Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

For non-mainstream, heterodoxical discussions. Request access to the Heretic Group here.
User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

Pazooka wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:19 am
iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 6:42 am Hi all,

Been thinking about this a little lately... There are tons of stories out there about Joseph's claim that an angel with a drawn sword essentially forced him into polygamy (source: https://docslib.org/angel-with-a-drawn-sword).

For one, that seems a little too convenient.

For another, did he even bother trying to shake hands with the angel first? Per D&C 129:

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.


Is it possible he got a message from the devil and just took it for fact that it came from God?
In answer to your last question we have this:

Excerpt from ‘The Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner’, (Mary, 23, was married to Adam Lightner at the time Joseph took her as a plural wife):


“I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.

…”Well,” said I, “don’t you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?” Said he, “No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan’s angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me
.
1) Source/link?
2) God commanded Joseph to take someone else's wife?
3) Again, God commands Joseph to take already married women and teenage brides under threat of death?
4) Did Joseph shake the angel's hand or not?

By way of commentary: yuck.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Pazooka »

iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:27 am
Pazooka wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:19 am
iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 6:42 am Hi all,

Been thinking about this a little lately... There are tons of stories out there about Joseph's claim that an angel with a drawn sword essentially forced him into polygamy (source: https://docslib.org/angel-with-a-drawn-sword).

For one, that seems a little too convenient.

For another, did he even bother trying to shake hands with the angel first? Per D&C 129:

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.


Is it possible he got a message from the devil and just took it for fact that it came from God?
In answer to your last question we have this:

Excerpt from ‘The Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner’, (Mary, 23, was married to Adam Lightner at the time Joseph took her as a plural wife):


“I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.

…”Well,” said I, “don’t you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?” Said he, “No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan’s angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me
.
1) Source/link?
2) God commanded Joseph to take someone else's wife?
3) Again, God commands Joseph to take already married women and teenage brides under threat of death?
4) Did Joseph shake the angel's hand or not?

By way of commentary: yuck.
I included the source in the post, but here’s a link:
From the Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, transcript
http://www.ldshistory.us/pc/merlbyu.htm

If you want to understand how JS marrying already married women makes any sense, you could read Mosiah Hancock’s vision of the pre mortal life. Gives a reason.

It sure looks to me like the failure to righteously implement plural marriage went hand in hand with the failure to build Zion. Isaiah 4 gives a picture of a future second chance. In that day the branch of the Lord will be glorious, he says. Reason to overcome some of your feelings, perhaps. It’s been done before by better people than me. Levi Richards being one of them, apparently.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

JSmith wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:08 am I actually don’t believe that story at all. For couple reasons.

the account was only ever narrated to women that he was trying to convince to marry him. But it was never written down. There’s just vague allusions to it. But it is always recounted while trying to convince others about the practice.

Secondly, The reiteration of the story always places pressure on another person to behave in ways to wish they were initially opposed. It essentially states, “I have been forced into doing this, and if you don’t assist me in doing it I’m going to die.”

For young women who viewed him as a prophet , that lays a layer of manipulative force on top of his already powerful position.

Joseph would also lay layers of manipulation on top of that stating that a secret marriage to him, would result in the salvation of entire families based upon one persons choice.

So here you had girls aged 14 through 18, having the burden of their families eternal salvation placed on their shoulders to engage in an illegal, secret activity with an older man.

In short, I think it is clear that Joseph used the angel with a sword narrative as a means of leverage to get people to engage in plural

The fact that He gave no recount of the event, even in his personal journals, to me stands out as interesting. Because that is a Very pivotal concept that was introduced.

I can’t think of too many of the places in scripture where the Lord goes to someone and induces them into a practice, which is open violation of the law, and then tells them that they’ll be executed unless they follow through with a practice when the practice, by default, requires the complicit actions of others.

And the claim behind plural marriage was to “raise up a righteous see. But by all counts Joseph never did that. While he had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, the raising offspring in righteous household never took place.

In fact Joseph was never even sealed to his own children or his parents or siblings until after he was dead.

Emma wasn’t even the first woman sealed to him. She was like the 21st.

