Revisiting Elder Holland's Sermon

[scooby]

I've rebuked you? No, I've not done that. I think you're being overly sensitive

Can you afford Elder Holland this same explanation?

I considered Elder Holland's talk to be passionate, not angry

...a passionate affirmation, not an angry offense.

[Mortal Man]

Again, for the record:

I liked Elder Holland's talk enormously, I thought it was remarkably powerful, and I find the reactions of certain critics to it absolutely fascinating.

IOW, he refilled your seething cauldron of rage?

[erichard]

...The Apostle appears to be saying that advocates of 19th century explanations for the book are doing the Devil's work -- that their efforts to textually deconstruct the book's contents, and to rationally study those contents, are "failed," "dead" and "pathetic."

...Uncle Dale

I am not now LDS, but with all the interest, I listened to the talk online. My impression was that it was sincere-- brother Holland believes what he said.

Since I believe the Book of Mormon is authentic, and that Joseph Smith was a sincere person himself, I do see this testimony of brother Holland a good testimony that others should consider. I cannot imagine myself Joseph faking it all the way to martyrdom. Others might, but not Joseph.

If Elder Holland was not perfect in using the work "pathetic" I forgive him. I suspect we all have pathetic ideas in God's eyes. The failed theories about the Book of Mormon origins are no less pathetic than other failed theories we all sucker into.

I did worry about this, however:

I hope I have a few years left in my

[Uncle Dale]

Can you afford Elder Holland this same explanation?

I considered Elder Holland's talk to be passionate, not angry

...a passionate affirmation, not an angry offense.

At first look, I thought it hostile to people of my persuasion --

but, after talking with Dr. Peterson, I'm convinced that the central

message was not directed at us non-Mormons, who wish to deconstruct

the Book of Mormon, based upon possible Ethan Smith or Solomon Spalding

textual influences.

The Apostle might have spoken a bit more clearly on that matter, had he

thought in advance how his words might be taken by non-Mormons. Here in

Hawaii where I live, Conference talks are rebroadcast on a local commercial

cable channel, so non-members of course see some of the program.

Just so long as the LDS are not denigrating the efforts of non-Mormons

to study the BoM text, as a 19th century document, I'm not offended by

such apostolic "passion."

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Just so long as the LDS are not denigrating the efforts of non-Mormons

to study the BoM text, as a 19th century document, I'm not offended by

such apostolic "passion."

Out of curiosity, why the need for apostolic approval? What difference does it matter if he considers your work "pathetic," especially since it might be seen as an attempt to break down the book he considers holy scripture?

[Uncle Dale]

Out of curiosity, why the need for apostolic approval? What difference does it matter if he considers your work "pathetic," especially since it might be seen as an attempt to break down the book he considers holy scripture?

Well, for one thing, the Mormons hold in their archives the vast majority

of historical documents, needed for study in any professional quality review

of Mormon texts and history. Had it not been for my 1978-79 encouragement to

submit a grant proposal to the CEP (then headed by Dr. Holland), I would

never have been given permission to inspect such items as the laminated sheets

of the preserved sections of the "dictated manuscript" of the BoM.

As it was, I went to LDS Archivist Jim Kimball, with my (as yet unapproved)

LDS CEP grant proposal in hand, and was subsequently granted great assistance

in my studies. Today you can go into the LDS Library in Salt Lake City and

view some of the early study materials I donated to the Church, after making

extensive use of the archives, under Dr. Arrington's direction.

Let's reverse that story and say (for argument's sake) that I had been

discouraged by the CEP officials, never given forms to fill out for a study

grant, and been accused of promoting a "pathetic" attack upon the BoM ----

how far do you suppose I would have progressed in my Salt Lake City studies?

As it was, the grant was refused -- but I submitted essentially the same

proposal to another educational institution, and was funded in a two-year

study of the Spalding papers at Oberlin College.

It helps to have at least a hint of "apostolic approval" in these matters.

And, since Dr. Holland's office started me on my textual studies, it also

helps me today that I can look backward and cite Dr. Arrington's cooperation,

etc. In fact, such references might possibly elevate my reporting from the

status of "pathetic" to merely "strange" in the eyes of LDS officials/leaders.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...given permission to inspect such items as the laminated sheets

of the preserved sections of the "dictated manuscript" of the BoM.

