An eyewitness account of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, and?

I "mingle" with various people who are not the same as me.

Mingling AND planning takes it to a more authoritative level.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If this thread has turned to talking about JS...may I ask a question to the devout mormons on this board..I am NOT being snarky here..I am very curious as to what all of you believe was the reason for the tar and feathering.

I ask because like Ushuaia, I grew with with a different JS that I am familiar with at this point.

Thank you..for any reply.

Mods..I ask this in sincerity and hope that you won't shut me down.

 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705255458/Josephs-nightmare.html

 

There is a common belief it was because Joseph had approached the sister of one of the mobbers, but the guy referenced didnt have a sister, iirc****.  That would not explain why they attacked Rigdon as well just as viciously.

 

****or rather the woman referenced didn't have the said brother, Eli:

"It is clear that there was an Eli Johnson at the tarring who was in charge of the tar bucket. It may be that a second uncle, Eli, tagged along with Edward on his move to Ohio for awhile.  He was also known for his religious persecution of those differing from his Calvinist/Presbyterianism worldview. He hated Universalists with their idea of no Hell, so it is real possibility that Joseph and Sidney’s vision of the Degrees of Glory set him off. So he does fit a mobber profile, if this is our man.

Eli was partially blind, fond of drink, disgruntled, the village tale-bearer, and lived in outhouses (apparently not a big property owner). He is known to have lived his last 50 years in Battleboro, NH (1809-1859), posing further difficulty for him being in Ohio for long and being Clark Braden’s source. He would have been around 50 when Joseph was tarred and feathered and not easily mistaken for Marinda’s brother.

Let us just say if this Eli Johnson is your star witness, your Joseph Smith history has major credibility problems. If this isn’t your Eli, than Eli is not a relative and it is even less likely that he would be aware of a sexual impropriety that apparently didn’t bother the Johnson family and was denied by Marinda herself."

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2009/06/17/brother-eli-johnson

 

The most likely reasons were over the possible donation of farmland and religious differences.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Mingling AND planning takes it to a more authoritative level.

Don't missionaries do that (mingle and plan) in ward council?

[kiwi57]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Don't missionaries do that (mingle and plan) in ward council?

Regularly.

I also mingle with athletes fairly regularly. For some reason, nobody mistakes me for an athlete.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its pretty clear to me that Joseph has a higher status than all other prophets according to those quotes.  That one quote from Joseph F. Smith says the name of Joseph's name will be "coupled with the name of Jesus".  So he is theologically elevated at status higher than other mortals, higher than all other prophets, and a status close to Jesus.  This is all part of the theological tradition of Mormonism and I think more than makes my point of a higher status for Joseph which I think contributes to the hero worship that I find troubling.  

There's no need for jealousy, HFT.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I on the other hand don't find this troubling at all.
Joseph Smith IS next to Jesus (or right below him).  
He is higher than the other prophets in this dispensation as he is the dispensation head and therefore presides over them.

John Taylor got it right.

And then there's D&C 132:49

•  For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

I've never understood why even believing members are so unwilling to place their dispensation head at a higher level than other men.  The Jews had no issues doing that with Moses or Abraham.  The early Christians were the same with Christ (or Peter depending on who you consider the head).
Joseph Smith is one of only 7 dispensation heads.
Top 7 out of billions of God's children.  I'd say that's worth a bit of respect.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the candor.  If I were still an orthodox believer i think I would find your kind of embracing of the unique theological ideas of Mormonism quite refreshing in an age when it seems the current trends are to distance the church from much of that uniqueness.  In another generation or two I’m not sure that the church will look that much different than other mainstream Protestant religions.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

There's no need for jealousy, HFT.

 

Huh?  

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, and?

I "mingle" with various people who are not the same as me.

I don’t get how the faultfinders think this line is so scandalous. I would be surprised to find that Joseph was NOT occupying some key role in the spirit world pertainig to the God’s work and glory and carrying it out in direct consultation with Jesus Christ and God the Father. Joseph is, after all, the prophet of the Restoration whose life and mission were foretold in prophecy by Joseph who was sold into Egypt. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Ushuaia said:

Calm down, Scott. Not everyone with a different approach to an ecclesiastical matter is adversary.