And the simple fact is, is Joseph engaged in calculated deception to hide the truth not only from Emma, but from others. If any man in the church behaved as Joseph behaved they would be excommunicated.

Polygamy lead to a series of deceptive behaviors and veiled it in righteous terms.

even in the Utah. Polygamist unions were no more fertile than monogamous unions and a lot of women in Polygamous marriages never had children at all.

To me, there is a grand mythology built up in the church around plural marriage. But the more I dig into the data and numbers and specific of it, the more it begins to fall apart.

I don’t believe the flaming sword narrative. I believe that Joseph had moments of absolute genius, followed by personal ideas that ultimately went nowhere
I feel like this should be read through several times... slowly. Very comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

Pazooka wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:43 amBy way of commentary: yuck.
I included the source in the post, but here’s a link:
From the Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, transcript
http://www.ldshistory.us/pc/merlbyu.htm
Thank you for the source. I read it. You left some things out. I'll highlight those in red:

Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, p.2

"I asked him if Emma knew about me, and he said, "Emma thinks the world of you." I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Well," said I, "don't you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?" Said he, "No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. "But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie; all that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me.""

Then it gets a bit more interesting (highlights are mine):

"Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him I would never be sealed to him until I had a witness. Said he, "You shall have a witness." Said I, "If God told you that, why does he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such a talk from a married man," said I. "Well," said he, "pray earnestly for the angel said to me you should have a witness." Well, Brigham Young was with me. He said if I had a witness he wanted to know it. "Why should I tell you?" said I. "Well," said he, "I want to know for myself." Said he, "Do you know what Joseph said? Since we left the office the angel appeared to him and told him he was well pleased with him and that you should have a witness."

"I made it a subject of prayer and I worried about it because I did not dare to speak to a living being except Brigham Young. I went out and got between three haystacks where no one could see me. As I knelt down I thought, why not pray as Moses did? He prayed with his hands raised. When his hands were raised, Israel was victorious, but when they were not raised, the Philistines were victorious. I lifted my hands and I have heard Joseph say the angels covered their faces. I knelt down and if ever a poor mortal prayed, I did. A few nights after that an angel of the Lord came to me and if ever a thrill went through a mortal, it went through me. I gazed upon the clothes and figure but the eyes were like lightning. They pierced me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. I was frightened almost to death for a moment. I tried to waken my aunt, but I could not. The angel leaned over me and the light was very great, although it was night. When my aunt woke up she said she had seen a figure in white robes pass from our bed to my mother's bed and pass out of the window.

"Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?" "No." "Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did you think to say, 'Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that, your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever dared to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted." Said I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not the same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." And then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although my husband was far away from me at the time. Every word came true. I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber C. Kimball the blessing."

I don't know what to make of that other than this angel seems to come and go whenever Joseph needs help convincing someone to marry him and leave their husband or parents.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Pazooka »

iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:46 am
JSmith wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:08 am I actually don’t believe that story at all. For couple reasons.

the account was only ever narrated to women that he was trying to convince to marry him. But it was never written down. There’s just vague allusions to it. But it is always recounted while trying to convince others about the practice.

Secondly, The reiteration of the story always places pressure on another person to behave in ways to wish they were initially opposed. It essentially states, “I have been forced into doing this, and if you don’t assist me in doing it I’m going to die.”

For young women who viewed him as a prophet , that lays a layer of manipulative force on top of his already powerful position.

Joseph would also lay layers of manipulation on top of that stating that a secret marriage to him, would result in the salvation of entire families based upon one persons choice.

So here you had girls aged 14 through 18, having the burden of their families eternal salvation placed on their shoulders to engage in an illegal, secret activity with an older man.

In short, I think it is clear that Joseph used the angel with a sword narrative as a means of leverage to get people to engage in plural

The fact that He gave no recount of the event, even in his personal journals, to me stands out as interesting. Because that is a Very pivotal concept that was introduced.

I can’t think of too many of the places in scripture where the Lord goes to someone and induces them into a practice, which is open violation of the law, and then tells them that they’ll be executed unless they follow through with a practice when the practice, by default, requires the complicit actions of others.

