lds apologist response to joseph f smith's testimony in reed smoot trial

[nickleus]

So when did Abinadi find the time to commit his experiences to writing? Reminds me somewhat of Henry Fielding's Shamela, a send up of epistolary novels. "Thursday Night, Twelve o'Clock.

Mrs. Jervis and I are just in Bed, and the Door unlocked; if my Master should come

[nickleus]

It does no such thing. There that was really easy to assert something.

saying that you dont do something, then you do it later on, is called lying.

[David Bokovoy]

snow? i think you misunderstand. we are talking about president smith in 1904. lorenzo snow was dead at the time of the trial.

It was a typo.

[volgadon]

additionally, like the abinadi comparison earlier, joseph f smith's life wasnt on the line whereas peter's was. he reacted that way for fear of being taken by the people like Jesus was.

Yet that is excusable? Hmm, double standard perhaps?

At any rate, you seem intent on proving me right about the goalposts. Joseph F. Smith's life may not have been on the line, but let us put this into proper perspective. He grew up around people who had been expelled from Missouri. He himself was expelled from Nauvoo. His uncle and father had been arrested and murdered. His lifetime saw the Utah War, severe repression of polygamy by the US government, arrests and what not, many had gone into hiding, so these are plenty of reasons to add to the intimidating feeling of standing in front of people with power under ordinary circumstances. I agree that Joseph F. Smith did not respond as well as he could have (I doubt that either you or I would have fared better) but luckily the Lord forgives us our weaknesses.

[USU78]

maybe you havent read the book of mormon, but alma recorded the words of abinadi.

Yes, by all means, tell us when Alma Sr. wrote this down. Tell us, also, whether he wrote it with his own hand or whether he dictated it. Tell us, as well, whether somebody else actually wrote them down from memory. Tell us, finally, whether Alma Sr's words (and, therefore, Abinadi's words) were preserved verbatim by Mormon when he compiled and edited the record of those events.

[nickleus]

RC is, as always, quite correct here. One must put these events in context as well in order to understand why a Prophet was being crossexamined in this fashion and by whom.

The Utah War of 1857-58 ended with an uneasy settlement that left field pieces placed on the bluff East of Salt Lake City, overlooking all of the important buildings, including the hastily buried Temple site. The uneasiness continued until the Civil War, and continued thereafter until BY's death in 1877, with increasingly vicious press attacks on polygyny, alleged antiAmericanism, and whatnot, until the Reconstruction Republican party passed a series of acts aliening Mormons until the second settlement under which polygyny's illegality was recognized by the Church and the roadblock preventing Utah's statehood was finally removed. Smoot was one of the duly elected Utah Senators, and the Senate Republican Caucus decided to make a show trial of his seating, hoping to keep the blood on the shirt yet wet. The issues were the same issues: polygyny, alleged antiAmericanism, and whatnot. They hoped to prove Mormons, and specifically that Mormon, were antiAmerican revolutionaries and successionists. JFS, of course, lived through all of this, seeing his friends and relatives being schlepped out to the Sugarhouse Pen for "cohabitating" with their plural wives and the assets of the Church and Church leaders being nationalized and Mormons being disenfranchised.

It is a foolish and shortsighted enemy who would look to those days of state-sponsored pogroms against Mormons with affection. It is monstrous of that enemy to parse the show trial that would have unseated a duly elected Senator before he ever sat.

WHY he is being crossexamined is a completely different issue. it has nothing to do with how he answers truthfully about church claims.

[Ceeboo]

it does if what you base your salvation on are prophets who actually DONT receive revelation and who select apostles and prophets, NOT based on revelation.

Hmmmmm?

Perhaps I will reconsider my current views (Thanks )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[nickleus]

Yes, by all means, tell us when Alma Sr. wrote this down. Tell us, also, whether he wrote it with his own hand or whether he dictated it. Tell us, as well, whether somebody else actually wrote them down from memory. Tell us, finally, whether Alma Sr's words (and, therefore, Abinadi's words) were preserved verbatim by Mormon when he compiled and edited the record of those events.

i'm just telling you what is recorded in the book of mormon, not supporting its claims. my point was that saying that prophets exaggerate their writings diminishes their credibility. show me an apostle or prophet who would testify that book of mormon writings are embellished or exaggerated, please. and if the they are, then why stop there, how about joseph smith's claims?

[USU78]

WHY he is being crossexamined is a completely different issue. it has nothing to do with how he answers truthfully about church claims.

