PDA

View Full Version : OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE Examining Joseph Smith's "Rocky Mountain Prophecy"



Trout
October 6th 2008, 08:47 PM
Examining Joseph Smith's "Rocky Mountain Prophecy"
By Lane Thuet

"I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."

If the above statement, recorded in the Documentary History of the Churc (DHC) 5:85 and dated August 1842, can be verified, then it would be impressive that Smith could predict this, for these events are exactly what befell the early Mormons. Salt Lake City has become a major U. S. city, and few would argue that the Mormon settlers have become a "mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."

Any honest researcher, whether LDS or not, would demand proof that this prophecy was authentic before accepting it as fact. That means there must be undeniable and unquestionable evidence that Joseph Smith uttered, recorded and/or published the prophecy prior to the events it foretells having come to pass.

LDS writer Nephi Morris wrote a book in 1920 defending Joseph Smith's fulfilled prophecies. He was most impressed with this one in particular. Yet he also wanted proof of its authenticity. While preparing his book, he visited the Church headquarters and requested to see the original manuscript. He writes, "We have not had access to the original record as kept by the Prophet, containing this remarkable prophecy. We have, however, irrefutable evidence which fixes the date of the prophecy some years before the Saints even started west" (Prophesies of Joseph Smith and their Fulfillment, p.139).

Why would the LDS Church leaders refuse to show Morris the evidence verifying such a remarkable prophecy, especially since Morris was trying to defend the Prophet? In their research, Jerald and Sandra Tanner discovered a likely reason why the request was denied. They write, "A photograph of the portion of the original handwritten manuscript containing this 'prophecy' has been located at the Visitor Center in Nauvoo, Illinois.... Now that we have a photograph of the page containing this 'prophecy,' we can see why it was suppressed for all these years." The reason, they explain, is that "the part concerning the Mormons becoming 'a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains' has been crammed in at the bottom in a smaller handwriting. This would seem to indicate that it was added sometime after the page had originally been written" (Mormonism - Shadow or Reality, p.135).

On page 134 of Shadow, the Tanners provide a reprint of the actual manuscript page, and it is obvious that the information was added—squeezed between the lines amid the dates of Thursday 4 August, Friday 5 August, and Saturday 6 August. The entire portion given as "prophecy" by Joseph Smith is part of this added information.

The handwriting on the page, the Tanners believe, appears to be that of Thomas Bullock, the recorder of the original information on the page. But exactly when he added the extra material cannot be definitely determined. Bullock, as the Tanners point out, worked in the historian's office in Salt Lake City while this portion of the History of the Church was being worked on in 1854.

The Tanners note that LDS historian Dean C. Jessee researched the History of the Church in detail and showed that the page containing this prophecy had not even been originally written until July of 1845 ("The Writings of Joseph Smith's History," BYU Studies, Summer 1971, pp. 456-458, 468-70). Smith died in June 1844. This means the entry itself in the History cannot be accepted as definite proof that Smith made the prediction.

But was the prophecy added to the manuscript before or after the Saints moved to Utah? We cannot know for sure. The possibility remains that the material could have been added to the page after the Church had already settled in the Great Salt Lake Valley. In order to prove the prophecy authentic, we must look to other datable sources.

Morris writes, "The earliest printed publication of this prophecy, known to the writer, is to be found in the Deseret News, in 1852" (Prophecies of Joseph Smith, p.139). Though Morris claims it was printed in 1852, the photograph of the prophecy from that paper which he includes in his book was from the 7 November 1855 issue—more than eight years after the Mormons had already settled in the Salt Lake Valley (see page 132 and footnote.) Morris' date was in error. According to Jessee, the LDS history books had been packed up in Nauvoo, Illinois, on 4 February 1846 and were not unpacked in Salt Lake City until 7 June 1853. The work on compiling and finalizing the History did not begin in earnest until 10 April 1854 under the direction of the new church historian George A. Smith (The Writing of Joseph Smith History, pp 469-470). The prophecy was printed for the first time in the 7 November 1855 issue of the Deseret News (p.273).