And the claim behind plural marriage was to “raise up a righteous see. But by all counts Joseph never did that. While he had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, the raising offspring in righteous household never took place.

In fact Joseph was never even sealed to his own children or his parents or siblings until after he was dead.

Emma wasn’t even the first woman sealed to him. She was like the 21st.

And the simple fact is, is Joseph engaged in calculated deception to hide the truth not only from Emma, but from others. If any man in the church behaved as Joseph behaved they would be excommunicated.

Polygamy lead to a series of deceptive behaviors and veiled it in righteous terms.

even in the Utah. Polygamist unions were no more fertile than monogamous unions and a lot of women in Polygamous marriages never had children at all.

To me, there is a grand mythology built up in the church around plural marriage. But the more I dig into the data and numbers and specific of it, the more it begins to fall apart.

I don’t believe the flaming sword narrative. I believe that Joseph had moments of absolute genius, followed by personal ideas that ultimately went nowhere
I feel like this should be read through several times... slowly. Very comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand.
And then here’s me, who when I read a post like this one, I think: yuck. And I get a whiff of something like soul-canker.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

Pazooka wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:01 am
iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:46 am
JSmith wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:08 am I actually don’t believe that story at all. For couple reasons.

the account was only ever narrated to women that he was trying to convince to marry him. But it was never written down. There’s just vague allusions to it. But it is always recounted while trying to convince others about the practice.

Secondly, The reiteration of the story always places pressure on another person to behave in ways to wish they were initially opposed. It essentially states, “I have been forced into doing this, and if you don’t assist me in doing it I’m going to die.”

For young women who viewed him as a prophet , that lays a layer of manipulative force on top of his already powerful position.

Joseph would also lay layers of manipulation on top of that stating that a secret marriage to him, would result in the salvation of entire families based upon one persons choice.

So here you had girls aged 14 through 18, having the burden of their families eternal salvation placed on their shoulders to engage in an illegal, secret activity with an older man.

In short, I think it is clear that Joseph used the angel with a sword narrative as a means of leverage to get people to engage in plural

The fact that He gave no recount of the event, even in his personal journals, to me stands out as interesting. Because that is a Very pivotal concept that was introduced.

I can’t think of too many of the places in scripture where the Lord goes to someone and induces them into a practice, which is open violation of the law, and then tells them that they’ll be executed unless they follow through with a practice when the practice, by default, requires the complicit actions of others.

And the claim behind plural marriage was to “raise up a righteous see. But by all counts Joseph never did that. While he had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, the raising offspring in righteous household never took place.

In fact Joseph was never even sealed to his own children or his parents or siblings until after he was dead.

Emma wasn’t even the first woman sealed to him. She was like the 21st.

And the simple fact is, is Joseph engaged in calculated deception to hide the truth not only from Emma, but from others. If any man in the church behaved as Joseph behaved they would be excommunicated.

Polygamy lead to a series of deceptive behaviors and veiled it in righteous terms.

even in the Utah. Polygamist unions were no more fertile than monogamous unions and a lot of women in Polygamous marriages never had children at all.

To me, there is a grand mythology built up in the church around plural marriage. But the more I dig into the data and numbers and specific of it, the more it begins to fall apart.

I don’t believe the flaming sword narrative. I believe that Joseph had moments of absolute genius, followed by personal ideas that ultimately went nowhere
I feel like this should be read through several times... slowly. Very comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand.
And then here’s me, who when I read a post like this one, I think: yuck. And I get a whiff of something like soul-canker.
Your mileage may vary, of course.

Aside from the points of opinion, which points of fact did you disagree with? To summarize:

a) Joseph made Emma his 21st wife, not the first to whom he was sealed.
b) Joseph was not sealed to his own children.
c) The girls were young in age or already married.
d) Promises of eternal salvation were made to the families of these young women.
e) No offspring came from his unions, contrary to design.
f) No written accounts of the angel with the flaming sword exist in Joseph's writing.
g) None of these marriages were in public - they were all kept secret.
h) There is no record of Joseph offering to shake the angel's hand.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
The Lord says this:
"You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood;"

The phrase "my law" is used by the Lord in many different contexts, but he's leaving the brethren here to interpret this on their own to test them. (He uses the phrase "my law" later in the revelation as well in a different context.) He knows how Pres. Taylor will interpret it - to take another wife - because that's how they were interpreting what the "the law" was at that time. But we know there are lots of things that are part of "the law."

