Misconceptions about the Mormon Church (U.K.)

[_Drifting]

Joseph most certainly "willingly" died for his beliefs rather than renouncing them.

How does firing a gun at the people who were going to kill you for your beliefs constitute "willingly"?
It seems (rightly so) that Joseph was doing all he could to prevent his own death.

Was Joseph "willingly" accepting of legal judgement on his beliefs on polygamy when he was on trial for adultery and stated that he only had one wife?

I know you want to see him as a martyr, that's fine. He just wasn't though.

[_Sethbag]

Joseph Smith shooting his pistol at his assailants does not make him not a martyr. The word 'martyrdom' does not require that one just lay down and take death. Witness all the islamic "martyrs" who die in combat against the infidels.

I do protest at Joseph Smith being considered a martyr, however. I don't believe that he was killed because he wouldn't renounce his beliefs or whatever. He was killed because of his screwing around with lots of women, political shenanigans, destroying the press, etc. He was killed because of things he did, not because of things he believed.

by the way, the video from the UK was pretty lame. It seems to have been made by people with a wholly weak understanding of what the issues really are. They are believers who are responding to perceived persecution, but they don't really know what the problems are that they are responding to. It's what I might expect if my mom or my sister made a video in defense of the church.

[_hobo1512]

Maybe in your so called research, you missed this definition
1.
a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. Shooting back does not make a person "willing" now does it?

Your research is the "so-called" research. Oh boy, you got me there, now didn't you, how will I survive.

Joseph most certainly "willingly" died for his beliefs rather than renouncing them. Thus you pervert.
Second, you quote only "one" aspect of the definition of a Martyr. Thus, you again pervert. Shooting back, and running away is not "Willingly". Talk to the real martyr's like those that were fed to the lions, and see who "WILLINGLY" accepted their fate you nitwit.

2. The TWO men hit by Joseph's gun while defending himself & those with him were in fact VERY MUCH ALIVE when they stood trial & had witnesses testify against them, papers even reporting they were alive.
Maybe you should read your own church history, where Elder Reed Blake states that one of the men did in fact die from the wounds inflicted by Smith.

You quoting anti-mormons who have quote-mined some statement from an LDS book doesn't mean YOU actually read LDS history.

Further, I need you to quote from me that statement, because I'm not even finding ANY anti-mormons making this claim. They all claim two were killed, and all the legit scholarship demonstrates that all three men got new suits from fellow anti's, and they fled the county.

It's possible one did eventually die from complications due to his wounds. But, he clearly lived well for sometime after the event. Plus, who cares? Joseph shot people in self defense. Or don't you believe in self defense? Mormons do you know... So, if you shoot someone today, and they die months later, you don't think you committed murder? It is still murder. It doesn't matter how long it takes someone to die from the injury. You need to be committed yourself. Also, are you calling and LDS Elder anti-mormon, and a liar? I thought you were trying to defend the morg?

Anyway, quote this book for me..... Not a single website pro or con makes your claim. You realize not EVERYTHING is on the net right, but here you go. "Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn't heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm."
- Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129

3. Someone of "ethnic" background can certainly testify if they have seen racism in the Church. Further, there are plenty of blacks within the Church that will testify the same. There are videos on the net, and I've met plenty in person.

If there are so many people of "ethnic background" that can testify, why didn't they use just one? Keep shooting yourself in the foot little buddy. You will run out of toes soon enough

So a Mexican/Hispanic in the video making the comments isn't "ethnic" enough for you???

Not when it comes to Blacks and the priesthood. Why didn't they use any black folk? The doctrine had nothing to do with Mexican's or Hispanics did it? You are just trying to reinforce their lies.

I've just proven you a liar by each of your claims with the actual facts. You haven't shown a fact yet....LOL
Why do you follow anti-mormon propaganda as if it's the actual truth? Your own church history is anti Mormon propoganda? That is good to know.
After all, a simple unequivocal FACT of if Joseph killed someone or not proves unequivocally that the ideology you follow is not from truth, but from perversion and evil. Further, you don't even get the number right, you say "one" when it was "two". So, you're a frigging liar in every degree. Oh, you poor disturbed little individual. You're the idiot that brought up the number two. Is math really that difficult for you. I said he killed 1. Read your church history you moron. Better yet, read the book by Elder Reed Blake (he's on your side) called 24 hours to Martyrdom. Again, it is in the History of the Mormon church, so I suggest you read it before you start calling people names you meaningless little know nothing pisant. Yes, that was a personal attack, just in case the mods were wondering.

