Zakuska Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 No silly, he was simply "speaking as a man." That was all just his opinion. Or in this case the "opinions" of his Detractors.
Chris Smith Posted December 13, 2007 Author Posted December 13, 2007 The question is... which Temple? Kirtland was completed. So was Nauvoo.Not that Wikipedia is the world's most reliable source, but it claims that the Nauvoo temple was only half done when JS died.
LifeOnaPlate Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Not that Wikipedia is the world's most reliable source, but it claims that the Nauvoo temple was only half done when JS died.It wasn't completed until a few weeks before the Saints left Nauvoo.
Zakuska Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Oh yes... you are correct... then it was burned a few weeks later.
gadianton Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 For the same reason he thinks Jesus and Satan are brothers is a good and thorough rendition of LDS theology that we should be required to adopt and pledge allegiance to. It is quick and dirty and sounds bad. You STILL don't believe that LDS doctrine teaches they are brothers? Did you bother to read my post on the Huckabee thread where I give you some "credible" sources that support that very fact?
Zakuska Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Christians teach it to... see Giovani Papini. I started its own thread.
kamenraider Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Some have supposed that Brother Joseph could not die; but this is a mistake; it is true there have been times when I have had the promise of my life to accomplish such and such things, but, having now accomplished those things, I have not at present any lease of my life, I am as liable to die as other men.--Joseph Smith, funeral sermon of Ephraim Marks, Nauvoo, Illinois, April 9, 1842, TPJS pg. 216, also DHC 4:587.
ed2276 Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 You STILL don't believe that LDS doctrine teaches they are brothers? Did you bother to read my post on the Huckabee thread where I give you some "credible" sources that support that very fact? Don't fret gadianton , we also believe that YOU and Satan are brothers , as well.
Chris Smith Posted December 13, 2007 Author Posted December 13, 2007 Very helpful quote, kameraider. Thanks.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Well that's a bummer. Certain aspects of it seem to ring true ("he had received an unconditional promise from the Almighty concerning his days"-- I think his patriarchal blessing promised he'd live till the Second Coming or something, didn't it?), but with no other version of the event to check it against, I guess it's hard to gauge Mr. Scott's reliability.-ChrisChris...everyone lives to see the second coming, when you (we) stop viewing life as so one dimensional.
consiglieri Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 I am no expert on LDS History, so with that caveat, I will say that I believe it is generally recognized that Joseph Smith did give a 5-year prophecy while in Missouri (and likely associated with the Liberty Jail incarceration during the winter of 1838-39).By the time Joseph Smith was killed, his 5-years were up.Is it possible that the cited source has misplaced the timing of his "5-year prophecy" for polemical purposes?All the Best!--Consiglieri
mms Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 Darn if that isn't a good one for confusion. But I believe he probably did say those things because I have been given promises I swore by many times and I was left to myself. Why? Because I told it and it wasn't meant to be spoken, it was just to be kept between me and the Lord. I wanted to make proof for others to see how the Lord fulfilled His promises and the Lord said He only worked one on one in these personal matters.Oh well. Unless people have had these experiences, they will think JS was a fraud. But we all are taught we are not to set up our works to be acknowledge by men. The Lord knows how we are and ultimately at the expense of our pride and reputation will continue to work with us individually. Many have "swor[n]" manythings in Priesthood blessings that have not come to pass and surely such matters were not meant to be kept from the person to whom they were sworn. There is no easy way (or no way at all) to explain the matter (except, of course, to suggest that it never was God speaking through the Holy Ghost, but simply man (or "woman" in the early Church when she was permitted to give blessings to the sick and afflicted)).
Doctor Steuss Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 His dad gave him the blessing in 1834. I'll send you a typescript, but for now here's the excerpt I was thinking of:<snip pic>By the way, a critical edition of the patriarchal blessing book was just recently published.-ChrisThere's something about a prophet receiving revelation about himself from a patriarch that tickles my noggin' a bit.Really interesting stuff that there isâ?¦-StuPS.Last night I was doing a bit of studying, and picked up my copy of Richard Lloyd Andersonâ??s Joseph Smithâ??s New England Heritage for the first time (luckily I wasnâ??t consumed by the dust). If you donâ??t already have a copy, I think you might enjoy it.
