Fallen Prophet Or True To The End?

[Bart Burk]

Doesn't matter.

I have shared many times before and it doesn't make a lick of difference. I came to the conclusion about 5-6 months ago that arguing the issue or any issue is a waste of time. I just share what I believe and move on.

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/hsfp.htm

That is what I found about Clayton's claims. It is known that much of "official" LDS history has been heavily edited.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Bart Burk]

Stylometric analysis would seem plausibly to say otherwise. One can take the words of Christ that we have recorded in the various biblical texts, such as the Gospels and the first three chapters of Revelation. One can examine the usage of contextual words. The interesting thing is that this even can be seen through translations into English using a computer. One can then run the same and/or similar tests on the Book of Mormon texts citing Christ and also on the Doctrine and Covenants and cluster match them all together as a single likely author. I and others have done this.

Some of these studies have been published, such as Hamson's The Signature of God. In that work, he takes several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, writings of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith III, Mary Baker Eddy, and several others, and runs tests against all of them using the Gospels and Revelation, finding significant matches of the Doctrine and Covenants to the Christ of the Bible, whereas the personal writings of Joseph Smith cluster together with other 19th century authors and a 20th Century ghostwriter.

He then takes the revelations of Joseph Smith III and finds that none of them match Christ but all cluster within the 19th century region, as did several others from the period who claimed to have had revelations--all their revelations clustering with modern writers and the revelations of Christ from Joseph Smith that were tested clustering with the Bible Christ.

Brigham Young's revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants also was tested using the same methodology. His personal writings match the 19th century cluster whereas what is Section 136 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants matches the cluster pattern of the 1st Century Christ.

Can this actually prove that Christ was the original author of what is attributed to him in the Doctrine and Covenants? That would depend upon what your interpretation of "proof" would be, which methodology you consider is more or less valid than others, and how far one is willing to move the goalposts to debunk such studies that give supporting evidence of this nature.

When you are speaking of Christ's words in the New Testament they are words that have been translated from a translation written by four different people who didn't always agree on what the precise words were. It seems a stretch to believe you could come up with a voice of Christ in that situation.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

http://restorationbo...ticles/hsfp.htm

That is what I found about Clayton's claims. It is known that much of "official" LDS history has been heavily edited.

"Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" is a source I have recommended for a different view of the issue. It is summarily ignored or mocked.

[MormonMason]

http://restorationbo...ticles/hsfp.htm

That is what I found about Clayton's claims. It is known that much of "official" LDS history has been heavily edited.

There is nothing in that linked article that addresses the 2nd Clayton Nauvoo Diary account that was written at the times of the events recorded. I have seen this and know it is both authentic and unedited. Later publications of excerpts from the Diary entry have been edited in various ways, but the original Diary entry has not been altered. It is pretty much as I have given it above, minus a mistyped comma or two. Clayton recorded many things at the times of their occurrences.

And, there is enough in the Clayton journal account to tie it both to what would later become Section 132 in LDS copies of the Doctrine and Covenants after 1876 (Pearl of Great Price before that) and to the later Clayton affidavit. Let me tell you, a lot of what is in that Diary is not very flattering to the individual involved but that is because we are not used to reading about our Church Presidents being human. Clayton wrote his account, warts and all. There are sometimes things that have as a basis rumor accounts that sometime find their way into his accounts, but when he is present to write of an event involving himself, the account is trustworthy. The Diary entry I referenced above, and which your linked article ignores, comes from the trustworthy category.

There is no doubt that the revelation originated with Joseph Smith and that Emma was one of the "damndest" liars when she claimed that she never saw a revelation that day. Clayton's 2nd Nauvoo Diary accurately describes the premise of the revelation that later became Section 132 in LDS copies of the Doctrine and Covenants. He accurately describes in his affidavit the making of the Kingsbury Copy that Bishop Whitney had in his possession as well. We have that Kingsbury copy in our Church History Library. I have seen it as well.

