Missourians... Lousy Murders or Conscientious Objectors?
Haole
Hi, I can't seem to get anyone who thinks that the Boggs' Extermination
Order allowed the wholesale murder of Mormons (some even saying that it
was legal to kill mormons until a few years ago) to answer a few questions
I have.
Namely (note that this was taken from a previous post of mine:
>>>
I would like to know exactly how many Mormons were killed as a result of
the extermination order, and how many were forced out of the state. You
see, there are people here who argue that the only 'meaning' of the order
can be extracted from viewing what people who were supposed to be
following it did.
Lets pretend that it meant 'kill all Mormons'. Were the Missourians
shockingly poor murderers, and as a consequence of their ineptitude they
let most of the Mormons go free? Were they so overcome with Christian love
and compassion that they could not follow through on the order that made
it law to kill Mormons, and because of their great love and compassion
most got away? Or was it that the order meant 'get the Mormons out of
here' and the Missourians did just that, and there were some tragic deaths
along the way?
>>>
In particular, I would like Raymond, John S. Colton, Gregg Smith,
"Anti-spam" and Kathryn Simpson to respond. For the purposes of responding
to this post (and only for those purposes) I absolve these indivdiuals
from having to go look up the word "exterminate" in a mid-1800s American
English legal dictionary.
-Haole, not really expecting any of this post to be seriously responded to.
PS. Is this whole thing why Grandpa Abe Simpson has publicly stated that
he will be dead in his cold grave before he recognizes Missouri as a
state? That statement of his has always puzzled me. Hmmmmmm....maybe Utah
Mormons weren't right all along, and good LDS SHOULD be able to watch the
Simpsons.
--
...smashing up the woodwork too...
Elizabeth & Dale
Haole wrote:
> Hi, I can't seem to get anyone who thinks that the Boggs' Extermination
> Order allowed the wholesale murder of Mormons (some even saying that it
> was legal to kill mormons until a few years ago) to answer a few questions
> I have.
>
> Namely (note that this was taken from a previous post of mine:
>
> >>>
> I would like to know exactly how many Mormons were killed as a result of
> the extermination order, and how many were forced out of the state. You
> see, there are people here who argue that the only 'meaning' of the order
> can be extracted from viewing what people who were supposed to be
> following it did.
Perhaps the place to start here, oh scholar of australasian lingo, is with the
understanding that "extermination" was a common thing on the frontier of
those days. An Osage Indian standing on the east bank of the Missouri
in 1832 had a damn good chance of getting himself and his extended family
"exterminated" in a blink of an eye -- as did free Black farmers crazy enough
to try and settle in Jackson Co., Missouri.
So, we are not just speaking of an Executive Order from the Governor's Mansion
in Jefferson City here -- this was a social phenomenon already in process.
Semi-moderate editor Thomas Gregg tried to point out the stupidity of such
"exterminations" when he was writing in his "Warsaw Message." He took the
word (the being applied in reference to Nauvooites) very literally, and feared the
butchery of women, children, the elderly, the infirm -- any follower of Smith.
Thomas Sharp came along a few months later, and replaced Gregg in that chair,
throwing the previous editor's wounded sensibilities out the window and
reverting the paper's name back to "Warsaw Signal" -- "War Signal" I think.
>
>
> Lets pretend that it meant 'kill all Mormons'. Were the Missourians
> shockingly poor murderers, and as a consequence of their ineptitude they
> let most of the Mormons go free? Were they so overcome with Christian love
> and compassion that they could not follow through on the order that made
> it law to kill Mormons, and because of their great love and compassion
> most got away? Or was it that the order meant 'get the Mormons out of
> here' and the Missourians did just that, and there were some tragic deaths
> along the way?
> >>>
Again. we ned to retrace our steps here (even if they be a trail of bloody prints
in the Caldwell County road slush of 1838) --- What the Missourians living
around Caldwell County wanted was the Mormons GONE --- If that meant
killing them, many were ready to begin that tiresome task. But it would be much
easier just to get them moving north or east, and keep scaring them until they
crossed over the border and out of the state. Had the Saints thought for a moment
that Joseph, Hyrum, Sidney, and Parley might survive, be acquitted, and elect to
remain in Missouri, most would not have left. The official scare tactics got the
Mormons moving out of the state --- once that was accomplished, the Smiths were
allowed to "escape."
Whilst treading the road to Quincy, many a Saint found some sort of hospitality
along the way -- from Missourians living between Jefferson City and the Mississippi.
Some were, reportedly, even offered land for sale and an invite to settle in -- away
from Far West and "past history,"
>
>
> In particular, I would like Raymond, John S. Colton, Gregg Smith,
> "Anti-spam" and Kathryn Simpson to respond. For the purposes of responding
> to this post (and only for those purposes) I absolve these indivdiuals
> from having to go look up the word "exterminate" in a mid-1800s American
> English legal dictionary.
>
> -Haole, not really expecting any of this post to be seriously responded to.
Perhaps the better question is what did President Sidney Rigdon have in mind when,
on July 4th, 1838, from the parade reviewing stand, he gave a resounding oration,
challenging the Missourians to a war of "extermination." By the bye, Joseph Smith
was upon the same stand, supported Rigdon's speech, and had it printed a few days
thereafter on the press of the newspaper of which he was the editor (Elders' Journal.)
Rigdon answers the question for us -- his view of exterminating the Gentiles was
to seek them out to the last one, in their homes, and kill them.
All of this was pronounced days and weeks before the skirmishes in Daviess Co.,
the Mormon burning of Gallatin, and the tragedy at Hawn's Mill. And it is a pretty
sure thing that Rigdon's "extermination" challenge reached the ears of Gov. Boggs
long before he penned his own executive order, parotting the Mormon phraseology.
In effect the Missourians DID extermininate the Mormons in Missouri -- my poor
ancestors lost all they had and barely made it to Quincy alive. But then again, we
might say also that Joe Smith "exterminated" the several hundred saints who joined
Elder William Law's splinter group at Nauvoo, when he had the City Council, police
and mob destroy the Expositor Press. I doubt you could have found a Lawite within
city limits 72 hours thereafter --- kinda like when I spray the Raid under the sink
counter. Where the cockroaches go, I dunno -- but for my purposes, they have
been "exterminated" --- dead as a Francher Party kid at Mountain Meadows, and
just as unlikely to come and pester me any more.
Aloha from the Big Island --
Nephi "grace shall be as your day..." Poindexter
Mel Walker
Maj...@bungie.net (Haole) wrote:
> Lets pretend that it meant 'kill all Mormons'. Were the Missourians
> shockingly poor murderers, and as a consequence of their ineptitude they
> let most of the Mormons go free?
[...]
> Or was it that the order meant 'get the Mormons out of
> here' and the Missourians did just that, and there were some tragic deaths
> along the way?
Or, was it "Get the Mormons out of here, Dead or Alive?" I can easily
see an order called "Extermination" (as opposed to, say "Deportation")
as a "Dead or Alive" type of order.
--
--
mele...@starSP0MtrekSP0Mmail.com
John S. Colton
>Hi, I can't seem to get anyone who thinks that the Boggs' Extermination
>Order allowed the wholesale murder of Mormons (some even saying that it
>was legal to kill mormons until a few years ago) to answer a few questions
>I have.
Since you mention me by name, I will respond.
However, I do not necessarily believe that the E.O. allowed the
wholesale murder of Mormons, and I certainly have not said that it was
legal to kill mormons until a few years ago.
Rather, I entered into this discussion because I had problems with
your reasoning, problems which you still have not addressed.
>Namely (note that this was taken from a previous post of mine:
>
>>>>
>I would like to know exactly how many Mormons were killed as a result of
>the extermination order, and how many were forced out of the state.
I have answered this-- I simply do not know. I asked you if you knew,
and you also do not seem to know. We at least seem to agree that (a)
large quantities of Mormons were forced fromt he state, (b) some
Mormons were likely killed, and (c) the killers were (c1) likely
inspired by the extermination order and (c2) not punished for their
murders.
> You
>see, there are people here who argue that the only 'meaning' of the order
>can be extracted from viewing what people who were supposed to be
>following it did.
Assuming those following their interpretation of an executive order
were not punished legally, you have given no reason why the meaning of
an executive order should be extracted through any other way.
>Lets pretend that it meant 'kill all Mormons'.
Why? No one seems to be arguing that position, except your strawman.
> Were the Missourians
>shockingly poor murderers, and as a consequence of their ineptitude they
>let most of the Mormons go free? Were they so overcome with Christian love
>and compassion that they could not follow through on the order that made
>it law to kill Mormons, and because of their great love and compassion
>most got away? Or was it that the order meant 'get the Mormons out of
>here' and the Missourians did just that, and there were some tragic deaths
>along the way?
OK, let's assume the latter, since that seems to be closest to both of
our viewpoints. And, let's change the term "tragic deaths" to
"murders". If the E.O. allowed people to commit murder, and remain
unpunished, then (as per my yesterday's lengthy post responding to
Dave B.) it is very hard for me to see how anyone can claim the E.O.
did not in some sense change the law.
>In particular, I would like Raymond, John S. Colton, Gregg Smith,
>"Anti-spam" and Kathryn Simpson to respond. For the purposes of responding
>to this post (and only for those purposes) I absolve these indivdiuals
>from having to go look up the word "exterminate" in a mid-1800s American
>English legal dictionary.
Thanks, because I see no need to duplicate your work. I am very
comfortable taking the definition you quoted a week ago or so, that
"exterminate" means basically to "kick out".
Nonetheless, as far as the practical application of the law, if Gov
Boggs & Co. did not prosecute the people who killed Mormons while
driving them from the state (as I'm assuming is the case-- if not,
please prove me wrong), then he in effect changed the law. The
situation would be very similar to how the Berkeley police have
changed the current public nudity law to mean "public nudity is not
allowed... except for every once in a while" (see my post to Dave B.)
>-Haole, not really expecting any of this post to be seriously responded to.
[snip]
Sorry to disappoint. No need to be rude, though.
To sum up, if one asks the question, "Did the E.O. allow people to
kill Mormons unpunished", it seems like everyone agrees. If one asks,
"Did the E.O. allow people to kill Mormons legally", then it seems we
differ, since you and Dave B. are taking a narrow view of the word
"legal". And it seems likely, that by the precise definition of legal,
you are correct. But, by the common usage of the word, I think you are
wrong.
John
Kathryn Simpson
> "Anti-spam" and Kathryn Simpson to respond. For the purposes of responding
> to this post (and only for those purposes) I absolve these indivdiuals
> from having to go look up the word "exterminate" in a mid-1800s American
> English legal dictionary.
<begin sarcasm>
Thank you, oh anointed one, for your absolution.
<end sarcasm>
Frankly, I'm tired of the thread and how it evolved into a testosterone
induced spitting contest of epic proportions. How about this... I'll just
apologize for what I posted. Not because I thought or now think that what I
said was in error, but it was apparently the fuel for some to start the
spitting match and for that, I'm sorry I posted my comments.
There, I've vented. Now I feel better. Jab all you want, spit all you
want. Nit pick, gnat pick, pick your nose for all I care. I'm moving on
because I've realized that once a discussion turns into a gnat fest, it
becomes quite meaningless.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
David Bowie
: Or, was it "Get the Mormons out of here, Dead or Alive?" I can
: easily see an order called "Extermination" (as opposed to, say
: "Deportation") as a "Dead or Alive" type of order.
The members of the band Dead or Alive are Mormons? Way cool!
David, spinnin' right round like a record, baby, right round round round
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
Haole
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> <begin sarcasm>
> Thank you, oh anointed one, for your absolution.
> <end sarcasm>
I am glad that you detected the sarcastic, playful nature of that comment.
> Frankly, I'm tired of the thread and how it evolved into a testosterone
> induced spitting contest of epic proportions.
This comment honestly puzzles me.
You seem here to be saying that there is some sort of decidely male vs.
female uncurrent to this discussion. Frankly, I don't see it. My apologize
if you feel like we are thumping our chests to attract your attention.
