CASteinman Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Young believed that by the time Smith decided to cross the river and return to Nauvoo, Smith did not have "one particle of [revelatory] light in him" (source). Clever mischaracterization of what Brigham Young actually said. Is it out of your ability to post things that are not tainted with negativity about the Restored Gospel, the Church, its Members and the Prophets? 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Please excuse my ignorance, but what does "EV" mean?Evangelical Christian...many good people. Buta lot of people who are convinced we are an evil cult...Matt Slick and Carm consider almost everyone a cult.
volgadon Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Clever mischaracterization of what Brigham Young actually said. Is it out of your ability to post things that are not tainted with negativity about the Restored Gospel, the Church, its Members and the Prophets?Here is a fuller portion of the quote. It really isn't saying what cobalt wants it to say.-He said, “I can see life and liberty and salvation in that course, but if I return to give myself up, it is death and darkness to the full; I am like a lamb led to the slaughter,” and never for one moment did he say that he had one particle of light in him after he started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo. This he did through the persuasion of others. I want you to understand that. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Here is a fuller portion of the quote. It really isn't saying what cobalt wants it to say.-He said, “I can see life and liberty and salvation in that course, but if I return to give myself up, it is death and darkness to the full; I am like a lamb led to the slaughter,” and never for one moment did he say that he had one particle of light in him after he started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo. This he did through the persuasion of others. I want you to understand that.That is what I mean...most people who hate us don't care what the truth is...only destroying faith.
cursor Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) That is what I mean...most people who hate us don't care what the truth is...only destroying faith.Or, because of their own life experiences (no doubt different from yours), they wear an alternative set of lenses that offers a perspective that seems foreign ... perhaps even "hateful." Edited July 27, 2012 by cursor 1
Nevo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Clever mischaracterization of what Brigham Young actually said.What do you suppose Brigham Young was actually saying?I see no evidence that Cobalt-70 misrepresented Young's views.
CASteinman Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 What do you suppose Brigham Young was actually saying?I see no evidence that Cobalt-70 misrepresented Young's views.Well for one thing, Brigham Young did not say "By the time" -- as though there had been a long term degradation in Joseph Smith's powers. But that is exactly how Cobalt declared it. A misrepresentation of things -- in the most negative way possible.
Deborah Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Brigham Young was on a mission during Smith's last days, so he would not have known, first hand, if Smith had a change of mind on polygamy.On the contrary he and Joseph were very close and they had already made plans to move west to live their religion in peace. Besides which he became the prophet and as many testified had the mantle of Joseph Smith fall on him (figuratively speaking) so if there was a revelation to the contrary he would have received it. John Taylor and Willard Richards both present with the prophet those very last days would have remarked on such a change in the prophet but they sustained him to the end and continued to support plural marriage. 1
cursor Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Even if he heard about such a change second-hand, [brigham] Young believed that by the time Smith decided to cross the river and return to Nauvoo, Smith did not have "one particle of [revelatory] light in him" (source).Additionally, the insertion of [revelatory] presumes that Cobalt-70 knows exactly to what type of "light" Joseph Smith was referring. Certainly there are alternative interpretations for "one particle of light in him." What Young didn't mean [revelatory] light?
Nevo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Well for one thing, Brigham Young did not say "By the time" -- as though there had been a long term degradation in Joseph Smith's powers. But that is exactly how Cobalt declared it. A misrepresentation of things -- in the most negative way possible."Long term degradation in Joseph Smith's powers"? How long do you think it was from the time Joseph "started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo" and his murder in Carthage? Less than a week by my calculation. It seems to me that you are the one doing the misrepresenting.
Nevo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Additionally, the insertion of [revelatory] presumes that Cobalt-70 knows exactly to what type of "light" Joseph Smith was referring. Certainly there are alternative interpretations for "one particle of light in him." Did you look at the link Cobalt-70 provided? It is difficult to understand it any other way given Young's repeated statements that Joseph was not following "the revelations in him" when he turned back to Nauvoo to give himself up.
