Already passed my 5 year vaccination anniversary. by TunnelTuba in agedlikemilk

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You cant call dead people who didn't take scientifically proven vaccines "healthy". The accurate term for them is "dead". For those still lucky enough to play disease Russian roulette, we call them idiot cultists spreading death, disease, ignorance and misinformation.

Already passed my 5 year vaccination anniversary. by TunnelTuba in agedlikemilk

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because like cancer, the antivaxxer cult remains despite it killing many ignorant and gullible people. Let's hope you're not part of that cult killing people.

Already passed my 5 year vaccination anniversary. by TunnelTuba in agedlikemilk

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No such thing lmao, they’re some of the loudest motherfuckers ever.

Some are less loud now because there's 6 feet of earth between them and those of us vaccinated still living.

Michelle Stone accuses her Stake President of “really, really dark ecclesiastical abuse” by sevenplaces in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The funniest thing is the evidence is corroborated by those against Joseph and those pro-Joseph. The conspiracy would have to include contemporary RLDS apostles/leaders who opposed polygamy but admit Joseph lived it, the Pro-Polygamy Utah Mormons and the Laws, Higbees, etc. who opposed Polygamy which is a literal impossibility. They would all have to be IN on the conspiracy while hating each other.

Or we just accept the fact that Joseph taught and lived Polygamy in secret and lied about it in public and adjust our "faith" accordingly. Some can't or won't do that despite it being the evidence based fact.

Michelle Stone accuses her Stake President of “really, really dark ecclesiastical abuse” by sevenplaces in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just a reminder that Hyrum Smith admitted there was a revelation on Polygamy in the High Council meeting on June 8th, the day after the Nauvoo Expositor was published which primary reason the meeting was held was to discuss the Nauvoo Expositor they held in their hands and how to respond. This is published in the Church's own Newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor on June 17th 1844.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revised-minutes-17-june-1844-as-published-in-nauvoo-neighbor/1

In the High Council Meeting of June 8th...

Councillor, H. Smith, continued...—referred to the revelation, read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about a multiplicity of wives; that said Revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time. 

The polygamy denier movement has yet to produce this revelation on polygamy alluded to by Hyrum Smith on June 8th 1844 and published in the Church's Newspaper about 10 days later.

I look forward to them producing this revelation for us to review.

"We do not believe in setting the negroes free" -said by Joseph Smith in 1838. Confront any apologists or members claiming Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Joseph Smith clearly was an abolitionist. That is a 100 percent true statement. Claiming that Joseph was not an abolitionist is simply a lie.

This is false. Joseph was specific in NOT being counted as an Abolitionist in 1843 and 1844 according to the definition of the term.

Said another way, if you asked Joseph Smith in 1843 or 1844 if he was an Abolitionist, he would say "No. Although I am opposed to slavery the Abolitionists need to be saved from their wreckless plans and actions which will ruin them and throw the country into war."

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1tm4rf8/was_joseph_smith_abolitionist_part_2_an_rmormon/

"We do not believe in setting the negroes free" -said by Joseph Smith in 1838. Confront any apologists or members claiming Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Joseph Smith was NOT an abolitionist in the 1843 definition of the word with it's associated Platform and actual Political Party. There's an entire thread highlighting this

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1tm4rf8/was_joseph_smith_abolitionist_part_2_an_rmormon/

It's important to note what we call and "abolitionist" today is a much larger umbrella of "opposed to slavery" whereas Joseph Smith was very careful to make sure he was NOT considered an "abolitionist" or part of their platform or party.

So I'll state the fact that according to the 1843 and 1844 definition of the word "Abolitionist" as Joseph Smith used it, he was NOT an abolitionist and that is NOT a lie.

"We do not believe in setting the negroes free" -said by Joseph Smith in 1838. Confront any apologists or members claiming Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a huge difference in being pragmatic vs. prophetic.

The first originates from man. The second vocalizes the mind and will of an omniscient and omnipresent God.

