Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 21 2004, 12:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 21 2004, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Oct 19 2004, 07:58 PM

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.

How old is that person now… the person who is the sixth prophet of the RLDS church now?

Do you believe Jesus will come back immediately after he dies? If not, how long do you think you’ll wait before you change your belief about who should or should not lead the church of Christ? 20 years? 50 years?

Of course that person would just be fill-in, right? Because according to your understanding, nobody but a literal descendent of Joseph Smith Jr. should be the leader of the Church, right?

That person (Wallace B. Smith) is probably about 65. There is (are?) (an)other lineal male descendent(s), through the male line. It would be Wallace B.'s cousin. The grandson of Israel A. Smith (our 4th prophet). And he was blessed at birth (by Israel A.) for that role. Nothing as close as a designation, but still a blessing from God through the prophet. He would be about 50, maybe.

But my belief about Christ returning as the 7th leader of the church is just that. My belief. Nothing that is scripturally based. A play on the number 777, which is considered the holy number. So don't go around saying that RLDS believe this.

[Randy Johnson]

Ray,

It's my understanding that the Restorationists's believe that it must be a literal descendant of JS on the "fathers side".

The President of the Remnant church is a direct descendant of JS, however he is descended from his "mothers side" which according to the Restorationists disqualifies him.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Oct 21 2004, 10:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Oct 21 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 21 2004, 07:39 AM

Randy, just so you know, the Remnant church came out of the Restoration Branches movement.  At least the Restoration Branches still believes that the RLDS church is still God's church, they know that it must go through a cleansing fire to rid it of those who no longer believe in the message of the restoration.  Sort of what happened in 1844-46.

FB: I did not know there was so much to this topic. I have had a similar discussion with other RLDS. What has peaked my interest is that the references to the restoartion branches. What are you refering to. Branches of the RLDS who have broke away from the main stem of the church?

Fatboys, the RLDS church has gone through an identy crisis that was brought on a long time ago due to the fact that, due to the relatively small size of the church, we were/are fairly unknown, and everyone mistakes us for the LDS. Since it's inception, the RLDS has defined itself by who it is not, instead of who it is. That was one of the major factors in the church changing it's name.

Along with all this, there were many members of the upper quorums who disliked being a restoration church. They were embarrassed by it all. I guess they disliked having to always tell people who we weren't, as well as defend a book they didn't believe in. It is beyond me how they even got into the upper quorums of the church since they disliked it so much.

Anyway, this was all happening in the early 60's. The prophet at that time was new, and fairly weak as a president, and the men had been around for a long time in the upper quorums and seemed to know how to manipulate the situation. They got the church to sponsor them to attend St. Paul's Theological Seminary for a few years (which is a very liberal institution, in case you don't know anything about it), and then they paid some of the instructors from the seminary to come to the church headquarters to teach many of the appointees, etc. (All of this done under wraps, as it were.) As a result of this liberal invasion, the church decided to vamp it's curriculums. They put together a set of papers, called Position Papers that determined the direction they wanted the church to go, and wanted Sunday School curriculum writen to mirror these changes. No one would do it, so they bought SS curriculum from the United Church of Christ (the religiious arm of the World Council of Churches), and told everyone they had to use that curriculum. Many refused, but many more started using it.

So, over the years, the church has moved away from it's restoration heritage. They don't teach church history anymore, to anyone, and in fact, many of the people baptized today have no idea who Joseph Smith is.

(That is an extremely truncated version of things that happened back then.)

Due to this movement away from the restoration story, and a lot of doctrinal changes that were being forced onto the church, a (rather) large group of saints (approx. 70,000 (which may seem small, but you have to remember that the church was only 250,000 strong)) decided to stop attending (after some matters of being forced out, not allowed to vote in conferences, doors to their congregations locked and armed guards standing at the doors, etc.) and started worshipping separately. They are the group known as restorationists. They are the fundamental believers in the restored gospel. It is in this group that the true restored gospel lies. They attend "Restoration Branches", but still consider themselves members of the true RLDS church.

