Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 24 2004, 01:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 24 2004, 01:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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!

Oh sure there must be some, much like there must be some dirt on, oh say, Emily R. Curvette, or Howard W. Hunter. Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of salacious review

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of salacious review

Maybe, but more likely, as Rose Kennedy said, "Great people have great flaws." The people who accomplish the most, the movers and the shakers, do so much that it's inevitable that they will make a lot of mistakes in the doing.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 24 2004, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 24 2004, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of  salacious review

Maybe, but more likely, as Rose Kennedy said, "Great people have great flaws." The people who accomplish the most, the movers and the shakers, do so much that it's inevitable that they will make a lot of mistakes in the doing.

FB: I understand what you are trying to say, so in the spirit of your statement please, if you would give us the accomplishments of Joseph Smith III. I know that he did not begin the RLDS without the help of those who persuaded him to be the successor of his father, and in so doing, fourteen years after his father's death he became the leader of the RLDS. Other than this what are his other accomplisments?

[Jenda]

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

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?

Fatboys, I appreciate your post, and I understand what you are saying, but my only point is that I don't believe that what the church morphed into in Nauvoo, as a direct result of the influence of BY, was what God wanted the church to become. BY might well have been a God-fearing man (and I have read more than just the things my church pushed on me to read), but (and let's look to our friends on ChristianForums for this example), most of the people on CF consider themselves God-fearing people, don'tcha think? But do you really feel that they are being led by the spirit when we (both you and I) feel nothing radiating from many of their posts but anger and hate?

That is how I feel. BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man. But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church.

I could liken it to how I feel about the CoC at this point in time. I have met Grant McMurray (president of the CoC) and know him to be a good man who cares about many people. But he is leading the church in ways that are at odds with what I know as the restored gospel.

If I can say that about the man who is president of my own church, I feel comfortable saying it about the man who assumed leadership of your church at that time of crisis (and I do realize it was a time of crisis. I realize that there was no easy answer, but looking to God and what He said when he restored His church gives me a good clue as to who I think I, personally, would have followed had I been there.)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Oct 24 2004, 05:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Oct 24 2004, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 24 2004, 05:12 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of  salacious review

Maybe, but more likely, as Rose Kennedy said, "Great people have great flaws." The people who accomplish the most, the movers and the shakers, do so much that it's inevitable that they will make a lot of mistakes in the doing.

FB: I understand what you are trying to say, so in the spirit of your statement please, if you would give us the accomplishments of Joseph Smith III. I know that he did not begin the RLDS without the help of those who persuaded him to be the successor of his father, and in so doing, fourteen years after his father's death he became the leader of the RLDS. Other than this what are his other accomplisments?

I actually had Brigham Young in mind when I quoted Rose Kennedy. I have no doubt that I wouldn't have liked Brigham Young if I had been a pioneer, but I don't think anyone can say that he wasn't a brilliant leader and important person in American history. I haven't heard any "dirt" on Joseph Smith III. Everything I've read about him portrays him as a very ponderous, sensitive, moral person who always made careful choices, but I'm not well read on his later life.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 24 2004, 07:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 24 2004, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Fatboy@Oct 24 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 24 2004, 05:12 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of  salacious review

Maybe, but more likely, as Rose Kennedy said, "Great people have great flaws." The people who accomplish the most, the movers and the shakers, do so much that it's inevitable that they will make a lot of mistakes in the doing.

FB: I understand what you are trying to say, so in the spirit of your statement please, if you would give us the accomplishments of Joseph Smith III. I know that he did not begin the RLDS without the help of those who persuaded him to be the successor of his father, and in so doing, fourteen years after his father's death he became the leader of the RLDS. Other than this what are his other accomplisments?

I actually had Brigham Young in mind when I quoted Rose Kennedy. I have no doubt that I wouldn't have liked Brigham Young if I had been a pioneer, but I don't think anyone can say that he wasn't a brilliant leader and important person in American history. I haven't heard any "dirt" on Joseph Smith III. Everything I've read about him portrays him as a very ponderous, sensitive, moral person who always made careful choices, but I'm not well read on his later life.

