A proven prophecy from Joseph Smith, Jr.

[spinner]

I'm in Moab for the weekend, but amazingly they have wireless available nearby, so I can make a connection.

Man, is this seriously the best thing you can think of to be doing in Moab?

I challenge those who are attempting to associate the Nullification Crisis with this prophecy to draw the causal links between that 1832 event and the specific predictions listed above. In 1832, the slavery question was as dormant an issue as it had been since the framing of the constitution, and would remain so until 1850, and no one anywhere envisioned a civil war that would "terminate in the death and misery of many souls." 620,000 to be exact.

Potential causal links:

re Britain: Britain was i) the world's major power and a very logical ally for anybody to try and court if there was a war and ii) the major trading partner about whom S. Carolina felt peeved because of having their goods blocked by the tariff acts

re slave rebellions: There was a slave rebellion led by Nat Turner in 1831; slave rebellions were on everybody's mind

re North vs. South: True this wasn't the major feature the nullification crisis itself, but the drift between north and south had started long ago, as again evidenced by the Missouri compromise of 1820 and the political allegiances that had manifested themselves at that time. And I would definitely say that even during the nullification crisis the southern states were more sympathetic to S. Carolina than were the northern states.

re slavery as a cause: Slavery was not a dormant issue. It flaired up during the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Also, there had been a slave rebellion in 1831. True slavery was not the foremost issue in the nullification crisis, but neither was it 'dormant'.

re Prophesying that a war will terminate in the death and misery of many souls: This is about as impressive as prophesying that it will snow next year in Alaska. This is so vague that it would be true of nearly any war.

Finally, about the remainder marshaling themselves for war, this is a prophecy so vague that it could be argued forcefully both that it has and that it has not occurred.

-edited to add-

Showing a causal link is difficult--we would really have to be able to get inside JS's head to prove whether or not the nullification crisis did inspire this passage. The best we can do is show how the events surrounding the nullification crisis could be related this prophecy and draw our own conclusions.

[caudicus]

Okay, here it is by Fawn Brodie:

Joseph

[Cold Steel]

I don't know about you, but there seem to be some important features of this prophecy that never happened.

That's your opinion. Preceding the first few weeks of war, many thought the conflagration would be over almost before it began. Union citizens rode out to the first battle (at Massassas, Virginia) in carriages with picnic lunches hoping to see the Southern forces roundly defeated. Instead, the Confederate forces kicked the collective hindtails of the bluebellies and sent them packing. Only in the ensuing months did the reality of the situation set in.

The "death and misery of many souls" statement was one that was painfully realized. The church equated it with the judgment of God upon this nation. Only time will tell on whether Joseph was intuitive or whether he received revelation.

[Uncle Dale]

I don't know about you, but there seem to be some important features of this prophecy that never happened.

OK -- I forgot about his trip to New York -- I was thinking about his later trip to

Washington, DC.

I earlier posted a lengthy except from Backman, on this subject.

Here is a snippit from a 3-page review of the Backman book:

Backman tells the reader about those parts of the 1832 "Civil War prophecy"

which were fulfilled in the Civil War three decades later but does not mention

predictions that were not. Nor does he explain, as any historian ought to do,

the contemporary 1832 South Carolina nullification crisis.

Not surprisingly, some Mormon historians have been attacked of late by fellow

Mormons for writing history not sufficiently "faith-promoting." Is it any wonder

that Mormons used to reading faithful history such as The Heavens Resound

are troubled when they read history that is more balanced?

(Wm. D. Russell - "Dialogue" Vol. 18, No. 3, Fall 1985 pp. 169-171)

UD

[William Schryver]

Cold Steel:

It was only right that he be one of the final casualties of the bloody war that he, alone, brought on this country -- a war which was entirely preventable. He forced the Southern states into rebellion, then brutally murdered its people.

I'm done arguing the issues on this thread, but I must comment on this statement. I find it to be one of the most astounding things I have read on this board in the four months I have been posting here. The degree to which it is an uninformed and outrageous claim defies my ability to respond. I have only one word to describe my reaction to it: WOW!

[caudicus]

until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations

In my opinion, this never happened.

[sob76]

Cold Steel:

It was only right that he be one of the final casualties of the bloody war that he, alone, brought on this country -- a war which was entirely preventable. He forced the Southern states into rebellion, then brutally murdered its people.

I'm done arguing the issues on this thread, but I must comment on this statement. I find it to be one of the most astounding things I have read on this board in the four months I have been posting here. The degree to which it is an uninformed and outrageous claim defies my ability to respond. I have only one word to describe my reaction to it: WOW!

Uninformed...? and outrageous? actually it's most American's who are uniformed about good old Honest Abe. while I'm not sure I agree with the statement, I'd not say it's uniformed.

I'd reply about the prophecy, but the last time I did on this board I was called a Troll among other things...