I know that. Neither is everyone who takes a wrong approach to an ecclesiastical matter. But that person should still bear correction. 

And as I type this I am calm as a summer day. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If I were still an orthodox believer i think I would find your kind of embracing of the unique theological ideas of Mormonism quite refreshing in an age when it seems the current trends are to distance the church from much of that uniqueness.  In another generation or two I’m not sure that the church will look that much different than other mainstream Protestant religions.  

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t get how the faultfinders think this line is so scandalous. I would be surprised to find that Joseph was NOT occupying some key role in the spirit world pertainig to the God’s work and glory and carrying it out in direct consultation with Jesus Christ and God the Father. Joseph is, after all, the prophet of the Restoration whose life and mission were foretold in prophecy by Joseph who was sold into Egypt. 

The juxtaposition of these two quotes suggests to me that hope_for_things might want to spend less time online and more time with flesh-and-blood Latter-day Saints if s/he really wants to have a handle on what the Church of Jesus Christ might look like in a generation or two. 

I'm with Scott on this one. My love of and appreciation for the Prophet Joseph has only increased over the past few years. I feel reasonably confident that he, like the Ancient of Days, is now mingling with Gods and as fully engaged in the work of salvation as he was in mortality, as the head of this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

I obviously don't share the familiarity with the Prophet that Brigham Young had, but I relate fully to the following sentiment: 'I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom he gave keys and power to build up the Kingdom of God on earth and sustain it'.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705255458/Josephs-nightmare.html

 

There is a common belief it was because Joseph had approached the sister of one of the mobbers, but the guy referenced didnt have a sister, iirc****.  That would not explain why they attacked Rigdon as well just as viciously.

 

****or rather the woman referenced didn't have the said brother, Eli:

"It is clear that there was an Eli Johnson at the tarring who was in charge of the tar bucket. It may be that a second uncle, Eli, tagged along with Edward on his move to Ohio for awhile.  He was also known for his religious persecution of those differing from his Calvinist/Presbyterianism worldview. He hated Universalists with their idea of no Hell, so it is real possibility that Joseph and Sidney’s vision of the Degrees of Glory set him off. So he does fit a mobber profile, if this is our man

Eli was partially blind, fond of drink, disgruntled, the village tale-bearer, and lived in outhouses (apparently not a big property owner). He is known to have lived his last 50 years in Battleboro, NH (1809-1859), posing further difficulty for him being in Ohio for long and being Clark Braden’s source. He would have been around 50 when Joseph was tarred and feathered and not easily mistaken for Marinda’s brother.

Let us just say if this Eli Johnson is your star witness, your Joseph Smith history has major credibility problems. If this isn’t your Eli, than Eli is not a relative and it is even less likely that he would be aware of a sexual impropriety that apparently didn’t bother the Johnson family and was denied by Marinda herself."

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2009/06/17/brother-eli-johnson

 

The most likely reasons were over the possible donation of farmland and religious differences.

Thanks Calm..I appreciate your reply and will check out this link late in the day.  New info for me ..so thank you!

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks Calm..I appreciate your reply and will check out this link late in the day.  New info for me ..so thank you!

I had a chance to read this.  Interesting.  It seems like there are character attacks on all sides..which I needed to know.  So...it is still hard for me to find a truth with so much speculation.though the testimonials of some are very good and believable. 

My home town has a place called Johnson's Pass..and Johnson's Hill...love the family there...the Johnsons!!  They are the descendants of Luke.  So...this was all very interesting...thank you.

 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

The juxtaposition of these two quotes suggests to me that hope_for_things might want to spend less time online and more time with flesh-and-blood Latter-day Saints if s/he really wants to have a handle on what the Church of Jesus Christ might look like in a generation or two. 

