"I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man [or woman] who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives." - Joseph SmithAn LDS leader or two has thrown that quote in my face (briefly) this past year. I've never understood it. It didn't make sense to me...until last night, when I read Rock Waterman's comment about it on his own blog.
I'm going to "steal" that comment and re-post it here, because it's "buried" so deep in Rock's comment section (#246, or something like that) that I'm afraid some will miss it! It deserves to be read. (Not that I'm augmenting his readership any by linking to it here! He gets over 100 times the web traffic I do! And most of my traffic comes from him!) If he complains, I'll take it down. But here it is:
I confess to growing weary of seeing people offer that quote of the prophet warning the Brethren not to find fault with the church, as if he was telling the church they were on the road to apostasy if they found fault with the leaders.
Joseph Smith did say that alright, but it would be pretty arrogant of him if he was referring to himself and the other leaders as being beyond criticism.
Unlike many members today, Joseph Smith KNEW what the word CHURCH meant. He always used it the same way the Lord used that word in D&C 10:67.
He NEVER used it in the corrupt terms we have come to use it today.
To Joseph Smith, "church" meant the members, the general community. "church" IS NOT THE LEADERS. "The church" is ALL of us.
That statement was part of a speech the prophet delivered that goes on for 8 pages in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and if it is to be understood, it should be read in context. He was giving parting warnings to a very small group consisting of new members of the Twelve who were about to embark on missions, and a handful of Seventies, warning them to be humble and not think themselves above the common members simply because they now held positions of prominence.
Normally I would sustain my firm rule and delete the post...that was left only by someone who chose to call himself "Anonymous," but because there have been several responses to that post already, and because this statement of the Prophet's is frequently trotted out and presented without any context to the rest of his speech whatsoever, I have left it here so that I could respond to it. Too bad that commenter didn't leave his real name because he or she deserves to be humiliated for misquoting the prophet of God.
If you want to read that quote properly, you must disabuse yourself of the modern interpretation of "the church" as being the leaders of the church, and read it the way the prophet intended his words.
Substitute either the word "members" or "community" where Joseph has used the word "church" and you'll have the proper meaning of what he is saying.
"That man [among you, the Twelve Apostles] who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the MEMBERS, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that man is in the high road to apostasy, and if he does not repent, WILL apostatize, as God lives."
Joseph Smith did indeed say those words, and he did give that warning to the church hierarchy. I believe his words. That warning to the Twelve is further evidence to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet, for he accurately described the hubris that would operate among our present crop of leaders.
I am witnessing the truth of the prophet's words being fulfilled before my eyes.
"Deserves to be humiliated"? Perhaps. Others are humiliated who deserve to be honored.
ReplyDeleteJoseph's statement is a specific application of a general principle - which is this: whoever finds fault with another while esteeming himself righteous has the spirit of the accuser.
51 ¶And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
Delete52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Thanks Log. This is the same spirit that must move forward if we are to be followers of Christ and his gospel. There can be no anger, only resolution to stay within the framework the Savior oulined himself and through Joseph restored.
Deletegood writing; it never hurts to spread truth around--
ReplyDeleteWill, I have been looking in the Teaching of The Prophet Joseph Smith but cannot find the exact quote. Rock does not give the exact page. If you happen to know where it is, I would appreciate knowing the page number so I can read the quote in it's proper context Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDo Not Betray the Brethren
DeleteSection Four 1839-42, p.156
O ye Twelve! and all Saints! profit by this important Key--that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come. Yea, in all your kicking and flounderings, see to it that you do not this thing, lest innocent blood be found upon your skirts, and you go down to hell. All other sins are not to be compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to the brethren.
A Key to Mysteries
Section Four 1839-42, p.156
I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. The principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign, you may set it down that he is an adulterous man.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks Log. I just found it myself in Section 4 and logged in to report it. You were quick on the draw. Thank you.