[Uncle Dale]

until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations

In my opinion, this never happened.

Of course not -- none of the prediction could properly happen, after the Mormons

were driven from their "city of refuge" late in 1833.

In 1832-33-34 there was a Mormon expectation of the wrath of God coming with great

violence upon all the unrighteous of the earth -- a great conflict which would center

around "Zion" in America, and, to a lesser degree, around Jerusalem in Palestine.

Since the Mormons were driven from their "Zion" in 1833 -- and since they failed to

"redeem" that Zion in 1834, the entire Latter Day Saint view of the end times had to

be re-worked. The Mormonism of 1832 was NOT the Mormonism of 1835, in this respect

Let's take another look at the last portion of JS's Jan. 4, 1833 letter -- a document

reportedly written only a few days after the oracle we've all been discussing:

"And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years

shall pass away, before the United States shall present such a scene of

bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation..."

What did Smith mean, by saying "not many years?" Was he speaking to the Mormons

of his own day, or to their children and grandchildren of 1861? And to what effect?

He also says:

"pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquakes will sweep the wicked of this generation

from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost

tribes of Israel from the north country. "

Again, when is this predicted to occur? "not many years" hence -- 1833? or

maybe 1834 or 1835? Probably he meant to say that the "lost tribes of Israel" would

not appear upon the scene until the Jackson Co. Temple was constructed -- so that

they could array themselves, three tribes to a side, and there "take up inheritances

in Zion."

Smith also predicts:

"The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requisitions of the

new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in

the State of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord

has commanded me to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes

of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I

say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow men than their eternal salvation;

therefore, "fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment is come" --

Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant..."

And what does that mean? It means for the hearers to convert to Mormonism --

and it means for those already converted, to continue "gathering together to Zion"

in Jackson Co., Missouri. And Smith says this with a sense of urgency, addressing

a contemporary audience, whose "eternal salvation" he feels compelled to address.

This is not a message meant to be "filed away" for reading in 1861.

And, after converting to Mormonism, what are the 1833 hearers of this message

to do?

"flee to Zion before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those

now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see

all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled."

Notice the last part -----> ALL THESE THINGS <------- The hearers of this

message, after converting to Mormonism, are to hastily move to Jackson Co., MO.

Why? ---- to avoid the "scourge" of God -- the last great battle -- in which the

American Indians would realize their Israelite ancestry, and join their Mormon

brethren -- raging like "young lions" among the Gentiles -- overturning the wicked

government of the United States -- carrying the conflict around the globe -- and

becoming the stone uncut by human hands, which should roll through the world,

destroying all other governments and religions, establishing the Latter Day Kingdom

of God, as the sole theocracry upon the face pf the earth.

That much, and no less -- ALL THESE THINGS -- No wonder Smith would not

allow the Mormons of Jackson Co., to live up to their summer, 1833 promise to the

Missourians, to peacefully leave "Zion." No wonder, also, that Smith ordered an

armed, paramilitary force, to travel to "Zion" and redeem that parcel of holy ground

by whatever means possible!!!

Only it did not work ---- hence, the "civil war revelation" was "hid up" from the

eyes of the Saints, and other doctrines were taught in its stead.

UD

[caudicus]

Hmmm... so much for that proven prophecy idea.

[Uncle Dale]

Hmmm... so much for that proven prophecy idea.

Well, the originator of this thread says: "A proven prophecy from Joseph Smith, Jr.,

One that the antis pretend isn't there."

No doubt some clever apologist could say that Zion was moved out of her place,

to Great Salt Lake City -- and that there were some of the generation of 1832

who survived until 1861-65. And that somewhere in the world there was pestilence,

famine and earthquakes --- and, for all we today know -- the wicked of 1832

were all swept from the earth.

By "proven prophecy," I was expecting, maybe, that it would be listed in the reference

books -- the great Protestant and Catholic biblical commentaries -- or the Encyclopedias

But I do not find it anywhere -- except in Backman's book and a few other odd

"Mormon" places.

At least jgoldenrockwell (who I assume is an anti-Mormon, trying to embarrass the

Saints, with such a ploy as this) cannot truthfully say "the antis pretend isn't there."

THAT much of the thread originator's claim, at least, has been shown to be a false one.

UD

[TheObserver]

Cold Steel:

It was only right that he be one of the final casualties of the bloody war that he, alone, brought on this country -- a war which was entirely preventable. He forced the Southern states into rebellion, then brutally murdered its people.

I'm done arguing the issues on this thread, but I must comment on this statement. I find it to be one of the most astounding things I have read on this board in the four months I have been posting here. The degree to which it is an uninformed and outrageous claim defies my ability to respond. I have only one word to describe my reaction to it: WOW!

