Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, don't leave us hanging! who dunnit?!

Well, William Smith believed it was traced back to Brigham Young (that Willard Richards and Hosea Stout were acting on his orders).  I think it was Richards (who was a doctor of sorts, iirc) and Stout who are the ones that actually gave the white powder to Samuel Smith.  I believe his death and the timing of it was suspicious, but I'm not quick to point fingers or name a murderer (or even call it a murder).  I don't really buy the explanation that he died of a broken heart because he was pretty violently ill from what witnesses reported.

I do believe that William Clayton (Joseph's personal secretary) recorded in his records or journal that Joseph desired Samuel to be the next leader if he and Hyrum were killed.  I'd have to look that up, though.

Edited August 2, 2017 by ALarson

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, William Smith believed it was traced back to Brigham Young (that Willard Richards and Hosea Stout were acting on his orders).  I believe it was Richards (who was a doctor of sorts, iirc) and Stout who are the ones that actually gave the white powder to Samuel Smith.  I believe his death and the timing of it was suspicious, but I'm not quick to point fingers or name a murderer (or even call it a murder).  I don't really buy the explanation that he died of a broken heart because he was pretty violently ill from what witnesses reported.

I do believe the William Clayton (Joseph's personal secretary) recorded in his records or journal that Joseph desired Samuel to be the next leader if he and Hyrum were killed.  I'd have to look that up, though.

this is a fun conversation hhahha! Elder Holland's retraction to solving a possible 173 year old murder!

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I'm no Barnaby Jones or anything but is there something that would lead one to believe that Samuel Smith would take over because of his name? Why him and not Joseph's son? which we know did happen of sorts in the 1860's. Did someone murder Samuel on the Apostles' instructions or was the murderer acting on his own accord? If the Apostles were in fact trying to usurp authority why kill Samuel and not Rigdon? or Strang? or any other offshoot group leaders? if we know he was poisoned, either deliberately or unwittingly and we know who did it, how is that suspicious? What made the murderer believe Samuel was a threat? do we have statements to that effect?

Joseph Smith wasn't clear on succession. So, we are left to speculate.  Samuel Smith seems to be the logical choice to succeed Joseph Smith in my mind.  Joseph Smith had a history of putting his family in high positions in the church and wanted Hyrum to take over at one point.  Joseph Smith's son may have eventually taken over had Joseph Smith survived longer.  However, at the time, JSIII was too young to do much of anything.  Hence, my guess is that Joseph would have at least wanted some family member to take over at his death if only for a little while until JSIII was old enough.  Of course this is speculation.

As to the suspicious death of Samuel.  His family thought he was poisoned.  He told Willard Richards of his succession claim and then gets poisoned, allegedly.  As ALarson states, family said that one stopped taking the "medicine" administered to them by Hosea Stout and survived while Samuel continued and died.  That looks suspicious to me.  Doesn't that to you?  Can you at least admit that the circumstances raise suspicion?  Does that mean that we have proof enough to point to the guilty parties if in fact Samuel was poisoned?  Of course not.  Conspirators tend to keep things to themselves and don't write confessions.  Nevertheless, it looks suspicious to me.  It isn't enough to implicate Brigham Young or any of his cohorts but it would have been enough to investigate further if I were a detective at the time or a prosecutor.  

[RevTestament]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't think of many scholars who are dismissing scripture either.  Even a Bart Ehrman for example who doesn't have a religious belief anymore as I understand it, he doesn't dismiss scripture, he uses it to dismiss much of the false narrative that has developed over the centuries of the Christian movement.  Perhaps there are some advocates for completely dismissing scripture out there though, I'm just not too familiar with them.  

Over half of the scholarly and archaeological world has come to dismiss the exodus story for instance. It is common place for them to say there was no Moses nor exodus, or at least no evidence for it, and that Israelites were just Canaanites who formed into a kingdom.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

For example, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus told the story in response to the question "Who is my neighbor?" The story doesn't have to be true for the hearer to understand the message.

A faith promoting story loses its power if it's not factual.

Therefore there is no power in the story of the good Samaritan?

I think you have a contradiction there.

Miracles are perceived by the spirit, not science.  There are no facts only interpretations- and you have a long epistemological road ahead to prove otherwise.  Good luck going against the last hundred years of philosophy.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Joseph Smith wasn't clear on succession. So, we are left to speculate.  Samuel Smith seems to be the logical choice to succeed Joseph Smith in my mind.  Joseph Smith had a history of putting his family in high positions in the church and wanted Hyrum to take over at one point.  Joseph Smith's son may have eventually taken over had Joseph Smith survived longer.  However, at the time, JSIII was too young to do much of anything.  Hence, my guess is that Joseph would have at least wanted some family member to take over at his death if only for a little while until JSIII was old enough.  Of course this is speculation.