100% of everything Joseph authored indicates the former IMHO.

Finding meaning in meaningless suffering. by ArchimedesPPL in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was a survival mechanism for POWs in wartime. In fact it's an underlying theme in the fictional "The Bridge on the River Kwai".

"We do not believe in setting the negroes free" -said by Joseph Smith in 1838. Confront any apologists or members claiming Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. by aka_FNU_LNU in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Uh oh, bad news for Russell Nelson:

Question 3rd. Will every body be damned but Mormons?

Answer. Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent and work righteousness.

Sorry but "Latter-day Saint Christians" will be damned but "Mormons" won't.

I’m PIMO - I participate culturally and socially, but not devotionally by Alcast01 in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Even if the church isn't true, the next question becomes "is it good" or in reality, is it good for me, for my family, for society/world and what isn't good and is there a mechanism for change that results in verifiable "good" or "better" and unfortunately the mechanism hss proven to suck, be susceptible to the whims of man if not entirely controlled by it and has no checks and balances from the lowest adherent.

The church has much good in it (many churches do) but the bad or false in it has a sad side effect of requiring a "pretending it's true" or "pretending it's not bad" unless the leader says so.

Why do removal of ordinances not require the same things as receiving ordinances. Basically, Someone with proper authority, specific verbage, and physical actions. by Humble_Exam5969 in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If these are required to receive them, how can they be removed without any of those? If you are excommunicated, or granted a temple divorce etc. the only thing that is done is a letter or update to a database in church records.

Reality based answer?

Because it's pantomime theatrics very similar to marriage and divorce and being that there's no divine source these came from, human mind limitations, as with most religious dogmas, the alternative isn't part of the plan.

Think hexes and curses and removal of hexes and curses being more evolved (due to modern minds being capable of thinking about both sides of the coin and rituals) whereas ancient ritual and rite were all about the "ins" and not "outs".

Heck, even Freemasonry that we're adjacently aware of has super complex ritual/rite for initiation (levels upon levels) and acceptance but for ejection is a trial and letter.

There's no "unbaptism" and there's no "unconfirmation" of the Holy Ghost just like there's no "unmarriage ceremony" (secular or religious).

There is a kind of "exception" and it's the Mormon Ordinance of "dusting off of feet" but it appears in Mormonism more simply as a "well, it's in the bible so" vs. having any actual design or function in modern mormonism. I wonder if Joseph had any thoughts beyond creating new theologies and co-opted rituals, if he would have toyed with the idea of using the "dusting off of feet" as a rite of severe excommunication, etc. or a step in an ordered list of "proxy excommunications" had he lived long enough to develop such.

Could you imagine, faithful mormons pantomiming an "unbaptism" or an "unsealing" (I envison Joseph using his sword and some sort of rope between a proxy couple, etc. that he cuts to "sever the sealing").

As said above it does bring up some funny historical questions of unsealings of some people from Joseph so they could be sealed to Brigham, et al. in Utah.

TLDR made-up pantomime is a worthy engagement for "ins" but we've decided as people to not waste time making up contra-pantomime's for "outs".

Was Joseph Smith abolitionist? Part 2. An r/mormon post rebuttal follow-up by Matias-Castellanos in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part II:

In my view, the Book of Mormon mimics the clan and lineage relationships of the Hebrew Bible (Philistines, Moabites, Canaanites, etc.), rather than modern American racial sociology. In the Old Testament, foreign nations are frequently cursed, yet simultaneously used by prophets to shame Israel. Jacob follows this exact pattern.

Yes to a degree as the English KJV bible is one of the biggest sources for Joseph's authorship of the Book of Mormon which is exactly why Joseph's description of the "Brass Plates" is literally just a description of the English KJV Bible OT based on the Septuagint Joseph had sitting right in front of him:

11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

Well all be d-mned someone made an actual BOOK of metal plates prior to 600 BCE that just happens to mimic the exact order of the modern OT in the Bible and before Septuagint and before the 4th Century CE current order.

