katherine the great Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 As for the horse story, I can only add this bit of perspective as a horse owner and father. Hey, that reminds me...Here's a bit of trivia:What was the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith's favorite horse?
Lamanite Posted October 17, 2007 Author Posted October 17, 2007 It wasn't nearly that simple. Emma's well being was not Brigham Young's first priority. He was trying to keep the entire church together. Emma's focus was on her family. I'm not sure Emma would have wanted Brigham Young to make her happy and comfortable.I've never known anyone who would refuse kind Christ like service in a time of need. The only reason to refuse would be that the offer was coming from a pig headed opinionated jerk, who happened to be President of the Twelve. :-)
selek Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 I've never known anyone who would refuse kind Christ like service in a time of need. The only reason to refuse would be that the offer was coming from a pig headed opinionated jerk, who happened to be President of the Twelve. :-)As opposed to a pig-headed opinionated jerk who happens to post on an anonymous message board and presumes to judge people on half-remembered information a century or more after they died?C'mon Lamanite- keep the slanders and name calling out of it. Both Emma and Brigham were extremely strong-willed and opinionated. They also had competing interests and strong opinions that led to differing conclusions and actions. That breeds contention, and contention breeds hurt feelings.This isn't that hard.Had Emma accepted Young's leadership and help (or worse, become a polygamous wife) then she would have been weakening her argument for the succession of her sons to the Presidency. She also would havebeen leaving her home (for the umpteenth time), family, and the resting place of her beloved husband for yet another uncertain future out on the frontier. She'd promised to look after Mother Smith, who was in no way capable of making the trip, and she was pregnant a/o nursing at the time. All of her children were essentially still in diapers. It was simply too much to ask.
Hammer Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Hate is a strong word. I don't believe she liked him or him her. Why? Because they were both very much a like. The like to have power and weild it with selfish pleasure.
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Horse: Old Charley. Dog: Major. (potentially the dog he was given durin Zions Camp which led to some arguments between he and Sylvester Smith.)
William Schryver Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Hey, that reminds me...Here's a bit of trivia:What was the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith's favorite horse?Charlie.I see LOP beat me to it.But I didn't have to look it up.
Lamanite Posted October 17, 2007 Author Posted October 17, 2007 As opposed to a pig-headed opinionated jerk who happens to post on an anonymous message board and presumes to judge people on half-remembered information a century or more after they died?C'mon Lamanite- keep the slanders and name calling out of it. Both Emma and Brigham were extremely strong-willed and opinionated. They also had competing interests and strong opinions that led to differing conclusions and actions. That breeds contention, and contention breeds hurt feelings.This isn't that hard.Had Emma accepted Young's leadership and help (or worse, become a polygamous wife) then she would have been weakening her argument for the succession of her sons to the Presidency. She also would havebeen leaving her home (for the umpteenth time), family, and the resting place of her beloved husband for yet another uncertain future out on the frontier. She'd promised to look after Mother Smith, who was in no way capable of making the trip, and she was pregnant a/o nursing at the time. All of her children were essentially still in diapers. It was simply too much to ask.Well when you put it that way....my judgments are unfounded and emotionally based. PS. I may use the " half-remembered information a century or more after they died" arguement against you someday. In fact, it would seem to pretty much discount everything.PSS. My ego wants you to know that anytime anyone wants me to unmask and list my home address and phone number with my real name, all one needs to do is ask. I can also make a lengthy list of all my shortcomings both past and present to be used as fodder and firewood to fuel the flames of anti-lamanite.PSSS forget what my ego said before. My id wants to stay alive.PSSSS Forget what my id and my ego want, just know you are right in you original post. I mean that sincerely.
selek Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Well when you put it that way....my judgments are unfounded and emotionally based. I didn't have a problem with your arguments until the name-calling started. I probably should have included a finger-wagging smilie ( ) to lesson the blow. I was attempting to point out your misbehavior not attack you personally. Sorry.PS. I may use the " half-remembered information a century or more after they died" arguement against you someday. In fact, it would seem to pretty much discount everything. Unless I provide citation, such a point would be legitimate. This was an acknowledgement of your complaint about the lack of citations rather than a blatant criticism. PSS. My ego wants you to know that anytime anyone wants me to unmask and list my home address and phone number with my real name, all one needs to do is ask. I can also make a lengthy list of all my shortcomings both past and present to be used as fodder and firewood to fuel the flames of anti-lamanite.PSSS forget what my ego said before. My id wants to stay alive.Good call- things like that leave you vulnerable to spam, personal attacks (beyond the gentle, fuzzy kind that go on here) and identity theft. Not something I'd wish upon you.PSSSS Forget what my id and my ego want, just know you are right in you original post. I mean that sincerely.Well, when you put it that way...... Again, my main point was that the name-calling and conclusion jumping were a bit much. It was not my intention to lambaste you beyond the gentle correction of a firmly applied two-by-four.
