I'm thinking of going into the religion business....

[Andrew D]

After getting the boot from New York and then Ohio and then Missouri, Joseph Smith and his followers ended up in what became Nauvoo, Illinois. When they first arrived in 1839, they were described as "a multitude of people, men, women, and children, ragged, dirty, and miserable generally ... living in tents and covered wagons, for lack of better habitation."

By 1841, Nauvoo's population was about 3,000, and two years later, it was somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000. Illinois was at that time in the midst of a political struggle between Whigs and Democrats. Both parties wanted the support of the large numbers of Mormons who suddenly streamed into the State, so the legislature did not balk at granting Nauvoo the most striking city charter in the State's history. Nauvoo was not subject to Illinois's statutory law; it was empowered to pass any law not in conflict with the State or national Constitution.

The mayor and the aldermen were also the judges in the municipal court, so the same individuals wielded legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Like other cities in Illinois, Nauvoo had its own militia, the Nauvoo Legion; but unlike other cities' militias, the Legion governed itself with its own court-martial.

The Mormons built their temple -- reputedly the tallest building west of the Alleghany Mountains at the time -- on the bluff (the "hill") above the Mississippi shorelands. This did not go over entirely well with the folk of nearby towns, especially Carthage and Warsaw.

To make matters worse, in 1842 an assassination attempt was made on the governor of Missouri -- the one who had booted the Mormons from that State. Smith was arrested in Illinois, but he did not stay arrested very long, because Nauvoo's charter empowered the municipal court, which was controlled by elders of the Mormon church, to grant writs of habeas corpus.

Still, things were going reasonably well for the Mormons. Despite hostility from other places, they were pretty much the only game in town. And they had the muscle to back that up: As of 1841, the Nauvoo Legion numbered 1,490 men under arms, and by 1844, that number had risen greatly, perhaps to as many as 5,000.

But things shortly went down the crapper for the Mormons. Later in 1842 -- after Smith had been arrested and released -- Nauvoo's first mayor, John C. Bennett, who was a confidant of Smith, broke with the church, published a book, and gave a series of inflammatory lectures claiming, among other things, that Smith planned to make Nauvoo the seat of a religious empire.

Bennett also claimed that the Mormons practiced polygamy. Whether or not that was true -- there has been a debate ever since over whether Brigham Young's announcement in 1852 (eight years after Smith's death) of the doctrine of polygamy was a genuine reflection of a revelation supposedly received by Smith in 1843 -- it certainly fueled anti-Mormon flames.

Smith did nothing to assuage such fears. On the contrary, he announced himself as a candidate for President in the 1844 election. Also, between 3,700 and 5,000 of British converts to Mormonism had moved into Nauvoo, so "it was said that every third person in Nauvoo spoke with a British accent." That did not reassure the "Gentiles" (non-Mormons) who lived nearby that Smith was just a guy with his own harmless cult.

Even so, things might have gone along OK. Nobody seriously suggests that Smith would have made any significant showing in the 1844 presidential election; indeed, the dismal failure that everyone now believes his candidacy would have been might well have relegated him and his followers to the "so what?" category of American political crackpots.

But then came the Expositor fiasco. Several disaffected Mormons opposed to the idea of establishing a Kingdom of God on earth published the first and last issue of that paper, observing that they were "aware that [they were] hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression."

The Nauvoo City Council -- dominated by Mormon elders, including Smith as mayor -- promptly denounced the Expositor for "exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people," and Smith then ordered the City Marshal "to destroy the printing press from which issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pi the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment ...."

(To "pi" the type is to scramble and scatter the individual type pieces; in the days of manual typesetting, that effectively meant making any further printing impossible.)

(Smith's order may be the source of dgs49's confusion about arson: Smith did order a burning, but it was the burning of written material, not the burning of a building.)

