Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[why_me]

And is available at Deseret Books (owned by the LDS Church) online as a boxed set for $599.99. It received 5 stars by two people who reviewed the books.

Yes because of the reasons Diana related in her post. They are valuable but should be taken in context of how the sermons etc were recorded.

 

[dianaiad]

Here is a link to a letter from the first presidency concerning the journal of discourses.

utlm.org/images/journalofdiscoursesfpletter.gif

“faithfully and fully accomplished” appear to mean that someone reviewed all of this before it was published.

Yes. the “Phonographer,” Elder W., I’m quite certain reviewed his own work, but that’s like the secretary checking her own shorthand. In fact, it’s exactly like the secretary checking his/her own shorthand. (Does anybody still use shorthand?..nevermind.)

I know, I’m betraying my age, but I actually took shorthand in high school, (don’t remember a single stroke) and one of the things that was emphasized there was that transcribing your own shorthand into regular English on a typewriter (oops, there’s the age thing again…) is one thing, but after that you STILL have to let the people from whom you were taking dictation to review what you wrote, to make certain that you heard what they said, or so that they could make changes.

So yes, you’re right. "someone’ did review ‘all of this’ before it was published. However, that ‘someone’ was the ‘phonographer,’ or the guy who took those speeches down, not the speakers.

I appreciate the small add copy you provided for us, though. It’s interesting–but how you got from it that the speakers got to review their speeches I’ll never know. I would think it obvious that the guy taking those words DOWN would ‘review’ them, wouldn’t you? I also like how this letter from the first presidency doesn’t tell anybody the specifics of whose speeches were chosen.

As I said; most of the speakers (with the exception of BY, who had a habit of making sure all of his speeches were written down somewhere if he could) were not even aware that their speeches were being taken down, much less that they were going to be published, and none of them, even BY, got the opportunity to review them before publication.

I wish I could afford the $600 for a set, but then again, they are all online and fully searchable there, which is a better deal. Free usually is.

 

[dianaiad]

And is available at Deseret Books (owned by the LDS Church) online as a boxed set for $599.99. It received 5 stars by two people who reviewed the books.

Yep, and as I mentioned, I wish I could afford it. (shrug) I’m a book snob. I LIKE to hold the books in my hand, but hey—they are free on line AND searchable!

 

[dianaiad]

why me;6408947:

How can you say that Christ nor God was a good judge of character??!!

…as strange as it seems to ME to come to the defense of hosemonkey…he was being sarcastic.

And making a point about judging people according to the people according to other folk’s perceptions of their professions…or accusations about their professions…that he might not have intended.

 

[dianaiad]

whyme - Do you know the story of Saint Oliver Plunkett?

He was born on November 1, 1625 in Ireland. He was ordained a (Catholic) priest in 1654 in Ireland during a time when Catholics were expelled, their land taken away, and priests were outlawed from administering the sacraments .

Plunkett went to Rome and became a professor of theology, then returned to Ireland once anti-Catholic tensions were eased. As archbishop of Armagh, he set about reorganizing the ravaged (Catholic) church and built schools to teach the young and the clergy whom he found to be ‘ignorant in moral theology and controversies’.

New persecution began in 1673 and Plunkett went into hiding, refusing to be exiled by the government. He wrote many letters showing his determination to stay with his people and remain a faithful shephard.

In 1679, Plunkett was arrested and falsely accused of treason, and imprisoned in Dublin Castle. Taken to London, he was found guilty of high treason and was unable to defend himself because he was not given enough time to bring his own witnesses from Ireland.
Oliver Plunkett publicly forgave all those responsible for his death on July 1, 1681. He was dragged through the streets until almost dead, then hanged and quartered (disembowled).

He was beatified in 1920 and canonized a saint in 1975.

Why am I telling you this? First of all, because it is Saint Patrick’s Day and we have him (and the Good Lord) to thank for the Catholic faith in Ireland and for great saints like Oliver Plunkett!

Secondly, to point out, that throughout history, people have been falsely accused of treason, etc and have gone to their deaths as martyrs, forgiving those who persecute them. The Catholic Church recognizes many such people as saints.