katherine the great Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Horse: Old Charley. I guess he had two favorite horses. His journal entry on June 24, 1843 reads:"As my favorite horse, Joe Duncan, was somewhat jaded with being ridden so hastily by Brother Clayton, I hired a man with his horse and buggy to carry Brother Clayton to Rock Island."He refers to Charley as his favorite horse in July.Some people are so fickle!
grego Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Emma is naturally a very smart woman; she is subtle and ingenious, and she has made all her children believe that myself, brother Kimball, and the other members of the Twelve laid the plot which terminated in the death of the Prophet. This charge is especially laid to myself. At the time that Joseph was killed I was in the city of Boston, a number of hundred miles away from the scene of the martyrdom. She has made her children inherit lies. To my certain knowledge Emma Smith is one of the damdest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness.Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth [about plural marriage], and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked then she. He told her where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he, "You got that poison so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me." When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. He spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. - Brigham Young, 8 October 1866, General Conference address, Historian's Office Reports of Speeches, LDS Church ArchivesWhat's this? A reference?? Finally!! And what a reference, at that!
auteur55 Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 So Joseph Smith believed his wife was an attempted murderer. Yet he loved her.If this is true i'm sure anyone can understand why Joseph was less than forthcoming about Plural Marriage.Emma Smith has survived this troublesome time and still holds an honored place with the saints. Leaving the church, fighting plural marriage, disagreements with Brigham all make sense to me but they pale in comparision to attempted murder.Anyone think this whole thing is an incomprehensible mess?Some of Joseph's childen had mental disorders. Could this have come from Emma's side? Could she have been bi-polar?It doesn't look good for a man claiming to have visions of God to have so much mental disarray in his own family.
katherine the great Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 So Joseph Smith believed his wife was an attempted murderer. According to Brigham Young (a completely unbiased source) --twenty years after the alleged event.<<Anyone think this whole thing is an incomprehensible mess?>>I don't.<<Some of Joseph's childen had mental disorders. Could this have come from Emma's side? Could she have been bi-polar?>>Absolutely not. Nothing in Emma's stable behavior indicates that she was mentally ill in any way. By all accounts she was a very "constant" person. This is not consistent with Bi-polar disorder.Also, I'm pretty sure that the only child of Joseph and Emma that was mentally ill was David.What's this? A reference?? Finally!! And what a reference, at that!Doing a character assassination of a dead prophet's wife during General Conference. What class!
Severian Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Could this rumor have been borne from anti-Emma sentiment? Who truly understands why rumors or political dynamiting get started? I suppose whenever they do, it is important to look back and ask ourselves why such highly improbable events would be credited in the first place.
auteur55 Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 I don'tNot a big Brigham fan huh? Do you still believe he had his place in the restoration of the Church or do find everything about him reprehensible?When I say incomprehensible I mean that church history is messy. The more you dig the messier it gets. Just look at the differences on these boards. Many leave the church over the messiness.I remember in Nauvoo the beautiful statue of Joseph holding Emma, both gazing in each others eyes. Yet the record has Joseph accusing her of trying to "literally" kill him.This doesn't present any "disconnect" for you?
Anijen Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 According to Brigham Young (a completely unbiased source) --twenty years after the alleged event.<<Anyone think this whole thing is an incomprehensible mess?>>I don't.<<Some of Joseph's childen had mental disorders. Could this have come from Emma's side? Could she have been bi-polar?>>Absolutely not. Nothing in Emma's stable behavior indicates that she was mentally ill in any way. By all accounts she was a very "constant" person. This is not consistent with Bi-polar disorder.Also, I'm pretty sure that the only child of Joseph and Emma that was mentally ill was David.Doing a character assassination of a dead prophet's wife during General Conference. What class!KTGI take it you hold brother Brigham high up there on a pedestal? I Love Joseph Smith and believe him to be a prophet and the Savior used him to restore the church. BY on the other hand was a Prophet and President of the church but man some of the things he said just wants me to choke ( ) him, know what I mean?Anijen
katherine the great Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Not a big Brigham fan huh?I'm a huge fan of Brigham Young the leader. Not such a fan of his insensitive nature and lack of good manners.No, there's no "disconnect." I don't believe Emma tried to kill Joseph, although I think she was probably extremely angry at him over his plural marriages. If she did try to "poison" him (which I don't believe, but I don't find it completely impossible), I would suspect that she was trying to make him sick, not kill him. First degree murder just isn't consistent with her character.
