Who has jumped off the Denver Snuffer train?

[AI2.0]

BTW, I never said the RLDS had the keys of the priesthood. I said Emma Smith thought Joseph III was the true successor. Hard to dispute that one and makes one wonder.

I don't agree with you on this, because the facts are, Emma did not want her son to be the prophet of the RLDS, she did not come around to the idea for awhile. She did not support the RLDS movement until later, when her son relented and joined them. Frankly, I don't think we know what Emma thought of the whole thing. I know she never liked Brigham Young, probably some of that was resentment and some was the problems that arose with the church's finances after Joseph died--Emma needed to care for herself, her children and other people whom Joseph had been taking care of--she needed the financial resources and Brigham Young was fighting her on it, because he wanted to make sure certain assets stayed in the church hands. It was obvious that this would cause problems--lots of people have falling outs over money when a person dies.

I didn't say that you believed the RLDS had the keys, but you were using their arguments--that is what I pointed out.

[EmmaLee]

I don't know if it's been edited but the Emma Smith book by Tippets and Avery (can't remember the name now) has some forgeries in the edition I own.

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery

[Thomas]

I think it's pretty common knowledge that Emma was a member of the RLDS and sustained joseph III as prophet. Hoffman may have forged some stuff but that doesn't change facts that are well known and can corroborated.

It was Joseph IIII who was somewhat reluctant to fill the role not Emma. You can read about that In his memoirs. He said eventually he knew he couldn't escape his destiny

Why don't you look into how much history Brigham Young forged? According to some. It was a wholesale reinvention of things.

[Jesef]

Not back, but wishing all of you a Happy Easter! Always remember Him, especially to truly follow and try to become like Him.

[mcusick]

I think it's pretty common knowledge that Emma was a member of the RLDS and sustained joseph III as prophet. Hoffman may have forged some stuff but that doesn't change facts that are well known and can corroborated.

It was Joseph IIII who was somewhat reluctant to fill the role not Emma. You can read about that In his memoirs. He said eventually he knew he couldn't escape his destiny

Why don't you look into how much history Brigham Young forged? According to some. It was a wholesale reinvention of things.

Indeed; isn't part of the reason Hoffman's forgeries were so appealing is because they appeared to be authentic? They were several records of the JSIII blessing taking place but no transcribed copy. Whether the blessing(s) took place isn't dependent on Hoffman's forgeries.

The fact that Brigham recognized the right of JS's sons to lead the church (several quotes exist) show that he must have viewed his succession on pragmatic grounds - not an unquestionable right derived from revelation.

[Jason]

BTW, I never said the RLDS had the keys of the priesthood. I said Emma Smith thought Joseph III was the true successor. Hard to dispute that one and makes one wonder.

I don't agree with you on this, because the facts are, Emma did not want her son to be the prophet of the RLDS, she did not come around to the idea for awhile. She did not support the RLDS movement until later, when her son relented and joined them. Frankly, I don't think we know what Emma thought of the whole thing. I know she never liked Brigham Young, probably some of that was resentment and some was the problems that arose with the church's finances after Joseph died--Emma needed to care for herself, her children and other people whom Joseph had been taking care of--she needed the financial resources and Brigham Young was fighting her on it, because he wanted to make sure certain assets stayed in the church hands. It was obvious that this would cause problems--lots of people have falling outs over money when a person dies.

I didn't say that you believed the RLDS had the keys, but you were using their arguments--that is what I pointed out.

One of the difficulties between Brigham and Emma is she tried to poison Joseph about 6 months before the martyrdom and was tried in church court on it. Brigham was intensely loyal to Joseph. Emma appeared to be losing it and going off the deep end. Couple that with the dispute over assets, the lawyer in the middle between the two of them, along with other myriad challenges at that time and it's not hard to see why it went the way it did.

[Thomas]

Hard to say what happened. I have never heard of any church court on Emma. When those that followed Brigham west arrived and began to openly practice polygamy, a smear campaign was started against Emma. Brigham accused Emma of trying to poison Joseph and called her the most wicked woman that ever lived. Others called her promiscuous and made claims that Emma's jealousies caused her to proposition half of Nauvoo for sex.

