An Angel Appears to Joseph--But Which One?
{These posts are from RfM}
[Yesterday], September 21, is the anniversary of the appearance of the angel Nephi to Joseph Smith, telling him of the existence of the sacred record buried in the Hill Cumorah. That was in 1823.
Yes, NEPHI!
The earliest printed account was in the Times and Seasons (1842) volume 3, no 12 page 753, where Joseph Smith tells of Nephi's visit:
"When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, ... He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."
Note that Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons.
The Millennial Star also reported the angel's name soon afterward as "Nephi", and "Nephi" was his name in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price (1851). Lucy Mack Smith's biography of JS also says his name was Nephi.
So, why is Moroni holding the trumpet on the top of Mormon temples? It should be Nephi!
And [today] it will be the 180th anniversary of the delivery of the plates to the prophet Joe (1827).
An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?
More bizarre but true Mormon History - starting 183 years ago yesterday...
September 22, 1823 - "The Angel" Moroni tells Smith to return to the Hill Cumorah in a Year with his oldest brother, Alvin
"Both early Mormon and non-Mormon sources agree that on 22 September 1823 Moroni required Smith to bring his oldest brother Alvin to the hill the following year in order to obtain the gold plates."
One of Smith's devout followers, Joseph Knight, recorded Smith's relating that the following dialog occurred on the hill in 1823:
"Joseph says, 'when can I have it?' The answer was the 22nt Day of September next if you Bring the right person with you. Joseph says, 'who is the right Person?' The answer was 'your oldest Brother.' But before September [1824] Came his oldest Brother Died. Then he was Disapointed and did not [k]now what to do." (Jessee 1976a, 31; also Hartley 1986, 20)
The Smiths' Palmyra neighbor Willard Chase reported:
"He then enquired when he could have them, and was answered thus: come one year from this day, and bring with you your oldest brother, and you shall have them. This spirit, he said was the spirit of the prophet who wrote this book, and who was sent to Joseph Smith, to make known these things to him. Before the expiration of the year, [Smith's] oldest brother died." (1833, 241-42, emphasis in original)
Smith family neigbor Fayette Lapham remembered that Joseph Smith's father told him in 1830 that "Joseph asked when he could have them; and the answer was, 'Come in one year from this time, and bring your oldest brother with you; then you may have them.' During that year, it so happened that his oldest brother died."
November 19, 1823 - Alvin dies suddenly
"The intensity of the Smith family's despair over Alvin's death less than two months after Joseph's visit the the Hill Cumorah is understandable. Alvin's last words to his brother Joseph were to "do everything that lies in your power to obtain the Record. Be faithful in receiving instruction, and in keeping every commandment that is given to you. Your brother Alvin must leave you." (L. M. Smith 1853, 88)
"Alvin's final charge underscored the dilemma Joseph now faced: he had been commanded to meet the angelic treasure-guardian at the hill the following 22 September 1824 and to bring Alvin with him."
"By some accounts, Smith had been violently jolted three times and severely chastised for disobeying instructions during his first visit, and Mormon convert Joseph Knight wrote that now Smith "did not [k]now what to do" (Jessee 1976a, 31). One can only imagine the turmoil Smith would have experienced during the ten months between the death of his eldest brother on 19 November 1823 and his next solitary visit to the hill."
- Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.135-136
September 22, 1824 - "God's Messenger" Moroni asks Joseph where his brother Alvin is
"Joseph hoped to obtain the plates on 22 September 1824 even though he did not bring Alvin. The day was a stinging disappointment. According to Smith's 1832 autobiography, the messenger told him "to come again in one year from that time [1823]. I did so [in 1824], but did not obtain them."
"His friend Joseph Knight wrote, "But when the 22nt Day of September Came he went to the place and the personage appeard [sic] and told him he Could not have it now" (Jessee 1976a, 31). Lorenzo Saunders remembered that Smith told him, "At the end of the time he went to the place to get the plates the angel asked where his Brother was. I told him he was dead." Fayette Lapham recalled the story as "Joseph repaired to the place again, and was told by the man who still guarded the treasure, that, inasmuch as he could not bring his oldest brother, he could not have the treasure yet" (L. Saunders 1884a, 10; Lapham 1870, 2:386).
"As Smith left the hill in disappointment on 22 September 1824, apparently the message he had received was: without your dead brother Alvin, you cannot have the gold lates."
"When Smith returned a year later, the spirit asked about his brother. Learning he was dead, the spirit "commanded him to come again, in just one year, and bring a man with him."
- Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.136
September 29, 1824 - Joseph Smith Sr. denies in local newspaper to dissecting Alvin's body
Wayne Sentinel 2 (29 Sept. 1824): Page 3, prints an advertisement placed by Joseph Sr. dated "Sept. 25th, 1824," denying "reports [that] have been industriously put in circulation, that my son, Alvin, had been removed from the place of his internment and dissected."
