Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

Here’s a little TOTPJS gem:

“ This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! "What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet?" Because the old women understand it--they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed the science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don't know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually exist.”


So many good bits. The old women do still make pancakes !

Section Six 1843-44, p.292
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Pazooka »

It doesn’t appear to be so. Here’s the quote in context. (Although, I’m sure he probably gives his opinion on the shape of the earth elsewhere).

<​April 8​> <​The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it <​by his angel​>549 unto his servant <​John​> who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Also Revelations ch 4 v 1: ‘After this I looked and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.’ The four beasts and twenty-four elders were out of every nation; for “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (see Rev. ch. 5. v. 9.) It would be great stuffing to create all nations into four beasts and twenty-four elders. ¶ Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven, those which Daniel saw were on, and pertaining to the earth. ¶ I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters; our latitude and longitude can be [HC 5:342] determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present translation: the prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images; they being types to represent certain things. At the same time, they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent. I make this broad declaration that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure or any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure if God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject. John saw curious looking beasts in heaven— he saw every creature that was in heaven,— all the beasts, fowls, and fish in heaven,— actually there giving glory to God. How do you prove it? See Rev. ch 5. v 13. ‘And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever? I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this;— strange beasts of which we have no conception— all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven: John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowl, fishes, or men, and he will gratify himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect; they were like angels in their sphere; we are not told where they came [HC 5:343] from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John, praising and glorifying God. ¶ The popular religionists of the day tell us forsooth, that the beasts spoken of in the revelations represent kingdoms. Very well; on the same principle can we550 say, that the twenty-four elders spoken of represent beasts; for they are all spoken of at the same time, and represented as all uniting in the same acts of praise and devotion. This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! ‘What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet? Because the old women understand it— they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don’t know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually are.*​>551
<​*Again there is no revelation to prove that things do not exist<​ in heaven​> as I have set forth, nor yet to show that the beasts meant anything but beasts, and we never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority. ¶ O! ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell: preach and cry aloud, ‘repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand— repent and believe the gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest you be overthrown. Never meddle with the visions of beasts, and subjects you do not understand. Elder [Peletiah] Brown when you go to Palmyra, say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about— repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. ¶ He then read Rev. ch 13. v. 1-8. In v. 3. John says: ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Some spiritualizers say the beast that received the wound was Nebuchadnezzar some Constantine, some Mohammed, and other the Roman <​Catholic​> Church; but we will look at what John saw in relation to this beast. Now for the wasp’s nest. The translators have used the term 552 ‘dragon’ for ‘devil’, Now it was a beast that John saw in heaven, and he was then speaking of ‘things which must shortly come to pass’ and consequently the beast that John saw could not be Nebuchadnezzar. The beast John saw was an actual beast and an actual intelligent being gives him his power and his seat and great authority,’ It was not to represent a beast in heaven it was an angel in heaven who has power in the last days to do a work. [HC 5:344] ‘All the world wondered after the beast.’ Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine the Great not excepted: and if the beast was all the world, how could the world wonder after the beast? It must have been a wonderful Beast to cause all human Beings to wonder after it; and I will venture to say that when God allows the old Devil to give power to the beast to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, all will wonder. V. 4 reads, ‘And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? Some say it means the kingdoms of the world: one thing is sure, it does not mean the kingdom of the Saints. Suppose we admit that it means the kingdoms of the world, what propriety would there be in saying, who is able to make war with my great big self? If these spiritualized interpretations are true, the book contradicts itself in almost every verse; but they are not true. There is a mistranslation of the word dragon in the second verse— the original Hebrew word signifies the Devil, and not Dragon as translated. In ch. 12. v. 9. it reads “that old serpent called the devil,’ and it ought to be translated devil in this case, and not dragon. It is sometimes translated Appollyon. Everything that we have not a keyword to, we will take it as it leads. The beasts which John saw and speaks of as being in heaven were actually living in heaven, and were actually to have power given to them over the inhabitants of the earth, precisely according to the plain reading of the revelations. I give this as a key to the elders of Israel. ¶ The Independent Beast is a beast that dwells in heaven abstract from the human family; the beast that rose up out of the sea should be translated the image of a beast, as I have referred to in Daniel’s vision. ¶ I have said more than I ever did before except once at Ramus; and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a Cock Turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[”]​>
At half past 11 o’clock President Smiths lungs failed him, the wind blowing briskly at the time Choir sung a hymn.
Last edited by Pazooka on June 25th, 2021, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aprhys
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1128

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Aprhys »

So what's makes Joseph Smith an expert on everything? Does the calling of prophet automatically qualify the man as the smartest guy on earth? Is Rusty Nelson the smartest engineer, mathematician, doctor, author and lawyer because of his calling? Could JS have built an airplane in the 1840s due to his calling? There are numerous instances of prophets saying things that are found to be complete nonsense a few years in or decades later.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Luke »

I always intended to post this quote to see what everyone on each side of the debate thought but kept forgetting. Good job Eliza

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

Aprhys wrote: June 25th, 2021, 10:25 pm So what's makes Joseph Smith an expert on everything? Does the calling of prophet automatically qualify the man as the smartest guy on earth? Is Rusty Nelson the smartest engineer, mathematician, doctor, author and lawyer because of his calling? Could JS have built an airplane in the 1840s due to his calling? There are numerous instances of prophets saying things that are found to be complete nonsense a few years in or decades later.
I agree! For example Brigham didn’t understand or believe in evolution which we all know is true

;)

But Joseph did know about astronomy.


Plus russel isn’t a prophet with visions of space

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

Pazooka wrote: June 25th, 2021, 9:54 pm It doesn’t appear to be so. Here’s the quote in context. (Although, I’m sure he probably gives his opinion on the shape of the earth elsewhere).

