Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 19 2004, 12:50 PM

Why let the church go into limbo and lose all they had built up for so many years? Just some things I really can quite understand.

The same thing could be said about Christ's church immediately following his death. The early apostles were not as cohesive of a group and many people think they were. They weren't prepared for his death, even though he had repeatedly told them that it would happen. The apostles bickered and argued about doctrines, and leadership. It was many, many years before there was really any uniformity in Christian belief and practice. If this was really Christ's church, why was it all so messy and chaotic? Because we're human, and this is the way we work--even when we try to do it God's way.

[Ray]

Yet God did and does provide a way for every one of us to know whether or not someone is truly one of His messengers. He did it then, and He does it now. Yet it is true that many people do not seem to consider that as a viable means for obtaining proof.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 03:23 PM

Yet God did and does provide a way for every one of us to know whether or not someone is truly one of His messengers. He did it then, and He does it now. Yet it is true that many people do not seem to consider that as a viable means for obtaining proof.

Gee I wonder why. Someone else's conflicting revelation may seem as equally convincing to them as yours is to you.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 03:02 PM

The “majority” of members? Why do you claim that was the position of the “majority” of members?

I claimed no such thing. I only said that that is why I think most of them followed him. I'm pretty well read on church history, and in light of the situation they found themselves in and the choices they had, Brigham Young was the best choice. It most certainly wasn't because he was beloved as was Joseph Smith. These were people in dire need of strong leadership. Brigham Young was a very strong leader, and he knew how to act quickly in an emergency.

[Ray]

I have never heard someone claim to receive a revelation from God in conflict with a revelation that I have received from God. I’m not saying that someone couldn’t say that they received a revelation from God in conflict with one I have received, but I have yet to hear anyone say that. At least not from someone who expects to be taken seriously.

Instead, people with a different understanding of God than I have generally say that God doesn’t answer by revelation anymore and that all that God has revealed is contained in the Bible. Or they might say that God has revealed something to them by helping them to understand things as they currently understand them, merely by the workings of their own mind.

But anyone who has claimed to know and understand something through Faith, with an understanding of what Faith really is, i.e., an assurance from God, is in agreement with me, at least in regards to the knowledge that we both have in common. Someone might have Faith in something that I don’t have Faith in yet, or vice versa, but I have never found someone who is not in agreement with me on an issue that we both say we know by Faith.

I think that is particularly interesting.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 19 2004, 03:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 19 2004, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 03:02 PM

The “majority” of members?  Why do you claim that was the position of the “majority” of members?

I claimed no such thing. I only said that that is why I think most of them followed him. I'm pretty well read on church history, and in light of the situation they found themselves in and the choices they had, Brigham Young was the best choice. It most certainly wasn't because he was beloved as was Joseph Smith. These were people in dire need of strong leadership. Brigham Young was a very strong leader, and he knew how to act quickly in an emergency.

I apologize if I misrepresented your beliefs. Perhaps I should have only said that you “thought” that, which is what I meant when I said that you were making that claim.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 19 2004, 04:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 19 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Fatboy@Oct 19 2004, 12:50 PM

Why let the church go into limbo and lose all they had built up for so many years?  Just some things I really can quite understand.

The same thing could be said about Christ's church immediately following his death. The early apostles were not as cohesive of a group and many people think they were. They weren't prepared for his death, even though he had repeatedly told them that it would happen. The apostles bickered and argued about doctrines, and leadership. It was many, many years before there was really any uniformity in Christian belief and practice. If this was really Christ's church, why was it all so messy and chaotic? Because we're human, and this is the way we work--even when we try to do it God's way.

I disagree about the church going into some kind of limbo. The gospel was continually taught and the head of the church seemed to be Peter. There were some differences, but Christ spent forty days with them after the resurrection. I am sure they listened real intently to know how Christ wanted his church to stand.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 03:44 PM

I have never heard someone claim to receive a revelation from God in conflict with a revelation that I have received from God. I’m not saying that someone couldn’t say that they received a revelation from God in conflict with one I have received, but I have yet to hear anyone say that. At least not from someone who expects to be taken seriously.