But, there is more to Clayton's journal than I have quoted here. There is considerable context, dated to the time of the recording of the revelation and both before and afterward (all within the time frame of the events that occurred in Clayton's presence), that clearly show that Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage, that he was having a devil of a time trying to get Emma to accept it, and that he was teaching "the Principle" to others. The Clayton accounts are among the best and earliest contemporary collections demonstrating Joseph Smith's connection to plural marriage. And, they have not been doctored in any way. But, I suppose this is one of those things where you have to be there.

Edited October 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

When you are speaking of Christ's words in the New Testament they are words that have been translated from a translation written by four different people who didn't always agree on what the precise words were. It seems a stretch to believe you could come up with a voice of Christ in that situation.

There are varying ways to handle this. One can take the accounts and use only what agrees. There is much that does. The interesting thing is that when using the cluster ANINOVA and MANOVA methodologies using non-contextual words, these differences among the Gospels are less significant than one might think. One can also take the Christ of only John and Revelation and still get the same result. It might seem a stretch on the surface but remember that we are using blocks of 1,000 words to get the computer to recognize similarities and differences in style. Once the computer figures it all out even translations cannot mask the individual styles of the underlying original language texts.

When testing Hebrew texts, some words have to be removed from consideration because they don't exist in Hebrew and are only implied (such as the non-contextual word 'of' which is implied in the genitive construct) but only if not clearly implied. Once the computer figures it out, however, it can tell the differences between author of such texts. Some are very close to one another and other methodologies have to be used to bring out further the differences between authors.

There are other methodologies that can be used to show whether differing works are done by the same translator, such as the chi-square vocabulary richness text I mentioned above. Differing works with differing styles that are apparent with one or more methodologies can be shown to be from the same translator/dictator using others. One test methodology has Section 132 match the Christ of Revelation and another methodology that uses vocabulary richness shows quite clearly that Joseph Smith dictated both his letters to the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 127-128) and what would later become Section 132.

[MormonMason]

"Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" is a source I have recommended for a different view of the issue. It is summarily ignored or mocked.

It does not address the manuscript evidence or the direct evidence of those who actually were there to witness the events. That is why it is often mocked and ignored. It does not address the fact that even the RLDS acknowledged that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage until it became expedient to deny it in preparation for the Temple Lot Case. They wanted that Temple Lot and they were perfectly willing to lie to obtain it.

In addition, Joseph Smith III's revelations do not even match the Christ pattern that can be seen in his fathers revelations, and in that of Brigham Young as well as those of John Taylor. In any case, those who have access to the contemporary journal accounts know better than to fall for the argumentation found in that linked paper. That is why the above linked paper ignores this kind of evidence. If they did look at it and make use of it, they would have to revise their strategy and the premise of their paper.

That is something they cannot do because that would take away their initial justification for being apart from the Church that continued to teach publicly what Joseph Smith did in public and private.

Edited October 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Let's say Joseph did author 132... I find it interesting that the word pattern you are, admittedly, matching it to are Sections that are letters written by JS to the church and not, say, Section 1, which we all know is a revelation from the throne of God.

[Cold Steel]

The apostasy of, formerly, RLDS leadership is likely an indication of its validity, based on JST Matthew 25 (24?) which seems to indicate an apostasy of church leadership in the last days church. ... Again, gaining a witness of the validity of the Book of Mormon in no way means gaining a witness of any one particular church of the Restoration, anymore then gaining the testimony of the Bible automatically indicates the gaining a witness of any one particular Christian denomination.

That depends on one's outlook, doesn't it?

Joseph Smith indicated that if the saints followed the majority of the saints, the majority of the Twelve, and the records of the church, they would never go astray. Joseph was given the Keys of the Kingdom, which carry the authority to bind both on Heaven and Earth. Shortly he conferred those keys on the Twelve and told them it was up to them to round up their shoulders and bear off the Kingdom of God. And, he added, if they didn't do it, they would "be damned."