I agree though that it looks like the Lord wanted Seymour to practice plural marriage, because that was the commandment handed down from BY to all the elders, to enter into plural marriage. And what the Lord cares about is that people do not reject a law or true principle, but he also cares about unity. A few sentences after this the Lord says:

"...that those who receive the gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and my kingdom.

Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am one with the Father.

And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.

And let the Presidents of Stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various Stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders’ quorums, and in the Bishops and their councils, and in the quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my Church; and, then, let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my holy priesthood in their several Stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent; for my priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my priesthood, saith the Lord. And let my priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my priesthood, whom I have chosen, and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.


How I interpret this is that the Lord keeps telling the people to be "one in all things" and organize themselves according to his "Law." They were only keeping one part of the Law by taking more wives, and the Lord says, go ahead and live this law that's been revealed to you, but be "one in all things." The reason the Lord allowed the gentiles to overcome the church was because they failed to obey the Lord in becoming one in all things and organizing themselves according to the Order of Enoch as revealed to BY.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Luke »

Sarah wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:28 am
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
The Lord says this:
"You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood;"

The phrase "my law" is used by the Lord in many different contexts, but he's leaving the brethren here to interpret this on their own to test them. (He uses the phrase "my law" later in the revelation as well in a different context.) He knows how Pres. Taylor will interpret it - to take another wife - because that's how they were interpreting what the "the law" was at that time. But we know there are lots of things that are part of "the law."

I agree though that it looks like the Lord wanted Seymour to practice plural marriage, because that was the commandment handed down from BY to all the elders, to enter into plural marriage. And what the Lord cares about is that people do not reject a law or true principle, but he also cares about unity. A few sentences after this the Lord says:

"...that those who receive the gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and my kingdom.

Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am one with the Father.

And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.

And let the Presidents of Stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various Stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders’ quorums, and in the Bishops and their councils, and in the quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my Church; and, then, let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my holy priesthood in their several Stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent; for my priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my priesthood, saith the Lord. And let my priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my priesthood, whom I have chosen, and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.


How I interpret this is that the Lord keeps telling the people to be "one in all things" and organize themselves according to his "Law." They were only keeping one part of the Law by taking more wives, and the Lord says, go ahead and live this law that's been revealed to you, but be "one in all things." The reason the Lord allowed the gentiles to overcome the church was because they failed to obey the Lord in becoming one in all things and organizing themselves according to the Order of Enoch as revealed to BY.
I agree that United Order and Celestial Plural Marriage belong hand in hand.

As Brigham Young said:
  • “I do not want to live to see the sufferings that this people will have to go through if they reject the United Order.
    If this people do not accept and live the principle of the United Order, they will not be acceptable to the Lord.
    The fulness of the Gospel is the United Order and the order of plural marriage; and without these two principles this Gospel never can be full.” (Brigham Young, April 1877, as quoted in Truth, Vol. 4, No. 6, pg. 104, November 1938)

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
Um… even LDS historian/scholars agree a bullet never hit his watch. There’s no way in hell he was shot with a rifle, none.

And yes, I’m sure the events of that day were very traumatic. It’s hard to keep all the facts straight when you’re trying to cover up evidence.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:28 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
Um… even LDS historian/scholars agree a bullet never hit his watch. There’s no way in hell he was shot with a rifle, none.

And yes, I’m sure the events of that day were very traumatic. It’s hard to keep all the facts straight when you’re trying to cover up evidence.
Yeah, some scholars. There is no completely agreed upon consensus.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:36 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:28 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm

Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
Um… even LDS historian/scholars agree a bullet never hit his watch. There’s no way in hell he was shot with a rifle, none.