> How about this... I'll just
> apologize for what I posted. Not because I thought or now think that what I
> said was in error, but it was apparently the fuel for some to start the
> spitting match and for that, I'm sorry I posted my comments.
Does this mean that you still feel the same about the topic as you did
before this series of threads on the topic came up here this time?
> There, I've vented. Now I feel better. Jab all you want, spit all you
> want. Nit pick, gnat pick, pick your nose for all I care. I'm moving on
> because I've realized that once a discussion turns into a gnat fest, it
> becomes quite meaningless.
Okay, like I said in the first post in this thread, I knew that most of
the people I was hoping would weigh in on the questions I asked would not
take it seriously.
All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early on in
this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the context) can
not be counter-acted by intellectual means. I suspect that sociological
means are the best way to overcome these false teachings.
-Haole
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<nLhj6.293651$oG1.11...@pouncer.easynews.com>:
>The members of the band Dead or Alive are Mormons? Way cool!
>
>David, spinnin' right round like a record, baby, right round round round
No, but the Grateful Dead are, and they are performing at the next General
Conference.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
Gregg Smith
: All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early on in
: this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the context) can
: not be counter-acted by intellectual means. I suspect that sociological
: means are the best way to overcome these false teachings.
Let me get this straight.
You define it as an erroneous folk belief
+ you define your position as intellectual
+ posters here disagree on both points
= erroneous folk beliefs cannot be counter-acted by intellectual means
Can you see the flaw in the above logic?
Gregg
Elizabeth & Dale
Haole wrote:
>
>
> ... All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early on in
> this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the context) can
> not be counter-acted by intellectual means. I suspect that sociological
> means are the best way to overcome these false teachings.
>
> -Haole
>
>
A most astute observation -- and especially so in the context of Latter Day
Saintism, wherein things intellectual (unless written by Orson Pratt and
approved by Brother Brigham for publication) have generally been distrusted.
When Martin Harris came back from his two interviews with Samuel Mitchel
and Charles Anthon, in New York City, we might have thought he would have
said something like "Well, the scholars say we have a problem here..." Instead
of this, the intellectualism of Mitchell and Anthon was taken as a proof that
God uses the faith of the unlearned to overturn the precepts of men. "The learned"
appear to become almost an enemy in this new religious consensus. Or, at
least those "learned" who will not cast aside their worldly wisdom and follow
after "unlearned" prophets become laughing-stocks of the "faithful."
Wasn't it Elder John Hyde who reported back in 1857 that Pres. Heber C.
Kimball prided himself on not being an "edi-cated" egg-head?
All of which leaves me scratching me head as to how we ever got around to
agreeing that the glory of God is intelligence.
But, back to things more mundane, how does one use reason and knowledge to
counteract such Mormon folklore as the old notion of the Ten Lost Tribes
of Israel being "hidden up" behind walls of ice near the North Pole -- just
waiting for the day that they will build a highway across Canada, and march
upon that marvellous road all the way to Missouri -- in order to take up their
inheritances surrounding the Latter Day Temple in Jackson County?
My appeals to National Geographic polar maps and satellite imagry have
brought forth only a rolling of the eyes among "the Elders of Israel" (and
I do mean "elders" -- because only those over 80 seem to hold fast to this
particular "restored gospel truth.")
Appeals to science and wisdom going nowhere, I found that compliments
worked wonders -- as in: "Why thank-you, Brother Orson H. Jensen, for
sharing with the class that remarkable testimony. We will re-visit that subject
when next we have an Apostle in our midst to enlighten us further on how
such a wall of ice will melt away and such a highway be built!"
Perhaps, in relation to that particular bit of Mormon folklore, all that can be
done is to wait for the total dying off of the generation born in the 1920s.
Now, about all those other LDS "folk beliefs"....
Unka Dale
moon...@xqmission.com
> Hi, I can't seem to get anyone who thinks that the Boggs' Extermination
> Order allowed the wholesale murder of Mormons (some even saying that it
> was legal to kill mormons until a few years ago) to answer a few questions
> I have.
I'll just address the question of whether it was "legal to kill
Mormons" in Missouri, and leave the rest of this one to others.
Presumably there have always been laws against murder in Missouri just as
there are elsewhere. But I was in the Midwest (Illinois) in 1976, and I
clearly remember reading at that time that the governor of Missouri had
only then rescinded Boggs' 1838 order, whatever its exact meaning. The
recission was symbolic, presumably in connection with the Bicentennial,
but I can see where the notion you referred to could come from.
Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Nonspammers please remove the "q" from address above to reply. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Frankly, I'm tired of the thread and how it evolved into a testosterone
> induced spitting contest of epic proportions.
Indeed. As I recall, all I said was that if I were a Mormon, I'd be
concerned about Ashcroft and I gave my reasons. I was called
"un-american" by one poster (though not Kathryn).
Well, its a moot point now.
So what do Mormons think of this faith-based initiatives plan of Bush's?
Maybe California is unusual, but most of the religious charities I have
ever seen have not been Protestant. Will the southern Methodists and
Baptists be so happy with the plan once they find large amounts of
tax-payer dollars going to Mormons, who already have a fairly large
infrastructure in place for organized charity?
I know the local Hare Krishna temple here has free vegetarian meals. I
assume that might make them eligible for some goverment funds. Do Mormons
support giving tax-payer dollars to pagans/Hindus to support a program
that does give away free food, but which also is used as a means of
gaining converts? It's one thing to say non-Christians have a right to
practice their religion and quite another thing to demand that the
government support non-Christian religions, right?
Peace,
Hedgehog
who thinks Catholics have the largest faith based charities
Hedgehog
lynn...@alsirat.com (Lynn Gazis-Sax) wrote:
I wonder if the Grateful Dead were baptized by proxy.
Peace,
Hedgehog
John Colton
wrote:
[snip]
>All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early on in
>this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the context) can
>not be counter-acted by intellectual means.
[snip]
I know what you're feeling... after all, I don't think you've replied
to my last two or three posts which intellectually challenged your
folk belief that te E.O. did not make killing Mormons legal.
John
John Johnson
"Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
news:Lrxj6.19557$Fv.8...@pouncer.easynews.com...
That would explain why they're grateful . . .
--
John Johnson
"A cry in the dark . . ." http://johnajohnson.diaryland.com
Haole
<dbro...@gte.net> wrote:
> Haole wrote:
> > ... All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early on in
> > this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the context) can
> > not be counter-acted by intellectual means. I suspect that sociological
> > means are the best way to overcome these false teachings.
> > -Haole
> A most astute observation -- and especially so in the context of Latter Day
> Saintism, wherein things intellectual (unless written by Orson Pratt and
> approved by Brother Brigham for publication) have generally been distrusted.
(snip some excellent comments)
Yeah, but I think that folk-beliefs are hard to put to rest everywhere.
For example, when I teach my Intro to Linguistics students that the idea
(one that "everyone knows") that Humans only use 10% of their brain is
based on some absolutely ridiculous evidence. Nonetheless, there are
always people who want to argue that, even in the face of the truth.
> Appeals to science and wisdom going nowhere, I found that compliments
> worked wonders -- as in: "Why thank-you, Brother Orson H. Jensen, for
> sharing with the class that remarkable testimony. We will re-visit that
subject
> when next we have an Apostle in our midst to enlighten us further on how
> such a wall of ice will melt away and such a highway be built!"
Exactly. This is exactly what I meant by 'sociological' means.
Look at how bent out of shape some folks in this discussion have gotten. I
mean, one person seemed so unwilling to look at the possibility that their
position was wrong that they had to assume it was men jumping on the topic
because a woman had said something to start it. It couldn't be that the
original position was wrong, so it had to be testosterone! Bewildering to
say the least.
Of course, I find this particular instance rather frustrating because it
is, as I see it, a rather clearly, demonstrably, wrong folk-belief, and
one with absolutely no value, spiritual or otherwise. What good could
passing on this little bit of propaganda actually do for us, as
individuals or as a church? And why not just walk to a library and look
the subject up? Are people's testimonies based on this little falsehood? I
sure hope not.
-Haole
> Perhaps, in relation to that particular bit of Mormon folklore, all that
can be
> done is to wait for the total dying off of the generation born in the 1920s.
>
> Now, about all those other LDS "folk beliefs"....
>
> Unka Dale
--
father of peace
>So what do Mormons think of this faith-based initiatives plan of Bush's?
That if a church accepts money from a government for any
purpose, then that church is owned by the government.
Handouts are the method the Feds have used to buy
up the country.
Money for roads,
Money for welfare,
Money for single moms,
Money for baby formula,
USDA commodities for food pantries,
Money for textbooks,
Money for drug programs.
Money for the elderly.
Money for prescription drugs,
Money for school lunches.
Each handout comes with an accompanying regulation
that only applies to those who accept the money.
Of course today, with most churches being corporations
doing business as a church, the churches are already
owned by the government. This initiative would just
bring them more fully under the control of the feds, and
would capture some of the unincorporated churches.
>I know the local Hare Krishna temple here has free vegetarian meals. I
>assume that might make them eligible for some goverment funds.
There is a food pantry in my town, and one in the next town over.
One of them accepts USDA commodities, and as a result is
heavily burdened with paperwork, with verifying qualifications,
with reports, with special handling restrictions on food, with
rules about who can get how much, etc.
The other food pantry does not accept any government money
or food. They are totally free from any sort of qualifying criteria
reports, or record keeping. They can help whomever needs
help without regards to income or situation.
The head of the first food pantry is always complaining to the
head of the other about all the red tape, but he still holds out
his arms for the handout....
>Do Mormons
>support giving tax-payer dollars to pagans/Hindus to support a program
>that does give away free food, but which also is used as a means of
>gaining converts?
A mormon who understands the war in heaven cannot support
any type of mandatory redistribution of wealth.
Haole
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
> I know what you're feeling... after all, I don't think you've replied
> to my last two or three posts which intellectually challenged your
> folk belief that te E.O. did not make killing Mormons legal.
Well, I think that others have done an excellent job of showing where your
'intellectual challenges' fall flat on their face.
If you missed them, check out David Bowie's comments again (especially the
one which you later took him to task for his, imho right-on-target,
taglines) as well as the most recent post by Hedgehog, also directed
specifically towards you.
I think that the Bowie/Hedgehog tagteam are doing a good job with this,
and I don't feel like they need me to tag in just yet.
In short, however since you seem to have missed it, my objections to your
particular pov stem from the fact that you think that if someone goes
unprosecuted for an act, that that act is 'legal' (of course, you haven't
shown us a legal basis for this view...). Trying to redefine the
terminology on-the-fly is an admirable attempt at reconciliation of our
two points of view, but even that makes me wonder what there is about your
views that you see is so beneficial to us that it must be held on to at
all costs? In other words, what do we as a people lose if some among us,
or even all of us, no longer believe the false retellings of what the
Extermination Order was all about? (I can, for the record, understand
where such stories came from, people forced out of a state tragically,
feeling angry and abused. Now that this event is ancient history, what is
wrong with looking at what the real story was?)
This whole things perplexes me. Again, I figure that it must be sociological.
Have you had the chance to look up 'exterminate' in a mid-1800s American
English legal dictionary yet?
-Haole, who is personally opposed to Hagiography
John Colton
peace) wrote:
[snip]
>A mormon who understands the war in heaven cannot support
>any type of mandatory redistribution of wealth.
Obviously I do not view the war in heaven the same way you do, because
I'm not sure what you mean by this. My first impression was the "fight
for freedom of choice" aspect of the war, but then I wonder why
mandatory redistribution of wealth would be any more on your dislike
list than any of the other things imposed by the govt, such as (a)
mandatory military service in time of war, (b) mandatory traffic laws,
(c) zoning ordinances mandating what types of buildings may be
constructed, (d) noise ordinances mandating how much noise you can
make in your house, (e) laws prohibiting one from producing toxic
chemicals, etc. You get the idea. So, are all of these other functions
of govt also on your dislike list, or was my impression of where you
were giong by invoking W.I.H. incorrect?
John
David Bowie
: uss_wi...@altavista.com (Haole) wrote:
: >All of this has only served to strengthen my belief (stated early
: >on in this discussion) that erroneous folk beliefs (what ever the
: >context) can not be counter-acted by intellectual means.