Thomas B. H. Stenhouse, once a faithful Mormon, later wrote an expose called the Rocky Mountain Saints. On page 146 he wrote, "As early as 1842, he [Smith] prophesied that the Saints would remove to the Rocky Mountains, and in the spring of 1844, while troubles were increasing upon him, he selected a company of men to explore that unknown region, prophesying at the same time that within five years from that date, the Saints should be located there beyond the influence of mobs." Stenhouse accepts one of Smith's diary entries as proof in this case. Yet the entry cited does not mention the Rocky Mountains. Instead, it records that Smith sent out men to scout throughout "the localities, California and Oregon" to find a suitable settling place.

Mormon historian Davis Bitton sums this matter up well, stating, "There is no such prophecy in the handwriting of Joseph Smith, or published during the prophet's lifetime, but it was referred to in general terms during the trek west. After the arrival in the Salt Lake Valley the prophecy became more specific as time went on" (Changing World of Mormonism, p.406, emphasis mine)." The only definite conclusion that can be reached is that this prophecy cannot be shown to be authentic.

Morris suggests that several people had early knowledge of this prophecy. He cites, among other things, an entry from the journal of Heber C. Kimball on 31 December 1845 concerning the move of the Saints to the west (Prophecies of Joseph Smith, p.137). Examination of that journal entry, however, shows that Kimball did not know where the Saints would settle. According to the journal entry, Brigham Young was "examining maps with reference to selecting a location for the Saints west of the Rocky Mountains...." This indicates no knowledge of Smith's prediction.

The Tanners note that Brigham Young had written a letter just 13 days before this journal entry, which definitely indicated that he was planning to have the Saints migrate to Canada "on Vancouver's Island" (Shadow or Reality, p.135). That is well outside the "midst of the Rocky Mountains." J. H. Beadle informs us that "at a conference held before they left Nauvoo, to determine their destination, Lyman Wight had strongly urged Texas, John Taylor proposed Vancouver's Island, many were in favor of Oregon and Brigham Young insisted upon California"(Polygamy, or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism, p.118, emphasis mine). Beadle goes on to say that "they finally fixed indefinitely upon 'some valley in the Rocky Mountains.'"

But in a circular letter to the Church printed in October of 1845, Brigham Young stated that the leadership intended to move the Church to a "far distant region of the west." He closed the circular by stating, "There are said to be many good locations for settlements on the Pacific, especially at Vancouver's Island, near the mouth of the Columbia" (available on-line at: http://library.byu.edu/). The aforementioned BYU web page also notes, "It is apparent that in the fall of 1845 their final destination was the Pacific coast not the Great Basin. It would not be until late January 1846 before the decision was made to settle 'in the neighborhood of the Rocky Mountains.'" As we shall see, the date of January 1846 is also questionable.

The same day the Saints left Nauvoo for the west, 238 additional Church members departed from New York on the ship Brooklyn to sail around Cape Horn for the Pacific Coast of California. Led by Samuel Brannan, the plan was to meet Brigham Young near present-day San Francisco. Around this time several Mormon men were enlisted in the Mormon Battalion to fight for America in the Mexican War. This fits perfectly with plans held by Young at that time, since the Battalion was to be discharged in California. Mormon historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard note that Brigham Young complied with the government's request for 500 troops since their pay would "help transport their families west" and "help the Saints reach Upper California" (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, p.226).

In his book titled Brigham Young, M. R. Werner, writes on page 206, "Finally, in 1846 they began their trek to the West.... Just where in the West they were going, the Mormons did not know, but Oregon and California were in the mind of Brigham Young."

Major Howard Egan was in the first company of Mormon pioneers to travel West with Brigham Young. In his diary it is noted that "the family moved with the general exodus of the Saints about the 1st of March, 1846... At that time there was no definite plan as to the future destination of the people. There had been vague ideas afloat of Oregon, Vancouver and Upper California as probable places of refuge." The editor of Egan's diary inserts that there were "undefined plans" from Joseph Smith of migrating to the midst of the Rocky Mountains, but this editorial comment was added when Pioneering the West: 1846 to 1878—Major Howard Egan's Diary became a book in 1917, well after the Mormons were already settled in the Great Salt Lake Valley. The prophecy had been widely published by that point.

A hymn written by John Taylor also gives the impression that the Mormons were headed for the northern Pacific Coast. The Mormons sang it often on their journey across the plains and Rocky Mountains:

The Upper California, Oh that's the land for me!

It lies between the mountains and the great Pacific Sea;

The Saints can be supported there,

And taste the sweets of liberty.

In the Upper California, that's the land for me!