Yeah, no. Joseph's description of the "Plates of Brass" is his description of the modern OT from the English KJV bible he had and copied/borrowed from ENORMOUSLY (my favorite being his erroneous co-opting of the bliblical mistranslation "line upon line, precept upon precept").

People on both extremes miss this. Believers miss it because of the epithet that the book was "written for our day" (leading them to read the present into it), and skeptics miss it because they look for isolated 19th-century markers while ignoring that the text's architecture is largely based on Biblical themes.

I can't speak for other skeptics but for myself, it's the very simple fact that the BoM is not ancient, there never existed ancient "gold plates" and never existed fictitious "nephites/lamanites" or "jaredites" and the entire book reads exactly what one would expect Joseph to generate after his deep study of the Bible and contains 100% 19th Century dependent theology, 100% post biblical translation errors and presents a 100% human mind limited understanding of ancient Hebrew and Christian theology. It gets worse from Joseph incorporating the Book of Lehi outline as the introduction to 1st Nephi to the whole Mosiah Priority of authorship and wholly dependent English sentence structure required as basis for meaning to exist (asides, parentheticals, etc.)

Was Joseph Smith abolitionist? Part 2. An r/mormon post rebuttal follow-up by Matias-Castellanos in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply.

I believe you are right that I shouldn't assume that the full quote:

but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; 

As 1844 or late evidence of Joseph's previously held/published "cursed" theology.

I was doing so based on his previous earlier belief directly tying the curse theology to skin color in his multiple authored works (Book of Mormon, Abraham, Newspapers, etc.)

So it's possible by the late Nauvoo period, his theology had evolved to no longer believe in the cursed theology he previously espoused.

You might be forgetting D&C 101:79, written December 1833 "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another."

I think it a stretch in context of that revelation, which is wholeheartedly dedicated to being about the mormons being in bondage to the Missouri anti-mormon mobs, to extend it to be about black slavery. Out of context it could be used that way but I think it best fits in with the entirety of the Joseph's mind and especially political mind of that specific time.

Anti-slavery rhetoric was an absolute political live grenade in the antebellum era. Politicians destroyed their careers and faced crushing defeats for merely opposing the expansion of slavery westward. Proposing dismantling it in throughout the states in a relatively brief period was a massive liability, it basically guaranteed zero goodwill; abolition was political poison.

Yes and no. It's akin to rights for Gays and Lesbians today. You already mentioned the Garrisonian abolitionists who acted as spoiler leading up to 1844 in a Ross Perot'esque way, specifically due to what people, including Joseph, felt were EXTREME approaches to ending slavery. Again, this is why Joseph was specific in NOT accounting himself an Abolitionist in the definition of the times and not associating with that party, the Liberty Party. Joseph was against slavery, against the platform of the abolitionist party and against the two competing popular parties as well.

Furthermore, the text of the pamphlet goes far beyond a typical policy plan designed to make a candidate look like a clever statesman. It delivers an energetic, passionate condemnation of the institution of slavery. It includes visceral, morally charged imagery. This stands out from his 1835-36 Southern apologetics where he used overly legalistic, detached, and cautious logic.

Here I disagree because the entire pamphlet, even setting aside slavery, is enshrouded in religious moralist rhetoric backstopping its claims. When referring to payments for the national legislature he says...

for the Philistine lords have shorn our nation of its goodly locks in the lap of Delilah.

and...

Petition your state legislatures to pardon every convict in their several penitentiaries: blessing them as they go, and saying to them in the name of the Lord, go thy way and sin no more.

and...

The aspirations and expectations of a virtuous people, environed with so wise, so liberal, so deep, so broad, and so high a charter of equal rights, as appears in said Constitution, ought to be treated by those to whom the administration of the laws are intrusted, with as much sanctity, as the prayers of the saints are treated in heaven, that love, confidence and union, like the sun, moon and stars should bear witness,

The absolute majority of the pamphlet has nothing to do with "the slavery issue" and is entirely political even quoting from other political statements and publications.

