Question About Joseph Smith Iii

Ray · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 08:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 20 2004, 08:32 AM

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!

Yah, well, you know, not everybody enjoys being persecuted. :)

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 09:21 AM
Yah, well, you know, not everybody enjoys being persecuted. :)

Or prosecuted either!

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM
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

Oh, come on. Think about it. Her husband had just been murdered. She was pregnant. Her husband had left her with a huge debt. She was trying to figure out what to do with the uncompleted mansion house. It's amazing she had the wherewithall to get out of bed every morning! Brigham Young arrived back in Nauvoo on August 6th, and didn't even visit Emma and her family for another six weeks! If you find it "odd" that a woman in those circumstances didn't go storming into a meeting and face off with a bunch of powerful men then you have a very poor understanding of human beings.

Ray · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 09:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 20 2004, 09:21 AM
Yah, well, you know, not everybody enjoys being persecuted. :)

Or prosecuted either!

...or found guilty of sedition and sentenced to a painful death.

Shall we go on?

Fatboy · October 20, 2004

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.

I have read it years ago, and although it was well done, it is full of biased thought. It interpreted thoughts and statements which I found made it less credible. Again this was years ago, and I only read it once. My wife read it, and she did not care for it at all. Yet others read it and found it great. I will have to try and find it to answer any question specifically. It did give me a great appreciation for her. And this also led me to believe that like others who pointed out why she did not act to maintain her place in the church if the designations of her son was what was to be.

Randy Johnson · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 10:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 10:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM
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

Oh, come on. Think about it. Her husband had just been murdered. She was pregnant. Her husband had left her with a huge debt. She was trying to figure out what to do with the uncompleted mansion house. It's amazing she had the wherewithall to get out of bed every morning! Brigham Young arrived back in Nauvoo on August 6th, and didn't even visit Emma and her family for another six weeks! If you find it "odd" that a woman in those circumstances didn't go storming into a meeting and face off with a bunch of powerful men then you have a very poor understanding of human beings.

Curvette,

My more pointed question was why NO ONE came forward...who was supposed to have witnessed it ....not JUST Emma.....during the time before the Saints went west.

This whole notion of a designation does not just lie in Emma's lap....there were others who said it took place. Who are they and why didnt they come forward and make it known to the church?

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 20 2004, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 20 2004, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 20 2004, 09:26 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 20 2004, 09:21 AM
Yah, well, you know, not everybody enjoys being persecuted. :)
Or prosecuted either!

...or found guilty of sedition and sentenced to a painful death.

Shall we go on?

Why? My comment about them being slackers was obviously a joke.

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 10:15 AM
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.

This was the part of your comment that I was responding to. I don't find it odd at all that she didn't act according to your scenario. I would find it odd if she did. I don't know about the others, and I'm not supporting their claim. Young Joseph was only a child at the time. I can only imagine that they believed that Brigham Young and those who followed him were apostate and that the Lord would continue the organization through young Joseph in His own time.

Fatboy · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 12:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 10:15 AM
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.

This was the part of your comment that I was responding to. I don't find it odd at all that she didn't act according to your scenario. I would find it odd if she did. I don't know about the others, and I'm not supporting their claim. Young Joseph was only a child at the time. I can only imagine that they believed that Brigham Young and those who followed him were apostate and that the Lord would continue the organization through young Joseph in His own time.

This is the kind of interpretation I found in the Mormon Enigma. You did not know the mind of Emma, and neither do I. We can only speculate as to why she did what she did. She had many great experiences. Yet other members did as well and fell into apostasy. Joseph Smith said that he would go to Hell to retrieve her if he had to. Not saying that she would be there, but that he loved her that much. I think that Emma was strong minded. I think she seen things that none of us know or could guess about as to why she did not follow the main group out to Utah. There is nothing and I mean nothing written by her to even imply that her Son was to be the next leader at the time of the death of her husband. Surely if she really believed in the restoration and that it was to continue on as her husband had revealed it would, then I think that it would have been unifying for the church, and I would have guessed there would have been less offshoots. To have the Son of the Prophet to lead his church. But it was not to be. Emma wanted nothing to do with it.

Now I have known woman who have lost there husbands in different ways. Some fall by the way side and others become stronger and lead their family in the ways of the Lord. Yes Emma had gone through much adversity. But she was up to the task until her husband died. Said nothing about what was to be, which it would make sense that if her Son was to be the next leader, she would have written or implied he was to be so. Nothing.

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 20 2004, 12:51 PM
You did not know the mind of Emma, and neither do I.