The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that Randy was talking about is a group that re-reorganized the church. I would have to look it up, but they state that there is a scripture that authorizes the higher quorums of the church to declare the church in disorder when it has apostitized, and gives them the ability to reorganize it. That is what this group did. The High Priests who left the mainstream RLDS church declared the church out of order, and re-reorganized it. But this group of High Priests came out of the general group of restorationists. It is a fairly new organization, just maybe 4 years old. We, the other restorationists, don't know how long this group will last, and I am not sure that if they fail that they will be welcomed back with open arms. What they have succeeded doing is creating more division than we had before. And it is not the Lord's will to have His people divided.

Randy,

I would just like to say to you that you have, several times, put words in my mouth, after I specifically answered your questions several times. If you continue to do that, then I don't want to discuss things with you. If you can't keep things within the confines of a civil discussion, then I don't want to talk. OK?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 21 2004, 01:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 21 2004, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 21 2004, 12:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Oct 19 2004, 07:58 PM

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.

How old is that person now… the person who is the sixth prophet of the RLDS church now?

Do you believe Jesus will come back immediately after he dies? If not, how long do you think you’ll wait before you change your belief about who should or should not lead the church of Christ? 20 years? 50 years?

Of course that person would just be fill-in, right? Because according to your understanding, nobody but a literal descendent of Joseph Smith Jr. should be the leader of the Church, right?

That person (Wallace B. Smith) is probably about 65. There is (are?) (an)other lineal male descendent(s), through the male line. It would be Wallace B.'s cousin. The grandson of Israel A. Smith (our 4th prophet). And he was blessed at birth (by Israel A.) for that role. Nothing as close as a designation, but still a blessing from God through the prophet. He would be about 50, maybe.

But my belief about Christ returning as the 7th leader of the church is just that. My belief. Nothing that is scripturally based. A play on the number 777, which is considered the holy number. So don't go around saying that RLDS believe this.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. :)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 21 2004, 02:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 21 2004, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 21 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 21 2004, 12:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Oct 19 2004, 07:58 PM

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.

How old is that person now… the person who is the sixth prophet of the RLDS church now?

Do you believe Jesus will come back immediately after he dies? If not, how long do you think you’ll wait before you change your belief about who should or should not lead the church of Christ? 20 years? 50 years?

Of course that person would just be fill-in, right? Because according to your understanding, nobody but a literal descendent of Joseph Smith Jr. should be the leader of the Church, right?

That person (Wallace B. Smith) is probably about 65. There is (are?) (an)other lineal male descendent(s), through the male line. It would be Wallace B.'s cousin. The grandson of Israel A. Smith (our 4th prophet). And he was blessed at birth (by Israel A.) for that role. Nothing as close as a designation, but still a blessing from God through the prophet. He would be about 50, maybe.

But my belief about Christ returning as the 7th leader of the church is just that. My belief. Nothing that is scripturally based. A play on the number 777, which is considered the holy number. So don't go around saying that RLDS believe this.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. :)

Dawn,

I dont believe I have put words in your mouth at all.

I want you to know....and I mean this with all sincerity...I really enjoy talking with you!! You are well read...articulate and fiesty...all in one package!

You and I go back a little ways....on other discussion boards...so we know where each other is coming from.

To others on this board....this is the way Dawn and I banter back and forth! Just like brother and sister! She and I mean no disrespect towards one another...and in fact....I believe we respect each other a great deal....I know I do her!

I received your other message...thank you....accepted....and I hope you accept mine as well!! hug hug hug.

Okay...so lets get ready to ruuummblllle!!!

[Guest Glorias_Steinem]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 18 2004, 08:24 PM

Hey, welcome, Fatboys! Glad you made it. I don't know if you have lurked here any or not, but we get the same thing here that we get on CF, in that someone besides the person to whom the question is directed will answer it also. Snow will probably give you a very good (if not biased) answer, too.

But as for my answer..........

Joseph Smith, Jr., designated Joseph Smith, III, on three separate occasions to be prophet of the church should anything happen to him. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when JS,Jr., was killed. I know you already know that. When he was killed, the church fractured into at least 16 different factions. Each person who claimed leadership claimed to be authorized by JS in some way.

I found a website once (and promptly lost it (but will try to dig it up again)) of all those who claimed leadership, what their groups believed, and who followed them to each group. Your question does not have an easy answer because William Marks and Zenos Gurley were actually part of several groups during the interim time.