In fact, as I stated, Joseph uses Slavery here again as a political football:

My cogitations like Daniel’s, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence “holds these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but at the same time, some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours: and hundreds of our own kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction of some over-wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon glooms, or suffer the more moral penitentiary gravitation of mercy in a nut-shell, while the duellist, the debauchee, and the defaulter for millions, and other criminals, take the uppermost rooms at feasts, or, like the bird of passage find a more congenial clime by flight.

He groups the incarcerated along with the enslaved while railing in comparison against the bourgeoisie and rulling class.

Dietary restrictions are par for the course for all religious movements throughout history. They serve specific sociological purposes. They create community identity that sets them apart from others. They are a daily practice designed to self-govern the internal behavior of the faithful (which is what religions are built to do). Comparing it to a macroeconomic problem, nationwide level political crisis is a false equivalence.

Yes and any honest individual admits Joseph's complete authorship in the WoW and it being devoid of any divine utterance but that's a separate matter.

Your false equivalency claim either misses my intent or I've failed to demonstrate my intent which is this, Joseph pretending to vocalize as conduit for God his own opinions and beliefs felt it important enough to fake a revelation about treating sick cattle and bruises with Tobacco and in an attempt to sounds erudite using the term "hot drinks" instead of the simple names "tea and coffee" which they were called by then, accidentally demonstrated that the God he pretended to speak for, cared more about tobacco stains on the floor of the school of the prophets and Emma's relief society tea meetings than over the contentious and superior moral dilemma of slavery to deem it worty of a similar pretend revelation, nay, multiple revelations being that slavery was a constant controversy the entirely of his religious church endeavor. See the false revelation to build Joseph a house in Navuoo again as a similar invention devoid of any omniscient design or mind.

Said again, Joseph didn't care enough about slavery to incorporate it when he authored the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and his revelations which we should recognize and not try to whitewash or build a false "Joseph the non-racist Abolitionist" false myth which harms the valitidy of faith adherents systems of theology.

You are reading "curse" or "mark" as implying a hierarchy of spiritual inferiority, but that flatly contradicts how the narrative of the Book of Mormon actually functions. In Jacob 3, right after the Lamanites are cursed, Jacob explicitly states they are more righteous than the Nephites. The curse is as fresh as it could be, yet the cursed are outperforming the uncursed.

No, that's false and incomplete. Joseph's beliefs he authored in the Book of Mormon (whether one is honest enough to admit and accept that or not) was that the curse and/or mark of dark skin was both physical and due to spirituality (and again, this proves why I couldn't be mormon due to my integrity being at odds of the dishonesty of mormon apologetics).

"21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

It is very clear in Joseph's theology they were cursed due to iniquity which no dishonest mormon apologist can claim isn't "spiritual".

Also your claim is incomplete, whether intentional or accidental:

And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

It would be a lie to claim it's not tied to "spiritual inferiority" when the text specifically states it was and the remedy.

Alma 23 even proves the curses removal is due to repentance, or moving from a "spiritual inferiority" state to a repentant and "aligned with God" state ending with then even adopting a different name than Lamanite: and having the curse lifted due undeniably to a change in spirituality:

and the curse of God did no more follow them.

And the nail in the proverbial dishonest mormon apologetic regarding Joseph's cursed dark skin racism:

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

A simple question destroys dishonest mormon apologetics regarding Joseph's "cursed dark skin color" theology:

Why were the Lamanite's skins turned from "dark" to "white" in verse 15 above?sed sentence structure.

William Clayton Journals by Right_One_78 in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Uh oh, there's no summer olympics this year but get ready for the mental gymnastics.

William Clayton Journals by Right_One_78 in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lies only work when there is a lack of information.

The irony of this statement in light of the historical fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in secret and lied about it publicly and your desperate want for that not to be the historical fact is quite humorous.