...

Perhaps I should clarify that recollection, I was indeed granted such access,

but only on one occasion, and only with the archivist present, and only allowed

to handle one manuscript page at a time. I wanted to lay two of them side by side

for some comparisons, and finally the archivist consented to hold them for my

inspection, so that I could take notes, etc.

I'm sure that the LDS officials present at the time assumed that I then bore

a faithful Reorganized testimony to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I did

not say anything, either way. I supposed that the subject of my study project

gave a fair indication of my views on possible BoM origins -- but, if so, my

LDS helpers never mentioned it in any of my dozens (hundreds?) of visits to

the library and archives.

It was not my purpose to prove or disprove the alleged divinity of the book.

My purpose was to compare known Spalding writings to the BoM in a methodical

way, and to issue a series of reports on the findings of those comparisons.

This I did in the course of my graduate studies in Ohio. I prepared thesis

papers, which were not required to be bound into a single masters' thesis.

My thesis committee reviewed my progress in those efforts -- and nobody

(Saint or Gentile) ever accused me of attacking Mormons or their scriptures.

I did not personally adopt the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation until

more than two decades later. I remained an observant, tithe-paying Saint for

the greater part of my adult life.

Uncle Dale

[why me]

Can you afford Elder Holland this same explanation?

I considered Elder Holland's talk to be passionate, not angry

...a passionate affirmation, not an angry offense.

You are correct. It was a passionate speech intended for the mormon crowd who may be persuaded to leave the faith when confronted with other interpretations of book of mormon authorship.

In fact, it may have been addressed to mormons who are persuaded by sites owned by Uncle Dale and others who attempt to give counter explanations for the book of mormon. I also think that Holland is aware about why people leave the lds faith.

[why me]

At first look, I thought it hostile to people of my persuasion --

but, after talking with Dr. Peterson, I'm convinced that the central

message was not directed at us non-Mormons, who wish to deconstruct

the Book of Mormon, based upon possible Ethan Smith or Solomon Spalding

textual influences.

Just so long as the LDS are not denigrating the efforts of non-Mormons

to study the BoM text, as a 19th century document, I'm not offended by

such apostolic "passion."

UD

Well, in a way it was directed at you but only indirectly since you go out of your way trying to convince mormons that Rigdon wrote the book of mormon. And some may just buy into it and leave the fold. And so, Holland is trying to convince the lds that the book of mormon is not so easy to explain away and we have both Joseph and Hyrum dying for it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

In fact, it may have been addressed to mormons who are persuaded by sites owned by Uncle Dale and others who attempt to give counter explanations for the book of mormon.

...

As I've said several times before, the day that the Mormon leadership apologizes

and rescinds the Message of the First Presidency of July 4, 1838, (and published

immediately afterward by Joseph Smith on the Church's press at Far West), will be

the day that my web-sites come down, permanently.

How long would it take to have the Presidency's secretary type up that short memo --

five minutes?

Obviously the impact of my web publishing is not worth five minutes' of the LDS

leadership's time; (let alone a sentence in a 2009 Conference talk).

UD

[Mark Beesley]

People who bellyache about the language Elder Holland used remind me of Laman and Lemuel who sought to kill Nephi because he spoke plainly to them, and the Jews who sought to kill Lehi because he spoke plainly to them, and Herod who had John beheaded because he spoke plainly to him, and I could go on.

I welcome plainness.

[Uncle Dale]

...Message of the First Presidency of July 4, 1838

...

It is precisely this precept of Mormonism which makes it most dangerous --

that its leaders hold in reserve the right to determine if any group opposed

to it constitutes a dire threat, requiring response and action outside of the law.

No other church, since the Protestants at Calvin's Geneva, or the Catholics ruling

over the Papal States, has proclaimed such a right, above and beyond the law

of the land. It is this "escape clause" of Mormonism which allows LDS legal experts,

even in 2009, to argue that Joseph Smith had the right to call out the Nauvoo

Legion in 1844, into a potential military engagement against the militia of

Illinois. It is this same "escape clause" which allows LDS legal experts, even

in 2009, to argue that Brigham Young had the right to call out the reconstituted

Nauvoo Legion in 1857, into a potential military engagement against the the Army

of the United States of America.