Smith chastised town gossips for disturbing the peace of mind of a still-grieving parent, and then made two comments that allude to his son Joseph as target of such gossip:
"[these rumors] deeply wound the feelings of relations [and] have been stimulated more by desire to injure the reputation of certain persons than a philanthropy for the peace and welfare of myself and friends."
- Wayne Sentinel, 29 Sept.-3 Nov. 1824; Kirkham 1951, 1:147; Rich 1970, 256
Not exactly faith-promoting. No wonder you don't hear this part of the story in Sunday School. This is not a testimony killer, but it sure is a bizarre story to explain away.
Why did the angel Moroni require Alvin to get the gold plates?
Why didn't the Angel Moroni know Alvin was dead?
***My Thoughts***
Joseph's upbringing was steeped in occultic ritual and magical thinking. Grant Palmer's book, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins", contains a section comparing Joseph's 'alleged' adventures in obtaining the golden plates with E.T.A. Hoffman's "The Golden Pot". Judge for yourself here
Also worth mentioning is D. Michael Quinn's book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." The author was a church historian who ultimately was excommunicated for revealing too much truth to the masses. Excerpts available here
I haven't been over to FAIR to find out what their take is on the switch in names, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of discounting the Times and Seasons article, even though Joseph was the editor, and discounting journal entries made by others, since they are not 'cannonized' scripture. And, let's face it: if all we could depend on for accurate history was 'cannonized' scripture, universities would become useless, and apologetics wouldn't be necessary to try to scrub out any opposing viewpoints. Oh, and we would all be Mormon.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
When the Prophet Speaks...
"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud" (GBH, General Conference address, The Ensign, November, 2002, p. 80).
"I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy. (GBH, General Conference address, October, 1961)
"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of [the] First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71
“As I see it, there are four great foundation stones on which this Church stands, irremovable. The first, the great First Vision, the visit of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph Smith, the opening of the heavens in this the dispensation of the fullness of times, the great bringing together of all of the work of God in all the past dispensations throughout the history of the world. The curtain was parted with that First Vision, and it stands as an absolute fundamental in the Church and its history and its well-being.
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Aug. 1998, 72
"We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens."
"Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5)."
"Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church."
"That They came, both of Them, that Joseph saw Them in Their resplendent glory, that They spoke to him and that he heard and recorded Their words—of these remarkable things we testify. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith," October 2002 General Conference
"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007
[***What separates Mormonism from the Christian mainstream? The belief in the First Vision story forms the basis for the entire structure of Mormon belief. If that were set aside, the church could not claim to have restored prophecy, authority, or scripture. Giving up on the ‘chosen’ nature of Joseph Smith means acknowledging 167 years of fraud perpetuated by one volume of text written by a man who had no more spiritual discernment than any other human on the earth. Without Joseph’s ‘divine calling’, there is no LDS church.***]
Questions about the First Vision Story: here
1. Why didn't Joseph Smith write the "official" version of the First Vision?
In fact, the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe, James Mulholland, and went unpublished for years. There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church.
2. If the official First Vision story was so important, why did it go unpublished until 1842?
Smith supposedly had his vision in 1820. Yet it took over seven private revisions and another 22 years to have it first published.
3. If Jesus Christ and God the Father really told Joseph Smith in 1820 that all churches were an abomination, then why did he try joining the Methodist church in June of 1828?
Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
4. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"
In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
See: here
5. Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote a church history in 1835?
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year. Smith testified that he prayed while in bed to discover if God existed when he was visited by an angelic messenger (Moroni) that forgave him his sins. Elements of this narrative are similar to the later "official" version except the "official" version has different dates, locations, visitors and purposes for Smith's first spiritual experience.
See: here
6. If Joseph Smith could not deny that he saw God, then why did his own handwritten accounts deny it?
In the other First Vision accounts, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, he does not say that he saw God the Father. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. Yet in the "official" account, it says Joseph Smith saw God and knew God knew it, and therefore despite persecution, he dared not deny or change his story.
See: here
7. If Joseph Smith's First Vision was the most important historical event since the atonement, then why didn't early church members know about it?
"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."
"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."
"The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October, 1834, to September, 1836. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the Church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon."
"In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained "the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe." Included in the book were the "Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication."
"The first important missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830's, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book's authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing, again, on the first vision."
"The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but, as indicated above, the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842. From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today."
(Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.1, No.3, p.31 - p.32)
8. If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
9. Why does the "official" First Vision story contradict Joseph Smith's own handwritten testimony?
In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."
See: here
Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."
In fact, looking at all the versions of the first vision story, you see a pattern of contradictions and evolution, not a pattern of mere elaboration on a single original experience.