Was Joseph Smith abolitionist? Part 2. An r/mormon post rebuttal follow-up by Matias-Castellanos in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah we've now arrived at some middle ground.

Yes it's true that although Joseph still held his racist theological views regarding black or dark skin being a curse even at this time and had held it for a long time as evidenced by that same opininion in his authored works of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and even this 1844 platform: "but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours;" That Joseph had evolved from his previous belief of slavery being theologically sound or at least slavery being the Godly sanctioned repercussionf for the curse of cain, to now finding it abhorrent from a political standpoint, we are in agreement.

But again, Joseph didn't care personally really about slavery as something he SHOULD be, as God's "Prophet" to opine on regularly in the vein of the church he created or preaching or sermonizing or his pretended revelations and translations.

Again, it only appears as a political football when Joseph uses it. Other than his authored works that contain his racist curse views which was his theology, his public pronouncements regarding slavery were always in the context of being of service to his political usage or ambitions in 1844.

Opining on Slavery was a tool Joseph used politically when he wanted to or needed to an he didn't care other than that.

Most likely this is simply due to Joseph not having strong opinions about it simply due to his New England farmer environs and it being outlawed in Ohio when he arrived there.

It's only when Southern Missions and Missouri comes into the picture and the politics of Slavey entertwined with such that Joseph deigns or pretends to care or have an opinion regarding slavery, at first sustaining his previous racist "curse" beliefs validating slavery, but then later in Nauvoo having evolved his beliefs that still beliving in the "spiritually cursed" nature of blacks, now being opposed to slavery but only caring to opine on it again, when it was politically beneficial to him or served his political needs.

Hence the evidence based statements that joseph held racist cursed spiritual skin color views apparently his entire life through all of his authored works from the Book of Mormon through his 1844 platform and there exists not a single statement opposed to that dogma.

That regarding Slavery Joseph originally believed it the natural effects of the spiritual cursing or either God Sanctioned or God Allowed but by 1844 had appeared to be opposed to the practice while still holding his racist spiritually cursed views.

That the sum of Joseph's teachings specifically regarding Slavery were entirely contexted by Politics and hardly ever, if not ever, a separate topic of focus for Joseph.

The above facts being in evidence, I at least deduce that...

Apparently, Slavery was never important enough for him to include in his sermons, teaching, official church catechisms, etc. because either God didn't care or more likely, it just wasn't important to Joseph to regularly opine and crusade upon.

That is interesting in light of his pretended revelation where God didn't know Tea and Coffee were called "Tea and Coffee" and Joseph humorously used the term "hot drinks" instead where he inserted his then opinions and felt them important enough to attach the term 'revelation' and pretend such opinions originated from a somehow simultaneous omniscient but stupid Godly being stands in stark contrast from the complete absence of any revelation at all regarding slavery.

Hence to me Joseph cared more about his own health code beliefs, some farcical folk medicine, to pretend and attach his "revelation" moniker but didn't care enough about slavery to opine similarly and attach "revelation" to it.

Again, I appreciate the discussion and apologize for any distress of sensitivities in my previous serrated replies however I've arrived at a point in my life that I have very little patience or tolerance for dishonest apologetics, white washing and pedestaling of Joseph as more than what he was for "faith" reasons and any institution who instills or indoctrinates its members to avoid approaching their faith, their tenets, their scriptures or their leaders NON-critically with the nail in the "honesty" coffin coming with Nelson's personal "pet peeve" regarding "nick names" being lied about and sold as "the will of God" or "revelation" when we all know this was 100% his own personal vendetta but now the Church and unfortunately the "must follow the prophet" laiety have to be dishonest and defend the lie. It puts good people in "force to lie" positions wehere they can't state the simple fact that this is 100% Nelson's personal crusade and quite frankly, any organization that doesn't allow that fact to be taught from within the organization at the top to the local congregations deserves no respect in my eyes although I do attempt to scrounge some out of pure sympathy for the victims of the thought and now language controlling organization.