Mormons who argue thusly, cite provisions of the Nauvoo City Charter, to justify

Smith's 1844 treason (as he was charged), and provisions of powers granted unto the

Territorial Governor of Utah, by the Constitution and laws of Congress, to justify

the Mormons' 1857 treason (admitted to, and pardoned by official Presidential act).

But justification of the LDS leadership's right to determine what was "a mob"

and what was not "a mob" in 1838, rests not upon any Constitutional authority,

nor any authority granted by the State of Missouri. The Mormon leadership's

invoking of that extra-legal power rests upon what they determine to be a mandate

of self-preservation, granted by God, to the "One True Church" and to the Political

Kingdom of God.

So long as the rights invoked in the July 4, 1838 Message of the First Presidency

are yet "on the books," Mormonism remains a political and military threat within

the domain of any government wherein Mormons are gathered.

This is not my wild hare of a grievance -- this view has long existed in the Reorganization.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

People who bellyache about the language Elder Holland used remind me of Laman and Lemuel who sought to kill Nephi because he spoke plainly to them, and the Jews who sought to kill Lehi because he spoke plainly to them, and Herod who had John beheaded because he spoke plainly to him, and I could go on.

I welcome plainness.

Equating verbal dissent with attempted murder seems a bit overboard to me.

I did not start this thread to provide a forum where people could be accused

of being as bad as murderers and as bad as attempted murderers.

Please scale back your accusations, in order to fit within the scope of

our discussions here.

Dale Broadhurst

[Mortal Man]

It is precisely this precept of Mormonism which makes it most dangerous --

that its leaders hold in reserve the right to determine if any group opposed

to it constitutes a dire threat, requiring response and action outside of the law.

No other church, since the Protestants at Calvin's Geneva, or the Catholics ruling

over the Papal States, has proclaimed such a right, above and beyond the law

of the land. It is this "escape clause" of Mormonism which allows LDS legal experts,

even in 2009, to argue that Joseph Smith had the right to call out the Nauvoo

Legion in 1844, into a potential military engagement against the militia of

Illinois. It is this same "escape clause" which allows LDS legal experts, even

in 2009, to argue that Brigham Young had the right to call out the reconstituted

Nauvoo Legion in 1857, into a potential military engagement against the the Army

of the United States of America.

Mormons who argue thusly, cite provisions of the Nauvoo City Charter, to justify

Smith's 1844 treason (as he was charged), and provisions of powers granted unto the

Territorial Governor of Utah, by the Constitution and laws of Congress, to justify

the Mormons' 1857 treason (admitted to, and pardoned by official Presidential act).

But justification of the LDS leadership's right to determine what was "a mob"

and what was not "a mob" in 1838, rests not upon any Constitutional authority,

nor any authority granted by the State of Missouri. The Mormon leadership's

invoking of that extra-legal power rests upon what they determine to be a mandate

of self-preservation, granted by God, to the "One True Church" and to the Political

Kingdom of God.

So long as the rights invoked in the July 4, 1838 Message of the First Presidency

are yet "on the books," Mormonism remains a political and military threat within

the domain of any government wherein Mormons are gathered.

This is not my wild hare of a grievance -- this view has long existed in the Reorganization.

UD

Ever read Thomas Jefferson?

[Uncle Dale]

Ever read Thomas Jefferson?

His commentary on the Message of the LDS First Presidency, as given

at far West, Missouri, on July 4, 1838?

No, I admit that I have not.

My best guess is that a Jeffersonian would hold open the individual and

group right of self-defense, within established law ---- or, perhaps in

extraordinary cases, even outside of established law.

I imagine that a Jeffersonian would take a more sympathetic view of

civil disobedience to an unjust law, than would a Hamiltonian. But that's

just my guess.

I do not see any of the founding fathers saying or doing anything which

would add justification to A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION acting outside of the

law, in order to carry out police/military activities. -- And most certainly

not acting outside of the law, to establish a church policy of discerning

who are enemies and who must be dealt with by "utter destruction." And,

beyond all of that, establishing a "Department of War" within said church,

for the express purpose of conducting future military action against citizens.