As to the suspicious death of Samuel.  His family thought he was poisoned.  He told Willard Richards of his succession claim and then gets poisoned, allegedly.  As ALarson states, family said that one stopped taking the "medicine" administered to them by Hosea Stout and survived while Samuel continued and died.  That looks suspicious to me.  Doesn't that to you?  Can you at least admit that the circumstances raise suspicion?  Does that mean that we have proof enough to point to the guilty parties if in fact Samuel was poisoned?  Of course not.  Conspirators tend to keep things to themselves and don't write confessions.  Nevertheless, it looks suspicious to me.  It isn't enough to implicate Brigham Young or any of his cohorts but it would have been enough to investigate further if I were a detective at the time or a prosecutor.  

I think there were much bigger fish to fry that didn't get killed other than Samuel Smith, I don't know why they didn't go after Rigdon or anybody else. I would have to see what the family said and when they said it to come to any conclusion but what they believe happened may not have in fact happened. We all know OJ did it but his legal team convinced the jurors he didn't. It sounds speculative but not necessarily suspicious. To me, suspicious would be Samuel Smith making statement about him being next in line for the Presidency around the time of his brother's death and the twelve thinking this was s legit threat and then him dying-which he did but I haven't seen any of his posturing for position though. I don't know why they took him out and not William Smith, an ordained apostle-although I don't know what his standing was in 1844. To me Samuel Smith is small potatoes to be seen a credible threat to the presidency 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Joseph Smith wasn't clear on succession. So, we are left to speculate.  Samuel Smith seems to be the logical choice to succeed Joseph Smith in my mind.  Joseph Smith had a history of putting his family in high positions in the church and wanted Hyrum to take over at one point.  Joseph Smith's son may have eventually taken over had Joseph Smith survived longer.  However, at the time, JSIII was too young to do much of anything.  Hence, my guess is that Joseph would have at least wanted some family member to take over at his death if only for a little while until JSIII was old enough.  Of course this is speculation.

Yes, and the only other living brother was William Smith who was not a likely candidate 

Here is some information and also sources named regarding Samuel and the succession:

Quote

 

After the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith on 27 June 1844 many questions were asked about a successor to the office of Prophet-President and Patriarch to the church. For those at Nauvoo like Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the question was who is to succeed Hyrum as Patriarch. William Clayton in his important Nauvoo journal reported for the date of 2 July 1844:

Tuesday 2nd A.M. went to see Emma. She is in trouble because mother Smith is making disturbance about the property in Joseph[']s hands. Mother Smith wants Samuel to move into Nauvoo and take the Patriarch[']s office & says the church ought to support him.11

Ten days later on 12 July Clayton recorded in his journal:

Friday 12th. A.M. at the Temple measuring Lumber. Prest. Marks came up to enquire which was best to do about appointing a Trustee. We concluded to call a meeting of the several presidents of Quorums & their council this P.M. at 2 o clock. As I returned to dinner bro. Whitney came down with me & stated his feelings about Marks being appointed Trustee. He referred me to the fact of Marks being with Law & Emma in opposition to Joseph & the quorum. - And if Marks is appointed Trustee our spiritual blessings will be destroyed inasmuch as he is not favorable to the most important matters The Trustee must of necessity be the first president of the Church & Joseph has said that if he and Hyrum were taken away Samuel H. Smith would be his successor.12

Evidently Bishop Newel K. Whitney and/or William Clayton had heard before the death of Joseph Smith that "if he [Joseph] and Hyrum were taken away Samuel H. Smith would be his successor." Whether this would be until Joseph Smith III becomes of age is not mentioned. But as far away as Massachusetts John Hardy, President of the Boston Branch of the church discussed with the public press the possibility that Samuel H. Smith would take Hyrum Smith's place as Patriarch. This statement was made while most of the Twelve Apostles were in the east on church missions and before the notice of the death of Samuel Smith who died on 30 July 1844.13

 

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

 

As to the suspicious death of Samuel.  His family thought he was poisoned.  He told Willard Richards of his succession claim and then gets poisoned, allegedly.  As ALarson states, family said that one stopped taking the "medicine" administered to them by Hosea Stout and survived while Samuel continued and died.  That looks suspicious to me.  Doesn't that to you?  Can you at least admit that the circumstances raise suspicion?  Does that mean that we have proof enough to point to the guilty parties if in fact Samuel was poisoned?  Of course not.  Conspirators tend to keep things to themselves and don't write confessions.  Nevertheless, it looks suspicious to me.  It isn't enough to implicate Brigham Young or any of his cohorts but it would have been enough to investigate further if I were a detective at the time or a prosecutor.  