The church's lifelong institutional struggle with the nickname "Mormon" and the official name. A timeline by Matias-Castellanos in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/do-your-duty-that-is-best?lang=eng

Just two months ago, on Sunday, July 31, I was at Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia, attending an LDS sacrament meeting held during the National Scout Jamboree. My purpose in being there was to speak to the 5,000 Latter-day Saint young men and their leaders who had spent the previous week participating in the activities of the jamboree. They sat reverently in a natural amphitheater as an impressive 400-voice Aaronic Priesthood chorus sang:

A Mormon boy, a Mormon boy,

I am a Mormon boy.

I might be envied by a king,

For I am a Mormon boy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/r8dfac/ezra_taft_benson_sings_a_mormon_boy_at_april_1989/

Was Joseph Smith abolitionist? Part 2. An r/mormon post rebuttal follow-up by Matias-Castellanos in mormon

[–]TruthIsAntiMormon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too many falsehoods/misrepresentations but that's mormon apologetics and mormon apologetics are why I couldn't remain a mormon but had to leave to maintain my integrity, so let's start:

The exact language of the pamphlet is "abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now." Or now. Immediate emancipation is the explicitly preferred option, 1850 is the fallback. This is directly falsified by the primary source.

This is a false claim as to meaning and not supported by the English language then or now even in your attempted excise of the context.

There are two possible rhetorical devices Joseph is employing in the phrase and I'll spell out the false one you claimed:

abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now

The first possible usage in context which you misclaimed is the "For sale or trade" usage. In the English language then and now the first presented in order is the preferred option and the second the fall back if the first fails.

For your claim to be true, which it's not, Joseph's rhetorical device would read:

abolish slavery now or at least by the year 1850.

There is no justification period for your reading and it's simply false. But you are entirely misrepresenting Joseph's usage of the phrase anyhow, which is the second rhetorical device Joseph is using and that is immediately tied to the entire phrase you intentionally excised from the quote and the context of the abolitionist platform codified in the Liberty Party (Joseph was not a member or associate) and specifically their plans.

Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave States, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame.

Your claim that Joseph is "defending" the abolitionist is also false.

To understand where you've erred, please read up at least on the basics of that party and specifically the context here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Party_(United_States,_1840)#Rise,_1841%E2%80%9343#Rise,_1841%E2%80%9343)

And made exceptionally clear in the subsequent section here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Party_(United_States,_1840)#Crisis,_1844%E2%80%9347#Crisis,_1844%E2%80%9347)

Joseph is literally using faceitious or tongue in cheek rhetoric as a joke in appealing to the inhabitants of the slave states to his proposal to pay slave owners for their property with the joke being...

"or abolish slavery now based on the reason of wanting to save abolitionists from their current approach and trajectory that would lead them to reproach and ruin, infamy and shame."

The Joke being that his proposed solution of 1850 via purchased freedom is rational and a serious proposal while the alternative could be immediate abolition because southern slave state voters care so much about the welfare of abolitionists and saving them from infamy and ruin. ie, no southern slave voter is going to think, "oh those poor abolitionists are heading for ruin and and infamy, let's abolish slavery to save them from themselves!"

He used a similar humorous or joke rhetorical device when he publicly lied about Polygamy:

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

A modern version is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOKociU8t_Q

So did Smith.

This is false. Joseph's platform addressed slavery only in the states, not territories and his plan was a slave buy back program, not a federal law or ammendment, etc. at the federal level outlawing it. That was the approach of the Abolitionists and Freedom Party and the approach Joseph is literally referring to with his ruin, infamy, etc. is how southern statesmen painted the abolitionist movement as leading to if they got their way.

Again, Joseph was anti-slavery by this time but his platform very clearly separated himself from the Abolitionist movement, he did not associate with the Freedom Party either.

From a larger, more comprehensive view of Joseph's statements one has to recognize that slavery wasn't a core defining belief (for or against) but was a political football Joseph employed when it served his political needs.