The LDS First Presidency has claimed this right, since 1838, even when

such church military action extends to mass slaughter of fellow citizens:

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and

them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop

of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us:

for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own

families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/rigd1838.htm#pg12

Would Thomas Jefferson really condone the LDS Church spilling "the last drop"

of my blood, if I "disturbed" the leaders of that paramilitary organization?

My question is not a rhetorical one. Members of my Broadhurst ancestral family

were residents of Gallatin, in Daviess County, Missouri, in 1838 when Lyman Wight's

Danites raised, sacked and burned that Gentile county seat to the ground.

Uncle Dale

.

[Zakuska]

Lets add some more Context: (The Paragraphs before that)

And as Moses left Egypt not fearing the wrath of the king, and refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, having respect to the recompense of reward. So do we, we choose to suffer affliction with the people of God, rather than enjoy the flatteries of the world for a season.

It is not because we cannot, if we were so disposed, enjoy both the honors and flatteries of the world, but we have voluntarily offered them in sacrifice, and the riches of the world also, for a more durable substance. Our God has promised us a reward of eternal inheritance, and we have believed his promise, and though we wade through great tribulation, we are in nothing discouraged, for we know he that has promised is faithful. The promise is sure, and the reward is certain. It is because of this, that we have taken the spoiling of our goods. Our cheeks have been given to the smiters, and our heads to those who have plucked off the hair. We have not only when smitten on one cheek turned the other, but we have done it, again and again, until we are wearied of being smitten, and tired of being trampled upon. We have proved the world with kindness; we have suffered their abuse without cause, with patience, and have endured without resentment, until this day, and still their persecutions and violence does not cease. But from this day and this hour, we will suffer it no more.

[Uncle Dale]

Lets add some more Context: (The Paragraphs before that)

Had Joseph, Hyrum and Sidney said that as individuals -- or as a group

of three men, who had been ravaged by the people of Daviess or Caldwell

counties, I might take a little more interest in your "context."

They did NOT speak as private citizens, but rather laid down a policy

(still in effect today) for an entire church militant -- a church with

a war department -- a church known to conduct paramilitary expeditions

across state lines -- a church which admitted to armed treason in 1858 and

whose leaders signed and accepted a presidential pardon for that treason.

To say that the LDS Church has the right today, to mount armed retaliation

against those whom it deems its enemies is verging on treason. Either the

USA is a nation of laws, or it is not. What do Mormons says about that?

Where do the Articles of Faith end, and the July 4, 1838 Message begin?

Now if the LDS Church can talk the nation of Western Samoa into changing

its laws, to permit churches to have armed forces, and to take vengeful

military actions against perceived enemies -- then that deplorable act

would at least not affect obedience to to the laws of my country.

That the LDS leaders today still tacitly uphold their right to enter

into wars of extermination with US citizens (no matter the perceived

justification) is anti-American.

But, I take it that the Mormons would not object to the American Baptists

organizing an army and using those troops to murder (to the last drop of blood)

Utah residents, if those same Baptists felt "disturbed" by those Utah people?

Any such right the LDS Church grants unto its leaders, must it not grant

that same right to all other churches?

Uncle Dale

[Zakuska]

Had Joseph, Hyrum and Sidney said that as individuals -- or as a group

of three men, who had been ravaged by the people of Daviess or Caldwell

counties, I might take a little more interest in your "context."

They did NOT speak as private citizens, but rather laid down a policy

(still in effect today) for an entire church militant -- a church with

a war department -- a church known to conduct paramilitary expeditions

across state lines -- a church which admitted to armed treason in 1858 and

whose leaders signed and accepted a presidential pardon for that treason.

Still in effect today? How can it be "still in effect today" when pardon was granted?

To say that the LDS Church has the right today, to mount armed retaliation

against those whom it deems its enemies is verging on treason. Either the

USA is a nation of laws, or it is not. What do Mormons says about that?

Where do the Articles of Faith end, and the July 4, 1838 Message begin?

Now if the LDS Church can talk the nation of Western Samoa into changing

its laws, to permit churches to have armed forces, and to take vengeful

military actions against perceived enemies -- then that deplorable act

would at least not affect obedience to to the laws of my country.

What ever happend to the constitution and the right to bare arms?

