Comments on: Exonerating Joseph Smith http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:05:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: terry pike http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-120693 terry pike Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:03:23 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-120693 <p>Mr Smith and Rev 3:21 -both sides of the story Joseph Smith, Jr. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:-</p> <p>In March 1844, Smith organized a secret Council of Fifty, a policy-making body based on what Smith called "Theodemocracy"[131] and which was in effect a shadow government.[132] One of the Council's first acts was to ordain Smith as King of the Kingdom of God. And, as if they had just organized an independent state, Smith and the Council sent ambassadors to England, France, Russia, and the Republic of Texas.[123] In April, Smith predicted "the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years."[133] My comment ‘he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ.’</p> <p>Afterthought: Mr Smith has so far been correct in saying that no King will rule America, if one here also considers the difference in a literal Kingdom on Earth, and the spiritual Kingdom of God about which Rev 3:21 may in the light of Rev 21:22-23, Heb 12:22-23 be referring to, it comes down to if Mr Smith was one of the overcomers Jesus words Refer to, ‘him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my father in his throne’..KJV…then Mr Smith had no need to explain anything about his crown Rev 3:11</p> <p>When in the fundamentalist mindset it becomes all to easy to highlight the negatives about Joseph Smith’s short and very full life yet how many of us can look forward to leaving anything like the legacy he left or reaching as many people with the gospel as he did? It becomes too easy when considering things we don’t understand or disagree with to also forget all believers are under the same obligation to try and understand others – that’s if we want to be understood by the spirit of Christ ... and how many of us I wonder would feel comfortable about our own ‘old’ lives being as closely examined as Joseph Smiths continues to be?</p> <p>The scribes and the Pharisee’s were fundamentalist in there belief’s but Jesus left no doubt about how wrong they could be about the scriptures, my one reservation about the LDS message today is how they often refuse to accept any other church has any authority to preach and no authority to even Baptise, yet given that Jesus corrected his own disciples when they objected to a strange disciple -Lk 9: 49-50 - because he was not a member of there own small group, Mormons who today, talk like those student disciples of Jesus did -before they were baptised by the spirit at Pentecost- need to hear what he said rather than what the present day LDS Church prefers them to believe. Mk 9: 38-40 - if they really want to be one with the spirit as Jesus taught rather than as a religion teaches. The ‘overcomers’ Jesus is talking about is those who having been baptised for repentance in water, then pass the whole way through there baptism by fire as they are trained as disciples up to the same standard they reached on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2: Mt 3:11-12</p> Mr Smith and Rev 3:21 -both sides of the story
Joseph Smith, Jr. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:-

In March 1844, Smith organized a secret Council of Fifty, a policy-making body based on what Smith called “Theodemocracy”[131] and which was in effect a shadow government.[132] One of the Council’s first acts was to ordain Smith as King of the Kingdom of God. And, as if they had just organized an independent state, Smith and the Council sent ambassadors to England, France, Russia, and the Republic of Texas.[123] In April, Smith predicted “the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years.”[133] My comment ‘he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ.’

Afterthought: Mr Smith has so far been correct in saying that no King will rule America, if one here also considers the difference in a literal Kingdom on Earth, and the spiritual Kingdom of God about which Rev 3:21 may in the light of Rev 21:22–23, Heb 12:22–23 be referring to, it comes down to if Mr Smith was one of the overcomers Jesus words Refer to, ‘him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my father in his throne’..KJV…then Mr Smith had no need to explain anything about his crown Rev 3:11

When in the fundamentalist mindset it becomes all to easy to highlight the negatives about Joseph Smith’s short and very full life yet how many of us can look forward to leaving anything like the legacy he left or reaching as many people with the gospel as he did? It becomes too easy when considering things we don’t understand or disagree with to also forget all believers are under the same obligation to try and understand others – that’s if we want to be understood by the spirit of Christ … and how many of us I wonder would feel comfortable about our own ‘old’ lives being as closely examined as Joseph Smiths continues to be?

