Did Joseph Smith ever quote from the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, i cannot see why someone would die for a lie, either. I can understand that if a person thinks he has something to gain if he somehow escapes death then he might intentionally deceive, but this is evil. So, then, do you now see the relevance of my inquiry, my friend Zer? The followers of Jesus suffered and died for their preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. I can think of only five conclusions about them. Peter, Paul Matthew and the other apostles were either:
  • Liars, or lied to
  • Lunatics out of their minds
  • In league with Lucifer, or
  • Leading us to the truth about the Living Lord
    You have read the New Testament, Zer. What is your opinion about these men? Were they credible eyewitnesses when they wrote that Jesus died, was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead, as the Old Testament said?
🤷
Of course I believe that they are credible witnesses. But that is not the point. The point is that there are many people who do NOT think that they are credible witnesses—or at least, they are not persuaded by them. What is the difference between one who is persuaded, and one who is not? I can only speak for myself. I am persuaded by it because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true—the same Spirit that witnesses to me that the Book of Mormon is true. There was a time when I was NOT persuaded. I gained that conviction in conjunction with that of the Book of Mormon. I know that they are both true for the same reasons.

zerinus
 
Because that is in the nature of the operation of the Spirit of God on the human mind; otherwise there would be no difference between the Spirit of God and the spirit of Satan.

zerinus
You really have not answered my question. You see, i did not ask you what the Spirit of God does, i asked you how do you or i know that what you experienced is actually from the Spirit of God. How do you know it is not, for example, just your own imagination, or, worse yet, a deception from the spirit of Satan?

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
(1 John 4:1)
How do you or i, Zer, test the spirits to see whether the Book of Mormon is from God? I do not think it is an unreasonable question to ask.

🤷
 
You really have not answered my question. You see, i did not ask you what the Spirit of God does, i asked you how do you or i know that what you experienced is actually from the Spirit of God. How do you know it is not, for example, just your own imagination, or, worse yet, a deception from the spirit of Satan?

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
(1 John 4:1)
How do you or i, Zer, test the spirits to see whether the Book of Mormon is from God? I do not think it is an unreasonable question to ask.

🤷
Those who have experienced the Spirit of God know that it is recognizable and distinguishable from the opposing spirit. I have had such an experience, and I know whereof I speak. You are free to ignore, disragard, or disbeleive our testimony if you wish. There is not much more that I can add to that. Only know that I do have the answer to that question. It is the one that I have repeatedly given.

zerinus
 
Of course I believe that they are credible witnesses. But that is not the point. The point is that there are many people who do NOT think that they are credible witnesses—or at least, they are not persuaded by them. What is the difference between one who is persuaded, and one who is not? I can only speak for myself. I am persuaded by it because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true—the same Spirit that witnesses to me that the Book of Mormon is true. There was a time when I was NOT persuaded. I gained that conviction in conjunction with that of the Book of Mormon. I know that they are both true for the same reasons.

zerinus
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”*(Isaiah 1:18)*Please try to see that i’m not trying to argue with you, Zer, i’m trying to learn from you and reason with you. If you will stop to just think it through with me, i believe we would both enjoy the dialog and learn from one another.

It seems reasonable to me that if the eyewitnesses of the New Testament really were credible, as you claim, then they could not possibly be liars, lunatics, victims of deception, or worse. Such people do not credible witnesses make! Now, if they really were not deceivers, deceived or deranged, then they told the truth when they said they spent time with Jesus after his bodily resurrection from the dead.

If a person does not believe they told the truth, then the burden of proof is on them to show they were the sort who were willing to die for what they knew were lies, or just plain out of their minds. One cannot say the writers of the New Testament were good men and in the same breath accuse them of not telling the truth about Jesus.

What do you think?
 
Those who have experienced the Spirit of God know that it is recognizable and distinguishable from the opposing spirit. I have had such an experience, and I know whereof I speak. You are free to ignore, disragard, or disbeleive our testimony if you wish. There is not much more that I can add to that. Only know that I do have the answer to that question. It is the one that I have repeatedly given.

zerinus
I think i apprehend, but do not comprehend. However, i am willing to learn!

😃
 
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”*(Isaiah 1:18)*Please try to see that i’m not trying to argue with you, Zer, i’m trying to learn from you and reason with you. If you will stop to just think it through with me, i believe we would both enjoy the dialog and learn from one another.