And yes, I’m sure the events of that day were very traumatic. It’s hard to keep all the facts straight when you’re trying to cover up evidence.
Yeah, some scholars. There is no completely agreed upon consensus.
No… like, the LDS church history department. THE church. Those guys. The “church” doesn’t believe the story from their former leader.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Anyhoo… yeah, I think flaming lies were just about the only thing happing about a decade after this supposed event transpired.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:39 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:36 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:28 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm

And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
Um… even LDS historian/scholars agree a bullet never hit his watch. There’s no way in hell he was shot with a rifle, none.

And yes, I’m sure the events of that day were very traumatic. It’s hard to keep all the facts straight when you’re trying to cover up evidence.
Yeah, some scholars. There is no completely agreed upon consensus.
No… like, the LDS church history department. THE church. Those guys. The “church” doesn’t believe the story from their former leader.
This really doesn't mean a thing.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
I believe the argument goes something like:

"A .30 caliber musket round from near point-blank range would have taken half his chest off and used the watch as a battering ram."

You could try it on some ballistic gel if you want.

The claim someone else in Carthage Jail (I forget who) got shot in the wrist with a musket ball is equally silly - he would have lost his whole hand. Which, I would add, would have made it very difficult to try and shake hands with an angel.

I guess the point is sometimes the details and sources matter.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:55 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:21 pm
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
Yeah, he also thought he was shot in the pocket by a rifle and his watch miraculously saved him.
And there's no proof he wasn't.

Even if he wasn't, I'd like to see you remember every detail from a traumatic situation which happened so fast it was over in a blink.
I believe the argument goes something like:

"A .30 caliber musket round from near point-blank range would have taken half his chest off and used the watch as a battering ram."

You could try it on some ballistic gel if you want.

The claim someone else in Carthage Jail (I forget who) got shot in the wrist with a musket ball is equally silly - he would have lost his whole hand. Which, I would add, would have made it very difficult to try and shake hands with an angel.

I guess the point is sometimes the details and sources matter.
The shots on JT are quite verifiable. I believe his leg, hip, and hand/wrist. A small .38 caliber rifle would not blow off a hand, but most likely lodge somewhere. A rifle… yeah, no chance.

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

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Pazooka »

iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:09 am Aside from the points of opinion, which points of fact did you disagree with? To summarize:

a) Joseph made Emma his 21st wife, not the first to whom he was sealed.
Why would it matter?
b) Joseph was not sealed to his own children.
I think this is correct. We have a strangely aberrant understanding of sealing.
c) The girls were young in age or already married.
Jane Tippets is just one example I can think of who is unmarried and 78 years old at the time of her marriage to JS. Not sure why it would matter if they were married or not or if they were young or not, as long as they were of marriageable age.
d) Promises of eternal salvation were made to the families of these young women.
Because JS would have had power to make these promises to some degree.
e) No offspring came from his unions, contrary to design.
Just like Jesus didn’t have any offspring, right? (That was sarcasm) I don’t think he had many, but I think he had some. I’d be interested to eventually find out if maybe they were kept hidden with the Lord’s help for His own purposes.
f) No written accounts of the angel with the flaming sword exist in Joseph's writing.
I really don’t know. The body of evidence renders it irrelevant to me.
g) None of these marriages were in public - they were all kept secret.
If PM was not revealed to the public at the time, this is consistent.
h) There is no record of Joseph offering to shake the angel's hand.
The statement by SELR makes it sound like there were other ways JS had of detecting friend from foe.
I can’t even imagine how much happened of which we have zero record. That passage about the voice of Michael being heard on the banks of the Susquehanna detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light, for instance. He alluded to that in 1842. He didn’t discern that it was the devil by shaking his hand, that time.

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1867
Location: Utah

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Mindfields »

iWriteStuff wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:01 am
Pazooka wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:43 amBy way of commentary: yuck.
I included the source in the post, but here’s a link:
From the Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, transcript
http://www.ldshistory.us/pc/merlbyu.htm
Thank you for the source. I read it. You left some things out. I'll highlight those in red:

Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, p.2

"I asked him if Emma knew about me, and he said, "Emma thinks the world of you." I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Well," said I, "don't you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?" Said he, "No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. "But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie; all that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me.""