: I know what you're feeling... after all, I don't think you've
: replied to my last two or three posts which intellectually
: challenged your folk belief that te E.O. did not make killing
: Mormons legal.
Okay, let's try it another way--let's look at ecclesiastical law.
After all, it's been claimed in this thread that if someone's not punished
for committing a crime, then it's not a crime. What about masturbation,
though? I figure that most if not all of us on this newsgroup would agree
that that's against the general Mormon interpretation of the Law of
Chastity, but among people i've talked to on the subject, i've come across
*none*--yes, exactly *zero*--who were in any way placed under an
ecclesiastical punishment for doing it. (This isn't to say that nobody's
ever been punished in the Mormon church for masturbation--the crucial thing
is that there exist at least a few people weren't punished for it.)
A claim that the Executive can effectively contravene the Legislature by
selective enforcement may be correct--but that does *not* mean that the
actions that are not enforced with punishment are legal, it just means that
their enforcement is lax. Otherwise, after all, you'd have to say that it's
completely legal for Mormons to masturbate.
David, who doesn't have an opinion on whether OJ Simpson did it or not
David Bowie
: David Bowie <db....@pmpkn.net>:
: >The members of the band Dead or Alive are Mormons? Way cool!
: >David, spinnin' right round like a record, baby, right round round
: >round
: No, but the Grateful Dead are, and they are performing at the next
: General Conference.
All of the Grateful Dead, including Pigpen and Jerry Garcia, are playing at
the next General Conference? Cool--*proof* that the Mormon church is true!
David, who'd pay good money for that show
John Colton
wrote:
>In article <WaIj6.34546$Fv.16...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
>
>
>> I know what you're feeling... after all, I don't think you've replied
>> to my last two or three posts which intellectually challenged your
>> folk belief that te E.O. did not make killing Mormons legal.
>
>Well, I think that others have done an excellent job of showing where your
>'intellectual challenges' fall flat on their face.
Hmm. Let me review a couple of the points I have made to which no one
has responded.
(a) The situation in Berkeley regarding nudity, where the executive
branch has essentially made public nudity on certain occassions legal.
Actually, perhaps you did respond to this-- from your post, I would
gather that you still wouldn't call it "legal".
(b) Laws such as playing dominoes on Sunday-- do you disagree that by
choosing not to enforce the Alabama statute against playing dominos on
Sunday, the executive branch has altered the law (unless/until such
time as the judicial branch orders enforcement)?
(c) War-- the executive branch can order you to do things normally
against the law, such as killing people, in time of war (whether or
not declared by the legislature).
>If you missed them, check out David Bowie's comments again (especially the
>one which you later took him to task for his, imho right-on-target,
>taglines) as well as the most recent post by Hedgehog, also directed
>specifically towards you.
I think I've responded to all of their posts.
[snip]
>...you think that if someone goes
>unprosecuted for an act, that that act is 'legal' (of course, you haven't
>shown us a legal basis for this view...).
That's not precisely my POV. Hopefully I've clarified that in my other
recent post. Naomi seems to be more knowledgeable than myself
regarding the legal basis, and has provided some information in that
respect. (I also just emailed a couple of lawyer friends of mine for
there opinions on the matter-- I'll let you know if they respond.)
Personally, I'm arguing more from a common sense standpoint-- if there
is no practical difference between two states, then they are
essentially equivalent. Thus IMO (a) legalizing the killing of
Mormons, and (b) not punishing those who kill Mormons, are essentially
the same thing.
If you don't see those as being equivalent, perhaps you can explain
why.
> Trying to redefine the
>terminology on-the-fly is an admirable attempt at reconciliation of our
>two points of view, but even that makes me wonder what there is about your
>views that you see is so beneficial to us that it must be held on to at
>all costs?
It's called logic and common sense, my friend. I didn't even enter
into the discussion until your view seemed so far away from common
sense that it needed correcting... ;-)
> In other words, what do we as a people lose if some among us,
>or even all of us, no longer believe the false retellings of what the
>Extermination Order was all about? (I can, for the record, understand
>where such stories came from, people forced out of a state tragically,
>feeling angry and abused. Now that this event is ancient history, what is
>wrong with looking at what the real story was?)
Haole, I support setting the historical record straight 100%. Note
that none of my posts have made exaggerated claims about the E.O.
Heck, most of my posts have frankly admitted that I *don't even know*
if people were actually killing Mormons without being prosecuted
(although it seems likely to me).
>This whole things perplexes me. Again, I figure that it must be sociological.
As puzzled as you are, I am equally as puzzled at why you seem to want
to minimize the effect of the E.O.
>Have you had the chance to look up 'exterminate' in a mid-1800s American
>English legal dictionary yet?
Hmm. I thought you absolved me of that... ;-)
Seriously, I see absolutely no need-- I am ready to believe the
definition you have given, as I have stated before.
>-Haole, who is personally opposed to Hagiography
Here here! Me too!
John
Father of Peace
>Obviously I do not view the war in heaven the same way you do,
Lucifer said "I will save everyone, so give me the glory for it."
>My first impression was the "fight
>for freedom of choice" aspect of the war,
Yes, freedom to choose salvation for oneself, rather
than have it forced upon one by outside means.
>(a) mandatory military service in time of war,
Military drafts are luciferian because people will fight to
protect their own homes and neighborhoods against thugs.
They don't need to be compelled to do so.
Standing Armies and/or mandatory service allows us to
become the agressor in military conflicts.
>(b) mandatory traffic laws,
Mandatory traffic laws are wrong if nobody is harmed
by disobedience to the law. (You ever sat at a traffic
light for five minutes in the middle of the night with
no traffic on the road, just because the light woudn't
turn green for you?)
>(c) zoning ordinances mandating what types of buildings may be
>constructed,
Mandatory zoning ordinances are always luciferian.
> (d) noise ordinances mandating how much noise you can
>make in your house,
If you are harming another, you aught to make things
right with them.
>(e) laws prohibiting one from producing toxic
>chemicals, etc.
If the chemicals are not used to harm others, then
it is none of my business if someone produces them.
>You get the idea. So, are all of these other functions
>of govt also on your dislike list, or was my impression of where you
>were giong by invoking W.I.H. incorrect?
The idea that a majority of people can decide what
is right or wrong is luciferian in nature. It's the natural
outgrowth of my understanding of the war in heaven.
Hedgehog
> But, back to things more mundane, how does one use reason and knowledge to
> counteract such Mormon folklore as the old notion of the Ten Lost Tribes
> of Israel being "hidden up" behind walls of ice near the North Pole -- just
> waiting for the day that they will build a highway across Canada, and march
> upon that marvellous road all the way to Missouri -- in order to take up their
> inheritances surrounding the Latter Day Temple in Jackson County?
I thought the Ten Lost Tribes were living in Prester John's Kingdom. This
actually fits fairly well with LDS beliefs about John and the three
Nephites living forever some place on earth. Now if we could only figure
out if Prester John's kingdom is near Ethiopia or India or China. :)
Peace,
Hedgehog
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Okay, let's try it another way--let's look at ecclesiastical law.
>
>After all, it's been claimed in this thread that if someone's not punished
>for committing a crime, then it's not a crime. What about masturbation,
>though?
[snip]
This seems to be a strange transition to me, and frankly I don't see a
large similarity between ecclesiastical law and regular law. After
all, there are plenty of sinful behaviors which will not normally need
chuch discipline. Masturbation may be one, but so is gambling, lying,
gluttony, being mean to people, etc. So I really don't see a
connection to what we've been discussing.
>A claim that the Executive can effectively contravene the Legislature by
>selective enforcement may be correct--but that does *not* mean that the
>actions that are not enforced with punishment are legal, it just means that
>their enforcement is lax.
[snip]
To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
(Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the books, which
a few web sites claim.) Or is this a bad use of the term "illegal"?
John
John Colton
Colton) wrote:
[snip]
(from my previous post)
>That's not precisely my POV. Hopefully I've clarified that in my other
>recent post. Naomi seems to be more knowledgeable than myself
>regarding the legal basis, and has provided some information in that
>respect. (I also just emailed a couple of lawyer friends of mine for
>there opinions on the matter-- I'll let you know if they respond.)
[snip]
Well, I have three good friends who are lawyers, to whom I posed the
question. One has responded so far, and here are his comments.
___
(first my question to him)
Tom,
I've got a sort of a legal trivia question, and was wondering if you
would weigh in with an opinion.
I've been having a discussion about the Extermination Order by Gov.
Boggs in Missouri. It's come out that the term "exterminate" as used
in the mid 1800s means "to drive out" rather than "to kill". However,
I've taken the side that if the executive branch created an atmosphere
such that people who murdered Mormons went unpunished (something I'm
not sure of, but seems likely), then they had essentially altered the
law to make legal the killing of Mormons, even though technically
(since nothing was done by the legislature) no laws were changed. Do I
have a leg to stand on?
Some thoughts I've had are that (a) the executive branch affects the
laws by chosing what to enforce. For example, I've heard that it's
against the law to play dominoes on Sunday in Alabama, but of course
no one would ever be prosecuted on such. Thus, the executive dept has
essentially changed that law, and unless ordered by the courts to
begin enforcing it, the law is now dead. (b) the executive branch can
at times order people to legally do things which would otherwise be
against the law. I'm thinking specifically here of the Indian wars. I
don't think Congress passed declarations of war on each tribe, yet the
executive branch was able to order people to kill Indians, when
killing in general would have been against the law.
___
(the response from Thomas Cain, El Cerrito CA)
John,
You have stumbled into an area that I have pondering over for a
number of years: what is law? Is it custom? Is it the "logic"
derived from the history of a people? Is it divine in origin? Or is
it the exercise of power by the State? The primary distinction is
between "black letter law," that is, the law on the books, and the law
in action. The former is somewhat amorphous, given the executive
powers in matters of the military, defense, etc., where democratic
institutions are limited by the need for action and initiative. The
latter is even more amorphous, as it depends on our legal philosophy,
public policy, and the critical question of whether "law" is or must
be linked to "right" in the moral sense. As an idealist (and
Christian) I assert that in its largest sense, law must include the
right. Christianity started out as an illegal religion, and we
retain this sense of the ideal, the right, as a trump above the law of
the state.
However, our legal system is known as the jurisprudential school of
"legal realism," that is, defined as the power of the state, and what
judges say, no more, no less. This creates initiative in people
(including Presidents) to push the limits. To move from the abstract,
to the concrete, the same argument you make is being made against John
Ashcroft--that even if he doesn't change the black letter law, he will
create an atmosphere which allows the law to be broken, or unenforced,
etc.
The critical point in your analysis is the second paragraph (b), the
executive doesn't have to order people "legally" to do things which
would otherwise be against the law (although Andrew Jackson, Lincoln,
Truman, and other Presidents may have done or tried to do so in times
of emergency). Ultimately, it comes back to the judgment of history
(which, you are correct, can be changed) if the hearts and minds of
the public are educated to understand that a higher wrong was done.
The analogy to the Indian Wars is a good one. It may be difficult to
persuade the general public to say that the Federal Govt. altered the
laws to make legal the killing of Mormons. In the sense that they
contributed to it, created the atmosphere, turned a blind eye, okay.
But whether executive officers were co-conspirators, would depend on
whether the national leaders had actual knowledge of what would happen
locally as a result of their policies, and intended those killings.
I doubt this is helpful. But it is a most interesting question. Tom
___
Some additional comments of my own--
(1) I thought it was really interesting that he brought back John
Ashcroft! (For those who missed it, that was the original topic of the
thread which sparke this whole debate.)
(2) He comments that even "black letter law" (what's actually on the
books) is "somewhat amorphous, given the executive powers in matters
of the military, defense, etc..."
(3) He observes that at times Presidents may have ordered people to do
things which were against the law, and that ultimately they are judged
by history. I thought that was interesting, and [drifting far afield
here] reminded me of the recent Tom Clancy novel (The Bear and the
Dragon, I think) where President Ryan orders the interstate
transportation system shut down due to biological attacks against the
US, and a few members of his cabinet resign because they feel like he
is ordering them to break the law.
