cinepro Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 I was curious what else the Church might be saying about Zion's Camp, and came across this Primary lesson, wherein the kids are asked:
ebeddoulos Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Someone is going to have to do better than this thread to justify their apostacy or to castigate the church for a perceived ill. The foundation upon which the OP built his argument is pathetic at best.
why me Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Sure, the Church has always tried to put as positive a spin as possible on the whole ordeal, but I suspect the wording of the heading is less than forthcoming only for brevity's sake. There are no illusions about the purpose and success of Zion's camp any time the subject is discussed in greater depth in Church publications.I think that you are right. But will consig agree with you? Maybe...but maybe not. It all depends on what he wants to accept for his belief system.
why me Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Someone is going to have to do better than this thread to justify their apostacy or to castigate the church for a perceived ill. The foundation upon which the OP built his argument is pathetic at best.I think that consig will not go down without a last ditch fight. But it does seem that he should give up and admit that he jumped too fast with a negative.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Reading through the Doctrine and Covenants with my 14-year old seminary student, I came upon something last night that made me uncomfortable.Having received assurances from God that He would fight their battles, Joseph Smith led Zion's Camp to Missouri to restore the saints to their lands in Jackson County.Upon their arrival, Joseph Smith received a difficult revelation, now canonized as section 105, calling for Zion's Camp to disband without engaging the enemy.My issue is with the language of the heading of section 105, which not only does not mention the real purpose of Zion's Camp, but appears to actually mischaracterize their mission as "bringing clothing and provisions."This seems to me to be tantamount to false advertising.Below is the section in its entirety with the relevant portion highlighted.Does this cause anybody else heartburn?What are your thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriRemember that the headings are descriptive narratives written by the leadership of the Church and is not scripture or revelation, it's only purpose is to give information (such as that Zion's Camp was delivering provisions and clothing to the persecuted Saints when this revelation was received).Many Anti-Mormons attack the word coin used in a heading that describes the weight system of the Nephite people. They say that there is no coin in the new world in BoM times (which is correct, there is a weight system like ancient Israel). What they fail to realize is that only the heading mentions the word coin the scripture does, not at all only that various things equal other things. This is an ancient weigh system of mesoamerica, and those who wrote the headings mistakenly put coins. Those who seek to persecute the Church jump on this since it is in the BoM and fail to realize it is only a heading, which is not part of the scripture but is only a scripture study reference.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Reading through the Doctrine and Covenants with my 14-year old seminary student, I came upon something last night that made me uncomfortable.Having received assurances from God that He would fight their battles, Joseph Smith led Zion's Camp to Missouri to restore the saints to their lands in Jackson County.Upon their arrival, Joseph Smith received a difficult revelation, now canonized as section 105, calling for Zion's Camp to disband without engaging the enemy.My issue is with the language of the heading of section 105, which not only does not mention the real purpose of Zion's Camp, but appears to actually mischaracterize their mission as "bringing clothing and provisions."This seems to me to be tantamount to false advertising.Below is the section in its entirety with the relevant portion highlighted.Does this cause anybody else heartburn?What are your thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriMy thoughts?Firstly: did Zion's Camp, or did they not, bring clothing and provisions?Secondly: I think back to another thread, where you smugly labelled the belief that God answers prayer as "Mormon myopia." I suggest that the hysterical searching for "cover-ups" in every summary might be characterised as "apostate paranoia."Regards,Pahoran
TAO Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Guys, I think consligerli has gotten the point now... perhaps a good time to let this thread fall to the bottom?
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Departure of the Prophet from Kirtland for MissouriMay 5.
Mansquatch Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Everyone knows that no one in Zion's Camp had either clothing or provisions.
consiglieri Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 Guys, I think consligerli has gotten the point now... perhaps a good time to let this thread fall to the bottom?You are very kind, Tao.And I thank Why Me for looking this up in the History of the Church.I don't know how much food Zion's Camp could have brought with them, considering they had pretty bad provisions for themselves.George A. Smith recalled that the Prophet maintained a sense of optimism, though
CA Steve Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 IIRC when they disbanded to go home they divided up the remaining money amoug themselves. G.A. Smith reported getting $1.16 to go home with.
paulpatter Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Reading through the Doctrine and Covenants with my 14-year old seminary student, I came upon something last night that made me uncomfortable.Having received assurances from God that He would fight their battles, Joseph Smith led Zion's Camp to Missouri to restore the saints to their lands in Jackson County.Upon their arrival, Joseph Smith received a difficult revelation, now canonized as section 105, calling for Zion's Camp to disband without engaging the enemy.My issue is with the language of the heading of section 105, which not only does not mention the real purpose of Zion's Camp, but appears to actually mischaracterize their mission as "bringing clothing and provisions." You raise a non-issue. It is so because it can be dismissed on the basis of a grasp of English grammar alone (never mind numerous historical accounts). Explanation: The comma that precedes "bringing clothing and provisions" indicates that the writer is simply providing additional information; hence, it is a nonrestrictive appositive phrase. Consequently, it cannot reasonably be construed to mean what you think it means.
why me Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 In the midst of all the excuses for why Zion's Camp failed, and all the good things that came about from it, I have yet to read that one of them was providing clothing and provisions.A significant omission, I would think . . .All the Best!--ConsiglieriI think consig you should read bushman's account in his book rough stone rolling pages 235 to 247. You can check the index to see if I got the pages right. You will see that it was rather complicated and contentious. Also, you will learn some things about Joseph Smith. It is not surprising that it failed and yet, strengthened the lds church by the experience.There are no excuses in bushman's account.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.