I would start my investigation with mosquitoes rather than looking for conspirators.   

[ALarson]

Just now, Duncan said:

I think there were much bigger fish to fry that didn't get killed other than Samuel Smith, I don't know why they didn't go after Rigdon or anybody else. 

Rigdon and Joseph were not close when Joseph died and I believe Rigdon was not even a consideration for Joseph.  Others knew of that too.

See my source above regarding Samuel and the succession.  I do believe that Joseph wanted a family member to take his place.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would start my investigation with mosquitoes rather than looking for conspirators.   

Of course.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Joseph Smith was always appointing family to high positions and tried to have Hyrum take over at one point. Yes, the people refused but would they have had Hyrum survived? To me, this is why I think Samuel Smith was the logical successor prior to his untimely, suspicious death.

Hey, I answered your questions and you just ignore mine.  

"Logical successor" maybe, but common consent is the thing that trumps all your supposition.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Rigdon and Joseph were not close when Joseph died and I believe Rigdon was not even a consideration for Joseph.  Others knew of that too.

See my source above regarding Samuel and the succession.  I do believe that Joseph wanted a family member to take his place.

Maybe, maybe not.

Rigdon was still the other member of the 1st presidency at the time of Joseph's death. My understanding is that he had been living out of the state to establish residency so he could run as Joseph's VP in the presidential election. It sounds like Rigdon was still held in good favor and trusted with significant responsibility.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, its nice to know that the philosophy lines up with evidence coming out of neuroscience.  And I'm still working on my philosophy understanding, but what you say here seems to reinforce what I thought I understood from earlier discussions, so I'm glad about that. 

I wonder though if this kind of paradigm about the God experience being an internal one is something that many religious people would find difficult to comprehend and/or a threat to their faith in God.  It certainly doesn't conform to the traditional approach in Mormonism.  It will become increasingly more clear in mainstream society that there are very good natural explanations for most everything, and some of these things today are in that religious domain, but the number of things there seem to be shrinking as our knowledge progresses forward.  

I just think that for religion to continue to find relevance in the future it will need to engage with rethinking of paradigms on these issues.  

Agreed

But most people don't think these things through to come to the only possible conclusion.  We cannot KNOW about anything we cannot perceive.  Neuroscience tells us that and philosophy has been saying it for a hundred years- which is the usual lag between philosophy and science  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

It usually takes about another hundred years for new ideas to get down to the man in the street.

So around 2117 everyone will take this as an assumption that is irrefutable, or at least as "true" as we see evolution now. 

But it is very scriptural if you want to see it- and yes I said that.  Belief is volitional and we build our worlds according to our desires, taking matter unorganized as our Human God has done actually OR figuratively depending on how you want to see it, and created HIS own world(s).

Is this also a story to describe the human creation of our own worlds?   THAT idea has been around LDS-dom for 150 years and so should stick here better than elsewhere.

The idea goes way back to at least Kant, and then Schiller, a discussion we had on the "Justifying" thread.   It was in the air in Europe when Joseph S was around

That's the way ideas work- it is like they are "in the air" and everyone suddenly thinks the same way at the same time within a hundred years or so- it's actually viral the way it works- we can now use that word to express it since the internet.

If you see it, you see it everywhere.

I got converted - oh my gosh- now around 50 years ago when I was 20 or so and have been studying it now for 50????  years???   I guess so!!!

So I guess that is why I do not express it so well.  To me these ideas are old old old news and I feel like I am preaching evolution to people who all live in 1900.

They are so basic to me I cannot speak without assuming everyone thinks the same way.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How many members were not at the meeting? How many members stayed behind and did not follow Brigham Young?

Don't know.    A small minority.

"Common consent" does not require that a proxy solicitation be mailed out to all known members.  Common consent applied to general meetings of the Church in the Nauvoo days.  As I have pointed out above, "common consent" has a self-weeding out feature.  If you don't agree, you don't show up for meetings and you leave.  Common consent is a concept that applies to believers.  

I think that Sidney departed with a small group of followers and they operated with "common consent."  Years later, a common consent body followed Emma and Joseph Smith III. 