Although I don't normally agree with Cold Steel on most issues, I'm with him 100% on this one: Lincoln himself was a significant cause of the Civil War, and the Civil War was avoidable. Lincoln should have let the Southern states seceed. I'm against slavery, but I agree with Jefferson's view that the sovereign states have the right to leave the union--for whatever reason.

I don't mean to derail the discussion from the issue of the prophecy, but I wanted to make it clear that Cold Steel isn't the only one with this opinion of Lincoln.

EDIT: Except that I disagree that Lincoln deserved to die for his mistakes. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[rameumptom]

The reality is, we can't say what determines a prophecy being definitive in an individual's life or not. We could find a 2000 year old road sign in Mesoamerica saying "this way to Zarahemla", and there would still be some that would dispute it. We see this with minimalist Biblical scholars when it comes to King David. There are evidences (strong IMO) that he was historical, but there are several that dispute these things and will strain at any and every gnat to prevent the evidence from being accepted.

While I believe that the D&C 87 is a very strong evidence (especially when one goes beyond what it says of the Civil War, and into the modern wars - something many antis conveniently ignore), there is no way to convince someone who is dead set on their opinion. I suppose it is just as hard for them to change their stripes as it is for me.

But we can do the same with Biblical prophecies. Many scholars today proclaim at least 2 (or more) authors for Isaiah, simply because they do not believe Isaiah could have foreseen that the Jewish deliverer would be named Cyrus. Clearly, at least in their minds, there was much added later on by a student of Isaiah, perhaps as late as the 2nd century BC.

So, don't be disappointed if many just don't see it. BTW, I discuss the entire revelation, bringing it all the way down into our day, here: Prophecy on War

[Dale]

I think like Observer. I believe the South was right on some issues, but wrong about slavery. I consider myself a modern day Confederate. The Confederacy while not a single nation does remain an surviving idea among many people. I live in Idaho. I was not born in the South, but became an ideological Confederate starting in High School. I consider myself a citizen of a nation within a nation. Of course I am a loyal U.S. citizen also. A good book presenting my ideas is entitled The South Was Right by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Ronald Kennedy. (They are Neo-Confederates which movement I am not in support of because I understand they are a haven for White Supremacists. Though they say they themselves are not racists.)

I myself am pro-civil rights, and repudiate hate based race prejudice. Slavery was a cursed error of man. I am not a white supremacist, and see such movements as continuing the sinful ideas of man's past.

[spinner]

While I believe that the D&C 87 is a very strong evidence (especially when one goes beyond what it says of the Civil War, and into the modern wars - something many antis conveniently ignore), there is no way to convince someone who is dead set on their opinion.

[Uncle Dale]

...there is no way to convince someone who is dead set on their opinion.

Certainly there is -- and I offered to go through the text, clause by clause, with the

original poster. Somebody just post the text here, and we can begin to discuss it.

However, coming from an RLDS background, you cannot expect me to simply accept

the 1851 LDS PGP as the undeniable word of God, without investigation and analysis.

Therefore, I suggest that you either reproduce here (or provide a web-link to) the

image of the text, supposedly in the handwriting of F. G. Williams, recorded in the

Kirtland Revelation Book, pp. 32-33 -- so that we all can inspect the wording, as set

down on Dec. 25, 1832, before any editorial changes may have been made under

the direction of Brigham Young.

I am told that these images are available to the public, on the extensive DVD set

prepared at BYU, in conjunction with the Joseph Smith Papers project. If you do not

have the images readily at hand, no doubt you can obtain them quickly from Dr.

Peterson or some other scholar who has access to the libraries and collections in

Provo and SLC.

The 1851 PGP and 1876 D&C published text is rather short -- we can work our way

through it in a matter of a couple of MB exchanges, I would think.

With that prospect before us --- and with the mission of "convincing" anti-Mormons

of the validity and/or authenticity of the text and its asserted message -- we can

begin to ask and answer questions such as these:

[ 1 ] When was the text first written down? By whom? In what document?

[ 2 ] What purported revelatory experience does the text convey? Presumably the

only oracle involved was Joseph Smith, Jr. What were the circumstances of his

becoming involved in the revelatory experience? What was the context of the text's

words being spoken and recorded?

[ 3 ] Who was the intended audience? If the message was from God, who was/is it

that God first intended to hear and react to the message? What reaction did God

intend in the revelatory experience? Was the message only for Joseph Smith, Jr.?

Was it also for his closest followers? Was it for all the Church?

[ 4 ] What was to be done with the recorded text? What were the instructions of the

leaders of the Church, in this regard? Is there any evidence that the leaders had

the text scheduled for publication in the 1833 "Book of Commandments," or in the

"Evening and Morning Star?" If not, why not? Why was the text not offered up for

consideration, for publication in the 1835 Kirtland D&C? Since Joseph Smith, Jr. was

on the text selection committee for that publication, is there any historical indication

that he "held back" the text, for some specific purpose?