10. If Joseph Smith saw God the Father in the flesh with a body in 1820, why did he teach later than God the Father did not have a physical body?
Up until the last version of the "First Vision" story, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father did not have a body.
For example, in 1835 Joseph Smith taught a class of Elders the "Lectures on Faith" which were also printed in the scripture volume Doctrine and Covenants. In this original Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith stated that God the Father was a personage of spirit. In Section 5 we find this statement about the Godhead:
"The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man."
- Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Edition, p. 53
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself signed a statement that was printed in the Preface to this 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this statement he testified:
"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work."
President Joseph Fielding Smith also explained that the Prophet Joseph Smith helped prepare this part of scripture:
"Now the Prophet did know about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published [in the Doctrine and Covenants]."
- Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, page 195
Actually, these teachings were considered complete with regard to their doctrine concerning the Godhead at the time they were given.
On page 58 of the 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants the following question and answer appear:
"Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?"
"A. It does."
11. Why did Joseph Smith's mother, in the extensive history of her son's life, not mention Joseph ever having a vision from God and Jesus Christ, or that he was persecuted for it?
According to the "official" story, Joseph Smith told his mother his first vision story. Although Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of Joseph Smith Jr., wrote a lot of details about her son during the early 1820s, in her history of Joseph's life she did not mention him ever having a visitation from God and Jesus Christ. Nor does she mention any persecution.
You would think that Lucy would mention such an astounding event in her son's life. This was a bigger event than a big foot sighting; this was a visit from God and Jesus Christ! But apparently despite Joseph telling his mother, it was not significant enough for her to mention it in the extensive biography she wrote about her son.
The only element of the first vision story that Lucy mentions is religious revivals around Palmyra, yet she dates them to 1823, not 1820. Historical records of the time corroborate Lucky Mack Smith's dating of revivals in 1823 and none in Palmyra during 1820.
[***I think Gordon is secretly trying to get his fellow Mormons to do the research and determine for themselves that Joseph saw what he saw, did what he did, and had all the authority bestowed upon him by God and Jesus Christ, or he made the whole thing up. The fact that he emphasizes the church’s position rises or falls on that claim is what makes me believe that he himself has discovered the truth of that claim. But, in the position that he is in, he knows full well that if he were to ever say so in public, he would be removed immediately as a fallen prophet and lose everything in this mortal existence. By subtly challenging his flock to resolve the question, he is actually helping them leave by showing them the back door. Gordon is not a stupid man, I will have to say that much. People who take up the challenge to ‘prove’ the Joseph Smith story are more likely to discover the hidden truth about the man, therefore demonstrating what Gordon is trying to tell the people:
The church is a fraud.
Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
The First Vision story is a fantasy tale.
Get out before you waste your lives in servitude to a lie.***]
- Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud" (GBH, General Conference address, The Ensign, November, 2002, p. 80).
"I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy. (GBH, General Conference address, October, 1961)
"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of [the] First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71
“As I see it, there are four great foundation stones on which this Church stands, irremovable. The first, the great First Vision, the visit of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph Smith, the opening of the heavens in this the dispensation of the fullness of times, the great bringing together of all of the work of God in all the past dispensations throughout the history of the world. The curtain was parted with that First Vision, and it stands as an absolute fundamental in the Church and its history and its well-being.
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Aug. 1998, 72
"We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens."
"Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5)."
"Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church."
"That They came, both of Them, that Joseph saw Them in Their resplendent glory, that They spoke to him and that he heard and recorded Their words—of these remarkable things we testify. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith," October 2002 General Conference
"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007
[***What separates Mormonism from the Christian mainstream? The belief in the First Vision story forms the basis for the entire structure of Mormon belief. If that were set aside, the church could not claim to have restored prophecy, authority, or scripture. Giving up on the ‘chosen’ nature of Joseph Smith means acknowledging 167 years of fraud perpetuated by one volume of text written by a man who had no more spiritual discernment than any other human on the earth. Without Joseph’s ‘divine calling’, there is no LDS church.***]
Questions about the First Vision Story: here
1. Why didn't Joseph Smith write the "official" version of the First Vision?
In fact, the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe, James Mulholland, and went unpublished for years. There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church.
2. If the official First Vision story was so important, why did it go unpublished until 1842?
Smith supposedly had his vision in 1820. Yet it took over seven private revisions and another 22 years to have it first published.
3. If Jesus Christ and God the Father really told Joseph Smith in 1820 that all churches were an abomination, then why did he try joining the Methodist church in June of 1828?
Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)
4. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"
In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
See: here
5. Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote a church history in 1835?
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year. Smith testified that he prayed while in bed to discover if God existed when he was visited by an angelic messenger (Moroni) that forgave him his sins. Elements of this narrative are similar to the later "official" version except the "official" version has different dates, locations, visitors and purposes for Smith's first spiritual experience.