It is no exaggeration to say that the destruction of the Expositor nearly incited a civil war on the plains of western Illinois. The non-Mormons of Nauvoo were enraged, and they had plenty of company among Gentiles from the surrounding area. The court in Carthage issued a warrant for Smith's arrest, but Smith's own Nauvoo municipal court annulled it by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Smith and his brother, Hyrum, fled across the Mississippi, but amid accusations of cowardice, they returned and surrendered themselves to the authorities in Carthage. They were charged with the destruction of the Expositor and with inciting a riot. Smith was also charged with treason for having declared Nauvoo under martial law and having called out the Legion.

Rumors flew. Many people in Carthage feared that the Nauvoo Legion would try to rescue Smith by force. Many people in Nauvoo feared that the non-Mormons would lay their city waste while their leader was incarcerated. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford had good reason to fear both possibilities. He ordered the disbanding of all militia companies except three. He left two companies in Carthage to guard the jail and took the third with him to Nauvoo.

One of the companies of militia which the governor disbanded was that of Warsaw, Illinois, a center of especially violent anti-Mormon sentiment some twenty-one miles south of Nauvoo and sixteen miles west of Carthage. When the Warsaw militia received Governor Ford's order to disband, many militiamen did not comply. Instead, they headed east toward Carthage.

In the afternoon of June 27, 1844, a mob arrived at Carthage. About a hundred men who had blackened their faces -- so whether they were part of the Warsaw militia was never proved -- stormed the jail with little resistance from the militia companies assigned to guard it. Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the upstairs room, and Willard Richards and John Taylor were visiting them.

Part of the mob entered the jail, ascended the stairs, and began firing into the room. Richards escaped injury, but Hyrum Smith was shot in the head and killed, and Taylor was seriously injured (although he recovered and eventually became the President of the Mormon Church in Utah).

And Joseph Smith, founder and Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was felled by three musket balls as he prepared to leap from the upstairs window.

[Andrew D]

So, yes, Smith was killed while attempting to escape.

But he was attempting to escape a mob hell-bent on murdering him (and which murdered his brother and tried to murder one of his close friends).

Who among us would not attempt to escape that?

And who among us would blame someone for doing so?

[rubato]

So, yes, Smith was killed while attempting to escape.

But he was attempting to escape a mob hell-bent on murdering him (and which murdered his brother and tried to murder one of his close friends).

Who among us would not attempt to escape that?

" dgs? "

And who among us would blame someone for doing so?

" dgs, again, right? "

What do I win?

[dales]

A night of carnal bliss with Dgs.

[Lord Jim]

Rube and Dave having a night of carnal bliss...

[RayThom]

"As best I can determine, the facts are basically as follows:..."

Facts are never open to "basic determination" -- they stand alone. Fact ARE facts ARE facts.

It's starting to sound like just more (absurdist) conspiracy theory in this thread. But never let facts get in the way of what you know to be true. Fortunately, we all know that religion -- like history -- is merely shaped by its best writers. Ergo, a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes. Irony within a paradox -- such a puzzlement.

[dales]

Ergo, a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes. Irony within a paradox -- such a puzzlement.

Ah, Grasshopper you've discovered a great truth!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ergo, a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes

I should not think so....? Of course, absent a definition of non-believer and believer, it's possible that "every bit as" refers to them both being wrong ha ha ho ho. But if one assumes the usual atheist/Christian implication and the law of non-contradiction, then while both may be wrong, one (at least) MUST be.

So knowledge may be equal but factuality is unlikely - unless both have the wrong facts of course. Perhaps that's what Ray meant?

[Big RR]

Or two people, given the same facts, may reach two very different conclusions.

[RayThom]

... perhaps.

Only time will tell.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Or two people, given the same facts, may reach two very different conclusions.

In which case one (or both) must be wrong. I'm afraid the only time they are equivalent is when both are wrong.

Unless of course a conclusion is neither knowledge nor fact..... something that few aspire to but many demonstrate

[rubato]

Or two people, given the same facts, may reach two very different conclusions.

In which case one (or both) must be wrong. I'm afraid the only time they are equivalent is when both are wrong.