Interestingly, none of those apostles went with the RLDS and, consequently, there was no way for them to have been conferred upon Joseph Smith III or any of his successors. And even if one of the apostles went rogue, he could not have passed the keys on to anyone because they lie dormant until he becomes the President of the Church. It's all part of a brilliant checks and balance system built into the Kingdom of God. The Keys are necessary for baptisms, ordinations, dedications and sealings, and if a member wants to exercise his authority to do any of those things, they must be done with the express approval of the President. Otherwise, a church priesthood holder could ordain anyone he wants, baptize anyone he wants, and seal whoever they want. That's why all those abominable polygamous cults out in Utah, Texas and Colorado can't baptize, ordain or seal. If they could, they would misuse priesthood authority. That's why "Bill," in The Big Love, could never have exercised true authority.

The priesthood can only be found in the Lord's true church. People may think they possess it, but they're spinning moonbeams.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Cold Steel

[MormonMason]

Let's say Joseph did author 132... I find it interesting that the word pattern you are, admittedly, matching it to are Sections that are letters written by JS to the church and not, say, Section 1, which we all know is a revelation from the throne of God.

You are confusing the methodologies that have differing purposes. The one that matches the sections that I mentioned tests only vocabulary richness. The other tests I mentioned definitely show matches in Section 132 to the Christ authorship cluster pattern of Revelation. I mentioned that above, too. I did mention that Christ is the primary author above. Did you miss it?

But what tests do that work with chi-square and other vocabulary richness tests show that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants (Joseph Smith only), and Pearl of Great Price all come from the same source, Joseph Smith as translator/conduit for the revelation. That should be expected. Joseph Smith, after all, is the conduit through which the revelations/translations came. I mentioned Section 132 in that connection because many people claim that Joseph Smith could not have written it and that Brigham Young or someone else did. The vocabulary richness tests show a definite connection to Joseph Smith. Both kinds of authorship tests combined, however, show both a relationship to Joseph Smith and to the Christ of the Bible.

Doctrine and Covenants 1 has been checked, too. In vocabulary richness and structure analysis, all sections of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants that come through Joseph Smith match up together. It also is a definite match to the Christ of Revelation and other texts using the other methodologies using non-contextual words. I may not have mentioned it but that is the case. This is not the case for anything that comes from Joseph Smith III or even James J. Strang (another person who has been tested for matches to Christ and failed), however. Both of those individuals match up with the modern writers cluster, just as Joseph Smith's letters do under non-contextual word analyses--the opposite of the Christ revelations of Joseph Smith that cluster with the Christ of Revelation.

Edited October 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[Lightbearer]