DeleteI have a question: The assumption in the post is that the 8 pages of information was given at the same to to the same body of elders. Or, is this a series of doctrinal snippets that
perhaps were given at different times. If that is the case, then quote in point could be interpreted in two different ways. Church meaning leadership, or Church meaning membership. What say ye!
"O ye Twelve! and all Saints!" clarifies to whom he was speaking. The Church, in context, means the whole membership.
DeleteLog... I understand that the first paragraph says who the prophet was speaking to. I assume that the next paragraph, "Beware of Pride" is the message to that group of men.
DeleteBut how many of the next paragraphs or subjects were given at the same time? Or... are these snippets which are given under different titles, given at different times? I do notice that on page 162 under the title Angels Do not Have Wings... there is this notation. July 2, 1839 D.H.C.3:383-392 Does that mean all information before was given at the same time?
I guess I'm questioning how Joseph Fielding Smith formatted the information in this book.
It is a concantenation of two separate records for 2 July 1839 - one from Wilford Woodruff, and one from Willard Richards.
DeleteRichards (in its entirety):
A Key. Finding fault with the Church (A final key delivered by Joseph in the following Language)
I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle that has existed
with God from all Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church,
saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in
the high road to apostacy and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives The principle is as
correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person, 8 &
that principle is Eternal, undeviating & firm as the pillars of heaven, for whenever you see a man
seeking after a sign you may set it down that he is an adulterous man. 9 —————
—2 July 1839
So, in point of fact, we don't know the audience to whom this was delivered. I submit, however, it doesn't matter, since if Joseph intended it solely for the leadership, he would have said so, as Woodruff's record has him making some pointed remarks in that direction. It is a general principle, is phrased as applying generally, and I find the attempt to transfigure it that it be specific to leadership unpersuasive.
DeleteWill, I'm so glad you published this. I've been meaning to address this topic for some time, but other topics seem to keep rising to the top of my list of imperatives. Thanks to you posting my comments here, I can simply direct others to your blog when this item comes up.
ReplyDeleteLog and Insightful Nana,
ReplyDeleteWe do indeed know the audience to whom these words were delivered, as Joseph Fielding Smith provides this heading on page 155:
"In the afternoon of Monday, July 2, 1839, the prophet met with the apostles and some of the Seventies who were about to depart on their mission to Great Britain in fulfillment of the revelation of the Lord, and instructed them. A synopsis of his remarks he placed in his journal, and this is here reproduced in full as they are given in the History of the Church."
Although the subheadings Joseph Fielding provided give the impression they could be unrelated snippets, they are in fact all the same speech. The last section is the one with the subheading "Angels Do Not Have Wings," as you can see at the end of that paragraph the date given, and a different date provided for the following subheading.
Log, I am sufficiently rebuked for wishing the original commenter to experience humiliation for offering up this old chestnut to prove his or her position of being in the right. I confess to having grown weary of those in the church who are insufferably and arrogantly certain of their views (the same writer followed up with an equally prideful comment that I deleted for being in violation of the posted rules). In my frustration, I failed to respond in kindness. I accept your rebuke, and resolve to do better.
I concur with your view that the statement of the prophet's is a general principle that would apply churchwide, as apostasy can come from below as well as above (you'll note in my current blog post "Who Is Changing The Doctrine" that the scriptures do not discriminate regarding who might be an apostate, and how we as a church are to take steps to remove such people. It is telling, however, that most of those who were excommunicated from the early LDS church (at least as far as I know of) were among the top leadership. I can only think of one rank and file member who was excommunicated: Pelatiah Brown, and the prophet was appalled to learn he had been kicked out merely for believing something that was doctrinally false. My understanding is that Joseph Smith had Brother Brown's membership reinstated post haste.
The reader will note that in that speech by the prophet, he especially admonishes the apostles to avoid the type of backbiting, jealousies, and jockeying for position that marked the behavior of those apostles that the current crop has recently replaced. Bill Shepard's new book, "Lost Apostles" documents that divisiveness, and you can easily see why Brother Joseph placed such emphasis on the Brethren being cohesive.
