We are Latter-day Messengers and Advocates for Jesus Christ and His Gospel Restored.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Like A Lamb To The Slaughter
So described the Prophet Joseph, his last trip to Carthage Jail, in Illinois in June, 1844--162 years ago this evening. He and his brother Hyrum were jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights in their practice of Revealed Religion. While under the protection of the State of Illinios, The Prophet Joseph and his brother Hyrum were brutally murdered in cold blood by a mob.
Martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his brother, Hyrum Smith the Patriarch, at Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844. HC 6: 629—631. This document was written by Elder John Taylor of the Council of the Twelve, who was a witness to the events.
1—2, Joseph and Hyrum martyred in Carthage Jail; 3, Preeminent position of the Prophet acclaimed; 4—7, Their innocent blood testifies of the truth and divinity of the work.
1 TO seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the amartyrdom• of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. bHyrum• was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a cdead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: dO• Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls. 2 John Taylor and Willard Richards, two of the Twelve, were the only persons in the room at the time; the former was wounded in a savage manner with four balls, but has since recovered; the latter, through the providence of God, escaped, without even a hole in his robe. 3 Joseph Smith, the aProphet and bSeer of the Lord, has done more, csave Jesusonly, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the dfulness• of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own eblood•; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not fseparated•! 4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a alamb• to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a bconsciencecvoid of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it: 5And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been afaithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made bclean•. And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I . . . bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the cjudgment-seat• of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.The dtestators• are now dead, and their etestament• is in force. 6 Hyrum Smith was forty-four years old in February, 1844, and Joseph Smith was thirty-eight in December, 1843; and henceforward their names will be classed among the amartyrs of religion; and the reader in every nation will be reminded that the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the best blood of the nineteenth century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world; and that if the fire can scathe a bgreen• tree for the glory of God, how easy it will burn up the dry trees to purify the vineyard of corruption. They lived for glory; they died for glory; and glory is their eternal creward. From age to age shall their names go down to posterity as gems for the sanctified. 7 They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the aaltar• that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.
Praise to the man who commun'd with Jehovah Jesus anointed "that Prophet and Seer," Blessed to open the last dispensation; Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.
CHORUS— Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven, Traitors and tyrants no fight him in vain, Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren, Death cannot conquer the hero again.
Praise to his mem'ry, he died as a martyr; Honor'd and blest be his ever great name; Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Stain Illinois, while the earth lauds his fame CHORUS—Hail to the Prophet, &c.
Great is his glory, and endless his priesthood, Ever and ever the keys he will hold; Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom, Crown'd in the midst of the prophets of old. CHORUS—Hail to the Prophet, &c.
Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven; Earth must atone for the blood of that man! Wake up the world for the conflict of justice, Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again. CHORUS—Hail to the Prophet, &c.
Source: [W. W. Phelps] "Joseph Smith," Times and Seasons 5 (1 August 1844): 607.
guy, i dig ya man. but sheesh. ya may enjoy getting a wee bit up to speed on the facts.
a sheep, when slaughtered, will stand still and allow its heart to be cut out, with a relatively lighter fight than say, a goat. or so i am told.
a lamb, would not destroy a printing press, nor kill two men with a weapon that was covertly obtained. a lamb would not have herself kinged for the earth, or marry another mans wife.
im just sayin..perhaps he didnt deserve to die, but he wa'nt no lamb.
perhaps he did more than all men save jesus, but he was not a lamb about it. seriously. his spiritual influence is subjective and personal, for you it may be meaningful, but the facts defy this lamb image.
I don't understand why you frequent blogs like mine if they "reignite" the intensity (whatever that might be). It just seems you would be more comfortable reading and commenting on blogs where more people will agree with your viewpoint.
You and I have such a wide divergence of opinion, I see no way you or I will ever convince the other of our respective positions.
Be that as it may--I would never stick a pin in a mayan voodoo doll with the intent to do you any harm.
All I can say about the moview is WOW. First how did the writers decide which of the seven versions of the First Vision to use.
I recently saw the new movie at Temple Square. I was amazed to see how Joseph only had one wife. I am aware of 33. How did he manage to have all that time to devote to his family when he was out with other women.
Poor Joseph for being persecuted by William Law. What would you do if someone propositioned your wife while instructing you to say that the church doesn't practice polygamy. Maybe William Law was being persecuted by Joseph Smith. We can still read the original copy of the Nauvoo Expositor.
I haven't yet seen the movie; but, plan to do so at some future point. It is a bold statement; but it is a bold mission and responsibility to be part of Christ's restored Church in the last dispensation.
The Sacred Grove is another location I would like to visit. I share your gratefulness.
BTW--have you stopped by the new location for the Blog? Let me know what you think.
Tex: You and the anti-Mormon crowd of which you are clearly a part really need to come up with something better than this stale anti-Mormon drivel you blather about here.
I'm not certain why you feel compelled to visit blogs like this, when there are plenty of anti-Mormon sites out there, where your message would be better received. You're comments here are anything but persuasive.