(4) He seems to have misunderstood my question about the "executive
branch" as meaning the Federal level as opposed to the state level.
Oh, well, probably my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, I don't think Tom's response necessarily gives a resolution to
the debate, but I thought he made enough interesting comments fo me to
post his response in its entirety.
I will post again if my other two friends respond.
John
Haole
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
(snip)
> To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
> that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
> (Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the books, which
> a few web sites claim.)
Nice tautology.
How about you provide us with the relevant legal code in the same way we
have provided you with the text of the Extermination Order?
ObLDS: In my experience, much more evil goes along with the playing of
dominoes than with face cards. Is there a folk-mormon belief addressing
domino playing?
-Haole
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
> Well, I have three good friends who are lawyers, to whom I posed the
> question. One has responded so far, and here are his comments.
I didn't find his comments very decisive. His attitude seemed to be
"That's a good philosophical question" rather than a firm "yes" or "no".
I have puzzled by your own approach to the issue. It seems to me that you
have picked a side and you are fishing around for evidence to support it.
If the Mormons were engaged in armed rebellion against the state, then the
state would surely have the legal right to defend itself by force if
necessary. The deaths of innocent civilian Mormons, while tragic, are no
worse than the non-combatants killed by the atomic weapons drops on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
My guess is that the Extermination Order was never tested legally because
even the Mormons didn't want to have a legal test. Legal testing might
have focused a spot-light on aspects of 19th century Mormon life that the
Church felt was better left in the closet.
If Boggs had acted improperly as the chief executive of the state of
Missouri, then I would assume Bogg's political opponents in the
legislature might have called for an impeachment. So by emphasizing the
legality of the extermination order, you seem to be (perhaps
unintentionally) showing that the Mormons were widely perceived to be
armed rebels willing to use violence against their non-Mormon neighbors.
If Mormons broke the law, why shouldn't they be punished? Are you sure
you want to keep arguing that the extermination order was legal?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
> that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
Let's take a simpler example. Let's say the speedlimit on the highways is
65 miles per hour. At least here, many people drive faster. They don't
always get tickets. In fact, I'd argue that the majority of speeders
don't get ticketed on any given day. But if you do get ticketed on
Tuesday, the fact that you were speeding unticketed on Monday isn't a
valid legal defense. Neither is it a valid defense that "everyone speeds
all the time". Neither is it a valid defense that you were just "going
with the flow of traffic".
Or to put it in a more LDS context:
Chief Executive: God
Killer: Nephi
Victim: Laban
If God didn't punish Nephi for killing Laban, was the divine law against
murder repealed?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
> (a) The situation in Berkeley regarding nudity, where the executive
> branch has essentially made public nudity on certain occassions legal.
> Actually, perhaps you did respond to this-- from your post, I would
> gather that you still wouldn't call it "legal".
My understanding of the situation in Berkeley is that nudity is only
forbidden when it is for lewd and lascivious purposes.
Are we finally getting to a reason why Mormons should support Ashcroft?
Is the LDS Chruch strongly opposed to nudism when practiced by
non-members? Is Ashcroft planning a legal blitz against nude beaches?
> (b) Laws such as playing dominoes on Sunday-- do you disagree that by
> choosing not to enforce the Alabama statute against playing dominos on
> Sunday, the executive branch has altered the law (unless/until such
> time as the judicial branch orders enforcement)?
I think the problem with your approach is that you seem to subscribe to
the idea that "might makes right". That seems a strange position to take
if you wish to argue that the killing of Mormons in Missouri in the 19th
century was wrong.
Bogg's extermination order was based *explicitly* on the premise that the
Mormons were an armed threat to the safety of Missouri. If the
extermination order was validly legal, as you appear to be arguing, then
it becomes a legal fact that Mormons (at least at that time) were armed
rebels against the constitutionally elected government. By pushing so
hard for the legality of the order, you are effectively saying that
Mormons were not martyrs, but criminal thugs who deserved everything that
happened to them.
> (c) War-- the executive branch can order you to do things normally
> against the law, such as killing people, in time of war (whether or
> not declared by the legislature).
Actually, not true...
http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
Peace,
Hedgehog
John S. Colton
>In article <VCwk6.35005$3h1.1...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
>> To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
>> that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
>> (Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the books, which
>> a few web sites claim.)
>
>Nice tautology.
Actually, it's called a "hypothetical situation".
>How about you provide us with the relevant legal code in the same way we
>have provided you with the text of the Extermination Order?
Well, since I was talking hypothetically, and am not even sure that
this precise "law" exists, I don't see the point in providing legal
code. However, a quick web search turned up this book:
The Columbus Chicken Statute and More Bonehead Legislation, by Dick
Hyman
which may be found here:
http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y0028379Y7810389/qid=982765009/sr=1-/ref=z_ret_b_oop_03/102-3059698-0080909
The book talks about the type of "laws" I was referring to, and
according to Amazon, it is "complete with legal citations in case you
want to check the law books."
>ObLDS: In my experience, much more evil goes along with the playing of
>dominoes than with face cards. Is there a folk-mormon belief addressing
>domino playing?
Hmm. I've never heard of any anti-domino talks.
John
John S. Colton
>In article <pTFk6.46611$3h1.2...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
>
>> Well, I have three good friends who are lawyers, to whom I posed the
>> question. One has responded so far, and here are his comments.
>
>I didn't find his comments very decisive. His attitude seemed to be
>"That's a good philosophical question" rather than a firm "yes" or "no".
I agree.
>I have puzzled by your own approach to the issue. It seems to me that you
>have picked a side and you are fishing around for evidence to support it.
Sorry if I have come across that way. That's not the case. My opinion
in all of my posts has been clear, I think-- that I don't know all of
the facts behind the E.O., but if there is no practical difference
between (a) making legal the killing of Mormons, and (b) letting
killers of Mormons go unpunished, then one might as well say that the
E.O. essentially legalized the killing of Mormons.
>If the Mormons were engaged in armed rebellion against the state, then the
>state would surely have the legal right to defend itself by force if
>necessary. The deaths of innocent civilian Mormons, while tragic, are no
>worse than the non-combatants killed by the atomic weapons drops on
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You've brought this up before, and I didn't respond, because I don't
really understand it. As far as I know, the Mormons were *not* engaged
in armed rebellion against the state (although possibly Gov. Boggs
claimed they were). Have you found otherwise? I'm wondering why none
of the others involved in this discussion have brought this up, if
it's actually true.
If the Mormons *were* at war with the state, then it would be a
different situation from what I've been discussing. I've been
discussing the situation (accurate to the best of my knowledge) in
which the Mormons were intensely disliked by some other people in the
state, who then obtained the E.O. kicking out the Mormons.
Offhand, the only instance of what might be considered armed rebellion
by the Mormons, that I can think of is years later, when General
Johnson (?) led the army against the Mormons in Utah.
[snip]
>If Mormons broke the law, why shouldn't they be punished?
Sure. Do you have evidence that the Mormons were breaking the law? I
have read a lot of Mormon history, and I haven't seen any evidence
that the Mormons were breaking the law in Missouri.
>Are you sure
>you want to keep arguing that the extermination order was legal?
That's not actually what I've been arguing.
John
John S. Colton
>In article <rSuk6.32480$3h1.1...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
[snip]
>My understanding of the situation in Berkeley is that nudity is only
>forbidden when it is for lewd and lascivious purposes.
No, that's incorrect. The law against public nudity was passed as a
result of the "naked guy", the famed Berkeley student who went to
classes, and around town, naked. He was not doing it for lewd or
lascivious purposes. (At least, not on the surface.)
[snip]
>I think the problem with your approach is that you seem to subscribe to
>the idea that "might makes right".
OK, I see where some of your objections to my posts are coming from
now. I do not subscribe to the position that "might should make
right'. However, being a realist, I do admit that often "might makes
right". In other words, I am not saying that the executive branch
*should* be influencing the laws to the extent that it does, but I am
saying that the E.B. does in fact influence the laws quite a bit.
> That seems a strange position to take
>if you wish to argue that the killing of Mormons in Missouri in the 19th
>century was wrong.
>
>Bogg's extermination order was based *explicitly* on the premise that the
>Mormons were an armed threat to the safety of Missouri. If the
>extermination order was validly legal, as you appear to be arguing, then
>it becomes a legal fact that Mormons (at least at that time) were armed
>rebels against the constitutionally elected government. By pushing so
>hard for the legality of the order, you are effectively saying that
>Mormons were not martyrs, but criminal thugs who deserved everything that
>happened to them.
I am not saying at all that Bogg's order *should* have had legal
effect (it shouldn't IMO, being based on a faulty premise), but I am
saying that Bogg's order may have created an atmosphere in which
killing Mormons became essentially legal.
In other words, I have not been arguing at all about what should have
happened, only about what did happen.
>> (c) War-- the executive branch can order you to do things normally
>> against the law, such as killing people, in time of war (whether or
>> not declared by the legislature).
>
>Actually, not true...
>
>http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm
I'm not sure how this relates.
>http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
I don't think "conscientious objectors" fall into the category I was
talking about. It is true, that the conscientious objector provision
means that people who have moral and ethical objections to war have
alternatives available. However, as the site states, "a man's reasons
for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics,
expediency, or self-interest." Thus, assuming one did not have such
moral/ethical objections, my statement above is correct.
John
John S. Colton
>> To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
>> that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
>
>Let's take a simpler example. Let's say the speedlimit on the highways is
>65 miles per hour. At least here, many people drive faster. They don't
>always get tickets. In fact, I'd argue that the majority of speeders
>don't get ticketed on any given day. But if you do get ticketed on
>Tuesday, the fact that you were speeding unticketed on Monday isn't a
>valid legal defense. Neither is it a valid defense that "everyone speeds
>all the time". Neither is it a valid defense that you were just "going
>with the flow of traffic".
Is there not a vast difference between "enforced every once in a
while", and "never enforced"?
>Or to put it in a more LDS context:
[snip Nephi & Laban]
I actually don't want to start another Nephi/Laban thread, so I don't
think I'll go there. Besides, as I commented to Dave B., I don't
necessarily think any examples from religious law apply.
John
Haole
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
(snip)
> Sure. Do you have evidence that the Mormons were breaking the law? I
> have read a lot of Mormon history, and I haven't seen any evidence
> that the Mormons were breaking the law in Missouri.
Well, I assume in the above by "Mormon History" you mean "history written
and sold by Mormons", because there are tons and tons of sources that,
were you familiar with them, would educate you about this period in Church
history. However, for the sake of those here who would argue with non-LDS
sources, I will only quote from LDS-sources here.
Brigham Young said "Elder Rigdon was the prime cause of our troubles in
Missouri by his fourth of July oration" (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page
667).
President Young was referring to a speech given by Sidney Rigdon, who was
incidentally the first to use the word 'extermination' in this whole mess
as far as I have been able to tell.
"And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and
them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop
of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for
we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families,
and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed" (Comprehensive
History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441).
Some historians have taken this speech to be an indication that the
Mormons were in armed rebellion against the state. They were already in
violation of an agreement they had with local officials to not settle
outside of a previously agreed to county. Add to that the mysterious
burning of a nearby city, Galletin (or Galeton, or one of a number of
other spellings), and the attck on state troops at the Battle of Crooked
River....
Even the most loyal member of the Church has to admit that to outsiders
these were somewhat illegal and agressive-looking acts.
-Haole, noting that it is in the faithful member's interests to understand
what 'exterminate' means in all the context involved in this discussion
David Bowie
: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:15:13 GMT, David Bowie wrote:
: >Okay, let's try it another way--let's look at ecclesiastical law.
: >After all, it's been claimed in this thread that if someone's not
: >punished for committing a crime, then it's not a crime. What
: >about masturbation, though?
: This seems to be a strange transition to me, and frankly I don't
: see a large similarity between ecclesiastical law and regular law...
Why not? It would seem to me that the underlying principle is the same--if
you claim that lack of enforcement equals a lack of illegality, then that's
a principle that works for either ecclesiastical or secular contexts.