That the LDS leaders today still tacitly uphold their right to enter

into wars of extermination with US citizens (no matter the perceived

justification) is anti-American.

I assume this is a fleeting reference to MMM?

But, I take it that the Mormons would not object to the American Baptists

organizing an army and using those troops to murder (to the last drop of blood)

Utah residents, if those same Baptists felt "disturbed" by those Utah people?

Any such right the LDS Church grants unto its leaders, must it not grant

that same right to all other churches?

Uncle Dale

If Im not mistaken... Baptists lead the mob that tried an extermination order against our ancetors Dale. That order was still in effect until Missouri Recended it not too long ago.

[Jeff K.]

His commentary on the Message of the LDS First Presidency, as given

at far West, Missouri, on July 4, 1838?

No, I admit that I have not.

My best guess is that a Jeffersonian would hold open the individual and

group right of self-defense, within established law ---- or, perhaps in

extraordinary cases, even outside of established law.

I imagine that a Jeffersonian would take a more sympathetic view of

civil disobedience to an unjust law, than would a Hamiltonian. But that's

just my guess.

I do not see any of the founding fathers saying or doing anything which

would add justification to A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION acting outside of the

law, in order to carry out police/military activities. -- And most certainly

not acting outside of the law, to establish a church policy of discerning

who are enemies and who must be dealt with by "utter destruction." And,

beyond all of that, establishing a "Department of War" within said church,

for the express purpose of conducting future military action against citizens.

The LDS First Presidency has claimed this right, since 1838, even when

such church military action extends to mass slaughter of fellow citizens:

Would Thomas Jefferson really condone the LDS Church spilling "the last drop"

of my blood, if I "disturbed" the leaders of that paramilitary organization?

My question is not a rhetorical one. Members of my Broadhurst ancestral family

were residents of Gallatin, in Daviess County, Missouri, in 1838 when Lyman Wight's

Danites raised, sacked and burned that Gentile county seat to the ground.

Uncle Dale

.

I suggest you study your US history more closely. Jefferson cared little for religion, but he felt the rights of man, in any context need at times to be protected with the blood of those willing to protect those rights. While Jefferson as a deist, chose not to make himself a part of any religious ideal, he did not care whether those involved were reacting along religious lines to protect liberty or secular lines to protect liberty. To Jefferson the key issue was the protection of liberty and the right secured by a people.

I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence written in a committee chaired by Jefferson, in which just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

Mormons were attacked and hounded, and the slightest provocation of defense is of course shouted as provocation of the primary source, which is a contextually false position. And Joseph Smith himself removed Avard from power and sought to limit Avard's influence, and Joseph's own life was threatened by him.

So spare us the somewhat false manifestation of some imagined hurt towards an ancestor. And please don't use vague references to historical figures as a method of bolstering your position. It is all too easily exposed when you do so.

[Uncle Dale]

Still in effect today? How can it be "still in effect today" when pardon was granted?

The pardon was for treason admitted to, and led by, the Mormon hierarchy

in the 1857-58 insurrection -- nothing earlier and nothing later. I've

heard modern LDS explain it away as some local Utah commanders getting a

little to "rambunctious" in burning army wagon trains, and that the

"treason" was thus a very minor thing, never condoned by the leadership,

who remained patriotic Americans. That the leaders signed the 1858

pardon agreement just so that all the impending hostilities would end.

Whatever explanation is given, the 1858 pardon had nothing to do with

the 1838 Message of the First Presidency. That was essentially a state

matter -- while the Mormon War 20 years later was a federal matter.

What ever happend to the constitution and the right to bare arms?

That is an interesting point. The First Presidency has never rescinded

its message of 1838, and so its principles (if not its exact circumstances)

are "still in effect today." In 1838 the leadership did not argue for

its right to conduct war as being a constitutional matter. If anything,

they appear to have been attributing their authority to God's dispensation.

How could carrying on a war of vengeance -- in which either the LDS Church

or its opponents must be exterminated -- be authorized under the Constitution?

the Confederate States of America, in 1862, did not even pretend to be

operating under the parameters of the US Constitution, in assembling its

own army and putting troops in the field. The Rebels openly admitted that

they were no longer bound by US law.