<​April 8​> <​The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it <​by his angel​>549 unto his servant <​John​> who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Also Revelations ch 4 v 1: ‘After this I looked and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.’ The four beasts and twenty-four elders were out of every nation; for “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (see Rev. ch. 5. v. 9.) It would be great stuffing to create all nations into four beasts and twenty-four elders. ¶ Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven, those which Daniel saw were on, and pertaining to the earth. ¶ I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters; our latitude and longitude can be [HC 5:342] determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present translation: the prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images; they being types to represent certain things. At the same time, they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent. I make this broad declaration that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure or any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure if God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject. John saw curious looking beasts in heaven— he saw every creature that was in heaven,— all the beasts, fowls, and fish in heaven,— actually there giving glory to God. How do you prove it? See Rev. ch 5. v 13. ‘And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever? I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this;— strange beasts of which we have no conception— all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven: John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowl, fishes, or men, and he will gratify himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect; they were like angels in their sphere; we are not told where they came [HC 5:343] from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John, praising and glorifying God. ¶ The popular religionists of the day tell us forsooth, that the beasts spoken of in the revelations represent kingdoms. Very well; on the same principle can we550 say, that the twenty-four elders spoken of represent beasts; for they are all spoken of at the same time, and represented as all uniting in the same acts of praise and devotion. This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! ‘What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet? Because the old women understand it— they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don’t know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually are.*​>551
<​*Again there is no revelation to prove that things do not exist<​ in heaven​> as I have set forth, nor yet to show that the beasts meant anything but beasts, and we never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority. ¶ O! ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell: preach and cry aloud, ‘repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand— repent and believe the gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest you be overthrown. Never meddle with the visions of beasts, and subjects you do not understand. Elder [Peletiah] Brown when you go to Palmyra, say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about— repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. ¶ He then read Rev. ch 13. v. 1-8. In v. 3. John says: ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Some spiritualizers say the beast that received the wound was Nebuchadnezzar some Constantine, some Mohammed, and other the Roman <​Catholic​> Church; but we will look at what John saw in relation to this beast. Now for the wasp’s nest. The translators have used the term 552 ‘dragon’ for ‘devil’, Now it was a beast that John saw in heaven, and he was then speaking of ‘things which must shortly come to pass’ and consequently the beast that John saw could not be Nebuchadnezzar. The beast John saw was an actual beast and an actual intelligent being gives him his power and his seat and great authority,’ It was not to represent a beast in heaven it was an angel in heaven who has power in the last days to do a work. [HC 5:344] ‘All the world wondered after the beast.’ Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine the Great not excepted: and if the beast was all the world, how could the world wonder after the beast? It must have been a wonderful Beast to cause all human Beings to wonder after it; and I will venture to say that when God allows the old Devil to give power to the beast to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, all will wonder. V. 4 reads, ‘And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? Some say it means the kingdoms of the world: one thing is sure, it does not mean the kingdom of the Saints. Suppose we admit that it means the kingdoms of the world, what propriety would there be in saying, who is able to make war with my great big self? If these spiritualized interpretations are true, the book contradicts itself in almost every verse; but they are not true. There is a mistranslation of the word dragon in the second verse— the original Hebrew word signifies the Devil, and not Dragon as translated. In ch. 12. v. 9. it reads “that old serpent called the devil,’ and it ought to be translated devil in this case, and not dragon. It is sometimes translated Appollyon. Everything that we have not a keyword to, we will take it as it leads. The beasts which John saw and speaks of as being in heaven were actually living in heaven, and were actually to have power given to them over the inhabitants of the earth, precisely according to the plain reading of the revelations. I give this as a key to the elders of Israel. ¶ The Independent Beast is a beast that dwells in heaven abstract from the human family; the beast that rose up out of the sea should be translated the image of a beast, as I have referred to in Daniel’s vision. ¶ I have said more than I ever did before except once at Ramus; and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a Cock Turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[”]​>
At half past 11 o’clock President Smiths lungs failed him, the wind blowing briskly at the time Choir sung a hymn.
Hmm well it still reads the same to me

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Pazooka »

NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 9:06 am
Pazooka wrote: June 25th, 2021, 9:54 pm It doesn’t appear to be so. Here’s the quote in context. (Although, I’m sure he probably gives his opinion on the shape of the earth elsewhere).

<​April 8​> <​The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it <​by his angel​>549 unto his servant <​John​> who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Also Revelations ch 4 v 1: ‘After this I looked and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.’ The four beasts and twenty-four elders were out of every nation; for “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (see Rev. ch. 5. v. 9.) It would be great stuffing to create all nations into four beasts and twenty-four elders. ¶ Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven, those which Daniel saw were on, and pertaining to the earth. ¶ I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters; our latitude and longitude can be [HC 5:342] determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present translation: the prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images; they being types to represent certain things. At the same time, they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent. I make this broad declaration that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure or any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure if God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject. John saw curious looking beasts in heaven— he saw every creature that was in heaven,— all the beasts, fowls, and fish in heaven,— actually there giving glory to God. How do you prove it? See Rev. ch 5. v 13. ‘And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever? I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this;— strange beasts of which we have no conception— all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven: John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowl, fishes, or men, and he will gratify himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect; they were like angels in their sphere; we are not told where they came [HC 5:343] from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John, praising and glorifying God. ¶ The popular religionists of the day tell us forsooth, that the beasts spoken of in the revelations represent kingdoms. Very well; on the same principle can we550 say, that the twenty-four elders spoken of represent beasts; for they are all spoken of at the same time, and represented as all uniting in the same acts of praise and devotion. This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! ‘What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet? Because the old women understand it— they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don’t know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually are.*​>551
<​*Again there is no revelation to prove that things do not exist<​ in heaven​> as I have set forth, nor yet to show that the beasts meant anything but beasts, and we never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority. ¶ O! ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell: preach and cry aloud, ‘repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand— repent and believe the gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest you be overthrown. Never meddle with the visions of beasts, and subjects you do not understand. Elder [Peletiah] Brown when you go to Palmyra, say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about— repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. ¶ He then read Rev. ch 13. v. 1-8. In v. 3. John says: ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Some spiritualizers say the beast that received the wound was Nebuchadnezzar some Constantine, some Mohammed, and other the Roman <​Catholic​> Church; but we will look at what John saw in relation to this beast. Now for the wasp’s nest. The translators have used the term 552 ‘dragon’ for ‘devil’, Now it was a beast that John saw in heaven, and he was then speaking of ‘things which must shortly come to pass’ and consequently the beast that John saw could not be Nebuchadnezzar. The beast John saw was an actual beast and an actual intelligent being gives him his power and his seat and great authority,’ It was not to represent a beast in heaven it was an angel in heaven who has power in the last days to do a work. [HC 5:344] ‘All the world wondered after the beast.’ Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine the Great not excepted: and if the beast was all the world, how could the world wonder after the beast? It must have been a wonderful Beast to cause all human Beings to wonder after it; and I will venture to say that when God allows the old Devil to give power to the beast to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, all will wonder. V. 4 reads, ‘And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? Some say it means the kingdoms of the world: one thing is sure, it does not mean the kingdom of the Saints. Suppose we admit that it means the kingdoms of the world, what propriety would there be in saying, who is able to make war with my great big self? If these spiritualized interpretations are true, the book contradicts itself in almost every verse; but they are not true. There is a mistranslation of the word dragon in the second verse— the original Hebrew word signifies the Devil, and not Dragon as translated. In ch. 12. v. 9. it reads “that old serpent called the devil,’ and it ought to be translated devil in this case, and not dragon. It is sometimes translated Appollyon. Everything that we have not a keyword to, we will take it as it leads. The beasts which John saw and speaks of as being in heaven were actually living in heaven, and were actually to have power given to them over the inhabitants of the earth, precisely according to the plain reading of the revelations. I give this as a key to the elders of Israel. ¶ The Independent Beast is a beast that dwells in heaven abstract from the human family; the beast that rose up out of the sea should be translated the image of a beast, as I have referred to in Daniel’s vision. ¶ I have said more than I ever did before except once at Ramus; and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a Cock Turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[”]​>
At half past 11 o’clock President Smiths lungs failed him, the wind blowing briskly at the time Choir sung a hymn.
Hmm well it still reads the same to me
I thought it made it more clear that the argument which is “flat as a pancake” was regarding the beasts of Revelation, not the shape of the earth. And who is “Deacon Homespun”? Is that a nickname for a class of people among whom JS considered himself to belong? And how much regard did JS have for “science” and professionalism of his day? It’s an interesting aside, for sure.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