But if the question is whether the Quorum of the Twelve "usurped" power, the question is absurd in the context of common consent governance.  The Twelve is the Salt Lake Church.  It would be like arguing that Trump has no right to be President because the Democrats were against it.  Huh?  I think Trump is a scoundrel and a bum and I voted for Hillary, but I don't assert that he usurped the democratic process.  The power to usurp was the power of common consent, which didn't happen.  Sure, the Saints could have easily have agreed to Rigdon and we'd all be based on a church from Pennsylvania.  But the vote didn't go that way.   You seem to think that a body of thousands of Saints have no free will to make a decision.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Hey, I answered your questions and you just ignore mine.  

"Logical successor" maybe, but common consent is the thing that trumps all your supposition.

It was not set up for that yet and was pretty disorganized upon Joseph's death.  There were conflicting instructions and claims.  That's why the succession was a mess really and one of the reasons it took years before Brigham Young was sustained as the president.

A good and detailed history of the succession was written by Andrew F Ehat for his thesis, "JOSEPH SMITH'S INTRODUCTION OF TEMPLE ORDINANCES AND THE 1844 MORMON SUCCESSION QUESTION":

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

This is a fascinating paper to read through (with a few errors because of the time it was written).

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe, maybe not.

Rigdon was still the other member of the 1st presidency at the time of Joseph's death. My understanding is that he had been living out of the state to establish residency so he could run as Joseph's VP in the presidential election. It sounds like Rigdon was still held in good favor and trusted with significant responsibility.

They had not gotten along for awhile.  I do find it odd that he was going to be Joseph's running mate with what I've read about the two of them at that time.  But Joseph must have had his reasons.  Iirc, Joseph had tried to have him removed as his counselor.  Rigdon really had some problems and even some mental issues from what I've read.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Over half of the scholarly and archaeological world has come to dismiss the exodus story for instance. It is common place for them to say there was no Moses nor exodus, or at least no evidence for it, and that Israelites were just Canaanites who formed into a kingdom.

Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that you have a level of discomfort with the scholarly interpretations when these interpretations drift too far away from your traditional (but modern) perspective.  I.E. likely no Moses, Abraham, or Canaanites being part of the Israelite nation rather than distinctly separate.  

I guess we differ in what we consider a dismissal of scripture, because I don't think this is dismissing scripture, I think its just using the best information we have to try and make sense of these ancient writings.  

[Grudunza]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

3)That's not true, read Jorgensen, Lynne Watkins. “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: A Collective Spiritual Witness.” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, 1996. 

I just skimmed a little of that, and it repeatedly acknowledges that there were no contemporary accounts. The first noted reference from two sisters is six years later in 1850. Now, I do recall reading a reference somewhere (perhaps included in that article) from about a year later, but still... nothing recorded on that day or near that day. 

To me, it's a perfect candidate for being a "telephone game" embellishment... "Brother Brigham spoke powerfully that day - He spoke with the power of Joseph that day - He sounded a lot like Joseph - He had Joseph's exact voice - He turned into a manifestation of Joseph!" 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Grudunza

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Grudunza said:

I just skimmed a little of that, and it repeatedly acknowledges that there were no contemporary accounts. The first noted reference from two sisters is six years later in 1850. Now, I do recall reading a reference somewhere (perhaps included in that article) from about a year later, but still... nothing recorded on that day or near that day. 

To me, it's a perfect candidate for being a "telephone game" embellishment... Brother Brigham spoke powerfully that day - He spoke with the power of Joseph that day - He sounded a lot like Joseph - He had Joseph's exact voice - He turned into a manifestation of Joseph!

Yes, and iirc, there were several who were in attendance who came home and recorded the event that night or within days and did not mention this happening.  

But hey, it's a great story, right?

[Grudunza]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Yes, and iirc, there were several who were in attendance who came home and recorded the event that night or within days and did not mention this happening.  

But hey, it's a great story, right?

Yes. Good point. The event was recorded by many on that day and immediately after, and I think even the church news (was it still the T&S then?) wrote about it, and no mention of such a transfiguration.

[RevTestament]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that you have a level of discomfort with the scholarly interpretations when these interpretations drift too far away from your traditional (but modern) perspective.  I.E. likely no Moses, Abraham, or Canaanites being part of the Israelite nation rather than distinctly separate.  

I guess we differ in what we consider a dismissal of scripture, because I don't think this is dismissing scripture, I think its just using the best information we have to try and make sense of these ancient writings.  