In 1838 Joseph, Hyrum and Sidney came very close to saying that they were

not bound by the laws of the land either. This appears to be a case that

contradicts the Articles of Faith. The Church had no right as a government

in and of itself, to "bear arms" under the Constitution. Only individual

citizens enjoyed that right. And, where individual citizens refused to

obey the law, and then use firearms to carry out their disobedience, the

rights given in the Constitution come to and end. This is part of the reason

the Confederate States of America was not acting within the protection of

the Constitution.

I assume this is a fleeting reference to MMM?

MMM was a local aberration -- except for its cover-up by its participants

and their knowing leaders, it does not reflect upon the LDS Church. The

Church has never justified that affair by invoking its right to bear arms

against a church-identified "mob." Individual members of the Iron Co. Militia

may have thought in those terms -- but, if so, the hierarchy in Salt Lake City

never used the 1838 announcement to try and justify MMM.

The only possible connection was that the LDS "War Department" was then in

active existence, and the Iron Co. Mormons were theoretically under the

command of D. H. Wells, the the head of the War Department. Still, there is

no proof available to show that Wells authorized of approved of MMM.

If Im not mistaken... Baptists lead the mob that tried an extermination order against

our ancetors Dale. That order was still in effect until Missouri Recended it not too long ago.

There is no Baptist Church, in the sense that there is an LDS Church. In the 1860s the

denomination split into what became the American Baptist Conference and the Southern

Baptist Conference. Of those two major groups, the latter is probably most closely

tied historically to any individual Baptists who opposed Mormons in Missouri. No Baptist

leader at the State or national level ever issued any proclamation even remotely

comparable to the 1838 Mormon declaration.

Getting back to the Civil War, you probably can find instances where fairly prominent

Baptist leaders advocated armed struggle against the US Government. That would be the

closest parallel I think you could find to the LDS leadership's position in 1838.

What the LDS position was, can be simply stated -- that the Mormons did not trust the

Gentile government at the local, state or national level. They felt that a great war

was about to break out, and that all governments would eventually fall before the

power of The Political Kingdom of God.

Besides that, Joseph, Hyrum and Sidney had been abandoned by many of their own followers

at Kirtland. They fled to Missouri to escape numerous law suits and possible arrest

warrants, instigated by former members as well as hostile Gentiles. The 1838 1st Presidency

Message was as much a response to what had happened recently in Kirtland, as it was

to what had happened in Missouri in 1833-36. In 1837-38 the Mormons were fairly peacefully

settled in Caldwell County. The persecution the leadership so feared was more an artifact

of 1832-36, and of recent events in Kirtland, than it was about Missouri in July of 1838.

Things soon got out of hand, the the "war of extermination" threatened by Pres. Rigdon

became a bitter reality. Probably that is why the leadership never rescinded the message.

It can do so today -- and, as a bonus, Dale's web-sites disappear forever, the day it happens.

Seems to me to be a win-win situation.

Why on earth would Mormons in the USA need an army? General Lee saw what happens with such things.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

I suggest you study your US history more closely. Jefferson cared little for religion, but he felt the rights of man, in any context need at times to be protected with the blood of those willing to protect those rights. While Jefferson as a deist, chose not to make himself a part of any religious ideal, he did not care whether those involved were reacting along religious lines to protect liberty or secular lines to protect liberty. To Jefferson the key issue was the protection of liberty and the right secured by a people.

I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence written in a committee chaired by Jefferson, in which just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

Mormons were attacked and hounded, and the slightest provocation of defense is of course shouted as provocation of the primary source, which is a contextually false position. And Joseph Smith himself removed Avard from power and sought to limit Avard's influence, and Joseph's own life was threatened by him.

So spare us the somewhat false manifestation of some imagined hurt towards an ancestor. And please don't use vague references to historical figures as a method of bolstering your position. It is all too easily exposed when you do so.

Should any other church in the USA have the same right as declared in the 1838 message?

UD

[Zakuska]

Should any other church in the USA have the same right as declared in the 1838 message?

UD

Was the 1838 announcement as a Church or as a people. A group of Citizens who's religion just happend to be what bound them in common and was the reason for their persecution and being trampled upon by the Governement and others?