The only evidence I have is my own personal wittness. I have stood in the sacred grove, on the Hill Cumorah, in the rebuilt Peter Witmer cabin where the Church was officially organized, I have stood in Carthage Jail and been in the reconstructed Nauvoo Temple, I have been in the Kirtland Temple, and I have had my endowment in the Salt Lake Temple, been in the Washington D.C. Temple, the Provo Temple, the Toronto Temple, the Atlanta Temple (including the dedication) and participated in the Hosannah shout, I was sealed for time and all eternity to my eternal companion in the Orlando Temple and all of these experiences and many others that I cannot relate gives me the oil in my lamp so that my testimony can shine forth in the darkest night and warm my soul. I KNOW that Joseph Smith Jr. was and still is a true and faithful prophet of the Lord and although hell boil over and the scofferes from that great and spacious building (representing the pride of the world) might try to defame him, I will say to my dying day that Joseph is the chosen seer of the last days who has raised up the ensign of the Lord on Zion's hill and has done more for the salvation of men on earth and in the world of spirits (save Jesus only) than any other man who lived in it. I also know that Brigham Young was also a true and faithful servant of the Lord, so also was Wilford Woodruff who recieve the Manifesto that stopped the practice of Plural Marriage, also Spencer W. Kimball who revealed OD 2 that extended priesthood blessings to all of God's children regardless of linage or race, and all of the Prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are true servants of God and His Christ. I know Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth today and that the Church is the ONLY Church through which salvation and exaltation may be obtained. I have had this testimony since childhood, when as a 4 year old boy I would kneel with my father who was the only priesthood holder in our tiny branch, to bless the sacrament for a congregation of 13 that met in a members home. I felt the spirit even then and while I did not know that much about the church, I knew how I felt and I have never lost that feeling. These experiences of almost half a century stand as a rock solid anchor against the lies and defamation of Satan. All the Anti-Mormon garbage that Satan can heave on could never make me doubt or deny it. all the damnedable internet sites in the world can not compete with the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost. So I say to hell with the critics and what they have to say or what "history" they claim to re-write, because that is where they will go if they do not repent. I do not debate or do not argue, because it is fruitless, I would have to say that the sun does not shine when I see it in the sky to deny the things that I know. I also firmly believe that God who is our Father in Heaven, would have us all know the truth, It is HIS Church, not the church of a man, but Joseph was the Lord's seer, we will have HIS word (God's word) through him (meaning Joseph Smith) in this dispensation, and by extention through His current leader President Monson. Do not be discouraged because the night seems dark, it is always darkest before the break of day. Let not your heart be troubled or be afraid because perfect love casteth out all fear. That love is what I have felt all these years, cleanse your hands and purify your heart and the day will come when you will see and know in your heart that these things are so. But remember God will give us according to our desires. We are in the last days and "mens hearts shall fail them" and we cannot live on borrowed light. I do not think it possible to gain a testimony by coming to a web site, go to your Bishop, talk it out. Go to the Lord in prayer and do not give up until you have an answer as Enos did in the Book of Mormon. Do not reject the glorious Gospel of Christ because of the Anti-Christ times we live in. My prayers are with you. May God help you to see the light break forth.

[blackstrap]

MM, has any analysis been done comparing the manifesto and OD2 to Joseph and Christ.??

[MormonMason]

MM, has any analysis been done comparing the manifesto and OD2 to Joseph and Christ.??

Not to my knowledge. There are several reasons for this. One is because neither the Manifesto nor OD2 were written by Joseph Smith. Another is that they also are not revelations themselves but the announcements of revelations received. OD 1 is a letter written purportedly written by Wilford Woodruff. OD 2 is a letter written and signed by the First Presidency under the administration of Spencer W. Kimball.

Neither of these would likely show the Christ pattern in any test and the third reason related to this likely failure is that their word counts are too low for that kind of analysis anyway. For decent results you really need at least 700 words or more. Best results are gotten from blocks of 1,000 words; the more blocks from each proposed author, the better.

By way of comparison, OD1 is only about 371 words and OD2 only about 312 words in length.

As an aside, other things I will note are that three parts of Doctrine and Covenants 76 combined into a block of about 800 words or so have enough words attributed to Christ to show the Christ pattern but the whole rest of the section does not match the Christ pattern. That, however, is to be expected since the revelation was put into the words of Joseph Smith for the remainder of the revelation other than three portions.

Section 20 does not match the Christ pattern. It shows likely authorship for most of it as Oliver Cowdery, followed by Joseph Smith as next likely. This is consistent with the manuscript evidence where a lot of that section was actually written by Oliver Cowdery with some help of inspiration, revelation, and input from Joseph Smith, as they formulated it into a quasi-creedal statement of faith and practice. It is more a section on Church practices and governance at the time as directed by revelation but not the actual revelation itself, kind of like OD1 and OD2. In order to test that section, it was necessary to remove the words of the Book of Mormon contained within the section.

Sections 138 is mostly a description of a vision rather than a direct revelation, and is lacking in specific words attributed to the Lord, so it is unlikely that a Christ pattern would be found there. I have not tested this section and I do not know of anyone else who has. Joseph Smith has been the main focus of these sorts of investigations so most of time revelations and visions of others have been skipped over by most. Only a few of the most daring have actually run tests on James J. Strang, Joseph Smith III, and others who have claimed to be prophets.

