Losing Zion

[Jude2]

I was reading through Bushman’s book Rough Stone Rolling and became interested in what he wrote about Joseph’s struggle with “various forms of self-protection” found on pg 230. Then one day I came upon D&C 63 about the purchase of Zion, written in Aug of 1831

“Wherefore, I the Lord will that you should purchase the lands, that you may have advantage of the world, that you may have claim on the world, that they may not be stirred up unto anger. For Satan putteth it into their hearts to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood.

Wherefore, the land of Zion shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you.

And if by purchase, behold you are blessed;

And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance”

I believe the Lord is saying just expect to be martyred it’s going to happen. But don’t retaliate, they were not to shed blood for Zion will not be purchased by blood.

Now I’m going to add in something from my husband’s great great grandfather Levi Jackman’s journal. He writes about the night Christian Whitmer’s home is surrounded by the mobs. He places it on Nov 4th 1833. He says David Whitmer took a group of men to help his brother, sounds like something any of us would do. He writes; “We numbered about thirty with fifteen guns”

Levi explains, “they did not discover us till we were within pistol shot” so it appears to be a sneak attack.

Here’s the whole paragraph;

“We soon came in sight of the mob in and about Christian Whitmer's house. They numbered about sixty, well armed. They did not discover us till we were within pistol shot, when James Campbell, their leader, called, "There come the Mormons, damn them um, shoot um." A general discharge took place, the mob ran in confusion crying, "Go back, Mormons. Go back, Mormons." They left two of their numbers on the ground. One lawyer by the name of Brazill was killed, one more mortally wounded by the name of Linvill. One of our men by the name of Baber, was mortally wounded. A number of both sides were wounded. It was about sunset, and some thought that we had better stop in an empty house near by, but by my advice as to a place of more safety was to return to the mill”

It seems to me that this is the point where Zion was lost for they had shed blood.

They also went against D&C 93 given three months before;

“And again, this is the law … they should not go out unto battle against any nation, ….save I, the Lord, commanded them.

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;

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;

Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles…”

This sneak attack was not the way the Lord would have wanted it handled.

Levi goes on to say that most of the men felt cheerful but he could not eat nor sleep.

“I saw that we were in a situation that nothing but the arm of God could preserve us as we were few in number and surrounded by thousands who waited only for some pretext to cut us all from the face of the earth. I saw that they then had something to start on, and unless the Lord should do something for us, we must all be hewn down by a raging and relentless mob..”

I feel like D&C 63 is a prophecy which came to pass. There are two different paths placed before them one of pacifism and another of revenge. If they had chosen pacifism then Zion would have been built but they chose to shed blood and they were driven city to city.

[Glenn101]

I disagree with your interpretation there. The purpose of the group led by David Whitmer was not to obtain Zion by blood but to protect David's brother, Christian and his family, from mob violence.

Glenn

[Jude2]

I disagree with your interpretation there. The purpose of the group led by David Whitmer was not to obtain Zion by blood but to protect David's brother, Christian and his family, from mob violence.

Glenn

I’ve always been kind of a hawk and used the Book of Mormon as my hawkish excuse. Then I started reading more of Joseph’s feelings and the Lord’s directions and I’m leaning more and more to becoming like an Anti-Nephi-Lehie.

[rameumptom]

Don't forget, the Ammonites, while having buried their weapons of war, still sent their own children to war. In fact, they were about to break their covenant, but Helaman would not let them do it. So, the story is not so cut and dried as you think, Jude2.

Self defense is not included in this issue of redeeming Zion, which is what the Whitmer story is all about. That Zion was lost is partially because of the selfishness and haughty actions of some Mormons (we Mormons are going to rule this place), but mostly because the southerners in Missouri feared the Mormons (mostly northerners) would change their culture, including the right to own slaves.