See: here
6. If Joseph Smith could not deny that he saw God, then why did his own handwritten accounts deny it?
In the other First Vision accounts, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, he does not say that he saw God the Father. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. Yet in the "official" account, it says Joseph Smith saw God and knew God knew it, and therefore despite persecution, he dared not deny or change his story.
See: here
7. If Joseph Smith's First Vision was the most important historical event since the atonement, then why didn't early church members know about it?
"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."
"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."
"The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October, 1834, to September, 1836. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the Church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon."
"In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained "the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe." Included in the book were the "Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication."
"The first important missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830's, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book's authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing, again, on the first vision."
"The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but, as indicated above, the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842. From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today."
(Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.1, No.3, p.31 - p.32)
8. If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?
How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?
9. Why does the "official" First Vision story contradict Joseph Smith's own handwritten testimony?
In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."
See: here
Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."
In fact, looking at all the versions of the first vision story, you see a pattern of contradictions and evolution, not a pattern of mere elaboration on a single original experience.
10. If Joseph Smith saw God the Father in the flesh with a body in 1820, why did he teach later than God the Father did not have a physical body?
Up until the last version of the "First Vision" story, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father did not have a body.
For example, in 1835 Joseph Smith taught a class of Elders the "Lectures on Faith" which were also printed in the scripture volume Doctrine and Covenants. In this original Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith stated that God the Father was a personage of spirit. In Section 5 we find this statement about the Godhead:
"The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man."
- Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Edition, p. 53
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself signed a statement that was printed in the Preface to this 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this statement he testified:
"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work."
President Joseph Fielding Smith also explained that the Prophet Joseph Smith helped prepare this part of scripture:
"Now the Prophet did know about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published [in the Doctrine and Covenants]."
- Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, page 195
Actually, these teachings were considered complete with regard to their doctrine concerning the Godhead at the time they were given.
On page 58 of the 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants the following question and answer appear:
"Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?"
"A. It does."
11. Why did Joseph Smith's mother, in the extensive history of her son's life, not mention Joseph ever having a vision from God and Jesus Christ, or that he was persecuted for it?
According to the "official" story, Joseph Smith told his mother his first vision story. Although Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of Joseph Smith Jr., wrote a lot of details about her son during the early 1820s, in her history of Joseph's life she did not mention him ever having a visitation from God and Jesus Christ. Nor does she mention any persecution.
You would think that Lucy would mention such an astounding event in her son's life. This was a bigger event than a big foot sighting; this was a visit from God and Jesus Christ! But apparently despite Joseph telling his mother, it was not significant enough for her to mention it in the extensive biography she wrote about her son.
The only element of the first vision story that Lucy mentions is religious revivals around Palmyra, yet she dates them to 1823, not 1820. Historical records of the time corroborate Lucky Mack Smith's dating of revivals in 1823 and none in Palmyra during 1820.
[***I think Gordon is secretly trying to get his fellow Mormons to do the research and determine for themselves that Joseph saw what he saw, did what he did, and had all the authority bestowed upon him by God and Jesus Christ, or he made the whole thing up. The fact that he emphasizes the church’s position rises or falls on that claim is what makes me believe that he himself has discovered the truth of that claim. But, in the position that he is in, he knows full well that if he were to ever say so in public, he would be removed immediately as a fallen prophet and lose everything in this mortal existence. By subtly challenging his flock to resolve the question, he is actually helping them leave by showing them the back door. Gordon is not a stupid man, I will have to say that much. People who take up the challenge to ‘prove’ the Joseph Smith story are more likely to discover the hidden truth about the man, therefore demonstrating what Gordon is trying to tell the people:
The church is a fraud.
Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
The First Vision story is a fantasy tale.
Get out before you waste your lives in servitude to a lie.***]
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
LDS church expresses ‘regret’, falls short of apology for MMM
Link to Deseret News article here
***My Thoughts***
I was just thinking how fortunate (and smart) the church is for choosing to only study church history every four years, giving ample time to fine-tune it and refine it so as to keep the membership steady. I wonder how many people are baptized during years of study with the Old and New Testament as opposed to years of study with the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History. Each topic takes a year of course study, thereby giving the church plenty of time to ingrain the new converts into the lifestyle, so much so that by the time the year of church history rolls around, they have already become used to taking cues from their peers. That’s why newbies often spend the first 6 months to a year in Gospel Essentials classes taught by the missionaries instead of the Gospel Doctrine classes where all the hard-core faithful attend.
