Whose Witnesses are Better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You would think if they truly believed Smith was a prophet they would have treated Emma with high respect even after Jo died. From the Brodie book I get the feeling Young was just as ambitious as some of the other men around Smith. He knew what he was doing - he wanted control of the church.
Really, brodie said that? It must be true then. No doubt about it. :rolleyes:

The feelings were mutual. They did not like each other. Both had harsh words about the other. But then again, they were separated by a huge geography and they got their rumors second and at times third hand. Much was over misunderstanding. However, emma never denied that her husband was a prophet nor did she disbelieve in the book of mormon. And that speaks volumes.
 
Question

In the October session of General Conference 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:
Code:
..."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. [Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48, Winter 1980, 82]
What can you tell me about this?

And, why did Emma and Brigham Young seem to not get along?
Response

If Brigham Young had one constant character trait, it was his absolute faithfulness to Joseph Smith. Brigham had very little patience for those who demeaned or rejected Joseph; the difficulties that Joseph experienced with Emma can only have frustrated the loyal Brigham.

Following Joseph’s murder, Emma refused to go west with the Saints. She seems, among other things, to have been worried about providing for her children, as well as protecting them from the violence which had claimed Joseph. Emma and Brigham also disagreed about which parts of Joseph’s estate were personal property, and which belonged to the Church.[1]

Brigham also doubtless considered Emma dishonest and a liar because she continued to insist that her husband had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage. So adamant was Emma on this point that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held it as an article of faith, and Emma’s children never accepted the idea that Joseph had instituted plural marriage. Given that Brigham was blamed by Emma for being the inventor of plural marriage, he probably felt rather ill-used by her. Brigham, after all, saw Emma as fighting against the man Brigham revered as the Prophet, and he knew that Emma knew that Joseph taught plural marriage.

Finally, Brigham was Joseph’s successor, and Emma challenged that succession by supporting her son, Joseph Smith III, as the ‘proper’ leader, and as one who would not teach the hated doctrine of polygamy (which Emma falsely claimed Brigham had foisted on the Church).

Richard Bushman writes of the poisoning accusation:
Code:
Through the late fall and winter of 1843 and 1844, Joseph and Emma's relationship broke down only once. During Sunday dinner on November 5, Joseph became ill, rushed to the door, and vomited so violently that he dislocated his jaw. "Every symptom of poison," Richards noted in Joseph's diary. That night at the prayer meeting, Richards, wrote in code that Joseph and Emma did not dress in the usual special clothing, a sign they were too much at odds to participate. The next day, Richards wrote that Joseph was "busy with domestic concerns." Years later, in the anti-Emma atmosphere of Utah, Brigham Young spoke of a meeting where Joseph accused his wife of slipping poison into his coffee. Brigham interpreted Emma's refusal to answer as an admission of guilt.. Though there probably was an argument, the poisoning accusation was unfounded. Joseph was susceptible to vomiting anyway. He had even dislocated his jaw while vomiting once before; and five weeks after the 1843 dinner episode, he was sick again, vomiting more violently than ever. During this last bout, Joseph said gratefully, "My wife waited on me."[2]
Furthermore, Brigham and Emma did not agree on the disposition of Joseph’s estate. Illinois law at the time held that no church could hold more than ten acres of property, and so much of the church’s properties were held in Joseph’s name. At the same time, much of the Church’s debt was held by Joseph as a private citizen—thus, Emma was liable for Joseph/the Church’s debts, but had a less clear claim on the Church’s lands that Joseph held as Trustee-in-Trust.[3]

This difficult situation was complicated by the immense demands on Brigham Young’s time. He delegated a great deal of the Church’s interaction with Emma to Almon Babbitt, a man greatly lacking in tact:
Code:
Almon Babbitt's air…bordered on the pompous...Babbit provided Joseph with legal advice that resulted in the destruction of the Expositor, then he refused to help when Joseph was jailed in Carthage saying, 'You are too late. I am already engaged on the other side.'[4] 

Either Brigham Young was not aware of Babbitt's propensity for alienating those around him or, like Joseph before him, he overlooked his faults because he needed his legal knowledge. In the future Brigham would have his own falling out with Babbitt and the rift would become so widely known that, when Indians killed Babbitt on the Western plains in 1856, Eastern newspapers erroneously reported that Brigham had ordered him killed. 

In the meantime, Emma assumed that because these men represented the Twelve they acted on direct orders from Brigham. And Brigham, his relationship with Emma strained at best, did not bother to separate the inflammatory rhetoric of Babbitt's letters from the less dramatic probabilities. Babbitt would make Brigham's requests to Emma sound abrupt and thoughtless, and her responses to him selfish and defensive.[5]
 
Conclusion

The animosity between Brigham Young and Emma had multiple grounds: personal, religious, and financial. Brigham, for all his strengths, had little patience for anyone who would betray the prophet, which he perceived Emma doing on multiple levels. This made the poisoning accusation plausible for him. The episode seems to have been a family quarrel between Joseph and Emma—two mortals living in something of a fishbowl, under enormous pressures and strains.