FB: I don't want to bring up dirt on Joseph Smith III. It is not important. Just that there is dirt. I have discussed this topic with a RLDS historian who is disenchanted as Jenda is with the current direction of the CofC. He told me some things. They are not necessary, and I don't know if what he told me was correct. I have no way to confirm it. Just wanted to say that it is out there.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 24 2004, 09:32 PM

FB: I don't want to bring up dirt on Joseph Smith III.

If you didn't want to "bring it up", then why did you "bring it up?"

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 24 2004, 07:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 24 2004, 07:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Fatboy@Oct 24 2004, 08:34 AM

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?

Fatboys, I appreciate your post, and I understand what you are saying, but my only point is that I don't believe that what the church morphed into in Nauvoo, as a direct result of the influence of BY, was what God wanted the church to become. BY might well have been a God-fearing man (and I have read more than just the things my church pushed on me to read), but (and let's look to our friends on ChristianForums for this example), most of the people on CF consider themselves God-fearing people, don'tcha think? But do you really feel that they are being led by the spirit when we (both you and I) feel nothing radiating from many of their posts but anger and hate?

That is how I feel. BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man. But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church.

I could liken it to how I feel about the CoC at this point in time. I have met Grant McMurray (president of the CoC) and know him to be a good man who cares about many people. But he is leading the church in ways that are at odds with what I know as the restored gospel.

If I can say that about the man who is president of my own church, I feel comfortable saying it about the man who assumed leadership of your church at that time of crisis (and I do realize it was a time of crisis. I realize that there was no easy answer, but looking to God and what He said when he restored His church gives me a good clue as to who I think I, personally, would have followed had I been there.)

Dawn,

You and I both know....and you should know more than most...whatever it was that Nauvoo "morphed" into...it was under the inspiration and guidance of the Prophet Joseph.

Brigham Young...and all the Apostles were under his direct tutiledge. See...its here that we really take the 180 degree forks in the road....because to here the Restorationists tell it....Joseph Smith was completely and totally clueless about what was going on around him in Nauvoo....and if not clueless...he was so weak as to not even try to keep the church pure in its doctrine and beliefs. In short...he gave up.

I dont believe that happened...not for one nano second. The Prophet knew what was going on around him...and "IF" BY was doing a millioneth of the things that you and others have attributed to him....Joseph..who was a man's man...would have taken care of business. There is not one doubt in my mind!

No....what happened in Nauvoo was simply a continuation of the restoration of the gospel....plain and simple. What was restored in the Kirtland Temple was expanded upon in Nauvoo. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

Nauvoo basically was Joseph Smith...it reflected everything about him. His signature was in and through everything.

The LDS church does not believe for a moment that JS was a fallen prophet...or a Prophet who had lost his "spiritual edge" or however RLDS/CoC what to describe or label his life while in Nauvoo. He lived great....and he died great. This we believe. This we know to be true.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Oct 25 2004, 05:58 AM

This we believe. This we know to be true.

Pillars quake and the earth shakes!

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 25 2004, 08:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 25 2004, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 25 2004, 05:58 AM

This we believe.  This we know to be true.

Pillars quake and the earth shakes!

Who is this “we” you speak of? I know I know it, and I can hear you saying you know it, and I know of some other people who say they know it, but who else is with this “we” that we call us?

And btw, just in case we are not as numerous as I would hope, I am happy to see that you and I are in agreement. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 24 2004, 04:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 24 2004, 04:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Certain figures, however, are larger than life and their accomplishments and misdeeds get magnified under the lens of  salacious review

Maybe, but more likely, as Rose Kennedy said, "Great people have great flaws." The people who accomplish the most, the movers and the shakers, do so much that it's inevitable that they will make a lot of mistakes in the doing.

I do believe that. I think that certain great mens and womenes are borns with flaws, yea even fatal flaws, much as you know sees the flaws in my spellings, my precious.

I see Joseph Smith as one of those flawed figure... name had for good and evil and all that, though the flaws are nowhere near what the anti's would have you believe.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 24 2004, 06:14 PM

That is how I feel. BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man. But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church.