Notquitewetyet Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Doing a character assassination of a dead prophet's wife during General Conference. What class!General Conferences must have been a lot more entertaining back then.
grego Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 I remember in Nauvoo the beautiful statue of Joseph holding Emma, both gazing in each others eyes. Yet the record has Joseph accusing her of trying to "literally" kill him.This doesn't present any "disconnect" for you?For those who have been through things like this, no, there really isn't much disconnect. For those that haven't, thank God you haven't. -=-=-=It doesn't look good for a man claiming to have visions of God to have so much mental disarray in his own family.No, it wouldn't look good; but I don't understand why it would truly matter much. -=-=-=Sorry, KtG, I'm missing my Emma testimony at the time. But I will likely take a documented source from a prophet with witnesses about what a prophet and husband said, than what you're trying to sell...
katherine the great Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 -=-=-=Sorry, KtG, I'm missing my Emma testimony at the time. But I will likely take a documented source from a prophet with witnesses about what a prophet and husband said, than what you're trying to sell...I'm not trying to sell anything. I have a "No Solicitation" sign on my door AND my phone. I'm just stating my opinion.
Notquitewetyet Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 I'm not trying to sell anything. I have a "No Solicitation" sign on my door AND my phone. I'm just stating my opinion.Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if one day two nice young men came up to your door, knocked on it, and said, "Hi, we're from the ....?"
William Schryver Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 So Joseph Smith believed his wife was an attempted murderer. Yet he loved her.If this is true i'm sure anyone can understand why Joseph was less than forthcoming about Plural Marriage.Emma Smith has survived this troublesome time and still holds an honored place with the saints. Leaving the church, fighting plural marriage, disagreements with Brigham all make sense to me but they pale in comparision to attempted murder.Anyone think this whole thing is an incomprehensible mess?Some of Joseph's childen had mental disorders. Could this have come from Emma's side? Could she have been bi-polar?It doesn't look good for a man claiming to have visions of God to have so much mental disarray in his own family.Yes, apparently Joseph did believe that Emma had tried to poison him in a fit of anger. And they did have some serious fights over the course of their marriage. Emma was a very headstrong woman. And, apparently, despite her flaws, Joseph loved her. In fact, despite his flaws, she also apparently loved him -- although she had much difficulty with the principle of plural marriage.Yes, I can understand why the principle of plural marriage was shrouded in secrecy in its early years. It was a very hard thing for many people to deal with.Only David seemed to have mental issues. He had trouble reconciling all of the history he learned as he got older. Whether that contributed to his mental instability is difficult to say -- but it may have been a factor.As for your last comment, I don't see a logical connection between a man having numerous revelations and the "mental disarray" you insinuate among his family. David was born after Joseph's death. I don't think Joseph had much influence on the man. I do think that the stance Emma took about the church had a deleterious effect on her children in the long run.As for your comment in a later post, concerning the complexities and "messiness" of church history, I can only say this: I don't have a testimony of church history. I have a testimony of the restored gospel.
katherine the great Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if one day two nice young men came up to your door, knocked on it, and said, "Hi, we're from the ....?"Well, I always invite them in and give them a cookie.
Lamanite Posted October 18, 2007 Author Posted October 18, 2007 I didn't have a problem with your arguments until the name-calling started. I probably should have included a finger-wagging smilie ( ) to lesson the blow. I was attempting to point out your misbehavior not attack you personally. Sorry. Unless I provide citation, such a point would be legitimate. This was an acknowledgement of your complaint about the lack of citations rather than a blatant criticism. Good call- things like that leave you vulnerable to spam, personal attacks (beyond the gentle, fuzzy kind that go on here) and identity theft. Not something I'd wish upon you.Well, when you put it that way...... Again, my main point was that the name-calling and conclusion jumping were a bit much. It was not my intention to lambaste you beyond the gentle correction of a firmly applied two-by-four. You know, when I went home tonight I wondered why my response was to blame Brigham and not Emma. And after four hours of pondering, I think the honest answer is that I'm still a Tongan raised with cultural biases about women; and although I view some of them as chivalrous (sp?), they still remain sexist. That was a tough pill to swallow. Dang introspection....always coming up with new flaws and character defects for me to work on. Good thing Gods Grace is sufficientGood night and God bless,Sione
Lamanite Posted October 18, 2007 Author Posted October 18, 2007 General Conferences must have been a lot more entertaining back then.That would have been a good time to start correlating stuff!
Severian Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 General Conferences must have been a lot more entertaining back then. I suppose, in a bearing false witness kind of way.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.