You are a prime example of a pathetic individual who has left the Church (if you were ever a part) . . . but just can't leave the Church alone.
"You are a prime example of a pathetic individual who has left the Church (if you were ever a part) . . . but just can't leave the Church alone."
Guy, certainly i may not be welcome here. and it appears tex aint welcome either. Fine, you have suggested i leave and i suppose i will. but first, allow me to point out a few things.
I am leaving the church as you suggested. see my post on that anti mormon site. i should thank you too, the conversation here and in other venues encouraged me to follow up on my resignation. you were kind to allow me to dialogue with you.
isnt it interesting that you would refer to tex as pathetic, when, she has not pointed out ONE thing that was not printed in Rough Stone Rolling or on FARMS. so what is it that you are angry about guy, that she said something on your blog? that she said something factual on your blog? that she said something that was not correlation approved? what, guy, what could it be to make him pathetic?
is pathetic a bad thing? is that the tone you learned in your high priest group? it may be. i saw a lot of that kind of logic when i was a high priest group leader and high councilman.
is it true that people like tex, who embrace the facts, are not welcome in your church? what if her kids are members? what if her husband is a frequenter of your blog and accepts your presentation, though facts are not welcome here? what then? is she not welcome to respond? apparently not.
its sorta like byu isnt it. it is your blog. you can determine the rules. and you can select your audience. but, whats right for you or byu, aint exactly ethical or moral all the time is it.
and yes, i am the black pot, i call it like it is.
your comments to tex are persuasive. im persuaded that you were in a bad mood, or, you may be a bad person. but i doubt that.
uh oh, tex did say FRAUD. forgot about that part. ok, fair enough, bushman didnt use fraud to describe js, jr. but, that really was tex's conclusion where her facts were in line with history.
ill take one stick in the mayan voodoo doll for that one.
I do get a bit short when I read comments like Tex's, as well as some you have made here and on other sites. I don't quibble that certain portions of your comments, and even Tex's contain verifiable facts, i.e., more than one version of the First Vision, more than one wife. But where I get testy, are in the conclusions that you, Tex and any others know are inflammatory, particularly on blogs such as this. Yeah . . you know what I'm talking about:
" Praise to the man I say praise to the FRAUD."
Perhaps you might recall the dialogue we had with Todd Ormsbee awhile back about the BYU professor, Nielsen. It was a well reasoned discussion, without the hyperbole and the nastiness.
I'm open to those types of discussions. I've read several of your posts on other blogs, not LDS, and you can be quite blunt. I edited you once here for crossing the line; but, for the most part you have been pretty good, and much more toned down in your rhetoric than you are on other blogs where you speak much more forcefully. For that, I express gratitude.
As I told you before you are welcome here as long as you comply with the comment guidelines--which for the most part you have been.
I do wonder though--seriously--why you and folks like Tex like to stir things up on blogs like this. Rational discourse is one thing. Referring to Joseph Smith as a FRAUD though isn't going to win you many friends over on this side of the fence.
My apologies to you and Tex if I was too strong in my tone. I should be better in following President Hinckley's counsel to be civil and kind to all.
mayan: BTW . . . it didn't help any that Tex dissed a long time good friend of mine dating back to my youth. TBM's have feelings just as much as anyone else. It might be something to consider before hitting that post key!
1. dissing someone is showing disrespect to them 2. being dissed is the act of being disconnected, by voice or by modem, from another party
Yo, back off. Don't dis' my peeps.
I didn't finish the file transfer last night because I got dissed. ============ Guy, Tex may have dissed, and may not have. if i am correct, she asked questions (fraud comment re JSJ excepted)
Why do i come here. i came here because there was a meaningful discussion of a serious topic. one that included my very dear friend, dr. ormsbee. i stuck around because i bookmarked it and see the m and a name on the favorites from time to time.
as for being here versus the anti sites? hmmmmm? please, dont fall prey to that anti label. its dangerous and inaccurate. sure other venues allow for stronger language, but i challenge you to find a greater online community than where you find my posts. i have met many of those people in person. i know many from my life in the church. irl im sayin. you will not find a community, including a mormon congregation, that has matched the meaningful influence on real lives that NOM has. i doubt you care to know the details. i simply point it out to refute your pathetic "pathetic" tag. (which i doubt you really meant btw)
ask john dehlin about that community. he is someone i respect. i dont think he would charge any of them as pathetic.
why people dont leave the church. we are born into this church, with few exceptions. our families are in this church. our mothers have accused us of being satanic and unfaithful. our own mothers have more faith in this church than in their own children. and before you judge my mother or anyone elses, consider that these mothers are conditioned to think this way. they are conditioned to trust the counsel of some old uniformed but authoritative men on issues such as homosexuality, marriage, priesthood and many other things. and they quickly take sides with the church and dismiss their children. so, it is tough to leave, when leaving is to self-orphan as well.
people like me, like tex and others, get a bit annoyed to see a praise to the man rant that ignores facts and ignores the difficulty it is for a woman or a family to subscribe to the correlated feel good stories, when the facts are harsh, brutal and controversial.
i hope that no matter where my satan fearing mother goes to read about the praised man, she sees facts, and when she sees only fantasy, i hope there is someone willing to stand up and declare the facts with conviction and show some chutzpah to say its ok not to subscribe to the simple feel good versions of everything, especially when lives and souls are at stake.