: ...After all, there are plenty of sinful behaviors which will not
: normally need chuch discipline. Masturbation may be one, but so is
: gambling, lying, gluttony, being mean to people, etc. So I really
: don't see a connection to what we've been discussing.
But *that*'s the connection!
If one claims that a lack of enforcement means that there's de facto
legality, then one has to claim that masturbation, lying, gluttony, being
mean to people, &c. are legal under ecclesiastical law! I'm not making the
claim that they are legal, of course--in fact, i'm making the claim that the
lack of enforcement does *not* make them legal.
: >A claim that the Executive can effectively contravene the
: >Legislature by selective enforcement may be correct--but that does
: >*not* mean that the actions that are not enforced with punishment
: >are legal, it just means that their enforcement is lax.
: To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you
: believe that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on
: Sunday? (Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the
: books, which a few web sites claim.) Or is this a bad use of the
: term "illegal"?
Actually, i'm probably more extreme than either Haole or Hedgehog on this
one, 'cause i'd say that (assuming that your givens are true) it *is*
illegal to do such.
However, i also think that Hedgehog's counterexample, in which he points out
that not being punished for speeding on Monday does *not* constitute a valid
defense for being punished for speeding on Tuesday, is a better discussion
example for this subthread.
David, who actually enjoys these sorts of discussions
David Bowie
: >Let's take a simpler example. Let's say the speedlimit on the
: >highways is 65 miles per hour. At least here, many people drive
: >faster. They don't always get tickets. In fact, I'd argue that
: >the majority of speeders don't get ticketed on any given day.
: >But if you do get ticketed on Tuesday, the fact that you were
: >speeding unticketed on Monday isn't a valid legal defense.
: >Neither is it a valid defense that "everyone speeds all the
: >time". Neither is it a valid defense that you were just "going
: >with the flow of traffic".
: Is there not a vast difference between "enforced every once in a
: while", and "never enforced"?
Two different responses to this one; i'll go with the quicker and less
significant one first.
I know people who sped their entire lives, but never got a ticket for it.
Similarly, there was a point in time in which Maryland was basically a
racing strip for people headed from New York to Florida, and speeding
tickets were unheard of (a situation that has changed drastically since,
BTW). Does this mean that the speeding laws don't apply to people who don't
*ever* get ticketed? Does this mean that there were no speeding laws in
Maryland for a time?
More significantly, your response sidesteps the issue at hand here--namely,
whether a lack of enforcement equates to legality. Under what i *think* is
your claim (that a lack of enforcement equals legality), if a law is not
enforced at a given point in time and space, then it holds no legal weight
at that point in time and space. For you to hold otherwise would mean that
you would have to allow that it makes no difference whether any Missourian
murderers of Mormons (alliteration!) were ever punished for their crimes,
because the law exists aside from its enforcement.
<snip>
: I actually don't want to start another Nephi/Laban thread, so I don't
: think I'll go there. Besides, as I commented to Dave B., I don't
: necessarily think any examples from religious law apply.
You didn't say *why* you think this, though--so why? It would seem to me
that the simplest situation would be one in which ecclesiastical and secular
law act in the same way--why do you feel that they're somehow inherently
different? (Note that i ask this particularly given the Mormon POV, in which
the constitutional law of the land appears to be elevated to ecclesiastical
commandment status, given comments on it in the D&C.)
David, who doesn't knowingly speed
David Bowie
: col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John Colton) wrote:
: >Obviously I do not view the war in heaven the same way you do,
: Lucifer said "I will save everyone, so give me the glory for it."
Is this actually what the scriptures say that Lucifer said?
<snip>
David, hoping for a scriptural reference
Haole
<db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> "John S. Colton" <col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil> wrote...
(snip)
> : To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you
> : believe that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on
> : Sunday? (Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the
> : books, which a few web sites claim.) Or is this a bad use of the
> : term "illegal"?
> Actually, i'm probably more extreme than either Haole or Hedgehog on this
> one, 'cause i'd say that (assuming that your givens are true) it *is*
> illegal to do such.
This is what I would say as well.
-Haole, who just had someone tell him that the Hanssens guy recently
arrested for spying was LDS.
Haole
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:44:44 GMT, Haole wrote:
> >In article <VCwk6.35005$3h1.1...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
> >col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> >> To take one of the examples I've given in other posts, do you believe
> >> that it is still "illegal" in Alabama to play dominoes on Sunday?
> >> (Assume for argument that the law is actualy still on the books, which
> >> a few web sites claim.)
> >Nice tautology.
> Actually, it's called a "hypothetical situation".
Actually it is a tautology.
And a rather deliberate and succinct answer to the question as well.
Mormonreject
(this being one of them). I'm familiar with the events that occurred in
Missouri and I'm hoping you can confirm or correct me on two points:
1) I seem to remember that some of the old court transcripts of trials that
found Joseph Smith, jr and other members guilty of treason, etc based this on
his outspoken opposition to slavery and not on LDS doctrine. Preaching
anti-slavery was seen as inciting the slaves to riot and a threat to the MO
government;
2) The extermination or expulsion order was on the books until the late 1960s.
It was removed after a man was arrested for killing a Mormon and his defense
was that it was perfectly legal to kill mormons. (Okay, it's probably urban
legend, but I remember reading about it in a non-LDS publication).
Father of Peace
>: Lucifer said "I will save everyone, so give me the glory for it."
My paraphrase of Moses 4:1 where Lucifer is quoted as having
said...."I will redeeme all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost,
and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor."
>Is this actually what the scriptures say that Lucifer said?
Close enough.
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> Sorry if I have come across that way. That's not the case. My opinion
> in all of my posts has been clear, I think-- that I don't know all of
> the facts behind the E.O., but if there is no practical difference
> between (a) making legal the killing of Mormons, and (b) letting
> killers of Mormons go unpunished, then one might as well say that the
> E.O. essentially legalized the killing of Mormons.
I don't subscribe to a might-makes-right political theory. I prefer a
rule-of-law theory.
Re: Mormons in armed rebellion
> You've brought this up before, and I didn't respond, because I don't
> really understand it.
I thought Mr. Boggs mentioned it in the extermination order.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> Is there not a vast difference between "enforced every once in a
> while", and "never enforced"?
Are you still talking about the LDS religion?
No offense, John, but you seem to be trolling. Do you seriously intend to
argue that murder laws are *never* enforced? Or do you mean to argue that
the laws are enforced selectively?
Peace,
Hedgehog
who still thinks the Book of Mormon says contention is of the Devil.
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>If one claims that a lack of enforcement means that there's de facto
>legality, then one has to claim that masturbation, lying, gluttony, being
>mean to people, &c. are legal under ecclesiastical law! I'm not making the
>claim that they are legal, of course--in fact, i'm making the claim that the
>lack of enforcement does *not* make them legal.
But God does enforce his laws, David. If God were to give a command
and then hold no consequence for transgressing them, what would that
say about the law? What would it say about God?
I think you're wrong on this one.
Best regards,
--
Raymond Bingham | 100 % PURE Uninformed Unabashed Opinion
"A good rule of thumb: Never give Microsoft root access."
John S. Colton
this newsgroup]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:12:35 GMT, Hedgehog wrote:
>In article <WyTk6.67193$3h1.2...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
>> Is there not a vast difference between "enforced every once in a
>> while", and "never enforced"?
>
>Are you still talking about the LDS religion?
I was never talking about the LDS religion.
>No offense, John, but you seem to be trolling. Do you seriously intend to
>argue that murder laws are *never* enforced? Or do you mean to argue that
>the laws are enforced selectively?
I'm having a harder and harder time interpreting your posts. What do
you think my view is? I thought I had been pretty clear. Where have I
claimed that murder laws are never enforced? Where have I talked about
LDS religion at all (in this, and the other related threads)?
I thought I had been very clear and consistent, that I have been
discussing the legality of killing Mormons in c. 1840 Missouri.
I have specifically *not* been discussing the (a) morality of killing
Mormons in c. 1840 Missouri, (b) the legality of killing Mormons in
post 1850 Missouri, or (c) anything relating to ecclesiastical law or
the LDS religion.
To aid in my discussion, I have invoked various examples from more
modern America, ones which seem to have a lot of similarities to the
1840 Mormon/Missuori situation. Namely, these examples have included,
(a) the legality of current laws which are never enforced (i.e., the
dominoes example), (b) the ability of the executive branch to "break
the law" legally in times of war (i.e, the Indian Wars, or Japanese
internment of WWII as Naomi brought up), and (c) the ability of the
executive branch to alter the letter of the law by selective
enforcement (i.e., nudity in Berkeley).
Hope that clarifies things.
John
Raymond Bingham
>Why not? It would seem to me that the underlying principle is the same--if
>you claim that lack of enforcement equals a lack of illegality, then that's
>a principle that works for either ecclesiastical or secular contexts.
Well the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law is
quite striking. Ecclesiastical law supposedly comes from God. It is
then more up to God to enforce those laws, and those laws which are of
God *ARE* enforced by Him.
The whole point of secular laws is mutual consent by the community under
which these laws are given. If not, then the people become a "law
unto themselves."
In Ecclesiastical law often all the officials of the church are expected
to do is mention the laws, and they are then by definition "enforced". Then
it is up to the adherents of God's law to obey it, or suffer the consequences
which God sees fit to affix to their disobedience.
Secular law, stating the law doesn't enforce it. Sometimes Fate enforces
laws of safety, but in truth, human laws require human enforcement or they
are of no value.
God's laws require godly enforcement, and God is perfectly just.
David Bowie
: David Bowie (db....@pmpkn.net) quipped:
: >If one claims that a lack of enforcement means that there's de
: >facto legality, then one has to claim that masturbation, lying,
: >gluttony, being mean to people, &c. are legal under
: >ecclesiastical law! I'm not making the claim that they are
: >legal, of course--in fact, i'm making the claim that the
: >lack of enforcement does *not* make them legal.
: But God does enforce his laws, David. If God were to give a
: command and then hold no consequence for transgressing them,
: what would that say about the law? What would it say about God?
Aha! says David, as the trap springs shut (even though it didn't catch one
of the people he'd expected it to).
: I think you're wrong on this one.
I'm wrong on this if and only if we ignore that statements in the D&C that
basically elevate following the constitutional law of the land into a
religious commandment. That is, i can see how certain non-Mormon POVs could
hold that i'm wrong, but i don't see how a Mormon POV could--given that God
commands us to follow the constitutional law of the land, *God* then
enforces the legality of even secular laws.
David, who likes those bits of the D&C
John S. Colton
>"John S. Colton" <col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil> wrote...
[snip]
>More significantly, your response sidesteps the issue at hand here--namely,
>whether a lack of enforcement equates to legality. Under what i *think* is
>your claim (that a lack of enforcement equals legality), if a law is not
>enforced at a given point in time and space, then it holds no legal weight
>at that point in time and space. For you to hold otherwise would mean that
>you would have to allow that it makes no difference whether any Missourian
>murderers of Mormons (alliteration!) were ever punished for their crimes,
>because the law exists aside from its enforcement.
Yes, my claim is close to "a lack of enforcement equates to legality".
I'd change it to be more precisely "a systematic lack of enforcement
equates to legality". Whether it *should* equate to legality is
perhaps another question, but I believe that it *does* equate to
legality, at least for all practical purposes.
I think the involvement of the enforcement of a law, with its
legality, is well established. IIRC, laws which are unenforceable are
in the same category as laws which are termed "invalid" by the courts.
>: I actually don't want to start another Nephi/Laban thread, so I don't
>: think I'll go there. Besides, as I commented to Dave B., I don't
>: necessarily think any examples from religious law apply.
>
>You didn't say *why* you think this, though--so why? It would seem to me
>that the simplest situation would be one in which ecclesiastical and secular
>law act in the same way--why do you feel that they're somehow inherently
>different?
[snip]
You seem to be equating breaking ecclesiastical law with sin. There's
a problem with that, as I think Ray did a good job of pointing out.