During my early adult years, I rarely sat in Relief Society or Gospel Doctrine class, because I was constantly assigned to teach in Primary, constantly churning the milk of the message and never getting to the meat. Even through Temple Preparation class, I wasn’t made aware of all of the things that would happen that day, as if they meant to keep me off guard and surprise me so quickly I wouldn’t have time to process all of the information. I also deduced that the only people who ever received the calling to teach Gospel Doctrine were the staunch believers, who wouldn’t miss Sacrament meeting if their own mother was dying in the hospital. These are the same people who actually took pride in the fact that they never strayed from the manuals and suggested articles from the Ensign. They would keep the topic on focus and reprimand anyone who asked an un-formulated question by referring them to the Bishop as a ‘troublemaker’ (which happened to me a couple of times). That person would almost always end up wrangling 3 year-olds in the nursery or trying to each squirmy 8-11 year olds songs to sing in honor of the prophets of the church.
The way I see it, (and that’s why the title is My Thoughts Exactly) the church is slowly evolving into a Christian mainstream. No longer do they want a separatist environment that Brigham Young envisioned for them. No longer do they want to be called a “peculiar people”. All they want is for all the controversy to go away, stop pointing out their failures, their mistakes, and calling on them to do away with their beliefs. People like me who have left the church are mostly holding a bit of a grudge against the church because they have claimed to hold the fullness of the gospel that Jesus Christ bestowed upon his chosen followers. This information was lost through a great apostasy, and Joseph Smith restored it through his miraculous powers of translation and visions. This is the fairytale that must be done away with in order for the church to be accepted by “Christianity”. This little piece of ‘priesthood authority’ is what keeps Mormons from being treated as just another denomination of Christianity.
I just had to share here some quotes from RFM, which bring the question of Brigham Young’s prophetic power and influence into new light:
From RfM
Author: NoToJoe
If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then why were the local leaders not punished?
John Lee was the only man ever held accountable for MMM. Yet he was certainly not the only man responsible. He had dozens of accomplices who appear to have received a nod of approval from the Beehive House.
At the time, thanks to the doctrine of blood atonement, Brigham Young was having throats slit for adultery and apostasy. Am I to believe that BY would not punish his rogue Cedar City member after learning of the murderous behavior? Not a likely story.
So 150 year later the TSCC [the so-called church] sends a puppet to the site of a horrific slaughter to recite the standard “local leaders to blame, Bro. Young’s instructions to let them pass unmolested arrived too late”
But wait!!!!! These excuses are not logical. Why were the guilty not held to account? Maybe they weren’t actually considered to be guilty. Why did Bro. Young think it was necessary to say “don’t kill the settlers?” Maybe he know they were in grave danger.
The TSCC may declare Briggy’s innocence for the one-billionth time. But to me something doesn’t add up. SOMETHING STINKS!
Author: JW the Inquizzinator
Yep, reminds of that scene in "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicholson as Col Nathan R. Jessep
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I have just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez. If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
Jessup: Santiago was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred because--
Kaffee: That is not what you said, you said he was being transferred because he was in grave danger.
Jessup: That’s correct.
Kaffee: You said he was in danger, I said "grave danger?" You said "is there another kind?"--
Jessup: I recall what I said--
Kaffee: I can have the court reporter read back to you--
Jessup: I know what I said. I don't have to have it read back to me like I'm--
Kaffee: Then why the two orders? Colonel?
Jessup: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
Kaffee: No, Sir. You made it clear a moment ago that your men never take matters in to their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men
Oh if we could only get BY on the stand.....just substitute "Massacre" for "Code Red"
Kaffee: If Lt. Kendrick gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why did he have to be transferred? Colonel? Lt. Kendrick ordered the Code Red, didn't he, because that's what you told Lt. Kendrick to do!
Ross: Object!
Kaffee: And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!--
Judge: Lt. Kaffee!
Kaffee: You got Markinson to sign a phony transfer order! You doctored the log books!
Ross: Dammit, Kaffee!
Kaffee: You coerced the doctor!
Judge: Consider yourself in contempt!
Kaffee: Colonel Jessup, did you order the code red?!
Judge: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessep: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?! You, Lieutenant Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Jessep: I did the job I was sent to do--
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!
Jessep: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!!
Author: SL Cabbie
Yep, And John D. Lee Mentions in His "Confessions" that BY sent some of his minions to confiscate his diaries (he kept them meticulously even though his spelling was atrocious), including one Lee claimed contained written orders to Dame and Haight that were carried by George A. Smith . . .
But church apologists have insisted for over a hundred years that Lee's jailhouse confessions were fabricated by his attorney, William W. Bishop, in order to recoup Lee's legal fees . . .
Anyone who doubts this one need only read the review by Carin Reddig in the following link from an Amazon.com offering of the book . . .
QUOTE:“It is important to remember when reading this version of John D. Lee's writings that his words were manipulated by the editor to convey an anti-Mormon message”
Author: Cheryl
If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then maybe present day Mormons should question local leaders a whole lot more, not necessarily do what they say or believe their words.
Author: Randy J.