Dissing, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and, in my eyes Tex dissed my friend, his religious beliefs, as well my religious beliefs.
Look . . . I've said this before, and I think it is one of the few areas where we will find some agreement:
You and I have fundamental disagreements about the Church. We may always have these disagreements. I don't believe either of us will change the other's perspective. I'm certainly not trying to change yours. You don't see me over at View from the Foyer trying to disseminate Preach My Gospel.
The fact is, Mayan, I have read what you and many others have written in online forums about the Church, its leaders, its members, and their beliefs. While you have an absolute right to believe and even say those types of things--you can't then say them and claim in the next breath that you aren't anti-Mormon.
I was once where you are (to a degree). I spent over a decade of my life outside the Church. I was very bitter about many things in the Church and its members and leaders. But, one difference between you and I, is that I was able to completely leave the Church alone. I did not formally request to be taken off the membership rolls; but, I no longer attended Church, the Temple, or live a lifestyle conducive to Gospel principles.
I was not a recovering Mormon, or a new order Mormon, or anything. I didn't need a support group. I didn't need to join any type of group to propagate anti-Mormon vitriol. I just stopped attending Church and participating in the Mormon community. It was very easy to do--and I was as steeped in the Church lifestyle just as much as you claim to be.
So, my point is that I know it can be done, i.e., leave the Church and also leave it alone. I felt no need to go and save my fellow Mormon friends from the "fraud" as Tex so aptly describes the Church today. Live and let live I say.
You seem to expect perfection from an imperfect world, including and it appears particularly in the Church. It just doesn't happen that way.
Let's just say, you and I will likely (at least for the foreseeable future) always disagree. One of us may change our views in the future--I don't know. I think I'm pretty set now in the path I want to trod. Perhaps you are as well. If so, I truly wish you well. I have no desire to convert you or change your belief system. That, my friend, is completely up to you. You are free to choose what to believe, and how to act--and do so without hassle. All I ask is the same right.
So, in the final analysis, perhaps you answered my question--but, I still don't understand.
Sorry for the offense taken by "FRAUD." I was just calling it like I see it.
The movie playing on Temple Square takes many liberties with the true story of Joseph Smith.
Leave the church alone. What an interesting concept. Unfortunately, the church makes that near impossible with threats of eternal damnation for those who knew the "truth" yet rejected it. It is IMHO a church that require obedience through guilt, coercion and brainwashing.
How easy do you think it would be to remove myself from a religion that consumes every moment of my spouses and parents life. I wish I could not be forced to think about these issues on a daily basis.
BTW, "anti" is a very broad stroke to use. I am only anti whitewashing history. I am pro-truth. I promise you I can spot BS with Evangelical information I have been presented. It is however hard to refute church records and journals of people who lived at that time.
I am sure you mean well with this blog, but this post bothers me. Joseph Smith was no martyr. IMO, He was a charasmatic liar. (is it ok to state an informed opinion based on countless hours of research, mostly at FARMS, FAIR, History of the Church, and Journal of Discourses. Are those pieces of information, "anti"
"I am aware that the First Vision was told to several different audiences," I think this is an understatment as well as "more than one wife."
The First Vision got more and more detailed as time went on. At first it was just about Joseph Smiths sins. As time went on and people started doubting, more and more details were added. This isn't just telling the vision to different audiences. The issue is the matter of specificity that the vision entailed as time went on. I am curious why JS joined a Methodist class if he was expressly forbidden to join any of the churches as he indicated with later versions.
33 wives is a lot of wives. Especially when Joseph lied (this is a fact) and said that he had only one. The fact is he married many who were already married to other men. How would you like it if a married man proposition your wife, sister, or daughter. This might shed new light on the tar and feathering he recieved (I don't personally justify this, but it does add additional perspective). It also might explain why William Law was upset.
Funny how the last words of Joseph Smith are truncated in the sanitized movie playing on temple square. Was it "'O LORD, MY GOD! is there no help for the widow's son?" which is a Masonic cry for help? or was it just a prayer. Another thing, I don't remember the movie showing Joseph Smith removing his garment as a sign that he felt bad about polygamy. Hey everyone is entitle to reach their own conclusion. I just think mine is a little more supported by actual facts
Tex, Mayan Elephant, Equality, and others: You know I am always amused when folks like you show up on a blog like this with your "truth, justice, and American way" mentality, showing uninformed simpletons like me the error of my ways.
Do you really think this is the first time I've heard arguments like this? I have no idea how old you are; but, I suspect you are young enough that I was reading differing versions of the First Vision, and hard core Church history, long before you were reading anything.
