TBM's are getting pretty good at making excuses to cooly explain away the questionable history of the church:

--JS polygamy and Freemason connections/insiprations toward the temple ceremony
--His not-really-so-martyr-like death
--The constantly changing and contradicting doctrine, that is supposed to be "original/true/restored" at the same time.

What excuses have YOU heard (that may or may not have been very convincing)? Reasons why they were/weren't so convincing? Thought of any good come-backs?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 11:59PM by melissa3839.

The Freemason ripped off the church, not the church ripped off the masons.

Recently I made a comment on a friends FB page because he had mentioned that he watched a show on the Knights Templar. I mentioned a few things about the Knights Templar, including that after most of them were wiped out after being declared heretics by the pope, the remainder went to Scotland and founded the Freemasons. His reply was that they brought the "secrets" of the temple with them from the holy land.

Interesting how they try to turn it around that they were the ones ripped off. I also find it interesting that my friend is also a Freemason as well as a TBM. My dad can't figure out how he gets away with it, since they both claim that they were ripped off by the other.

I once had a member tell me that the Freemasons stole their social structure from the Mormons!

Flocks of turkeys.

Because Joseph Smith was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the U.S. Constitution wasn't yet ratified in Illinois (what does that mean?), he was totally and legally within his rights to destroy the printing press.

So... as the new heritage history book says (page 63), they really did go innocently to jail.

So, if you're the mayor, you can boink young girls and other people's wives, and use violence to hide it, because it's legal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2010 01:11AM by jpt.

That one is true. The 14th Amendment wasn't written yet, which applied the Bill of Rights to states and local municipalities. Up until the Civil War, local governments were not obligated to honor the First Amendment. Only the Federal government had to follow it.

JS still violated the guy's property rights, but not his 1st Amendment rights. This really isn't a controversial argument. I'm an attorney and I promise you this is true.

Free speech is not the only issue when to comes to destroying a printing press that does not belong to you. JS did not have the right to destroy the printing press because he did not own it.

That's what I said. JS violated the owner's property rights, no question. Just not his First Amendment rights. That's all I'm saying.

jpt said:

"Because Joseph Smith was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the U.S. Constitution wasn't yet ratified in Illinois (what does that mean?), he was totally and legally within his rights to destroy the printing press."

He was referring to the argument, which happens to be a fact, that the 14th Amendment hadn't been ratified. This is only significant in the context of First Amendment analysis. So the justification jpt was referring to is actually a valid justification, as far as it goes. It doesn't speak to the property rights issues, but certainly deals appropriately with the free speech issue.

Destroying a printing press did not incite people to uphold the yet unwritten law and kill him.

Destroying one of the foundational liberties of the new country like freedom of speech and freedom of the press did though.

What the mormons had been up to was plain unacceptable to anyone. They had already claimed a revelation from God to consecrate existing properties from the Gentiles, they had declared martial law by militia, they were at odds with everyone for just about every reason.

And now this article reveals what they tried to hide through public denials of private practice, and can be seen as icing on an already repugnant cake.


Here is the full text:
"It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty.

But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph.

They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.

They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance.

The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God,

When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land.

She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects.

She thinks of the great sacrifice and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified.

The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit.

Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, "if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?" Her lot is to be wooed and want her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked, abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed-the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercise of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins.

Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low!

But no one knows of the mental malady that previously sapped her strength, and made her so easy a pray to the spoiler. She is like some tender tree, the pride and beauty of the grove-graceful in its form, bright in its foliage, but with the worm praying at its heart; we find it withered when it should be most luxuriant. We see it drooping its branches to the earth, and shedding leaf by leaf until wasted and perished away, it falls in the stillness of the forest; and as we muse over the beautiful ruin, we strive in vain to recollect the blast or thunder-bolt that could have smitten it with decay. But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources:Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

My mom and sister are Mormon and when I said I thought a grown man and a thirteen fourteen year old girl, who back then probably didn't have a menstrual yet, was gross ,told me that girls matured faster back then from hard work and got married that young all the time. I researched this and even getting married at 18 back then was considered young most women were past 20.

"That one is true. The 14th Amendment wasn't written yet, which applied the Bill of Rights to states and local municipalities. Up until the Civil War, local governments were not obligated to honor the First Amendment. Only the Federal government had to follow it."