Uh... I never said that I know her mind. We all speculate about people in the past. I imagine I could find some of your posts that do the same. We reach conclusions from evidence presented in letters, diary entries, conversations, affadavits, etc. As a woman, I certainly think I can understand her feelings towards her husband and children better than any man.

I also think that it's distinctly possible that she simply had stopped believing in the whole thing (if she ever did in the first place.) If that's the case, she most certainly would have no motivation to place her child at the head of an organization that she didn't believe in, no matter what her husband had said when he was alive.

Jenda · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 20 2004, 09:23 AM
<!--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

Randy, maybe you need to read up a bit more on that period of church history. Several people spoke up. One talked of someone being named the guardian of the church till young Joseph was old enough to assume his place, and BY shot that one out of the water.

Brigham Young, on several occasions made allusions to knowing that Joseph had designated Joseph, III.

Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, by Robert Bruce Flanders, has been the authority on that time period for many years, and contains all that information. I will post some of it for you.

The occasions (of Joseph, III's designation) were when Smith was in Liberty jail early in 1830 and in Nauvoo sometime in 1843. Among the witnesses were Lyman Wight and James Whitehead, one of Joseph's scribes, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Alpheus Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, George Adams, Ebenezer Robinson and Apostles John Taylor and Willard Richards. (This is found in the Memoirs of Joseph Smith, III, pages 13, 14 and Inez Smith Davis' Story of the Church, pages 288, 385, 386, 444, 445.

One of the allusions made by BY regarding Joseph, III's, role came out of a discussion he had with George Miller and Heber Kimball. Miller raised the question of who would succeed Joseph, and BY answered with the innuendo "hush, brother Miller, let there be nothing said in regard to this matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as he father was". (From Correspondence, pp. 23, 30.)

BY also made statements such as this: "Let no man presume for a moment that his (Joseph's) place will be filled by another", and "For remember he stands in his own place, and always will; and the Twelve Apostles of this dispensation stand in their own place and always will", meaning, it seems, that the office of apostle is not interchangeable with the President of the church. (Apostolic Interregnum, p. 250.)

Jenda · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 20 2004, 10:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 20 2004, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 20 2004, 10:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM
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
Oh, come on. Think about it. Her husband had just been murdered. She was pregnant. Her husband had left her with a huge debt. She was trying to figure out what to do with the uncompleted mansion house. It's amazing she had the wherewithall to get out of bed every morning! Brigham Young arrived back in Nauvoo on August 6th, and didn't even visit Emma and her family for another six weeks! If you find it "odd" that a woman in those circumstances didn't go storming into a meeting and face off with a bunch of powerful men then you have a very poor understanding of human beings.

Curvette,

My more pointed question was why NO ONE came forward...who was supposed to have witnessed it ....not JUST Emma.....during the time before the Saints went west.

This whole notion of a designation does not just lie in Emma's lap....there were others who said it took place. Who are they and why didnt they come forward and make it known to the church?

Randy, you are obviously not able to put yourself in the place of someone, like Emma, from the 1844 era.

A. Emma was a woman, and a woman's place is in the home.

B. Joseph, III, was only 12 years old.

Who do you think would listen to her, especially when someone very high-ranking in the church, who wanted more than anything to be the head of the church, hated her and even refused to let anyone with an alternate opinion be heard?

C. The church, under the influence of BY, already (since he became an apostle), had made vast departures from the truth.

Emma knew what the true restored church looked like. Why would she put Joseph,III, in the place to head a church that had already apostatized?

Randy Johnson · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 20 2004, 02:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 20 2004, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 20 2004, 09:23 AM
<!--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

Randy, maybe you need to read up a bit more on that period of church history. Several people spoke up. One talked of someone being named the guardian of the church till young Joseph was old enough to assume his place, and BY shot that one out of the water.

Brigham Young, on several occasions made allusions to knowing that Joseph had designated Joseph, III.

Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, by Robert Bruce Flanders, has been the authority on that time period for many years, and contains all that information. I will post some of it for you.

The occasions (of Joseph, III's designation) were when Smith was in Liberty jail early in 1830 and in Nauvoo sometime in 1843. Among the witnesses were Lyman Wight and James Whitehead, one of Joseph's scribes, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Alpheus Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, George Adams, Ebenezer Robinson and Apostles John Taylor and Willard Richards. (This is found in the Memoirs of Joseph Smith, III, pages 13, 14 and Inez Smith Davis' Story of the Church, pages 288, 385, 386, 444, 445.

One of the allusions made by BY regarding Joseph, III's, role came out of a discussion he had with George Miller and Heber Kimball. Miller raised the question of who would succeed Joseph, and BY answered with the innuendo "hush, brother Miller, let there be nothing said in regard to this matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as he father was". (From Correspondence, pp. 23, 30.)