This basically equates eccl. law with commandments. If breaking eccl.
law is the same as sin, then it is not punished by the church, but
rather by God. If eccl. law is not the same as the commandments (but
rather those subset of commandments which may be punished by the
church) then the list of unenforced "eccl. laws" which you compiled
has no relevence.
>David, who doesn't knowingly speed
Just out of curiosity, is it because (a) you believe it is morally
wrong (i.e., the "honoring and sustaining the law" bit in the AoF),
(b) out of safety concerns, (c) out of fear of getting a ticket, (d)
because you simply like to drive slowly, or (e) some other reason.
This may be an interesting subject for another thread-- I've got some
thoughts on the matter which I won't include now.
For that matter, are speed limits actually part of the law? I was
under the impression that most speed limits were set by the executive
branch, not by the legislature.
Drifting further afield,
John
Father of Peace
>I'm wrong on this if and only if we ignore that statements in the D&C that
>basically elevate following the constitutional law of the land into a
>religious commandment.
LdS generally tend to ignore the sections and verses of the Book of
Mormon that teach us to rebell against laws and leaders that are
wicked and/or unconstitutional.
>That is, i can see how certain non-Mormon POVs could
>hold that i'm wrong, but i don't see how a Mormon POV could--given that God
>commands us to follow the constitutional law of the land, *God* then
>enforces the legality of even secular laws.
Only if those laws which protect a person in their basic humanity and
are congruent with the principles of agency and freedom of choice.
God never intended to give his blessing to mandatory taxation,
redistribution of wealth, mandatory welfare and other luciferian
practices.
Gregg Smith
: I'm familiar with the events that occurred in Missouri
: 1) I seem to remember that some of the old court transcripts of trials that
: found Joseph Smith, jr and other members guilty of treason, etc
AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
: 2) The extermination or expulsion order was on the books until the late 1960s.
Until June 25, 1976.
: It was removed after a man was arrested for killing a Mormon and his defense
: was that it was perfectly legal to kill mormons.
Nope, it was rescinded by an executive order from Governor
Christopher S Bond.
Gregg
John S. Colton
[snip]
>I'm wrong on this if and only if we ignore that statements in the D&C that
>basically elevate following the constitutional law of the land into a
>religious commandment.
[snip]
Are you talking about D&C 134? Or do you have other passages in mind?
John
Hedgehog
(Mormonreject) wrote:
> 2) The extermination or expulsion order was on the books until the late
1960s.
> It was removed after a man was arrested for killing a Mormon and his defense
> was that it was perfectly legal to kill mormons. (Okay, it's probably urban
> legend, but I remember reading about it in a non-LDS publication).
Do you happen to remember if that defense was successful?
Since you remember reading about it, what sort of publication was it:
newspaper, magazine, tract, pamphlet, book, etc?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
Bingham) wrote:
> But God does enforce his laws, David.
Romans 7:4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by
the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him
who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law,
did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are
delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we
should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
Do you agree with Paul that we have been delivered from the strict letter
of the law?
> If God were to give a command
> and then hold no consequence for transgressing them, what would that
> say about the law? What would it say about God?
God (supposedly) paid Nephi a continent's worth of real estate to kill a
man in violation of the ten commandments. I have argued that God didn't
really ask Nephi to kill Laban and that God did punish Nephi for the
murder and I have been opposed by the LDS for these views.
Want to change sides, Raymond?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> I thought I had been very clear and consistent, that I have been
> discussing the legality of killing Mormons in c. 1840 Missouri.
So what do you want to do, John? Kit Bond issued an apology on behalf of
the State of Missouri. Was that not good enough? Anyone who killed a
Mormon in 1840 is long dead now. Are we supposed to dig up their
skeletons and put the skeletons on trial? If the skeletons are found
guilty, should we put a couple of thousand volts of electricity through
them? Should we fumigate the bones with a little cyanide gas before
reburying them? How do we punish a skeleton?
At an earlier point in this thread I said it is time for Mormons to set
aside their hatred of Missourians. It is time. Let it go.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Well the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law is
> quite striking. Ecclesiastical law supposedly comes from God.
Is that Mormon doctrine?
In Catholicism, there are ecclesiastical laws which are not divine
commands--such as priestly celibacy for example.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> Mormonreject (mormon...@aol.com) wrote:
> : I'm familiar with the events that occurred in Missouri
> : and I'm hoping you can confirm or correct me on two points:
>
> : 1) I seem to remember that some of the old court transcripts of trials that
> : found Joseph Smith, jr and other members guilty of treason, etc
>
> AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
> found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently O'Dea
says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the officer charged
with executing Smith found himself morally unable to comply with the
court's order.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
>basically elevate following the constitutional law of the land into a
>religious commandment. That is, i can see how certain non-Mormon POVs could
>hold that i'm wrong, but i don't see how a Mormon POV could--given that God
>commands us to follow the constitutional law of the land, *God* then
>enforces the legality of even secular laws.
I'm afraid I fail to understand your meaning here. Are you suggesting
that the early saints disobeyed the law? I question whether that was
even possible on the frontier, as was demonstrated by the lawlessness
of such decrees as Mr. Boggs.
(I really see Mr. Boggs' decree as a political manuever to appease his
constituents, who feared the mormons because they were such a large,
like-minded political entity which could've clobbered him given enough
time. In that regard I would question whether God enforces politics. :-)
Are you saying that if God didn't enforce the law then it never was
a "real" law? (If you are, I think I would agree with you, from
God's perspective... unfortunately, I often lack that perspective. ;-)
John S. Colton
>In article <REtl6.17920$HN3.5...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
><gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
>> found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
>
>See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently O'Dea
>says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the officer charged
>with executing Smith found himself morally unable to comply with the
>court's order.
IIRC, Smith was later cleared of the charges (which is presumably why
the officer was not court-martialed). Any details, Lynn,since you've
looked over the stuff the most recently?
John
John S. Colton
>In article <Frbl6.970$Kd.5...@news.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
>> I thought I had been very clear and consistent, that I have been
>> discussing the legality of killing Mormons in c. 1840 Missouri.
>
>So what do you want to do, John? Kit Bond issued an apology on behalf of
>the State of Missouri. Was that not good enough? Anyone who killed a
>Mormon in 1840 is long dead now. Are we supposed to dig up their
>skeletons and put the skeletons on trial? If the skeletons are found
>guilty, should we put a couple of thousand volts of electricity through
>them? Should we fumigate the bones with a little cyanide gas before
>reburying them? How do we punish a skeleton?
Huh? Where did this come from? Where have I impled that anything need
be done in the present regarding the situation we've been discussing?
I entered this discussion to counter what I perceive to be faulty
logic on the part of people who were claiming that the deaths of the
Mormons in ~ 1840 Missouri were due merely to "unfortunate incidents"
while the Missourians were attempting to kick them out. (The logic
being flawed, in my view, due to the E.O. creating an atmosphere in
which the killing of Mormons became essentially legal.)
More specifically, I became annoyed when said people accused me of
revisionist history, when they seem to be the ones actually revising
the historical record.
>At an earlier point in this thread I said it is time for Mormons to set
>aside their hatred of Missourians. It is time. Let it go.
Call for references that any Mormons currently have a hatred of
Missourians. Where did you get that impression?
John "born in Missouri" Colton
Haole
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> (The logic being flawed, in my view, due to the E.O. creating an atmosphere in
> which the killing of Mormons became essentially legal.)
Yeah, and you continue to use this phrase 'essentially legal' to dodge any
meaningful discussion of what legality entails. If one covers any claim in
enough hedging phraseology one can wiggle out of any rhetorical hard place
they find themselves.
What I find unfortunate is that in all of the talk about what 'essentially
legal' means, some have been unwilling to make concrete claims about what,
exactly, legality is.
I think Hedgehog brought up a good point...were any Mormons ever brought
to trial for, say, the burning of Galliton (or however one chooses to
spell it)? If not, was it legal for Mormons to burn down non-Mormon
cities?
Gregg Smith
: LdS generally tend to ignore the sections and verses of the Book of
: Mormon that teach us to rebell against laws and leaders that are
: wicked and/or unconstitutional.
To which sections and verses of the Book of Mormon are you referring?
: God never intended to give his blessing to mandatory taxation,
Call for reference. Even Christ said "Render unto Caesar
that which is Caesar's".
Gregg
Gregg Smith
: In article <REtl6.17920$HN3.5...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: > AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
: > found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
: See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently O'Dea
: says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the officer charged
: with executing Smith found himself morally unable to comply with the
: court's order.
O'Dea's supposition and legal record are distinctly different things.
Gregg
Mormonreject
>
>Since you remember reading about it, what sort of publication was it:
>newspaper, magazine, tract, pamphlet, book, etc?
I read about it in a book some years ago. The book itself was compilation of
newpaper articles and court records about MO before the civil war. The
reference to the man using the expulsion or extermination order as a murder
defense in the late 60s was a footnote and did not tell the outcome of the
trial.
John S. Colton
>In article <xuwl6.23609$HN3.7...@news.easynews.com>,
>col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
>> (The logic being flawed, in my view, due to the E.O. creating an atmosphere in
>> which the killing of Mormons became essentially legal.)
>
>Yeah, and you continue to use this phrase 'essentially legal' to dodge any
>meaningful discussion of what legality entails. If one covers any claim in
>enough hedging phraseology one can wiggle out of any rhetorical hard place
>they find themselves.
Many posts back, myself and I think someone else both posed the
question, "What's the difference?" The context was, "What is the
difference between calling an action legal, and saying the action will
not be prosecuted?"
This was a serious question, in an attempt to have a meaningful
discussion of what legality entails.
I may have missed something, but neither you nor anyone else has ever
attempted to answer that question.
To discuss it from my point of view, when there is no significant
difference between two terms (i.e., term1= legal, term2=not gonna be
prosecuted), then one is "essentially" the other. Hence I have
consistently used the term "essentially legal" in this discussion.
If you feel that there is a significant different between the two
cases, please respond and answer the question, "What's the
difference?"!
>What I find unfortunate is that in all of the talk about what 'essentially
>legal' means, some have been unwilling to make concrete claims about what,
>exactly, legality is.
Correct! But I'm not sure that's terribly unfortunate-- I just think
it means the concept is not as cut and dried as you might think it is.
For example, Tom Cain, the lawyer friend of mine whom I quoted, said
that even "black letter law" is "somewhat amorphous".
So, are you willing to make a concrete claim about what exactly
legality is?
>I think Hedgehog brought up a good point...were any Mormons ever brought
>to trial for, say, the burning of Galliton (or however one chooses to
>spell it)? If not, was it legal for Mormons to burn down non-Mormon
>cities?
I certainly don't know if any were. Let us suppose for the sake of
argument, that (a) some Mormons were responsible for the burning of
Galliton (something which I don't necessarily know, having not
researched the topic), and (b) they were not brought to trial.
A number of other questions must still be answered for us to enter the
regime we've been dealing with on the nonMormon side. For example, was
an attempt made to identify the perpetrators? If not, did the Mormons
involved know that no attempt would be made? Did the executive branch
of the goverment create an environment in which the Mormons who burned
the town felt like they were doing the will of the governor?
Not knowing for sure, I suspect the answers are likely to be, Yes,
N/A, and No.
If the answers are No, Yes, and Yes, then we would be talking about
comperable situations, and I would support calling what the Mormons
did as "essentially legal".
John
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<Mbyl6.26672$HN3.7...@news.easynews.com>:
>Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
>: See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently
>: O'Dea says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the
>: officer charged with executing Smith found himself morally unable to
>: comply with the court's order.
>
>O'Dea's supposition and legal record are distinctly different things.
>
>
>Gregg
>
Actually, my source said that Joseph Smith was sentenced by a court martial
to be shot; it did not say what he was convicted of. Since it also says
that "An attempt to make a treason charge out of the Danite terror fell
through," it's possible that Joseph Smith was sentenced for something other
than treason. I have no idea what evidence was brought before the court
martial, although O'Dea does state that conditions were not conducive to
taking testimony favorable to the Mormon leaders.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> : > AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
> : > found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
> : See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently O'Dea
> : says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the officer charged
> : with executing Smith found himself morally unable to comply with the
> : court's order.