Kind of a moot point. BY did in fact become the leader of the the Church. So you are left to arguing that either God couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop BY from leading the Church or you can argue that, um, actually I don't know what else you can argue. I don't think that the CoC views itself as THE Church of God, it is only one of many churches that follow God.

Bottom line, JS restored the Church, BY succeeded JS, the Church moved to SLC, etc, etc. Like it or not, that's what happened.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 25 2004, 06:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 25 2004, 06:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 24 2004, 06:14 PM

That is how I feel.  BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man.  But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church. 

Kind of a moot point. BY did in fact become the leader of the the Church. So you are left to arguing that either God couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop BY from leading the Church or you can argue that, um, actually I don't know what else you can argue. I don't think that the CoC views itself as THE Church of God, it is only one of many churches that follow God.

Bottom line, JS restored the Church, BY succeeded JS, the Church moved to SLC, etc, etc. Like it or not, that's what happened.

Bottom line. BY became the leader of the church that had at one time been the restored church, but that had changed so much that it no longer resembled the restored church. And I am fine with that.

I know which church follows the commandments that God restored the church under in 1830. And I am humble and proud to be part of it. (And it is not the LDS church.)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 25 2004, 12:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 25 2004, 12:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 25 2004, 08:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 25 2004, 05:58 AM

This we believe.  This we know to be true.

Pillars quake and the earth shakes!

Who is this “we” you speak of? I know I know it, and I can hear you saying you know it, and I know of some other people who say they know it, but who else is with this “we” that we call us?

And btw, just in case we are not as numerous as I would hope, I am happy to see that you and I are in agreement. :)

Hi ya Ray ole buddy ole pal!

The "we" was the LDS church. I am glad we are in agreement! Now...if we can just get Dawn to use the force and turn from the dark side....all would be well!

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 25 2004, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 25 2004, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 25 2004, 06:10 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 24 2004, 06:14 PM

That is how I feel.  BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man.  But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church. 

Kind of a moot point. BY did in fact become the leader of the the Church. So you are left to arguing that either God couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop BY from leading the Church or you can argue that, um, actually I don't know what else you can argue. I don't think that the CoC views itself as THE Church of God, it is only one of many churches that follow God.

Bottom line, JS restored the Church, BY succeeded JS, the Church moved to SLC, etc, etc. Like it or not, that's what happened.

Bottom line. BY became the leader of the church that had at one time been the restored church, but that had changed so much that it no longer resembled the restored church. And I am fine with that.

I know which church follows the commandments that God restored the church under in 1830. And I am humble and proud to be part of it. (And it is not the LDS church.)

Dawn,

But look at the irony of what your position is!!

The restorationists are fond of saying they believe in the "Kirtland era" church...and the LDS live in the "Nauvoo era" church. The LDS of course believe they are one and the same....be that as it may...I have to ask you this:

How is it you can exercise so much patience with the leaders of the CoC...with them having made so many doctrinal changes....but yet, you seem totally unwilling or unable to think the saints who disagreed with the "12" should not have exercised that very same degree of patience back then? Does that make sense?

It seems like a double standard.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 26 2004, 07:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 26 2004, 07:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 25 2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 25 2004, 06:10 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 24 2004, 06:14 PM

That is how I feel.  BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man.  But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church. 

Kind of a moot point. BY did in fact become the leader of the the Church. So you are left to arguing that either God couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop BY from leading the Church or you can argue that, um, actually I don't know what else you can argue. I don't think that the CoC views itself as THE Church of God, it is only one of many churches that follow God.

Bottom line, JS restored the Church, BY succeeded JS, the Church moved to SLC, etc, etc. Like it or not, that's what happened.

Bottom line. BY became the leader of the church that had at one time been the restored church, but that had changed so much that it no longer resembled the restored church. And I am fine with that.

I know which church follows the commandments that God restored the church under in 1830. And I am humble and proud to be part of it. (And it is not the LDS church.)

Dawn,

But look at the irony of what your position is!!

