Astonished About Early Church History.

[thesometimesaint]

Your claim that Bidamon was antagonistic to Joseph is simply not true, and in fact, makes no sense.

Your Wiki link about Emma does not mention Bidamon's feelings for Joseph, whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you posted it. However, the Lewis Bidamon Wiki article states:

Thinking someone honest but misguided does not rise to the level of "antagonistic."

In addition, Bidamon's Wiki reference states:

This is why your comment makes no sense. If Bidamon had truly been antagonistic towards Joseph, he could have easily opted to side with the mob whose antagonism for Joseph was abundant. But he chose to align with those helping the Mormons. It's highly unlikely someone antagonistic toward Joseph would have done so.

You misunderstand what I wrote. It is very possible to be antagonistic to anyone's truth claims and still not be antagonistic to them personally. IOW; You can disagree with anyone and still not wish any harm to them.

Ps. I will fight to the death for your right to believe any idiotic thing you want, as long as you allow me the right to believe any idiotic thing I want.

Edited April 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[MormonMason]

No, he did not.

According to the Maxwell Institute article A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri:

Perhaps you are thinking of The Book of Mormon manuscript, which had been placed by Joseph in one of the cornerstones of the Nauvoo Mansion. Years later Bidamon was doing some work on the mansion and came upon the manuscript. Visitors who had ties to Mormonism, including Assistant Church Historian Franklin D. Richards, asked to see the papers, and Bidamon would often give a few pages to them as a sort of souvenir. While it is tragic a document of such historical value wasn't kept together and taken care of properly, it certainly was not done maliciously, and in fact, appears to have been a kind gesture.

Perhaps. I seem to remember reading a journal account where a few fragments were given as gifts as well. If I had access to my notes I could check that and get back to you. In any case and if I am mistaken and conflating accounts (memory sometimes does that), he himself, along with his wife and Joseph Smith III, still sold them off to a person who then parceled them out. Had this not been done we may well have had all of them minus a few fragments, and not the few fragments we now have. The remaining rolls that had not been mounted under glass would not have been burned in the Chicago fire had it not been for Bidamon's, Emma's and Joseph Smith III's actions in this regard.

[Stone holm]

What is very clear is that the RLDS Church was very antagonistic to our Church and Emma was important to the establishment of that Church which battled our Church to claim title to the Kirtland Temple, etc.

[Stargazer]

And what would the church look like today IF the office of Prophet and President had been heriditary? Do you think the church would have been able to become the 'stone, cut without hands, rolling forward to fill the whole earth' if early saints had taken the claims of a handful of people to follow a time honored but, uninspired way of choosing a new prophet? I doubt it. The RLDS church did choose Joseph Smith III for the prophet, yet even they have abandoned that pattern for choosing a new Prophet. Joseph may have hoped for his son to one day become Prophet, and I'm certain Emma wanted that for her son as well. If events had turned out differently, he very well may have one day attained that office in the church.

No family had more to lose than mine by not keeping the control of the church in Smith family hands, but it is clear that the pattern they adopted of calling the President of the Quorum of the 12 is the right and correct way--and shows divine inspiration.

Something that occurs to me concerning the true pattern of leadership in God's true church, and that is that leadership is explicitly not dependent upon descent. In the Levitical priesthood, it was all kept within a family, namely the descendants of Levi, and the leadership, the High Priesthood of the Levitical priesthood, had to be descendants of Aaron.

But the Melchizedek Priesthood, which presides, is without descent. In other words, the Lord chose his ultimate leaders from those who did not inherit priestly authority.

If the Presidency of this church were by descent, i.e. the descendants of Joseph Smith, then this would seem to violate the principle of being without descent.

In my humble opinion.

[canard78]

What is very clear is that the RLDS Church was very antagonistic to our Church and Emma was important to the establishment of that Church which battled our Church to claim title to the Kirtland Temple, etc.

Seems reasonable. They considered us a group of breakaway apostates who didn't have the true approval to continue the work of the founding prophet. We weren't exactly 'collaborative' in the early days.

[MormonMason]

Seems reasonable. They considered us a group of breakaway apostates who didn't have the true approval to continue the work of the founding prophet. We weren't exactly 'collaborative' in the early days.

It wasn't quite like that, the way I remember it. It was more like the Church failed in meeting a requirement of God and was rejected as a Church, and a reorganization became necessary. They then differentiated between general and local commandments and claimed that anything relative to temple work was of a local character and not binding upon the Church. Eventually, of course, they then discarded any Section in the Doctrine and Covenants dealing with temple work from their Doctrine and Covenants after a vote in one of their General Conferences. They also had a revelation put into their Doctrine and Covenants that outright denied any provision for temple work and hidden ordinances "now and forever." They had to get rid of those sections that dealt with temple work since they were inconsistent with what they were teaching at the time. I have a copy of their Doctrine and Covenants that predates the vote that completely removed the temple work sections. These sections were removed to an appendix prior to the time of the vote and got rid of them all once and for all. I've been meaning to obtain their latest but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

[Stone holm]

It wasn't quite like that, the way I remember it. It was more like the Church failed in meeting a requirement of God and was rejected as a Church, and a reorganization became necessary. They then differentiated between general and local commandments and claimed that anything relative to temple work was of a local character and not binding upon the Church. Eventually, of course, they then discarded any Section in the Doctrine and Covenants dealing with temple work from their Doctrine and Covenants after a vote in one of their General Conferences. They also had a revelation put into their Doctrine and Covenants that outright denied any provision for temple work and hidden ordinances "now and forever." They had to get rid of those sections that dealt with temple work since they were inconsistent with what they were teaching at the time. I have a copy of their Doctrine and Covenants that predates the vote that completely removed the temple work sections. These sections were removed to an appendix prior to the time of the vote and got rid of them all once and for all. I've been meaning to obtain their latest but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Last time I spent anytime trying to understand the RLDS they did not keep the Word of Wisdom and did not accept the Pearl of Great Price. To me one of the telling issues is that when two of the three witnesses came back into the faith it was the LDS, not the RLDS that they came back to.

[MormonMason]

Last time I spent anytime trying to understand the RLDS they did not keep the Word of Wisdom and did not accept the Pearl of Great Price.

Keeping the Word of Wisdom is not a requirement since they did not make a portion of it a commandment. The Pearl of Great Price was not canonized prior to the Reorganization and was canonized by the Salt Lake City Latter-day Saints. That is why they do not accept it.

To me one of the telling issues is that when two of the three witnesses came back into the faith it was the LDS, not the RLDS that they came back to.

I agree. They lived within reach of the RLDS but chose instead to return to the faith. It is pretty obvious, to me at least, that they considered the one headquartered in Salt Lake City to be the original.

[Stone holm]

Keeping the Word of Wisdom is not a requirement since they did not make a portion of it a commandment. The Pearl of Great Price was not canonized prior to the Reorganization and was canonized by the Salt Lake City Latter-day Saints. That is why they do not accept it.

I agree. They lived within reach of the RLDS but chose instead to return to the faith. It is pretty obvious, to me at least, that they considered the one headquartered in Salt Lake City to be the original.

When thinking of apostate groups, I tend to think first of the FLDS, the RLDS (now Community of Christ) and Church of Christ (Temple Lot. I suppose that is because their guides at the Kirtland Temple were extremely negative towards us and didn't like being called Mormons until we became more popular in the 90's when they suddenly started talking about Restored Theology like we were all of a feather or something.