What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Shulem]

The destruction of the press led to charges of riot against Smith and other members of the Council. After Smith surrendered on the charges, he was also charged with treason against Illinois.

Joseph Smith was not only a liar, thief, and a cheat -- he was criminal, a man of low character.

[_Shulem]

Where did Joseph ever offer to pay for any of this? You have that, right?

He offered to pay for it in her imagination.

[_grindael]

Even the Encyclopedia of Mormonism gets it right:

As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were "a public nuisance" and instructed the mayor "to remove it…without delay." Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper...

There was burning going on all right Of course, it was Joseph egging on the City Council to destroy the Expositor, they kind of forgot to mention that.

I'm not aware of even one account where Joseph claimed to be "sorry" for any of it, let alone offer to pay for any of it. I'd love to see that evidence.

[_Res Ipsa]

This somehow makes me think of land wars in Asia...

[Guest]

Couple of things:

Joseph Smith did not burn the printing press. He ordered it dismantled, and when the type was destroyed, he offered to pay for it because it wasn't supposed to be destroyed.The building wasn't damaged. No fire was involved and nobody was injured in the process.

Not quite. You only got the last part right that no one was injured. He ordered the press DESTROYED, and the type scattered in the street (effectively destroying it), and they burned everything else at his order, and also if anyone resisted the building was to be DESTROYED. Of course, since the Law's were not in Nauvoo, they could not "resist". This is Edward Bonney, who was there:

<lots of excellent research>

Thanks for stepping in, grindael. Fascinating, as usual. We can always count on our resident Historian to get the facts straight!

[_Niadna]

I think that questioning the actions and motives around the priesthood ban is what got people praying for it to be lifted, and what finally got the revelation that GOT it lifted, is what I think.

Ha! I understand it was President Jimmy Carter and government officials that were warning the church that they better change if they want to maintain their tax exempt status.

(snort)

Sorry, but that was a threat that sounds a great deal worse in the sound than in the action. Indeed, when the government removed the tax exempt status from one church because it went all political (opposing Bill Clinton) all it meant was that those who donated to that church couldn't declare their donations as tax exempt on their returns, they might have had to pay property taxes (though the state did not demand it of them) and they got that tax exemption back, automatically, after a year. Having a church lose its tax exemption just isn't that scary a threat.

Now, if the government had threatened to come in and confiscate all church property, as well as the property of all the members (which it did twice, actually...and the first time the government actually DID it) you might have an argument.

However, the church owned businesses are all fully tax paying corporations and have been all along. Losing its tax exempt status would cost money and discommode those who donate, but do you really think that TBMs would refuse to pay their tithing because they could no longer deduct it from their income?

Shoot, I haven't deducted tithing from MY income for years; the standard deduction has always been the best way to go.

So we'd have to pay income taxes on the churcn net income for a year. (snort) Just how much would that come to? After a year, the exemption would be BACK...and in the meantime, since we would have been cut loose by the IRS, the church could get all political, quite freely.

Do you really think the government wants...or EVER wanted, THAT?

Losing our tax exempt status? Nope, not gonna happen. The consequences aren't dire enough to make the opponents of the church happy, it would cost the IRS too much and take too long to get the denial through....for something that would only last a year and then be automatically thrown out. You see, while other 501c organizations have to apply for tax exempt status, churches are automatically assigned it. The church doesn't have to prove that it should have it. The IRS has to prove that it doesn't deserve it, and would have to do so every single year.

Those who keep crying that the church caved into the IRS haven't done their homework.

It was pressure from the world that forced the Mormon leaders to change their position. Revelation through an imaginary god had nothing to do with it. The Mormons were about to go through the meat grinder if they didn't lift their racial ban which was heralded as God's law by former Church Presidents.

We've been through 'meat grinders' before, Shulem.

But consider this: while it takes courage to do the right thing when those who hate you don't want that thing done, it takes more courage to do the right thing when your enemies will take your doing so as a 'win.'

In other words, it doesn't matter why YOU think the ban was lifted.

I'm just glad it was.

[_Niadna]

I honestly do not think anything can, short of God Himself coming down and telling me to go somewhere else.

I mean, it's not like I haven't been bombarded with all the arguments and attacks. If none of them have done it, well.....

I can assure you that your imaginary friend (which you call God) is not going to come down and tell you anything. He's not coming down, period.

Then I guess there isn't anything that could change my mind, is there?

[_Niadna]

I dunno...I THINK that makes me a TBM.

My definition of a TBM is someone who believes in all the words of the prophets. So when you say you do not believe in a God who requires belief in a global flood, or a literal Adam and Eve story or that God resides on Kolob and so on, that means you are not a TBM. You actually fall into the category of being a cafeteria Mormon who picks and choose what to believe.

Since you are fairly new to the board and might not get everyone's posting style, the above is meant to be some irony wrapped up in a bit of sarcasm.

fence sitter, my mother lifelong Mormon of Mormon family , no general authorities but back far enough to have handcarted would agree with Nadnia not your proposed hyper pious trying harder than useful version of tbm.

Hi huckelberry,

This thread was stated by Niadna as an attempt to explain how she "divide(s) non-Mormons into categories. It seems only fair then that others can decide what kind of Mormon category into which she fits, does it not? That you or your mother would disagree with how I define the TBM category is pretty much the same objection we have all been using to object to Niadna's own categories, so your objection to my tongue-in-cheek placing of Niadna in the cafeteria Mormon category, is making my point.

By the way, I guess I know a lot of "hyper pious" Mormons. My father would probably disagree with your mother, in that he firmly believes in global flood, God residing in/on a star and a literal Adam & Eve and he would also consider himself a faithful follower. It's ironic in a way, Niadna and my father would probably both agree that one cannot be a TBM and question leadership about their policy of hiding the church finances. But at the same time, according to her, it is fine to disagree with them about some matters of doctrine like a global flood, God residing on a star and so on. So on the one hand, questioning policy is not okay but on the other, questioning doctrine is? Is that how a TBM is defined? You have to follow policies but not doctrine?

Just a quick query:

Who the heck claims that god resides on a star? I've never run into that one, myself.

[_Shulem]

Those who keep crying that the church caved into the IRS haven't done their homework.

Perhaps. Perhaps.

One thing is for sure though, the church caved in to worldly pressure. God no more came down and told Kimball to lift the ban anymore than he comes down and tells you something. It's all just thoughts and feeling you muck about in your own brain.

Imagine what the LDS church would be like today had the ban never been lifted? Imagine the lawsuits against the church from black persons and the courts that find the LDS church guilty as charged. Just imagine that. Had the ban not been lifted there wouldn't be much of an LDS church today outside of Utah. The church would have been vandalized and destroyed.

[_grindael]

Mormon "prophets" have claimed that STARS (like our sun) are inhabited...

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet. ~Brigham Young