BY also made statements such as this: "Let no man presume for a moment that his (Joseph's) place will be filled by another", and "For remember he stands in his own place, and always will; and the Twelve Apostles of this dispensation stand in their own place and always will", meaning, it seems, that the office of apostle is not interchangeable with the President of the church. (Apostolic Interregnum, p. 250.)

Dawn,

It precisely why I know that period of Church history..as well as the genesis of the RLDS church that I ask the questions I do. As you know...I have lived in Independence my entire life...and have been around this track many, many times with my good RLDS/CoC/Remnant friends.

Now...you and I know the testimony of James Whitehead was given in the Indep. Temple lot case many many years after the fact.

Lyman Wight testified years after the fact about the Liberty jail event. Of those inprisoned with them...why didnt they speak up?

Of the event that supposedly took place above the Red Brick store in Nauvoo with that you mentioned present...almost all of them went west with the saints.

You mention John Taylor and Willard Richards...both of whom were willing and ready to lay down their lives for the Prophet...and both of them...especially Willard Richards...wrote voluminously detailed journals....why is it they never wrote about it?

Do you not think that if they had witnessed such an event..that a permanent record would have been made (i know...destroyed by you know who) ...and in addition would have detailed such a doctrinally important milestone in their journals?????!!!!!!

Dawn...you really need to set aside for a moment your "why BY bad" set of talking points...and take a sincere look at all the evidence.

You state...."several people" spoke up" and "one talked of someone being named guardian of the church etc".......who spoke up? Who was this "one" person?

Now....having said all that....as has been said before....we do not know if young JSIII would have become President of the Church....he very very well may have. We dont know. But we do know the 12 were the duly authorized and recognized leaders of the Church...upheld by the Saints...and the scriptures.

The Office of Apostle is not the same as President and Prophet of the Church. No one has ever implied such a doctrine.

Dawn...again...you STILL have never answered the question....IF not the 12 or JSIII then who??? Who I ask...who????

Do you feel the Lord was going to leave the church destitute of strong leadership at the very apex of their trials and adversity???

Who do you feel should have led the Church at that moment in time????

Just give us a name...not a "if that..or if this" would have happened etc....just a name.

randy

Jenda · October 20, 2004

Randy, I think it all happened as God wanted it to. He wanted the bad stuff out of His church, but because the evil men that had brought the bad stuff in were now in charge of the church, there is no way He could continue His work through that (specific) entity. And it just so happened that BY, by rebaptizing and re-ordaining everyone once they left, started a new organization, thus relieving the "restored church" of their presence. So, when the person God wanted (and designated through JS,Jr.) was old enough to lead the church, He (God) started gathering the faithful saints and led Joseph, III, to them.

No, you need to look at all the evidence, Randy. Just because you've hung around in Independence with some RLDS/Remnant people doesn't make you knowledgable about that given era. I worked in Nauvoo. It was my job to know it's history intimately. I have read history book after history book. I have read the "lost" journals once they were permitted out of the vaults in SLC. I know, intimately, what I am talking about. When you have even bought and read "Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi", and "Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma" come back to talk. Those are the most comprehensive books that have been written, to date, on this era and topic.

October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 02:59 PM
You mention John Taylor and Willard Richards...both of whom were willing and ready to lay down their lives for the Prophet...and both of them...especially Willard Richards...wrote voluminously detailed journals....why is it they never wrote about it?
Do you not think that if they had witnessed such an event..that a permanent record would have been made (i know...destroyed by you know who) ...and in addition would have detailed such a doctrinally important milestone in their journals?????!!!!!!
Dawn...you really need to set aside for a moment your "why BY bad" set of talking points...and take a sincere look at all the evidence.
You state...."several people" spoke up" and "one talked of someone being named guardian of the church etc".......who spoke up? Who was this "one" person?
Now....having said all that....as has been said before....we do not know if young JSIII would have become President of the Church....he very very well may have. We dont know. But we do know the 12 were the duly authorized and recognized leaders of the Church...upheld by the Saints...and the scriptures.
The Office of Apostle is not the same as President and Prophet of the Church. No one has ever implied such a doctrine.
Dawn...again...you STILL have never answered the question....IF not the 12 or JSIII then who??? Who I ask...who????
Do you feel the Lord was going to leave the church destitute of strong leadership at the very apex of their trials and adversity???
Who do you feel should have led the Church at that moment in time????
Just give us a name...not a "if that..or if this" would have happened etc....just a name.
randy

Woah dude! You are the one who made such a brouhaha about the saints writing in their journals about the transfiguration of Brigham Young, but no such journal entry has ever been found! Why don't you apply your same standard of measure to the transfiguration as you do to this issue? If the saints actually saw Joseph Smith's countenance on Brigham Young, why didn't a single one of them write about it in their journals until much later?