Siddhartha (Buddha), Confucious, Muhammad, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, just to name a few famous ones. I'm fairly sure that their faith conflicts with yours on a few key issues.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 19 2004, 03:49 PM

the head of the church seemed to be Peter

I think you need to research your early Christian history a little more thoroughly.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 19 2004, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 19 2004, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 03:44 PM

I have never heard someone claim to receive a revelation from God in conflict with a revelation that I have received from God.  I’m not saying that someone couldn’t say that they received a revelation from God in conflict with one I have received, but I have yet to hear anyone say that.  At least not from someone who expects to be taken seriously.

Siddhartha (Buddha), Confucious, Muhammad, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, just to name a few famous ones. I'm fairly sure that their faith conflicts with yours on a few key issues.

Okay, name one of those issues and then show me how that issue came as a revelation from God, and then show me how that revelation is in conflict with what I have received by revelation from God.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 19 2004, 04:04 PM

the head of the church seemed to be Peter

I think you need to research your early Christian history a little more thoroughly.

No, that's correct. Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 05:02 PM

No, that's correct. Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

James, the brother of Jesus was head of the church in Jerusalem.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 19 2004, 06:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 19 2004, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 05:02 PM

No, that's correct.  Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

James, the brother of Jesus was head of the church in Jerusalem.

So who was the head of the church in Rome?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 19 2004, 05:47 PM

So who was the head of the church in Rome?

Who's the head of our church in England?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Oct 19 2004, 05:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Oct 19 2004, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 19 2004, 06:39 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 05:02 PM

No, that's correct.  Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

James, the brother of Jesus was head of the church in Jerusalem.

So who was the head of the church in Rome?

There was no church in Rome at the time immediately after Christ died.

And Curvette is correct. I posted several links regarding this issue several months ago.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 01:14 PM

I think members of the RLDS church primarily focus on how thankful they are that a descendent of Joseph Smith finally decided to lead their church, and as I understand it, they are now hoping that another descendent of Joseph Smith will also decide to lead their church.  Without a descendent of Joseph Smith to lead their church, they are lost.

That is an interesting way of putting that, Ray.

I wouldn't say that we focus on how thankful some Smith family member stepped up to the plate. I think I would more say that it was understood, because of the promises given, that a Smith family member would be directed by God to assume leadership of the church.

I would also state that we (the restorationists) believe that there is still a member of the Smith family leading the church. He just does it from the back seat. And many of us believe that because he is the sixth prophet, that he is the last one, the next (and seventh) will be Christ ushering in Zion and the Kingdom of God.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 19 2004, 02:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 19 2004, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 19 2004, 12:05 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenifer@Oct 18 2004, 09:36 PM

Jenda, Why do you think the majority followed Brigham Young West?

(let me preface this by saying that this is a harsh post, but it is what I believe)

There were several reasons.

1. Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when his father died, and was too young to lead the church.

2. Because Brigham Young was very charismatic. As a missionary, he brought a lot of people into the church, and they probably felt obligated to follow him.

3. Whistling Whittling Brigade.

4. He excommunicated all those who spoke otherwise.

5. He pulled off an excellent charade when he posed as Joseph Smith. Even going so far as to take JS's horse for the day.

Those are the ones off the top of my head. If more come up, I will add them.

Dawn,

1) As of Aug 9th, 1844...if not JS III OR the 12...then who?

If the Twelve weren't already practicing "illegal" ordinances, then there wouldn't have been a problem following them. But we all know that what was happening in Nauvoo was not part of the church that the Lord restored.

2) What about the thousands of converts brought in by Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball....do you feel they also were compelled to just follow who baptized them?  This attitude...to me quite frankly tends to be a slap in the face to those Saints who accepted this gospel and sacrificed all they had to join with the main body of the Saints.  To infer that they were being led around by the nose down a primrose path is to me....making a mockery of their testimony.