Proof that anti-mormons aren't interested in the actual truth, but only in their hate and bigotry Truth is truth, sorry if you can't handle it.

By the way, when can you get your meds refilled? I think you're running low.

Ranting and making false charges doesn't bode well that you are based in truth.

by the way, I mistyped, it was actually "three" who got hit by Joseph's bullets, 3 shots three hit.
And another thing. I'm a Mormon because I actually love the truth. And I'm not an anti-mormon anymore like you because of that fact also.

If you loved the truth, you sure as hell wouldn'tbe a Mormon. Check with ex Mormons. A large number of them will tell you they left when they learned the truth.

[_Jaybear]

Joseph Smith shooting his pistol at his assailants does not make him not a martyr. The word 'martyrdom' does not require that one just lay down and take death. Witness all the islamic "martyrs" who die in combat against the infidels.

I do protest at Joseph Smith being considered a martyr, however. I don't believe that he was killed because he wouldn't renounce his beliefs or whatever. He was killed because of his screwing around with lots of women, political shenanigans, destroying the press, etc. He was killed because of things he did, not because of things he believed.

by the way, the video from the UK was pretty lame. It seems to have been made by people with a wholly weak understanding of what the issues really are. They are believers who are responding to perceived persecution, but they don't really know what the problems are that they are responding to. It's what I might expect if my mom or my sister made a video in defense of the church.

If you begin with premise that Smith was a martry, as LDS apologists do, you are forced to accept a broad definition of the term. I prefer the traditional that applies to the early Christians in Rome who were given the choice to renounce Christianity or face certain death. With that definition, Smith who publicly renounced polygamy, and was arrested for treason for his role in suppressing his teaching from becoming public,is not a martyr.

Does anybody really believe that if those people who stormed the jail had captured Smith and told him to renounce polygamy or die, that Smith would have chosen death?

[_Fence Sitter]

by the way, the video from the UK was pretty lame. It seems to have been made by people with a wholly weak understanding of what the issues really are. They are believers who are responding to perceived persecution, but they don't really know what the problems are that they are responding to. It's what I might expect if my mom or my sister made a video in defense of the church.

I found the use of past persecution of Mormons mixed in with comments on our stance on Gays and gay marriage just bizarre.

In the video they play the persecution card, by showing a clip of Joseph (?) getting tarred and feathered, as an attempt to show that, like homosexuals, Mormons are also persecuted. What the hell does the persecution of 180 years ago have to do with what is going on right now and how does being persecuted back then mean we are not participating in persecution ourselves? "Hey look we were persecuted a long time ago so we are the good guys now!"

The weird thing about that clip was it was so fast that one would have to be a member to even recognize what was going on, or at least familiar with the tarring and feathering of members in the 1830's

[_Sethbag]

If you begin with premise that Smith was a martry, as LDS apologists do, you are forced to accept a broad definition of the term. I prefer the traditional that applies to the early Christians in Rome who were given the choice to renounce Christianity or face certain death. With that definition, Smith who publicly renounced polygamy, and was arrested for treason for his role in suppressing his teaching from becoming public,is not a martyr.

You seem to define 'martyr' as someone who dies just like one particular set of martyrs from history. Those aren't history's only martyrs, however. Look at the Islamic world today, for example. In that culture, pretty much anyone who dies fighting against the infidels is a martyr. Martyrdom isn't an intrinsic human quality, it is something that is recognized by society, or by a particular society. There's no really good reason why someone can't be a martyr just because they died fighting.

Like I said, I do oppose recognizing Smith as a martyr, but only because I don't believe he died for his beliefs. Instead, he died because he made enemies by his actions.

Does anybody really believe that if those people who stormed the jail had captured Smith and told him to renounce polygamy or die, that Smith would have chosen death?