Randy Johnson · October 20, 2004

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 20 2004, 04:29 PM
Randy, I think it all happened as God wanted it to. He wanted the bad stuff out of His church, but because the evil men that had brought the bad stuff in were now in charge of the church, there is no way He could continue His work through that (specific) entity. And it just so happened that BY, by rebaptizing and re-ordaining everyone once they left, started a new organization, thus relieving the "restored church" of their presence. So, when the person God wanted (and designated through JS,Jr.) was old enough to lead the church, He (God) started gathering the faithful saints and led Joseph, III, to them.
No, you need to look at all the evidence, Randy. Just because you've hung around in Independence with some RLDS/Remnant people doesn't make you knowledgable about that given era. I worked in Nauvoo. It was my job to know it's history intimately. I have read history book after history book. I have read the "lost" journals once they were permitted out of the vaults in SLC. I know, intimately, what I am talking about. When you have even bought and read "Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi", and "Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma" come back to talk. Those are the most comprehensive books that have been written, to date, on this era and topic.

Dawn,

1) still no name as to who should lead the church

2) we are to believe that every single man the Lord called into the Holy Apostleship through the Prophet Joseph fell into apostacy.

3) The urban legend about BY coercing the membership to be "rebaptized" is nonsense. BY allowed the Saints "if they chose to" to be rebaptized to reaffirm their covenants with Lord. From a practical view...many baptismal records were either destroyed during the persecutions of the saints...during the exodus west...or lost during the exodus. Some baptisms simply were not recorded...so this allowed a record to be made. Bottom line according to the Journals/Diaries I have read about these "rebaptisms" they were strictly voluntary. Am I allowed to believe these records?

4) Because you feel a particular book is "authoritative" doesnt necessarily make it so.

5) You say come back and talk..but all you have given is the standard RLDS talking points. We have not even investigated the likes of Gurley, Briggs, Newkirk, Rasey, White, and Blair. We will.

6) Many people have worked in Nauvoo..and have had access to the same materials you have....and have drawn different conclusions. I am not certain you have attained any kind "expert authority" status...although you seem well read. Many others are as well.

7) I believe on page 193 of "Enigma" it talks of Josephs other wives being at the Mansion House during the visitation of the bodies...and how young Joseph was appreciative to them for not making his mother even more distraught..by showing extreme discretion. How much of the book do you agree with?

Dawn...the Church went west.....whether folks agreed or not...the Church as a legally organized, incorporated religous society went west with all the official records...assets...leadership...and the sustaining vote and prayers of the majority of the Saints. The history record is clear.

Jenda · October 21, 2004

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 20 2004, 03:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 20 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 20 2004, 04:29 PM
Randy, I think it all happened as God wanted it to. He wanted the bad stuff out of His church, but because the evil men that had brought the bad stuff in were now in charge of the church, there is no way He could continue His work through that (specific) entity. And it just so happened that BY, by rebaptizing and re-ordaining everyone once they left, started a new organization, thus relieving the "restored church" of their presence. So, when the person God wanted (and designated through JS,Jr.) was old enough to lead the church, He (God) started gathering the faithful saints and led Joseph, III, to them.
No, you need to look at all the evidence, Randy. Just because you've hung around in Independence with some RLDS/Remnant people doesn't make you knowledgable about that given era. I worked in Nauvoo. It was my job to know it's history intimately. I have read history book after history book. I have read the "lost" journals once they were permitted out of the vaults in SLC. I know, intimately, what I am talking about. When you have even bought and read "Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi", and "Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma" come back to talk. Those are the most comprehensive books that have been written, to date, on this era and topic.

Dawn,

1) still no name as to who should lead the church

Read my last post. No name because no wish (of the Lord's) for Him to appoint anyone to that position till the church was cleansed.

2) we are to believe that every single man the Lord called into the Holy Apostleship through the Prophet Joseph fell into apostacy.

Only the ones who failed to recognize the evil that became entrenched in the church and those fostering it.

No, I would say that the ones that they excommunicated becasue they disagreed with them were probably OK.

(But you were the one who brought this into the conversation, not me. )

3) The urban legend about BY coercing the membership to be "rebaptized" is nonsense. BY allowed the Saints "if they chose to" to be rebaptized to reaffirm their covenants with Lord. From a practical view...many baptismal records were either destroyed during the persecutions of the saints...during the exodus west...or lost during the exodus. Some baptisms simply were not recorded...so this allowed a record to be made. Bottom line according to the Journals/Diaries I have read about these "rebaptisms" they were strictly voluntary. Am I allowed to believe these records?

