A Problem With Emma Smith

[jwhitlock]

I am certainly no scholar on this subject. From what I can tell, Joseph Smith designated Hyrum as prophet in 1843, and Brigham later said that Joseph had designated Hyrum to take his place, but obviously that didn't work out.

A quick internet search produced this page, indicating that Joseph Smith III was designated by Joseph to be his successor on multiple occasions; I think this would have to be refuted rather than ignored, unless there was clearly a stronger claim that the Twelve were so designated: http://restorationbo...thsuccessor.htm

Can you provide a reference showing that the Twelve were designated by Joseph to take over when he was gone?

Thanks.

In order not to derail the thread much, I'll only make the following observations:

- The link you posted consists mostly of testimony by JS3, with not much real corroborating evidence.

- The "public meeting", unlike the other items in the link, doesn't give a date for the meeting in the grove. I find it implausible that the body of the church accepted him, because the body of the church mainly went with the Twelve out west.

- JS3 was quite young at the time Joseph Smith was killed, and it doesn't make much sense to designate a young boy as the leader of the church at such a time. Rigdon tried to set himself up as some kind of guardian for the church, but was rejected. It is quite unlikely that someone as intelligent as Joseph Smith would have set the church up for that kind of failure by having a young boy at its head.

- JS3 only joined with the RLDS with some reluctance well after the group had been organized. One can observe the evolution of the RLDS faction over time into its present form as the CoC, and note with certainty that it is lacking prophetic direction of the scope and vision that Joseph Smith held.

- The Twelve were given all the keys that Joseph had, and were also designated as the presiding council of the church should the Presidency cease to exist. They are designated in the Doctrine and Covenants as equal in authority to the Presidency.

- The validity of the succession of leadership to the Twelve is found in the fact that the body of the church, excepting much smaller splinter groups, followed the Twelve to Utah. The RLDS used to make the absurd claim that the majority of the Saints remained with them, which simply wasn't true.

- The rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and evidence of its ongoing prophetic leadership is well documented and far more consistent with Joseph's vision of the restored gospel rolling forth than anything the watered down organization of the CoC has or will ever have to offer.

You can Google Joseph Smith and succession and Twelve to get a variety of sites, some RLDS and many LDS talking about the succession claims. I find more than enough evidence of prophetic leadership in the current so-called Utah church to know that the prophetic succession did occur in that body.

However, putting all of that aside, assuming that what JS3 claimed was true and he had been given such blessing by his father, and assuming that he properly understood what those blessings really were at the age of 11 (questionable in itself), he still had his own agency and was free to make his own choices. Aligning, after much coaxing, with the RLDS faction seems to have been the wrong choice in any case, and the blessing he may have received would then have never been realized. I noted at least one RLDS oriented site that claimed that the Twelve knew that JS3 should come at some point and claim the office of President, but that never happened. JS3 basically drifted off into relative obscurity with a small splinter group while the main church continued to grow and flourish in the west under the leadership of the Twelve.

The Lord always has a plan for leadership, and the Twelve as a body were ready and capable and designated to do just that. If JS3 had been put at the head of the church in 1844, that would have been the end of the organization. I find it remarkable that the Twelve had been so well prepared by Joseph to take over the leadership of the Church; the JS3 succession scenario simply fails to be viable on a variety of levels.

[treeface]

In order not to derail the thread much, I'll only make the following observations:

- The link you posted consists mostly of testimony by JS3, with not much real corroborating evidence.

- The "public meeting", unlike the other items in the link, doesn't give a date for the meeting in the grove. I find it implausible that the body of the church accepted him, because the body of the church mainly went with the Twelve out west.

- JS3 was quite young at the time Joseph Smith was killed, and it doesn't make much sense to designate a young boy as the leader of the church at such a time. Rigdon tried to set himself up as some kind of guardian for the church, but was rejected. It is quite unlikely that someone as intelligent as Joseph Smith would have set the church up for that kind of failure by having a young boy at its head.

- JS3 only joined with the RLDS with some reluctance well after the group had been organized. One can observe the evolution of the RLDS faction over time into its present form as the CoC, and note with certainty that it is lacking prophetic direction of the scope and vision that Joseph Smith held.