Emma paints a picture of a good marriage and a monogamous marriage. Many others testified of the close relationship between Joseph and Emma. Many letters from joseph to Emma demonstrated his tender feelings for her. She was pregnant with his child when he died. Many testify of her unimpeachable character and loving nature. At least those who did not follow Brigham. She was a pariah in Utah.

Brigham would have you believe that Joseph loved him more than his own wife. I find it hard to believe knowing the importance of marriage in the kingdom of God. Basically man and wife become one. Why would God choose the most wicked woman to ever live to be the prophets eternal mate?

Its a case of he said, she said. I don't believe Brigham's story. It just doesn't ring true for me. I guess you have to throw Emma under the bus to buy his story. That being said, I don't know exactly what that means for the church. My point in all this is to find the truth. I am not trying to push any agenda, like an RLDS one. I believe God worked with the Brigham church just like God worked with the Israelites through all their ups and downs. One thing I know is that the church version of it's history is a fairy tale made up to put them in the best light possible.

Faith is belief in things unseen but true. Faith is not belief in things not seen but untrue. So perhaps somebody thinks sweeping all the dirt under the rug is faith promoting. I say it is faith killing. Give me the truth no matter how bad.

[Jason]

Easy to say and another to live by...

Also it's not he said she said....Brigham has the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve....and the testimony of everyone who's followed. Call them all liars if you will...

[boo]

Easy to say and another to live by...

Also it's not he said she said....Brigham has the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve....and the testimony of everyone who's followed. Call them all liars if you will...

Ah yes but only about 1/2 of the members followed.As you know BY didn't make any claims for many months that God had appointed him Joseph's successor. In fact the evidence suggests he never made any such claim. Unfortunately when it comes to church history as J said it is all he said she said usually 40 years after the event. It is a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma with weighty evidence on whatever side will support your pre existing prejudices. At at some level it is all truly academic. The real issue isn't what Joseph intended or BY wanted .The real question is what does God want each of us individually to be doing with our brief time in mortality. That question must be posed to God not any man no matter what keys or authority he may or may not actually have

[Jason]

Easy to say and another to live by...

Also it's not he said she said....Brigham has the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve....and the testimony of everyone who's followed. Call them all liars if you will...

Ah yes but only about 1/2 of the members followed.As you know BY didn't make any claims for many months that God had appointed him Joseph's successor. In fact the evidence suggests he never made any such claim. Unfortunately when it comes to church history as J said it is all he said she said usually 40 years after the event. It is a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma with weighty evidence on whatever side will support your pre existing prejudices. At at some level it is all truly academic. The real issue isn't what Joseph intended or BY wanted .The real question is what does God want each of us individually to be doing with our brief time in mortality. That question must be posed to God not any man no matter what keys or authority he may or may not actually have

Mostly agree...except with the end...as the actual keys and corresponding authority do matter.

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

[Thomas]

Easy to say and another to live by...

Also it's not he said she said....Brigham has the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve....and the testimony of everyone who's followed. Call them all liars if you will...

Ah yes but only about 1/2 of the members followed.As you know BY didn't make any claims for many months that God had appointed him Joseph's successor. In fact the evidence suggests he never made any such claim. Unfortunately when it comes to church history as J said it is all he said she said usually 40 years after the event. It is a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma with weighty evidence on whatever side will support your pre existing prejudices. At at some level it is all truly academic. The real issue isn't what Joseph intended or BY wanted .The real question is what does God want each of us individually to be doing with our brief time in mortality. That question must be posed to God not any man no matter what keys or authority he may or may not actually have

Mostly agree...except with the end...as the actual keys and corresponding authority do matter.

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

[Jason]

Easy to say and another to live by...

Also it's not he said she said....Brigham has the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve....and the testimony of everyone who's followed. Call them all liars if you will...

Ah yes but only about 1/2 of the members followed.As you know BY didn't make any claims for many months that God had appointed him Joseph's successor. In fact the evidence suggests he never made any such claim. Unfortunately when it comes to church history as J said it is all he said she said usually 40 years after the event. It is a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma with weighty evidence on whatever side will support your pre existing prejudices. At at some level it is all truly academic. The real issue isn't what Joseph intended or BY wanted .The real question is what does God want each of us individually to be doing with our brief time in mortality. That question must be posed to God not any man no matter what keys or authority he may or may not actually have

Mostly agree...except with the end...as the actual keys and corresponding authority do matter.