Not only were the MM murderers not punished by church leaders, church leaders also proactively protected them from arrest and prosecution. From the confession of John D. Lee:
“There is another falsehood generally believed in Utah, especially among the Mormons. It is this. It has generally been reported that Brigham Young was anxious to help Judge Cradlebaugh arrest all the guilty parties. There is not one word of truth in the whole statement. Brigham Young knew the name of every man that was in any way implicated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He knew just as much about it as I did, except that he did not see it, as I had seen it.”
“If Brigham Young had wanted one man, or fifty men, or five hundred men arrested, all he would have had to do would have been to say so, and they would have been arrested instantly. There was no escape for them if he ordered their arrest. Every man who knows anything of affairs in Utah at that time knows this is so.”
“It is true that Brigham made a great parade at the time, and talked a great deal about bringing the guilty parties to Justice, but he did not mean a word of it--not a word. He did go South with Cradlebaugh, but he took good care that Cradlebaugh caught no person that had been in the massacre.”
“I know that I had plenty of notice of their coming, and so did all the brethren. It was one of Brigham Young's cunning dodges to blind the government.”
Young continued to protect Lee for almost two decades, until it became expedient to sacrifice him as a scapegoat so that the government would cease further investigation and prosecutions. Read details of Young's betrayal of Lee at [here]
Author: Baura
The charge has been made that MMM was the result of a few "rogue Mormons" who went off the deep end. The Church as a whole shouldn't have any blame at all.
The phrase "rogue Mormons" makes it sound like Warren Jeffs and a few of his cronies were responsible: people who had broken with the institutional church and said "hell with them, I'm doing it my own way."
This is a serious misreading of history. Even if we buy the Church's explanation it still smells to high heaven.
The massacre was organized by the local Church leaders who were in full fellowship. At the height of the tension they didn't know what to do. They sent a rider to get instructions from Brigham Young on what to do. They were not a group of "rogue Mormons" they were the official leadership trying their best to do what they thought Brigham Young wanted them to do. When the rider didn't return in time they had to make their best guess of what Brigham Young wanted and they murdered 120 men, women, and children.
Now here's an interesting question. How in the Holy Heck did the Church Leadership in the area get the idea that what Brigham Young would have wanted them to do is commit mass murder?? It would have been one thing for a few angry Mormons to show up and kill the Fancher party. That would be bad enough, but when the Stake Presidency and Stake High Council try their BEST to do what they think the Prophet Seer and Revelator would have them do they end up murdering 120 people.
When the constituted Church leaders try their best to do what they think is "right" (the Mormon version of "right) and it turns out their best guess of "right" is to murder over 100 men, women and children what does that say for their method of discerning right from wrong? What does that say about Mormon leaders' access to inspiration--to the "still small voice" that these Holy-Ghost-containing, power-of-discernment gifted leaders best understanding of "right" is mass murder?
Even if we buy the "Brigham had nothing to do with it" mantra that the apologists repeat over and over the lesson from MMM is very, VERY negative for the claims of the Church.
***My Thoughts***
I am just trying to figure out what Brigham Young ever did as a prophet that would convince people he was so deserving of the respect and admiration he received, even more so now that he has been dead over 100 years. What demonstrable proof is there that he was a prophet of God? The whole of the Journal of Discourses, a set of 26 volumes of speeches made by Brigham Young and his apostles and successors has never been set aside as scripture by the church, yet the people living in that time abided by it as if it were. Who decided that it wasn’t going to be called scripture, when Brigham Young himself declared that he had never given a discourse that the Saints could not call scripture? And doesn’t negating that claim negate the authority of Brigham Young as a prophet?
I have never been able to understand the reverence the Mormons have for whoever happens to be prophet at the time. On the one hand, the church wants the outside world to see them as just people praying for guidance and inspiration like everyone else. On the other hand, the church teaches their faithful followers to ‘follow the prophet, don’t go astray, he knows the way’. It’s a fake front to deceive the Christian movement into believing that Mormonism is just ‘enhanced Christianity’. Revering a prophet as if he has special powers of ‘visions’ and can lead millions of people with just a stroke of his pen in a proclamation, or through a speech given at General Conference is like believing that Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker were also prophets of God. He’s just a guy getting paid to do a job. He ascended to the highest position by virtue of his age and time of service, nothing else. And I think a prophet should at least be able to do a decent magic trick…
***My Thoughts***
I was just thinking how fortunate (and smart) the church is for choosing to only study church history every four years, giving ample time to fine-tune it and refine it so as to keep the membership steady. I wonder how many people are baptized during years of study with the Old and New Testament as opposed to years of study with the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History. Each topic takes a year of course study, thereby giving the church plenty of time to ingrain the new converts into the lifestyle, so much so that by the time the year of church history rolls around, they have already become used to taking cues from their peers. That’s why newbies often spend the first 6 months to a year in Gospel Essentials classes taught by the missionaries instead of the Gospel Doctrine classes where all the hard-core faithful attend.