- The Twelve were given all the keys that Joseph had, and were also designated as the presiding council of the church should the Presidency cease to exist. They are designated in the Doctrine and Covenants as equal in authority to the Presidency.

- The validity of the succession of leadership to the Twelve is found in the fact that the body of the church, excepting much smaller splinter groups, followed the Twelve to Utah. The RLDS used to make the absurd claim that the majority of the Saints remained with them, which simply wasn't true.

- The rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and evidence of its ongoing prophetic leadership is well documented and far more consistent with Joseph's vision of the restored gospel rolling forth than anything the watered down organization of the CoC has or will ever have to offer.

You can Google Joseph Smith and succession and Twelve to get a variety of sites, some RLDS and many LDS talking about the succession claims. I find more than enough evidence of prophetic leadership in the current so-called Utah church to know that the prophetic succession did occur in that body.

However, putting all of that aside, assuming that what JS3 claimed was true and he had been given such blessing by his father, and assuming that he properly understood what those blessings really were at the age of 11 (questionable in itself), he still had his own agency and was free to make his own choices. Aligning, after much coaxing, with the RLDS faction seems to have been the wrong choice in any case, and the blessing he may have received would then have never been realized. I noted at least one RLDS oriented site that claimed that the Twelve knew that JS3 should come at some point and claim the office of President, but that never happened. JS3 basically drifted off into relative obscurity with a small splinter group while the main church continued to grow and flourish in the west under the leadership of the Twelve.

The Lord always has a plan for leadership, and the Twelve as a body were ready and capable and designated to do just that. If JS3 had been put at the head of the church in 1844, that would have been the end of the organization. I find it remarkable that the Twelve had been so well prepared by Joseph to take over the leadership of the Church; the JS3 succession scenario simply fails to be viable on a variety of levels.

Thanks for taking the time to write an in-depth reply, jwhitlock. I appreciate it, and if given the opportunity, would walk a mile in your shoes before criticizing you...

Seriously, I think you make a good case for why the twelve were the logical successors to Joseph Smith. I don't think you showed that he actually designated them to take over after he was gone, which is what I was sort of hoping for, but apparently they were prepared to do so. As was Hyrum individually, as far as I can tell. That being said, ERayR's post seems to have filled in that missing piece, though the source he cites isn't one that the rest of us can readily look up.

The only one of your arguments I'd really take issue with is using the fact that the Utah church out-membershipped the RLDS church as evidence of who the Lord sided with. By that yardstick, all Christian denominations lose to the Catholics.

Edited October 31, 2012 by treeface

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I found the following paragraphs from Uncle Dale interesting. I think that he made a great point with the following post that he made on a different forum about Emma and polygamy and her denial of it. He said:

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support

necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can

be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this

respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But

I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.

Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious

conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at

other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all

worked together to establish a false church, palming off

false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost

leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit

openly that the founders of their sect lied about the

basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I

guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon

History not to take her words at face value, no matter

how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.

Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his

sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

The whole of her life suggests a great love for Joseph and that she knew and understanded it practice...this does not mean she liked it. I see the RLDS as a means for re-assimilation into a society that would not cost her anymore family. She died 35 years after Joseph while on her dying bed proclaiming her love for him. Also, it cannot be as many have suspected either. Joseph and Emma had eleven pregnancies, no other child of 34 other wives had none? We will never know the "whole truth".

[Alan]

I'm not saying the church went into apostacy, I'm saying that it appeared that way to Emma.

There seems to be little question that Utah polygamy was very different to Nauvoo polygamy. This may have been because the saints were now beyond the reach of the mobs and other opponents and could be more open. But it's practice was more widespread and more "in your face" than at any time before. It would certainly have appeared very different to Emma. To her it probably appeared to be much more like Dr Bennett's system than Joseph's.

With regards to designating a successor, there is ample evidence Joseph designated his eldest son. Not only that, but by Brigham's own admission Joseph designated Hyrum as his successor to the presidency of the church not long before the martyrdom. Remember, Hyrum was Assistant President, not simply a counselor. Had Hyrum survived I believe he would have become president of the church and JSIII would have succeeded him.