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

Not really...because they have quite a sordid history from introduction of pagan practices to torture chambers under their churches to hired assassins. Not even getting into the facts of not saving their dead, propagating the bible throughout the earth, and myriad other historical facts.

[A Random Phrase]

Thank you for answering my question. I did not realize the forged documents had been incorporated into books and such before Hoffman was discovered.

AI2.0, were they really Hoffman's forgeries? I thought the Church would have destroyed those. Or did Quinn write his history in between the Church buying them and Hoffman being found out? (Serious questions.)

Yes, they were. When I saw Thomas' post I went back to check the particulars of the Hofmann case. I read up a lot on it in years ago and I have a number of books on it, it was very interesting. The Joseph Smith III blessing is one that Hofmann admitted forging, he made it on March 2, 1981. He also admitted forging the Thomas Bullock to Brigham Young Letter, which made it sound like Pres. Young had destroyed copies of the blessing and tried to hide it--Mark Hofmann said he forged it on Sept. 4, 1981.
But, many of the forgeries made it into books and articles and so to this day, people are unaware they were forgeries. There was one book that told about how there are still clearly many of his forgeries out there that people don't know are not authentic. Quinn used those in books and articles that were written before they knew they were forgeries. For awhile, they did not know the extent of Hofmann's forgeries. I've found references to forgeries in books that were written at that time. I don't know if it's been edited but the Emma Smith book by Tippets and Avery (can't remember the name now) has some forgeries in the edition I own. Also, a book by Dean Jesse has some that I am aware of. They may have taken them out later--I don't know if there were later editions.

I don't think they destroyed them, I think they were used as evidence and they are probably kept someplace. Many of the forgeries ended up being traded for authentic things, so it is hard to follow the trail back to Hofmann.

[Matthew.B]

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

Not really...because they have quite a sordid history from introduction of pagan practices to torture chambers under their churches to hired assassins. Not even getting into the facts of not saving their dead, propagating the bible throughout the earth, and myriad other historical facts.

In the Mormon Church's ~200-year history, it has a sordid history of blood atonement (leading to murder), sexual immorality (John C. Bennett and others), polygamy leading to corruption among Church leadership, and more. Compared to the Primitive Church's history, the Church is faring about the same or worse (as far as I know--not an expert on the first 2 centuries of the Primitive Church's existence).

Give the Mormon Church another 1,000 years of existence and make it the state religion of the most powerful empire on Earth, and you'd probably find a lot of instances where it went the route of the Catholic Church. So far, LDS Mormonism has been the branch of the Restoration that has shown the most positive fruits--but there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

[Jason]

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

Not really...because they have quite a sordid history from introduction of pagan practices to torture chambers under their churches to hired assassins. Not even getting into the facts of not saving their dead, propagating the bible throughout the earth, and myriad other historical facts.

In the Mormon Church's ~200-year history, it has a sordid history of blood atonement (leading to murder), sexual immorality (John C. Bennett and others), polygamy leading to corruption among Church leadership, and more. Compared to the Primitive Church's history, the Church is faring about the same or worse (as far as I know--not an expert on the first 2 centuries of the Primitive Church's existence).

Give the Mormon Church another 1,000 years of existence and make it the state religion of the most powerful empire on Earth, and you'd probably find a lot of instances where it went the route of the Catholic Church. So far, LDS Mormonism has been the branch of the Restoration that has shown the most positive fruits--but there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

I suppose you would try and hang Abraham...

[Jesef]

Sorry, really not back, but this is BREAKING NEWS if you have not heard, D&C 132 facsimile and transcript of the Joseph Kingsbury copy dated July 12, 1843, is now online at the Joseph Smith Papers Project:
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... 843-dc-132

This is also an interesting article, particularly page 21 where it talks about the Joseph Kingsbury copy:
http://debunking-cesletter.com/wp-conte ... _Light.pdf

[Matthew.B]

I suppose you would try and hang Abraham...

Would you care to explain that? Your ad hominem seems like a non sequitur.

[AI2.0]

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

Not really...because they have quite a sordid history from introduction of pagan practices to torture chambers under their churches to hired assassins. Not even getting into the facts of not saving their dead, propagating the bible throughout the earth, and myriad other historical facts.