The scribes and the Pharisee’s were fundamentalist in there belief’s but Jesus left no doubt about how wrong they could be about the scriptures, my one reservation about the LDS message today is how they often refuse to accept any other church has any authority to preach and no authority to even Baptise, yet given that Jesus corrected his own disciples when they objected to a strange disciple -Lk 9: 49-50 – because he was not a member of there own small group, Mormons who today, talk like those student disciples of Jesus did -before they were baptised by the spirit at Pentecost- need to hear what he said rather than what the present day LDS Church prefers them to believe. Mk 9: 38-40 – if they really want to be one with the spirit as Jesus taught rather than as a religion teaches. The ‘overcomers’ Jesus is talking about is those who having been baptised for repentance in water, then pass the whole way through there baptism by fire as they are trained as disciples up to the same standard they reached on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2: Mt 3:11-12

]]> By: terry pike http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-120472 terry pike Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:36:04 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-120472 <p>Hi Mary, sorry-my post headed Hi Kim should have been Hi Mary hope the suggestion helps, let us know terry</p> Hi Mary, sorry-my post headed Hi Kim should have been Hi Mary hope the suggestion helps, let us know
terry

]]> By: terry pike http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-120464 terry pike Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:25:18 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-120464 <p>Hi Kim I suggest you begin with Rev 3;21 and cross refference from there, please let me know how you get on as your Bible may be worded a little different from those I have so far read terry</p> Hi Kim I suggest you begin with Rev 3;21 and cross refference from there, please let me know how you get on as your Bible may be worded a little different from those I have so far read
terry

]]> By: Mary Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-120460 Mary Siever Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:36:33 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-120460 <p>Do you have a reference? I have to admit I have NEVER seen anything said about Joseph Smith becoming a 'king'. The only King I worship and that Joseph Smith worships is Jesus Christ.</p> <p>I don't recall Christ saying anything about sharing His throne, only His kingdom.</p> Do you have a reference? I have to admit I have NEVER seen anything said about Joseph Smith becoming a ‘king’. The only King I worship and that Joseph Smith worships is Jesus Christ.

I don’t recall Christ saying anything about sharing His throne, only His kingdom.

]]> By: terry pike http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-120447 terry pike Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:47:26 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-120447 <p>...afterthoughts while waiting...</p> <p>'he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ'... Jesus said his chosen would share his throne...</p> <p>This week Mr Obama had somthing to say about the world watching Iran. Terry Terry</p> …afterthoughts while waiting…

‘he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king to sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ’…
Jesus said his chosen would share his throne…

This week Mr Obama had somthing to say about the world watching Iran.
Terry
Terry

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-113933 ltbugaf Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:44:56 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-113933 <p>Jeff, you asked whether it was in the prerogative of the Nauvoo mayor to proclaim martial law. I don't have a complete or well researched answer, but what I do know is that the Nauvoo city charter granted truly extraordinary powers to the city government, creating what practically amounted to a city-state within Illinois. The most visible example of this is the existence of the Nauvoo Legion, which was authorized by that charter. How many instances are there of a city being authorized to raise its own militia? I can think of only this one. Since the mayor was the commander of the Legion (and had a lieutenant general's commission!) and since the militia functioned under the city government, it seems to me that the power to declare martial law was inherent in the charter. However, the charge of treason (which I have not researched) seems to indicate that Governor Ford thought otherwise, or at least found it convenient to claim otherwise.</p> Jeff, you asked whether it was in the prerogative of the Nauvoo mayor to proclaim martial law. I don’t have a complete or well researched answer, but what I do know is that the Nauvoo city charter granted truly extraordinary powers to the city government, creating what practically amounted to a city-state within Illinois. The most visible example of this is the existence of the Nauvoo Legion, which was authorized by that charter. How many instances are there of a city being authorized to raise its own militia? I can think of only this one. Since the mayor was the commander of the Legion (and had a lieutenant general’s commission!) and since the militia functioned under the city government, it seems to me that the power to declare martial law was inherent in the charter. However, the charge of treason (which I have not researched) seems to indicate that Governor Ford thought otherwise, or at least found it convenient to claim otherwise.

