The Nehor Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I also found out possible inaccuracy in the facts of the article. It states that the apostles were ranked in seniority by their order of ordination but my understanding is that since the first Twelve were all ordained at once that they were ordered according to age and seniority was later established by "time in rank" when new apostles replaced the dead or excommunicated (who went to the bottom of the order if reinstated).
Duncan Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I also found out possible inaccuracy in the facts of the article. It states that the apostles were ranked in seniority by their order of ordination but my understanding is that since the first Twelve were all ordained at once that they were ordered according to age and seniority was later established by "time in rank" when new apostles replaced the dead or excommunicated (who went to the bottom of the order if reinstated). yeah, originally it was by age and then overtime with drop outs and this John W. Young hoopla mcgillicutty stuff they changed it to when you entered into the Q12
Storm Rider Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I love when these rather arcane stories are bandied about as of if they have some value to one's testimony of Jesus Christ or his leaders. I long ago concluded that Jesus was my judge and my intermediary to the Father. I believe that he fulfills that same role for every child of God that has ever lived. If one of us has done something wrong they face the judgment seat in the same manner as I will. Leaders of the Church are not perfect and never have taught as if they should be perceived as perfect individuals. They will have their judgement day the same as each of us. Why would anyone think they would not? Brigham will be no different than you or me; he will stand in the same position as each of us. I hope that he repented of his sins in the same manner that I hope that each of us repent of our sins. Now, for these little known factoids of silliness that get bandied about so often; what is their purpose? Does it bring any of us closer to Christ or make us better disciples? If you are attempting to convince me that prophets are human then you have missed the boat; it sailed a long time ago. 1
jkwilliams Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) I love when these rather arcane stories are bandied about as of if they have some value to one's testimony of Jesus Christ or his leaders. I long ago concluded that Jesus was my judge and my intermediary to the Father. I believe that he fulfills that same role for every child of God that has ever lived. If one of us has done something wrong they face the judgment seat in the same manner as I will. Leaders of the Church are not perfect and never have taught as if they should be perceived as perfect individuals. They will have their judgement day the same as each of us. Why would anyone think they would not? Brigham will be no different than you or me; he will stand in the same position as each of us. I hope that he repented of his sins in the same manner that I hope that each of us repent of our sins. Now, for these little known factoids of silliness that get bandied about so often; what is their purpose? Does it bring any of us closer to Christ or make us better disciples? If you are attempting to convince me that prophets are human then you have missed the boat; it sailed a long time ago.It's an interesting story. No one is trying to hurt anyone's testimony. I don't know about you, but I think history is fascinating. I don't understand why you think it is an attack. Edited September 29, 2015 by jkwilliams 3
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I love when these rather arcane stories are bandied about as of if they have some value to one's testimony of Jesus Christ or his leaders. I long ago concluded that Jesus was my judge and my intermediary to the Father. I believe that he fulfills that same role for every child of God that has ever lived. If one of us has done something wrong they face the judgment seat in the same manner as I will. Leaders of the Church are not perfect and never have taught as if they should be perceived as perfect individuals. They will have their judgement day the same as each of us. Why would anyone think they would not? Brigham will be no different than you or me; he will stand in the same position as each of us. I hope that he repented of his sins in the same manner that I hope that each of us repent of our sins. Now, for these little known factoids of silliness that get bandied about so often; what is their purpose? Does it bring any of us closer to Christ or make us better disciples? If you are attempting to convince me that prophets are human then you have missed the boat; it sailed a long time ago. If you believe the sole measure of a discussion's value is whether it brings "any of us closer to Christ...", I suggest an Internet message board may not be for you. 3
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 If you believe the sole measure of a discussion's value is whether it brings "any of us closer to Christ...", I suggest an Internet message board may not be for you.I don't understand getting so defensive about an insignificant bit of history.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Interesting how you and that author are able to read Brigham Young's mind to verify the existence of this foul plot. So based on the raw facts what do you conclude?
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 if true, this is outrageous! And would cast serious doubt on the order of the Apostleship. Ah what a problem it is when we find things out that may conflict with what we think is true.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Why? Well why is not an issue if preserving your testimony at all costs is your prime directive.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I did, the part where Brigham Young was plotting a dynasty is pure supposition and mind reading. You endorsed this reading so I am calling that supposition out as a guess, reading it in the worst spirit possible. Since you and the author both made this supposition I am calling both of you out as well.So defend it with proof if you can. If you can prove that Brigham Young planned to take over the church for his dynasty and was planning for his family to rule the church indefinitely I will retract my statement and send you a nice fruit basket. Seems pretty obvious what Brigham had in mind. Seems like the other apostles were quite aware of it as well. What is your explanation?