In an article titled "Correct Placing of the Monument, Pioneer View" (Improvement Era, 1921), Elder W.W. Riter, a man who had traveled with Brigham Young to the Salt Lake Valley, stated, "You will remember that when our people started from Nauvoo they only followed the setting sun. They did not know where they were going. There was an indefinite idea that they were going to California; for you may remember that in some of the old editions of our hymn book there is a hymn: 'In Upper California—Oh, that's the land for me!'" While it can be argued that "Upper California" at that time also included the area known today as Utah, it is difficult to prove that this particular area was in mind when Taylor penned the words to this hymn.

While many Mormons had already left Nauvoo on their way to the west, other leaders of the Church had been discharged to England. An idea of where the main body of the Church would be going was sent along with them. Oliver B. Huntington, one of the missionaries who went to England, recorded in his journal on 16 October 1846 that a council meeting was appointed and that "it was the intention of the Twelve, here, or the authorities of the Church in England to petition the [English] government, to cede to us as her subjects a part or the whole of the Island of Vancouver, on the western coast of America; and also ship us there. This was given as the intended course to be taken by the Church" (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington 1:34).

The evidence tells us that Young had no firm intentions of settling in the Great Salt Lake Valley until after the Mormons had left Nauvoo. He even said as much in a sermon he gave in 1857: "When I was written to in Nauvoo by the President of the United States, through another person, enquiring, 'Where are you going, Mr. Young?' I replied that I did not know where we should land. We had men in England trying to negotiate for Vancouver's Island, and we sent a shipload of Saints round Cape Horn to California" (Journal of Discourses 5:230-231).

Given the fact that Young had a propensity to do all he could to validate Smith's role as a prophet, his indecisiveness tends to prove that he was not privy to an alleged prophecy to settle in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. Had he known, he would have followed the revelation to the letter. All this tends to disprove the notion that Young had made up his mind in January of 1846.

As the Saints journeyed west, Young contracted Mountain fever, a sickness that is accompanied by fever, chills, and aching muscles. It was while he was in this condition that his wagon train reached the Great Salt Lake Valley. Upon seeing it, Young decided that this was where they would stop. In a speech commemorating their arrival to the valley, Wilford Woodruff made the following comment: "Forty-one years ago this day I passed through Immigration Canyon with President Brigham Young. He was taken sick on East Canyon Creek, and I made a bed for him in my carriage. When we came upon the bench, where we had a fair view of the valley before us, I turned the side of the vehicle to the west, so that he could obtain a fair view of the valley. President Young arose from his bed and took a survey of the country before him for several minutes. He then said to me, "Drive on down into the valley; this is our abiding place. I have seen it before in vision. In this valley will be built the City of the Saints and the Temple of our God." (Collected Discourses 1:163-164).

It could very well have been his illness that decided the matter for him. It is quite possible that he would not have wanted to continue the difficult and uncomfortable journey in that condition. By his own account, Young was unable to even get out of the carriage and view the Great Salt Lake Valley when they arrived. When exactly Young made the decision to settle in Utah may never be known. One thing is certain: there is no concrete evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith predicted that the Saints would settle in what is known today as the Salt Lake Valley.

contact@mrm.org
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.

Trout
October 11th 2008, 03:02 PM
:bump:

JonLanceBarker
October 11th 2008, 03:10 PM
:serenade:

master_mormon
October 13th 2008, 10:58 AM
Not a bad article though there are some unresolved issues.

1. It appears that the portion "become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains" is contested but the prior portion is not contested:

"I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities and see the Saints become."
2. Lane says:"Smith died in June 1844. This means the entry itself in the History cannot be accepted as definite proof that Smith made the prediction."

Much of the History of the Church source material is based on journals by others. Sometimes written years after the events occurred. Some alleged false prophecies that critics raise are based on journal records that where written after Joseph Smith died in the History of the Church including the common example found inHistory of the Church II: 182 that is claimed that Joseph Smith said Jesus would come in 1890. So using Lane’s statement, it can be said that this claimed "false prophecy" should be thrown out based on the fact that it "cannot be accepted as definite proof that Smith made the prediction."

More importantly, Lane really confuses me as using this logic, what does this mean about the credibility of the 4 gospels? They where written many years after Jesus died and was resurrected. Does this mean that the entries in the 4 gospels where Jesus is quoted to say this or that "cannot be accepted as definite proof that Jesus made these statements"? Lane has lost me on this point.