I once had someone RLDS interested in this stuff but when she started seeing the results coming in from the results of the plotting that showed that not a single revelation of Joseph Smith III had the Christ pattern in spite of the fact that they appeared to have been written in the first person of Christ, that Brigham Young did have the Christ pattern in his revelation in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 136, and that Section 132 also clustered with the Christ pattern of both the Book of Mormon and Book of Revelation, she decided that she did not want to know anymore and did not continue. She was pretty distraught over the results. I have no idea what happened to her as we no longer had contact after that trying time for her.

Well, probably more than what you asked but I thought you might be interested in what I and others have been finding as we do this sort of thing in what little spare time we have.

[RobertAC]

F-O-R,

I am not a believer -- and I think you have received a lot of good advice from believers here -- but let me make a couple of observations as an outsider.

Prophets seem to be chosen for no apparent reason. Saul -- who later became Paul -- was one of the least likely people to be an apostle. He actually hunted down Christians and killed them as part of his day job before he had his vision and converted to Christianity.

Jesus said that all have sinned and have fallen short of the kingdom of God. It does not take a religious person to see that is a true statement. We all have sinned in some way -- even prophets have and do.

It sounds like you are expecting Joseph Smith to have been perfect. That's a tall order. But if you believe in what he said, then you have embraced the tenets of your faith.

[freedom_of_religion]

F-O-R,

I am not a believer -- and I think you have received a lot of good advice from believers here -- but let me make a couple of observations as an outsider.

Prophets seem to be chosen for no apparent reason. Saul -- who later became Paul -- was one of the least likely people to be an apostle. He actually hunted down Christians and killed them as part of his day job before he had his vision and converted to Christianity.

Jesus said that all have sinned and have fallen short of the kingdom of God. It does not take a religious person to see that is a true statement. We all have sinned in some way -- even prophets have and do.

It sounds like you are expecting Joseph Smith to have been perfect. That's a tall order. But if you believe in what he said, then you have embraced the tenets of your faith.

I can agree with that. What bothers me is the fact that it is so "taboo" to talk about. If the Prophet made mistakes as a man and admits to them or the Church admits to them then great, I can live with that. If it weren't such a hot topic in general I'd probably never ask to have a discussion about it. I think that for most of America the number one concern with us is that we are too secretive about certain issues and that scares them. There was a question that a reporter had asked Mitt Romney about the temple and his response was to "ask my church". I just feel that when we avoid issues or questions it will most likely come accross as an admition of guilt or that we are indeed hiding something. Of course I'm an arguer by nature, I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't arguing about something. If there were a rumor that I had six toes on each foot, I'd in an instant take my shoes and socks off to prove them wrong.

[MormonMason]

There was a question that a reporter had asked Mitt Romney about the temple and his response was to "ask my church".

Believe it or not, that was the correct response given the circumstances of the question.

[blackstrap]

MM , thanks for the info. Is there then insufficient public documentation of revelations since D&C 136 that could be analyzed?

[MormonMason]

MM , thanks for the info. Is there then insufficient public documentation of revelations since D&C 136 that could be analyzed?

I think I am not clearly understanding what you mean by this. Please clarify.

[blackstrap]

Of the revelations received since D&C 136. none are either A. available to the public orB. of sufficent length to analyze.??

[MormonMason]

Of the revelations received since D&C 136. none are either A. available to the public orB. of sufficent length to analyze.??

Not in the case of the Official Declarations. Revelations of John Taylor are of sufficient length, if combined. I have tested several of them and they also have the same pattern and cluster with the 1st century Christ of Revelation. I have yet to get to some of those of Wilford Woodruff. A few have been published in Collier's Unpublished Revelations series. Many of the revelations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff are unpublished and generally unavailable to the public. This is even more the case for revelations of other Presidents of the Church following them. A number of Brigham Young's other revelations are too short to analyze effectively. Does this help answer the question?