I'm with Scott on this one. My love of and appreciation for the Prophet Joseph has only increased over the past few years. I feel reasonably confident that he, like the Ancient of Days, is now mingling with Gods and as fully engaged in the work of salvation as he was in mortality, as the head of this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

I obviously don't share the familiarity with the Prophet that Brigham Young had, but I relate fully to the following sentiment: 'I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom he gave keys and power to build up the Kingdom of God on earth and sustain it'.

I live with and am completely immersed with orthodox Mormons, thats my world and that's how I personally identified just a few years ago.  The reason I make that comment about the uniqueness of the church fading away is I'm looking at the trends and what I see happening with correlated Mormonism.  One example of this would be the church's more moderate and mainstream Christian cosying up to the grace doctrine.  Another would be the distancing away from the God was once a man, and that we will get our own planets, ideas that were moderated in tone in the recent church essays. 

I'm torn because I like much of the unique quirkiness of Mormonism, its part of what makes it fun. 

I'm just reading the herbal tea leaves and this is the direction things are going right now.  

Edited November 10, 2017 by hope_for_things

[theplains]

On 09/11/2017 at 2:57 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

And no, it is not "hyperbolic editorial language." Everything said about Joseph Smith in Section 135 is true.

If everything said about him is true in section 135, then this begs another question - were Joseph Smith's teachings
about Heavenly Father (not God from all eternity to all eternity and a man who became a God by climbing some 
metaphorical ladder) true or false?

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

If everything said about him is true in section 135, then this begs another question - were Joseph Smith's teachings
about Heavenly Father (not God from all eternity to all eternity and a man who became a God by climbing some 
metaphorical ladder) true or false?

Thanks,
Jim

True, 100%.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If everything said about him is true in section 135, then this begs another question - were Joseph Smith's teachings
about Heavenly Father (not God from all eternity to all eternity and a man who became a God by climbing some 
metaphorical ladder) true or false?

Thanks,
Jim

Oops. You used the phrase "begs another question" incorrectly.

 

Quote

 

What is "Begging the Question?"

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "My favorite author is always right because he says so in his latest book." The proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

 

If you had phrased your point in this way: "This raises another question" or "this compels another question" you would have expressed your meaning properly. However, you still wouldn't have been right. My affirmation of the truth of Doctrine and Covenants 135 does not compel one to ask whether Joseph's teachings about Heavenly Father, are true. That is already implied in my endorsement of the truth of Section 135.

However, to answer your question, I will respond that yes, Joseph's teachings about Heavenly Father are true, every word, including the doctrine of divine exaltation or theosis or deification.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I live with and am completely immersed with orthodox Mormons, thats my world and that's how I personally identified just a few years ago.  The reason I make that comment about the uniqueness of the church fading away is I'm looking at the trends and what I see happening with correlated Mormonism.  One example of this would be the church's more moderate and mainstream Christian cosying up to the grace doctrine. 

There has been no "cosying up." The Church's teachings regarding the Atonement of Jesus Christ are as they have always been.

Quote

Another would be the distancing away from the God was once a man, and that we will get our own planets, ideas that were moderated in tone in the recent church essays. 

If anything, the essays are true to what has always been the case: that we don't know a whole lot about God's existence before He became God, so it does not occupy a prominent place in Church discourse. That doesn't imply "a distancing away" from the broad teaching that "as man is God once was."

This silly cliche about getting your own planet was never more than folk doctrine to begin with, an unauthoritative extrapolation drawn from the doctrine that the faithful will be exalted, will become partakers of the divine nature, will thus be as God, and will be joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has.
 

Quote

 

I'm torn because I like much of the unique quirkiness of Mormonism, its part of what makes it fun. 

I'm just reading the herbal tea leaves and this is the direction things are going right now.  

 

I'm getting the impression that what you view as "the unique quirkiness of Mormonism" was in large measure your own unauthoritative  notions stemming from folk doctrine.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I had a chance to read this.  Interesting.  It seems like there are character attacks on all sides..which I needed to know.  So...it is still hard for me to find a truth with so much speculation.though the testimonials of some are very good and believable. 