It seems reasonable to me that if the eyewitnesses of the New Testament are credible, then they cannot be liars, lunatics, victims of deception, or worse. If they are not deceivers, deceived or deranged, then they told the truth when they said they spent time with Jesus after his bodily resurrection from the dead.

If a person does not believe they told the truth, then the burden of proof is on them to show they were the sort who were willing to die for what they knew were lies, or just plain out of their minds. One cannot say the writers of the New Testament were good men and in the same breath accuse them of not telling the truth about Jesus.

What do you think?
Answer is the same as before. I know that the Bible is true in the same way that I know that the Book of Mormon is true—because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that they are true. I could not have been convinced of that in any other way.

zerinus
 
I think i apprehend, but do not comprehend. However, i am willing to learn!

😃
Thank you! That is always a good start! This is how the scriptures describe the fruits and the effects of the Spirit of God on man:

1 Corinthians 2:

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but [by the] the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Galatians 5:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Ephesians 5:

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth; )

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Do you not think that one who has the Spirit of God will be able to distinguish it from the spirit of the devil?

zerinus
 
Like Why Me and others as well when I first read the Book of Mormon I received a confirmation that it was true. And for almost 40 years I continued to believe it was. When I came to realization that it was not true, it broke my heart, because it had become such an important part of my life.

I’ll leave to others to decide why I felt the way I did. I also leave all the things pertaining to the Book of Mormon to others. My Catholic faith has replaced any sadness I experienced in letting it go.

I respect my family’s continued belief in the Book of Mormon and do what I can to be an example and share what I can and when I can about the joy I now have in the Catholic Church.

All the rest I leave in the loving hands of Jesus.
 
Answer is the same as before. I know that the Bible is true in the same way that I know that the Book of Mormon is true—because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that they are true. I could not have been convinced of that in any other way.

zerinus
1.Just because you think that the Book of Mormon is true doesn’t make it true. I honestly believed that Santa Claus was true when I was a young child. Guess what? There’s no such thing. Just because Joseph Smith said it was true and you want to believe it doesn’t make it true.
  1. You could not honestly believe that the Bible is true and the Book of Mormon because they both contradict each other on so many accounts. Second of all Mormon teaching contradicts the Book of Mormon so if you are really a Mormon then you could not possibly believe the Book of Mormon.
  2. Joseph Smith did have something to gain from lying. He isn’t even credible enough to pay his loans back. And don’t say that he was martyred. He was killed in a duel and you know it.
  3. Don’t say I’m attacking your faith because I’m only doing it because you attacked my faith.
 
Like Why Me and others as well when I first read the Book of Mormon I received a confirmation that it was true. And for almost 40 years I continued to believe it was. When I came to realization that it was not true, it broke my heart, because it had become such an important part of my life.
I think that it is wonderful that you feel the way you do. It is so important for someone to find peace, comfort and wellbeing. But I have to disagree with your realization aspect. I can understand the ‘realization’ very well. But as I often point out to people, coming to a realization does not make that realization true. I suppose that what I am trying to say is: the book of mormon has not been proven false and as such, no one can actually claim that it is not true. But we can say, that we think that it is not true.

To my knowledge, no one has come up with a credible story about how that book came about, if JS was a fraud.

And then of course, we have David Whitmer who is 1881 wrote:

It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, "Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.’’ He died here in Richmond, Mo., on March 3d, 1850. Many witnesses yet live in Richmond, who will testify to the truth of these facts, as well as to the good character of Oliver Cowdery. The very powers of darkness have combined against the Book of Mormon, to prove that it is not the word of God, and this should go to prove to men of spiritual understanding, that the Book is true. To show the reader what I have had to contend with, I give you below a copy of a leaflet which I had printed and distributed in March, 1881.

A Proclamation

"Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:

"It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

"To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:

"That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.

"‘He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;’ it was no delusion! What was written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

It is this kind of statement that makes the book of mormon an enigma and something that just can not be discounted. There was no reason for David to lie toward the end of his life. Or was there??
 
It is this kind of statement that makes the book of mormon an enigma and something that just can not be discounted. There was no reason for David to lie toward the end of his life. Or was there??
Well, since Christ Himself said that the gates of hell (Apostasy) would not prevail against His church, either Christ or JS was lying. It’s a simple choice.

