bcuzbcuz Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 12 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: Speaking of mission folklore, I wonder if it happens out of a combination of actual events, embellishment, boredom, youthful exuberance, and a bit of "telephone". I think that what happens in Mormon folklore is the same as what happens with any folklore, which is a mixture of truth and fiction. That's why I kept a journal, so I could keep my facts straight. I also wrote down the truly bad stuff. How others remember the stories? Not really an issue for me.
consiglieri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 0:59 PM, JAHS said: At the time Whitmer gave that interview in 1885 he had long since been separated (and excommunicated) from the church (1838) because of arguments he had with Joseph Smith about the priesthood and other things, so I consider him a hostile witness at best. But the issue he left over regarding the Priesthood is intrinsically tied to the issue we are talking about. In other words, David Whitmer maintained his witness of the Book of Mormon until the end of his life. But he left the church over what he saw as innovations being made with regard to the Priesthood. This is what he left the Church over. So why should his testimony be called into question regarding this issue in 1885, when it was the same issue he had in 1838? And if you are going to doubt what he4 says in 1885 because he is a hostile witness, should not that doubt logically extend to his testimony of the Book of Mormon? It sounds like you are trying to come up with reasons to not take what David Whitmer says at face value . . .
consiglieri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 10 hours ago, rodheadlee said: I think they were too busy doing things like starting the church, getting funding to print BoMs, preaching the gospel, getting the Word out about the Church , running for their lives, maintaining food and water supplies, etc to realize how important their journals would be 180 years in the future. How every little detail would be scrutinized. Even though the Lord commanded them on April 6, 1830 to keep a history of the Church? It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses apologists have for things that are missing that should reasonably be there. You are forgetting that David Whitmer and William McLellin both say that they never heard anything prior to 1834 about John the Baptist and/or Peter, James and John restoring Priesthood. Do you not see how all these pieces fit together?
Jeanne Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 I have always had a problem with the witnesses anyway. Their signatures represented their integrity and how could you deny that without hurting whatever your life and direction had been thus far? Seems like key people in the early days were so unaware and there has to be a reason or some big questions about that. The priesthood was the biggest part of the said restoration. Understanding how it came about should have been consistent. 1
JAHS Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: So why should his testimony be called into question regarding this issue in 1885, when it was the same issue he had in 1838? Because it contradicts the witnesses of others, such as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery who said: "I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest." (Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 23 March 1846, Oliver Cowdery Collection) I simply choose to believe these witnesses instead of Whitmer.
consiglieri Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: Because it contradicts the witnesses of others, such as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery who said: "I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest." (Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 23 March 1846, Oliver Cowdery Collection) I simply choose to believe these witnesses instead of Whitmer. I just wonder why these statements of Oliver seem to always be mediated through interested third parties.
rodheadlee Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 12 hours ago, consiglieri said: Even though the Lord commanded them on April 6, 1830 to keep a history of the Church? It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses apologists have for things that are missing that should reasonably be there. You are forgetting that David Whitmer and William McLellin both say that they never heard anything prior to 1834 about John the Baptist and/or Peter, James and John restoring Priesthood. Do you not see how all these pieces fit together? No, I think you are looking for conspiracies where none exist .
JAHS Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: I just wonder why these statements of Oliver seem to always be mediated through interested third parties. I don't know; maybe he just wasn't much on writing everything in his journal. Here's another testimony he gave after returning to the church as written in the journal of Reuben Miller who heard him speak: “I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates. … I was present with Joseph when an holy angel … conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood. … I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God.” (Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct. 21, 1848)
consiglieri Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 10 hours ago, JAHS said: I don't know; maybe he just wasn't much on writing everything in his journal. Here's another testimony he gave after returning to the church as written in the journal of Reuben Miller who heard him speak: “I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates. … I was present with Joseph when an holy angel … conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood. … I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God.” (Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct. 21, 1848) I appreciate your finding this quote, and the one before from Phineas Young. Though not written personally by Oliver Cowdery, they certainly bear some weight in assessing what he said regarding the priesthood restoration events. It does seem that Oliver Cowdery referred to the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration event after returning to the Church. Any idea why the record is so scarce on that subject prior to his return?
gopher Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 7:44 PM, bcuzbcuz said: I heard that one too, many years before you came to Sweden. In Norway, I heard several members claim the lost ten tribes will come down through Norway in the last days. Is there a similar belief in Sweden?
MiserereNobis Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Very interesting stuff! But, I gotta say, you all ain't got nothing on Catholic folklore. We've got the Virgin Mary appearing all over the place, from light bulbs to tortillas! There's also crying statues and bleeding Hosts (here's a story that's from the Salt Lake diocese). I guess we've got many more years and members than you so it builds up. Just imagine the folklore that Mormons will have 1000 years from now 4
bcuzbcuz Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 21 hours ago, gopher said: In Norway, I heard several members claim the lost ten tribes will come down through Norway in the last days. Is there a similar belief in Sweden? No, simply because Sweden has no land that borders to the open Arctic. Norway, Finland (almost) and Russia do.
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/30/2016 at 1:19 AM, Thinking said: While on my mission from 1982-1984, there was a popular belief that Spencer W. Kimball would live to see the second coming of Jesus because he was the 12th prophet (12 being such a significant number). That is ridiculous. Clearly it is the 15th prophet as that is how many apostles there are and....oh.....wait....clearly God meant to add 70 to that total. I can say with no possibility of error within my lifetime that the Second Coming will come in the ministry of the 85th prophet of the Church. 2
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/31/2016 at 9:38 AM, MiserereNobis said: Very interesting stuff! But, I gotta say, you all ain't got nothing on Catholic folklore. We've got the Virgin Mary appearing all over the place, from light bulbs to tortillas! There's also crying statues and bleeding Hosts (here's a story that's from the Salt Lake diocese). I guess we've got many more years and members than you so it builds up. Just imagine the folklore that Mormons will have 1000 years from now Our Three Nephites can beat up your crying statues. 1
Recommended Posts