That is quite a jump, Randy. I was merely responding about those that came into the church through BY. But I would say that if others were brought in by the men who favored BY, then that is who they followed. And don't speak to me about the saints being led around by a ring through their nose if you don't know the way things were back then. They were, indeed, led around as if they had a ring through their nose. The did nothing that the leaders of the church didn't tell them to do first. They were told how to vote. They were told where to live. They were told whether to gather or to stay put. So, yes, I do believe that this is a very likely scenario.

3) The whistling whittling brigade was not an invention of BY.  Those activities were already in progress during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph.

And by this time, it was in the hands of BY. But don't take my word for it, read all the testimonies of the people who tried to return from Utah only to be threatened, chased, and, often, killed by the Avenging Angels. And don't you dare brush off these testimonies again as "just stories made up by disgruntled members". That was very insulting when you did that before.

4) There is no evidence that BY excommunicated ALL who spoke otherwise.  This is an urban legend..with no basis in fact.  The 12 did excommunicate those who were in apostacy.  It also must be remembered who all had been excommunicated under the Prophet Joseph and take a look at the reasons why.  We must be fair and balanced. LOL!

William Smith was excommunicated while on a mission. What, exact, apostacy did he commit? Please tell me, because I just read church history, and no evidence was provided, even though Bro. Pratt stated he had this vast knowledge about the goings on. What else was stated in that conference was that they decided that the Twelve needed to be united, and that they should excommunicate any who disagreed. How convenient that the ones who disagreed were not there to either defend themselves or vote against the motion. However, I am sure that had they been there, that motion wouldn't have even been made.

5) Now Dawn....you are telling us that BY was a real David Copperfield?  I dont think Joseph and BY were alike in appearance at all ...do you?

The indistputable evidence given in personal diaries and journals that bear witness to the event to which you infer...attest that there was a marvelous and miracleous transformation of BY where he took on the appearance and VOICE of the Prophet Joseph.  There is no disputing that this event occured.  The Saints were not looking for a sign...but the Lord in his mercy...and knowing what lay ahead of the Saints..blessed them with this wonderful testimony.  It gave them tremendous faith and courage...and a perfect knowledge where the the true leadership of the Church resided...that being in the Quorum of the 12.

Oh, please, Randy. Look at things with both eyes. The whole stunt was done to gain as many supporters as he could. If he could appear in the likeness of Joseph, it would swing the majority of the saints his way, even if people were not totally for him to begin with.

Dawn....I have been told by restorationists and others...that the ENTIRE Quorum of the 12 were in a state of apostacy even prior to the martyrdom.  Do you personally believe this?

                                                          randy

That is a question that many in the Reorganization have sought to answer for a long time. Often they just disregard what happened at Nauvoo and just look to the fact that JS,Jr., designated his son (three times) to take over the church. But now that they are looking at it, it looks like it is a real possibility. I have never looked at it from that point of view, but I do know that the quorum of 12 had to be full, and had to be unanimous in it's beliefs and actions, and I know that it was neither. Either they were not a complete quorum, or they were not unanimous. And that makes whatever they do, invalid. They had no right, under those circumstances, to lead the church.

[Jenda]

FB: You are exactly right. The quorum of the seventy when intact has been given the keys as a whole. The Twelve is a higher calling than the seventy. But the calling is important in the orgainization of the church as a whole. I also think that Brigham Young waited three years in becoming the President, hoping that Joseph Smith III would join them. It was apparent that Emma disliked Brigham Young. I think that this influence had much to affect her son. Think of the trials this woman went through for the church. I am sure that unless God had given her great knowledge of the importance of the work she would have left long ago. The straw that broke the camals back was his death. I don't know how I or anyone else would have been able to withstand the pressure she was under. I am sure that the pain of seeing her husband being beat, and chased and thrown in jail, etc. was to much for her to accept that her son do the same. Emma did what she thought was best for her son. She was a great woman.

