Misconceptions about the Mormon Church (U.K.)

[_why me]

June 25, 1844
Joseph and Hyrum Smith enter Carthage around midnight and go the Hamilton House hotel. In the morning, Governor Ford meets with the Smiths. The two Smiths voluntarily submit for arrest on the charge of rioting. Later that day, they are also charged with treason (for declaring martial law), a capital crime. Justice of the Peace Robert Smith orders Joseph and Hyrum to be committed without bail to jail. A hearing is scheduled for June 29.

My bold.
.

And where am I wrong? It was the treason charge that got them jailed and not the printing press. The city council was charged with the destruction of the press and released on bail. See my point? It was trumped up charges of treason.

[_Quasimodo]

And where am I wrong? It was the treason charge that got them jailed and not the printing press. The city council was charged with the destruction of the press and released on bail. See my point? It was trumped up charges of treason.

He was charged with treason for declaring martial law. I'm guessing (without doing a lot of research) that maybe he didn't have the authority to do that. If that was only the legal right of the Governor, then it would have be treason in those days (maybe now).

I'm guessing Joe tried that to avoid being arrested in the first place for ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor's press. In this country we have freedom of the press and no executive has the right to order a publication's physical destruction.

[Guest]

And where am I wrong? It was the treason charge that got them jailed and not the printing press. The city council was charged with the destruction of the press and released on bail. See my point? It was trumped up charges of treason.

He was charged with treason for declaring martial law. I'm guessing (without doing a lot of research) that maybe he didn't have the authority to do that. If that was only the legal right of the Governor, then it would have be treason in those days (maybe now).

I'm guessing Joe tried that to avoid being arrested in the first place for ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor's press. In this country we have freedom of the press and no executive has the right to order a publication's physical destruction.

Not really -

Joseph and fifteen others presented themselves in Carthage for the charge. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia.

Without that charge of treason, the couldn't hold him and that is why it was done.

Under The Constitution of the United States, Article 3 - treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. It strains credulity that you could make the case that Joseph Smith was guilty of that by ordering martial law and calling up the militia to protect one's own community from attack.

[_hobo1512]

Actually, it was a trumped up charge. Mormon presses were also destroyed by mobs and yet, no one was jailed for doing so. Also, the charges did not merit jail time and the offer was made to make amends. The charges were trumped up and Joseph paid for them with his life. He was being tried for treason against the state of Illinois. Also the city council was also arrested but released on bail. Joseph wasn't because of the treason charge. You really need to get your head straight about what happened.

Now there is the pot calling the kettle black......AGAIN

Smith was Mayor, the city/government of Nauvoo ordered, and sanctioned the destruction of the printing press as opposed to an anonymous mob.

The city/government of Nauvoo doing this violated the Constitution of the USA. (1st amendment, to help you out.) Thus, the treason charge.

From Wiki" Some sought legal charges against Smith for the destruction of the press, including charges of inciting riot and treason"

Maybe you are the one who needs to get your head straight. I bet if you do, you will hear a big pop when it comes out of your rear end.

Don't you get tired of being deceitful, and a hypocrite?

[_hobo1512]

Funny. If polygamy isn't in the Book of Mormon, odd that it is talked about and banned and labeled a sin then? And you seem to be dodging the question too. I find it very interesting that something so important to God in the afterlife is labeled a sin in the sciptures, don't you?

But it isn't labeled a sin in the D & C chapter 132 now is it?

Are you saying that the Doctrine's and Covenants is not Mormon scripture? I thought Mormon scripture was Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. Correct me if one or more of these is in fact NOT Mormon scripture.

That hardly seems like a strong point in your favor. If this is so important to the afterlife, Mormons should live it today don't you think? The answer is that section 132 was added by the polygamist faction to justify their sinful position.

Keep dodging. Is the Doctrine and Covenants Mormon Scripture? (I'll help you out, yes it is)
So now you are saying that Smith was a sinful polygamist. I thought he was a "prophet" but you're saying that he is a sinful polygamist "prophet". Interesting.