When the church split, BY, obviously, took the greater part of the group west. But those who remained, who also claimed authority, went to various other places, each claiming to be the original church. Many actually claimed to go back to the teachings of the original church as restored, and it was to these groups that Marks and Gurley looked. Strang claimed the same, but as with all the other groups, Strang's went the way of polygamy. They were really only with Strang for a couple of years before realizing that Strang was not a prophet and that he was not keeping the commandments that the Lord gave to the church when it was restored, so they left that group. That was probably around 1850 (maybe a little before). These two men might have known each other, but they did not live near each other, or have contact with each other, or act together till much later.

Long about 1852, both had an experience, again separate from each other, but both about the same time. Both of them had become discouraged because all of the groups that they had associated with from the original church had turned away from the Lord, and they despaired of ever finding even a remnant of the true church again, and so they prayed continuously to the Lord for guidance. They both had dreams or visions in which the Lord told them to find and gather the saints who had remained faithful to the original gospel, and that He would provide a leader for them. At first, they did not know that Joseph Smith, III, was to be the leader, and they approached JS,III, for that purpose, and he told them he was not interested. But they continued to hold their group together for 8 years, and at a conference in Amboy, Wisc., in 1860, Joseph Smith, III, came and said that the Lord directed him, at that time, to approach this group, that they were the only ones that practiced the commandments that the Lord had given in 1830 when the church was restored.

So, yes, Gurley and Marks were with Strang for a while. But they were also with others, too. They were looking for the group that held true to the restoration.

And, now we know the rest of the story? Concerning the RLDS--renamed "Community of Christ"?

We have such a congregation where I live, and their building is partly under water every time it rains heavily! (I guess nobody there understood just exactly what a "flood plain" was. Oh, well!)

Why the name change, from RLDS? To further distance themselves from the Utah variant? To make the religion more universal in its appeal?

(A simple answer will do: lengthy discourses are too over-the-top, so please keep it short)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Glorias_Steinem@Oct 21 2004, 05:22 PM

Why the name change, from RLDS?  To further distance themselves from the Utah variant?  To make the religion more universal in its appeal?

(A simple answer will do: lengthy discourses are too over-the-top, so please keep it short)

Hi, Glorias Steinem, welcome to the board!

To answer your question in shortened form, this would be my answer.

1. To distance themselves from the LDS

1a. To make themselves more marketable to the world

2. To more clearly define their mission

3. To make entry into certain foreign countries more easily

3a. Translation of the name into some foreign languages just didn't work

4. To irritate the heck out of the fundamental believers.

oops, sorry, number 4 just slipped out

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Oct 21 2004, 02:40 PM

Dawn,

I dont believe I have put words in your mouth at all.

I want you to know....and I mean this with all sincerity...I really enjoy talking with you!! You are well read...articulate and fiesty...all in one package!

You and I go back a little ways....on other discussion boards...so we know where each other is coming from.

To others on this board....this is the way Dawn and I banter back and forth! Just like brother and sister! She and I mean no disrespect towards one another...and in fact....I believe we respect each other a great deal....I know I do her!

I received your other message...thank you....accepted....and I hope you accept mine as well!! hug hug hug.

Okay...so lets get ready to ruuummblllle!!!

Cute, Randy. B) Thanks!

[srm]

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.

Curvette, please provide the source.

[srm]

jenda, I'm interested in Number 5.

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.

So you do believe that brigham looked and sounded like Joseph? You just don't agree how it came about? Why would taking his horse for the day help?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@Oct 22 2004, 03:53 PM

jenda, I'm interested in Number 5.

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.

So you do believe that brigham looked and sounded like Joseph? You just don't agree how it came about? Why would taking his horse for the day help?

I believe he impersonated Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith had a very well-known horse, in that setting. He rode that horse in parades, he rode that horse as general of the Nauvoo Legion, he rode that horse as his personal horse. On the day of that charade, BY came and asked if he could use the horse, he didn't give a reason, but Emma said he could use it.

IMO, there was only one reason to take Joseph's horse, as BY surely had a horse of his own. He knew that everyone would know that it was Joseph's horse, and having that horse would lend the appearance that he (BY) was being favored by Joseph. By having Joseph's horse, and by impersonating him (as much as he could) physically (adopting his voice, etc.), he could make many believe that he had received a special countenance.