I will say that I do not have the confidence in the History of the Church, neither the Historian's office, that others may. WJS page 19 suggests that the HoC record is a concantenation of Richards's and Woodruff's records.
DeleteIn the end, as you agree, it doesn't matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteI removed the above comment because I had a huge spelling error.
Sometimes it is confusing to know to whom the Prophet is speaking when he mentions the word "Church" because of present day misuse of the word.
Obviously, through time, the word "Church" has been distorted to mean several things. Statements like, "What does the Church think about this or that?"( I hear this more frequently than I would like,) which is asking what the leadership or brethren think. "The Church is growing," refers to the membership. And, the statement, "I know the Church is true," could mean one believes the "Gospel is true or this is the Lord's Church."
At this point it behooves all of us to use irrefutable language when communicating. "What does the leadership think?" "The membership is growing." And, I bear testimony that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Perhaps we should leave the word "Church" out altogether.
In re-reading the quote in question... I too believe the term "Church" means "members." However, the information above the quote in question states: "Do Not Betray the Brethren".....see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren ..... and.... All other sins are not to be compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to the brethren.
At what point can we challenge the brethren without "proving a traitor to them?
My think is .... when they speak the truth, we do not challenge them. And, at this point in time, perhaps all they say should be confirmed by the witness of the Holy Ghost. That is a challenge for me as I don't always trust answers are coming from the proper source.
I feel I've been "Dumbed Down" for so long that I'm at a starting point in building my faith and confidence so I can received answers directly from the Lord rather than from other sources. The good new is.... the depth of my study has increased dramatically, due to increased scripture study, books I'm reading and blog commentary.... so there is hope.
Again guys... thanks so much for your insight.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon't Fall For It
ReplyDeleteI want to lovingly admonish us all to please, PLEASE check sources. Joseph likely never said this at all. Seriously.
I know it gets trotted out all the time to rebuke "apostates" but it, along with a litany of other quotes that get pulled, cannot reliably be attributed to Joseph Smith at all. Just because it is in TPJS, doesn't mean he said it.
If you check sources, it is attributed as follows:
History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards.
Therefore, it is cited from three sources:
History of the Church by B.H. Roberts;
Wilford Woodruff
Willard Richards
The quote does indeed appear in Source 1, History of the Church, which actually just gets it from the other two sources, as follows:
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal--which completely omits this quote, though it directly supplies the rest of the material used in History of the Church. Did you get that? The speech is there in the journal verbatim, minus this paragraph. ITS NOT THERE. Somebody stuck it in, but it's not in Woodruff's Journal.
Woodruff, who was present at the meeting in question, is considered the most reliable source because he recorded the notes of the meeting while in attendance. But this paragraph does not appear in that record.
Turns out it came from Willard Richards’ Pocket Companion.
Richards’ Pocket Companion is actually a collection of material Willard Richards copied from other sources while on a mission in England. Therefore, though this material appears there, Richards was not actually present when Joseph gave this sermon, and Richards copied the material from elsewhere, most likely Wilford Woodruff’s journal. As to how the quote in question got into Richards’ Pocket Companion while not appearing in the original record is a mystery. Nobody knows where it came from. It is therefore hearsay and not a historical record.
We are left to wonder where Richards obtained the quote and why he inserted it in the middle of a sermon he didn’t hear Joseph give. There is no other original source that contains this quotation, and Richards was in England when Joseph was supposed to have said it.
The quote’s dubious provenance is not helped by its doctrinal difficulties. For example, scripture is replete with true prophets, called of God, who did indeed “rise up to condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying they are out of the way while he himself is righteous.” Some obvious examples are as follows:
Lehi
Jacob
Benjamin
Abinadi
Alma the Younger
Samuel the Lamanite
John the Baptist
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith
Since Joseph Smith himself was on the high road to apostasy if this quote were true, it seems highly unlikely that Joseph Smith ever said this.
No need to parse it. No need to deal with it at all. Its apocryphal. That's a big word for BS.