Mormon leaders have only agreed not to practice it in this life due to having to follow the laws of man.

I see. So it is so important that we don't live it now, but magically we'll all be polygamists in the next life according to you. Except the prophets of the Book of Mormon like Lehi, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and so on for whom it was a sin. That's rich.

Again, read your own scriptures called the Doctrines and Covenants, and the 1890 Manifesto, which is included. And Hey, take it up with you leaders. They are the one's saying it isn't to be practiced in this life. See the manifesto signed by the "prophet" at the time. Who, by the way, according to you was a Sinful polygamist. Your "prophets" are the ones changing doctrine all the time, take it out on them.

You are familiar with the 1890 manifesto right?

I am. Now, consider this. If this were a commandment from God and so important to your salvation, do you think any power on Earth could compel Mormons to stop such a practice? The more likely answer is what is clearly obvious. It was a sin and the Lord allowed a man-made government to step in and stop the practice.

Boy, you do live in a bubble don't you?

D&C 132 was "recorded 7-12-1943, saying polygamy was doctrine. The 1890 Manifesto is dated 10-6-1890. So, your God took 47 years to make up his mind and decide that all of your "prophets up to that time were sinful polygamists. Now keep in mind, Smith was practicing polygamy for about 5 years before the "revelation" became public.

So, your super duper prophet smith said he received a revelation from god to practice polygamy, and you're calling him sinful. That would make him apostate, right?

That would make every other "prophet" that practiced polygamy up until the goverment stepped in apostate right?

Nowhere does it say it is a sin.

Hardly -

Jacob 2:23-28

But the word of God burthens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax In Iniquity; they understand not the Scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord .... Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it one wife; and concubines shall he have none; for I the Lord God delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, thus saith the Lord of hosts

Doctrines and Covenants, Section 101:4, 1835 edition

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproach with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again

A section that was removed in 1876 by, listen closely - polygamists who were sinning. And what exactly did they substitute in its place? You guessed it, D&C 132.

So as you say -

Yet you have never answered the question is the Doctrines and Covenants Mormon Scripture? By you not agreeing with D&C 132, doesn't that make you apostate?

Good try little buddy.

Maybe you should come to understand Mormonism a tad bit better next time instead of spouting off.

Oh, I understand it. I'm not so sure you do however.

I absolutely love how you've called Smith a sinful polygamist. He is the one that added 132 right?

Keep making those hard hitting statements...you're really making your case....

[Guest]

Keep dodging. Is the Doctrine and Covenants Mormon Scripture? (I'll help you out, yes it is)

Actually, I'll help you out. Revealed scripture and whether or not it is binding or has any implications on how one conduct oneself or one's eternal salvation are entirely different things. It was revealed that we should offer burnt sacrifices at one time. Mormons don't do that either and it is not necessary for the afterlife or their eternal salvation. The same is true with polygamy. In fact, Section 132, was not revealed for the general membership of the Church and was only added to justify behavior that was not inspired much later.

So now you are saying that Smith was a sinful polygamist. I thought he was a "prophet" but you're saying that he is a sinful polygamist "prophet". Interesting.

I didn't say that. But being a polygamist without God explicitily telling you to do so under the reasons he prescribes in scripture clearly is a sin. The Book of Mormon makes this very clear - as does the History of the Church and is why the practice was outlawed and stopped. In fact, today members of the LDS Church do not and should not practice polygamy and feel no reason to consider D&C 132 binding on them.

Mormon leaders have only agreed not to practice it in this life due to having to follow the laws of man.

I see. So it is so important that we don't live it now, but magically we'll all be polygamists in the next life according to you. Except the prophets of the Book of Mormon like Lehi, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and so on for whom it was a sin. That's rich.

Again, read your own scriptures called the Doctrines and Covenants, and the 1890 Manifesto, which is included. And Hey, take it up with you leaders. They are the one's saying it isn't to be practiced in this life. See the manifesto signed by the "prophet" at the time. Who, by the way, according to you was a Sinful polygamist. Your "prophets" are the ones changing doctrine all the time, take it out on them.