3. Most important of all, Lane does not include some important information that could be helpful in getting a more complete picture.

It assumes that since there is no handwritten statement or published statement before Joseph Smith died that this means the idea was not known to LDS during his life. Is this really true? Should one assume that every handwritten paper, note, or whatever survives or was published? Does a concept have to be formally published in an LDS publication for the concept to have existed? I don’t know it it has to be so.

It is very possible that Joseph Smith mentioned this to people but it was not written down by him or formally published. Wilford Woodruff, Mosiah Hancock, and Paulina Phelps have accounts that point to this.

Paulina Eliza Phelps who recalled in 1832: "In blessing me Joseph said that I should live to go to the Rocky Mountains. I did not know at the time what the term 'Rocky Mountains' meant, but I supposed it to be something connected with the Indians. This frightened me for the reason that I dreaded the very sight of an Indian." (Photocopy of a signed affidavit by Paulina Elizabeth Phelps Lyman, witnessed on 31 July 1903by James Jack, notary.)

Mosiah Hancock noted:"The Prophet Joseph] came to our home (in Nauvoo) and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. I went and got my map for him 'Now' he said, 'I will show you the travels of this people.' He then showed our travels through Iowa, and said, 'Here you will make a place for the winter; and here you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake! You will build cities to the North and to the South, and to the East and to the West; and you will become a great and wealthy people in that land.'" Mosiah Hancock Autobiography, Typescript, BYU Library, Special Collections, pp. 28-29)

Wilford Woodruff recalled:"I want to say to you before the Lord [said Joseph] that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and Kingdom than a babe upon its mother's lap. You don't comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America— it will fill the world. It will fill the Rocky Mountains. There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains, and there they will open the door for the establishing of the Gospel among the Lamanites.... This people will go into the Rocky Mountains; they will there build temples to the Most High. They will raise up a posterity there, and the Latter-day Saints who dwell in these mountains will stand in the flesh until the coming of the Son of Man. The Son of Man will come to them while in the Rocky Mountains." (Wilford Woodruff, Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 38-39)



Now its quite possible Hancock or Woodruff remembered the facts wrong and are in error but I think the odds that all three are are mistaken in their memories to be doubtful. Unfortunately Lane does not discuss there individuals and their statements but I think there is clear evidence that perhaps Joseph Smith did mention the issue to at least some LDS people while he was alive.

So overall not a horrible article but it has room for improvement.

Sparko
October 13th 2008, 07:07 PM
I await our new LDS friends who I prophesy will come into the thread and tell us how innacurate the article is while not giving any specifics.

I reserve the right to edit this prophecy at any time in the future to make sure it comes true.

Prophet Sparko has spoken.

The Pixie
October 23rd 2008, 07:37 AM
"I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."

If the above statement, recorded in the Documentary History of the Churc (DHC) 5:85 and dated August 1842, can be verified, then it would be impressive that Smith could predict this, for these events are exactly what befell the early Mormons. Salt Lake City has become a major U. S. city, and few would argue that the Mormon settlers have become a "mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."
I disagree. Let us suppose Smith really did say this, how impressive was his prophesy?

The word "continue" at the beginning tells us the Mormons were already suffering much affliction, so not too impressive to predict that that would continue. Did he predict they would go to the Rocky Mountains, or did he merely want them to go there (and you make a good argument for him thinking of elsewhere in the Rockies)? Just by making the prediction, Smith is making it come true.

He predicts some will leave the faith and some will die on the way. That sounds pretty much inevitable to me. Were any put to death by their persecutors? I do not know how likely that would be or whether it happened, so cannot comment on that part.

Of course if the faith go West, they will build setllements - there have to live somewhere. And that they become a mighty people, well he had to say that to keep the spirits up - he is hardly going to say "<i>see the Saints become an insignificant people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains</i>" is he?

So I do not see this as an impressive prophesy at all, but rather a good guess and some wishful thinking about what he wanted the Mormons to do.

jo7241974
November 4th 2008, 02:04 AM
After reading the original post and subsequent comments, I cannot help but recall Moses leading the Israelites for 40 years before reaching the promised land. Does this mean Moses did not know what he was doing? Did it make him less of a prophet? In fact, Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land.