However, as we know, it didn't work out that way and in fact Hyrum died first. Joseph had given the Twelve all of the keys he had so, in the absence of the president designate (Hyrum) it was perfectly in order for the Twelve to assume presidential authority. When JSIII (who was only 11 at the time of the martyrdom) refused to come to Utah, opposed the church there, and threw in his lot with the RLDS, it became obvious he would not live up to his designation and the apostolic succession model became the norm.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Alan

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not saying the church went into apostacy, I'm saying that it appeared that way to Emma.

There seems to be little question that Utah polygamy was very different to Nauvoo polygamy.

Yes...more open. BY went "pro". When it got out of control it ended...I think it should ended before 1890.

[jwhitlock]

The only one of your arguments I'd really take issue with is using the fact that the Utah church out-membershipped the RLDS church as evidence of who the Lord sided with. By that yardstick, all Christian denominations lose to the Catholics.

Just to clarify; it's not based on membership, it's based on how dynamic the organization is, related to how dynamic the Church was under Joseph Smith. We would expect an organization that carried the prophetic mantel from Joseph to continue to be very driven, to grow over time, and to eventually (as Joseph prophesied) start to make an impact on the world. Only one of the two organizations fits that mold.

[grhammjr]

I am interested in knowing how many LDS Presidents died with a widow and how many died single (as President Monson has now become). Our widows returned to the ranks of membership or given special status. As an investigator the WoW seemed to be revealed to JS because of his wife's promptings. Does God use the prophet's wives to communicate with the prophets of modern times?

[Johnnie Cake]

I found the following paragraphs from Uncle Dale interesting. I think that he made a great point with the following post that he made on a different forum about Emma and polygamy and her denial of it. He said:

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support

necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can

be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this

respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But

I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.

Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious

conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at

other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all

worked together to establish a false church, palming off

false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost

leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit

openly that the founders of their sect lied about the

basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I

guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon

History not to take her words at face value, no matter

how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.

Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his

sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

Being less than honest with the truth seemed to be a hallmark of the entire Smith family...

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale isn't the most trustworthy of sources.

[Tacenda]

I found the following paragraphs from Uncle Dale interesting. I think that he made a great point with the following post that he made on a different forum about Emma and polygamy and her denial of it. He said:

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support

necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can

be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this

respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But

I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.

Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious

conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at

other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all

worked together to establish a false church, palming off

false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost

leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit

openly that the founders of their sect lied about the

basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I

guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon

History not to take her words at face value, no matter

how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.

Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his

sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

She apparently didn't have a testimony of the first church (LDS), it's so obvious. Back then and even today, people start churches, which really in my mind is fine as long as Jesus Christ is at the head. Maybe she is of that mindset.

[MormonMason]

She apparently didn't have a testimony of the first church (LDS), it's so obvious. Back then and even today, people start churches, which really in my mind is fine as long as Jesus Christ is at the head. Maybe she is of that mindset.

Is it really so obvious? If that were the case she would have joined any old Evangelical church like the Methodist Church she originally attended. The truth was more complex than that. She had a testimony of the Church but not of Brigham Young. She refused to believe that he was the earthly head of the Church that her husband founded and pushed for a church that was a reorganization of the original, minus the idea of plural marriage that she loathed to the point of being dangerous to be around for a time.

The RLDS movement was founded upon a lie, though, because even the first publication of their official organ admitted to the practice of plural marriage by Joseph Smith as one of the reasons for the reorganization. It was not until succeeding issues that it was denied vehemently and slipped under the proverbial rug.

And, if Jesus were the head or the head of the corner of those churches, where are their apostles and prophets, and the keys thereof? They were intended to remain in the Church until we all come to a unity of the faith and reach the measure of the stature of Christ himself. That hasn't happened yet by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited May 21, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

Is it really so obvious? If that were the case she would have joined any old Evangelical church like the Methodist Church she originally attended. The truth was more complex than that. She had a testimony of the Church but not of Brigham Young. She refused to believe that he was the earthly head of the Church that her husband founded and pushed for a church that was a reorganization of the original, minus the idea of plural marriage that she loathed to the point of being dangerous to be around for a time.

The RLDS movement was founded upon a lie, though, because even the first publication of their official organ admitted to the practice of plural marriage by Joseph Smith as one of the reasons for the reorganization. It was not until succeeding issues that it was denied vehemently and slipped under the proverbial rug.

