In March 1844, Smith organized a secret Council of Fifty, a policy-making body based on what Smith called “Theodemocracy”[131] and which was in effect a shadow government.[132] One of the Council’s first acts was to ordain Smith as King of the Kingdom of God. And, as if they had just organized an independent state, Smith and the Council sent ambassadors to England, France, Russia, and the Republic of Texas.[123] In April, Smith predicted “the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years.”[133] My comment ‘he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ.’

Afterthought: Mr Smith has so far been correct in saying that no King will rule America, if one here also considers the difference in a literal Kingdom on Earth, and the spiritual Kingdom of God about which Rev 3:21 may in the light of Rev 21:22-23, Heb 12:22-23 be referring to, it comes down to if Mr Smith was one of the overcomers Jesus words Refer to, ‘him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my father in his throne’..KJV…then Mr Smith had no need to explain anything about his crown Rev 3:11

When in the fundamentalist mindset it becomes all to easy to highlight the negatives about Joseph Smith’s short and very full life yet how many of us can look forward to leaving anything like the legacy he left or reaching as many people with the gospel as he did? It becomes too easy when considering things we don’t understand or disagree with to also forget all believers are under the same obligation to try and understand others – that’s if we want to be understood by the spirit of Christ … and how many of us I wonder would feel comfortable about our own ‘old’ lives being as closely examined as Joseph Smiths continues to be?

The scribes and the Pharisee’s were fundamentalist in there belief’s but Jesus left no doubt about how wrong they could be about the scriptures, my one reservation about the LDS message today is how they often refuse to accept any other church has any authority to preach and no authority to even Baptise, yet given that Jesus corrected his own disciples when they objected to a strange disciple -Lk 9: 49-50 – because he was not a member of there own small group, Mormons who today, talk like those student disciples of Jesus did -before they were baptised by the spirit at Pentecost- need to hear what he said rather than what the present day LDS Church prefers them to believe. Mk 9: 38-40 – if they really want to be one with the spirit as Jesus taught rather than as a religion teaches. The ‘overcomers’ Jesus is talking about is those who having been baptised for repentance in water, then pass the whole way through there baptism by fire as they are trained as disciples up to the same standard they reached on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2: Mt 3:11-12

I don’t recall Christ saying anything about sharing His throne, only His kingdom.

‘he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ’…
Jesus said his chosen would share his throne…

This week Mr Obama had somthing to say about the world watching Iran.
Terry
Terry

I don’t think that’s the bottom line. In fact, I think you’re missing the point.

The point being: is Joseph Smith deserving of an official pardon for the crime(s) he was accused of committing?

What are your thoughts, dear readers, guilty as charged or innocently accused? Or is it a case that the church believes Joseph Smith is above the law?

He WAS exonerated in that case. But what about the case of treason, the new charge that was thrown at him?

Is it within the Mayor’s discretion to declare martial law?

As for “the Expositor’s rhetoric”, didn’t it turn out that the Expositor was actually telling the truth about Joseph and his many wives? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t that when the Church was first thrown out of the closet as a polygamist sect?

I read the Expositor’s words as the last option for a group of devoted saints that were devastated at a Prophet partaking in ventures that they couldn’t understand and didn’t believe were right.

They had the kind of reaction that you might find modern LDS folks taking were they to discover President Thomas S. Monson secretly taking more than one wife. If we think about what it would be like to be in their situation, can we really blame them?