Christ’s peace.
 
Zer:

Please feel free to call me Soc, if you want to refer to me by name.

I’ve been loosing sleep over thinking about what you said, not out of anxiety but out of a desire to comprehend. I see that my way of accepting a truth might not be the same as yours. God has wired us all differently. Despite this, i hope you will carefully consider my understanding of what you have said thus far and point out any misconceptions i might have of what you said.

Now i hear you saying this:(A) Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif Those who have experienced the Spirit of God know that it is recognizable and distinguishable from the opposing spirit. I have had such an experience, and I know whereof I speak. You are free to ignore, disragard, or disbeleive our testimony if you wish. There is not much more that I can add to that. Only know that I do have the answer to that question. It is the one that I have repeatedly given.

I also hear you saying this:(B) Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif … I am persuaded by it because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true—the same Spirit that witnesses to me that the Book of Mormon is true. There was a time when I was NOT persuaded. I gained that conviction in conjunction with that of the Book of Mormon. I know that they are both true for the same reasons

I also hear you saying this:(C) Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *… The one who has the Spirit of God will know that he is not deceived. The one who has not the Spirit of God may think that he is not deceived; but he will not know that he is not deceived.*I also hear you saying this:

(D) Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *Of course I believe that they are credible witnesses. …*And i also hear you saying this:

(E) Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *… I never claimed that there were no fulfilled prophecies of Christ in the OT, or that prophecy was not important, or anything of that kind. …*To make thinking about this simpler for me, i’ve reworded your premises thus:

(A1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who experiences the Spirit of God.(B1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also has the Spirit of the Lord witness to him a strong feeling of conviction that what he believes is really true.(C1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also knows without any doubt He is not deceived.(D1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also believes the writers of the New Testament to be credible witnesses.(E1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also believes that there are prophecies in the Old Testament about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament, and that these predictions are important to him and even strengthen his faith in Jesus. Please tell me if i am comprehending you correctly so far. Are (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1) and (E1) fair representations of your point of view?
 
Zer:

Please feel free to call me Soc, if you want to refer to me by name.

I’ve been loosing sleep over thinking about what you said, not out of anxiety but out of a desire to comprehend. I see that my way of accepting a truth might not be the same as yours. God has wired us all differently. Despite this, i hope you will carefully consider my understanding of what you have said thus far and point out any misconceptions i might have of what you said.
You are making things a lot harder for yourself that you need to! All you have to do is to read the Book of Mormon, and ask the Lord in sincerity and faith if it is true. It really is quite simple! 🙂
Please tell me if i am comprehending you correctly so far. Are (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1) and (E1) fair representations of your point of view?
I would express some of them differently:
(A1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who experiences the Spirit of God.
I would say that is true.
(B1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also has the Spirit of the Lord witness to him a strong feeling of conviction that what he believes is really true.
I would rather express it differently: A person who knows the truth by the power of the Spirit of God, knows that he knows the truth, and is not deceived.
(C1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also knows without any doubt He is not deceived.
See my previous answer.
(D1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also believes the writers of the New Testament to be credible witnesses.
I would express that differently too: A person can only know that the writers of the NT are credible witnesses by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.
(E1) A person who has actual, real and genuine faith in Jesus is one who also believes that there are prophecies in the Old Testament about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament, and that these predictions are important to him and even strengthen his faith in Jesus.
Yes, I suppose I could go along with that—except to add that the knowledge of the reality of both can only come to one by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Those who are not experienced in spiritual things may not always know that what they know comes by the witness of the Spirit of God. But that testimony can only come from that source, whether the person realizes it or not.

zerinus
 
The witnesses to the BOM were a mix of people who had something to gain by writing affidavits, were themselves mentally ill and predisposed to hallucinations/delusions, or their testimonies were monkeyed with later by faithful LDS, or they were threatened with harm to themselves and/or their families (including descendants) into not recanting, or they saw SOMETHING, such as an original account of the Viking invasion. I think this covers all the bases.

The honest ones had reason for leaving.
 
The witnesses to the BOM were a mix of people who had something to gain by writing affidavits, were themselves mentally ill and predisposed to hallucinations/delusions, or their testimonies were monkeyed with later by faithful LDS, or they were threatened with harm to themselves and/or their families (including descendants) into not recanting, or they saw SOMETHING, such as an original account of the Viking invasion. I think this covers all the bases.