[Uncle Dale]

Was the 1838 announcement as a Church or as a people. A group of Citizens who's religion just happend

to be what bound them in common and was the reason for their persecution and being trampled upon by the

Governement and others?

Good point. In 1843-44, in Nauvoo, much of the Saints' previous difficulties

in Missouri was blamed upon Rigdon. He was the one who actually presented the

oration. He may have been the one who actually had it published.

Bushman speaks of a strange detachment of Joseph Smith, from the management

of the Church, during exactly this period. He may have sat on the podium that

July 4th afternoon, largely disagreeing with Rigdon's call for blood. If so,

the current LDS First Presidency could today easily distance itself from the

1838 announcement, by stating that it did not rise to the same level of

authority, over the entire Church, as do modern First Presidency messages.

As I stated in another posting -- it was not the situation in Caldwell Co.,

in July of 1838 which amounted to "persecution and being trampled upon."

It was their previous experiences that led Rigdon into his fears. He may

have actually caused more hostility with his speech than would have been

the case, had Joseph spoken instead. Smith's council might have been wiser.

UD

[Zakuska]

You keep saying... "the LDS War Department." That "Rigdon Called For Blood"

I think you've over looked something in the declaration...

"We will never be the aggressors, we will infringe on the rights of no people; but shall stand for our own until death. We claim our own rights, and are willing that all others shall enjoy theirs."

Im not seeing a Call for blood... a call for vigilaty justice... a call for vengence.... Im seeing a Call for respect.

Sounds to me Rigdon was calling for a defense program. Not a cope to over through the governement, or unwanted neighbors as you intimated earlier.

Yes they did march across state lines... "You called it a military operation across state line". Many of the People in that march where originally from Missouri so it really couldn't be called as you have characterized it.

[Uncle Dale]

You keep saying... "the LDS War Department." That "Rigdon Called For Blood"

I think you've over looked something in the declaration...

Im not seeing a Call for blood... a call for vigilaty justice... a call for vengence....

Im seeing a Call for respect.

Then again, we have denials of polygamy when polygamy was a reality. We have

denials of the Council of Fifty, when it was in full (but secret) operation.

The 1857-58 Mormon War shows how the Mormons could at one moment say they

respected and upheld the Constitution, and in the next moment say that they

opposed certain congressional laws and government officials.

Essentially, the LDS Church was reserving the right to say whether the current

government (local, state or national) was living up to the standard that the

LDS expected in a government. If the LDS leaders decided that the current

officials were corrupt, and were putting corrupt laws and policies into place,

then the Church reserved the right to oppose those officials. In 1857-58,

this opposition extended to the entire current Buchanan administration.

A leader may promise to adhere to certain principles, but still reserve the

right to oppose persons whom he views as corrupt and/or illegitimate. We saw

what happened in 1857-58, when Brigham tried out this strategy. It did not

work well to salute the US flag in Great Salt Lake City, while firing upon

the same flag flown from army wagons on their way to Utah.

Possibly the LDS "War Department" was made inactive after the 1858 peace

agreement. It had been established in 1835, with David Whitmer as its

first LDS Secretary of War. I do not recall who was Secretary of War within

the Council of Fifty (which was a shadow government, with various offices).

Rigdon was only calling for "the last drop of blood," if the LDS leaders

felt imposed upon by the surrounding Gentiles. But he did not specify just

what his "line in the sand" might be. What did he mean by a mob "disturbing"

the Mormons? From other contemporary accounts, I gather that such "a mob"

might consist of as few as two county deputy peace officers, and the "disturbing"

might consist of as little as an attempt to serve a court summons or an arrest

warrant, upon some resident of Far West or Adam-ondi-Ahmen.

The way I read the 1838 message, the LDS leaders were holding themselves

above the local and state law -- in saying that they would make their decisions

on how to act, outside of the constraints of the local courts and criminal

justice system. I am not the only person who views the 1838 message in these terms.

David Whitmer, as President of the Far West Stake of Zion, had fostered fairly

decent relations with the surrounding Missourians. I do not think there were

even that many lawsuits being directed against the Saints in the summer of 1838.

The situation alluded to in Rigdon's speech sounds much more like the blizzard

of lawsuits (some frivolous) he and Smith had experienced in Kirtland in 1837.

UD