During my early adult years, I rarely sat in Relief Society or Gospel Doctrine class, because I was constantly assigned to teach in Primary, constantly churning the milk of the message and never getting to the meat. Even through Temple Preparation class, I wasn’t made aware of all of the things that would happen that day, as if they meant to keep me off guard and surprise me so quickly I wouldn’t have time to process all of the information. I also deduced that the only people who ever received the calling to teach Gospel Doctrine were the staunch believers, who wouldn’t miss Sacrament meeting if their own mother was dying in the hospital. These are the same people who actually took pride in the fact that they never strayed from the manuals and suggested articles from the Ensign. They would keep the topic on focus and reprimand anyone who asked an un-formulated question by referring them to the Bishop as a ‘troublemaker’ (which happened to me a couple of times). That person would almost always end up wrangling 3 year-olds in the nursery or trying to each squirmy 8-11 year olds songs to sing in honor of the prophets of the church.
The way I see it, (and that’s why the title is My Thoughts Exactly) the church is slowly evolving into a Christian mainstream. No longer do they want a separatist environment that Brigham Young envisioned for them. No longer do they want to be called a “peculiar people”. All they want is for all the controversy to go away, stop pointing out their failures, their mistakes, and calling on them to do away with their beliefs. People like me who have left the church are mostly holding a bit of a grudge against the church because they have claimed to hold the fullness of the gospel that Jesus Christ bestowed upon his chosen followers. This information was lost through a great apostasy, and Joseph Smith restored it through his miraculous powers of translation and visions. This is the fairytale that must be done away with in order for the church to be accepted by “Christianity”. This little piece of ‘priesthood authority’ is what keeps Mormons from being treated as just another denomination of Christianity.
I just had to share here some quotes from RFM, which bring the question of Brigham Young’s prophetic power and influence into new light:
From RfM
Author: NoToJoe
If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then why were the local leaders not punished?
John Lee was the only man ever held accountable for MMM. Yet he was certainly not the only man responsible. He had dozens of accomplices who appear to have received a nod of approval from the Beehive House.
At the time, thanks to the doctrine of blood atonement, Brigham Young was having throats slit for adultery and apostasy. Am I to believe that BY would not punish his rogue Cedar City member after learning of the murderous behavior? Not a likely story.
So 150 year later the TSCC [the so-called church] sends a puppet to the site of a horrific slaughter to recite the standard “local leaders to blame, Bro. Young’s instructions to let them pass unmolested arrived too late”
But wait!!!!! These excuses are not logical. Why were the guilty not held to account? Maybe they weren’t actually considered to be guilty. Why did Bro. Young think it was necessary to say “don’t kill the settlers?” Maybe he know they were in grave danger.
The TSCC may declare Briggy’s innocence for the one-billionth time. But to me something doesn’t add up. SOMETHING STINKS!
Author: JW the Inquizzinator
Yep, reminds of that scene in "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicholson as Col Nathan R. Jessep
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I have just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez. If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
Jessup: Santiago was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred because--
Kaffee: That is not what you said, you said he was being transferred because he was in grave danger.
Jessup: That’s correct.
Kaffee: You said he was in danger, I said "grave danger?" You said "is there another kind?"--
Jessup: I recall what I said--
Kaffee: I can have the court reporter read back to you--
Jessup: I know what I said. I don't have to have it read back to me like I'm--
Kaffee: Then why the two orders? Colonel?
Jessup: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
Kaffee: No, Sir. You made it clear a moment ago that your men never take matters in to their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men
Oh if we could only get BY on the stand.....just substitute "Massacre" for "Code Red"
Kaffee: If Lt. Kendrick gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why did he have to be transferred? Colonel? Lt. Kendrick ordered the Code Red, didn't he, because that's what you told Lt. Kendrick to do!
Ross: Object!
Kaffee: And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!--
Judge: Lt. Kaffee!
Kaffee: You got Markinson to sign a phony transfer order! You doctored the log books!
Ross: Dammit, Kaffee!
Kaffee: You coerced the doctor!
Judge: Consider yourself in contempt!
Kaffee: Colonel Jessup, did you order the code red?!
Judge: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessep: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?! You, Lieutenant Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Jessep: I did the job I was sent to do--
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!
Jessep: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!!
Author: SL Cabbie
Yep, And John D. Lee Mentions in His "Confessions" that BY sent some of his minions to confiscate his diaries (he kept them meticulously even though his spelling was atrocious), including one Lee claimed contained written orders to Dame and Haight that were carried by George A. Smith . . .
But church apologists have insisted for over a hundred years that Lee's jailhouse confessions were fabricated by his attorney, William W. Bishop, in order to recoup Lee's legal fees . . .
