Martyr" -- the Church has purchased the jail and the Mopologists are going to dwell on Smith's last hours and the many injustices he endured. They shall look at pictures of the jail and visit it, and become angry over it. You know what this is, right? "looking to the tomb" or "worshiping the cross". Basically, they are guilty of the very thing they chastise Christianity for when they insist Christians are hyper focused on Jesus's death.

Strangely, this thread appears to validate Smithmas in an important way. Perhaps the Mopologists aren't moved by "the cross" because they don't really care that much if Jesus died. Sure, he was important, but he lived a long time ago, while the crimes against Joseph Smith are comparatively fresh. Perhaps if they consider the great pain they feel over Joseph Smith at Carthage they can understand better why Christians contemplate Golgotha. At any rate, I think this disparity in outrage over the demise of Joseph Smith vs. Jesus proves that Joseph Smith is a deity of sorts and these thoughts must circle in their minds during the last weeks of December.

What an epic butt kicking by Bill Shears. I wouldn't be surprised if this makes Dr. Scratch's Top 10 list.

Billy can sleep the sleep of the righteous tonight.

[MsJack]

At any rate, I think this disparity in outrage over the demise of Joseph Smith vs. Jesus proves that Joseph Smith is a deity of sorts and these thoughts must circle in their minds during the last weeks of December.

It's rather odd how they observe, to some extent, both the birth of Joseph Smith and his death.

In Catholicism, the deaths of saints are observed, but not their births.

In certain Protestant traditions, the purported date of the posting of the 95 theses on the door at the church at Wittenberg is observed (10-31-1517) as Reformation Day, and the closest Sunday to that is Reformation Sunday. But Martin Luther’s birth and death are not observed.

But with Joseph Smith, it's not any accomplishment of his that they observe, but both his birth and death. The only figure who gets that in the Christian tradition is Jesus Christ.

[Dr Exiled]

I just read through the entire comments section over at Sic et Non. What's irritating is that of course DCP was denigrating both Ford and Sharp in his post:

This is, putting it mildly, something that neither Governor Thomas Ford nor Thomas Sharp and his cronies expected. Once prominent in Illinois state politics, they are now remembered, to the extent that they are remembered at all, as unpleasant and dishonorable footnotes to the story of Joseph, Hyrum, and the Latter-day Saints.

Then he flatly denies it here:

BS: "You seem to be implying that Thomas Ford was an unpleasant and dishonorable man"

If I had wanted to say that, I would have said it. I don't think that Governor Ford acquitted himself especially well with regard to Joseph and the Saints, but I have no opinion of him (and no interest in him) in any other regard.

BS: "you declined to clarify your point when I politely asked."

I said it about as clearly as I'm capable of saying it --especially to someone who seems eager to misread what I said, which wasn't particularly abstruse.

And here:

DS: "Thanks Billy. I'm glad you raised this concern. Thomas Ford was indeed an honorable and just man who devoted much of his life to public service and helping others."

It's really quite amusing to watch DS trying to outpraise BS with regard to Thomas Ford, thus correcting something that I didn't say and in response to a point that I didn't make.

DCP:

Why not just defend your point? You obviously believe that Joseph Smith was next to Jesus and that Ford and Sharp were villains. Why not simply make the case instead of denying and gaslighting? I don't get it. Perhaps you can't help yourself?

Yet, you are quick to claim victimhood when questioned?

DS: "Mormons [sic{] are one of the most disliked groups in America. Informed or uniformed, Americans do not like Mormons [sic{]."

The delight with which you pass that irrelevancy on is almost palpable.

[drumdude]

I’d love DCP to explain how he is being misinterpreted. But he never does. He just asserts it and moves on.

[Doctor Scratch]

I don't understand why he can't admit that he did indeed intend to denigrate Ford and Sharp. I mean, suppose we rephrase his words slightly:

"This is, putting it mildly, something that neither Daniel C. Peterson nor William Hamblin and his cronies expected. Once prominent in LDS apologetics circles, they are now remembered, to the extent that they are remembered at all, as unpleasant and dishonorable footnotes to the story of the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and LDS scholarship."

Would DCP find that "insulting"? Or would that be purely in his imagination?