So, you see, it would not be difficult at all, to "convince" folks such as myself, of

many important aspects of this D&C section --- even if we may be "dead set"

against the notion that the CofJCofLDS is God's one and only "True Church."

Uncle Dale

[jgoldenrockwell]

The Civil War never spread; no outside powers became involved. Therefore, to try and make sense of this prophecy, you have to argue:

(1) Joseph Smith began v. 2 talking about the US Civil War, then

(2) still in v. 2, he moved forward decades to predict future world wars, then

(3) in v. 3, without giving any clues that he was doing so, he moved back in time to again talk about the US Civil War and finally

(4) in v. 3, with only a semicolon to note the passage of decades, resumed his discussion of 20th century warfare.

Another chronological defect of this chapter is that it makes it sound as if the upcoming civil war is going to be the catalyst which brings about future wars, e.g., in v. 2: "time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." In fact, the fifty years following the civil war were, in the broader view of history, remarkably peaceful. The period of world history (the U.S. Civil War notwithstanding) from 1815-1914 is in fact sometimes referred to as the Pax Brittanica. I know of no historian who would point to the attack on Fort Sumpter in Charleston S.C. as the event that marking a worldwide plunge into warfare.

This then leads us to the problems of v. 4, which reads: "And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war." Again, to make the chronology work, you have to assume that Joseph has at this point, without letting the readers know, begun discussing events that will occur long after the U.S. Civil War. You posit that the slaves rising up against their masters predicts the overthrow of Eastern European communism (although you should realize that many people agree that there are more slaves now than at any point in human history; see http://www.freetheslaves.net/). This theory makes no sense. What does it have to do with the comments about being "marshaled and disciplined for war?" And frankly, it's more than a small stretch to say that living under communism was 'slavery.' Unpleasant and not as free as life under a liberal democracy, certainly, but calling it slavery is to dilute the term to a degree that I don't think anybody reading it in Joseph Smith's time would have recognized. However, if this prophecy is drawn back to the Civil War, the timeline becomes even more convoluted, so I can understand the apologist's inclination to make this jump.

By v. 5, the prophecies have become so vague as to be impossible to meaningfully verify, so I will end my analysis at v. 4.

In sum, to make this prophecy appear to have been fulfilled requires one to twist, distort and creatively interpret the wording and timelines in ways that make even a lawyer like myself blush. Joseph's errors and inconsistencies on his civil war timeline present at least as many problems for the apologist as his "hits" in this prophecy create for critics.

Sorry, the US Civil war involved Canada (St Albans raid, taking of the Chesapeake, use of Canada as a staging area to launch raids on the North), Mexico (logistics support) and use of the British colonies off Florida to strike against the Northern blockade (thus additionally about 20 other nations which ported there, and whose ships were shadowed by Union pickets).

I don't see what your problem is with the prophecy not being limited to the Civil War. The Civil War DID come to pass, it DID start in South Carolina, it WAS largely over the slavery issue (that is, states' rights, of which slavery was the most "popular" issue), nations of the world WERE involved, there WERE world wars . . .

ALL of the prophecies were "decades in the future." The Civil War took place over two decades after the published prophecy, and 15 years after Joseph's death. The wars involving many nations began in the 1890s (Spanish-American war) and really got their footing in 1914.

Now, since your avatar is Hose Nose, perhaps you might have an understanding that the Civil War was the conflict which gave birth to modern warfare. This was the birth of military aviation. This was the war in which the infantry tactics which had done well since the beginning of time were obsoleted by the rifle, near-instant communications, and the derivative of the two, precision artillery. The first practical submarine. The first steamships and ironclad turrets used in war, and the major change in Naval tactics which came with them. The birth of rapid-mobile troops (especially cavalry), carried on trains, who could be moved hundreds of miles in a day and arrive ready to fight. The beginning of the end of the saber as a military weapon, as cavalrymen ignored the doctrine that the revolver was for the left hand while the sword was held in the right (this is why their pistols were carried on the right side, butt-forward). These are just the big ones.

The direct aftermath of the Civil War was the massive Union buildup of Marine and Naval bases in former Confederate territory, and many of those evolved into the nursery of Naviation, while Army camps developed into major aviation and later aerospace sites.

American air power came from the South, and certainly this was how war was "poured out over all nations." If not for the Civil War, there would not have been such Naval and Army investment in the Deep South.

So, with all of these things stemming directly from the Civil War, it's no surprise that Joseph -- not a military science expert -- would have been overwhelmed by a vision of them, and found it difficult to describe. It would be like you trying to explain the entire procedure leading up to engine start on the U-Bird to someone, having only watched it done one time.

"Slave against their masters" is a very generic thing. Many wars are slaves or subjects against the power, including the American Revolution. The "marshalled and disciplined for war" comment would describe the Confederate Army, wouldn't it? And black companies were formed on both sides of the Civil War, some fighting against the slaveholders, others against their "masters" in Washington.