Pazooka wrote: June 26th, 2021, 10:13 am
NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 9:06 am
Pazooka wrote: June 25th, 2021, 9:54 pm It doesn’t appear to be so. Here’s the quote in context. (Although, I’m sure he probably gives his opinion on the shape of the earth elsewhere).

<​April 8​> <​The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it <​by his angel​>549 unto his servant <​John​> who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Also Revelations ch 4 v 1: ‘After this I looked and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.’ The four beasts and twenty-four elders were out of every nation; for “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (see Rev. ch. 5. v. 9.) It would be great stuffing to create all nations into four beasts and twenty-four elders. ¶ Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven, those which Daniel saw were on, and pertaining to the earth. ¶ I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters; our latitude and longitude can be [HC 5:342] determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present translation: the prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images; they being types to represent certain things. At the same time, they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent. I make this broad declaration that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure or any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure if God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject. John saw curious looking beasts in heaven— he saw every creature that was in heaven,— all the beasts, fowls, and fish in heaven,— actually there giving glory to God. How do you prove it? See Rev. ch 5. v 13. ‘And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever? I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this;— strange beasts of which we have no conception— all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven: John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowl, fishes, or men, and he will gratify himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect; they were like angels in their sphere; we are not told where they came [HC 5:343] from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John, praising and glorifying God. ¶ The popular religionists of the day tell us forsooth, that the beasts spoken of in the revelations represent kingdoms. Very well; on the same principle can we550 say, that the twenty-four elders spoken of represent beasts; for they are all spoken of at the same time, and represented as all uniting in the same acts of praise and devotion. This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! ‘What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet? Because the old women understand it— they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don’t know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually are.*​>551
<​*Again there is no revelation to prove that things do not exist<​ in heaven​> as I have set forth, nor yet to show that the beasts meant anything but beasts, and we never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority. ¶ O! ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell: preach and cry aloud, ‘repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand— repent and believe the gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest you be overthrown. Never meddle with the visions of beasts, and subjects you do not understand. Elder [Peletiah] Brown when you go to Palmyra, say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about— repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. ¶ He then read Rev. ch 13. v. 1-8. In v. 3. John says: ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Some spiritualizers say the beast that received the wound was Nebuchadnezzar some Constantine, some Mohammed, and other the Roman <​Catholic​> Church; but we will look at what John saw in relation to this beast. Now for the wasp’s nest. The translators have used the term 552 ‘dragon’ for ‘devil’, Now it was a beast that John saw in heaven, and he was then speaking of ‘things which must shortly come to pass’ and consequently the beast that John saw could not be Nebuchadnezzar. The beast John saw was an actual beast and an actual intelligent being gives him his power and his seat and great authority,’ It was not to represent a beast in heaven it was an angel in heaven who has power in the last days to do a work. [HC 5:344] ‘All the world wondered after the beast.’ Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine the Great not excepted: and if the beast was all the world, how could the world wonder after the beast? It must have been a wonderful Beast to cause all human Beings to wonder after it; and I will venture to say that when God allows the old Devil to give power to the beast to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, all will wonder. V. 4 reads, ‘And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? Some say it means the kingdoms of the world: one thing is sure, it does not mean the kingdom of the Saints. Suppose we admit that it means the kingdoms of the world, what propriety would there be in saying, who is able to make war with my great big self? If these spiritualized interpretations are true, the book contradicts itself in almost every verse; but they are not true. There is a mistranslation of the word dragon in the second verse— the original Hebrew word signifies the Devil, and not Dragon as translated. In ch. 12. v. 9. it reads “that old serpent called the devil,’ and it ought to be translated devil in this case, and not dragon. It is sometimes translated Appollyon. Everything that we have not a keyword to, we will take it as it leads. The beasts which John saw and speaks of as being in heaven were actually living in heaven, and were actually to have power given to them over the inhabitants of the earth, precisely according to the plain reading of the revelations. I give this as a key to the elders of Israel. ¶ The Independent Beast is a beast that dwells in heaven abstract from the human family; the beast that rose up out of the sea should be translated the image of a beast, as I have referred to in Daniel’s vision. ¶ I have said more than I ever did before except once at Ramus; and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a Cock Turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[”]​>
At half past 11 o’clock President Smiths lungs failed him, the wind blowing briskly at the time Choir sung a hymn.
Hmm well it still reads the same to me
I thought it made it more clear that the argument which is “flat as a pancake” was regarding the beasts of Revelation, not the shape of the earth. And who is “Deacon Homespun”? Is that a nickname for a class of people among whom JS considered himself to belong? And how much regard did JS have for “science” and professionalism of his day? It’s an interesting aside, for sure.
I guess we’ll know when we meet him 😂

Aside: have you read Anthony Larson’s books or read the quotes from JS about planets?