From a non-theological standpoint, I make the following observations:

1) American history indicates Mormons, indeed, lost their lives to persecutors. Even state and federal governments persecuted them. In fact, in recent years, at least one formal apology was written to the Church for the persecution and deaths caused by the old laws written to eradicate them.

2) At the time Brigham Young planned the continuing migration of the Saints, the federal government wanted to know where the Saints would be going. It occurred to me, although this is my observation, perhaps answers from Brigham Young to the federal government were vague in order to help protect the Saints during a time when so much hate was targeted toward them.

3) Like Moses, Brigham Young was going to direct and lead the Church members to a destination to be reached within an unknown time limitation. However, like any good leader, he had sent "scouts" ahead to several destinations which were known of at that time.

4) In response to the comment it was likely, and safe to prophesy many would die along the way. I agree....this was a safe prophesy to make - it is obvious. However, WHY would a prophet speak the obvious to a fledgling flock? My take: to warn them it would not be easy and sacrifice was a given. Faith would be tested. The weak in faith would apostatize; the faithful would be made strong through their trials. How very wise of Heavenly Father and His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to build the Church on a strong foundation.

5) Brigham Young was willing to sacrifice his own life for his beliefs. Again from a purely non-theological observation: he had not required any of the Church members to do anything he was not willing to do. Since he was not afraid to die, why would he settle in what is now Salt Lake City merely because he was too tired or sick to keep moving on. After seeing so much suffereing amoung the Saints, and personal suffering as well, how can we as human beings belittle his sacrifices with such a conclusion? After everything he had accomplished as a leader, if he said he saw the Salt Lake City valley in a dream or in a vision, I would give him the benefit of the doubt based on his accomplishments alone.

From a theological standpoint all Prophets of God have been persecuted. Their actions and decisions are always questioned. Additionally, the growth and success of the Church in Salt Lake are undeniable.

TyRockwell
November 4th 2008, 07:10 PM
I would like this article to remain collapsed when I open the home page.

4truth
November 9th 2008, 09:28 PM
Pencilling in a fullfilled "prophecy" after the fact is easy. The day before the election, I predicted Obama would win.... who believes me? Even if I had predicted it, it could have been a lucky guess or an educated guess based on polling data. But when one finds evidence that the alleged "prophecy" has been scrunched in at a later date to make it appear as though it was written at an eariler date, that should end the whole thing right there. Joseph Smith was anything but a prophet.

jo7241974
November 9th 2008, 11:42 PM
Why do you believe Joseph Smith was anything but a prophet?

The only reason you have shown to try to document your belief Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet, is the one stated here. Your argument: "But when one finds evidence that the alleged "prophecy" has been scrunched in at a later date to make it appear as though it was written at an eariler date, that should end the whole thing right there.", is quite full of holes and is lacking in common sense.

Based on your comment, anyone who has ever read the Bible, much less anyone who believes in it, would have to toss it out without question, as being anything but what it claims to be. After all, evidence the Bible has gone through many translations.....and there are so many different versions of the Bible....we KNOW these changes were "scrunched in at a later date". Therefore, in your words, any debate about the authenticity of the Bible "should end the whole thing right there."



Hence, my original question to you.

The Pixie
November 12th 2008, 08:56 AM
Hi Jo

After reading the original post and subsequent comments, I cannot help but recall Moses leading the Israelites for 40 years before reaching the promised land. Does this mean Moses did not know what he was doing? Did it make him less of a prophet? In fact, Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land.
Sorry, I do not get your point.

1) American history indicates Mormons, indeed, lost their lives to persecutors.
Was this already happened at the supposed time the supposed prophesy was made? The wording of the prophesy itself ("I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction...") suggests it was, so all the prophesy is saying is that something is going to keep happening. Really, how much communication with God do you need to be able to work that out?

2) At the time Brigham Young planned the continuing migration of the Saints, the federal government wanted to know where the Saints would be going. It occurred to me, although this is my observation, perhaps answers from Brigham Young to the federal government were vague in order to help protect the Saints during a time when so much hate was targeted toward them.
Right, so it could be a true prophesy that was deliberately vague or a false prophesy that was necessarily vague. We have no way to pick between the two.

3) Like Moses, Brigham Young was going to direct and lead the Church members to a destination to be reached within an unknown time limitation. However, like any good leader, he had sent "scouts" ahead to several destinations which were known of at that time.
I am not disputing he was a good leader.