Oh, you're a LAWYER! That explains it!

You are so used to hinging success or failure on a single phrase, word or punctuation mark that you don't see how someone might use words for broader concepts. It's the difference between "I went flying yesterday" and a detailed, step-by-step description of what I did from opening the hangar door in the morning and closing it in the afternoon.

[spinner]

Sorry, the US Civil war involved Canada (St Albans raid, taking of the Chesapeake, use of Canada as a staging area to launch raids on the North), Mexico (logistics support) and use of the British colonies off Florida to strike against the Northern blockade (thus additionally about 20 other nations which ported there, and whose ships were shadowed by Union pickets).

I'm not disputing that these events occurred, but are you asserting that these events constitute "war be[ing] poured out upon all nations"? If so, I disagree--the involvement of other nations was tengential at most.

I don't see what your problem is with the prophecy not being limited to the Civil War.

[William Schryver]

spinner:

That's just your take on what I'm doing--I don't see it that way at all. I'm trying to ask what is a common sense way to read this? Does this common sense reading conform to history? I think that in many key respects it does not.

I then ask whether potential alternate readings that conform to history are reasonable. I just don't find the explanations you've posited or the ones Rameumpton expounded on his website to be a sensible reading of the text.

I really am moving on from this thread, but I did want to respond to your post by saying that my interpretation of the prophecy is not that it suggests an uninterrupted thread of wars from the Civil War onward, and that, in fact, it is a prophecy that is not entirely fulfilled as of yet. The "consumption decreed" has not yet occurred. But I think the problem is that 21st century man wants everything to be done according to the time frames exemplified in movies, rather than according to the quasi-geologic time frames of prophecy.

One final note, classic prophecy is never purely chronological, in that you read through the prophecy and everything happens in that order. Just read Isaiah. He develops a thought, and then starts over and develops it in a different way, often extending the chronology in the second iteration, and then it is all done again. That is the nature of prophetic language. It doesn't conform to our common expectations of a "prediction".

But, I can see I won't get far with my arguments, and so I'll let this be my final comment on this thread, except to say that I have been a student of Abraham Lincoln for twenty years. My bookshelves are packed with all his known writings, and most every book ever written about the man. I regard Abraham Lincoln as the finest U.S. President, and believe that he was raised up to do what he did when he did it, and that he was a humble and godly man who did the best he could given the light imparted to him. Some of the comments made in this thread about him I regard as being little more than neo-Confederate rantings, and I am frankly shocked to have seen from whom they have emanated. I have made a mental note of it for future reference.

[spinner]

William Shryver said:

the quasi-geologic time frames of prophecy.

[Uncle Dale]

ALL of the prophecies were "decades in the future."  The Civil War took place over two decades after the published prophecy, and 15 years after Joseph's death.

I responded to your first posting -- I guess my response was not substantial enough

to merit a reply.

So, I will try again, with a couple of questions --

[ 1 ] When was "two decades" before the "published prophecy?" -- Do you even know

what it is you are attempting to assert here?

[ 2 ] If the message of the text was not meant to be read until "15 years after Joseph's

death" (which would have been July, 1859), why did it appear in the PGP in 1851? I

still cannot believe that you even know what it is that you are trying to say here.

Attached is some "homework" for your future antebellum historical studies:

THE  UNION

Let us look Nullification in the face. What is it? Mr. Calhoon and his disciples tell us, IT IS MAKING VOID A LAW OF CONGRESS WITHIN A STATE, DECLARING IT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND PROHIBITING ITS EXECUTION.

The Nullifiers assert that the Tariff laws are unconstitutional, and their Convention is now to pronounce them void within the limits of South Carolina.

The Legislature will take up this edict and attempt to enforce its execution by fines and imprisonment; and every officer of the State Government, and every juryman, is to swear to resist and put down the revenue laws of the Union, as a text-oath and qualification to enable him to enjoy the rights of a citizen, or hold an office. The officers of the General Government, and all those who may aid in the execution of the revenue laws of the Union, will be exposed to those pains and penalties & disqualifications.

Can this be done peacefully, as the leading Nullifiers pretend? The judges, of the United States, are sworn to support the consitiution, as they understand it -- and understanding it to authorize the passage of the Tariff laws, they are by their duty and oaths, bound to carry those laws into execution. In fulfilling their duty to the General Government they expose themselves to the penalties of the State laws, and are arrested by their authority. By a habeas corpus, Federal Judges attempt to release them. Here the two judiciaries come into direct conflict. The Governor of South Carolina is authorized to use the militia of that State, to enforce the State Laws. The President of the United States, is not only authorized, but requested, when the Judiciary of the Union proves too weak to execute the law, to call in to their aid the Militia, Army and Navy of the United States.