We'll never know. But I don't think he would have given up polygamy. Renouncing it would have been a no-brainer though. He "renounced" polygamy over and over, publicly claiming that he wasn't ever practicing it in the first place. But whatever he said about it, I don' think he'd actually have given it up.

[_ldsfaqs]

If you loved the truth, you sure as hell wouldn'tbe a Mormon. Check with ex Mormons. A large number of them will tell you they left when they learned the truth.[/color]

Clearly you don't know me. I've already been an ex-mormon. I actually know for sure who tells the truth and who isn't when comparing the two sides.

[_ldsfaqs]

Joseph Smith shooting his pistol at his assailants does not make him not a martyr. The word 'martyrdom' does not require that one just lay down and take death. Witness all the islamic "martyrs" who die in combat against the infidels.

Hey, an anti-mormon can have a brain sometimes. Good for you. Now tell the rest of the fools.

I do protest at Joseph Smith being considered a martyr, however. I don't believe that he was killed because he wouldn't renounce his beliefs or whatever. He was killed because of his screwing around with lots of women, political shenanigans, destroying the press, etc. He was killed because of things he did, not because of things he believed.

First of all, whatever his "shenanigan's" were, they were him and his beliefs. Thus, by definition he was killed for his beliefs.

Second, to be accurate, he was killed for the FALSE perceptions and lies told about him, not for his actual actions.

by the way, the video from the UK was pretty lame. It seems to have been made by people with a wholly weak understanding of what the issues really are. They are believers who are responding to perceived persecution, but they don't really know what the problems are that they are responding to. It's what I might expect if my mom or my sister made a video in defense of the church.

As someone who's been a basic believing Mormon, and who is now familiar with all the issues, their basic faith and views are still true. Further, you don't know that ALL of them aren't familiar with the issues, at least one clearly seemed to be. Giving a basic response to challenges in a faith promoting way doesn't mean you are ignorant. Further, not being a "scholar" who can regurgitate all knowledge of Mormonism doesn't mean you are ignorant of the issues either. Most people learn and move on to the next thing. They aren't obsessed like you people.

[_Drifting]

I actually know for sure who tells the truth and who isn't when comparing the two sides.

How do you 'know for sure' who tells the truth?
(As opposed to 'believing you know' who tells the truth)

For example, how do you know for sure that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in person?

[_Mary]

I was going to put forward my opinion of the presentation on Youtube, but it looks like they have deleted and disabled all comments. So, so much for free speech.

I'm at a loss to understand why the UK leadership feels that it is necessary to clear up misconceptions by adding more misconceptions.

Stephen Kerr is missing out a lot of verifiable history in his discussion of polygamy at the same time as forgetting to mention that actually polygamy is an important part of LDS theology in terms of the afterlife, specifically the Celestial Kingdom. If this is aimed at non-mormons then I believe his leaving out of critical information to be very disingenuous. Investigators have a right to know what Mormon Theology is, even if it is not being practiced at this present time.

Simon Gibson, on everyone has a right to their own opinions but not their own facts? Good grief, and then stating that the Church is the most misunderstood. Well given that it is indeed true (and I would question that) why Simon? Probably because historically LDS, perhaps one could argue understandably, have been less than forthcoming about what their own beliefs and history are...even to each other.. That LDS have historically been insular, defensive and protective of beliefs that they hold sacred (read often offensive to the mainstream).

Tom Beisinger on racism. Good grief. So we are still going down the road of God curses with a black skin and God commanded it, and anyway only the Levites held the priesthood in the Old Testament. No mention that Moses was married to a Cushite and therefore colour of skin may and was most likely irrelevant to priesthood office. No mention that Old Testament priesthood was very little like that found in the LDS church, both in terms of duties, on whether or not they were paid and supported or indeed the disputes and controversies amongst different groups about who was and wasn't a Levite. It was a lineage thing, NOT a race thing.

Does Tom really believe that non-members are going to be convinced by his arguments. The church got this one wrong Tom. The scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price that indicate that blacks were cursed are Joseph's (or whoever's) opinions that were current at the time, but have now been proven scientifically unsound. Get over it. Apologise for it, admit error. Sigh......

Really saddened by this. They need to do much better in this day and age.