Then it gets a bit more interesting (highlights are mine):

"Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him I would never be sealed to him until I had a witness. Said he, "You shall have a witness." Said I, "If God told you that, why does he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such a talk from a married man," said I. "Well," said he, "pray earnestly for the angel said to me you should have a witness." Well, Brigham Young was with me. He said if I had a witness he wanted to know it. "Why should I tell you?" said I. "Well," said he, "I want to know for myself." Said he, "Do you know what Joseph said? Since we left the office the angel appeared to him and told him he was well pleased with him and that you should have a witness."

"I made it a subject of prayer and I worried about it because I did not dare to speak to a living being except Brigham Young. I went out and got between three haystacks where no one could see me. As I knelt down I thought, why not pray as Moses did? He prayed with his hands raised. When his hands were raised, Israel was victorious, but when they were not raised, the Philistines were victorious. I lifted my hands and I have heard Joseph say the angels covered their faces. I knelt down and if ever a poor mortal prayed, I did. A few nights after that an angel of the Lord came to me and if ever a thrill went through a mortal, it went through me. I gazed upon the clothes and figure but the eyes were like lightning. They pierced me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. I was frightened almost to death for a moment. I tried to waken my aunt, but I could not. The angel leaned over me and the light was very great, although it was night. When my aunt woke up she said she had seen a figure in white robes pass from our bed to my mother's bed and pass out of the window.

"Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?" "No." "Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did you think to say, 'Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that, your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever dared to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak to me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted." Said I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not the same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." And then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family, although my husband was far away from me at the time. Every word came true. I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber C. Kimball the blessing."

I don't know what to make of that other than this angel seems to come and go whenever Joseph needs help convincing someone to marry him and leave their husband or parents.
What a pile of bullshiz. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Mormonism.

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1867
Location: Utah

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Mindfields »

Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:09 pm
Sarah wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:28 am
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
TheDuke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:09 am Bugs me that BY made it a requirement for church leadership.
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
The Lord says this:
"You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood;"

The phrase "my law" is used by the Lord in many different contexts, but he's leaving the brethren here to interpret this on their own to test them. (He uses the phrase "my law" later in the revelation as well in a different context.) He knows how Pres. Taylor will interpret it - to take another wife - because that's how they were interpreting what the "the law" was at that time. But we know there are lots of things that are part of "the law."

I agree though that it looks like the Lord wanted Seymour to practice plural marriage, because that was the commandment handed down from BY to all the elders, to enter into plural marriage. And what the Lord cares about is that people do not reject a law or true principle, but he also cares about unity. A few sentences after this the Lord says:

"...that those who receive the gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and my kingdom.

Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am one with the Father.

And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.

And let the Presidents of Stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various Stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders’ quorums, and in the Bishops and their councils, and in the quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my Church; and, then, let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my holy priesthood in their several Stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent; for my priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my priesthood, saith the Lord. And let my priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my priesthood, whom I have chosen, and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.


How I interpret this is that the Lord keeps telling the people to be "one in all things" and organize themselves according to his "Law." They were only keeping one part of the Law by taking more wives, and the Lord says, go ahead and live this law that's been revealed to you, but be "one in all things." The reason the Lord allowed the gentiles to overcome the church was because they failed to obey the Lord in becoming one in all things and organizing themselves according to the Order of Enoch as revealed to BY.
I agree that United Order and Celestial Plural Marriage belong hand in hand.

As Brigham Young said:
  • “I do not want to live to see the sufferings that this people will have to go through if they reject the United Order.
    If this people do not accept and live the principle of the United Order, they will not be acceptable to the Lord.
    The fulness of the Gospel is the United Order and the order of plural marriage; and without these two principles this Gospel never can be full.” (Brigham Young, April 1877, as quoted in Truth, Vol. 4, No. 6, pg. 104, November 1938)
Brigham certainly got his "fair share" of the women and money. He lived like a King while there were starving Saints living in squalor. United Order my @55.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by iWriteStuff »

Mindfields wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 7:45 am
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 12:09 pm
Sarah wrote: July 19th, 2022, 11:28 am
Luke wrote: July 19th, 2022, 10:25 am
John Taylor had a revelation in 1882 where God said that the leading men of the Church MUST be polygamists.
The Lord says this:
"You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood;"

The phrase "my law" is used by the Lord in many different contexts, but he's leaving the brethren here to interpret this on their own to test them. (He uses the phrase "my law" later in the revelation as well in a different context.) He knows how Pres. Taylor will interpret it - to take another wife - because that's how they were interpreting what the "the law" was at that time. But we know there are lots of things that are part of "the law."