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Pazooka »

NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 12:00 pm
Pazooka wrote: June 26th, 2021, 10:13 am
NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 9:06 am
Pazooka wrote: June 25th, 2021, 9:54 pm It doesn’t appear to be so. Here’s the quote in context. (Although, I’m sure he probably gives his opinion on the shape of the earth elsewhere).

<​April 8​> <​The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it <​by his angel​>549 unto his servant <​John​> who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Also Revelations ch 4 v 1: ‘After this I looked and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.’ The four beasts and twenty-four elders were out of every nation; for “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (see Rev. ch. 5. v. 9.) It would be great stuffing to create all nations into four beasts and twenty-four elders. ¶ Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven, those which Daniel saw were on, and pertaining to the earth. ¶ I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters; our latitude and longitude can be [HC 5:342] determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present translation: the prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images; they being types to represent certain things. At the same time, they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent. I make this broad declaration that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure or any kind, he always holds himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure if God has not given a revelation or interpretation on the subject. John saw curious looking beasts in heaven— he saw every creature that was in heaven,— all the beasts, fowls, and fish in heaven,— actually there giving glory to God. How do you prove it? See Rev. ch 5. v 13. ‘And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever? I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this;— strange beasts of which we have no conception— all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven: John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowl, fishes, or men, and he will gratify himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect; they were like angels in their sphere; we are not told where they came [HC 5:343] from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John, praising and glorifying God. ¶ The popular religionists of the day tell us forsooth, that the beasts spoken of in the revelations represent kingdoms. Very well; on the same principle can we550 say, that the twenty-four elders spoken of represent beasts; for they are all spoken of at the same time, and represented as all uniting in the same acts of praise and devotion. This learned interpretation is all as flat as a pancake! ‘What do you use such vulgar expressions for, being a prophet? Because the old women understand it— they make pancakes. Deacon Homespun said the earth was flat as a pancake, and ridiculed science which proved to the contrary. The whole argument is flat, and I don’t know of anything better to represent it. The world is full of technicalities and misrepresentation, which I calculate to overthrow, and speak of things as they actually are.*​>551
<​*Again there is no revelation to prove that things do not exist<​ in heaven​> as I have set forth, nor yet to show that the beasts meant anything but beasts, and we never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority. ¶ O! ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell: preach and cry aloud, ‘repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand— repent and believe the gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest you be overthrown. Never meddle with the visions of beasts, and subjects you do not understand. Elder [Peletiah] Brown when you go to Palmyra, say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about— repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. ¶ He then read Rev. ch 13. v. 1-8. In v. 3. John says: ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Some spiritualizers say the beast that received the wound was Nebuchadnezzar some Constantine, some Mohammed, and other the Roman <​Catholic​> Church; but we will look at what John saw in relation to this beast. Now for the wasp’s nest. The translators have used the term 552 ‘dragon’ for ‘devil’, Now it was a beast that John saw in heaven, and he was then speaking of ‘things which must shortly come to pass’ and consequently the beast that John saw could not be Nebuchadnezzar. The beast John saw was an actual beast and an actual intelligent being gives him his power and his seat and great authority,’ It was not to represent a beast in heaven it was an angel in heaven who has power in the last days to do a work. [HC 5:344] ‘All the world wondered after the beast.’ Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine the Great not excepted: and if the beast was all the world, how could the world wonder after the beast? It must have been a wonderful Beast to cause all human Beings to wonder after it; and I will venture to say that when God allows the old Devil to give power to the beast to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, all will wonder. V. 4 reads, ‘And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? Some say it means the kingdoms of the world: one thing is sure, it does not mean the kingdom of the Saints. Suppose we admit that it means the kingdoms of the world, what propriety would there be in saying, who is able to make war with my great big self? If these spiritualized interpretations are true, the book contradicts itself in almost every verse; but they are not true. There is a mistranslation of the word dragon in the second verse— the original Hebrew word signifies the Devil, and not Dragon as translated. In ch. 12. v. 9. it reads “that old serpent called the devil,’ and it ought to be translated devil in this case, and not dragon. It is sometimes translated Appollyon. Everything that we have not a keyword to, we will take it as it leads. The beasts which John saw and speaks of as being in heaven were actually living in heaven, and were actually to have power given to them over the inhabitants of the earth, precisely according to the plain reading of the revelations. I give this as a key to the elders of Israel. ¶ The Independent Beast is a beast that dwells in heaven abstract from the human family; the beast that rose up out of the sea should be translated the image of a beast, as I have referred to in Daniel’s vision. ¶ I have said more than I ever did before except once at Ramus; and then up starts the little fellow (Charles Thompson) and stuffed me like a Cock Turkey with the prophecies of Daniel, and crammed it down my throat with his finger.[”]​>
At half past 11 o’clock President Smiths lungs failed him, the wind blowing briskly at the time Choir sung a hymn.
Hmm well it still reads the same to me
I thought it made it more clear that the argument which is “flat as a pancake” was regarding the beasts of Revelation, not the shape of the earth. And who is “Deacon Homespun”? Is that a nickname for a class of people among whom JS considered himself to belong? And how much regard did JS have for “science” and professionalism of his day? It’s an interesting aside, for sure.
I guess we’ll know when we meet him 😂