You or Mayan Elephant don't have to feel Joseph died as a martyr or like a lamb going to the slaughter. You're free to draw completely different conclusions than I have; however, a reasonable argument can be made, based on the same facts to support my conclusions in the post.
Joseph and Hyrum, and guests at Carthage Jail, were outnumbered something like over 200 to 4 or 5 at the most. The State did NOTHING to protect them. Joseph had a six shooter, that didn't shoot too well--but shoot it did. The mob was well armed, and had overwhelming numbers and force. So just how much more is required for this to be like a lamb going to the slaughter--particularly in light of the fact Joseph and Hyrum VOLUNTARILY returned to Carthage, not to stand trial, but to face certain death? Joseph well knew before he went there what would happen.
You realize of course, that he had his own standing army down in Nauvoo, the then second largest city in Illinois at the time. He and Hyrum could just as easily retreated to their own well armed and protected City Beautiful, rather than willingly give up their lives to the rule of the mob, of the "ANTI-MORMONS" of their day.
You and Mayan Elephant, and Equality are all keen on "truth" and "facts" and "real" history, yet you parade around the internet like cowards hiding behind the cloak of anonymity with these phony names you use to comment on blogs like this.
Of what are you ashamed? Why not identify yourselves? I do. I'm a real person, with a real life, and a real blog, where you come to tear down my religious beliefs--and you all do it as anonymous cowards! Where is the "truth" and "reality" in that?
As I mentioned to Mayan Elephant. It is very easy to "leave the church". I've done it. I did it for over a decade, and I didn't have a second thought about it. You either believe or you don't. If you don't, it should not matter one whit what others believe, one way or the other. This argument about how you can't leave the church alone, is nonsense.
Your facts and reality are selective, twisted, and tortured. You have nothing to say that I haven't heard over and over and over again–for years and years. You convince me of nothing. Your arguments to me amount to nothing. I remain unpersuaded--because the Spirit of Truth whispers otherwise to my Eternal soul.
You are all welcome to comment on this and the newer version of this blog (as long as you adhere to the comment guidelines). But, don’t expect that I will continue to engage you every time you leave a comment. I have better things to do.
Mayan Elephant originally posted the following comment on Friday June 30, 2006, 5:05 p.m. It was edited on 8/4/08, at the author’s request.
Mayan Elephant said...
wow guy. sensitive much?
i think the issues dont lie in the spiritual gifts you claim to have mastered where others have none, or so you assert.
you can have all the spiritual witness you want. and you can have it based on the facts if you care to collect them, as you claim to have done. my issue lies in the presentation. if one claims to know joseph smith was second to god on earth in his excellence, and claims to know that based on a spiritual witness, well then, it better include the gory messy icky detail facts. if one is going to claim that joseph smith restored this or that or the other, then the story of how he did it better include all the details, not just the feelgoody stuff.
when tom monson puts up a picture in general conference of joseph and oliver sitting at candlelight with the plates in view, translating, there better be a disclaimer that hte facts dont, in any way, represent that image.
when my kids are told the first vision story, it should include the facts. that it is hearsay. that it was told different times. that it was revised. that the story they are told was actually from another persons journal. those are the facts.
let me ask you this guy. if i were to stand up in fast and testimony meeting and say, "brothers and sisters, i stand before you today with a humble heart, to tell you that i know that a young boy, even a 17 year old boy, went to a grove of trees, and prayed, and he was forgiven his sins on that day by one angel. and i know that that 17 year old boy, went on to look into a hat and read the book of mormon story from a stone. and i know that gordon b hinckley is the successor to what that boy created. i know joseph smith was a martyr, and that he died an martyrs death, because he didnt deserve to die after smashing up that printing press and marrying 33 wives, including young girls and married women, for polygamy is the highest order in heaven. i know this church is true, because the spirit tells me.....etc. etc."
so guy, you tell me. how would that be recieved?
now, what if the same testimony was given, but concluded with.... "and these details make me uncomfortable. and the spirit tells me to find a different path. but, my family doesnt understand my concerns, and quite frankly, they dont even know that a 17 year old boy could see an angel, or see christ without god. they dont know that peepstones were in hats and plates were never witnessed except with spiritual eyes. they suggest i write a letter to boyd packer to voice my concerns and ask for answers. my family thinks by believing this story about a 17 year old boy seeing an angel, i have lost the spirit. but i am here, trying to preserve my relationships with them."
what would you think of that?
see guy. you dont understand why people are here and you may never understand. its sorta fun for one. its cathartic.
but more than anything. its a chance to say enough is enough. the simpleton version of this mans history has gone on too long. its not an accusation that you are simple. its a declaration that it is painful and hurtful to be on this side, the duped. and i for one seek a better way for my kids.
my mother thinks i am possessed by the devil. why? because her church tells her its so. after all, how can one go from the chairs up front in sacrament meeting to the exits, unless its the devil. so what then guy? should i declare her the enemy, go there no more, forbid my kids from her presence because she is so mistakingly wrong? you probably agree with my mother.