4) In response to the comment it was likely, and safe to prophesy many would die along the way. I agree....this was a safe prophesy to make - it is obvious. However, WHY would a prophet speak the obvious to a fledgling flock? My take: to warn them it would not be easy and sacrifice was a given. Faith would be tested. The weak in faith would apostatize; the faithful would be made strong through their trials. How very wise of Heavenly Father and His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to build the Church on a strong foundation.
There are two issues here. Firstly, why did he think many would die, and secondly why did he choose to tell his flock. Your answer addresses the second, but really it is the first that is at question. I suggest that Young realised the journey would be arduous, and as a good leader felt it prudent to warn his followers so they were prepared for the inevitable.

5) Brigham Young was willing to sacrifice his own life for his beliefs. Again from a purely non-theological observation: he had not required any of the Church members to do anything he was not willing to do. Since he was not afraid to die, why would he settle in what is now Salt Lake City merely because he was too tired or sick to keep moving on. After seeing so much suffereing amoung the Saints, and personal suffering as well, how can we as human beings belittle his sacrifices with such a conclusion? After everything he had accomplished as a leader, if he said he saw the Salt Lake City valley in a dream or in a vision, I would give him the benefit of the doubt based on his accomplishments alone.
There is nothing here that relates to the question of prophesy. Perhaps Young was "merely" a good leader and a noble man.

From a theological standpoint all Prophets of God have been persecuted.
But being persecuted is not proof of being a prophet.

jo7241974
November 12th 2008, 10:18 AM
Hi Pixie,

Sorry, I do not get your point.

Really, how much reading of this thread do you need to be able to work that out?

Was this already happened at the supposed time the supposed prophesy was made? The wording of the prophesy itself ("I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction...") suggests it was, so all the prophesy is saying is that something is going to keep happening. Really, how much communication with God do you need to be able to work that out?

To the world outside the Church at that time in history, the size of the membership of the young church made it look apparent it was doomed. Families already torn apart because some siblings had joined, or only one parent had joined, begged the estranged not to stay with the Church due to the fears their loved ones would die. At such a time most leaders (and you can compare similar circumstances to a battleground, for instance) would either wave a flag of truce and give up; or, they also could have chosen to give speeches of encouragement their lives would be safe if they escaped to the west away from their persecutors. Either of these choices would have made much more sense with the lives of the members at stake. However, it wasn't man's decision to make. God was leading the people, just as He always has, thru His prophets.

It doesn't matter what was prophesized at that time, you and I both know today's doubters would make the same accusations today.

Right, so it could be a true prophesy that was deliberately vague or a false prophesy that was necessarily vague. We have no way to pick between the two.

Not true, only nonbelievers are having trouble deciding.

I am not disputing he was a good leader.

Well, I certainly cannot voice a different opinion here! :smile:

There are two issues here. Firstly, why did he think many would die, and secondly why did he choose to tell his flock. Your answer addresses the second, but really it is the first that is at question. I suggest that Young realised the journey would be arduous, and as a good leader felt it prudent to warn his followers so they were prepared for the inevitable.

As mentioned earlier in this post...At such a time most leaders (and you can compare similar circumstances to a battleground, for instance) would either wave a flag of truce and give up; or, they also could have chosen to give speeches of encouragement their lives would be safe if they escaped to the west away from their persecutors. Either of these choices would have made much more sense with the lives of the members at stake. However, it wasn't man's decision to make. God was leading the people, just as He always has, thru His prophets.

There is nothing here that relates to the question of prophesy. Perhaps Young was "merely" a good leader and a noble man.

I was addressing the post written just prior to my original post.

But being persecuted is not proof of being a prophet.[/QUOTE]

I am stating biblical fact. Nonbelievers choose to see what they want to see because they are blind.

The Pixie
November 12th 2008, 05:39 PM
Hi Jo

Really, how much reading of this thread do you need to be able to work that out?
Specifically which parts of this thread would help me understand: "After reading the original post and subsequent comments, I cannot help but recall Moses leading the Israelites for 40 years before reaching the promised land. Does this mean Moses did not know what he was doing? Did it make him less of a prophet? In fact, Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land." Did Moses prophesy about where his tribe would go? Was Young prohibited from entering Utah for some years? Sorry, but I do not know the answers to these questions, so perhaps that is why the relevance of your comment escapes me.