Unless of course a conclusion is neither knowledge nor fact..... something that few aspire to but many demonstrate

If they are different but not contradictory they may both be right.

And sometimes contradictions are only apparent, not real.

Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

It depends what you're interpreting Meade; most of the time interpretations are only partially right (and hence partially wrong), especially when it comes to trying to understand something which is not fully comprehensible based on an incomplete set of facts.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Or two people, given the same facts, may reach two very different conclusions.

In which case one (or both) must be wrong. I'm afraid the only time they are equivalent is when both are wrong.

Unless of course a conclusion is neither knowledge nor fact..... something that few aspire to but many demonstrate

If they are different but not contradictory they may both be right.

And sometimes contradictions are only apparent, not real.

Yrs,
Rubato

That is so, yes indeedy. But I wrote strictly within this context:

But if one assumes the usual atheist/Christian implication and the law of non-contradiction

Knowledge+Facts = God does not exist
Knowledge+Facts = God does so too, so there

In this case both may be wrong (e.g. knowledge+facts might actually equal gods plural - and perhaps the edge of accuracy belongs to the atheist even then) but given contradiction, one at least must be wrong. It would seem to me then that "equality" can only be true in case both are wrong. But you know - that's just what I think. I could be wrong.

Meade

[RayThom]

Yep, logic would dictate that you are, in FACT, very wrong. However, having faith in some powerful, invisible, entity obviously has some very addictive qualities. Intervention could possibly help you if so inclined to seek the truth. Are there any twelve-step RA chapters in your neck of the jungle?

God bless you, Meade. You'll be fine.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ergo, a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes

OK I get it now - self-irony! Cool!

[Big RR]

Knowledge+Facts = God does not exist
Knowledge+Facts = God does so too, so there

But that's not the conclusions we reach; basically the essence of faith is that "based on (available) Knowledge + Facts I believe god exists" (and the converse is I believe god does not exist). Since they are based on personal belief/faith, both are right. Faith/belief may lead someone to reach a conclusion with a high degree of personal certainty, but it still comes down to faith.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I agree that if the statements are "I believe x" vs "I believe y" then of course both statements are accurate since the correctness is in the self-knowledge of having a belief at all. This is unconnected with whether there actually is an x or a y.

However, those are not the conclusions a good Christian or a good atheist reaches.

I cannot help but see such statements as being something more like: "I believe X but am not certain so must allow the possibility that there is no X and therefore I must be mistaken". (Note that I'm not saying they ARE like that - but that I cannot help but see them that way )

A good Christian does not merely "believe" there is God - he or she knows there is God.
Likewise, a good atheist does not merely "believe" in the non-existence of God - he or she knows there is no God. These are not matters of faith but of fact, which are contradictory and therefore cannot both be correct at the same time and in the same way.

Of course, I use the word "good" to mean consistent with the evidence and knowledge that each possesses - not a moral, qualitative "good".

So I think we agree
Meade

[Big RR]

Well Meade, the bible is full of mentions of belief or faith, and jesus on many occasions referred to faith/belief in the quotations attributed to him. Indeed, in his statement to thomas, jesus that those who believe but have not seen (i.e. have incomplete facts) are blessed. The essence of faith is a belief, and however strongly one subscribes to it, it is a belief based on faith and incomplete facts. And while I cannot speak for atheists, these are people who believe there is no god based on the same facts. Certainly one may be resolute in his or her belief I( am certain my wife loves me based on the facts available to me, but as I cannot crawl into her mind or read it, I have to base some of that on my belief/faith in her), but we hampered by what is available to us. I may say I am sure god exists, but what I am really saying is I am certain in my belief that god exists. Whether god exists or not may be a fact, but one that is not ascertainable in this universe, as god can exist apart from it (at least I believe god can).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whether god exists or not may be a fact, but one that is not ascertainable in this universe

I think we talk past each other sometimes. And on the above statement we are in total disagreement. How on earth could I rationally believe in a god that "may not be a fact"? But we each have our own thoughts. God bless

Meade