Fatboys, you answered the question yourself, so why are you asking me? The church that the church morphed into in Nauvoo was not the same church that was restored in 1830. And Emma knew, intimately, I believe, what that church looked like. She worked along side of her husband through the delivering and translation of the BoM, through the organization of the church, and often suffered just as he did because of the testimony of the truth of the restoration. And then she saw her husband being influenced by people who brought nothing but trouble to the church. She saw the road to destruction becoming more and more inevitable, and so, when destruction finally came, she made sure that she didn't let the one person who could save the "restoration" fall into the clutches of BY.

So, BY took all those who had closed their eyes to the truth, all those who had become blinded by ego and pride, and headed west. Some, however, knew that what had happened was wrong, and chose not to go, or chose to return when they saw what had happened once they left Nauvoo. In either case, God cleansed the church, and the "restoration", the church that was restored in 1830, continued on with the Reorganization.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 19 2004, 01:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 19 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Maureen@Oct 19 2004, 01:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 01:14 PM

I think members of the RLDS church primarily focus on how thankful they are that a descendent of Joseph Smith finally decided to lead their church, and as I understand it, they are now hoping that another descendent of Joseph Smith will also decide to lead their church.  Without a descendent of Joseph Smith to lead their church, they are lost.

I doubt that very much. I'm sure the non-Restorationist CofC are quite confident in their organization and where it is taking them.

M.

Ok, I will admit that my understanding of RLDS beliefs comes mainly from Jenda, so I really have no idea what the general membership of the "non-Restorationist CofC" believe.

Yeah, many of those misguided souls feels that there needs to be a 7th earthly prophet.

Seriously, many of the CoC are happy now that they are no longer a restoration church. They worked hard to become mainstream protestant, and they have almost fully achieved their goal. That pesky old BoM just won't seem to go away, though. hmmm.........

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 19 2004, 09:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 19 2004, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Oct 19 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 19 2004, 12:05 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenifer@Oct 18 2004, 09:36 PM

Jenda, Why do you think the majority followed Brigham Young West?

(let me preface this by saying that this is a harsh post, but it is what I believe)

There were several reasons.

1. Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when his father died, and was too young to lead the church.

2. Because Brigham Young was very charismatic. As a missionary, he brought a lot of people into the church, and they probably felt obligated to follow him.

3. Whistling Whittling Brigade.

4. He excommunicated all those who spoke otherwise.

5. He pulled off an excellent charade when he posed as Joseph Smith. Even going so far as to take JS's horse for the day.

Those are the ones off the top of my head. If more come up, I will add them.

Dawn,

1) As of Aug 9th, 1844...if not JS III OR the 12...then who?

If the Twelve weren't already practicing "illegal" ordinances, then there wouldn't have been a problem following them. But we all know that what was happening in Nauvoo was not part of the church that the Lord restored.

2) What about the thousands of converts brought in by Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball....do you feel they also were compelled to just follow who baptized them?  This attitude...to me quite frankly tends to be a slap in the face to those Saints who accepted this gospel and sacrificed all they had to join with the main body of the Saints.  To infer that they were being led around by the nose down a primrose path is to me....making a mockery of their testimony.

That is quite a jump, Randy. I was merely responding about those that came into the church through BY. But I would say that if others were brought in by the men who favored BY, then that is who they followed. And don't speak to me about the saints being led around by a ring through their nose if you don't know the way things were back then. They were, indeed, led around as if they had a ring through their nose. The did nothing that the leaders of the church didn't tell them to do first. They were told how to vote. They were told where to live. They were told whether to gather or to stay put. So, yes, I do believe that this is a very likely scenario.

3) The whistling whittling brigade was not an invention of BY.   Those activities were already in progress during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph.

And by this time, it was in the hands of BY. But don't take my word for it, read all the testimonies of the people who tried to return from Utah only to be threatened, chased, and, often, killed by the Avenging Angels. And don't you dare brush off these testimonies again as "just stories made up by disgruntled members". That was very insulting when you did that before.

4) There is no evidence that BY excommunicated ALL who spoke otherwise.  This is an urban legend..with no basis in fact.   The 12 did excommunicate those who were in apostacy.  It also must be remembered who all had been excommunicated under the Prophet Joseph and take a look at the reasons why.  We must be fair and balanced. LOL!