Chris Smith Posted December 13, 2007 Author Posted December 13, 2007 There's something about a prophet receiving revelation about himself from a patriarch that tickles my noggin' a bit.Really interesting stuff that there isâ?¦-StuPS.Last night I was doing a bit of studying, and picked up my copy of Richard Lloyd Andersonâ??s Joseph Smithâ??s New England Heritage for the first time (luckily I wasnâ??t consumed by the dust). If you donâ??t already have a copy, I think you might enjoy it.JS also received a blessing from Oliver Cowdery. That's in the Blessing Book, as well.
Doctor Steuss Posted December 13, 2007 Posted December 13, 2007 JS also received a blessing from Oliver Cowdery. That's in the Blessing Book, as well.Who's the editor? And what's the title?Thanks,Stu
Helorum Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 A brand new FAIR wiki paper has been posted on the topic that began this thread --- Joseph Smith's alleged 5-year prophecy (as relayed by Sarah Scott). Enjoy. http://en.fairmormon.org/Can%27t_be_killed..._of_August_1843
Chris Smith Posted December 14, 2007 Author Posted December 14, 2007 Who's the editor? And what's the title?Thanks,Stuhttp://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/11/rev...marquardt-comp/A brand new FAIR wiki paper has been posted on the topic that began this thread --- Joseph Smith's alleged 5-year prophecy (as relayed by Sarah Scott). Enjoy. http://en.fairmormon.org/Can%27t_be_killed..._of_August_1843Good stuff. Thanks!
Hammer Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 A brand new FAIR wiki paper has been posted on the topic that began this thread --- Joseph Smith's alleged 5-year prophecy (as relayed by Sarah Scott). Enjoy. http://en.fairmormon.org/Can%27t_be_killed..._of_August_1843Well that puts another one in the grave of untruths. How long do you think it will be before the lords of darkness ressurrect them to new life?Why aren't they interested in seeing the truth?
Deborah Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Madsen did address the 5 years to live thing, which is why Joseph held so many discussions with close friends, both men and women, prior to his death. He was trying to impart all the things he knew and all that the future leaders of the church had to know before he was taken. He comments how some who later were to apostatize were not included in these discussions. And yes Bushman does have a cd called "Joseph Smith's Relationship with God."
Doctor Steuss Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 A brand new FAIR wiki paper has been posted on the topic that began this thread --- Joseph Smith's alleged 5-year prophecy (as relayed by Sarah Scott). Enjoy. http://en.fairmormon.org/Can%27t_be_killed..._of_August_1843One question... from the article:The third thing that should be noted is that this information is being relayed about 11 months after the Prophet made his statement, so the recollection being reported is relatively late Is 11 months really "relatively late"? Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot with this one?
Lightbearer Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Why aren't they interested in seeing the truth?I don't know but I think Jesus maybe hit on it here:(John 3:19-21) "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."If they found the truth then they would have to live it.
Hammer Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 I don't know but I think Jesus maybe hit on it here:If they found the truth then they would have to live it.Good po int.
Chris Smith Posted December 14, 2007 Author Posted December 14, 2007 One question... from the article:The third thing that should be noted is that this information is being relayed about 11 months after the Prophet made his statement, so the recollection being reported is relatively late Is 11 months really "relatively late"? Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot with this one?I'm gonna hazard a guess that in 1843 JS referred back to his five-year prophecy and noted that he couldn't die because the time period wasn't up yet. Mr. Scott merely misunderstood the prophecy's start date.At least, that seems like a plausible scenario to me. More plausible than the idea suggested in the FAIR article (especially given how recent the Conference in question was) that Mrs. Scott was merely conflating two events in her head.-Chris
Doctor Steuss Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 I'm gonna hazard a guess that in 1843 JS referred back to his five-year prophecy and noted that he couldn't die because the time period wasn't up yet. Mr. Scott merely misunderstood the prophecy's start date.At least, that seems like a plausible scenario to me. More plausible than the idea suggested in the FAIR article (especially given how recent the Conference in question was) that Mrs. Scott was merely conflating two events in her head.-ChrisMakes sense.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.