And as I've pointed out IN THIS THREAD, they are NOT prophets. They are caretakers or presiding apostles of the Church. The only prophet Mormonism has had was Joseph Smith.

You are familiar with the 1890 manifesto right?

I am. Now, consider this. If this were a commandment from God and so important to your salvation, do you think any power on Earth could compel Mormons to stop such a practice? The more likely answer is what is clearly obvious. It was a sin and the Lord allowed a man-made government to step in and stop the practice.

Boy, you do live in a bubble don't you?

D&C 132 was "recorded 7-12-1943, saying polygamy was doctrine. The 1890 Manifesto is dated 10-6-1890. So, your God took 47 years to make up his mind and decide that all of your "prophets up to that time were sinful polygamists. Now keep in mind, Smith was practicing polygamy for about 5 years before the "revelation" became public.

FYI - 1943 is much later than 1890. It was 1843. And this was not to be practiced by the general membership of the Church or by anyone other than those called of God to do so as he explicitly states in the Book of Mormon. Otherwise it is a sin when it was generally practiced. God forbids such things and that is why there was a Manifesto. After all, we are talking about God here. If this were so essential to Mormons and their life hereafter, no man-made power could force them to stop. What is man compared to God after all? Maybe you should understand what happened with a bit more clarity and thought.

So, your super duper prophet smith said he received a revelation from god to practice polygamy, and you're calling him sinful. That would make him apostate, right?

No

That would make every other "prophet" that practiced polygamy up until the goverment stepped in apostate right?

If God didn't tell them explicitly to do so, absolutely and they were apostate.

<snip>
Yet you have never answered the question is the Doctrines and Covenants Mormon Scripture? By you not agreeing with D&C 132, doesn't that make you apostate?

Actually, I have explained that very clearly. Your distorted view to the contrary.

[_Quasimodo]

Not really -

Joseph and fifteen others presented themselves in Carthage for the charge. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia.

Without that charge of treason, the couldn't hold him and that is why it was done.

Under The Constitution of the United States, Article 3 - treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. It strains credulity that you could make the case that Joseph Smith was guilty of that by ordering martial law and calling up the militia to protect one's own community from attack.

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Where are the lawyers on this board when we need them?

[_hobo1512]

Tobin,
LMAO.......You either need a helmet, or more meds.

You yourself said that 132 was added by sinful polygamists. Smith was the first one to do it, so he's got to be a sinful polygamist. You've said it yourself, so it must be right. That's why it is my new signature.

BTY 1943 was a typo. Anyone with any common sense (look who I'm talking to) would have had that figured out.

Keep going little buddy. You live in a special place.

[Guest]

Not really -

Joseph and fifteen others presented themselves in Carthage for the charge. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia.

Without that charge of treason, the couldn't hold him and that is why it was done.

Under The Constitution of the United States, Article 3 - treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. It strains credulity that you could make the case that Joseph Smith was guilty of that by ordering martial law and calling up the militia to protect one's own community from attack.

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Where are the lawyers on this board when we need them?

Governors and mayors have often proclaimed martial law throughout the history of the United States. In fact, we just had several governors and mayors declare martial law during hurricane Sandy and Katrina. We call them states of emergency today. Martial law is nothing more than the suspension of certain constituional rights by decree in response to a threat. As a pure constitutionalist, you could argue that only congress has the right to declare martial law. But I really doubt that would pass the laugh test. So a governor charging a mayor with treason for doing something he has no clear constitutional right to do is rather ridiculous.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
LMAO.......You either need a helmet, or more meds.

You yourself said that 132 was added by sinful polygamists. Smith was the first one to do it, so he's got to be a sinful polygamist. You've said it yourself, so it must be right. That's why it is my new signature.

BTY 1943 was a typo. Anyone with any common sense (look who I'm talking to) would have had that figured out.

Keep going little buddy. You live in a special place.

Just a FYI since dates seem to be a problem with you. Joseph Smith was dead in 1876 when section 132 was added to the D&C.