Who was Joseph Smith to you?

[RevOxley_501]

well as long as you are giving away masonic secrets you didn't finish all of it... you forgot the cable tow and the ocean...

im not a stickler for details all of the time

 

[Comprehend]

Considering the fact that a lot of the men in 19th century Illinois were Masons, that wouldn't surprise me. But there were close to 200 men in the mob that stormed the jail and I kind of have a hunch that the number of Masons involved was fairly proportionate to the general population. I'm not saying I know this for sure. Do you have information about this group of men that I'm unaware of?

see "Carthage Conspiracy" by Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill page 66

(I'll transcribe the pertinent part if you do not have the book and are not familiar with the text)

 

[Katzpur]

uh, yes. And the virgin birth also smacks of being fabricated to cover something up. Isn't the most logical explanation obviously that Joseph got Mary pregnant? They got scared and made something up? There were some kids at my high school that tried claiming the same thing almost, they said they never had sex but she got pregnant.... uh huh... good one. How many magical virgin births are you aware of?

To say that the BOM story sounds fabricated but an unwed girl getting pregnant and then saying God did it sounds a little silly to me but hey... what do I know...

You've made an excellent point, Comprehend. But in fairness to Pete, we all accept different "miracles" as legitimate and reject others as illogical. The problem is, all miracles are illogical, so it's hard to argue for the validity of the ones we can personally accept. Know what I mean?

 

[Katzpur]

see "Carthage Conspiracy" by Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill page 66

(I'll transcribe the pertinent part if you do not have the book and are not familiar with the text)

Would you mind? I don't have the book.

 

[Comprehend]

You've made an excellent point, Comprehend. But in fairness to Pete, we all accept different "miracles" as legitimate and reject others as illogical. The problem is, all miracles are illogical, so it's hard to argue for the validity of the ones we can personally accept. Know what I mean?

Not FFH he accepts every miracle... just kidding. I know what you mean. I was just saying that if the basis for accepting or rejecting a miracle is probability, then I have to point out that the virgin birth resulting in a God being born is by far the most unlikely miracle I have ever hear of.

 

[Scuba Pete]

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Perhaps another thread is warranted. From the Major doing the investigation:

Judge Cradlebaugh informed me that about this time Brigham Young, preaching in the tabernacle and speaking of the trouble with the United States, said that up to that moment he had protected emigrants who had passed through the Territory, but now he would turn the Indians loose upon them. It is a singular point worthy of note that this sermon should have been preached just as the rich train had gotten into the valley and was now fairly entrapped; a sermon good, coming from him, as a letter of marque to these land pirates who listened to him as an oracle. The hint thus shrewdly given out was not long in being acted upon.
From that moment these emigrants, as they journeyed southward, were considered the authorized, if not legal, prey of the inhabitants. All kinds of depredations and extortions were practiced upon them. At Parowan they took some wheat to the mill to be ground. The bishop replied, "Yes, but do you take double toll." This shows the spirit with which they were treated. These things are now leaking out; but some of those who were then Mormons have renounced their creed, and through them much is learned which, taken in connection with the facts that are known, served to develop the truth. It is said to be a truth that Brigham Young sent letters south, authorizing, if not commanding, that the train should be destroyed.
A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named "Jackson," who was one of the attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral by the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that the emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah-Utes named Touche, now living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a young man named Huntingdon [Oliver B. Huntington], who, I learn, is an Indian Interpreter and lives at present at Salt Lake City.
Jackson says there were 60 Mormons led by Bishop John D. Lee, of Harmony, and a prominent man in the church named [Isaac C.]Haight, who lives at Cedar City. That they were all painted and disguised as Indians.

His entire report can be found at www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Carelton/maj.htm. Now, it might be of note to consider that this report is a tad bit closer to the massacre time wise than your encyclopedia, and he does not appear to have any agenda but the truth.


Blood Atonement, which was his response to the apparent federal intrusion, was the reason given for the attack. This doctrine was preached from his pulpit and no other, from what I understand.

 

[Comprehend]

Would you mind? I don't have the book.

ok, but I just have to tell you that my wife is sitting on the couch waiting to watch a movie with me and has *that* look...

p. 66 Chapter 5 - To secure pre-trial advantage

In the meantime, the defendants were apparently trying to strengthen their position by new allegiances within the influential Masonic order. Mark Aldrich was a member of Warsaw Lodge No. 21, founded in January, 1843. With an immediacy and urgency that cannot have been coincidental, Jacob Davis, Thomas Sharp, and Levi Williams were all initiated into the small Warsaw lodge in October and December, 1844. Before spring all three ahd been passed to the second degree, and Davis and Williams had been raised to Master Masons. How much advantage the defendants expected to derive from this association is unclear, though it is a fact that many of the most influential men in the county and state at this time were Masons. This list includes Justice Richard M. Young of the Illinois Supreme Court, who was to be the judge at the trial; James H. Ralston, former states attorney; Judge Stephen A. Douglas; former circuit judge O.C. Skinner, who was t obe among the defense counsel at the trial; George W. Thatcher, the anti-Mormon clerk of the county commissioners court; and various members of the Warsaw militia such as Charles Hay, Henry Stephens, and several of the Chittenden family.