Emma certainly made errors in judgment, as do we all. Her judgment lies in God’s hands, not in ours or Brigham Young’s.

en.fairmormon.org/Emma_Smith_and_Brigham_Young
 
No. Conclusion: BY was a man who wanted the power that Joseph had and he stomped on Emma top get his way then was very ride about her.

There is no way any person not blinded by misplaced faith, looking at the conduct of Joseph, BY, and all your other early leaders can say that the CofLDS was led by God.
 
My friend, which one is it???
However, Emma never denied that her husband was a prophet nor did she disbelieve in the book of Mormon. And that speaks volumes.
Question

In the October session of General Conference 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:
Code:
..."To my certain knowledge, **Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars** I know of on this earth...
emphasis added
 
Yes. Whyme never sees the irony in the fact he claims the 11 witnesses were so honest when Joe himself says they liars and could n ot be trusted. Then he claims that Joe was so honest when the witnesses say he was a liar who could not be trusted, then he says Emma was honest when BY says she was a liar who could not be trusted.

The whole Mormon Church is based on the testimony of a lot of people, none of whom could, by their own admission, be trusted.
 
Why me…

Just reading the blue info…the circle of people starting that religion all seemed like birds of the same feather…all pretty manipulative and hell and brimstone type…of 1800’s.

I know the history of beginnings of some religious congregations in the Catholic Church…there are the Servite Fathers who began as a community of men and they didn’t have those kinds of issues…

I think if you studied the history of Catholic saints and origins of religious orders…how about St. Francis of Assisi, it would help the understanding the implication of witness.
 
Why me…

Just reading the blue info…the circle of people starting that religion all seemed like birds of the same feather…all pretty manipulative and hell and brimstone type…of 1800’s.
And you noticed, of course, that all of whyme’s references, what few he or she provided, were all LDS sources, right? Neither FAIR nor FARMS is exactly impartial.
 
And you noticed, of course, that all of whyme’s references, what few he or she provided, were all LDS sources, right? Neither FAIR nor FARMS is exactly impartial.
the bottom line, the 11 witnesses, according to Joe, could not be trusted. Joe, according to the 11 witnesses, could not be trusted.

Yet, the Spaulding witnesses are impeccable.

Verdict: The Book of Mormon is nothing but a work of fiction stolen from Spaulding, the Bible, and any other source Joe and his co-conspirators could find
 
Why doesn’t this sort of thing make national news? Mormons perpetrating a fraud for decades, actually over 100 years? And no one brings that up? Why?

Or, perhaps a different way of asking the same question ~ how many news networks does the Mormon church hold a significant stake in? Because these days, it appears that’s a factor. So which ones have the Mormon church silenced?
 
Why doesn’t this sort of thing make national news? Mormons perpetrating a fraud for decades, actually over 100 years? And no one brings that up? Why?

Or, perhaps a different way of asking the same question ~ how many news networks does the Mormon church hold a significant stake in? Because these days, it appears that’s a factor. So which ones have the Mormon church silenced?
Check out this news report. Make sure you check out the video.

ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11318112
 
apparently, Mormons simply fall too easily for lies. That would explain a LOT
 
The propensity among Mormons for “affinity crime” arises from their deeply ingrained belief that Mormons are morally superior to all other people. We see that belief expressed often by LDS posters on these fora. So when a Mormon crook proposes a business deal, even one that looks to good to be true, the Mormon victim will think it must be okay because “he’s one of us, he must be righteous”.

We Catholics harbor no such delusions. We know and are taught by our church that we are just as broken as all other people, and are just as much in need of Christ’s mercy as they are. So it makes no difference to me if a person proposing a shady-sounding business deal is a Catholic or not. If it sounds shady, I am not interested.
 
The propensity among Mormons for “affinity crime” arises from their deeply ingrained belief that Mormons are morally superior to all other people. We see that belief expressed often by LDS posters on these fora. So when a Mormon crook proposes a business deal, even one that looks to good to be true, the Mormon victim will think it must be okay because “he’s one of us, he must be righteous”.

We Catholics harbor no such delusions. We know and are taught by our church that we are just as broken as all other people, and are just as much in need of Christ’s mercy as they are. So it makes no difference to me if a person proposing a shady-sounding business deal is a Catholic or not. If it sounds shady, I am not interested.
One thing I found interesting in that story was how they guy wanted to seal the deal in the temple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top