]]> By: terry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-109666 terry Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:48:15 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-109666 <p>Hi Kim, Thanks for your e mail, my last one was actually a generalised response for anyone interested in the subject -just one of the range your site covers, so let me clarify where mine is. Looking at the times Mr Smith lived in I find it interesting that William Millers failed March and April 1844 dates, arguably gave two clear warnings about the day/year method being just as unreliable as we now know Ushers exhaustive conclusion of the 4004 BC date is-unless of course you prefer the fundamentalist view. Had he heeded those warnings and stuck with the simple Sanctuary cleansing context of Dn 8: for his conclusion, he could have even avoided the great disappointment altogether. Looking for a more reliable method of study has identified for me what appears to be the rise of Iran as a fundamentalist state and its ongoing role as part of a major sacrifice in the last major event before the Kingdom all believers are looking for is finally established -in whatever form it is destined to be. Should this continue to be the case it will prove this method by the Bibles own rule ‘if it comes to pass’ and also prove that Joseph Smiths claims as far as establishing the Kingdom in 1844 is concerned, was a premature one.Taking a lesson from the past I'll just wait and see. Terry</p> Hi Kim,
Thanks for your e mail, my last one was actually a generalised response for anyone interested in the subject -just one of the range your site covers, so let me clarify where mine is.
Looking at the times Mr Smith lived in I find it interesting that William Millers failed March and April 1844 dates, arguably gave two clear warnings about the day/year method being just as unreliable as we now know Ushers exhaustive conclusion of the 4004 BC date is-unless of course you prefer the fundamentalist view. Had he heeded those warnings and stuck with the simple Sanctuary cleansing context of Dn 8: for his conclusion, he could have even avoided the great disappointment altogether.
Looking for a more reliable method of study has identified for me what appears to be the rise of Iran as a fundamentalist state and its ongoing role as part of a major sacrifice in the last major event before the Kingdom all believers are looking for is finally established -in whatever form it is destined to be. Should this continue to be the case it will prove this method by the Bibles own rule ‘if it comes to pass’ and also prove that Joseph Smiths claims as far as establishing the Kingdom in 1844 is concerned, was a premature one.Taking a lesson from the past I’ll just wait and see.
Terry

]]> By: Jeff Milner http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-109036 Jeff Milner Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:27:50 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-109036 <p>"The bottom line is that while Mr Smith on the one hand used the constitution for his own protection..."</p> <p>I don't think that's the bottom line. In fact, I think you're missing the point.</p> <p>The point being: is Joseph Smith deserving of an official pardon for the crime(s) he was accused of committing?</p> <p>What are your thoughts, dear readers, guilty as charged or innocently accused? Or is it a case that the church believes Joseph Smith is above the law?</p> “The bottom line is that while Mr Smith on the one hand used the constitution for his own protection…”

I don’t think that’s the bottom line. In fact, I think you’re missing the point.

The point being: is Joseph Smith deserving of an official pardon for the crime(s) he was accused of committing?

What are your thoughts, dear readers, guilty as charged or innocently accused? Or is it a case that the church believes Joseph Smith is above the law?

]]> By: terry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-108968 terry Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:36:11 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-108968 <p>The bottom line is that while Mr Smith on the one hand used the constitution for his own protection from extradition in 1842 he tore up its freedom of speech in 1844, he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king t o sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ.It also seems a remarkable coincidence that he died the same year as Mr Millers prophecy that King jesus would return proved to be in error. Terry</p> The bottom line is that while Mr Smith on the one hand used the constitution for his own protection from extradition in 1842 he tore up its freedom of speech in 1844, he also says in the BOM that no King will rule America yet said nothing when his own council of 50 declared him to be the king t o sit on the throne promised to Jesus Christ.It also seems a remarkable coincidence that he died the same year as Mr Millers prophecy that King jesus would return
proved to be in error.
Terry

]]> By: Jeff Milner http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2009/02/25/exonerating-joseph-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-105693 Jeff Milner Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:56:56 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1745#comment-105693 <p>"Joseph had a strong case [re: the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor] and likely would have been exonerated."</p> <p>He WAS exonerated in that case. But what about the case of treason, the new charge that was thrown at him?</p> <p>Is it within the Mayor's discretion to declare martial law?</p> <p>As for "the Expositor's rhetoric", didn't it turn out that the Expositor was actually telling the truth about Joseph and his many wives? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that when the Church was first thrown out of the closet as a polygamist sect?</p> <p>I read the Expositor's words as the last option for a group of devoted saints that were devastated at a Prophet partaking in ventures that they couldn't understand and didn't believe were right.</p> <p>They had the kind of reaction that you might find modern LDS folks taking were they to discover President Thomas S. Monson secretly taking more than one wife. If we think about what it would be like to be in their situation, can we really blame them?</p> “Joseph had a strong case [re: the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor] and likely would have been exonerated.”

He WAS exonerated in that case. But what about the case of treason, the new charge that was thrown at him?

Is it within the Mayor’s discretion to declare martial law?

As for “the Expositor’s rhetoric”, didn’t it turn out that the Expositor was actually telling the truth about Joseph and his many wives? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t that when the Church was first thrown out of the closet as a polygamist sect?

I read the Expositor’s words as the last option for a group of devoted saints that were devastated at a Prophet partaking in ventures that they couldn’t understand and didn’t believe were right.

They had the kind of reaction that you might find modern LDS folks taking were they to discover President Thomas S. Monson secretly taking more than one wife. If we think about what it would be like to be in their situation, can we really blame them?

]]>