Whatever uncertainties may exist in the benefits the defendants expected to derive from their Masonic affiliation, there is no doubt that the state officers in the Masonic order identified an impropriety in this maneuver and took decisive disciplinary action. In its annual meeting in 1845 the Grand Lodge of Illinois appointed a select committee to investigate reports that the Warsaw lodge had violated Masonic regulations by conferring degrees upon persons who were under indictment...




Anyway, the masons didn't want anything to do with the defendants... I think it would be hard to pin this one on the masons as a group although I wouldn't doubt there were some masons mixed in the group...

 

[Scuba Pete]

To say that the BOM story sounds fabricated but an unwed girl getting pregnant and then saying God did it sounds a little silly to me but hey... what do I know...

You know,

I didn't berate you over your beliefs, but I guess I can't expect the return favor. My opinion was asked and given. I did make a mistake and apologized. Do I have to convert in order to participate in this thread?

 

[jonny]

Jonny,

hopefully you accepted my earlier apology. If you missed it, again I apologize for mixing up the names. It was Brigham Young who was a driving force behind the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Like Joseph Smith, his name is synonymous with the Latter Day Saints. Like all men, including those God chooses to use, these men had their faults as do I.

Sorry about that. I read further and saw the apology and went to try and delete my post and my internet went down. I was hoping to delete it before you saw it, but wasn't able to.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's cool... I thought it was something like that.

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps another thread is warranted. From the Major doing the investigation:
His entire report can be found at www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Carelton/maj.htm. Now, it might be of note to consider that this report is a tad bit closer to the massacre time wise than your encyclopedia, and he does not appear to have any agenda but the truth.

Apparently we're going to have to disagree to disagree on this topic, Pete. Regardless of the time frame of Major Carelton's report, there is not one statement in the portion of the report you quoted that can be authenticated. It's heresay. It's a second-hand account of a conversation and a faulty conclusion. What is "said to be a truth" and what is a truth are often two entirely different things. At that time in U.S. history, no one was the slightest bit inclined towards any agenda other than to malign the Latter-day Saints. I quoted verbatim from the letter Brigham Young wrote. If you choose to believe it to be fabricated, that's up to you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I quoted verbatim from the letter Brigham Young wrote. If you choose to believe it to be fabricated, that's up to you.

Have you read the transcripts of his sermons as well? The doctrine of "blood atonement" was very real.

 

[jonny]

Have you read the transcripts of his sermons as well? The doctrine of "blood atonement" was very real.

Brigham Young did believe in the 'blood atonement' thing. That's one reason why people are still executed by firing squad in Utah. I think this belief stemmed from a lot of anger about Joseph Smith's death. It also is probably a literal interpretation of many of the laws in the Old Testament. Most members of the church today wouldn't realize that 'blood atonement' meant anything other than the atonement of Jesus Christ though. The blood atonement that Brigham Young was talking about isn't taught in the church.

 

[Katzpur]

Have you read the transcripts of his sermons as well? The doctrine of "blood atonment was very real.

The concept of “blood atonement” was promoted by Brigham Young but never has been doctrinally binding upon the Latter-day Saints. Brigham's belief (and quite possibly the belief of some of his contemporaries) was that there were certain sins which could be forgiven only through the shedding of the sinner’s blood. This is clearly not what the LDS scriptures say, and needs to be considered in light of what Brigham Young was attempting to accomplish by teaching it.

At one time, he said, “I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course.”

In his attempt to impress upon the minds of his audience the seriousness of certain sins, he was preaching a characteristic (for him) hellfire and damnation sermon designed to do what all hellfire and damnation sermons are designed to do: scare the flock into obedience. He was, in essence, saying that those Latter-day Saints who had committed really serious sins would be better off to voluntarily submit to those who would kill them than to have to face God. The key to understanding what he was saying lies in the voluntary acceptance of this fate. It never was an attempt to legitimatize or condone murder.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I didn't think it was still in vogue, but it's great to hear that it truly isn't.

 

[Comprehend]

You know,

I didn't berate you over your beliefs, but I guess I can't expect the return favor. My opinion was asked and given. I did make a mistake and apologized. Do I have to convert in order to participate in this thread?

I was attempting to address the logic of your argument. I didn't mean to berate you, sorry.

 

[Comprehend]

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992),, p.131

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.



EDIT: P.S. Tinkling Cymbols and Sounding Brass has an excellent discussion on the Blood Atonement/Brigham Young issue.

 

[Bishka]

You know, I guess I'm naive, but I'm still floored by many of the responses. Even by people who don't believe he was a prophet. It amazes me.......

 

[FFH]

*CITIZEN MOD*

Funny...FFH makes note of this for future use...

 

[FFH]

nonetheless, i believe there were masonic rings on the guns of the men who shot him.

Many who turned against him were former members of the church, many having been recently excommunicated...