They were coerced. I read them, too.

4) Because you feel a particular book is "authoritative" doesnt necessarily make it so.

You are afraid to read a book that most historians, LDS as well as RLDS, consider authoritative?

5) You say come back and talk..but all you have given is the standard RLDS talking points. We have not even investigated the likes of Gurley, Briggs, Newkirk, Rasey, White, and Blair. We will.

What is it you want me to give, if not the standard RLDS points. After all, all you are giving me are the standard LDS points.

6) Many people have worked in Nauvoo..and have had access to the same materials you have....and have drawn different conclusions. I am not certain you have attained any kind "expert authority" status...although you seem well read. Many others are as well.
7) I believe on page 193 of "Enigma" it talks of Josephs other wives being at the Mansion House during the visitation of the bodies...and how young Joseph was appreciative to them for not making his mother even more distraught..by showing extreme discretion. How much of the book do you agree with?

Even though a lot of historical things were put into that book, there is still a lot of hearsay in it. I am sure that young Joseph was appreciative for the love many had for their father. That they were "discrete" was really due to the fact that there was nothing to be "indiscrete" about.

When a person writes a book based on a biased premise, a lot of assumptions end up being written into the book.

Dawn...the Church went west.....whether folks agreed or not...the Church as a legally organized, incorporated religous society went west with all the official records...assets...leadership...and the sustaining vote and prayers of the majority of the Saints. The history record is clear.

Randy, a church went west. A church that did not resemble the restored Church of Jesus Christ. A church that did not resemble the church organized by Christ. A church that did not resemble the church as given to Adam, or to the church that was restored in BoM times. And you know as well as I do that the earthly "legal assets, etc." mean nothing to God. Neither does a corrupt leadership. Those are nothing but strawman arguments.

In 1833 the church was placed under condemnation because the saints who had gone to Independence did not govern themselves well and did not follow the commandments of God. They were kicked out of town, and Joseph received this revelation:

D&C 983b-4h RLDS (101:7-21 LDS)

3b They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble.

3c In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.

4a Verily, I say unto you, Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion toward them; I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember mercy.

4b I have sworn, and the decree hath gone forth by a former commandment which I have given unto you, that I would let fall the sword of mine indignation in the behalf of my people; and even as I have said, it shall come to pass.

4c Mine indignation is soon to be poured out without measure upon all nations, and this will I do when the cup of their iniquity is full.

4d And in that day, all who are found upon the watchtower, or in other words, all mine Israel shall be saved.

4e And they that have been scattered shall be gathered; and all they who have mourned shall be comforted; and all they who have given their lives for my name shall be crowned.

4f Therefore, let your hearts be comforted concerning Zion, for all flesh is in mine hands: be still, and know that I am God.

4g Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered, they that remain and are pure in heart shall return and come to their inheritances; they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy; to build up the waste places of Zion. And all these things, that the prophets might be fulfilled.

4h And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed, neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed for the work of the gathering of my Saints, until the day cometh when there is found no more room for them;

This revelation states that Independence will remain the place of Zion, and those saints who remained faithful and pure in heart would return to their inheritance. They and their children, to build up the waste places of Zion.

That is exactly what happened with the Reorganization. The saints who were kicked out returned and started building up the waste places of Zion. It doesn't say their great-grandchildren, it says "they", the ones who had been kicked out.

Randy Johnson · October 21, 2004

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 20 2004, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 20 2004, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Oct 20 2004, 03:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 20 2004, 04:29 PM
Randy, I think it all happened as God wanted it to. He wanted the bad stuff out of His church, but because the evil men that had brought the bad stuff in were now in charge of the church, there is no way He could continue His work through that (specific) entity. And it just so happened that BY, by rebaptizing and re-ordaining everyone once they left, started a new organization, thus relieving the "restored church" of their presence. So, when the person God wanted (and designated through JS,Jr.) was old enough to lead the church, He (God) started gathering the faithful saints and led Joseph, III, to them.
No, you need to look at all the evidence, Randy. Just because you've hung around in Independence with some RLDS/Remnant people doesn't make you knowledgable about that given era. I worked in Nauvoo. It was my job to know it's history intimately. I have read history book after history book. I have read the "lost" journals once they were permitted out of the vaults in SLC. I know, intimately, what I am talking about. When you have even bought and read "Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi", and "Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma" come back to talk. Those are the most comprehensive books that have been written, to date, on this era and topic.
Dawn,
1) still no name as to who should lead the church