Well, when they also dismiss Judaism and Christianity, I think it safe to say they dismiss the scriptures. They study them but don't believe them. It is one thing to believe a story has purpose and meaning even if it is "a parable," but quite another to say it is simply made up and stuck in "scripture." I believe that is "dismissive."

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It was not set up for that yet and was pretty disorganized upon Joseph's death.  There were conflicting instructions and claims.  That's why the succession was a mess really and one of the reasons it took years before Brigham Young was sustained as the president.

A good and detailed history of the succession was written by Andrew F Ehat for his thesis, "JOSEPH SMITH'S INTRODUCTION OF TEMPLE ORDINANCES AND THE 1844 MORMON SUCCESSION QUESTION":

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

This is a fascinating paper to read through (with a few errors because of the time it was written).

 

It was "set up for that."  Common consent was in common practice.  The Saints wouldn't have been confused if Sidney Rigdon had not stepped forward to claim his protectorate status.  I don't care about what Ehat has concluded.  He and others focus upon the controversy caused by Rigdon, but say nothing about the fact that Brigham Young claimed to be in control of the Church and all would have gone well without Rigdon.

As to your reference to the years it took Brigham Young to be sustained as president, there was only one reason.  He could not get the consent of his Quorum.  He tried; didn't get it.  Again, common consent rules here.  For a time the Quorum questioned the need for a separate first presidency.  They knew that the First Presidency was merely the executive arm of the Quorum of the Twelve.  Many of them also believed that Brigham Young's secular quest for power could be controlled through regular quorum votes.   Brigham Young was already president of the Quorum and already had two counselors in place.  And, they could have been equally right had the vote gone that way.

The same kind of delay occurred after Brigham Young's death.  Again, folks thought that a separate First Presidency was not required.  The Doctrine & Covenants doesn't talk about it one way or the other.  I could see the day in the future when the First Presidency is collapsed into the Quorum of the Twelve.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It was "set up for that."  Common consent was in common practice.

Not for replacing the Prophet and president (or knowing who was to be the one to replace Joseph).  Sure there had been "common consent" on other matters, but the resulting confusion and chaos is evidence it was not well established yet.  In the end, it was by common consent, of course.

But it was not as cut and dried as it is now as to who is to replace a president and Prophet.  It took over 3 years to ordain BY to replace Joseph and also over 3 years to ordain John Taylor to Prophet after Brigham's death.

I'd recommend reading Ehat's thesis if you haven't.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, when they also dismiss Judaism and Christianity, I think it safe to say they dismiss the scriptures. They study them but don't believe them. It is one thing to believe a story has purpose and meaning even if it is "a parable," but quite another to say it is simply made up and stuck in "scripture." I believe that is "dismissive."

Thats the thing, I don't think the scholars who are seriously questioning the historicity of all the things we've mentioned, are saying "it is simply made up".  I think they are saying, these stories aren't historical, truly are myths in the academic sense of the word, but that these myths were used to form identity and the roots of these very influential religious movements.  

If you've read some C.S. Lewis this is what drew him back to Christianity, was this idea of a true myth, but he recognized the myth making process and didn't just dismiss it as "made up" even though technically aren't all stories "made up" even the ones based on a true story as a backbone, the way we tell the story is still "made up".  But do these made up stores have meaning, value, even truth?  I say yes, and I think that can largely exist independent of any historicity claims.  

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats the thing, I don't think the scholars who are seriously questioning the historicity of all the things we've mentioned, are saying "it is simply made up".  I think they are saying, these stories aren't historical, truly are myths in the academic sense of the word, but that these myths were used to form identity and the roots of these very influential religious movements.  

If you've read some C.S. Lewis this is what drew him back to Christianity, was this idea of a true myth, but he recognized the myth making process and didn't just dismiss it as "made up" even though technically aren't all stories "made up" even the ones based on a true story as a backbone, the way we tell the story is still "made up".  But do these made up stores have meaning, value, even truth?  I say yes, and I think that can largely exist independent of any historicity claims.  

OK. Let me put it this way. They believe man made up the stories. Thus they believe it to be fiction rather than a message from God whether a symbolic parable or a version of what actually happened. When they get to the "fiction" determination, I believe it is dismissive of scripture. Then it becomes just a work of fiction rather than scirpture even if used by men to form some kind of identity. It dismisses God. Thus, it dismisses scripture. If you want to continue to parse the semantics, you can, but that is how I am using the term to describe their belief or their "work."