To the world outside the Church at that time in history, the size of the membership of the young church made it look apparent it was doomed. Families already torn apart because some siblings had joined, or only one parent had joined, begged the estranged not to stay with the Church due to the fears their loved ones would die. At such a time most leaders (and you can compare similar circumstances to a battleground, for instance) would either wave a flag of truce and give up; or, they also could have chosen to give speeches of encouragement their lives would be safe if they escaped to the west away from their persecutors. Either of these choices would have made much more sense with the lives of the members at stake. However, it wasn't man's decision to make. God was leading the people, just as He always has, thru His prophets.
Again, you have lost me here. I thought Young was indeed giving a speech of encouragement about how better their lives would be if they went west. Sure, he said to expect losses along the way, but that was a realistic assessment of the situation. We stay here and get hunting to extinction, or we head west, accepting that some will fal along the way, but in the hope of a better life when we get their for us and our descendants.

It doesn't matter what was prophesized at that time, you and I both know today's doubters would make the same accusations today.
Quite true.

Not true, only nonbelievers are having trouble deciding.
Er, right. I meant we have no way of objectively deciding between the two.

As mentioned earlier in this post...At such a time most leaders (and you can compare similar circumstances to a battleground, for instance) would either wave a flag of truce and give up; or, they also could have chosen to give speeches of encouragement their lives would be safe if they escaped to the west away from their persecutors. Either of these choices would have made much more sense with the lives of the members at stake. However, it wasn't man's decision to make. God was leading the people, just as He always has, thru His prophets.
I am happy to grant that Young was a man of faith (even if I suspect his faith was misplaced). People of strong faith do not "wave a flag of truce and give up"; history is rife with people whi have died for their religion, including Sikh, Jews and Muslims. For this reason, I accept that Young had a strong faith, but not that his faith was necessarily true.

Given that renouncing his Mormonism is not an option for Young, he has the choice of heading west and promising that his followers will all survive the journey, or heading west and preparing them for losses along the way. The former may appear attractive at first, but a wise leader - especially in a religious context - will realise that if someone does indeed die along the way, then his flock will feel betrayed, and he will lose his authority. On the other hand, if he accepts that there will be losses, and people do indeed die, well that was what he prophesied, and their faith in him is reinforced (and should none die, then clearly the journey was blessed, and he wins then too).

I was addressing the post written just prior to my original post.
That post was written by me specifically about whether the given statement was prophesy or not.

I am stating biblical fact.
But what are you then infering from that Biblical fact?

Nonbelievers choose to see what they want to see because they are blind.
Well that is certainly a safe position to take when all else fails: I am right, and anyone who disagree must necessarily blind because they disagree. But do you not think that such a metaphysical outlook is itself prone to error? Suppose you were wrong about something? How would you ever realise it? How can you correct your mistakes if you start with the assumption that you are always right?

4truth
November 13th 2008, 05:41 AM
Jo:


Why do you believe Joseph Smith was anything but a prophet?

The only reason you have shown to try to document your belief Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet, is the one stated here. Your argument: "But when one finds evidence that the alleged "prophecy" has been scrunched in at a later date to make it appear as though it was written at an eariler date, that should end the whole thing right there.", is quite full of holes and is lacking in common sense.

Based on your comment, anyone who has ever read the Bible, much less anyone who believes in it, would have to toss it out without question, as being anything but what it claims to be. After all, evidence the Bible has gone through many translations.....and there are so many different versions of the Bible....we KNOW these changes were "scrunched in at a later date". Therefore, in your words, any debate about the authenticity of the Bible "should end the whole thing right there."



Hence, my original question to you.

I have a LOT more evidence that leads to the same conclusion. A scrunched "prophecy" is merely another drop in the bucket. Join me in the Mormonism section on either the Anthon or Spalding threads for starters.

Sparko
November 13th 2008, 11:00 AM
Jo:



I have a LOT more evidence that leads to the same conclusion. A scrunched "prophecy" is merely another drop in the bucket. Join me in the Mormonism section on either the Anthon or Spalding threads for starters.

I think Jo is already there.

jo7241974
November 14th 2008, 03:10 PM
You are both obviously arguing for arguments sake; purposely ignoring the obvious; and using all the same tactics to beat down something you can't get your heads around.

I'm not going to throw pearls before swine.

Your time to stand before God and explain to Him why you refuted His efforts to teach you the truth will come soon enough.