Anyone who doubts this one need only read the review by Carin Reddig in the following link from an Amazon.com offering of the book . . .
QUOTE:“It is important to remember when reading this version of John D. Lee's writings that his words were manipulated by the editor to convey an anti-Mormon message”
Author: Cheryl
If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then maybe present day Mormons should question local leaders a whole lot more, not necessarily do what they say or believe their words.
Author: Randy J.
Not only were the MM murderers not punished by church leaders, church leaders also proactively protected them from arrest and prosecution. From the confession of John D. Lee:
“There is another falsehood generally believed in Utah, especially among the Mormons. It is this. It has generally been reported that Brigham Young was anxious to help Judge Cradlebaugh arrest all the guilty parties. There is not one word of truth in the whole statement. Brigham Young knew the name of every man that was in any way implicated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He knew just as much about it as I did, except that he did not see it, as I had seen it.”
“If Brigham Young had wanted one man, or fifty men, or five hundred men arrested, all he would have had to do would have been to say so, and they would have been arrested instantly. There was no escape for them if he ordered their arrest. Every man who knows anything of affairs in Utah at that time knows this is so.”
“It is true that Brigham made a great parade at the time, and talked a great deal about bringing the guilty parties to Justice, but he did not mean a word of it--not a word. He did go South with Cradlebaugh, but he took good care that Cradlebaugh caught no person that had been in the massacre.”
“I know that I had plenty of notice of their coming, and so did all the brethren. It was one of Brigham Young's cunning dodges to blind the government.”
Young continued to protect Lee for almost two decades, until it became expedient to sacrifice him as a scapegoat so that the government would cease further investigation and prosecutions. Read details of Young's betrayal of Lee at [here]
Author: Baura
The charge has been made that MMM was the result of a few "rogue Mormons" who went off the deep end. The Church as a whole shouldn't have any blame at all.
The phrase "rogue Mormons" makes it sound like Warren Jeffs and a few of his cronies were responsible: people who had broken with the institutional church and said "hell with them, I'm doing it my own way."
This is a serious misreading of history. Even if we buy the Church's explanation it still smells to high heaven.
The massacre was organized by the local Church leaders who were in full fellowship. At the height of the tension they didn't know what to do. They sent a rider to get instructions from Brigham Young on what to do. They were not a group of "rogue Mormons" they were the official leadership trying their best to do what they thought Brigham Young wanted them to do. When the rider didn't return in time they had to make their best guess of what Brigham Young wanted and they murdered 120 men, women, and children.
Now here's an interesting question. How in the Holy Heck did the Church Leadership in the area get the idea that what Brigham Young would have wanted them to do is commit mass murder?? It would have been one thing for a few angry Mormons to show up and kill the Fancher party. That would be bad enough, but when the Stake Presidency and Stake High Council try their BEST to do what they think the Prophet Seer and Revelator would have them do they end up murdering 120 people.
When the constituted Church leaders try their best to do what they think is "right" (the Mormon version of "right) and it turns out their best guess of "right" is to murder over 100 men, women and children what does that say for their method of discerning right from wrong? What does that say about Mormon leaders' access to inspiration--to the "still small voice" that these Holy-Ghost-containing, power-of-discernment gifted leaders best understanding of "right" is mass murder?
Even if we buy the "Brigham had nothing to do with it" mantra that the apologists repeat over and over the lesson from MMM is very, VERY negative for the claims of the Church.
***My Thoughts***
I am just trying to figure out what Brigham Young ever did as a prophet that would convince people he was so deserving of the respect and admiration he received, even more so now that he has been dead over 100 years. What demonstrable proof is there that he was a prophet of God? The whole of the Journal of Discourses, a set of 26 volumes of speeches made by Brigham Young and his apostles and successors has never been set aside as scripture by the church, yet the people living in that time abided by it as if it were. Who decided that it wasn’t going to be called scripture, when Brigham Young himself declared that he had never given a discourse that the Saints could not call scripture? And doesn’t negating that claim negate the authority of Brigham Young as a prophet?
I have never been able to understand the reverence the Mormons have for whoever happens to be prophet at the time. On the one hand, the church wants the outside world to see them as just people praying for guidance and inspiration like everyone else. On the other hand, the church teaches their faithful followers to ‘follow the prophet, don’t go astray, he knows the way’. It’s a fake front to deceive the Christian movement into believing that Mormonism is just ‘enhanced Christianity’. Revering a prophet as if he has special powers of ‘visions’ and can lead millions of people with just a stroke of his pen in a proclamation, or through a speech given at General Conference is like believing that Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker were also prophets of God. He’s just a guy getting paid to do a job. He ascended to the highest position by virtue of his age and time of service, nothing else. And I think a prophet should at least be able to do a decent magic trick…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