Be that as it may, the states' constitutions guaranteed freedom of the press. Years ago, a TBM made the same argument to me that you're making. Here's his assertion and my response to him. I wrote:

>> If Joseph Smith had not died soon afterwards, and the "Expositor"
>>publishers had pressed civil charges, one charge against Smith
>>would have been violation of rights of free speech.

The TBM replied:

>Of course, if that were true, that case would have been for naught. There
>was no guarantee of free speech at that time as we know it. The right of
>free speech at that time only pertained to national laws, as it had not been
>extended to the states via the 14th admendment. In short, the case would
>have sunk...badly. You should have read up on your history.

I responded:

Although the Bill of Rights was formally extended to the states in 1868,
freedom of speech and of the press had been recognized as an inalienable right
since the Peter Zenger case in New York in 1735. Zenger was tried for libel
for criticizing the British government, and he was acquitted because his
writings were true. Freedom of the press has been upheld in the US since that
time.
"Beginning with Virginia in 1776, state after state wrote the idea of a free
press into its constitution. In 1778, Massachusetts rejected a proposed
constitution because it did not contain such a provision. Today, all state
constitutions have a provision guaranteeing freedom of the press. Several
states ratified the Federal Constitution itself only after being assured that
the document would be amended to protect freedom of expression. Amendment 1 to
the United States Constitution states that 'Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom...of the press.' "
(World Book)

I assume that Illinois had such a law guaranteeing a free press, because both
Governor Ford and the
"Expositor" publishers pointed to Smith's violation of freedom of the press in
their complaints against him:

"General Smith,...I attribute the last outbreak to the destruction of the
'Expositor,' and to your refusal to comply with the writ issued by Esq.
Morrison. The press in the United States is looked upon as the great bulwark
of freedom, and its destruction in Nauvoo was represented and looked upon as a
high-handed measure, and manifests to the people a disposition on your part to
suppress the liberty of speech and of the press; this, with your refusal to
comply with the requisition of a writ, I conceive to be the principal cause of
this difficulty, and you are, moreover, represented to me as turbulent and
defiant of the laws and institutions of your country."
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 384.)

"We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph
Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;
which we verily know and are not accordant and consonant with the
principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and for that purpose, and
with that end in view, with an eye single to the glory of God, we have
dared to gird on the armor, and with God at our head, we most solemnly
and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall not depart from the
thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy those glorious
privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have guarantied
(sic) to us -- freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the
right to worship God as seemeth us good."
(William Law, Francis Higbee, 'Nauvoo Expositor')

1) you're an idiot, that's why.
2) you need to check your facts, that's why.
3) you CLEARLY don't know what you're talking about, that's why.
4) go away with your anti-Mormon hate, that's why.
5) I KNOW that it's true, that's why.
6) Joseph Smith wasn't a perfect man; but he WAS a prophet of god.
7) you're profanity isn't welcome, that's why.

Polygamy was to take care of all the widows.

God really loves women best -- that's why they have to share their husband and can't have a priesthood.

Why are you even here? (Get that one a lot. I'm kind of tempted to try it on the next Mormon Missionary who shows up at my door.)

;)

I am DONE making valid points to idiots!

I guess he won so hard, that he didn't need to PROVE anything.


And then another woman,

I just don't want my simple truthful testimony to be twisted.

The defense for Masonic rituals in the temple ceremony goes something like this:

Joseph Smith was so impressed by the educational value of the Masonic rituals, he thought they would be a great pattern to follow to teach the endowment to the saints. Specifically, the use of symbolism and repetition apparently resonated with Joseph Smith. However, since the meanings behind the signs and tokens are different, and the oaths the LDS members take are different, it is not fair to say that Masonic symbols and oaths are used in the LDS temple ceremonies. In essence, the similarities are few and superficial.

My biggest issue with this argument/excuse is that if you take away the handshakes, new name, symbols, signs, and tokens similar to that of the Masonic rituals, what are you left with? A sad little video of the creation and a promise to give all you have to the building up of the church. What are the deep truths behind the symbolism? What is left that is sacred or secret? How would these truths, whatever they are, be represented had Joseph Smith not participated in Freemasonry?