And, if Jesus were the head or the head of the corner of those churches, where are their apostles and prophets, and the keys thereof? They were intended to remain in the Church until we all come to a unity of the faith and reach the measure of the stature of Christ himself. That hasn't happened yet by any stretch of the imagination.

Okay, you're right, she could have kept her testimony, I wonder how many were able to continue in the church that stayed behind. Were there repercussions for anyone choosing not to travel to Utah? I wonder if they just continued belief and gathered with others in the faith. When did Salt Lake okay members outside of Utah to commune with another in wards and stakes, do you know? I know, I know you don't have your books, (just kidding!). My guess is, immediately, in other countries, but in Nauvoo, maybe not. I'm wiped out today and my mind is foggy, so forgive me if I've asked a stupid question.

[Stone holm]

I was originally of a very negative opinion of Emma, and thought the Church had recently white washed and rejuvenated her image because of the importance of "traditional family values" and it just wouldn't do to have the wife of the Prophet apostasize. But last weekend I attended a fireside where a gr gr gr grandaughter of hers who converted to our Church spoke. It was a beautiful fireside, and she told how she grew up in a Baptist family, but her Father was a Church of Christ Temple Lot. She said that she was raised without any knowledge of Joseph Smith until she was 12, and then discovered the hatred that her father's side of the family had towards the LDS Church and Brigham Young in particular. She indicated how the misunderstandings had grown over the years and widened the gulf between the family and the Church, and the pyschological difficulty that she had to overcome to even investigate the Church. It was a pretty impressive fireside and it changed my attitude towards Emma. We really weren't there and didn't go through what she went through. I don't understand how she could have supported the RLDS Church, but then she didn't immediately and she surely went through a pretty miserable life after Joseph's death. So I think we should refrain from sitting in judgment on her. After the fireside I went up and asked her why her father was Church of Christ Temple Lot instead of RLDS (Community of Christ) and she said her grandfather had had a falling out with the RLDS over a doctrine change and his whole family had migrated to Church of Christ Temple Lot. I am thinking that Joseph's children must have been a fairly cantankerous lot that some of them would leave a church which had their family lineage as Prophets for a church which believed that Joseph became a fallen prophet. We just don't know them, so we may not understand them ... but i believe we owe it to Joseph not to attack his spouse and descendants.

[USU78]

Being less than honest with the truth seemed to be a hallmark of the entire Smith family...

Good thing she only married into it then, isn't it?

USU "What a maroon" 78

[USU78]

Uncle Dale isn't the most trustworthy of sources.

I don't get it. For somebody who prides himself on his alleged compassion [hence all the leftie politics, etc], I am shocked you don't get and are compassionate for his pain. He and a whole generation had the rug pulled out from under them by the admissions by RLDS leadership: The folks in the Rockies were right after all. How would you feel if clad in his birkenstocks?

No need to be slamming his integrity.

[EllenMaksoud]

I found the following paragraphs from Uncle Dale interesting. I think that he made a great point with the following post that he made on a different forum about Emma and polygamy and her denial of it. He said:

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support

necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can

be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this

respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But

I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.

Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious

conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at

other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all

worked together to establish a false church, palming off

false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost

leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit

openly that the founders of their sect lied about the

basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I

guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon

History not to take her words at face value, no matter

how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.

Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his

sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

I think you guys need to back your jets here. I find your present line of discussion to be disingenuous and insulting. The woman lost 4 children. Then all the years of running and hiding and staying in strangers houses while her husband was out running and hiding. Then he gets murdered to boot.

I think that she has every right to have become slightly unhinged. I take exception to any bad thing said about her. You should try living her life. I think you would crack at the first baby you squatted out.

[why me]

Being less than honest with the truth seemed to be a hallmark of the entire Smith family...

I don't think that this is necessarily true. I think that the Smith family was an average family until the book of mormon came along. They certainly were not exceptional. What I find amazing is just how much their lives are now dissected for good and for bad. Quite amazing. I don't think that most lives would stand up to such scrutiny as the Smith family has experienced. All would have skeletons in the closet, including the early apostles at the time of christ. I don't expect perfection from anyone. However, when we put together all that Joseph had accomplished within his short life, we do see an exceptional young man who revolutionized aspects of christianity to such a degree that many christians need to confront him and his message.