my kids will always be exposed to this church because of my family. by leaving the church alone, it would require leaving my family. for you and many in the church, that is reasonable. i hope to find a different way. i hope my kids grow up to say they looked into the church as adults or youth, they learned that the founder had a harom of wives and said and did wack stuff. they learned that the church fired a guy for objecting to the marriage amendmant proposal, and they decided it wasnt for them or it was. but by damn, they better do it at a time when its ok to stand up in a public church meeting and say, "i know joseph smith said he saw an angel in the grove when he was 17. i know joseph smith married a 14 year old girl, and i believe." to hell with this spiritual witness of fiction.
and another thing. your hiding behind avatars business is comical. as if that is the case. anyone can find me if they try.
its not as if you are public with your identity because you are going against the grain. you are repeating the official version of things, why wouldnt you be public with your name? that argument was just plain silly. and more, i suspect others posting on here are in a deep hell because of spouses or parents reading repeated histories like the one you love. so what is to be gained by going public. that said, dear dude....... i sign off....
1 TO seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the amartyrdom• of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. bHyrum• was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a cdead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: dO• Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls.
20 Comments:
guy, i dig ya man. but sheesh. ya may enjoy getting a wee bit up to speed on the facts.
a sheep, when slaughtered, will stand still and allow its heart to be cut out, with a relatively lighter fight than say, a goat. or so i am told.
a lamb, would not destroy a printing press, nor kill two men with a weapon that was covertly obtained. a lamb would not have herself kinged for the earth, or marry another mans wife.
im just sayin..perhaps he didnt deserve to die, but he wa'nt no lamb.
perhaps he did more than all men save jesus, but he was not a lamb about it. seriously. his spiritual influence is subjective and personal, for you it may be meaningful, but the facts defy this lamb image.
Mayan . . . you really need to let your Church" demons go. You'll really be a much happier person.
guy,
believe me, i am trying. i am trying. and just when i think i have made progress, the intensity is reignited.
do me a favor and dont stick any pins in a mayan voodoo doll for a while, perhaps i just need a short reprieve.
oh, i am happy, but it is still true about the church angst.
back to the topic at hand though. Lamb??????? sorry man. i just aint gettin there. i will say, i used to think it could be so, but not now.
Thank you for this review.
Hi Eric, Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Mayan,
I don't understand why you frequent blogs like mine if they "reignite" the intensity (whatever that might be). It just seems you would be more comfortable reading and commenting on blogs where more people will agree with your viewpoint.
You and I have such a wide divergence of opinion, I see no way you or I will ever convince the other of our respective positions.
Be that as it may--I would never stick a pin in a mayan voodoo doll with the intent to do you any harm.
Brian,
All I can say about the moview is WOW. First how did the writers decide which of the seven versions of the First Vision to use.
I recently saw the new movie at Temple Square. I was amazed to see how Joseph only had one wife. I am aware of 33. How did he manage to have all that time to devote to his family when he was out with other women.
Poor Joseph for being persecuted by William Law. What would you do if someone propositioned your wife while instructing you to say that the church doesn't practice polygamy. Maybe William Law was being persecuted by Joseph Smith. We can still read the original copy of the Nauvoo Expositor.
Praise to the man, I say praise to the FRAUD.
Brian,
I haven't yet seen the movie; but, plan to do so at some future point. It is a bold statement; but it is a bold mission and responsibility to be part of Christ's restored Church in the last dispensation.
The Sacred Grove is another location I would like to visit. I share your gratefulness.
BTW--have you stopped by the new location for the Blog? Let me know what you think.
Tex: You and the anti-Mormon crowd of which you are clearly a part really need to come up with something better than this stale anti-Mormon drivel you blather about here.
I'm not certain why you feel compelled to visit blogs like this, when there are plenty of anti-Mormon sites out there, where your message would be better received. You're comments here are anything but persuasive.
You are a prime example of a pathetic individual who has left the Church (if you were ever a part) . . . but just can't leave the Church alone.
Good Bye.
"You are a prime example of a pathetic individual who has left the Church (if you were ever a part) . . . but just can't leave the Church alone."
Guy, certainly i may not be welcome here. and it appears tex aint welcome either. Fine, you have suggested i leave and i suppose i will. but first, allow me to point out a few things.
I am leaving the church as you suggested. see my post on that anti mormon site. i should thank you too, the conversation here and in other venues encouraged me to follow up on my resignation. you were kind to allow me to dialogue with you.
isnt it interesting that you would refer to tex as pathetic, when, she has not pointed out ONE thing that was not printed in Rough Stone Rolling or on FARMS. so what is it that you are angry about guy, that she said something on your blog? that she said something factual on your blog? that she said something that was not correlation approved? what, guy, what could it be to make him pathetic?
is pathetic a bad thing? is that the tone you learned in your high priest group? it may be. i saw a lot of that kind of logic when i was a high priest group leader and high councilman.
is it true that people like tex, who embrace the facts, are not welcome in your church? what if her kids are members? what if her husband is a frequenter of your blog and accepts your presentation, though facts are not welcome here? what then? is she not welcome to respond? apparently not.
its sorta like byu isnt it. it is your blog. you can determine the rules. and you can select your audience. but, whats right for you or byu, aint exactly ethical or moral all the time is it.
and yes, i am the black pot, i call it like it is.
your comments to tex are persuasive. im persuaded that you were in a bad mood, or, you may be a bad person. but i doubt that.
uh oh, tex did say FRAUD. forgot about that part. ok, fair enough, bushman didnt use fraud to describe js, jr. but, that really was tex's conclusion where her facts were in line with history.
ill take one stick in the mayan voodoo doll for that one.