I agree though that it looks like the Lord wanted Seymour to practice plural marriage, because that was the commandment handed down from BY to all the elders, to enter into plural marriage. And what the Lord cares about is that people do not reject a law or true principle, but he also cares about unity. A few sentences after this the Lord says:

"...that those who receive the gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and my kingdom.

Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am one with the Father.

And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.

And let the Presidents of Stakes also purify themselves, and the priesthood and people of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the priesthood in their various Stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders’ quorums, and in the Bishops and their councils, and in the quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons, that every quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my Church; and, then, let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold my holy priesthood in their several Stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent; for my priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my priesthood, saith the Lord. And let my priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my priesthood, whom I have chosen, and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my priesthood.


How I interpret this is that the Lord keeps telling the people to be "one in all things" and organize themselves according to his "Law." They were only keeping one part of the Law by taking more wives, and the Lord says, go ahead and live this law that's been revealed to you, but be "one in all things." The reason the Lord allowed the gentiles to overcome the church was because they failed to obey the Lord in becoming one in all things and organizing themselves according to the Order of Enoch as revealed to BY.
I agree that United Order and Celestial Plural Marriage belong hand in hand.

As Brigham Young said:
  • “I do not want to live to see the sufferings that this people will have to go through if they reject the United Order.
    If this people do not accept and live the principle of the United Order, they will not be acceptable to the Lord.
    The fulness of the Gospel is the United Order and the order of plural marriage; and without these two principles this Gospel never can be full.” (Brigham Young, April 1877, as quoted in Truth, Vol. 4, No. 6, pg. 104, November 1938)
Brigham certainly got his "fair share" of the women and money. He lived like a King while there were starving Saints living in squalor. United Order my @55.
Brigham never lived the United Order. But to be fair, neither did Joseph. Or any modern prophet.

Ain't that strange?

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by Niemand »

nightlight wrote: July 19th, 2022, 9:40 am The handshake thing is a fasle doctrine.

It's just that simple.

What would this little knowledge do to most LDS?
If demons can move objects around, injure people or even have sex with them, they can probably imitate a handshake.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Shaking the Hands of Angels with Drawn Swords

Post by TheDuke »

BTW on the 38 cal rifle, they didn't really exist. and yes if one was found (very random) it would blow your hand or leg clean off. There are two considerations in black powder shooting (three really). 1) smooth bore or rifled, 12' diameter at 60 yards smooth bore (like the militia used). 2) caliber, muskets were around 70 caliber in early 1800's, rifles down to 50 cal, anything less was for varmints only and wouldn't be carried in public. 3) rifle vs. pistol, comparison of powder, a pistol holds less than 30% powder vs. rifle of similar caliber.

Note most (pre) civil war pistols were under 36 caliber and low powder loads, especially multi-bullet ones (there were no traditional revolvers but supposedly a 6 barrel, revolving barrel 30 cal was WR favorite, of which he supposedly had purchased two.

So, a pistol would not blow off a hand or limb or hip. A typical musket or rifle surely would have at any viable range. I suppose if one random person showed up with a squirrel gun, it might make one smaller hole but not 2 or 3 for sure. I've shot my 44 cal Navy revolver (barely pre-civil war but then in 3x cal) and seen small holes, but I've blown right through deer and elk with 50 cal black powder rifles, it makes quite a mess, unless you accidentally load a "wadcutter", had a wadcutter follow up shot once and it didn't make much mess but it did go in 6-8 inches. I've shot balls, sabots and conicals, but never the civil (and pre-war) mini-balls, which are hollow behind as they mostly work well in smooth bore, that is what the militia would have had (69 cal mini-balls, smooth bore, quick loading, about 100 gr medium powder).

Post Reply