IMO, it was the best act of his life.

[Snow]

Jenda,

You know I disagree with most all your perspectives on the validity of the various succession theories but I wonder if you kinda don't wonder this:

If the RLDS or CoC or whatever offshoot or an offshoot you think is on the right track were a valid model of God's church, don't you think that He would be taking better care of it?

Being successful doesn't make the Church of Jesus Christ true any more than it make the Southern Baptist movement true but wouldn't you expect God's house to be a house of order, at least to some extent. Any human-administered institutions is going to get some things wrong but if God is behind it, you would expect, on balance and over time, order, direction, consistency progress. I think a case can be made that that is sorely lacking in any of the non-LDS restoration groups.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 22 2004, 05:50 PM

Jenda,

You know I disagree with most all your perspectives on the validity of the various succession theories but I wonder if you kinda don't wonder this:

If the RLDS or CoC or whatever offshoot or an offshoot you think is on the right track were a valid model of God's church, don't you think that He would be taking better care of it?

Being successful doesn't make the Church of Jesus Christ true any more than it make the Southern Baptist movement true but wouldn't you expect God's house to be a house of order, at least to some extent. Any human-administered institutions is going to get some things wrong but if God is behind it, you would expect, on balance and over time, order, direction, consistency progress. I think a case can be made that that is sorely lacking in any of the non-LDS restoration groups.

Snow, you can compare the LDS church to the Catholic Church. Both grew rapidly and are very "successful" in many ways, but, neither, IMO, is the true church.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 22 2004, 08:36 PM

Snow, you can compare the LDS church to the Catholic Church. Both grew rapidly and are very "successful" in many ways, but, neither, IMO, is the true church.

Interesting thought but not related to my question. My question is don't you think that God's church would be more consistent, more focused, better organized, moving in a steady direction?

[srm]

I believe he impersonated Joseph Smith. 

On what evidence do you base this belief?

Joseph Smith had a very well-known horse, in that setting.  He rode that horse in parades, he rode that horse as general of the Nauvoo Legion, he rode that horse as his personal horse.  On the day of that charade, BY came and asked if he could use the horse, he didn't give a reason, but Emma said he could use it.

IMO, there was only one reason to take Joseph's horse, as BY surely had a horse of his own.  He knew that everyone would know that it was Joseph's horse, and having that horse would lend the appearance that he (BY) was being favored by Joseph.  By having Joseph's horse, and by impersonating him (as much as he could) physically (adopting his voice, etc.), he could make many believe that he had received a special countenance.

IMO, it was the best act of his life.

You mean Joe Duncan...right? If I recall this was NOT on the day of the aformentioned meeting...rather it was later AFTER the incident. Brigham used the horse in a parade.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 22 2004, 09:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 22 2004, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 22 2004, 05:50 PM

Jenda,

You know I disagree with most all your perspectives on the validity of the various succession theories but I wonder if you kinda don't wonder this:

If the RLDS or CoC or whatever offshoot or an offshoot you think is on the right track were a valid model of God's church, don't you think that He would be taking better care of it?

Being successful doesn't make the Church of Jesus Christ true any more than it make the Southern Baptist movement true but wouldn't you expect God's house to be a house of order, at least to some extent. Any human-administered institutions is going to get some things wrong but if God is behind it, you would expect, on balance and over time, order, direction, consistency progress. I think a case can be made that that is sorely lacking in any of the non-LDS restoration groups.

Snow, you can compare the LDS church to the Catholic Church. Both grew rapidly and are very "successful" in many ways, but, neither, IMO, is the true church.

Chrisitanity grew, but Constantine made it the world religion so to speak. There by making one either a catholic or dead. This would be a great motivater to become religious. The church spread because it conquered people. It was forced. Are you saying that the LDS church was the same? I don't think so.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Oct 23 2004, 07:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Oct 23 2004, 07:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 22 2004, 09:36 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 22 2004, 05:50 PM

Jenda,

You know I disagree with most all your perspectives on the validity of the various succession theories but I wonder if you kinda don't wonder this:

If the RLDS or CoC or whatever offshoot or an offshoot you think is on the right track were a valid model of God's church, don't you think that He would be taking better care of it?