Joseph Smith is/was not the first man to die at the hands of his enemies (and certainly not the last).

Nor are we claiming that he was, Lax. We are simply responding to those who keep claiming that he was not.

 

[hosemonkey]

…as strange as it seems to ME to come to the defense of hosemonkey…he was being sarcastic.

Thank you Dianaiad,
I did not post the above. WhyMe did. He is trying to bolster his claim that JS was somehow chosen by God, who had a lousy track record anyway(according to him) He must have missed the definition of "thimblerigger.
*

 

[aspirant]

Don’t you have to, y’know, actually VISIT a shrine, and use it to meditate, or something?

A shrine can be just about any space set apart for things that are special and respected for some reason. It can be anything from a huge building devoted to adoring God all the way down to a small tchotchke cabinet holding grandma’s matchbook collection, simply reminding us how much we love grandma.

I’m not being very successful at the collecting part, but do you have ANY idea what a first edition “Scarlet Letter” goes for? (shudder.)

LOL. I notice lots of Hawthorne references in your recent posts. I like Hawthorne too.

there is a LOT more to ‘veneration’ than simply dressing up like great great grandma in a handcart so you can sing “Pioneer Children walk, and walk, and walk, and walk, and walk…” and get cupcakes at the party.

Yes! In order to venerate great great grandma, you must love and respect her. If you don’t love & respect her, you’re not venerating her, with or without the handcart, song, and cupcakes. If you do love and respect her, you are venerating her, with or without the handcart, song, and cupcakes.

Are you telling me that Catholic veneration does NOT include meditation, candles, shrines at which one worships, including prayers during which one petitions the venerated person or relic (or former owner of same, at least) to intercede for you with God?

It can include some of those things, but it doesn’t have to. As above, if you don’t love and respect the saints, you’re not venerating them, with or without the candles, meditation, shrines, petitions, etc. If you do love & respect them, you are venerating them, with or without the candles, meditation, shrines, petitions, etc.

 

[lax16]

Originally Posted by dianaiad
I have already apologized about mistaking you for another poster, and reacting badly. I’ll do so here again.

As to the Journal of Discourses…it’s a 'secondary source." Perhaps even a 'tertiary source."

What it is, is a collection of speeches given by several leaders of the church at disparate meetings. They were taken down by listeners, sent to England and published there. Most of the men who gave those speeches were never aware that those speeches WERE taken down, much less published, until they had copies of the journals in their hands. NONE of them were able to proofread those speeches for accuracy.

I hope that this helps.

I had already read this, but since YOU brought up the subject again I thought you had more to add.

 

[lax16]

Nor are we claiming that he was, Lax. We are simply responding to those who keep claiming that he was not.

Was not what?

 

[why_me]

I had already read this, but since YOU brought up the subject again I thought you had more to add.

Nothing more to add. However, this also applies to words attributed to Joseph Smith. Most of the words come from people who took notes about what was said by him. So, his boasting comment came from someone’s notes. Was it accurate? Who knows. But one thing is for certain, the experience of actually being there hearing the sermon could not be captured in someone’s notes. Voice tone, gestures, and complete context would be missing from the notes.

 

[lax16]

I don’t think that the mormons are expecting to succeed in Utah. There are too many nonmormons moving into the area. And when I was a young adult erons ago, it was discussed that Utah may become an awful place for mormons. Mormons settled that area to get away from persecution. It is rather similiar to the state of Israel. But as more and more nonmembers move into the area, it would not surprise me if the persecution will begin again.

I have not heard of any missions shutting down in Europe. It may be that missionaries will be sent to other parts of the world, but I don’t think that missions will shut down. Maybe just less missionaries in the European area.

whyme -
Utah is one of 50 states in America - no state should be a theocracy.
I am sure the Native Americans weren’t too happy when the Mormons came to Utah.

 

[Stephen168]

And we do share baptism, which we don’t share with the Mormons.