My home town has a place called Johnson's Pass..and Johnson's Hill...love the family there...the Johnsons!!  They are the descendants of Luke.  So...this was all very interesting...thank you.

 

I understand how you feel. When I first started studying the gospel both for and against I had a hard time figuring out who to believe. It's one of the reasons why I eventually took it all to God for an answer.

come to think of it, joseph had the same issue, which lead to the first vision.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I understand how you feel. When I first started studying the gospel both for and against I had a hard time figuring out who to believe. It's one of the reasons why I eventually took it all to God for an answer.

come to think of it, joseph had the same issue, which lead to the first vision.

:I did too.  For many days and nights I poured  my heart out.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Let us just say if this Eli Johnson is your star witness, your Joseph Smith history has major credibility problems. If this isn’t your Eli, than Eli is not a relative and it is even less likely that he would be aware of a sexual impropriety that apparently didn’t bother the Johnson family and was denied by Marinda herself."

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2009/06/17/brother-eli-johnson

 

The most likely reasons were over the possible donation of farmland and religious differences.

Thanks, Calm. I find it interesting -- and telling -- that the Eli Johnson/Joseph-raped-my-sister story makes such a frequent appearance amongst those who seem to delight in having discovered the 'true history of the Church'.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There has been no "cosying up." The Church's teachings regarding the Atonement of Jesus Christ are as they have always been.

If anything, the essays are true to what has always been the case: that we don't know a whole lot about God's existence before He became God, so it does not occupy a prominent place in Church discourse. That doesn't imply "a distancing away" from the broad teaching that "as man is God once was."

This silly cliche about getting your own planet was never more than folk doctrine to begin with, an unauthoritative extrapolation drawn from the doctrine that the faithful will be exalted, will become partakers of the divine nature, will thus be as God, and will be joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has.
 

I'm getting the impression that what you view as "the unique quirkiness of Mormonism" was in large measure your own unauthoritative  notions stemming from folk doctrine.

Someone should let Robert Millet and Stephen Robinson and Brad Wilcox know so they can quit all this grace talk lately.  Oh Uchtdorf too.  We need to go back to the McKonkie way of thinking so we can pretend that nothing is changing.  

And all those former prophets and apostles, all they taught was just unauthoritative folk doctrine.  I’m confused how former prophets seers and revelators speaking at church meetings isn’t authoritative, maybe someone can explain how that works.  

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Someone should let Robert Millet and Stephen Robinson and Brad Wilcox know so they can quit all this grace talk lately.  Oh Uchtdorf too.  We need to go back to the McKonkie way of thinking so we can pretend that nothing is changing.  

And all those former prophets and apostles, all they taught was just unauthoritative folk doctrine.  I’m confused how former prophets seers and revelators speaking at church meetings isn’t authoritative, maybe someone can explain how that works.  

There’s nothing wrong with what Millet and Robinson and Wilcox taught. It’s just not as innovative or revolutionary in the Church as you seem to claim. 

And I’ve never heard a prophet, seer or revelatory speak in terms of “getting your own planet.” In fact these days I only hear such things from antagonists trying to lampoon or caricature the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Someone should let Robert Millet and Stephen Robinson and Brad Wilcox know so they can quit all this grace talk lately.  Oh Uchtdorf too. 

Serious question: have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s nothing wrong with what Millet and Robinson and Wilcox taught. It’s just not as innovative or revolutionary in the Church as you seem to claim. 

And I’ve never heard a prophet, seer or revelatory speak in terms of “getting your own planet.” In fact these days I only hear such things from antagonists trying to lampoon or caricature the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I agree.

With the emphasis on the word "only."

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s nothing wrong with what Millet and Robinson and Wilcox taught. It’s just not as innovative or revolutionary in the Church as you seem to claim. 

And I’ve never heard a prophet, seer or revelatory speak in terms of “getting your own planet.” In fact these days I only hear such things from antagonists trying to lampoon or caricature the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I could provide a multitude of quotes, but I’m pretty sure you’re already familiar with them and you’ll explain them all away.  

Backfire effect.