Aside: have you read Anthony Larson’s books or read the quotes from JS about planets?
Yeah, I’ve read his books and met Anthony. I used to think the “polar configuration” explained a lot of things, but then I found flat earth cosmology a la Book of Enoch style. I’m aware JS may have made statements about planets - - not sure what qualified him to talk definitively about them (in a way we assume he knew firsthand). He was certainly entitled to a vocalized working hypothesis, the way we all are, unless he had a vision of the cosmos we don’t know about. He was doing the best with what he knew. But there is evidence he also fell for the men-on-the-moon-being-spotted-via-a-new-telescope-moon-hoax of the early 19th century, that had been published in the newspapers. The time had yet to come when all will be revealed concerning things in the heavens, on the earth, and in the earth.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Pazooka »

Another thing I like about this quote from JS is the fact that it destroys the strange idea, unique to Mormonism, that the horses of the Apocalypse each represent thousand year periods in the earth’s history:
Now I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven, had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time; because they were the representation of ‘things which must shortly come to pass,’ and not of what had already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages: the beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. ‘And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts, saying, Come and see. And I saw and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him, a great sword’ Rev. ch 6. v 1-4. The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written. ¶ The revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God.

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:05 pm
AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 12:06 pm He also knocked teenage girls and broke his wife's heart in the name of God

By their fruits you shall know them: Mormonism went nowhere other than shaping the state of Utah and using the "religion to acquire money" secret combination card better than most
Not true. You should be careful about bearing false witness against an innocent man.
I used to think he was an innocent man. I went from skeptic to believer in the growing belief he had no part of polygamy.

As I kept reading, I just came to the sad realization that you can see a change in the way he condemns polygamy, providing writing that leaves room open for God adjusting His stance on polygamy. When I saw that, it was a moment of clarity.

The Joseph is Innocent crowd is entirely right, he and Hyrum were publicly condemning it. They were. That's what makes me so angry, you can see that he was engaged in this behavior privately while putting on a public righteous facade. In 1842 he and Brigham spoke against polygamy while allowing room for "farther revelation" to give more insight on this later down the road.

That coupled with multiple leaders in the church closest in rank to him (at different points of the fledgling church's history) breaking away from him due to allegations of adultery and/or polygamy was just too much to ignore. Oliver called him out on his filthy affair with Fanny multiple times and it was a huge part of why Oliver was brought to trial and excommunicated from the church. Sidney split with Joseph over polygamy.

You have to ask yourself why these allegations of adultery and polygamy followed him everywhere.



Oliver is jealous so he decides to lie about Joseph? Okay, plausible. Later on Joseph's new second hand man, Sidney Rigdon, calls out Joseph on adultery as well? There is a pattern here. Where there is smoke, there is fire


I cannot find a single satisfactory answer on why Oliver, David and Martin all broke from Joseph when Joseph is framed as this second-only-to-Jesus-person that was wrapped up in lies of polygamy and adultery. Everyone says these three men betrayed Joseph but I do not see any satisfactory reasons illustrating what would cause them to break away from him in a manner that would be considered betraying him. That they wronged him and he hadn't done anything for them to lose their confidence in him.

Then you look at him changing original revelations from God giving a very clear, limited job (Joseph was told to just translate the Book of Mormon and to pretend to no other gift, this text was edited later on leaving room for him to do more), seeing that the Book of Mormon's prophecies of this book being a great work and someone later on being blessed with the power to convince it is true and realizing that Joseph does not match what is described (other than having the name Joseph), it's all just too much.


It has become brutally clear to me that he was a fallen seer and I see people staying in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because they feel that church being true is the only way for the Book of Mormon to be true and I see people dropping the Book of Mormon because in their minds if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith is not what they/he claim to be then the book can't be real and I love the Book of Mormon too much to let people walk away from its truth due to these mentalities that have been knocked into our heads for close to 200 years


Our whole lives we have been taught that the Three Witnesses are a monumental testament to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, therefore the church is true.

I don't see it that way at all anymore. They left the train wreck that was Joseph's movement and left with important records (John Whitmer's church history, the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, breaks my heart the LDS church has that now) and stayed firm to witnessing that an angel showed them those plates. Oliver did distance himself from Mormonism for a while and I don't blame him. What was going on in Mormonism at that time that was worth being a part of? He did associate with Methodists. That is true. I'm no three witness but I would like to poke my head into Christian churches and have some fellowship. I don't feel spiritually nourished at LDS meetings and don't believe in their main message. So I don't find fault with Oliver for being involved in another church or see it as an indictment on his character or role as a Three Witness.

I see the Three Witnesses as a monumentally valuable testament of the Book of Mormon being both true and detached from the mess that is Joseph Smith and Mormonism in general

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Allison »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:20 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:05 pm
AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 12:06 pm He also knocked teenage girls and broke his wife's heart in the name of God

By their fruits you shall know them: Mormonism went nowhere other than shaping the state of Utah and using the "religion to acquire money" secret combination card better than most
Not true. You should be careful about bearing false witness against an innocent man.
I used to think he was an innocent man. I went from skeptic to believer in the growing belief he had no part of polygamy.

As I kept reading, I just came to the sad realization that you can see a change in the way he condemns polygamy, providing writing that leaves room open for God adjusting His stance on polygamy. When I saw that, it was a moment of clarity.

The Joseph is Innocent crowd is entirely right, he and Hyrum were publicly condemning it. They were. That's what makes me so angry, you can see that he was engaged in this behavior privately while putting on a public righteous facade. In 1842 he and Brigham spoke against polygamy while allowing room for "farther revelation" to give me more insight on this later down the road.

That coupled with multiple leaders in the church closest in rank to him (at different points of the fledgling church's history) breaking away from him due to allegations of adultery and/or polygamy was just too much to ignore. Oliver called him out on his filthy affair with Fanny multiple times and it was a huge part of why Oliver was brought to trial and excommunicated from the church. Sidney split with Joseph over polygamy.

You have to ask yourself why these allegations of adultery and polygamy followed him everywhere.



Oliver is jealous so he decides to lie about Joseph? Okay, plausible. Later on Joseph's new second hand man, Sidney Rigdon, calls out Joseph on adultery as well? There is a pattern here. Where there is smoke, there is fire


I cannot find a single satisfactory answer on why Oliver, David and Martin all broke from Joseph when Joseph is framed as this second-only-to-Jesus-person that was wrapped up in lies of polygamy and adultery. Everyone says these three men betrayed Joseph but I do not see any satisfactory reasons illustrating what would cause them to break away from him in a manner that would be considered betraying him. That they wronged him and he hadn't done anything for them to lose their confidence in him.