How then can nullification be peaceful? If the State authorities resist and overcome the Judiciary of the United States, must not the President support it? Must he not obey the laws and repel force by force? It is a mockery of common sense to call nullification a peaceful remedy. It must and will, itself, begin this work of violence. The first violence must be committed by it, in resisting the Judicial authorities of the Union. This will lead to further violence, and the flames of civil war will blaze up at once in every quarter of that unhappy state.

Can there be a doubt of the purpose of the Nullifiers to carry it to a civil war? Why the recent language of their leadeing citizens? -- Why do we hear of pledges of life, fortune, and sacred honor, "to carry the resolves of the convention?" Why has Governor Hamilton been so assiduously courting and drilling the Militia? Why has he recently, by the most extraordinary means, procured himself to be elevated to the military rank of a BRigodier General? What is all this but a preparation for war? What does Hamilton mean, but to be the military hero of Nullification, while Hayne shall hold the civil power, and Calhoun the desperate author of the whole scheme, watch to profit by their hazards and their perils?

This then, is Nullification: -- It is CIVIL WAR AND DISUNION!

Let each American now ask himself, shall the Federal Union be preserved? Shall these desperate men be permitted to entail on this happy land, on South Carolina itself, the miseries of civil war and the everlasting evils which flow from the destruction of this confederacy? Who is willing to have the blood of millions, the oppression of this beautiful continent and the slavery of its inhabitants, born and unborn, laid at his door? Let no man promise himself that these states can be riven asunder, and the fragments exist along side of each other in perpetual peace. Any anticipation of that sort is contradicted by all history, by the disposition of men, and by the peculiar circumstances in which the new States or confedercies would be placed. -- As family quarrels are most bitter, so animosities as deep as can torture the human heart, would actuate the disjointed remains of this confederacy, urging them into frequent conflicts, the most persevering and embittered. The North would rise up against the South and the South against the North. The West would send her hordes over the mountains in search of glory and conquest. Instead of being a land of peace, plenty, and happiness, our country would present scenes of war, want and wretchedness. From the points of millions of bayonets, liberty would fly to other lands, and leave us ages of blood, extortion and misery, in the place of the Union, whose blessing are now treated with derision. ...

It is asked how the career of the Nullifiers is to be cut short and their fatal designs defeated? It may be done without the shedding of one drop of blood. Let the whole country rise up as one man and denounce them. Let the whole people out of the limits of South Carolina, and the true hearts within, from themselves at once into a great UNION PARTY, and say to them, in a language which they will understand, THIS UNION SHALL NOT BE DISSOLVES. Let them resolve, one and all, that while they will make every concession to remove all just causes of complaint, they will rally around the government in support of the Union which must be preserved at every hazard. Let them tell the Nullifiers, it is not for you that we step forward in this crisis; it is for ourselves, our children for your children, for generations unborn, for the cause of freedom and the happiness of mankind....

Will the States and the people in the South, the West, the North or the East, withhold the expression of their firm resolves not to permit the dissolution of this Union? Will they omit to do an act of peace, when they may prevent an act, or acts, which their country will mourn for ages to come? Will they not concentrate public opinion upon this horrible design, with an intensity which shall make its prosecutors shrink appalled from their own imaginings before they are bodied forth in acts of violence?...

Let time is to be lost. The edict of Nullification has already appeared, as prepared by the conspirators for the adoption of the convention. With rapid pace, the attempt to execute it will follow. Unless public opinion do its work in a few weeks and awe the factions into submission, the mind cannot conceive of the woes that men may bring upon South Carolina and their country Let every Legislature, every public meeting, every Editor, and every American patriot, hasten to make his voice heard, that the warning may come in time to prevent the first act of violence.

This theme is inexhaustible.

UNCLE DALE'S ON-LINE COMMENTS:

Note 1: Although the politicians of South Carolina had been threatening nullification of federal law for some time, it was only on Nov. 19-24, 1832, that John C. Calhoun and the "Nullification Convention" members met at Columbia, to formulate and adopt their "Ordinance of Nullification declaring the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832... null, void and no law." Forseeing this development, U. S. General Winfield Scott assumed command of Fort Moultrie, in South Carolina, to prevent federal property and arms from falling into the hands of the rebels. Not long afterward, President Jackson sent several U. S. naval vessels to Charleston, with orders to put down any incipient rebellion which might break out in South Carolina. On Dec. 10. 1832, President Jackson issued a stern proclamation, outlining his plans to oppose the South Carolina Nullification Convention and its supporters, with armed force, if necessary. Jackson declared that the Convention stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the rebels to work with regional loyalists to end the problem.