Being successful doesn't make the Church of Jesus Christ true any more than it make the Southern Baptist movement true but wouldn't you expect God's house to be a house of order, at least to some extent. Any human-administered institutions is going to get some things wrong but if God is behind it, you would expect, on balance and over time, order, direction, consistency progress. I think a case can be made that that is sorely lacking in any of the non-LDS restoration groups.

Snow, you can compare the LDS church to the Catholic Church. Both grew rapidly and are very "successful" in many ways, but, neither, IMO, is the true church.

Chrisitanity grew, but Constantine made it the world religion so to speak. There by making one either a catholic or dead. This would be a great motivater to become religious. The church spread because it conquered people. It was forced. Are you saying that the LDS church was the same? I don't think so.

I was saying that size does not equal truth.

I was also saying that success, as the world perceives it, does not equal truth.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@Oct 22 2004, 10:40 PM

I believe he impersonated Joseph Smith. 

On what evidence do you base this belief?

Joseph Smith had a very well-known horse, in that setting.  He rode that horse in parades, he rode that horse as general of the Nauvoo Legion, he rode that horse as his personal horse.  On the day of that charade, BY came and asked if he could use the horse, he didn't give a reason, but Emma said he could use it.

IMO, there was only one reason to take Joseph's horse, as BY surely had a horse of his own.  He knew that everyone would know that it was Joseph's horse, and having that horse would lend the appearance that he (BY) was being favored by Joseph.  By having Joseph's horse, and by impersonating him (as much as he could) physically (adopting his voice, etc.), he could make many believe that he had received a special countenance.

IMO, it was the best act of his life.

You mean Joe Duncan...right? If I recall this was NOT on the day of the aformentioned meeting...rather it was later AFTER the incident. Brigham used the horse in a parade.

Sorry to contradict you, but that was indeed the occasion of BY's transformation.

"It was many weeks before poor Joe Duncan returned to a normal condition, if indeed he ever was as good as he was before that day's experience. I do not think that Mr. Young meant any harm to come to him. Rather, I think he just felt that his using Father's horse and equipment in the parade on that day would enhance his appearance in the eyes of the people, and cause them to say, "Why, he looks just like Brother Joseph used to -- the very image of our Prophet!" It is but right that I should give Elder Young due credit and state that he sent an apology, explaining that it was not his fault that the horse was not returned when promised." (Joseph Smith, III and the Restoration, p. 53)

[Snow]

Jenda,

That is an obscure source; so obscure that I can't find any mention of it on the internet. What was the original source? And, how does that account prove anything?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 23 2004, 09:47 PM

Jenda,

That is an obscure source; so obscure that I can't find any mention of it on the internet.

Oh, well. I guess you can either take my word for it, or find someone with a copy of it and read it.

What was the original source?

That was the original source.

And, how does that account prove anything?

What do you mean, How does it prove anything? How does anything prove anything?

It was an account taken from the journal (or memoir) of Joseph Smith, III, regarding that incident. In that account, he stated that the parade that BY borrowed the horse for was the same incident as the "transformation".

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 23 2004, 11:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 23 2004, 11:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 23 2004, 09:47 PM

Jenda,

That is an obscure source; so obscure that I can't find any mention of it on the internet.

Oh, well. I guess you can either take my word for it, or find someone with a copy of it and read it.

What was the original source?

That was the original source.

And, how does that account prove anything?

What do you mean, How does it prove anything? How does anything prove anything?

It was an account taken from the journal (or memoir) of Joseph Smith, III, regarding that incident. In that account, he stated that the parade that BY borrowed the horse for was the same incident as the "transformation".

Jenda, I have never said that Joseph Smith III was a bad person trying to take advantage of others. Who abused his power because he was the Son of the prophet. The RLDS had its beginnings 14 years after the death of the prophet. I am not saying that everyone has to like the prophet. Believe it or not, I was not to keen on President Benson. He was to conservative for me. But he turned out to be a good prophet. I reserved my personal feelings for the job he did when he took over. It would have been hard for him to fill the shoes of President Kimball since he was my cousin and knew him personally. I think that those who loved Brigham Young loved him. Those who hated him, hated him. I think there were some who were wary of him taking over. But when they seen the leadership in him came around. There were those who left because they were not privy to the move out west that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had discussed before his arrest. There were members, and I don't blame them for leaving the church because they did not want to go out West and tame more of the frontier. I remember being in Nauvoo in July about six years ago. I thought to myself, "Man if I knew what it was going to be like out west, I think I would have fought the mobbers." It was beautiful.