The honest ones had reason for leaving.
David Whitmer was no fan of polygamy and so he left the lds church and perhaps considered Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. But he never denied his testimony of the book, as the other 10 witnesses did either.

They held firm on their deathbeds. And I must add, they were all highly respected in their communities.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Explaining_Away_the_Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses.html
 
James J. Strang, one of Joseph Smith’s would-be successors after Joseph was assassinated also claimed to receive angelic visitations and discover and translate buried metal plates. Also the same as Joseph Smith, Strang also acquired testimonies from a “three witnesses” and “eight witnesses” who attested to the fact that the plates did indeed exist.

Since both James and Joseph both claimed to be prophets, receive angelic visitations, translate plates, and produced witnesses attesting to those facts, these evidences cancel each other out. What’s left? We can’t go with the standard LDS “I know because the spirit bore witness to my spirit” since that’s not evidence that can be examined objectively (how do I experience what someone else experienced so I know whether they experienced what they claim to have experienced?). Maybe they made it up and they’re lying, self-deceived, or externally deceived. Or maybe they’re experience is a true spiritual witness. Either way, it’s impossible to tell. We must go with other evidences - like the discovery of key fragments of the Book of Abraham papyri, which when translated have nothing at all to do with Abraham and everything to do with Hor, Osirus justified and his passage into the Egyptian afterlife. Since the BoA has now been proven beyond doubt to be pseudoepigraphical (even fraudulent, unless Joseph truly believed he was translating the handwriting of Abraham - as Joseph himself claimed), that throws suspicion on everything else Joseph “translated” and claimed was a true historical record. This for me is solid evidence that must be taken into account by any reasonable person when assessing whether the Book of Mormon is true. In my view, any perception of receiving a spiritual “witness” of anything must take known facts into account. If the “witness” contradicts known facts, then there must be something wrong with the witness. Anything else is to retain a blind faith, rather than a faith rooted in the available evidence.
 
James J. Strang, one of Joseph Smith’s would-be successors after Joseph was assassinated also claimed to receive angelic visitations and discover and translate buried metal plates. Also the same as Joseph Smith, Strang also acquired testimonies from a “three witnesses” and “eight witnesses” who attested to the fact that the plates did indeed exist.

Since both James and Joseph both claimed to be prophets, receive angelic visitations, translate plates, and produced witnesses attesting to those facts, these evidences cancel each other out. What’s left? We can’t go with the standard LDS “I know because the spirit bore witness to my spirit” since that’s not evidence that can be examined objectively (how do I experience what someone else experienced so I know whether they experienced what they claim to have experienced?). Maybe they made it up and they’re lying, self-deceived, or externally deceived. Or maybe they’re experience is a true spiritual witness. Either way, it’s impossible to tell. We must go with other evidences - like the discovery of key fragments of the Book of Abraham papyri, which when translated have nothing at all to do with Abraham and everything to do with Hor, Osirus justified and his passage into the Egyptian afterlife. Since the BoA has now been proven beyond doubt to be pseudoepigraphical (even fraudulent, unless Joseph truly believed he was translating the handwriting of Abraham - as Joseph himself claimed), that throws suspicion on everything else Joseph “translated” and claimed was a true historical record. This for me is solid evidence that must be taken into account by any reasonable person when assessing whether the Book of Mormon is true. In my view, any perception of receiving a spiritual “witness” of anything must take known facts into account. If the “witness” contradicts known facts, then there must be something wrong with the witness. Anything else is to retain a blind faith, rather than a faith rooted in the available evidence.
Excellent points, all. I was not aware of the second prophet. Hasn’t DNA also shown that the Native Americans are not linked to the Hebrews, as was alleged?

What I can see of God’s revelation is that human senses can understand it and analyze it. Thus, the Via Dolorosa still exists. You can walk in the footsteps of Christ. The Mount of Olives stands to this day. You can be baptized in the river Jordan. These physical proofs were left by God so that feeble human minds could digest revelation and make sense of it. When there is a total lack of physical evidence it gives one pause. Even the shroud of Turin stands as amazing evidence of the resurrection, so that we do not have to rely solely on those who attested to it.