[Jude2]

Correct me if I’m wrong but up to this point there had been some terrorizing and threats made but no one have been killed. After this rumors spread that Mormons were arming and as Levi said

“I saw that we were in a situation that nothing but the arm of God could preserve us as we were few in number and surrounded by thousands who waited only for some pretext to cut us all from the face of the earth”

This action was the pretext they were looking for. If instead of arming themselves they could have gone in peace it would have turned out differently. Maybe some of them would have been killed as martyrs but the pretext would not have been there. The rest of the nation would have been moved in our favor instead of against us.

There the point that we need to have the faith that the Lord will fight our battles.

Joseph went down there with Zion’s Camp, the intent was to reclaim our land but somewhere along the line he had a change of heart and they avoided the battle but Zion was gone.

[Alan]

Interesting OP.

The fact is that Zion was not obtained, neither has it been redeemed. We are busy establishing stakes right now and have been for decades, but we don't have a centre place. D&C 136, given through Brigham Young, says that Zion will be redeemed in the Lord's due time. Perhaps he is waiting for all the "hawks" among us to die off or repent.

[Jude2]

Interesting OP.

The fact is that Zion was not obtained, neither has it been redeemed. We are busy establishing stakes right now and have been for decades, but we don't have a centre place. D&C 136, given through Brigham Young, says that Zion will be redeemed in the Lord's due time. Perhaps he is waiting for all the "hawks" among us to die off or repent.

I have this notion or feeling that the second coming has always been open ended. That is we as a people have the ability to bring it to pass or push it off by our own righteousness or lack of it.

[ERayR]

Correct me if I’m wrong but up to this point there had been some terrorizing and threats made but no one have been killed. After this rumors spread that Mormons were arming and as Levi said

“I saw that we were in a situation that nothing but the arm of God could preserve us as we were few in number and surrounded by thousands who waited only for some pretext to cut us all from the face of the earth”

This action was the pretext they were looking for. If instead of arming themselves they could have gone in peace it would have turned out differently. Maybe some of them would have been killed as martyrs but the pretext would not have been there. The rest of the nation would have been moved in our favor instead of against us.

There the point that we need to have the faith that the Lord will fight our battles.

Joseph went down there with Zion’s Camp, the intent was to reclaim our land but somewhere along the line he had a change of heart and they avoided the battle but Zion was gone.

When someone is looking for an excuse any pretext will do. If it hadn't been this it would have been something else.

[ERayR]

I have this notion or feeling that the second coming has always been open ended. That is we as a people have the ability to bring it to pass or push it off by our own righteousness or lack of it.

The time is set but "no man knoweth the day nor the hour".

[theplains]

D&C 136, given through Brigham Young, says that Zion will be redeemed in the Lord's due time.

Chapter 7-9 of Gerald Lund's book "The Coming of the Lord" has much more discussion of the Mormon hope to

regain Zion some day in Jackson County in preparation for the Second Coming.

Regards,

Jim

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Anytime you all want to come and help build up the waste places of Zion, we will welcome you with open arms. The more Book of Mormon believers here working to redeem the land, the better.

[Lightbearer]

Actually the Church has been building up Zion for the past 180+ years. That is what Missionary work is all about, land will come later when Zion is purified and the Saints are of one heart. It is a spiritual gathering that must come first before the physical gathering to the lands of their inheritance. So no I do not believe the Church was cursed for defending themselves against the gentile dogs that had political aspirations and despised the Church. I do not believe the Anti-Mormon propaganda that the Saints deserved to be driven under and order of extermination in a so-called land of liberty. It was the spirit of Satan that inspired the hearts of the mobbers and persecuters of that day just as it inspires the hearts of the Anti-Mormon hate-monguers in all ages. Check out D&C 123 if you think the Saints were persecuted because they shed "first blood"!

[theplains]

I do not believe the Anti-Mormon propaganda that the Saints deserved to be driven under and order of extermination in a so-called land of liberty. It was the spirit of Satan that inspired the hearts of the mobbers and persecuters of that day just as it inspires the hearts of the Anti-Mormon hate-monguers in all ages. Check out D&C 123 if you think the Saints were persecuted because they shed "first blood"!