Adrian, you make a very convincing argument! Thank you for adding your ray of light!
Delete"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not, God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." - Joseph Smith
DeleteAnd I am left with nary a single reference to the others touting their righteousness (indeed, quite the opposite). And, no, angels saying such-and-such is righteous does not qualify in the terms under discussion.
And where did each condemn the Church? I could have sworn each delivered a specific message in the words of He who commanded them.
And, since the citation from Richards is, indeed, merely a specific application of a general principle - the most general form of which was supplied by the Savior himself - the claim that it's doctrinally dubious itself seems dubious.
Delete"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."
We each choose whom we shall heed.
Not only do the named prophets fail to conform to any of the conditions outlined in Joseph's statement - none rose up and found fault with the Church saying they were out of the way while he, himself, was righteous - it requires more than bare assertion that Richards fabricated the statement from whole cloth.
DeleteFrom Wikipedia: 'Richards was incarcerated in Carthage Jail with Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith and John Taylor on 27 June 1844 when the jail was attacked by a mob and the LDS prophet and his brother were murdered. Taylor was shot four times and severely injured, but survived the attack. Richards was unhurt and so supervised the removal of Taylor and the bodies. His first-hand account of the event was published in the "Times and Seasons," Vol.5, No.14, (1. Aug. 1844), titled, "Two Minutes in Jail."'
This doesn't mean that Richards necessarily got everything right, but it does mean that greater weight should be considered for his diligence and honesty in collecting statements from witnesses to Joseph's words while he was in England.
I don't think the false-on-its-face claim that prophets who spoke according to the dictates of God were rising up of themselves and finding fault with the Church, saying they were out of the way, while the prophets proclaimed they were themselves righteous, is a ray of light and truth.
D&C 93
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
Something I've learned twice - once from Nibley, and once from experience: the truth loses in competition to self interest among the worldly.
' "O what a powerful reasoner self-interest is!" says Tertullian.'
Isaiah 59:15
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
You guys are great! It's humbling to see you all bring to bear the light and truth at your disposal. You bless us all!
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness.... what information can we trust besides the Book of Mormon? Is that where we should narrow our study to? Seems like much of historical text has been tampered with in some form or another.
ReplyDeleteI see this happening today.... so many original quotes being changed in order to support the writers point of view. Makes one want to scream: "Where is truth?"
James 1
Delete5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Jeremiah 17:5
5 ¶Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
well, Nana, I believe the Book of Mormon is the only scripture *we* can trust. And I admit that I rant about it, but I can't say it enough. Daymon Smith has a lot more intelligent things to say about it than I ever could, but from the time the first copy of the Book of Mormon came off the press--
Deleteit has been (I'll have some fun here):
tarred and feather, had bible verses pasted all the way inside it, used as an icon, used as a 'second witness of Christ', had little quips and quotes taken out to show how to have good character--
and not read as a book, intact, not little lettered squideroos in it--
not all alone (note that it is impossible to find a leather, large print copy of the Book of Mormon alone; you will only fine one with a D&C and a P of GP and the little additions in it)--
ever alone, as it was intended to be, without the bible being stamped on it--
trying to obliterate it.
The Book of Mormon warns that the Bible will be a huge stumblingblock to the Gentiles (which *we* and all other Euro and Euro American Christian sorts at least are, excluding Jews and the remant, the identification of which is not really known)--
On any discussion about religion that centers on the LDS religion, you will find Bible scriptures coming out the ears of the blog! LOL!
I read the Book of Mormon alone, no TG--it's an anonymous, online copy, and I have copies made of it--because the large print books are too heavy for me to hold (sorry to get personal there)--
I know quite a few people in my situation who almost can't read scriptures, because they suffer from poor vision (either uncorrectable or not correctable enough to make reading doable unless it's large print)--and physical weakness; that is very sad--
I could write an essay on the topical guide, from the 'inside', but I will not, not on a Mormon blog ever certainly--
only something I would keep aside for my descendants--
Adrian Larsen, Thank You for that insightful information! As far as I'm concerned, that changes everything.