The restorationists are fond of saying they believe in the "Kirtland era" church...and the LDS live in the "Nauvoo era" church. The LDS of course believe they are one and the same....be that as it may...I have to ask you this:

How is it you can exercise so much patience with the leaders of the CoC...with them having made so many doctrinal changes....but yet, you seem totally unwilling or unable to think the saints who disagreed with the "12" should not have exercised that very same degree of patience back then? Does that make sense?

It seems like a double standard.

Randy, in my last post I said I was fine with it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone has the right to be wrong. B)

And, correct me if I am wrong, didn't I just state how wrong I feel the leaders of the CoC have been for the last 40 years? I am not patient with the leaders. I am patient with the Lord. Because I know the church has been restored for the last time and because of the promises given to the Reorganization. And because the Lord said His church needs to be cleansed and because He said His wrath will begin in His own house.

And you are really close to putting words in my mouth again.

I did not state that the saints who went west were evil. I believe that many of them were blinded. I place no blame on the saints at all. I believe that all through the Nauvoo era that many of the saints honestly believed that what was happening was being led by God. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. There were so many hidden evils during that time frame, evils that came from within the very structure of the church, itself, that there is no way I can condone what happened, either publically or undercover.

And if you can't see the difference between the Kirtland (or more specifically, the NY) church and the Nauvoo church, then you really need to drag out some books and read them. Or glasses might help. (I have a few rose-colored pair that you could borrow. )

[Ray]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Oct 26 2004, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Oct 26 2004, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 25 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 25 2004, 08:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 25 2004, 05:58 AM

This we believe.  This we know to be true.

Pillars quake and the earth shakes!

Who is this “we” you speak of? I know I know it, and I can hear you saying you know it, and I know of some other people who say they know it, but who else is with this “we” that we call us?

And btw, just in case we are not as numerous as I would hope, I am happy to see that you and I are in agreement. :)

Hi ya Ray ole buddy ole pal!

The "we" was the LDS church. I am glad we are in agreement! Now...if we can just get Dawn to use the force and turn from the dark side....all would be well!

I believe you may want to edit your answer, because not everybody in the “LDS” church believes the same things. Or are you referring to something other than the people in the LDS church when you say that? And if you are referring to something other than the people in the LDS Church, can you tell me if there is some other organization of people who have come to know and accept the truth of these things?

And btw, I believe this is an important point because I believe there are some true disciples of our Lord who are NOT members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I also believe there are some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are NOT true disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In other words, take it easy on Jenda, because I consider her to be one of my friends too.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 26 2004, 10:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 26 2004, 10:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Oct 26 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 25 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by -curvette@Oct 25 2004, 08:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Oct 25 2004, 05:58 AM

This we believe.  This we know to be true.

Pillars quake and the earth shakes!

Who is this “we” you speak of? I know I know it, and I can hear you saying you know it, and I know of some other people who say they know it, but who else is with this “we” that we call us?

And btw, just in case we are not as numerous as I would hope, I am happy to see that you and I are in agreement. :)

Hi ya Ray ole buddy ole pal!

The "we" was the LDS church. I am glad we are in agreement! Now...if we can just get Dawn to use the force and turn from the dark side....all would be well!

I believe you may want to edit your answer, because not everybody in the “LDS” church believes the same things. Or are you referring to something other than the people in the LDS church when you say that? And if you are referring to something other than the people in the LDS Church, can you tell me if there is some other organization of people who have come to know and accept the truth of these things?

And btw, I believe this is an important point because I believe there are some true disciples of our Lord who are NOT members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I also believe there are some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are NOT true disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In other words, take it easy on Jenda, because I consider her to be one of my friends too.

Ray,

Dawn and I have known each other for quite a while. You have no need to worry....besides...as you can see....she is more than capable of standing up for what she believes. We respect each other quite a bit.