[drumdude]

He seems to have a real penchant for denigrating dead people who can’t defend themselves. Hitches wasn’t doing it for him anymore, so he has branched out to more obscure targets.

[Doctor Steuss]

To the extent that they are remembered at all, it is as unpleasant and dishonorable footnotes to the story of Joseph, Hyrum, and the Latter-day Saints.

So, you’re saying that to the extent that they are remembered at all, it is as unpleasant and dishonorable footnotes to the story of Joseph, Hyrum, and the Latter-day Saints?

I never said that.

[Moksha]

The nature of apologetics requires that its practitioners eschew kindness and reconciliation and be pissy instead.

[Billy Shears]

The "Unconquered" conversation lead me to some ideas that I thought might be good subject material for Radio Free Mormon to discuss, and I came here to bring those ideas to his attention. The site gave me a notification that Dr. Scratch had quoted me, and I found this thread. Thank you, everyone, for the kind words.

The final chapter of the Unconquered thread is as follows. Two days ago, the commenter Bryce Larsen told me:

If you'd like a good historical overview of Nauvoo and the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, I'd highly recommend listening to the two Martyrdom podcasts [June 23 and 30 2021] by Gerrit Dirkmaat on "The Standard of Truth" iTunes podcast. It addresses the points you've made. Gerrit has a PhD in 19th century American history (somewhat better than a Wikipedia entry). I don't really know anything else about Thomas Ford's life (and I don't really care) but his actions surrounding the murders of Joseph and Hyrum are disgraceful.

Wanting to better understand what happened and challenge my own understanding of the events, I listened to both podcasts last night. I responded to Bryce this morning as follows:

Hi Bryce,

On your recommendation, I listened to both episodes on the martyrdom from June 23 and June 30 of 2021. Dr. Dirkmaat is a gifted storyteller and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing his perspective. I did learn a lot, including why U.S. President John Tyler was the most hated president, and some things that John Taylor had said later in life.

The most enlightening story was when Professor Dirkmaat was at a historical conference in Hawaii, and in-between sessions another professor asked Dr. Dirkmaat why Joseph Smith was so hated. Dirkmaat said things like, "well, there were lots of reasons. For example, they were a minority religion." The other professor said, "that doesn't explain the violence and hatred. What else?" Then Dirkmaat said, well, the Saints were Democrats. The other professor said, that doesn't explain it. Well, Nauvoo was a big, growing prosperous city and the people in smaller towns were jealous. But that doesn't explain it. It went on like that for 15 minutes until Dirkmaat said everything he could think of from the Nauvoo era, and then started talking about grievances in the Utah area and mentioned polygamy. That is when the other professor finally said oh, polygamy. That makes sense. The problem, of course, is that in Nauvoo, people believed Joseph Smith when he said he only had one wife. He wasn't hated there because of polygamy.

My takeaway is that either Professor Dirkmaat really doesn't know why there was so much animosity against Joseph Smith, or that he just isn't willing to say anything that isn't faith promoting. In either case, the episodes left me with the distinct feeling that in Dirkmaat's brain, he began with the whitewashed narrative in Gordon B. Hinckley's tract Truth Restored, and was either unwilling or unable to read, process, remember, or convey anything that challenged that perspective.

Perhaps he just doesn't want to say anything disturbing to his Mormon audience. It's a shame, because there is another side of the story and when people hear the rest of the story, they often feel lied to and betrayed.

If you'd like to hear the other side of the story, let me know. I could do a podcast of my own responding to Dirkmaat.

Bryce almost immediately responded, and Professor Peterson almost immediately liked, this:

There is always another side of story. I'll stick with the one that Joseph was a good man and a prophet of God. I don't share your evaluation of the "most enlightening story". Are you sure you really listened to all of it? And, I've read enough LDS history that I don't feel "lied to and betrayed". Feel free to do as many podcasts as you like.

To which I responded:

Bryce: I don't share your evaluation of the "most enlightening story". Are you sure you really listened to all of it?

It's at minute 39:00 of episode 1. Here is a rough transcript.