ReplyDeleteWilford Woodruff was indeed a careful and thorough recorder on the spot, and if that statement was not in his original then it is suspect indeed, ESPECIALLY as it next turns up in the Documentary History of the Church. Willard Richards, one of the those charged with putting together the DHC, is known to have willingly doctored the words of Joseph under the direction of Brigham Young. The other editor, Charles Wandell, would have nothing to do with that chicanery, and left Brigham Young's employ to rejoin the church back on the plains. He later testified to what Brigham had requested he do, and which Willard Richards had willfully complied with.
I don't trust Richards as far as I can throw him. Not only did he put words into Joseph's mouth that the prophet never spoke, he removed essential statements. Allow me to reprint a section from my own post, "Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy" All of the following is cut and pasted directly from that post:
Who's Putting Words In Joseph Smith's Mouth?
The author of Sidney Rigdon’s biography is also the author of Mormon Polygamy: A History, which was the first major overview of the practice, and he knows the subject well. Van Wagoner does not question the widely held belief that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, but like many who write about him, he finds Joseph’s apparent schizophrenia baffling. Further down on the page we read this:
“The Prophet’s most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on 5 October 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith’s diary that Joseph ‘gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.’”
What really popped out at me was Van Wagoner’s footnote to the above quote, on page 303
“When incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young's direction, deleted ten key words from this significant passage and added forty-nine others so that it now reads:
"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise."
It struck me that the passage above had been substantially doctored so as to completely change its meaning. It put words into the Prophet’s mouth that he simply had not spoken, words that in fact contradicted what he had said. The added words could incline the reader to conclude that Joseph equivocated on the subject, but it’s clear from his original words that he did not. Missing entirely from Joseph's statement in the official history is the primary imperative, “Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof.”
This is not editing for clarification. This is prevarication, a lie; a calculated attempt to change church history.
Here is
"“When incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young's direction, deleted ten key words from this significant passage and added forty-nine others so that it now reads:"
DeleteBut not Richards by name?
Rock, I can't help it; maybe you didn't do it on purpose, but Willard "doctored"--
Deleteha; that kind of humor is keeping life from being entirely too tedious.
Good, even if it was unwitting, but I suspect it wasn't--
:)
or
*chuckling*
Log... thank you for the reminder. It's a reminder that I should "Ask" in ALL of my study. We have been told that in the Last Day it will be more important than ever to rely upon the spirit for truth to be revealed and confirmed. It is evident that the time is NOW! Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteNana, there are certainly many scriptures/admonitions in the Book of Mormon that support constantly asking God for guidance and answers.
Delete*annoying Book of Mormon cheerleader*
:)
There are additional reasons to mistrust Willard Richards. A love letter was delivered to Nancy Rigdon purportedly from Joseph Smith that served to rationalize plural marriage with the argument that sometimes God teaches one morality and other times another. But the letter was not in Joseph's handwriting, but the handwriting of Willard Richards!
ReplyDeleteSeems kind of strange that Joseph might dictate a love letter to a scribe instead of writing it himself. Nancy Ridgon stated she did not believe the letter was from Joseph, and neither did her father, Sidney. Joseph Smith, when he got wind of it, made affidavit denying it was his. All believed it was the work of John C. Bennett, who had apostatized and vowed to destroy Joseph.
So the question remains, why would Willard Richards be colluding with an avowed enemy of the prophet?
And guess what? In spite of the letter being disavowed by Joseph, after Joseph's death it made its way into the DHC with the title "Joseph Smith's Letter on Happiness." Even today, those words are quoted as though they were an unquestioned teaching of Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith's brother William went to his grave believing Willard Richards had conspired in the poisoning of older brother Samuel, who died mysteriously just weeks after his brothers Joseph and Hyrum. There is little doubt that the Saints would have looked to Samuel as the successor of Joseph and Hyrum had he remained alive.