Yes, the Catholic Church is very big on only one baptism. It doesn’t matter when you do them as long as it is a Christian baptism, which Mormons don’t have.
It took over 150 years before Mormonism got big enough and the exodus of Mormons to Catholicism got big enough for the Catholic Church to notice them and make a decision about their baptism.

 

[Stephen168]

Wow. How wonderful! As it happens, that’s OUR claim, too! Oddly enough, it’s only our enemies and critics who keep wanting to compare Joseph Smith to Jesus. WE don’t.

The Catholic Church has history, the teaching of the Apostles and early church fathers to support our claim and Mormons do not.

 

[dianaiad]

A shrine can be just about any space set apart for things that are special and respected for some reason. It can be anything from a huge building devoted to adoring God all the way down to a small tchotchke cabinet holding grandma’s matchbook collection, simply reminding us how much we love grandma.

In THAT case, I suppose we have shrines, and I’m going to have to use adjectives here to make the meaning clearer, because, quite frankly, I see some confusion of definition going on by some posters here. I think that it should be fairly obvious that when Mormons say ‘shrine,’ we are referring to ‘holy shrines…’ that is, places that are devoted specifically to religious icons and used as places and times of worship and meditation, using specific rituals, both physical and mental; usually required, or at least approved of, by the religious belief system one holds.

We are NOT talking about trophy cases or the silver tree that you hang individual apple shaped frames with pictures of your family in it.

…or indeed my very small collection of collectable books between collectable Joseph Smith bookends behind the glass doors of my antique secretary desk.

I looked the word “shrine” up in the dictionary, by the way, and in this case I think the dictionary agrees with my more narrow definition as “a place of worship hallowed by association with some sacred thing or person,” or “a sacred place that holds a collection of objects representing a deity.”

Or…“a shrine was originally a receptacle for a holy relic. It has now become associated with pilgrimage and can be simply a holy place to which people resort for a spiritual experience.”

That is a lot more restrictive than your far more broad based use of the word. I understand where you get your interpretation, but you have to think about it…when you use ‘shrine’ for a collection of something less than the above…less than deity, you aren’t really encluding those lesser items. You are actually commenting on the people who collect things that you call ‘enshrined.’ You are saying that THEY are putting things less than divine in surroundings meant only for the divine; it’s actually a criticism of the collector, not an approbation of the collection.

LOL. I notice lots of Hawthorne references in your recent posts. I like Hawthorne too.

Glad to meetcha, Hawthorne fan!!!

Yes! In order to venerate great great grandma, you must love and respect her. If you don’t love & respect her, you’re not venerating her, with or without the handcart, song, and cupcakes. If you do love and respect her, you are venerating her, with or without the handcart, song, and cupcakes.

Again, we are dealing with expanding definitions. I am going with the more formal, and Catholic, definition. It is my understanding that ‘venerate’ involves more than remembering Grandma’s birthday with a favorite family tradition…it actually has to do with religious items, and would involve shrines in the strict sense; dulia vs. hyperdulia vs. latria. You venerate those for whom you have reverence…

And trust me on this one, While we do respect and honor our pioneer ancestors, we do not reverence them in the way you do the saints and Mary. There is, to us, a very clear dividing line between these concepts, just as there is for you between dulia (what you give the saints), hyperdulia (what you give Mary) and latria (What you give God.) In fact, we really don’t HAVE the concept of ‘dulia’ and ‘hyperdulia…’ but go straight to 'latria…" and reserve that to the same Being you do.

I’m not criticising your respect and reverence for the saints, for Mary or for God. I’m simply telling you that on the spectrum of such devotion, your idea of veneration covers a lot more than ours does, and believe me, I know the difference between what we feel about our pioneer ancestors and what you do about the saints. If I were to tell you that because of OUR definition of ‘worship,’ that you have to agree that you worship the saints and Mary, wouldn’t you correct me rather sharply? I think so…because in reality you don’t, because there IS a very real difference between dulia, hyperdulia and latria. You know what that difference is. If I’m a little fuzzy on the difference,(I don’t think I am, but then… that doesn’t matter. YOU aren’t, and it’s your religion.

Please trust us that we know the difference between ‘veneration’ and ‘not veneration.’