CASteinman Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) "Long term degradation in Joseph Smith's powers"? How long do you think it was from the time Joseph "started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo" and his murder in Carthage? Less than a week by my calculation. It seems to me that you are the one doing the misrepresenting.No. "By the time" is not the same thing as "After". One looks backward, the other forward. Particularly in the context of a discussion that is claiming Joseph Smith denied polygamy in the last 6 months of his life.You are not paying attention to the conversation such as the post he was directly replying to. Edited July 27, 2012 by CASteinman
Nevo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 No. "By the time" is not the same thing as "After". One looks backward, the other forward.Okay. I guess I missed where Cobalt-70 insinuated a "long term degradation of Joseph's powers." In any case, it is true that Brigham Young and Stephen Markham and others believed that Joseph went against the counsel of the Spirit when he returned to Nauvoo to give himself up.As for the claim that "Joseph Smith denied polygamy in the last 6 months of his life," I don't know where that came from. William Marks claimed that Joseph disavowed polygamy two or three weeks before his death—i.e., during June 1844. And Brigham Young was away from Nauvoo during June 1844, so Cobalt-70 is correct that he "would not have known, first hand, if Smith had a change of mind on polygamy." 1
CASteinman Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Okay. I guess I missed where Cobalt-70 insinuated a "long term degradation of Joseph's powers."Its in the wording.
blackstrap Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Look at the wording in Joseph's supposed statement where he says if he gives himself up there is death and DARKNESS to the full. Then it is said that from that time( the decision to return) there was no LIGHT in him. To me that signifies a MOOD. Edited July 27, 2012 by blackstrap 1
Cobalt-70 Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Look at the wording in Joseph's supposed statement where he says if he gives himself up there is death and DARKNESS to the full. Then it is said that from that time( the decision to return) there was no LIGHT in him. To me that signifies a MOOD.That reading totally ignores the context. The topic of Young's sermon was the fact that the church was led by revelation, and Young was just relating the story of how Smith was not following the the spirit of revelation when he decided to return to Nauvoo. He said that had Smith been following God's direction, he would have been alive and leading the Saints in the Utah territory--and that other church leaders who suggested that Smith's death was all part of God's plan were wrong.
Nevo Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) To address the topic of this thread, I think Ronald Walker's take on Joseph's apparent "retreat" from "the secret developments of Nauvoo—polygamy, the endowment ceremony, and the Council of Fifty" during the last days of his life1 is a reasonable one.Walker writes: "Whether the retreat was meant to be temporary or permanent, or whether the steps were expedient or heartfelt, the most likely conclusion was that Smith was stabilizing Nauvoo while privately holding firmly to his teachings. His closest disciples accepted this view. But the possibility of a turnabout gave comfort to Emma Smith and Marks during the succession crisis."2I have no difficulty believing that Joseph felt "worn out with [polygamy]," as Brigham Young reported him saying once. But I do not believe that he ever abandoned the doctrine. It was too central to his theology.As Carmon Hardy observed in his book on post-Manifesto polygamy:"Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it. And when one recalls a poignant encounter like that between William Law and Joseph in early 1844, it is difficult not to agree. Law, putting his arms about the prophet's neck, tearfully pleaded that he throw the entire business of plurality over. Joseph, also crying, replied that he could not, that God had commanded it, and he had no choice but to obey."3_____________________________________1 See D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 145-48.2 Ronald W. Walker, "Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844," in A Firm Foundation: Church Organization and Administration, ed. David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 178.3 B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9. Edited July 27, 2012 by Nevo 3
Damien the Leper Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 This is not unheard of. Though I'm not sure if there is any truth to it.
Deborah Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 The topic of Young's sermon was the fact that the church was led by revelation, and Young was just relating the story of how Smith was not following the the spirit of revelation when he decided to return to Nauvoo.And perhaps Brigham Young was wrong and only wished his friend were still with him and leading the church.
altersteve Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 And perhaps Brigham Young was wrong and only wished his friend were still with him and leading the church.Exactly. The death of Joseph Smith was very hard on Brigham, so I think this is likely.
Recommended Posts