In the Mormon Church's ~200-year history, it has a sordid history of blood atonement (leading to murder), sexual immorality (John C. Bennett and others), polygamy leading to corruption among Church leadership, and more. Compared to the Primitive Church's history, the Church is faring about the same or worse (as far as I know--not an expert on the first 2 centuries of the Primitive Church's existence).

Give the Mormon Church another 1,000 years of existence and make it the state religion of the most powerful empire on Earth, and you'd probably find a lot of instances where it went the route of the Catholic Church. So far, LDS Mormonism has been the branch of the Restoration that has shown the most positive fruits--but there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

Your description of my church is so biased, but I think Elder Maxwell's thoughts on this explain it clearly;

It should not puzzle us, if we have studied scriptural history carefully—including what happened to the Savior—that defectors often cause more difficulty than disinterested disbelievers. It should not surprise us either, as Peter observed of those drawn away by false accusers, that it will be they and their followers “by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Peter 2:2).

There are those who chronically misunderstand the Church because they are busy trying to explain the Church from the outside. They are so busy believing what they want to believe about the Church that they will not take the time to learn what they need to learn about the Church. They prefer any explanation to the real explanation. Some prefer to believe the worst rather than to know the truth. Still others are afraid to part the smokescreen of allegations for fear of what they will see. Yet one cannot see the Louvre by remaining in its lobby. One cannot understand the Church by remaining outside. A non-believing but fair critic of the Church, a friend of mine, once said that the Book of Mormon was the only book some critics felt they did not need to read before reviewing it.
Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors—like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-m ... ell-moved/

[Separatist]

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Since history continues to roll forth, "the other half", not bogged down by traditions, may be in a better position to accept future messages.

[Jason]

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Since history continues to roll forth, "the other half", not bogged down by traditions, may be in a better position to accept future messages.

Good luck!

[iWriteStuff]

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Since history continues to roll forth, "the other half", not bogged down by traditions, may be in a better position to accept future messages.

Good luck!

I see that as a difficult proposition considering they most frequently reject the messengers... :-s

[Mark]

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Since history continues to roll forth, "the other half", not bogged down by traditions, may be in a better position to accept future messages.

Yeah right. These breakoffs have had decades to get things rolling when it comes to the basic mission of the church as emphasized by the Lord through scripture given through revelation to the Prophet Joseph. How are they doing? (-|

[Matthew.B]

Not really a valid test. If it was Catholics would be the true Christian religion.

Not really...because they have quite a sordid history from introduction of pagan practices to torture chambers under their churches to hired assassins. Not even getting into the facts of not saving their dead, propagating the bible throughout the earth, and myriad other historical facts.

In the Mormon Church's ~200-year history, it has a sordid history of blood atonement (leading to murder), sexual immorality (John C. Bennett and others), polygamy leading to corruption among Church leadership, and more. Compared to the Primitive Church's history, the Church is faring about the same or worse (as far as I know--not an expert on the first 2 centuries of the Primitive Church's existence).

Give the Mormon Church another 1,000 years of existence and make it the state religion of the most powerful empire on Earth, and you'd probably find a lot of instances where it went the route of the Catholic Church. So far, LDS Mormonism has been the branch of the Restoration that has shown the most positive fruits--but there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

Your description of my church is so biased, but I think Elder Maxwell's thoughts on this explain it clearly...

Our church. Last time I checked, I was still an active member in good standing. I should be having an introductory interview with the Bishop in my new ward soon, so I'll be sure to ask if I've been excommunicated without my knowledge.

[Matthew.B]

That said we also have the ability to see the unfolding of history between then and now with corresponding evidences and testimonies. How did the other half fair? Redeeming the dead? Expanding the stakes of Zion? Propagating the Book of Mormon throughout the world? Stone rolling forth without hands?

Since history continues to roll forth, "the other half", not bogged down by traditions, may be in a better position to accept future messages.

Good luck!

I see that as a difficult proposition considering they most frequently reject the messengers... :-s

I think the assumption inherent in Separatist's premise is that these other branches (or their members, at least) will have to repent at some future point and begin accepting true messengers. Hence, past behavior is not the most accurate barometer for future behavior.

[freedomforall]

Is there a Snuffer train to Denver? Or is there an outbound Denver train going somewhere with a load of people that have Snuffered enough?