It can include some of those things, but it doesn’t have to. As above, if you don’t love and respect the saints, you’re not venerating them, with or without the candles, meditation, shrines, petitions, etc. If you do love & respect them, you are venerating them, with or without the candles, meditation, shrines, petitions, etc.

Well, as I said, we need to agree on the definition of the words. Yours is a LOT broader than ours, and I think it’s a little broader than the dictionary’s, too. However, if we both know what the other means, precisely, when we use a word we can still be fine using them–as long as we don’t start equivocating with one another.

 

[dianaiad]

Was not what?

“the first man to die at the hands of his enemies, or the last…” or, to put it another way, murdered.

 

[dianaiad]

whyme -
Utah is one of 50 states in America - no state should be a theocracy.
I am sure the Native Americans weren’t too happy when the Mormons came to Utah.

Actually, lax, they were a LOT happier with us than they were with anybody else. Sure, a bunch of converts brought some nasty attitudes, and we did make our share of mistakes, but WE didn’t massacre them (though Johnson’s Army sure did after they marched on Utah…) or force them off their land, or make them live where they didn’t want to. Perfect, no…but we were a lot more welcome than the feds—who did some very nasty things to them after they took the power to deal with the Indians away from us.

See, the pioneers thought they were BoM descendants. That meant something to us, even if their heritage did turn out more far than near east.

 

[aspirant]

when you use ‘shrine’ for a collection of something…less than deity, you aren’t really encluding those lesser items. You are actually commenting on the people who collect things that you call ‘enshrined.’ You are saying that THEY are putting things less than divine in surroundings meant only for the divine; it’s actually a criticism of the collector, not an approbation of the collection.

I do not agree with the premise that shrines are meant only for the divine.

Again, we are dealing with expanding definitions. I am going with the more formal, and Catholic, definition. It is my understanding that ‘venerate’ involves more than remembering Grandma’s birthday with a favorite family tradition.

Catholics do not limit veneration in such a way that a venerable grandma would be excluded.

There is, to us, a very clear dividing line between these concepts, just as there is for you between dulia (what you give the saints), hyperdulia (what you give Mary) and latria (What you give God.)

There is a qualitative difference between any dulia (love and respect for creatures) and latria (love and respect for God). There is no qualitative difference between my reverence for good parents and my reverence for the saints. Our views are not so restrictive as you seem to think they are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I looked the word “shrine” up in the dictionary, by the way, and in this case I think the dictionary agrees with my more narrow definition as “a place of worship hallowed by association with some sacred thing or person,” or “a sacred place that holds a collection of objects representing a deity.”

Or…“a shrine was originally a receptacle for a holy relic. It has now become associated with pilgrimage and can be simply a holy place to which people resort for a spiritual experience.”

Look up the word ‘homage’, which is used by LDS to describe activities re: mormon pioneers. July24th celebrations, pioneer treks, which are intended spiritual experiences. A Catholic would call them a ‘pilgrimage’.

As Aspirant has pointed out, the love and respect of parents is a form of veneration. You can think of saints as aunts and uncles who are given the same.

 

[lax16]

“the first man to die at the hands of his enemies, or the last…” or, to put it another way, murdered.

Dianaiad- you’ve lost me on this one.

 

[why_me]

whyme -
Utah is one of 50 states in America - no state should be a theocracy.
I am sure the Native Americans weren’t too happy when the Mormons came to Utah.

Utah was a place of sanctuary for the early mormons. They arrived in the valley and began to settle their lives after years and years of persecution. But even in Utah, the early members were not free from outsiders who attempted to disrupt their lives. But the members were cautious and did not want to be persecuted all over again, especially by the federal government. .

The mormons had one wish throughout their early history: to worship god in their way and to do so in peace. But they were prevented from doing this and after the murder of their leader Joseph Smith and his brother, they moved to a place that was more or less separated from european-american civilization and began life anew.

And of course, the catholics found some peace in Maryland and one can see the catholic influence in that state.

And to this day, the mormons of utah, are suspicious of government thus, they tend to vote conservative and for less government.