How Do You Obey A Fallible Prophet With "Exactness"?

[sethpayne]

I don't know whom they were following, but it was not the prophets and Apostles of the Church. There is no law in Mormonism that says if your bishop tells you to go and murder people, you go and do it.

As for scriptural teachings, the Book of Mormon forbids taking revange on your enemy (Mormon 3:15; 8:20). And your interpretation of D&C 98 is utterly erroneous. It refers to people who are actually attacking you; and even then, you take up arms in selfe defense after having been commanded by the Lord. It doesn't mean that you kill people who are peacefully passing through your land.

According to the D&C you can take vengeance on your enemies and their children out to 4 generations as long as you have been passive through the first 4 attacks. The Lord does say he would prefer a continued passiveness but after the 4th time.... all bets are off. These saints believed the train members ancestors had killed the Prophet and driven them out of Illinois. Therefore, they felt justified by the D&C.

I think the D&C is absolutely wrong and the BoM and NT have it right.

Edited September 4, 2012 by sethpayne

[zerinus]

According to the D&C you can take vengeance on your enemies and their children out to 4 generations as long as you have been passive through the first 4 attacks. The Lord does say he would prefer a continued passiveness but after the 4th time.... all bets are off. These saints believed the train members ancestors had killed the Prophet and driven them out of Illinois. Therefore, they felt justified by the D&C.

I think the D&C is absolutely wrong and the BoM and NT have it right.

That is an utterly misleading and erroneous interpretation of D&C 98. This is what it says:

D&C 98:

28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me [after the third offence], then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

These refer to an enemy who is actually waging war against you, not somebody who is peacefully passing through your land.

[The Grimace]

Viola, you now have your answer. Quit the BS.

You sure are an angry guy, Storm Rider. And my name is Grimace, my color is viola

[sethpayne]

That is an utterly misleading and erroneous interpretation of D&C 98. This is what it says:

D&C 98:

28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me [after the third offence], then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

These refer to an enemy who is actually waging war against you, not somebody who is peacefully passing through your land.

I think that somehow you think I'm trying to justify the murderers at MM. In fact, I'm showing that the way they understood the D&C helped justify -- in their own minds -- the murders.

1) They saw these people as descendents of JS murderers (although some connected it to Haun's Mill) and were within 4 generations

2) By the time they had reached southern Utah Issac Haight had convinced everyone that this wagon train was a danger

3) The saints had tolerated more than 4 encroachments by those in Missouri and thus felt justified'

4) We can't forget temple covenants at that time either -- they certainly didn't call for the Saints to enact violence but the injunction was to pray for the blood of the Prophet to be avenged (by God, I presume) -- It seems that this covenant bred a lot of hatred for the United States -- ESPECIALLY IN 1857 with the army marching in.... War fever + US army + D&C 98 + Hatred of the US + Issac Haight = murder

How the D&C gives any license at all is a mystery to me given that Jesus taught we are to forgive 70x7. Not sure how that was reduced to 4 .....

Edited September 4, 2012 by sethpayne

[The Grimace]

Grimace's take on things in a scientific analogy:

Einstein was wrong to reject Bohr's conclusions. The scientists are fallible. Therefore toss out all of science.

I don't know the first thing about science. But I don't think I'm saying that. I'm saying that fallible prophets can't be validated (read my other posts) and so you are under no obligation to treat anything they say as coming from god.

Did Einstein or Bohr claim that their theories came from God and used that as the justification for their conclusions?

You do realize the self-contradictory nature of this position, No?

If there are no prohibitions, there is no sin and no need for "mercy" or forgiveness in the first place.

And if sin is wrong and damages those who engage in it, how is there any love involved with its acceptance?

Good point. Bring your love. Nothing else.

[mercyngrace]

Their Stake President and Bishop gave them an order and they followed it. And BTW .... D&C doesn't forbid it. It only forbids not coming down on an enemy if they have attacked you less than 4 times - down through 4 generations!!. The people in Southern Utah believed this train to include ancestors of those who had killed Joseph Smith. As such, they were following the D&C -- at least their interpretation of it.

Seth,

Regarding the bold portion, did they believe this prior to the massacre? I was reading John D Lee's account and he says it was after the fact that Brigham Young announced in a public meeting that the dead were of the group that killed Joseph. Seems like saying they believed in a Carthage connection prior to the killings might make the massacre more justifiable in the eyes of Lee and his companions but even so, that's not how he tells the story. (p. 344, ch XXII, The Mormon Menace link to google book)

Just curious if you have a better source.

MnG

[sethpayne]

Seth,

Regarding the bold portion, did they believe this prior to the massacre? I was reading John D Lee's account and he says it was after the fact that Brigham Young announced in a public meeting that the dead were of the group that killed Joseph. Seems like saying they believed in a Carthage connection prior to the killings might make the massacre more justifiable in the eyes of Lee and his companions but even so, that's not how he tells the story. (p. 344, ch XXII, The Mormon Menace link to google book)

Just curious if you have a better source.