Yes, the Holy Spirit reveals many things to hearts of men. But, we are also warned that evil spirits emulate the Holy Spirit, so as to lead the faithful astray. It is precisely those spirits who must be tested, by whose fruits you shall know them.

IMHO, the BoM stands as an additional covenant between man and God. This tends to make Christ a liar. Thus, I have great difficulty accepting it.

Christ’s peace.
 
David Whitmer was no fan of polygamy and so he left the lds church and perhaps considered Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. But he never denied his testimony of the book, as the other 10 witnesses did either.

They held firm on their deathbeds. And I must add, they were all highly respected in their communities.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Explaining_Away_the_Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses.html
“The Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, all initially describe their experience with the angel and the plates as subjective and visionary rather than objective and concrete. Their elaborations on the encounter, their departure from the LDS Church, as well as other events in their lives, raise questions about their level of discernment and their credibility as witnesses.”

irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html
 
That is rubbish. We are talking about testimony, not “evidence” per se. A testimony is evidence if you are willing to accept it as evidence.
You are correct we are talking about testimony which as I have stated is always evidence. That evidence must then be tested and verified. If it has been tested and verified then to not accept it would be to adhere to an incorrect position. If you judge the evidence relative to your desire to believe or not, as opposed to the merits of the evidence, that is not an incorrect position but relativism. In which case if all things are relative then why bother defending anything that anyone ever does? For in that persons’ world everything is the right thing relative to them.
Of course they don’t have to be 1800 years old to have that testimony. Paul had not been a disciple of Christ, and was not one of the original Apostles, and therefore was not a witness of Christ’s resurrection at the same time as the rest of the Twelve Apostles were. But he was a witness of Christ’s resurrection because the Lord appeared to him at a later date in his ministry. How do you know that the modern day Apostles of Christ do not have the same testimony that Paul had?
Yes they do in order to be an eyewitness. They can be spiritual witness to the resurrection as all Christians are witnesses to the resurrection But only those who lived at the time of the resurrection can be eyewitnesses. Regardless of what type of witness they are, their (Paul’s and the 3, 8, and 12) testimony must be validated and corroborated. Paul’s testimony was corroborated by the 12 Apostles it was validated by his inclusion and promotion into the hierarchy of the Church. Nor does his character or mental stability appear to be in doubt. As for the testimony of the LDS 12 I have not seen anywhere any of them (this generation older LDS apostles have said they were face to face with Jesus but there is no corroboration for those statements) saying they had a vision similar to Paul’s. Also there is no one alive today that can corroborate their testimony in regards to the resurrection aside from a spiritual witness. Given that I highly doubt they will allow them selves to be cross examined I’m going to have to go on the evidence available of their testimony and it is lacking in it’s completeness. Thus their evidence will not hold the same weight as the evidence provided by Paul.
You can discredit or disbelieve anyone’s testimony you like. That is easy to do. The vast majority of the early Jews and early Romans did not give credence to the testimony of Jesus or His Apostles. Today things are no different.
Correct. However that does not negate the fact that it is evidence. And must be either discredited or accepted as evidence. To not discredit and ignore it as evidence again either speaks to holding on to an incorrect position or treading into relativism.
 
James J. Strang, one of Joseph Smith’s would-be successors after Joseph was assassinated also claimed to receive angelic visitations and discover and translate buried metal plates. Also the same as Joseph Smith, Strang also acquired testimonies from a “three witnesses” and “eight witnesses” who attested to the fact that the plates did indeed exist.
Of course it would be very convenient to have a copy cat come around after Joseph’s death. However, the proof is always in the pudding:

The bulk of Sidney Rigdon’s church had dissolved by 1847, but some loyalists reconstituted a Rigdonite church organization under the leadership of William Bickerton in 1862. James J. Strang’s church in Voree suffered a significant schism in 1849, led by former follower Aaron Smith. After Strang’s 1856 assassination, much of the remaining membership fell away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), but a small following remained loyal. Other leaders, including David Whitmer, James Collin Brewster, James Emmett, Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and Charles B. Thompson also established church organizations that had limited followings.

It seems that most of Strang’s followers did not believe in his replica vision of JS’s. What to do?? 🤷

A mormon might say: the lord blesses his church…the schismatic movement from mainstream mormonism is small and stagnant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top