Then you look at him changing original revelations from God giving a very clear, limited job (Joseph was told to just translate the Book of Mormon and to pretend to no other gift, this text was edited later on leaving room for him to do more), seeing that the Book of Mormon's prophecies of this book being a great work and someone later on being blessed with the power to convince it is true and realizing that Joseph does not match what is described (other than having the name Joseph), it's all just too much.


It has become brutally clear to me that he was a fallen seer and I see people staying in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because they feel that church being true is the only way for the Book of Mormon to be true and I see people dropping the Book of Mormon because in their minds if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith is not what they/he claim to be then the book can't be real and I love the Book of Mormon too much to let people walk away from its truth due to these mentalities that have been knocked into our heads for close to 200 years
Thank you for your sincere reply even if I do not agree with your conclusions.

Is it not true that there are no genetic matches with his posterity outside of Emma? Could he really have been such a busy scoundrel and never gotten anyone pregnant?

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:39 pm
Is it not true that there are no genetic matches with his posterity outside of Emma? Could he really have been such a busy scoundrel and never gotten anyone pregnant?
I am aware that we have no identifiable offspring from his alleged extra-marital affairs. I don't have an answer for every "Joseph was innocent" argument but from looking at this situation and reading a lot about it, I went from thinking he was innocent to thinking he became a liar and a fallen seer. It's bigger than pro-polygamy and anti-polygamy as well.

He clearly altered what was presented as original revelation from God giving him a very specific responsibility and he would not have any other gifts given to him.


I trust Oliver when he said that Emma caught Joseph and Fanny in the barn and he (Oliver and some others) had to get between her and Joseph, calm the situation down and that he witnessed Joseph apologize over the incident. As I read about this, I could see this was a turning point in Joseph and Oliver's relationship and it seems like it was something Oliver could never entirely forgive Joseph for as it was part of a blow up and boiling point that lead to Oliver's excommunication.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely and Joseph clearly held absolute power in Mormonism and people who went against him (David, Oliver, Sidney) were encouraged to leave. Putting it lightly

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:48 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:39 pm
Is it not true that there are no genetic matches with his posterity outside of Emma? Could he really have been such a busy scoundrel and never gotten anyone pregnant?
I trust Oliver
Huh okay

I guess we all have to pick someone to listen to

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by BeNotDeceived »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:48 pm I trust Oliver
You’re not alone in this as may be explored here.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by NewEliza »

Pazooka wrote: June 26th, 2021, 1:05 pm
NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 12:00 pm
Pazooka wrote: June 26th, 2021, 10:13 am
NewEliza wrote: June 26th, 2021, 9:06 am

Hmm well it still reads the same to me
I thought it made it more clear that the argument which is “flat as a pancake” was regarding the beasts of Revelation, not the shape of the earth. And who is “Deacon Homespun”? Is that a nickname for a class of people among whom JS considered himself to belong? And how much regard did JS have for “science” and professionalism of his day? It’s an interesting aside, for sure.
I guess we’ll know when we meet him 😂

Aside: have you read Anthony Larson’s books or read the quotes from JS about planets?
Yeah, I’ve read his books and met Anthony. I used to think the “polar configuration” explained a lot of things, but then I found flat earth cosmology a la Book of Enoch style. I’m aware JS may have made statements about planets - - not sure what qualified him to talk definitively about them (in a way we assume he knew firsthand). He was certainly entitled to a vocalized working hypothesis, the way we all are, unless he had a vision of the cosmos we don’t know about. He was doing the best with what he knew. But there is evidence he also fell for the men-on-the-moon-being-spotted-via-a-new-telescope-moon-hoax of the early 19th century, that had been published in the newspapers. The time had yet to come when all will be revealed concerning things in the heavens, on the earth, and in the earth.
My opinion is that he did have many visions of the cosmos that he never divulged.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Allison »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:48 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:39 pm
Is it not true that there are no genetic matches with his posterity outside of Emma? Could he really have been such a busy scoundrel and never gotten anyone pregnant?
He clearly altered what was presented as original revelation from God giving him a very specific responsibility and he would not have any other gifts given to him.

Would you mind clarifying this part?

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

BeNotDeceived wrote: June 26th, 2021, 3:27 pm
AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:48 pm I trust Oliver
You’re not alone in this as may be explored here.
Thank you for this.



McLellin was one of the original 12 Mormon apostles (a continual believer of the Book of Mormon even though he left Joseph Smith) and provides a lot of insight into the Emma Smith catching Joseph and Fanny in a barn episode as well as the lasting rift it placed between Oliver and Joseph.
When it all went down, it was acknowledged for what it was; a filthy affair. Not celestial marriage that had to be kept hidden. It was a blatant affair that Emma walked in on;

“Former Mormon apostle William McLellin later wrote that Emma Smith substantiated the Smith-Alger affair. According to McLellin, Emma was searching for her husband and Alger one evening when through a crack in the barn door she saw 'him and Fanny in the barn together alone' on the hay mow. McLellin, in a letter to one of Smith's sons, added that the ensuing confrontation between Emma and her husband grew so heated that Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery had to mediate the situation.

"After Emma related what she had witnessed, Smith, according to McLellin, 'confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him.' While Oliver Cowdery may have forgiven his cousin Joseph Smith, he did not forget the incident. Three years later, when provoked by the prophet, Cowdery countered by calling the Fanny Alger episode 'a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.'


(Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait in Religious Excess,” p. 291)

It's all there. Black and white, clear as crystal.

Image


Whether you are a true blue Mormon who believes Jehovah appears in the Salt Lake City Temple and honestly uses Nelson and the rest as His 15 prophets, seers and revelators

Or whether you are a believer in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but feel somewhere after Brigham it drifted into error

Or whether you are a believer that Joseph is innocent of polygamy and Brigham was not Joseph's successor

You have to decide if the Three Witnesses matter or do they not? Do so many leaders close to Joseph walking away from him matter or do they not?