Note 2: The November 29, 1832 Washington Globe's article, "The Union," emphasized the more dramatic possible outcomes of the "Nullification Crisis," were it not settled immediately, by the political defeat of the nullifiers. This Jacksonian paper was know for its hyperbolic prose, in Jackson's behalf and its editors obviously overstated the prospects for a national "civil war and disunion." Other Democratic papers in the region, like the Richmond Enquirer, were less shrill in their rhetoric, but equally concerned over the rebellious example demonstrated by South Carolina. The Richmond Enquirer published a series of articles on "the crisis" in December and January which provide insight into Southern politics during this critical period. At the end of February of 1833, the U. S. Congress had drafted the "Tariff Act of 1833," which gradually reduced federal tariffs and removed the base cause of the Nullification Crisis.

Note 3: Although the United States did not exactly reach the brink of civil war during December of 1832, the newspaper reports which circulated through the country generally emphasized the dramatic events of the day, and the Globe's fears of "civil war and disunion" were echoed throughout the popular press -- even as far afield as Geauga Co., Ohio, were the "Mormonites" were then concentrated. See the Painesville Telegraph, the Huron Reflector, the Ohio Repository, and the Ohio Star for the variety of news reports available to the Kirtland Mormons. The Telegraph of Dec. 21st is especially noteworthy, in that it reports a "civil war" brewing in South Carolina. It is more than likely that these nagative newspaper reports influenced both the subject matter and the wording of Joseph Smith's Dec. 25, 1832 "civil war revelation," as recorded in the Kirtland Revelation Book and first published in 1851. See RLDS Historian Richard P. Howard's review of Smith's text, in the article "Christmas Day, 1832: Joseph Smith Responds to the Nullification Crisis," in the Saints' Herald of May 1, 1969 -- see also Smith's letter of Jan. 4, 1833 to Rev. N. O. Saxton of Rochester, NY.

Note 4: Smith's text, from the Kirtland Revelation Book, reads as follows: A Prophecy given Decm 25th 1832  Verily thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass begining at the rebellion of South Carolina which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls, and the days will come that war will be poured out upon all Nations begining at this place, for behold, the southern states shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other Nation even the Nation of Great Britian as it is called and they shall also call upon other Nations in order to defend themselves against other Nations and thus war shall be poured out upon all Nations  and it shall come to pass after many days Slaves shall rise up against ther Masters who shall be Martialed and discplined for war  and it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will martial themselves also and shall become excedingly angry and shall vex the Gentiles with a soar vexation  and thus with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn and with famine and plague, and Earthquake and the thunder of heaven and the fierce and vivid lightning also shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath and indignation and chastning hand of an Almighty God until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all Nations that the cry of the saints and of the blood of the saints shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth to be avenged of their enemies wherefor stand ye in holy places and be not moved untill the day of the Lord come, for be hold, it cometh quickly saith the Lord. Amen    Given by Joseph th Seer writt by F G Williams

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MA/midatla0.htm#112932

UD

[Wonka]

I'm surprised that no one has yet commented on D&C 130, written in 1843:

12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Any comments?

[Uncle Dale]

I'm surprised that no one has yet commented on D&C 130, written in 1843:

12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

  13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Any comments?

Well, one person who was certainly observant of this sort of thing was Sidney Rigdon.

In the charges brought against him at his 1844 excommunication trial at Nauvoo, and

in the comments of several top-ranks Mormon leaders of that period, Rigdon was

charged with giving revelations promising a great end-times war.

Throughout his 1844-46 Pittsburgh "Messenger & Advocate" Rigdon moves increasingly

towards the idea that such a war is immediately forthcoming. The final issue of his

newspaper is devoted to a warning of the great apocalyptic war, in which the Black

slaves and western Indians of the United States would united to carry out a terrible

work of death and destruction.

It would be interesting to go back through Rigdon's earlier pronouncements, to see

whether he ever cited Smith's "South Carolina" war prediction.

Certainly Rigdon was the driving force behind the 1838 "Missouri War" -- which he

and others expected would be a vast Mormon victory, perhaps spreading across all

the face of the land.

I suspect that Rigdon was also involved in the Dec. 25, 1832 Smith text, and in the

crafting of the Jan. 4, 1833 Smith letter.

Somebody really ought to go back through the old documents, with a fine tooth

comb -- and locate any and all references to South Carolina, or just "Carolina."

Uncle Dale

ps -- Do you have the original, 1843 text of LDS D&C 130 available for study? Can

we be positive that it is truly a Smith document?

[Uncle Dale]

ps -- Do you have the original, 1843 text of LDS D&C 130 available for study? Can

we be positive that it is truly a Smith document?

It occurred to me that I've probably already answered my own question, on this:

Note: The words: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man, will be in South Carolina (it probably may arise through the Slave question); this voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject: December 25th, 1832" appear to be an 1856 editorial expansion of William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal entry for April 2, 1843: "Once when prest. Joseph was praying ernestly to know concerning the wars which are to preceed the coming of the son of man, he heard a voice proclaim that the first outbreak of general bloodshed would commence at South Carolina -- see Revelation."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc0.htm#070956

So -- not a "revelation" after all --- probably just an embellishment of an entry from

Clayton's journal. Why on earth should we trust an 1856 publication from Great Salt

Lake City, for historical accuracy (let alone divine inspiration!)