MnG

Hi MnG,

I don't have Juanita Brooks' MMM book in front of me but I believe she makes reference to the perpetrators holding this belief. I *believe* the wagon train made things worse (they were frustrated that they couldn't buy supplies in SLC because BY was preparing for the US Army and refused to sell goods to anyone) and started goading the Saints about Missouri and JS.

I'll see if I can look this up tonight and give you a better reference tonight or tomorrow.

Of course, my memory could be completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

For what it's worth, I don't trust the Mormon Menace as a historical source. Lee was so peeved for being used as a scapegoat that he would have said just about anything to make his father (he's been sealed BY as a son IIRC) look bad for the betrayal. Also, did he even write the book? I thought it may have been his lawyer..... Again, my memory could be wrong.

Seth

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A recent Gospel Doctrine lesson focused on the principle of obeying the Prophet with "exactness":

“They Did Obey … Every Word of Command with Exactness", Lesson 32, Gospel Doctrine

I think they are more Presdients than Prophets these days...I don't think there is anything new that we do not already have in the scriptures. I am open to the idea that one day there will be new things to obey.

[sethpayne]

Seth,

Regarding the bold portion, did they believe this prior to the massacre? I was reading John D Lee's account and he says it was after the fact that Brigham Young announced in a public meeting that the dead were of the group that killed Joseph. Seems like saying they believed in a Carthage connection prior to the killings might make the massacre more justifiable in the eyes of Lee and his companions but even so, that's not how he tells the story. (p. 344, ch XXII, The Mormon Menace link to google book)

Just curious if you have a better source.

MnG

Found it in a paper I wrote on this subject a few years ago:

Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), 53.

Immediately following the regular church service, a special meeting was called of the Stake High Council. Isaac C. Haight, as the highest in religious authority and the one in command of the military organization in the town, was in charge of this indignation meeting. The local officers wanted the help of the militia to enforce the law, and various members expressed themselves freely as to what should be done with regard to the emigrant company. Some felt that the travelers should not be allowed to get away with such defiance.

A resolution was presented and passed to the effect that “we will deal with this situation now, so that our hands will be free to meet the army when it comes.” After it was passed, Laban Morrill and others began to ask questions. What, specifically, did the brethren mean by dealing with the situation now? Arrest and punish the offenders? Some felt that this would do no good; it would only mean men to guard them and food to feed them, and no one any better off.

So, it was suggested that they be “done away with.”Ever since the days of Missouri and Nauvoo, ever since the martyrdom of their prophet, the Saints had been taught that they should never cease to importune the Lord to avenge the blood of the prophets. Now, here were the men who had boasted openly and defiantly that they had helped to kill Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. One had displayed the pistol which fired the fatal shot. All had laughed to scorn the attempts of the local officers to arrest them. Should they forget the oaths of vengeance which they had taken and sit back weakly while such as these taunted them?

And.... if you want to read my take on the MMM:

http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1970468

ETA: Maybe Bagley and/or Turley have found Brooks' conclusions here to be faulty..... I don't know their work as well as I do Brooks.

Edited September 4, 2012 by sethpayne

[mercyngrace]

Thanks Seth - you rock!

I know Mormon Menace is not an objective look at the affair it just crossed my mind because I reread it recently. MMM is one of those topics I am just starting to read about critically (as opposed to casually) so I'm wading through everything I can find - even John D. Lee.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks Seth - you rock!

I know Mormon Menace is not an objective look at the affair it just crossed my mind because I reread it recently. MMM is one of those topics I am just starting to read about critically (as opposed to casually) so I'm wading through everything I can find - even John D. Lee.

The more you learn about MMM, the more heart broken you will be at the cold blooded act...never find yourself defending it as many members have.

[DBMormon]

But according to Church teachings shouldn't those men have been blessed for following their Priesthood leader? Or does that only apply to the President of the Church?

As it turns out many of these men led lives of shame and regret.

This thread illustrates that some believe we have an obligation to follow the teachings of the modern prophet, right or wrong, and we will be blessed for it. I, for one, don't believe BY had anything to do with the MMM and believe it was mostly Issac Haight (the Stake Pres).

Does the MMM teach us that we must follow the Church president, right or wrong, but we can safely ignore counsel and instructions from all others?

I'm of the personal opinion that the spirit reigns supreme and that if the spirit says X, do X.

There is where I am at as well especially on serious issues. On small details I may follow for the sake of not rocking the boat. But on Big issues "let the holy spirit guide"

[zerinus]

I think that somehow you think I'm trying to justify the murderers at MM. In fact, I'm showing that the way they understood the D&C helped justify -- in their own minds -- the murders.