William Smith was excommunicated while on a mission. What, exact, apostacy did he commit? Please tell me, because I just read church history, and no evidence was provided, even though Bro. Pratt stated he had this vast knowledge about the goings on. What else was stated in that conference was that they decided that the Twelve needed to be united, and that they should excommunicate any who disagreed. How convenient that the ones who disagreed were not there to either defend themselves or vote against the motion. However, I am sure that had they been there, that motion wouldn't have even been made.

5) Now Dawn....you are telling us that BY was a real David Copperfield?  I dont think Joseph and BY were alike in appearance at all ...do you?

The indistputable evidence given in personal diaries and journals that bear witness to the event to which you infer...attest that there was a marvelous and miracleous transformation of BY where he took on the appearance and VOICE of the Prophet Joseph.  There is no disputing that this event occured.  The Saints were not looking for a sign...but the Lord in his mercy...and knowing what lay ahead of the Saints..blessed them with this wonderful testimony.  It gave them tremendous faith and courage...and a perfect knowledge where the the true leadership of the Church resided...that being in the Quorum of the 12.

Oh, please, Randy. Look at things with both eyes. The whole stunt was done to gain as many supporters as he could. If he could appear in the likeness of Joseph, it would swing the majority of the saints his way, even if people were not totally for him to begin with.

Dawn....I have been told by restorationists and others...that the ENTIRE Quorum of the 12 were in a state of apostacy even prior to the martyrdom.  Do you personally believe this?

                                                          randy

Dawn,

I will give you some feedback on your other comments in a bit...but, if you would please....to build a foundation....please give the following:

1) The dates and locations of the three "designations" of JSIII

2) Please offer up the historical records to support the three separate events.

Then we can go from there.

randy

[Guest curvette]

I don't think the transfiguration was a stunt. I was shocked to learn that there is not ONE single journal entry that was made about it at the time it happened. These people were avid journal keepers. They wrote about it being inspirational, convincing, etc. but NO ONE wrote about seeing Joseph Smith's actual countenance on Brigham Young until much later. There was a letter written later in 1844 by Henry and Catherine Brooks that talked about Brigham Young "favouring" Joseph Smith, and a letter from Arza Hinkley mentioning "the mantle of Joseph Smith" falling on Brigham Young. Then a diary entry the next YEAR by William Burton referring to "The spirit of Joseph appearing to rest upon Brigham", and the accounts got more detailed AFTER the saints arrived in Salt Lake and as time went on. The people who wrote about the event at the time (with no mention of a transfiguration) sometimes looked back on the event and told of actually seeing Joseph Smith at a much later time. There was either a mass amnesia, or else people started "remembering" something that was planted in their minds by secondary sources. This kind of thing is very common in human memory.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 19 2004, 09:05 PM

Fatboys, you answered the question yourself, so why are you asking me? The church that the church morphed into in Nauvoo was not the same church that was restored in 1830. And Emma knew, intimately, I believe, what that church looked like. She worked along side of her husband through the delivering and translation of the BoM, through the organization of the church, and often suffered just as he did because of the testimony of the truth of the restoration. And then she saw her husband being influenced by people who brought nothing but trouble to the church. She saw the road to destruction becoming more and more inevitable, and so, when destruction finally came, she made sure that she didn't let the one person who could save the "restoration" fall into the clutches of BY.

So, BY took all those who had closed their eyes to the truth, all those who had become blinded by ego and pride, and headed west. Some, however, knew that what had happened was wrong, and chose not to go, or chose to return when they saw what had happened once they left Nauvoo. In either case, God cleansed the church, and the "restoration", the church that was restored in 1830, continued on with the Reorganization.