[why me]

I think you guys need to back your jets here. I find your present line of discussion to be disingenuous and insulting. The woman lost 4 children. Then all the years of running and hiding and staying in strangers houses while her husband was out running and hiding. Then he gets murdered to boot.

I think that she has every right to have become slightly unhinged. I take exception to any bad thing said about her. You should try living her life. I think you would crack at the first baby you squatted out.

Actually, I wrote the OP wrongly. Maybe it was late. Here is what I really meant: for the critics, the church is false. And yet, why would Emma allow a 'lie' to continue, if it were a lie. She would also need to be a psychopath to allow so many people to suffer the trek westward,without regret or remorse. I believe that Emma knew her husband to be a prophet and she also could not explain the gifts that Joseph had with translating the book of mormon as other witnesses to the process also discovered and experienced. Emma is one proof that the book is true and that something extraordinary happened at that time.

Edited May 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I don't get it. For somebody who prides himself on his alleged compassion [hence all the leftie politics, etc], I am shocked you don't get and are compassionate for his pain. He and a whole generation had the rug pulled out from under them by the admissions by RLDS leadership: The folks in the Rockies were right after all. How would you feel if clad in his birkenstocks?

No need to be slamming his integrity.

I think that UD has integrity. But I also think that he has made it his life to prove the book of mormon false. And he has not succeeded in doing this. And he has done much to damage lds testimonies. But I do like Uncle Dale. We go back many years on the boards.

Edited May 22, 2013 by why me

[USU78]

I think that UD has integrity. But I also think that he has made it his life to prove the book of mormon false. And he has not succeeded in doing this. And he has done much to damage lds testimonies. But I do like Uncle Dale. We go back many years on the boards.

All 3 of us do. We've watched his struggle since the early '90s on the a.r.m. board, if I'm remembering your history correctly.

The RLDS sent him to divinity school, along with a bunch of others of his generation. Their education opened their eyes to a lot of things, including the reliability of all those eye-witnesses to polygyny in Nauvoo as well as in Utah, and all that that entails, including the temple revelations. What other response to these kids' questions could they give but "yes, we know and we've always known," and how could those kids be anything other than disillusioned.

Haven't spoken with Dale in several years, but I hope he's doing well. I see his clinging to the word studies and such as his coping mechanism with the profound hurt he and others suffered. It doesn't cost us anything to be gentle with a friend in pain. It disappointed me greatly, though I certainly understand why Dan Peterson, for example, rebuffed and attacked Dale. They never got the chance to get to know one another. But those of who do know can, perhaps, set the example for these ignorant others.

[thesometimesaint]

I am interested in knowing how many LDS Presidents died with a widow and how many died single (as President Monson has now become). Our widows returned to the ranks of membership or given special status. As an investigator the WoW seemed to be revealed to JS because of his wife's promptings. Does God use the prophet's wives to communicate with the prophets of modern times?

I sure hope so.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't get it. For somebody who prides himself on his alleged compassion [hence all the leftie politics, etc], I am shocked you don't get and are compassionate for his pain. He and a whole generation had the rug pulled out from under them by the admissions by RLDS leadership: The folks in the Rockies were right after all. How would you feel if clad in his birkenstocks?

No need to be slamming his integrity.

I'm only a moderately conservative liberal. I feel his pain, I just don't agree on its source. If you went to the doctor to complain about an ingrown toenail, and he started treating you for a head cold. You probably wouldn't think too highly of that doctor.

Get back on topic.

[why me]

It disappointed me greatly, though I certainly understand why Dan Peterson, for example, rebuffed and attacked Dale. They never got the chance to get to know one another. But those of who do know can, perhaps, set the example for these ignorant others.

If dale would have stuck with the RLDS church as his topic of scorn, no problem. But then he went into attacking the book of mormon, becoming a believer in the Rigdon as author of Book of Mormon and began to lead people to question the lds church. What I discovered about Dale's method was basically what I called his hypothetical illustrations of woulda, coulda and shouldas. I hope that he is well.

Of course this also leads to Emma. if one believes that sidney was the author, then emma would need to be a liar. And this is why he needs to be critical of emma not just because of her polygamy lie but because of her statements about the book of mormon.

Edited May 22, 2013 by why me