1) They saw these people as descendents of JS murderers (although some connected it to Haun's Mill) and were within 4 generations

2) By the time they had reached southern Utah Issac Haight had convinced everyone that this wagon train was a danger

3) The saints had tolerated more than 4 encroachments by those in Missouri and thus felt justified'

4) We can't forget temple covenants at that time either -- they certainly didn't call for the Saints to enact violence but the injunction was to pray for the blood of the Prophet to be avenged (by God, I presume) -- It seems that this covenant bred a lot of hatred for the United States -- ESPECIALLY IN 1857 with the army marching in.... War fever + US army + D&C 98 + Hatred of the US + Issac Haight = murder

How the D&C gives any license at all is a mystery to me given that Jesus taught we are to forgive 70x7. Not sure how that was reduced to 4 .....

You are talking a lot of nonsense and know it. The NT talks about those who trespass against you and them repent. It is not about those who come at you with an army of extermination, with no intent to repent.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Their Stake President and Bishop gave them an order and they followed it. And BTW .... D&C doesn't forbid it. It only forbids not coming down on an enemy if they have attacked you less than 4 times - down through 4 generations!!. The people in Southern Utah believed this train to include ancestors of those who had killed Joseph Smith. As such, they were following the D&C -- at least their interpretation of it.

Good to see you here, Seth. What happened was murder and nothing more at MMM, and no one with a soul who took part could believe otherwise.

[sethpayne]

You are talking a lot of nonsense and know it. The NT talks about those who trespass against you and them repent. It is not about those who come at you with an army of extermination, with no intent to repent.

My friend, there is no reason to be insulting. I am giving my opinion based on how the Saints of 1857 interpreted and used the D&C/temple to justify their actions. Trust me, I like your interpretation much better than theirs!

However, to say that section 98 has some serious problems shouldn't be such a big deal, should it? I mean, Joseph Smith was fallible. What's to say his frustration didn't get the best of him and some of that snuck into the text?

(BTW -- I always enjoy your posts. Even when I disagree I know that you aren't talking nonsense as anyone who reads you can clearly see that you are substantive and thoughtful.)

[zerinus]

However, to say that section 98 has some serious problems shouldn't be such a big deal, should it? I mean, Joseph Smith was fallible. What's to say his frustration didn't get the best of him and some of that snuck into the text?

It is a very big deal. Joseph Smith didn't write D&C 98; God did.

Edited September 5, 2012 by zerinus

[sethpayne]

It is a very big deal. Joseph Smith didn't write D&C 98; God did.

Really? God came down and wrote the manuscript punctuation and all?

The D&C is not infallible. It was written down by men. Men of weakness and passion. Good men.

Anyway, this is far off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

[zerinus]

Really?

Yes really.

[sethpayne]

Yes really.

So the D&C is the perfect infallible word of God? No chance for any errors of any kind? A truly unique set of scripture! Every other piece of the LDS canon is fallible but the D&C is not. Wow!

[The Grimace]

So the D&C is the perfect infallible word of God? No chance for any errors of any kind? A truly unique set of scripture! Every other piece of the LDS canon is fallible but the D&C is not. Wow!

Yes, very interesting, especially since it was written by fallible prophets who, according to the consensus of thread participants, make mistake after mistake after mistake...

[zerinus]

So the D&C is the perfect infallible word of God? No chance for any errors of any kind? A truly unique set of scripture! Every other piece of the LDS canon is fallible but the D&C is not. Wow!

Every other piece of LDS scripture is equally infalible.

[mercyngrace]

So the D&C is the perfect infallible word of God?

Well, except the original section 101 prohibiting plural marriage, which was removed in the 1876 edition.

[DBMormon]

Really? God came down and wrote the manuscript punctuation and all?

The D&C is not infallible. It was written down by men. Men of weakness and passion. Good men.

Anyway, this is far off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

Sorry Zerinus, your off base on your assumption. Brigham Young said had anyone else been the translator of the book of Mormon it would have read differently (not basic storyline or general teachings but wording used to convey them). Revelation is no different. It understood through the prophet's language, culture, and personality. The final product is certainly impacted by those things and so language may be slightly different then what the Lord would have written himself. That said they could be slightly stronger in tone or too lienent as well. We also know Joseph continually went back and revised them as he learned more.

That would make the revelation prior to revision falliable

Edited September 5, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Yes, very interesting, especially since it was written by fallible prophets who, according to the consensus of thread participants, make mistake after mistake after mistake...

Grimace - make mistakes when acting as men, inspired when acting on behalf of God under the influence of his spirit.

The only way to know? .....

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is alight; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

[altersteve]

Every other piece of LDS scripture is equally infalible.

CFR. Where does the Church claim LDS scripture to be infallible?