Fatboy--you need to read Emma's Biography "Enigma." It is meticulously documented with plentiful source material from both churches' archives, and public records. It's a wealth of information. Emma's decision was much more complex than most LDS people are told. One thing is very clear--All of Joseph Smith's "wives" were farmed out to Brigham Young and the other apostles. There is no way Emma would have anything to do with that. Also, Joseph Smith's assets were all tied up with the church's. If Brigham Young had his way, Emma would be left with all the debt, and the church would take all the assets with them to Utah. Even given the extreme circumstances of time, his treatment of her was absolutely horrid and inexcusable. This was made worse by an obvious personality clash and lack of communication. Emma tried to move on from it, but Brigham Young never got over it. This was a man who held a grudge and made the most of it. The book also contains some interesting information on the lives of Joseph and Emma's children. Their sons Alexander and David visited Brigham Young in Utah as missionaries, and years later, Joseph Smith III did as well. It's very interesting and thought provoking reading and is told from an objective point of view.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 19 2004, 05:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 19 2004, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 05:02 PM

No, that's correct.  Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

James, the brother of Jesus was head of the church in Jerusalem.

Yes, or in other words, James was the bishop there.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 20 2004, 08:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 20 2004, 08:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 19 2004, 05:39 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 19 2004, 05:02 PM

No, that's correct.  Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on Earth during His mortal ministry.

James, the brother of Jesus was head of the church in Jerusalem.

Yes, or in other words, James was the bishop there.

There was only one ward in Jerusalem? Geez those guys were slackers!

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 09:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 19 2004, 09:05 PM

Fatboys, you answered the question yourself, so why are you asking me?  The church that the church morphed into in Nauvoo was not the same church that was restored in 1830.  And Emma knew, intimately, I believe, what that church looked like.  She worked along side of her husband through the delivering and translation of the BoM, through the organization of the church, and often suffered just as he did because of the testimony of the truth of the restoration.  And then she saw her husband being influenced by people who brought nothing but trouble to the church.  She saw the road to destruction becoming more and more inevitable, and so, when destruction finally came, she made sure that she didn't let the one person who could save the "restoration" fall into the clutches of BY. 

So, BY took all those who had closed their eyes to the truth, all those who had become blinded by ego and pride, and headed west.  Some, however, knew that what had happened was wrong, and chose not to go, or chose to return when they saw what had happened once they left Nauvoo.  In either case, God cleansed the church, and the "restoration", the church that was restored in 1830, continued on with the Reorganization.

Fatboy--you need to read Emma's Biography "Enigma." It is meticulously documented with plentiful source material from both churches' archives, and public records. It's a wealth of information. Emma's decision was much more complex than most LDS people are told. One thing is very clear--All of Joseph Smith's "wives" were farmed out to Brigham Young and the other apostles. There is no way Emma would have anything to do with that. Also, Joseph Smith's assets were all tied up with the church's. If Brigham Young had his way, Emma would be left with all the debt, and the church would take all the assets with them to Utah. Even given the extreme circumstances of time, his treatment of her was absolutely horrid and inexcusable. This was made worse by an obvious personality clash and lack of communication. Emma tried to move on from it, but Brigham Young never got over it. This was a man who held a grudge and made the most of it. The book also contains some interesting information on the lives of Joseph and Emma's children. Their sons Alexander and David visited Brigham Young in Utah as missionaries, and years later, Joseph Smith III did as well. It's very interesting and thought provoking reading and is told from an objective point of view.

Hi Curvette,

The RLDS position has always been that JSIII was designated on three separate occassions by his father. These three are occassions were allegedly witnessed by James Whitehead, Lyman Wight and John H. Carter...respectively.

My question is an obvious one.

Why didnt ANYONE including Emma (whom I honor and respect btw) speak up during the August 8th meeting to firmly remind the Church that this designation had taken place?

It seems to me to have been an absolute perfect time and place to do it. At no time during the approx 2 yrs after the death of the Prophet and the start of the exodus west was this "designation" brought up. I have always found that to be quite odd....especially given Emma's strong will. I do not believe she was a pushover by any means.

To be honest...IMO....all the talk of JSIII being designated seems almost like an after-thought....given the fact that the testimony by James Whitehead and John H. Carter came many years after the fact....and Lyman Wight's testimony that a designation took place in Liberty Jail is suspect because no else who was there with the Prophet said it took place.

Just some thoughts....

randy