Mayan,
I do get a bit short when I read comments like Tex's, as well as some you have made here and on other sites. I don't quibble that certain portions of your comments, and even Tex's contain verifiable facts, i.e., more than one version of the First Vision, more than one wife. But where I get testy, are in the conclusions that you, Tex and any others know are inflammatory, particularly on blogs such as this. Yeah . . you know what I'm talking about:
" Praise to the man I say praise to the FRAUD."
Perhaps you might recall the dialogue we had with Todd Ormsbee awhile back about the BYU professor, Nielsen. It was a well reasoned discussion, without the hyperbole and the nastiness.
I'm open to those types of discussions. I've read several of your posts on other blogs, not LDS, and you can be quite blunt. I edited you once here for crossing the line; but, for the most part you have been pretty good, and much more toned down in your rhetoric than you are on other blogs where you speak much more forcefully. For that, I express gratitude.
As I told you before you are welcome here as long as you comply with the comment guidelines--which for the most part you have been.
I do wonder though--seriously--why you and folks like Tex like to stir things up on blogs like this. Rational discourse is one thing. Referring to Joseph Smith as a FRAUD though isn't going to win you many friends over on this side of the fence.
My apologies to you and Tex if I was too strong in my tone. I should be better in following President Hinckley's counsel to be civil and kind to all.
mayan: BTW . . . it didn't help any that Tex dissed a long time good friend of mine dating back to my youth. TBM's have feelings just as much as anyone else. It might be something to consider before hitting that post key!
Dissed:
1. dissing someone is showing disrespect to them
2. being dissed is the act of being disconnected, by voice or by modem, from another party
Yo, back off. Don't dis' my peeps.
I didn't finish the file transfer last night because I got dissed.
============
Guy,
Tex may have dissed, and may not have. if i am correct, she asked questions (fraud comment re JSJ excepted)
Why do i come here. i came here because there was a meaningful discussion of a serious topic. one that included my very dear friend, dr. ormsbee. i stuck around because i bookmarked it and see the m and a name on the favorites from time to time.
as for being here versus the anti sites? hmmmmm? please, dont fall prey to that anti label. its dangerous and inaccurate. sure other venues allow for stronger language, but i challenge you to find a greater online community than where you find my posts. i have met many of those people in person. i know many from my life in the church. irl im sayin. you will not find a community, including a mormon congregation, that has matched the meaningful influence on real lives that NOM has. i doubt you care to know the details. i simply point it out to refute your pathetic "pathetic" tag. (which i doubt you really meant btw)
ask john dehlin about that community. he is someone i respect. i dont think he would charge any of them as pathetic.
why people dont leave the church. we are born into this church, with few exceptions. our families are in this church. our mothers have accused us of being satanic and unfaithful. our own mothers have more faith in this church than in their own children. and before you judge my mother or anyone elses, consider that these mothers are conditioned to think this way. they are conditioned to trust the counsel of some old uniformed but authoritative men on issues such as homosexuality, marriage, priesthood and many other things. and they quickly take sides with the church and dismiss their children. so, it is tough to leave, when leaving is to self-orphan as well.
people like me, like tex and others, get a bit annoyed to see a praise to the man rant that ignores facts and ignores the difficulty it is for a woman or a family to subscribe to the correlated feel good stories, when the facts are harsh, brutal and controversial.
i hope that no matter where my satan fearing mother goes to read about the praised man, she sees facts, and when she sees only fantasy, i hope there is someone willing to stand up and declare the facts with conviction and show some chutzpah to say its ok not to subscribe to the simple feel good versions of everything, especially when lives and souls are at stake.
does that answer your question?
Mayan Elephant,
Dissing, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and, in my eyes Tex dissed my friend, his religious beliefs, as well my religious beliefs.
Look . . . I've said this before, and I think it is one of the few areas where we will find some agreement:
You and I have fundamental disagreements about the Church. We may always have these disagreements. I don't believe either of us will change the other's perspective. I'm certainly not trying to change yours. You don't see me over at View from the Foyer trying to disseminate Preach My Gospel.
The fact is, Mayan, I have read what you and many others have written in online forums about the Church, its leaders, its members, and their beliefs. While you have an absolute right to believe and even say those types of things--you can't then say them and claim in the next breath that you aren't anti-Mormon.