I realize that you do not like Brigham Young. You have not read much of what he was really like except through what your religion says about him and critics. Get a Biography of him and read it. Get a copy of his sermons and tell me he was not a God fearing man, whose only intent was to serve God. I believe that Joseph Smith III could have been the prophet if things would have turned out better. I think that Emma was afraid that if she would have stayed with the church she would have been look to be an example of strength, and she was drained. She was a good woman, and had she chose to stay with the LDS church I believe that the blessings her husband gave to their son would have been realized. But it did not happen and the blessings were only partially fulfilled. Although you can dig all sorts of dirt on Brigham Young, I believe there is also dirt on Joseph Smith III, wouldn't you think?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 23 2004, 10:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 23 2004, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 23 2004, 09:47 PM

Jenda,

That is an obscure source; so obscure that I can't find any mention of it on the internet.

Oh, well. I guess you can either take my word for it, or find someone with a copy of it and read it.

What was the original source?

That was the original source.

And, how does that account prove anything?

What do you mean, How does it prove anything? How does anything prove anything?

It was an account taken from the journal (or memoir) of Joseph Smith, III, regarding that incident. In that account, he stated that the parade that BY borrowed the horse for was the same incident as the "transformation".

Oh, I believe you that such a book actually exists, I just wanted to know what the actual source of the information in the book was. So you say that the book itself was source, and that the book may have been a memoir of JS III. I don't know when said book was written but it would have been written later in life. JS III lived till when? 1914? That would have made his accout, late, maybe 40, 50 or 60 years after the fact. And he would have been what, 13 year old or so at the actual time of the horse thingy? And, this impersonation of JS by BY theory would be important to his (JS III) claim to fame (leader of the RLDS) right? So he had a vested interest in remembering the occurence so many years before in a particular way...

That's not too convincing and as you know I am very easy to convince.

The reason I asked what does your quote prove (and why that bothers you I am not sure) is because SRM said that the horse thingy was after the day of transfiguration as opposed to the day of and you rebutted him by posting a quote that doesn't say anything about when the day was. Why the quote?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 22 2004, 09:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 22 2004, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 22 2004, 08:36 PM

Snow, you can compare the LDS church to the Catholic Church.  Both grew rapidly and are very "successful" in many ways, but, neither, IMO, is the true church.

Interesting thought but not related to my question. My question is don't you think that God's church would be more consistent, more focused, better organized, moving in a steady direction?

Jenda,

So I am still interested in the question. I am not trying to trip you up and prove you wrong about something. I am trying to understand the mindset required.

The reorganized or restorations movements seems to be swirling towards dissolution or chaos or mainstreamimization. Does it not seem that if God were behind it all, a little stabitlity, a little constancy, a little success might be behind it? I think of JS's early revelation:

1 NOW behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul...

and then I think of the revelation that the work will roll forth until it covers the earth. There seems to be a disconnect between JS's vision of the future and what's happening with the reorganized and restoration movements, no? Yes?

[srm]

Sorry to contradict you, but that was indeed the occasion of BY's transformation.

"It was many weeks before poor Joe Duncan returned to a normal condition, if indeed he ever was as good as he was before that day's experience.  I do not think that Mr. Young meant any harm to come to him.  Rather, I think he just felt that his using Father's horse and equipment in the parade on that day would enhance his appearance in the eyes of the people, and cause them to say, "Why, he looks just like Brother Joseph used to -- the very image of our Prophet!"  It is but right that I should give Elder Young due credit and state that he sent an apology, explaining that it was not his fault that the horse was not returned when promised."  (Joseph Smith, III and the Restoration, p. 53)

Where in that quote does it say that it was on the same day as the transfiguration event? Please provide enough of the quote to prove your point. because I believe that this was weeks later.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 24 2004, 08:34 AM

Although you can dig all sorts of dirt on Brigham Young, I believe there is also dirt on Joseph Smith III, wouldn't you think?

Is there? I haven't heard any. Please share!