This guy, Joseph Smith, clearly had a problem with leaders closest to him stepping back and saying "dude, what are you doing" in regards to extramarital affairs.


I do not believe he is innocent of extramarital affairs. I believe in the Book of Mormon and I believe he is a fallen seer
Last edited by AGoodGlobalCitizen on June 26th, 2021, 4:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 3:32 pm
Would you mind clarifying this part?
This was published in the Book of Commandments (precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants) as revelation given to Joseph from the Lord in 1829. It was regarding Martin Harris' inquiries on whether or not Joseph had the plates. This is Book of Commandments, section 4, verse 2;


And now, behold this shall you say unto him:--I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.


This revelation was given considerable changes later on when we see it in The Doctrine and Covenants, section 5, verses 2 through 4;

And now, behold, this shall you say unto him--he who spake unto you, said unto you: I, the Lord, am God, and I have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things; 5:3 And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you. 5:4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.



Unless God's revelation to Joseph was given incorrectly the first time, Joseph changed what God told him and the changes aren't minor. We go from God telling Joseph that he has one job and to not to pretend to any other job because he will not be given any other job. To a major difference that God will give Joseph other things to do after the book is translated.



We have a history of lessons of falling away from truth and apostasy. We have witnesses who say Joseph changed over the years. We see blatant changes in direction from God in the way Joseph presents revelation. You have to look at all these things and consider that maybe it's true that this guy got prideful, power hungry and fell
Last edited by AGoodGlobalCitizen on June 26th, 2021, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Allison »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 3:52 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 3:32 pm
Would you mind clarifying this part?
This was published in the Book of Commandments (precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants) as revelation given to Joseph from the Lord in 1829. It was regarding Martin Harris' inquiries on whether or not Joseph had the plates. This is Book of Commandments, section 4, verse 2;


And now, behold this shall you say unto him:--I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.


This revelation was given considerable changes later on when we see it in The Doctrine and Covenants, section 5, verses 2 through 4;

And now, behold, this shall you say unto him--he who spake unto you, said unto you: I, the Lord, am God, and I have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things; 5:3 And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you. 5:4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.



Unless God's revelation to Joseph was given incorrectly the first time, Joseph changed what God told him and the changes aren't minor. We go from God telling Joseph that he has one job and to not to pretend to any other job because he will not be given any other job. To a major difference that God will give Joseph other things to after the book is translated.



We have a history of lessons of falling away from truth and apostasy. We have witnesses who say Joseph changed over the years. We see blatant changes in direction from God in the way Joseph presents revelation. You have to look at all these things and consider that maybe it's true that this guy got prideful, power hungry and fell
I know that 132 was not added to the D&C until 10 years after Joseph’s death. And there was...I think it was Section 104 condemning plural marriage. Do you feel his style had already changed? I think it was Section 101 in the 1835 edition.

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 4:16 pm I know that 132 was not added to the D&C until 10 years after Joseph’s death. And there was...I think it was Section 104 condemning plural marriage. Do you feel his style had already changed? I think it was Section 101 in the 1835 edition.
I don't know. I can't pinpoint a definitive day or moment he had "fallen". Seems like most supporters of the fallen prophet theory think it happened after the translation of the Book of Mormon.


If we really focus on that original revelation saying the only gift he would have is translating the book, then I'd say he fell the moment he started organizing and pushing a movement that went beyond anything other than getting the book released and testifying that it was true.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by braingrunt »

Luke wrote: June 25th, 2021, 11:19 pm I always intended to post this quote to see what everyone on each side of the debate thought but kept forgetting. Good job Eliza
Well I've made what I think clear enough in the past. I think that a reading of cosmological statements from restorations scripture would not lead one to believe that the Earth is flat. Hence I am not at all surprised that Joseph Smith would ridicule the notion. If the scriptures came from him then they would certainly lead you to I think he believed the Earth was a planet etc. If they came through him then that would lead one to think that he would learn the Earth is not flat, if he needed any further instruction on that.

I also think that if Joseph Smith compared any of my hair brained ideas to the flat Earth theory, I might break down and cry

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Allison »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 4:26 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 4:16 pm I know that 132 was not added to the D&C until 10 years after Joseph’s death. And there was...I think it was Section 104 condemning plural marriage. Do you feel his style had already changed? I think it was Section 101 in the 1835 edition.
I don't know. I can't pinpoint a definitive day or moment he had "fallen". Seems like most supporters of the fallen prophet theory think it happened after the translation of the Book of Mormon.


If we really focus on that original revelation saying the only gift he would have is translating the book, then I'd say he fell the moment he started organizing and pushing a movement that went beyond anything other than getting the book released and testifying that it was true.
When you say he may have fallen as soon as he started organizing the Church, is that when you think he started secretly practicing polygamy?

Emma said on her deathbed that he never taught nor practiced polygamy, at least not that she knew of. That doesn’t fit with a few of the claims of the polygamists.

I think dying would not be a good time to do the thing that gets a person “thrust down to hell.”

User avatar
AGoodGlobalCitizen
captain of 100
Posts: 281

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by AGoodGlobalCitizen »

Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 8:40 pm When you say he may have fallen as soon as he started organizing the Church, is that when you think he started secretly practicing polygamy?

Emma said on her deathbed that he never taught nor practiced polygamy, at least not that she knew of. That doesn’t fit with a few of the claims of the polygamists.

I think dying would not be a good time to do the thing that gets a person “thrust down to hell.”

Are these firsthand accounts from Emma declaring that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy on her deathbed or are they secondhand accounts (someone else saying they witnessed Emma say these things and they recorded what she said) saying that Emma said these things? I'm guessing these are accounts of what people witnessing her death said that she said.