You haven't read anything anybody said. Not really. Your answer is contained in an earlier post by another poster. I caught it immediately, but then I'm not engaged in an antiMormon polemic.

The issue is "whaddya mean by revelation?" JFS knew what he thought his interlocutor meant, and that is "revelation to be included in the Doctrine & Covenants." And that's probably what the guy meant. Day-to-Day guidance on ecclesiastical affairs, and anything that is of a more personal nature is surely revelation, but can't have been what the crossexamining hatchetman had in mind.

When in court, your lawyer will tell you to answer the question asked and nothing more, even in show trials in the US Senate. JFS attempted to do just that, later realized he'd left a false impression, and corrected himself the next day, even though the Senate had no jurisdiction even to subpoena him to testify.

[nickleus]

Yet that is excusable? Hmm, double standard perhaps?

At any rate, you seem intent on proving me right about the goalposts. Joseph F. Smith's life may not have been on the line, but let us put this into proper perspective. He grew up around people who had been expelled from Missouri. He himself was expelled from Nauvoo. His uncle and father had been arrested and murdered. His lifetime saw the Utah War, severe repression of polygamy by the US government, arrests and what not, many had gone into hiding, so these are plenty of reasons to add to the intimidating feeling of standing in front of people with power under ordinary circumstances. I agree that Joseph F. Smith did not respond as well as he could have (I doubt that either you or I would have fared better) but luckily the Lord forgives us our weaknesses.

whether or not the church prophet receives revelation would not put his life or well being in danger. it has always been taught that the prophet receives direct revelation from god, yet here smith denies it.

[volgadon]

WHY he is being crossexamined is a completely different issue. it has nothing to do with how he answers truthfully about church claims.

Why he is being questioned has direct bearing on his responses. You've obviously never been in a courtroom.

[nickleus]

The issue is "whaddya mean by revelation?" JFS knew what he thought his interlocutor meant, and that is "revelation to be included in the Doctrine & Covenants."

as if the interrogators had any concept of what D&C-type revelation was. and if smith interpreted it this way, then he still says he doesnt pretend to receive that kind of revelation, when that is exactly the job of the prophet. he has the keys to do that.

[volgadon]

as if the interrogators had any concept of what D&C-type revelation was. and if smith interpreted it this way, then he still says he doesnt pretend to receive that kind of revelation, when that is exactly the job of the prophet. he has the keys to do that.

Just so you know, in Joseph F.'s day, to pretend to something meant to makes demands for it. He was absolutely correct, the prophet can't demand a revelation.

[Vex]

Let's have an English lesson shall we?

In response to a question of: "You have had revelations, have you not?"

The prophet responds with: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."

All of which indicates past to present time frame. At no point does it make reference to the future. For those unfamiliar here are some easy links to help:

had: Both past-tense and Past-Present tense

pretended: Again past-tense and past-present tense, as is the case with most forms of suffixes of -ed form.

received: Similarly past-tense and past-present tense, as is the case with most forms of suffixes of -ed form.

With the further clarification and caveat it would seem inappropriate to dictate future revelations concerning the church made by the prophet lying. Your self contrived straw man is returned to you in tatters.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So....who is ready to leave the church now the Nicleus has shown the church to be so false.

[Vex]

as if the interrogators had any concept of what D&C-type revelation was. and if smith interpreted it this way, then he still says he doesnt pretend to receive that kind of revelation, when that is exactly the job of the prophet. he has the keys to do that.

Have you actually read the manuscript? They reference it in the opening complaints against Smoot. Of course they knew about it.

Point in fact the term 'Doctrine and Covenants' was stated and referenced no less than 62 times in the manuscript.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

saying that you dont do something, then you do it later on, is called lying.

Um no. This is really simple. If I say that I have never filled my car with gas previously and I have never pretened to fill my car with gas. (Assuming that I have actually never filled my car with gas) and I do it later (Meaning some time in the future.) that means I am lying?

Whoa. now I am really ready to leave the church.

[Ceeboo]

So....who is ready to leave the church now the Nicleus has shown the church to be so false.

Ready? no!

Strongly considering it? Yes!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ready? no!

Strongly considering it? Yes!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Good times.

[Tarski]

The whole point about getting people to testify in front of the congress is that is it generally harder for people to lie since the consequences are felt to be higher.