In a letter to the New York Tribune in 1857, William makes this allegation:
'I have good reason for believing that my brother Samuel H. Smith, died of poison at Nauvoo, administered by order of Brigham Young and Willard Richards, only a few weeks subsequent to the unlawful murder of my other brothers, Joseph and Hiram Smith, while incarcerated in Carthage jail. Several other persons who were presumed to stand between Brigham Young and the accomplishment of his ambitions and wicked designs, mysteriously disappeared from Nauvoo about the same time, and have never been heard from since.'"
Other contemporaries testified of the same thing. Hosea Stout is said to have been the one to administer the poison, and I could believe that. Stout was a very shady character, and was implicated in several murders and suspicious disappearances. After the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, Hosea Stout kept Samuel in his home in Nauvoo, under the claim that he was helping to nurse Samuel back to health and telling visitors that Samuel was too ill to see anyone.
"
DeleteSeems kind of strange that Joseph might dictate a love letter to a scribe instead of writing it himself. Nancy Ridgon stated she did not believe the letter was from Joseph, and neither did her father, Sidney. Joseph Smith, when he got wind of it, made affidavit denying it was his. All believed it was the work of John C. Bennett, who had apostatized and vowed to destroy Joseph.
So the question remains, why would Willard Richards be colluding with an avowed enemy of the prophet?"
Doesn't the prior question of whether Richards colluded with an avowed enemy of the prophet need to be definitively answered in the affirmative before speculating on his alleged motives for so doing?
Now, I have no opinion on whether any of this is true or not. Others have pointed out that it was odd Willard Richards survived the shootings at Carthage unscathed, but it's hard to say why that might be one way or the other. So, much of the rumors surrounding Dr Richards must be seen as speculation. What we do know for certain, however, is that he is known to have doctored the words of Joseph Smith in the DHC because we have the original statements of the prophet to compare them to. And if the original source of the apostasy quote (Woodruff's journal) makes no mention of those words, and they suddenly appear in the DHC; and if, as you say, Richards was not present when Joseph is said to have spoke those words, then I am inclined to be very skeptical of the provenance of those words, as you are, Adrian.
ReplyDeleteThat unfortunately still leaves us with a statement that a great majority of members of the church still accept as true. In that event, I would still argue my interpretation for the sake of those who will not see further, as Joseph Smith NEVER to my knowledge referred to the leaders as being "the church," but always described the church as the community of believers. Nevertheless, even tapered with my interpretation, the statement is entirely out of character for Joseph. All THIS is an eternal "key" to the mysteries? Sounds like quite an exaggeration if you ask me, and not like something Joseph would say.
Again, Adrian, I am indebted to you for your added information and insight. I guess one day I am going to have to discuss this issue from all sides in a future post.
"What we do know for certain, however, is that he is known to have doctored the words of Joseph Smith in the DHC because we have the original statements of the prophet to compare them to."
DeleteDo we know that for certain? Or is it speculation? Are we so certain it was Richards who was responsible for doctoring anything?
"All THIS is an eternal "key" to the mysteries? Sounds like quite an exaggeration if you ask me, and not like something Joseph would say."
It is, as I have pointed out, a specific application of a general principle which is known to be true.
Insightful Nana,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. We really must drop the word "church" from our vocabulary almost completely if we are ever to understand what we're talking about. I try to use that word only when referring to the community of Saints, but even I find myself repeatedly using it to refer to the leadership.
When discussing the church I and many other bloggers have taken to using the small c church to refer to the members, and Captial "C" Church to the Magisterium. But it is always preferable to use terms such as "leaders" "hierarchy" "Institutional Church" "Structural Church" "Organizational Church" "corporate Church" or simply "The Magisterium" when discussing the managerial or administrative wing of the church. We absolutely MUST get away from referring Salt Lake City Headquarters as 'the church' because that contributes to the dichotomy of this church being divided into two classes; those at the top and the rest of us peons down below.