Because I was just reading in a book I have, a letter written from one of the original 12 Mormon apostles to Joseph Smith's son talking about he (actually he wasn't there, Oliver, Rigdon and another guy were there but McLellin states that Emma told this story to him) and Oliver and others being involved in resolving Joseph Smith's affair with Fanny. This is a secondhand account from a source I find reliable (but it's still a secondhand account, the mileage is going to vary on how credible people find this to be) saying they were literally involved with Emma (they saw her speaking about this, they were in person dealing with this situation with her) regarding this affair. This same letter to Joseph Smith's son says the author of the letter visited Emma in 1847 and during that visit part of what they discussed were other polygamous accounts that she confirmed occurred and a story of Joseph telling her they needed to burn the revelation that went on to become section 132 (you are correct that section 132 was not "section 132" until 10 years or so after Joseph's death, but this letter and I believe other sources say a blueprint or rough draft of what would lead to it did exist at that time) and Emma (again, according to the former Mormon apostle writing this letter, mileage is going to vary on how valuable of an account someone finds this to be) stated she refused to touch it.

Here is the contents of the letter on this point (from William McLellin to Joseph Smith's son, Joseph Smith III, published in The William E. McLellin Papers 1854-1880, page 489);


You referred to polygamy. Now let me tell you my dear Sir. I asked your mother particularly about this point. She said, one night after she and Joseph retired for the night, he told her that the doctrine and practice of Polygamy was going to ruin the church. He wished her to get up and burn the revelation. She refused to touch it even with tong(s). He rose from his bed and pulled open the fire with his fingers, and put the revealment in and burned it up. But copies of it were extant, so it was preserved. You say, "I have never believed it and never can believe it." Can you dispute your dear Mother? She related this to me, and if you will ask her tell you the same thing. It made a powerful impression on my mind, and I've often reflected on it since.


^^I have read similar things from David Whitmer saying he had it in good authority that Joseph repented and regretted over polygamy near the end. Because I am finding things from sources I find credible that line up, I find value in certain secondhand accounts.


I know of other sources I find credible (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery) that have written similar things involving interactions with Emma regarding Joseph Smith and affairs or Joseph Smith and polygamy in general

So I am not discrediting what you have read, I just want to understand what sort of source these deathbed comments from Emma are coming from.

I have a grandma slowly dying and we have to remind her every day that her husband passed away 4 years ago. I am NOT implying that people are not of sound mind when dying, but sometimes people are not all there



Mormonism history as we have it unfortunately is founded on a lot of secondhand accounts, clear lies and everything from that to truth.



I have read a story from somewhere about Oliver begging Joseph to let them begin practicing polygamy since it was clearly a general practice lived by the majority of God's people at different points in time (it wasn't) and Joseph told Oliver that the time was not right.


I do not believe this secondhand story. I don't believe it at all. Why don't I believe it? Because of firsthand things I have read from Oliver, records of his life, his situation with Joseph and David Whitmer (Oliver's brother-in-law) providing ample secondhand accounts on the sort of life Oliver lived, the sort of things he believed in and their dear bond to one another.

This is one way you can weed out what sort of secondhand accounts you find to be valuable. Try and fit together the puzzle. Know the people involved in this story. Try and corroborate the picture by finding different threads that help it all come together


I have said multiple times that I do not have an answer to every Joseph is Innocent argument. I have said at least once that I know with all the stuff I have read, some of it is going to be clear lies to support an agenda. That is way more honest and sincere in wanting to be reasonable and objective than you will find from most people and their views on whether or not Joseph was a righteous man and whether or not Joseph practiced polygamy.


With all I have read and considered, I have reached the conclusion I have been discussing in this thread.


Nobody is going to be bowing before Joseph Smith. We bow to one person, our Lord God Jesus Christ whom has had a number of more faithful servants that never went apostate and became complete disasters. The great Seer we read of in the Book of Mormon prophecies regarding the gathering of the Lamanite remnant with the remaining gentiles is said to be a servant who will never go against the Lord's will. This is actually a beautiful contrast to Joseph Smith who had no major gift of convincing the United States (let alone the Lamanite remnant, let alone the world) that the Book of Mormon should be taken seriously and also was said by the Lord to have been stumbling oft.
Last edited by AGoodGlobalCitizen on June 26th, 2021, 10:26 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Joseph Smith knocks flat earthers

Post by Allison »

AGoodGlobalCitizen wrote: June 26th, 2021, 9:22 pm
Allison wrote: June 26th, 2021, 8:40 pm When you say he may have fallen as soon as he started organizing the Church, is that when you think he started secretly practicing polygamy?

Emma said on her deathbed that he never taught nor practiced polygamy, at least not that she knew of. That doesn’t fit with a few of the claims of the polygamists.

I think dying would not be a good time to do the thing that gets a person “thrust down to hell.”

Are these firsthand accounts from Emma declaring that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy on her deathbed or are they secondhand accounts (someone else saying they witnessed Emma say these things and they recorded what she said) saying that Emma said these things?


Because I was just reading in a book I have, a letter written from one of the original 12 Mormon apostles to Joseph Smith's son talking about he and Oliver and others being involved in resolving Joseph Smith's affair with Fanny. This is a secondhand account from a reliable source (but it's still a secondhand account, the mileage is going to vary on how credible people find this to be) saying they were literally involved with Emma (they saw her speaking about this, they were in person dealing with this situation with her) regarding this affair. This same letter to Joseph Smith's son says the author of the letter visited Emma in 1847 and during that visit part of what they discussed were other polygamous accounts that she confirmed occurred and a story Joseph telling her they needed to burn the revelation that went on to become section 132 (you are correct that section 132 was not "section 132" until 10 years or so after Joseph's death, but this letter and I believe another of other sources say a blueprint or rough draft of what would lead to it did exist at that time) and Emma stated she refused to touch it.


I know of other credible sources (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery) that have written similar things involving personal interactions with Emma regarding Joseph Smith and affairs or Joseph Smith and polygamy

So I am not discrediting what you have read, I just want to understand what sort of source these deathbed comments from Emma are coming from.

I have a grandma slowly dying and we have to remind her every day that her husband passed away 4 years ago. I am NOT implying that people are not of sound mind when dying, but sometimes people are not all there



Mormonism history as we have it unfortunately is founded on a lot of secondhand accounts, clear lies and everything from that to truth
Yes, understood.

I most likely read it in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy and it was Joseph Smith III, or maybe I read it here in a discussion. Would Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy be good Sabbath reading? Lol. Maybe I’ll try to find it tomorrow. Would Joseph Smith III be a reliable source, in your opinion?

Post Reply