>
> O'Dea's supposition and legal record are distinctly different things.
Excuse me?
You are claiming to have reviewed the actual documents from Joseph Smith's
treason trial?
Lynn, did O'Dea use primary sources for his book?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> Many posts back, myself and I think someone else both posed the
> question, "What's the difference?" The context was, "What is the
> difference between calling an action legal, and saying the action will
> not be prosecuted?"
I never saw you ask this question. I saw you ask the question of what's
the difference between not prosecuting someone for an action already
taken.
Now, did the extermination order of Boggs actually say what you now claim
is your main point? Did the extermination order promise immunity from
prosecution?
> I may have missed something, but neither you nor anyone else has ever
> attempted to answer that question.
>
> To discuss it from my point of view, when there is no significant
> difference between two terms (i.e., term1= legal, term2=not gonna be
> prosecuted), then one is "essentially" the other.
As a native speaker of English, surely you are aware that "not going to be
prosecuted" implies that no future action will be taken, yet we have been
discussing events that happened well over a hundred years ago. Why the
discrepancy in verb tense?
> Hence I have
> consistently used the term "essentially legal" in this discussion.
What do you see as the essence of the law? Your use of "essentially
legal" in the context of your argument implies that you see punishment as
the essence of the law. Yet when you were asked whether you believed
anything was legal as long as one didn't get caught, you said "no." So
what is the essence whose nature you are seeking to explore?
> If you feel that there is a significant different between the two
> cases, please respond and answer the question, "What's the
> difference?"!
Answer my questions first, please.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> >So what do you want to do, John? Kit Bond issued an apology on behalf of
> >the State of Missouri. Was that not good enough? Anyone who killed a
> >Mormon in 1840 is long dead now. Are we supposed to dig up their
> >skeletons and put the skeletons on trial? If the skeletons are found
> >guilty, should we put a couple of thousand volts of electricity through
> >them? Should we fumigate the bones with a little cyanide gas before
> >reburying them? How do we punish a skeleton?
>
> Huh? Where did this come from? Where have I impled that anything need
> be done in the present regarding the situation we've been discussing?
If any action which is unpunished legalizes that particular action, then
the only way we can stop the wholesale slaughter of Mormons in Missouri is
to punish those skeletons. Oh! Wait a minute. There isn't any wholesale
of slaughter of Mormons going on in Missouri at present. Maybe the real
story isn't Missorian bigotry against Mormons but rather is Mormon bigotry
against Missourians.
> I entered this discussion to counter what I perceive to be faulty
> logic on the part of people who were claiming that the deaths of the
> Mormons in ~ 1840 Missouri were due merely to "unfortunate incidents"
> while the Missourians were attempting to kick them out.
I entered the discussion because someone asked my opinion of Ashcroft.
> More specifically, I became annoyed when said people accused me of
> revisionist history, when they seem to be the ones actually revising
> the historical record.
If I recall correctly, Gregg Smith was the first to make the accusation of
using revisionist history and he made that charge with resepct to Haole.
> >At an earlier point in this thread I said it is time for Mormons to set
> >aside their hatred of Missourians. It is time. Let it go.
> Call for references that any Mormons currently have a hatred of
> Missourians. Where did you get that impression?
Several times people have asserted that Missourians could legally kill
Mormons on sight until quite recently. Since this is a false charge,
repeating it is a sign of ill will towards Missourians. Your call for
references is disingenuous.
> John "born in Missouri" Colton
How could you possibly have been born in Missouri if the Extermination
Order was "on the books" as a valid law?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> : God never intended to give his blessing to mandatory taxation,
>
> Call for reference. Even Christ said "Render unto Caesar
> that which is Caesar's".
Which isn't really giving a blessing to paying the Roman taxes.
Let's say I write a book and my name is clearly written on the title page
and I give it to you to read. At a later point in time I ask for my book
back. You won't give it back and we put the question to Jesus. Jesus
says "render unto Hedgehog the things that are Hedgehog's". That doesn't
give me the right to make you give me other books, I only get my own back.
What Jesus is really doing is pointing out that if you play the Roman's
game you have to play by their rules. He isn't giving a carte blanche
endorsement to Roman governmental authority. If you deal in Roman coins,
then you have made yourself subject to Rome.
Putting it somewhat more bluntly, Jesus is saying: Send the Romans back to
Italy and keep Judea for the Jews.
See Luke 23:2 for some evidence for how the people in Jesus' own time
interpreted his teaching.
Nevertheless, my feelings on taxation are closer to yours, Gregg, than to
Father of Peace's point of view. We are not citizens of a subjugated
nation, as were the Jews of Jesus' time.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Mormonreject
>question, "What's the difference?" The context was, "What is the
>difference between calling an action legal, and saying the action will
>not be prosecuted?"
>
A legal action cannot be prosecuted until the law changes. Saying an action
will not be prosecuted (even though it may be illegal) reserves the opportunity
for subjective prosecution. ie: it's illegal to make a left hand turn at a
certain intersection but the police never bother to write tickets. Then one
day an officer sees his ex-wife's new boyfriend make that left turn and writes
a ticket. The fact that no one else got tickets is irrelevant and not a
defense. It is a practice that lends itself to abuse.
Gregg Smith
: In article <Mbyl6.26672$HN3.7...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: > : > AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
: > : > found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
:
: > : See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea. Apparently O'Dea
: > : says that Smith was found guilty of treason, but that the officer charged
: > : with executing Smith found himself morally unable to comply with the
: > : court's order.
: > O'Dea's supposition and legal record are distinctly different things.
: Excuse me?
Certainly.
: You are claiming to have reviewed the actual documents from Joseph Smith's
: treason trial?
I am claiming that the contents of O'Dea's book and legal
records are distinctly different things. Do you disagree?
Gregg
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<vGZl6.29486$BD.10...@news.easynews.com>:
[snipped]
>Lynn, did O'Dea use primary sources for his book?
>
He used both primary and secondary sources for his book, and lists his
sources for each chapter.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
Gregg Smith
: In article <zbyl6.26664$HN3.7...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: > : God never intended to give his blessing to mandatory taxation,
: > Call for reference. Even Christ said "Render unto Caesar
: > that which is Caesar's".
: Putting it somewhat more bluntly, Jesus is saying: Send the Romans back to
: Italy and keep Judea for the Jews.
That is your interpretation. That is not the only possible
interpretation, nor do I believe it is the correct one.
Gregg
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<OGAl6.30430$HN3.9...@news.easynews.com>:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:41:47 GMT, Haole wrote:
>
>>Yeah, and you continue to use this phrase 'essentially legal' to dodge
>>any meaningful discussion of what legality entails. If one covers any
>>claim in enough hedging phraseology one can wiggle out of any
>>rhetorical hard place they find themselves.
>
>Many posts back, myself and I think someone else both posed the
>question, "What's the difference?" The context was, "What is the
>difference between calling an action legal, and saying the action will
>not be prosecuted?"
[snipped]
In hindsight, more than 150 years after the fact so that we can *know*
whether anyone was ever prosecuted, possibly very little. At the time, a
good deal. If a governor, let's say Governor Wallace some decades ago,
decides to defy a law, let's say a court ruling that schools should be
desegregated, then the law may yet be brought to bear, so that said
governor must back down. If a president, let's say President Nixon,
chooses to violate certain laws and then dismiss the man investigating him,
even if it takes getting rid of two Attorney Generals to do so, then he may
also yet be brought to account. So that we know that there is a law which
governs the executive branch, just as if governs us ordinary people, and
that there are avenues of legal appeal should the executive branch not
choose to enforce the law (even if that law doesn't always apply perfectly
in either case). If I were to say, in the present tense, that a
hypothetical refusal to enforce the law makes its violation "essentially
legal," then I would be giving up one of my recourses, namely the ability
to appeal, in the proper legal manner, against the illegal actions of
governors and presidents. In making that appeal, I'd be pointing not just
to the wrongness of the actions in question, but also to how they would be
in violation of US law or the US constitution.
Though, if the illegal action involved sending militia to kill me, I'd also
be contemplating other responses than legal appeal.
Anyway, I don't want to choose to apply historically any definition of
"legal" which I think would be to my disadvantage, should I apply it in the
present (even if I can somewhat sympathize with Naomi's argument about the
lack of practical difference when the distinction is applied historically.)
Lynn Gazis-Sax
O'Dea didn't go into a lot of detail (half of his book is more
sociological, more about the current institutions of Mormonism, and the
events in Missouri took up a few pages in the historical section).
Here's a couple of URLs:
Legal Trials of Joseph Smith
http://www.mormons.org/daily/history/people/joseph_smith/legal_eom.htm
I'll quote a portion: "Joseph and other leading Saints were arrested, and
received a preliminary court hearing before Judge Austin King in Richmond,
Missouri, on November 12-29, 1838. Joseph Smith and some other defendants
were confined for four and a half months in Liberty Jail pending a grand
jury indictment on such charges as murder, arson, theft, rebellion, and
treason. While en route to stand trial in a more impartial venue, Joseph
and others were allowed to escape, thereby preventing widespread official
embarrassment on the part of the state."
This page also notes that attempts to extradite Joseph Smith from Illinois
were set aside by a state judge and later by a federal judge.
Confessions of John D. Lee. Chapter V.
http://antimormon.8m.com/leechp5.html
I'll quote briefly from the last of these two (my own comments in []): "The
Colonel returned and reported to Joseph Smith the terms proposed by the
Gentile officers. The terms offered were as follows: Joseph Smith and the
leading men of the Church, Rigdon, Lyman White, P. P. Pratt, Phelps and
others, were to give themselves up without delay, the balance of the men to
surrender themselves and their arms by ten o'clock the following day, the
understanding being that all would be tried for treason against the
Government, and for other offences.... [Joseph Smith sends most of the
Mormons to safety, and surrenders with six leaders.]
"The next morning a court martial was held, at which Joseph Smith and his
six companions that had surrendered with him, were sentenced to be shot.
The execution was to take place at eight o'clock the next morning. When the
sentence of the court martial was announced to them, Col. Lyman White said,
"Shoot and be d-d." General Atchison and Col. Doniphan arrived with their
divisions the same day, soon after the court martial had been held. Col.
Doniphan, in particular, remonstrated against the decision. He said it was
nothing more or less than cold blooded murder, and that every name signed
to the decision was signed in blood, and he would withdraw his troops and
have nothing to do in the matter, if the men were to be shot. General
Atchison sustained Col. Doniphan, and said the wiser policy would be, in as
much as they had surrendered themselves as prisoners, to place them in the
Richmond jail, and let them take the due course of the law; let them be
tried by the civil authorities of the land."
It appears, from these two sources, that what happened was that a hasty
court martial indeed sentenced Joseph Smith et al on the charge of treason,
but that such a charge was never upheld in the civil court system to which
he was later turned over, and he and other leaders were allowed to escape
while their cases were still in progress.
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
Lynn says O'Dea used primary sources and listed them in his book.
Are USENET posts identical with legal records? How can a person make an
honest claim about what legal records contain without at least examining
them?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
this newsgroup]
In article <dI6m6.43923$BD.14...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
Re: Jesus ordering his followers to pay Roman taxes vs Jesus telling them
not to interact economically with the Romans.
> That is your interpretation.
Nope. It is just something I picked up reading.
> That is not the only possible
> interpretation, nor do I believe it is the correct one.
Why then was John the Baptist living on locusts and wild honey? I suspect
he mistrusted the meat available in the marketplaces of not having been
slaughtered in a kosher fashion. Economic cooperation with Romans does
have religious consequences for pious Jews.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Lynn Gazis-Sax
[snipped]
>I am claiming that the contents of O'Dea's book and legal
>records are distinctly different things. Do you disagree?
>
Given the extreme irregularity of the court martial in question, I actually
doubt it left legal records of its proceedings (though I'm willing to be
proven wrong if someone finds such a thing). The legal records of the
civil court system would not show Joseph Smith being found guilty of
treason, and he was never found guilty of treason in a normal civil court.