See chapters 5 and 6 of The Coming of the Lord.

In chapter 5, page 70, the saints in Jackson County were told that they must live up to their covenants if they

are to possess the land of Zion. The saints were driven from Jackson County on account of apostasy.

On page 76, the saints did not heed the words of God so they were once again drive from their homes.

Then in chapter 6, page 87, thousands of saints were driven out from the location of the city of Zion in Jackson

County due to their unwillingness to keep the commandments.

But also, part of the blame resided on the Missourians who did not show love and mercy to the Mormons who

were forced out. I think Emma Smith and others remained in Missouri though.Sometimes bad things happen

to people because they are bad, then other times God allows these evil things to happen to good people to

accomplish some purpose of His.

Doctrines and Covenants 124:45-46 talks a little about this principle.

Regards,

Jim

[Lightbearer]

See chapters 5 and 6 of The Coming of the Lord.

In chapter 5, page 70, the saints in Jackson County were told that they must live up to their covenants if they

are to possess the land of Zion. The saints were driven from Jackson County on account of apostasy.

On page 76, the saints did not heed the words of God so they were once again drive from their homes.

Then in chapter 6, page 87, thousands of saints were driven out from the location of the city of Zion in Jackson

County due to their unwillingness to keep the commandments.

But also, part of the blame resided on the Missourians who did not show love and mercy to the Mormons who

were forced out. I think Emma Smith and others remained in Missouri though.Sometimes bad things happen

to people because they are bad, then other times God allows these evil things to happen to good people to

accomplish some purpose of His.

Doctrines and Covenants 124:45-46 talks a little about this principle.

Regards,

Jim

Of course, but it was indicated in the OP that they were being driven because they had tried to "redeem Zion by blood" which is a LIE. The Danites did not have the sanction of the Prophet or the Saints in general and that is the thrust of the argument of this thread. Also while Br Lund's book may be interesting, like so many love to point out it like Mormon Doctirne by Elder McConkie is not official doctrine... yes the Saints may have been guilty of covetnousnss, eny, strife, and speaking evil of the Lord's annointed, yet they will be saved if they repent. I would much rather be in their shoes on the day of judgement than the damned Mobbers or the Anti-Mormons for that matter.

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . .The Danites did not have the sanction of the Prophet or the Saints in general . . . . I would much rather be in their shoes (the LDS) on the day of judgement than the damned Mobbers or the Anti-Mormons for that matter.

As I read the history of this period (both written by mormons as well as non-mormons) the evidence makes it appear very likely that although Joseph was not a leader of the Danites, he was aware of their organization and intent and did not condemn them. If he was not aware of them then he had to have his head stuck in the sand. As for the judgement of the mobbers, some of that judgement occurred during the Civil War in which Missouri was decimated.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I read the history of this period (both written by mormons as well as non-mormons) the evidence makes it appear very likely that although Joseph was not a leader of the Danites, he was aware of their organization and intent and did not condemn them. If he was not aware of them then he had to have his head stuck in the sand.

CFR for the part in bold.

And don't use the excuse you have in the past that everybody knows this already. I don't, and it definitely contradicts what I've read.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Lightbearer]

As I read the history of this period (both written by mormons as well as non-mormons) the evidence makes it appear very likely that although Joseph was not a leader of the Danites, he was aware of their organization and intent and did not condemn them. If he was not aware of them then he had to have his head stuck in the sand. As for the judgement of the mobbers, some of that judgement occurred during the Civil War in which Missouri was decimated.

I double that CFR, Joseph did condemn the Danites and Avard for their actions. You may try to hang this on the Church but it is an Anti-Mormon LIE!

[wenglund]

Didn't Joseph organize Zion's Camp? From what I can tell, they didn't march with the intent of having a hug-fest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-