Dirkmatt: I was giving a paper on the expulsion of Latter-day Saints from the United States and the hatred directed towards them, and one of the scholars in the back during the Q&A raised his hand and said, “I don’t understand. Why are Latter-day Saints so hated? Why is the Federal government doin, you know?” I went through some of the things we’ve talked about [in the podcast]. I said look, there’s economic factors, there’s religious factors, and I started going down the line with a bunch of lists, and he’s still kinda shaking his head looking very skeptical at everything I’m saying. And then, you know, after they get to Utah, they begin to openly practice plural marriage, and as soon as I said the words “plural marriage” he said, “Oh! Yea! That makes sense! Yep! That’s why! It was because of plural marriage."

Cohost: It was like 15 minutes of reason, reason, reason...

Dirkmaat: He kept asking followup questions, and so I kept going and going and going. Here’s all the reasons. And of course I’m moving forward in time. But polygamy only becomes a really big factor in national anti-Mormon sentiment after they’re in Utah....
Of course Dirkmaat's point was to emphasize how big of a deal polygamy was. But it is telling that this skeptical scholar in the back didn't buy Dirmaat's explanations. That's because while Dirkmaat certainly understands whitewashed Mormon history and for all I know might even be the One Man who Knows His History, but he doesn't understand what the non-Mormons of the time were thinking.

To understand what the Saints of the time were thinking, read their accounts. Sure. But if you want to understand what the non-Mormons of the time were thinking, you have to read the non-Mormon accounts.

I agree with the skeptical scholar at the back on this one. Dirkmaat's explanations of why the non-Mormons were so fearful, angry, and hateful don't make sense. In contrast, Ford's explanation of their hatred and anger does make sense.

One of the issues they talk about in the podcast is why William Law became disillusioned with Joseph. He correctly points out that the straw that may have broke the camel's back involved politics, but to the point of dishonesty, he misrepresents the biggest issue. Joseph Smith was in a very tough legal bind, and Cyrus Walker, a crooked lawyer who was running for U.S. Congress as a whig told Joseph Smith he'd represent Smith if Joseph Smith delivered the Mormon vote to the whigs. Smith agreed and Walker successfully represented him. At that point, Smith and Walker were best friends, and all the whigs in the state stoped their anti-Mormon rhetoric. The saints were on their side! Everyone was getting along.

William Law pleaded with Smith to honor this agreement and deliver the Saints vote to Walker, as promised. But Joseph Smith said no, God had appeared to Hyrum in a revelation and told him the Saints should vote for Walker's democratic opponent. Joseph endorsed Hyrum's revelation and said God wanted them to vote Democrat. By a razor-thin margin, Walker lost. The Whigs were absolutely enraged.

You can believe Smith was a prophet and that God really did command Hyrum to tell the Mormons to double-cross Smith's attorney and vote for his opponent. Maybe that really was God's will. But this episode should help you understand why the whigs were so mad, and should help you understand why William Law as a faithful believer and wise leader of the Saints was so frustrated.

Dirkmaat must know this, but he refused to share this episode with the skeptic in the back because doing so makes Joseph look bad.

And that seems to have ended the conversation, which is what left me wanting to hear RFM's take on Dirkmaat's story.

For example, Dr. Dirkmaat gives a lot of legal interpretation in his historical analysis which I find unconvincing to the point of dishonesty. An example is when Jospeh Smith was giving a warrant to appear in court in Carthage to answer for destroying the Expositor. Using his standard practice, Joseph Smith declared Habeas Corpus and took the warrant to the Nauvoo courts, where they heard the charges and dismissed them. Joseph continually insisted that the Nauvoo City court was literally the highest court in the land and had authority to dismiss charges from any other city, county, state, or nation.

The way Dr. Dirkmaat tells the story is that destroying the paper and press was barely a crime if at all, and to the extent it was a crime it was a local thing that should have been tried in Nauvoo, which it where an impartial Nauvoo judge rightly dismissed the charges. But in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that "no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," the anti-Mormons in Carthage demanded that he be tried again and again and again of these same charges until they finally found a judge that would convict him.

Is Dirkmaat's version of the story honest? And is Joseph Smith's legal theory valid? If I commit a crime and get a quick hearing on it in front of a city judge and get the charges dismissed, does that mean the U.S. Constitution guarantees me immunity by county, state, or federal courts for the same crime?

I'd love for RFM to use his legal mind to critique Dr. Dirkmaat's narrative of these events.