Regarding your other comment...I say "we" as in the LDS church because although there will naturally be disagreements among individuals....I dare say that as a "church organization" you will find that the First Presidency and the 12 have publicly stated the same position I just did. Example....If we were talking about...let's say......"Plural marriage".... there would undoubtably be some members of the LDS church who may side with the notion that JS had nothing to do with it etc....BUT, I could very appropriately say "we" as in the "Church" believe that JS brought forth the doctrine...taught it etc. because the First Presidency and the 12 have so stated...and of course the history backs it up. That is the context that I use the word "we".

If you can find a statement that contradics what I said...I will gladly acquiece the point.

Oh...and I agree with your statements about those who are "true" and "not so true" diciples.

[Ray]

I just wanted to clarify the point about who “we” actually are, and I believe you are only partly correct when you say that “we” refers to the First Presidency and the 12 apostles or to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organization. In other words, I believe the true Church of Christ is within those of us who accept and embrace the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether we are in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or NOT. And I say that with the hope that you will accept ANYBODY who embraces the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether or not they are “off” on a few particular points of doctrine.

And btw, I can see that you love Jenda too, I’m just playfully telling you to “watch it”.

[Ray]

Btw, here's a scripture that makes the point I was trying to make:

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me [Jesus Christ], the same is my church [the church of Jesus Christ].D&C 10:67

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 26 2004, 08:39 AM

And if you can't see the difference between the Kirtland (or more specifically, the NY) church and the Nauvoo church, then you really need to drag out some books and read them.

Accepting that God allowed the great apostacy and then the restoration is one thing.

Accepting that there was a great apostacy and then, after 18 centuries, God himself descended and revealed himself and restored his Church through Joseph Smith, only to let it degenerate into apostacy again after few short years, and then to be rerestored decades later by men who had hitched their wagon to this movement or that...

I dunno, doesn't mke much sense. How many restorations do we need?

[srm]

Originally posted by srm@Oct 24 2004, 01:32 PM

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.

Jenda?

[Jenda]

I answered you earlier in the thread. You must have missed it.

That was the entire quote. I can't provide anything more. Maybe you can provide your references that there is a discrepancy in time. That might add to the conversation.

[srm]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 27 2004, 07:40 PM

I answered you earlier in the thread. You must have missed it.

That was the entire quote. I can't provide anything more. Maybe you can provide your references that there is a discrepancy in time. That might add to the conversation.

Yes, I saw it but you in no way established your point that this was in the same day as the transfiguration of Brigham.

This website tells a little different story

CLICK HERE

it says,

"There were other sources of irritation, as well. One episode resulted in Joseph Smith III developing a burning dislike for Brigham Young. It happened shortly after the President of the Twelve had triumphed over Sidney Rigdon. In solidifying his leadership, Brigham not only assumed Joseph's position as commander of the Nauvoo Legion, but also tried to emulate his appearance, to foster the image of being his successor. Accordingly, he sent a request to Emma Smith, that he be allowed to ride the late lieutenant general's dark sorrel pacer, Joe Duncan, at a parade. Emma Smith complied with the request, and ordered Young Joseph to saddle the horse. The youth remonstrated with his mother, reminding her that he had just spent considerable effort in nursing the poor horse back to health after some visitors had overridden him frightfully. Nevertheless, she ordered him to prepare the horse. Joseph grew angrier and angrier as he readied the horse in the stable. An additional request came, that the prophet's "full military housings" be put on the horse, including the holsters and pistols. Joseph recalled his feelings:

It was with a considerable and rising sense of outrage I obeyed the dictatorial request, and caparisoned the horse, fitting on the military saddle and housings, holsters and bridle.

I did not approach the parade grounds that day .... Mother preferred that I remain at home and I had no inclination to go."

Note that it says that it was after brigham had triumphed over sydney. Ergo; your premise that it was the same day is incorrect

[Jenda]

I never stated, nor have I read anywhere, that BY tried to emulate Joseph on the day of the Conference. I have never read anything that stated that that was the occasion. Everything I have read stated that the "transformation" was at the parade that he borrowed the horse for. And it intimates that in the text that you so conveniently copied for me to read.

See that word, "Accordingly"? That ties those two statements together.

What is that text, BTW? Care to reveal it's origins?