I was once where you are (to a degree). I spent over a decade of my life outside the Church. I was very bitter about many things in the Church and its members and leaders. But, one difference between you and I, is that I was able to completely leave the Church alone. I did not formally request to be taken off the membership rolls; but, I no longer attended Church, the Temple, or live a lifestyle conducive to Gospel principles.
I was not a recovering Mormon, or a new order Mormon, or anything. I didn't need a support group. I didn't need to join any type of group to propagate anti-Mormon vitriol. I just stopped attending Church and participating in the Mormon community. It was very easy to do--and I was as steeped in the Church lifestyle just as much as you claim to be.
So, my point is that I know it can be done, i.e., leave the Church and also leave it alone. I felt no need to go and save my fellow Mormon friends from the "fraud" as Tex so aptly describes the Church today. Live and let live I say.
You seem to expect perfection from an imperfect world, including and it appears particularly in the Church. It just doesn't happen that way.
Let's just say, you and I will likely (at least for the foreseeable future) always disagree. One of us may change our views in the future--I don't know. I think I'm pretty set now in the path I want to trod. Perhaps you are as well. If so, I truly wish you well. I have no desire to convert you or change your belief system. That, my friend, is completely up to you. You are free to choose what to believe, and how to act--and do so without hassle. All I ask is the same right.
So, in the final analysis, perhaps you answered my question--but, I still don't understand.
Sorry for the offense taken by "FRAUD." I was just calling it like I see it.
The movie playing on Temple Square takes many liberties with the true story of Joseph Smith.
Leave the church alone. What an interesting concept. Unfortunately, the church makes that near impossible with threats of eternal damnation for those who knew the "truth" yet rejected it. It is IMHO a church that require obedience through guilt, coercion and brainwashing.
How easy do you think it would be to remove myself from a religion that consumes every moment of my spouses and parents life. I wish I could not be forced to think about these issues on a daily basis.
BTW, "anti" is a very broad stroke to use. I am only anti whitewashing history. I am pro-truth. I promise you I can spot BS with Evangelical information I have been presented. It is however hard to refute church records and journals of people who lived at that time.
I am sure you mean well with this blog, but this post bothers me. Joseph Smith was no martyr. IMO, He was a charasmatic liar. (is it ok to state an informed opinion based on countless hours of research, mostly at FARMS, FAIR, History of the Church, and Journal of Discourses. Are those pieces of information, "anti"
Brian and Guy,
"I am aware that the First Vision was told to several different audiences," I think this is an understatment as well as "more than one wife."
The First Vision got more and more detailed as time went on. At first it was just about Joseph Smiths sins. As time went on and people started doubting, more and more details were added. This isn't just telling the vision to different audiences. The issue is the matter of specificity that the vision entailed as time went on. I am curious why JS joined a Methodist class if he was expressly forbidden to join any of the churches as he indicated with later versions.
33 wives is a lot of wives. Especially when Joseph lied (this is a fact) and said that he had only one. The fact is he married many who were already married to other men. How would you like it if a married man proposition your wife, sister, or daughter. This might shed new light on the tar and feathering he recieved (I don't personally justify this, but it does add additional perspective). It also might explain why William Law was upset.
Funny how the last words of Joseph Smith are truncated in the sanitized movie playing on temple square. Was it "'O LORD, MY GOD! is there no help for the widow's son?" which is a Masonic cry for help? or was it just a prayer. Another thing, I don't remember the movie showing Joseph Smith removing his garment as a sign that he felt bad about polygamy. Hey everyone is entitle to reach their own conclusion. I just think mine is a little more supported by actual facts
Tex, Mayan Elephant, Equality, and others: You know I am always amused when folks like you show up on a blog like this with your "truth, justice, and American way" mentality, showing uninformed simpletons like me the error of my ways.
Do you really think this is the first time I've heard arguments like this? I have no idea how old you are; but, I suspect you are young enough that I was reading differing versions of the First Vision, and hard core Church history, long before you were reading anything.
You or Mayan Elephant don't have to feel Joseph died as a martyr or like a lamb going to the slaughter. You're free to draw completely different conclusions than I have; however, a reasonable argument can be made, based on the same facts to support my conclusions in the post.
Joseph and Hyrum, and guests at Carthage Jail, were outnumbered something like over 200 to 4 or 5 at the most. The State did NOTHING to protect them. Joseph had a six shooter, that didn't shoot too well--but shoot it did. The mob was well armed, and had overwhelming numbers and force. So just how much more is required for this to be like a lamb going to the slaughter--particularly in light of the fact Joseph and Hyrum VOLUNTARILY returned to Carthage, not to stand trial, but to face certain death? Joseph well knew before he went there what would happen.
You realize of course, that he had his own standing army down in Nauvoo, the then second largest city in Illinois at the time. He and Hyrum could just as easily retreated to their own well armed and protected City Beautiful, rather than willingly give up their lives to the rule of the mob, of the "ANTI-MORMONS" of their day.