Father of Peace
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
>What Jesus is really doing is pointing out that if you play the Roman's
>game you have to play by their rules. He isn't giving a carte blanche
>endorsement to Roman governmental authority. If you deal in Roman coins,
>then you have made yourself subject to Rome.
Yup. My theology of taxation and government summed up
in one simple paragraph.
>Nevertheless, my feelings on taxation are closer to yours, Gregg, than to
>Father of Peace's point of view. We are not citizens of a subjugated
>nation, as were the Jews of Jesus' time.
When I speak of my people being conquered and subjugated, I
speak of the Mormons, who were captured by the Feds in
1848, and finally brought into submission by 1906. I also believe
that the rest of the nation has been enslaved by the same
laws that were put in place to conquer the Mormons. I find
it rather highly ironic that the nation set out to enslave the
Mormons, and is now wearing the chains it forged to
contain the saints. Charma is such a wonderful thing!!!!
David Bowie
: Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
: : <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: : > AFAIK, there is no legal record of Joseph Smith ever being
: : > found guilty by a court of law of any charge.
: : See Lynn's post based on _The Mormons_, by Thomas O'Dea.
: : Apparently O'Dea says that Smith was found guilty of treason,
: : but that the officer charged with executing Smith found
: : himself morally unable to comply with the court's order.
: O'Dea's supposition and legal record are distinctly different
: things.
Attempted proof by repeated assertion and appeal to even secondary sources
are distinctly different things.
David, who at least *tries* to read evidence others provide
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
David Bowie
: David Bowie (db....@pmpkn.net) quipped:
: >Why not? It would seem to me that the underlying principle is the
: >same--if you claim that lack of enforcement equals a lack of
: >illegality, then that's a principle that works for either
: >ecclesiastical or secular contexts.
: Well the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law is
: quite striking. Ecclesiastical law supposedly comes from God. It is
: then more up to God to enforce those laws, and those laws which are of
: God *ARE* enforced by Him.
<snip>
: Secular law, stating the law doesn't enforce it. Sometimes Fate
: enforces laws of safety, but in truth, human laws require human
: enforcement or they are of no value.
Please explain how this claim makes sense ITMSOT, particularly given D&C
98:4-7.
<snip>
David, who really does believe that God enforces *all* law
David Bowie
: On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:54:28 GMT, David Bowie wrote:
Note the attriibutions--they may be tricky.
<snip>
: I think the involvement of the enforcement of a law, with its
: legality, is well established. IIRC, laws which are unenforceable are
: in the same category as laws which are termed "invalid" by the courts.
There's a difference between laws that are unenforceable and laws that are
not enforced, though, i'd say. That is, whereas you may well be right that
laws which are unenforceable are void, laws that are not enforced are
*still* laws, they're simply not enforced.
<snip>
: >David, who doesn't knowingly speed
: Just out of curiosity, is it because (a) you believe it is morally
: wrong (i.e., the "honoring and sustaining the law" bit in the AoF),
: (b) out of safety concerns, (c) out of fear of getting a ticket, (d)
: because you simply like to drive slowly, or (e) some other reason.
Primarily (a), but because of D&C 98:4-7 rather than AoF 12. As a reason,
(b) has been a concern since i got married and particularly since the birth
of Sadra Marie, but my driving habits predate meeting my wife, so it's not
that. Reasons (c) and (d) don't fit in at all--early on in my driving career
i drove *really* fast and i was *really* good at it and i was charmed enough
to never get a ticket, so those never really entered in. There's probably at
least one reason (e), but none that comes to mind at the moment.
<snip>
: For that matter, are speed limits actually part of the law? I was
: under the impression that most speed limits were set by the executive
: branch, not by the legislature.
Depends on the jurisdiction--but even in those jurisdictions in which the
Executive sets the speed limits, that's only under authority granted by the
Legislature.
<snip>
David, who understands the whole body politic thing
David Bowie
<snip>
: 2) The extermination or expulsion order was on the books until the
: late 1960s. It was removed after a man was arrested for killing a
: Mormon and his defense was that it was perfectly legal to kill
: mormons. (Okay, it's probably urban legend, but I remember
: reading about it in a non-LDS publication).
CFR--what publication?
David, who's tired of people accepting memory as evidence
David Bowie
: >I'm wrong on this if and only if we ignore that statements in the
: >D&C that basically elevate following the constitutional law of
: >the land into a religious commandment. That is, i can see how
: >certain non-Mormon POVs could hold that i'm wrong, but i don't
: >see how a Mormon POV could--given that God commands us to follow
: >the constitutional law of the land, *God* then enforces the
: >legality of even secular laws.
: I'm afraid I fail to understand your meaning here. Are you
: suggesting that the early saints disobeyed the law?...
I don't see how this reading can be pulled out of what i wrote above. I was
referring in the above to D&C 58:21-22; 98:4-7; and sec. 134, among others.
<snip>
David, not using law here as Paul did
David Bowie
: >I'm wrong on this if and only if we ignore that statements in the
: >D&C that basically elevate following the constitutional law of
: >the land into a religious commandment.
: Are you talking about D&C 134? Or do you have other passages in mind?
D&C sec. 134's part of it, but there's more.
The primary one's actually D&C 98:4-7.
There's also D&C 58:21-22, among others.
David, who thought this concept would be obvious
Gregg Smith
: In article <dI6m6.43923$BD.14...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: Re: Jesus ordering his followers to pay Roman taxes vs Jesus telling them
: not to interact economically with the Romans.
: > That is your interpretation.
: Nope. It is just something I picked up reading.
OK, so that is the interpretation you profess.
: > That is not the only possible
: > interpretation, nor do I believe it is the correct one.
: Why then was John the Baptist living on locusts and wild honey?
Since the scriptures do not say, we can only speculate.
: I suspect he mistrusted the meat available in the marketplaces of not having been
: slaughtered in a kosher fashion.
You are speculating.
Gregg
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> : Note though that if your interpretation is correct, it
> : would be imprudent for Mormons to support tax cuts.
>
> This is a clear demonstration of why people should not try
> to claim implications from viewpoints that they do not hold
> themselves. Such claims are almost always incorrect as is
> the case this time.
You mean your dollar bills don't have government officials' signatures and
government seals on them? I certainly don't have "Property of the LDS
Church" stamped on mine.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> : > : How can a person make an honest claim about what legal records contain
> : > : without at least examining them?
> : > How can a person make an honest claim about what someone else has or
> : > has not done?
> : Get a copy of O'Dea's book on The Mormons and find out. See what sources,
> : if any, O'Dea lists to support his claim.
> I was referring to your claim above, not O'Dea's.
I don't see any claims of mine above, just questions and advice.
Isn't trolling still forbidden in the charter of this newsgroup?
You made the claim Smith had never been convicted of anything--at least as
far as you knew. O'Dea's book apparently says he was convicted by a
militatry court. If you care about the issue, read the book. If you
don't care, drop the topic.
Sheesh!
Craig Olson
<snip>
> government seals on them? I certainly don't have "Property of the LDS
> Church" stamped on mine.
There are 120 letters that are the same on all "new" format US bills.
If you cross out 90% of them, what's left reads: The lds church.
I conlude that only 10% of each bill belongs to the church.
Craig, forgo florid salad woman
*will do anagrams for food
Gregg Smith
: In article <NCSm6.128126$BD.38...@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: You made the claim Smith had never been convicted of anything--at least as
: far as you knew.
You misunderstod my claim. My claim was there is no legal
record of Smith ever being convicted of anything.
: O'Dea's book apparently says he was convicted by a
: militatry court.
But as he does not indicate there is any legal record of
that conviction, my claim stands.
Gregg
Jonathan Burk
David Bowie
> "Father of Peace" wrote...
> : (John Colton) wrote:
>
> : >Obviously I do not view the war in heaven the same way you do,
>
> : Lucifer said "I will save everyone, so give me the glory for it."
>
> Is this actually what the scriptures say that Lucifer said?
>
Well, it was in my favorite disco Mormon musical "My Turn on Earth", so does
that count?
"Lucifer: Nobody will choose,
Not one we will lose.
And give all the gloreeee to meeeeeee (give it to meee)."
-From "My Turn On Earth". Now available at Deseret bookstore, and Napster.
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> You misunderstod my claim. My claim was there is no legal
> record of Smith ever being convicted of anything.
How do you know?
Peace,
Hedgehog
who still doesn't see how it could hurt to look at O'Dea's book on Mormons.
Gregg Smith
: In article <HYbn6.2052$Fp3....@news.easynews.com>, Gregg Smith
: <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
: > You misunderstod my claim. My claim was there is no legal
: > record of Smith ever being convicted of anything.
: How do you know?
Because if any were known it would be mentioned in *every*
anti-LDS book and pamphlet written after its discovery, not
to mention being repeatedly announced in this forum by
critics of the LDS Church.
Gregg
David Bowie
: : > You misunderstod my claim. My claim was there is no legal
: : > record of Smith ever being convicted of anything.
: : How do you know?
: Because if any were known it would be mentioned in *every*
: anti-LDS book and pamphlet written after its discovery, not
: to mention being repeatedly announced in this forum by
: critics of the LDS Church.
This is a weak counterargument--you merely seem to claim that such a record
hasn't been uncovered yet, not that one doesn't exist.
In any event, there are several con- and anti-Mormon works that *do* claim
that Joseph Smith was convicted of one or more crimes during his life.
David, who notes Jesus was convicted of a capital crime
Gregg Smith
: In any event, there are several con- and anti-Mormon works that *do* claim
: that Joseph Smith was convicted of one or more crimes during his life.
Yet none of the claims are supported by actual judicial
record.
Gregg
Hedgehog
<gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> : > You misunderstod my claim. My claim was there is no legal
> : > record of Smith ever being convicted of anything.
> : How do you know?
> Because if any were known it would be mentioned in *every*
> anti-LDS book and pamphlet written after its discovery, not
> to mention being repeatedly announced in this forum by
> critics of the LDS Church.
Perhaps the anti-Mormon tract writers are less well read than you give
them credit for.
Peace,
Hedgehog
David Bowie
: David Bowie (db....@pmpkn.net) wrote:
Interesting claim. Consider yourself CFRed.
David, who repeats the fact that Jesus was convicted of a capital crime
Gregg Smith
: "Gregg Smith" <gre...@hpvclgs.vcd.hp.com> wrote...
: : David Bowie (db....@pmpkn.net) wrote:
: : : In any event, there are several con- and anti-Mormon
: : : works that *do* claim that Joseph Smith was convicted
: : : of one or more crimes during his life.
: : Yet none of the claims are supported by actual judicial
: : record.
: Interesting claim. Consider yourself CFRed.
One of many excellent references on this subject is:
"Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass" by Hugh Nibley.
Do you really believe my assertion is wrong or are you
merely pursuing a grudge?
Gregg, who had Hugh Nibley as a Sunday School teacher
Mormonreject
of other posters from the title]
>CFR--what publication?
>
>David, who's tired of people accepting memory as evidence
[Here is the original post with additional comments in]
I've been lurking around for awhile and several things have caught my interest
(this being one of them). I'm familiar with the events that occurred in
Missouri and I'm hoping you can CONFIRM or CORRECT me on two points:
[Notice I asked for confirmation or correction, I'm looking for facts - not
offering them]
1) I seem to remember that some of the old court transcripts of trials that
found Joseph Smith, jr and other members guilty of treason, etc based this on
his outspoken opposition to slavery and not on LDS doctrine. Preaching
anti-slavery was seen as inciting the slaves to riot and a threat to the MO
government;
2) The extermination or expulsion order was on the books until the late 1960s.
It was removed after a man was arrested for killing a Mormon and his defense
was that it was perfectly legal to kill mormons. (Okay, it's probably urban
legend, but I remember reading about it in a non-LDS publication).
[Perhaps I should have inserted 'I seem to remember" and you would have been
less offended. Notice that I identify it as a probable urban legend. As I
explained in an earlier post to Hedgehog, I read it in a book whose title I do
not remember. The book itself was a collection of newspaper articles and court
records put together to tell the story of pre-Civil war Missouri.]
MR, who only shouted to get David's attention - and hopes he's more observant
when grading papers.