In partial opposition to what David said, I take it that it is actually harder to be deceptive in front of congress--not easier. I agree that the whole thing threw him off, but it threw him off in that the questions were simple and direct and he had to just answer straightforwardly instead of take advantage of the religious assumptions of his usual faithful audience.

He knew he wasn't talking to a credulous group of followers that already thought of him as someone who talks to God.

He may have never before had to face such direct simple skeptical questions.

The answer to all this is simple: He was telling the plain truth.

He didn't have the nerve to spin it and he couldn't depend on his audience just assuming supernatural or fantastic things about him.

[Bob Crockett]

the statement "i dont pretend to receive revelation" actually bars him from *ever* receiving revelation in the future, because he doesnt pretend to receive revelation (including your "D&C type of revelation").

That is just plain wrong and your reference isn't considered controversial by scholars.

I cite from Michael Harold Paulos, ed., The Mormon Church on Trial: Transcripts of the Reed Smoot Hearings (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), page 33, footnote 21:

President Smith later clarified his remarks: President Joseph F. Smith, alluding to his testimony on the subject of revelation, which was given on the occasion of the Reed Smoot investigation in Washington, and over which much controversy had arisen, declared that while he had never received from God a revelation on some new doctrine or commandment, to be written and preserved and handed down as a law to the Church [rc's comments: voted upon in general conference], he had been guided, from the day of his baptism and to the present, by divine influence, and had been aided time and again by the spirit of God in his work in the ministry, and strongly expressed the wish that if, in his day, some new revelation should be needed by the Church, he might be worthy to receive it."

Now, these particular clarification comments Paulos references were made in 1905 in Salt Lake.

But throughout the proceedings the parties usually, but not always, took for granted the fact that the word "revelation" meant something that would be read to the Church and voted upon. For example, at Reed Smoot Investigation I:96, Pres. Smith explained that "no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church unless it has been presented to the church and accepted by them." In the break immediately following the answer you put in the OP, Senator Hoar clarified (there must have been some sort of off the record chat between the attorneys) that the word "revelation" as "which came to the president of the church, before they were established as part of the faith of the church, were accepted or submitted to the vote of the entire church." This is exactly what Pres. Smith must have had in mind, because so much of the questioning focused upon the issue of whether the OD was "revelation"

Nonetheless, Pres. Smith talked about everybody, including Senator Smoot, being entitled to guidance from the Holy Spirit. (Reed Smoot Investigation I:96).

And, you seem to assume that "revelation" is some sort of blackberry push technology to the prophet. It may have been that way perhaps with Moses and Joseph Smith, but Jesus taught the apostles: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 18:18-20.)

So, according to the NT formulation, the apostles meet together in a quorum, decide upon a course of conduct, propose it and if accepted it becomes revelation. Case in point -- John A. Taylor found in his father's papers a document which the junior Taylor contended were draft revelations in D&C style in Pres. Taylor's handwriting which, if adopted, would have made plural marriage an eternal practice that even the government couldn't force the church to stop. The junior Taylor argued that the Church was wrong to abandon plural marriage in light of this documents. The problem with junior's argument is that the draft was never presented to the Q12 and, thus, wasn't really a revelation under Church rules and the NT model.

So, when Pres. Smith was answering the question, he didn't have in mind a Primary child's understanding of what the word "revelation" meant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He knew he wasn't talking to a credulous group of followers that already thought of him as someone who talks to God.

That does not matter. When I was on my mission I talked to lots of people that did not see eye to eye with me. That did not stop me from mantaining my faith. And as other pointed out the context suggest that "revelation" meant the kind that was found in the D&C. You know the type that is cannonized.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

dupe

[David Bokovoy]

again, this diminishes the value of the book of mormon, "the most correct of any book on earth" (JS).

Diminishes its value in your mind, perhaps, but certainly not in any absolute sense. In my mind, the humanistic elements and weaknesses in the words and lives of prophets make their work all the more believable and inspiring, especially when I consider my own imperfections.

what you are implying is that prophets exaggerate their experiences.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating emphatically that such is the case, certainly in terms of scriptural history. As Jewish scholar, Yosef Yerushalmi observes, "The biblical appeal to remember, thus has little to do with curiosity about the past. Israel is told that it must be a kingdom of priests and a holy people; nowhere is it suggested that it become a nation of historians." Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982), 10.

[USU78]

The whole point about getting people to testify in front of the congress is that is it generally harder for people to lie since the consequences are felt to be higher.

Says somebody who obviously never watched or listened to testimony before congressional or senate committees.