You and Mayan Elephant, and Equality are all keen on "truth" and "facts" and "real" history, yet you parade around the internet like cowards hiding behind the cloak of anonymity with these phony names you use to comment on blogs like this.
Of what are you ashamed? Why not identify yourselves? I do. I'm a real person, with a real life, and a real blog, where you come to tear down my religious beliefs--and you all do it as anonymous cowards! Where is the "truth" and "reality" in that?
As I mentioned to Mayan Elephant. It is very easy to "leave the church". I've done it. I did it for over a decade, and I didn't have a second thought about it. You either believe or you don't. If you don't, it should not matter one whit what others believe, one way or the other. This argument about how you can't leave the church alone, is nonsense.
Your facts and reality are selective, twisted, and tortured. You have nothing to say that I haven't heard over and over and over again–for years and years. You convince me of nothing. Your arguments to me amount to nothing. I remain unpersuaded--because the Spirit of Truth whispers otherwise to my Eternal soul.
You are all welcome to comment on this and the newer version of this blog (as long as you adhere to the comment guidelines). But, don’t expect that I will continue to engage you every time you leave a comment. I have better things to do.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mayan Elephant originally posted the following comment on Friday June 30, 2006, 5:05 p.m. It was edited on 8/4/08, at the author’s request.
Mayan Elephant said...
wow guy. sensitive much?
i think the issues dont lie in the spiritual gifts you claim to have mastered where others have none, or so you assert.
you can have all the spiritual witness you want. and you can have it based on the facts if you care to collect them, as you claim to have done. my issue lies in the presentation. if one claims to know joseph smith was second to god on earth in his excellence, and claims to know that based on a spiritual witness, well then, it better include the gory messy icky detail facts. if one is going to claim that joseph smith restored this or that or the other, then the story of how he did it better include all the details, not just the feelgoody stuff.
when tom monson puts up a picture in general conference of joseph and oliver sitting at candlelight with the plates in view, translating, there better be a disclaimer that hte facts dont, in any way, represent that image.
when my kids are told the first vision story, it should include the facts. that it is hearsay. that it was told different times. that it was revised. that the story they are told was actually from another persons journal. those are the facts.
let me ask you this guy. if i were to stand up in fast and testimony meeting and say, "brothers and sisters, i stand before you today with a humble heart, to tell you that i know that a young boy, even a 17 year old boy, went to a grove of trees, and prayed, and he was forgiven his sins on that day by one angel. and i know that that 17 year old boy, went on to look into a hat and read the book of mormon story from a stone. and i know that gordon b hinckley is the successor to what that boy created. i know joseph smith was a martyr, and that he died an martyrs death, because he didnt deserve to die after smashing up that printing press and marrying 33 wives, including young girls and married women, for polygamy is the highest order in heaven. i know this church is true, because the spirit tells me.....etc. etc."
so guy, you tell me. how would that be recieved?
now, what if the same testimony was given, but concluded with.... "and these details make me uncomfortable. and the spirit tells me to find a different path. but, my family doesnt understand my concerns, and quite frankly, they dont even know that a 17 year old boy could see an angel, or see christ without god. they dont know that peepstones were in hats and plates were never witnessed except with spiritual eyes. they suggest i write a letter to boyd packer to voice my concerns and ask for answers. my family thinks by believing this story about a 17 year old boy seeing an angel, i have lost the spirit. but i am here, trying to preserve my relationships with them."
what would you think of that?
see guy. you dont understand why people are here and you may never understand. its sorta fun for one. its cathartic.
but more than anything. its a chance to say enough is enough. the simpleton version of this mans history has gone on too long. its not an accusation that you are simple. its a declaration that it is painful and hurtful to be on this side, the duped. and i for one seek a better way for my kids.
my mother thinks i am possessed by the devil. why? because her church tells her its so. after all, how can one go from the chairs up front in sacrament meeting to the exits, unless its the devil. so what then guy? should i declare her the enemy, go there no more, forbid my kids from her presence because she is so mistakingly wrong? you probably agree with my mother.
my kids will always be exposed to this church because of my family. by leaving the church alone, it would require leaving my family. for you and many in the church, that is reasonable. i hope to find a different way. i hope my kids grow up to say they looked into the church as adults or youth, they learned that the founder had a harom of wives and said and did wack stuff. they learned that the church fired a guy for objecting to the marriage amendmant proposal, and they decided it wasnt for them or it was. but by damn, they better do it at a time when its ok to stand up in a public church meeting and say, "i know joseph smith said he saw an angel in the grove when he was 17. i know joseph smith married a 14 year old girl, and i believe." to hell with this spiritual witness of fiction.
and another thing. your hiding behind avatars business is comical. as if that is the case. anyone can find me if they try.
its not as if you are public with your identity because you are going against the grain. you are repeating the official version of things, why wouldnt you be public with your name? that argument was just plain silly. and more, i suspect others posting on here are in a deep hell because of spouses or parents reading repeated histories like the one you love. so what is to be gained by going public. that said, dear dude....... i sign off....
[Edited]
Post a Comment
<< Home