UD

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

But I think the problem is that 21st century man wants everything to be done according to the time frames exemplified in movies, rather than according to the quasi-geologic time frames of prophecy.

Quasi-geologic?!

...and here I was thinking movies sometimes used wierd phrases...

One final note, classic prophecy is never purely chronological, in that you read through the prophecy and everything happens in that order. Just read Isaiah. He develops a thought, and then starts over and develops it in a different way, often extending the chronology in the second iteration, and then it is all done again. That is the nature of prophetic language. It doesn't conform to our common expectations of a "prediction".

Indeed.

One hypothesis is that Isaiah rebounded between time frames like a squash ball.

The other hypothesis is that people re-interperet Isaiah bouncing in whatever way matches the 'predicted events' best (with 20/20 hindsight as their aid)

[cinepro]

There have been several previous discussions (including the link at the beginning of this thread), so I instead of reiterating my feelings on the subject, I will repost the historical perspective of the revelation:

Anthony Hutchinson provides a little perspective on the history of section 87 in the Latter-day Saint community:

Many Latter-day Saints might believe that although the Bible's pattern of knowledge of the future is at best ambiguous, we have clear examples of certain prophetic foreknowledge in the Restoration. But careful examination yields the same results, probably in more definitive form, since most source documents have not been lost in the course of textual transmission. In fact, the classic example used in LDS and RLDS apologetics to demonstrate Joseph Smith's prophetic foresight, the 1832 Prophecy on War (D&C 87), thought to have predicted the American Civil War, tends to invalidate the model.

When the revelation was given on 25 December 1832 at or near Kirtland, Ohio, it clearly referred to the immediate political uncertainties provoked by the 1832 American Nullification Crisis. The 1832 Tariff Act, which favored northern industrial interests at the expense of southern agricultural concerns, because of the harm it wrought on foreign, primarily British, trade, had been declared null and void by the South Carolina legislature. President Andrew Jackson had responded by calling on federal troops to suppress rebellion in the state. In the midst of the crisis, Joseph Smith received the Prophecy on War. In the preface to the revelation in the History of the Church (1:301), he explicitly established the Nullification Crisis as the background for the revelation. In the revelation, he describes "wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning with the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place" (vv. 1-2, emphasis added). Thus he seems to state that the Nullification Crisis will result in world war.

This becomes explicit in the next verse, which originally read: "For behold, the Southern States will call upon other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations, and thus war shall be poured out upon all nations" (v. 3, emphasis added). Clearly a causal relationship, demonstrated by the word "thus," is seen between the rebellion of South Carolina, the [p.35] southern states' appeal to Britain, and a war among all nations which would engulf the whole world, destroying the fabric of society (slaves raise up in war against their masters in v. 4; American Indians vex the gentiles in v. 5) and culminating in the apocalyptic "consumption decreed" which makes "a full end of all nations" (v. 6) before the Second Coming. Note that there is no hint in the text that slavery itself would be at issue in the rebellion of South Carolina. For Joseph Smith in 1832, the prophecy predicted the immediate onset of a series of cataclysmic events preceding the parousia.

Shortly after the revelation was recorded, the Nullification Crisis was peacefully resolved and ceased to threaten the "death and misery of many souls" or any such string of events. Although the revelation apparently circulated among the prophet's intimates, it was shelved, never to be published in his lifetime. Outside of the circle of his intimates, he only referred to the general idea of impending general war contained in the revelation, rather than to its failed timetable and scenario of coming events.5 Joseph's further reflection on the revelation, coupled with subsequent events, produced a change in his interpretation of the revelation near the end of his life. Since he believed that the prophecy came to him from heaven and that every word of the Lord would eventually be fulfilled, he was able, even encouraged, to reinterpret the words that he himself had earlier penned.

On 2 April 1843, while giving some private items of instruction to close followers in Illinois, the prophet recounted a dream he had had on the evening of 9 March, in which an old man fleeing from mobs begged Smith for assistance, received a somewhat guarded reply from Smith, and added, running from Smith's sight, that he himself could place any number of men at Smith's disposal should the latter decide that his case was just. The interpretation, given by Orson Pratt apparently with Smith's endorsement, followed: the government of the United States which had turned a deaf ear to the Saints' pleas for protection, attacked by Great Britain, would beg for Smith's aid in securing the western territories. After Pratt's interpretation, Smith stated the following, "I prophesy, in the Name of the Lord God that the commencement of bloodshed as preparatory to the coming of the son of man. will commence in South Carolina,