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 From the article, it doesn't sound like John ever left the Church. It notes that even in his older years (after BY had died and his business ventures had failed and the Church wouldn't send him any more money), he lived a life of poverty in the east but would still attend a local branch and talk about how he was an Apostle. And to be fair, the money that BY sent him was more of a stipend. I do not think I agree at all that what John received was a stipend at all. But even if it was why based on what he was doing and how he was living should have tithe $$ been used for that? I think there are other obvious conclusions here but they are far to uncomfortable for most her to admit. 1
Duncan Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I do not think I agree at all that what John received was a stipend at all. But even if it was why based on what he was doing and how he was living should have tithe $$ been used for that? I think there are other obvious conclusions here but they are far to uncomfortable for most her to admit. I may have read somewhere that others leaders also had a problem with the dad giving cash to his son but that would have dried up after he died I would imagine. 1
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I do not think I agree at all that what John received was a stipend at all. But even if it was why based on what he was doing and how he was living should have tithe $$ been used for that? I think there are other obvious conclusions here but they are far to uncomfortable for most her to admit. cinepro's reference to a "stipend" was a joke...he was getting a little shot in at the reference to the financial support current GAs receive as being a "stipend" as well.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 cinepro's reference to a "stipend" was a joke...he was getting a little shot in at the reference to the financial support current GAs receive as being a "stipend" as well. Yes I realized this after my post. Thanks for clarifying.
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Yes I realized this after my post. Thanks for clarifying. You probably didn't need me to, then. But, it was rather funny.
Tacenda Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) I think the real story is the grandson, it's awful, and to have killed the prostitute like that, making her atone for her sins. Where did he learn that? Wait... it was taught at one time.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonementhttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html Edited September 30, 2015 by Tacenda
The Nehor Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 So based on the raw facts what do you conclude? My guess? And it is a guess: Brigham Young slipped a bit into the sins of Eli and David. He loved his son a lot but his love was defective in a small but important way that he slipped into overlooking the faults of his child and tried to protect him too much and give him too much in the hope it would straighten him out. He called his son into the First Presidency in the hopes that being close would help. While Brigham has a reputation for being tough as nails and he could be his domestic side seems to be different. I recall the account of one of his daughters saying he was soft and "kind to a fault". That seems like the kind of error such a person could slip into. I do not think Brigham was obsessed with a dynasty and making sure his son was prophet. 1
The Nehor Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I think the real story is the grandson, it's awful, and to have killed the prostitute like that, making her atone for her sins. Where did he learn that? Wait... it was taught at one time.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonementhttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html Must have been a different version of blood atonement then the one Brigham Young taught. That involved death for the sin of murder. It sounds like the grandson was a piece of work. If, as is believed, he and she were taking drugs together and in some kind of relationship he was as guilty as she was and neither qualified for blood atonement. Sounds like the standard blame the other person for dragging you into it. Here is Disney dramatically showing someone blaming their own sins on another: You kill the cause of the sin and you will be clean again. Projection carried to the point of murder.
mapman Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 It's also interesting that Brigham allowed John to receive his endowment at the age of 11 years. Does anyone know if there were others who received their endowment at such a young age? I don't know how common it was, but my ancestor Isaac Perry Decker was endowed at age 6 in the Nauvoo Temple before his family headed out west. The story goes that when he and some other boys were kidnapped by Indians they killed all of them except him because they found he was wearing garments.
The Nehor Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Well why is not an issue if preserving your testimony at all costs is your prime directive. If that was my plan why would I come here? 1
webbles Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I don't know how common it was, but my ancestor Isaac Perry Decker was endowed at age 6 in the Nauvoo Temple before his family headed out west. The story goes that when he and some other boys were kidnapped by Indians they killed all of them except him because they found he was wearing garments.I have an ancestor that was endowed at the age of 12 because his mother had been promised that her ancestors would get their endowments and she didn't have any male in her family that could help her except her son. So she petitioned him to be endowed and he was.
sethpayne Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I am not convinced that is even the most likely explanation. There are other explanations. Maybe Brigham thought being an apostle would be good for his sons and did not think of leadership possibilities. Maybe he wanted to spread apostleship around in general outside the Twelve and started with his own family. As to how it turned out....well, Jesus had better judgement and picked a much bigger stinker as an apostle. I had no idea you were a 9/11 truther type, Nehor.
Duncan Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 It seems that the endowments of kids happened just prior to the trek west, so maybe they did it because who knew when they would get another chance to get endowed?
The Nehor Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I had no idea you were a 9/11 truther type, Nehor. I had no idea you considered 9/11 conspiracy theories so plausible that you can accept these as analogous.
Storm Rider Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 It's an interesting story. No one is trying to hurt anyone's testimony. I don't know about you, but I think history is fascinating. I don't understand why you think it is an attack. This is a dodge; what is the purpose was the question? Why is asking a question an "attack". Why isn't just asking a question asking a question.
Recommended Posts