Adrian,
ReplyDeleteCan you provide more information and links regarding Willard Richard's Pocket Companion? I've never heard of this. Was it his personal notebook, or what?
It is apparently a collection of notes of Joseph's sermons that he got from John Taylor.
Deletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=_izMO9Xdq2UC&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=willard+richards+pocket+companion&source=bl&ots=TlfsXmujtl&sig=XrWQXhmTyn7yhg21NmHfNfsxf_I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RIa1U7joFc3aoASGg4KgBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=willard%20richards%20pocket%20companion&f=false
I will put this here, too. There is a reason I participate on an ever-increasingly diminishing number of blogs.
ReplyDeletehttp://latterdaycommentary.com/2014/06/27/dont-blame-me-i-just-report-the-news/#comment-27252
for those who will still see this as being the words of brother joseph, understanding what the words meant to those who spoke them is essential. the church, as mentioned before, means the members of the body of christ. the reference to the brethren (used with a lower case 'b') may also mean the members of the church of christ, as we are all brethren in the gospel (this is personal interpretation, if it needs correction, it is more than welcome).
ReplyDeleteand it is also important to separate revelation from mere counsel. revelations (the actual words of god) are binding. counsels may be followed, but are not necessarily doctrinal and therefore not binding. that is why the iron rod is the word of god (who is perfect) and not the words of the prophets (who are imperfect).
and in the end, for arguments sake, you could always debate what is meant by the word betray (could be bearing false testimony against the brethren, etc.).
and it does seem very uncharacteristic for brother joseph to say "[dont criticize the leaders or youre going to hell]" when he was very open about the many mistakes he made while a prophet and the many mistakes of the twelve (of which quite a number were excommunicated).
- micah
Apparently Tim Malone was required or requested by his bishop to remove his recent comments about there being multiple prophets and Denver Snuffer being one of them. So very sad
ReplyDeleteYes, it is very sad. But I don't fault Tim for doing so. LDS Church membership is a great blessing. For those of us who love the Church, it is a very painful thing to lose.
ReplyDeleteTwo very painful -- and, unfortunately, now necessary -- arguments flood through our heads when faced with the dilemma of confessing the truth or sustaining one's Church leaders. (These ought not to be mutual exclusive propositions, but, increasingly, they are! What to do?)
I chose the former. Tim chose the latter. Who's to say which decision is right? I don't know. That's what makes it so difficult.
Will,
ReplyDeleteIf the Bishop, counsellors, stake presidency do not understand the formatted questions of the TR interview, and since the questions in general are not pertinent to our desire to attend the temple, but stamping an "outward appearance" scenario for entry, it doesn't matter what we say, does it? Forcing truth to unbelief is not the law of heaven. Denying the continuation of learning truth to anyone and their repentance by stopping temple attendance never has been what the Lord has prescribed for linking ourselves to him without discrimination. The "worthy" quotient has been altered. Things are afoot and will be forthcoming to solve this dilemma
@good will,
ReplyDeleteI agree with sfort on the 'things are afoot'--
there are 'things' happening in the heavens, I feel--
that will bring resolution to all of this sooner than *we* think (but not hope)--
Jesus is in charge--
There are few things more painful or personally destructive than losing a faith community.
When I think of the hungry children in the world, I think that God, suffering as He must for them, has a lot of important business to take care of to wait for a time until they are all well-fed.
He does have a Plan. We just can't see it all. Everywhere on the bloggernacle I am pleading with people to seek Jesus--
especially through the Book of Mormon. I believe, as I look at my own ward, that the church is in a state of real turmoil.
When I think of last week's F&T meeting, there was only one testimony borne of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon (either one would have been good, though obviously Jesus Christ should always be first; He being the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and the Book of Mormon being a book)--
the others were "the good things I have done or people close to me have done" cloaked in polite language.
I have quoted D&C 112 a number of times about 'upon my house'--
but few people ever respond to it.
It is happening. The state of the world is in deep turmoil; why should not the earthly church with all its worldly appurtenances be in turmoil as well?
Amen
ReplyDelete