My other problem with this excuse is that it seems so shortsighted of a prophet and his God to allow such a ritual to represent eternal truths. Couldn’t the all-knowing God look down the road a few generations and suggest to Joseph Smith that using rituals which date back to medieval times might not age so gracefully? Couldn’t he recommend Joe omit the death threats and five-points of touchy-feely from the beginning, so it wouldn’t look like God is changing His ways over time to make concessions to future cultures' sensibilities. I mean, Agatha Christies book “Ten Little Indians” has shown greater transcendence over time and culture than the temple ceremony! (Although that book’s title also underwent a change to avoid controversy, but the content has remained the same . . . I digress).

Finally, it just seems to add one more “coincidence” of Joseph Smith’s cultural atmosphere and personal experiences (peep stones, contemporary Evangelical debates played out in the BOM, belief that Native Americans descended from Hebrews, etc) creeping into what is supposed to be an eternal, unchanging gospel.

Joseph senior was inducted into the masonic rites in 1816 in Canadigua. Hyrum not long after.

Joe Sr. was also very much into all kinds of ritualism, and was in fact, the driving force behind Joe Jrs treasureseeking and his fame as a seer. It was dear old dad who taught the family to seek for treasure, how to use a divining rod and mom was a palm reader. It was also dad who spread many of the tales about the treasure guardian, little old man, tall man, bloody spaniard and many of the other stories before Joseph jr decided to make it a religous book instead of a treasure key.

Is it any coincidence at all that Joseph jr had a good grounding in the Masonic ritualism, or that he was able to make it into the level at such an early stage?

I'd bet my lunch that these secret rites were well known in the Smith household long before Joseph decided to use them as a temple rite in Nauvoo.

I like the one about "my ways being higher than your ways" (wording-?) and thoughts higher than yours and such and such. We apparently can't understand the reasons for all the controversial and senseles stuff because we don't have the sense to see what blessings come from them.
If there is a God that requires women to share a husband, tells select of the most righteous men they can marry other men's wives, makes people wear long weird underwear, makes people do secret ceremonies and creepy rituals, turns people into robots who can't even trust the brains he gave them, feel guilty about 90% of sexual practices, feel guilty about 90% of everything, and requires people to pay 10 percent of their income in order to make it to the celestrial kingdom, I don't want to be his child and I don't want to spend any amount of eternity in his presence

The missionaries excused it as simple paranoia, thinking the settlers were coming to kill them. That's why they blew holes into 5 year old girls.

It's because you smoked weed and took acid in the '60's, that's why!

I have no rebuttal for that one.

ron

I had an ancestor who took a polygamous wife about two years post-manifesto. When my brother and I were talking about him, I said that he was a bad boy for that reason. He replied that it takes a very long time for news to travel that far.

1. It took my ancestor a month and a half to travel that far so news could have been carried that far that fast, several times over.

2. Ancestor lived in Utah when the Manifesto was announced. He lived only a couple days journey from Salt Lake at the time.

3. Ancestor fled to Mexico because of the Manifesto.

All that doesn't matter because it doesn't show my ancestor in a good light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2010 10:03AM by Now a Gentile.

...Wilford Woodruff plural marrying Lydia Mountford in 1897---seven years after the Manifesto? Did Woodruff perhaps not know the meaning of the Manifesto which he himself published?

My TBM friend had no rebuttal when I told her it had always been illegal, even in the state of Illinois.

Another polygamy excuse I've heard is "because there were so many men leaving to fight in the Civil War".

"My TBM friend had no rebuttal when I told her it had always been illegal, even in the state of Illinois."

A coupla weeks ago, I told one of my TBM sisters that on facebook. Her response was to delete the entire thread.

"Another polygamy excuse I've heard is "because there were so many men leaving to fight in the Civil War".

But of course! Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the 1830s because he, being the prophet, could foresee so many men having to go fight in the Civil War in the 1860s.

because they each said they saw Joeseph Smith when they went to the temple. True story. Thats why you don't argue with them.

He only did it to make them part of his family and we can prove there was no sex because there were no children born to these women. Don't argue with a mormon, they will always be right, just because.

That's why Emma didn't mind him "marrying" other women, no sex, no problem, right?

Shortage of men was the reason for polygamy.
Marrying at age 14 was normal for the times.
Times were different then.
You're being anti-Mormon.
The apologists have already answered that.
There is lots of physical evidence that proves the church is true.
DNA proves the church is True.
I know with every fiber of my being that the church is True.

"We can't judge the character of people from those times by our standards," as if being a shithead was more acceptable then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2016 08:14PM by donbagley.