The martyrdom of Joseph Smith

I recently read an excerpt from the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. In it Brother Pratt gives a lesser known version of the death of the Prophet Joseph. I first heard this account read aloud in my gospel doctrines class the other day, but the teacher was unfortunately cut off by the the objection of a distressed member of the congregation. I found it interesting to see the story told from a man who had deep insight as to the events which occurred before and after this tragic ordeal befell the Prophet Joseph and his family. 

In his book brother Pratt describes every musket shot into the jail at Carthage, from the various shots through the floor, one rickocheting off the nose of one of the brethren.

Now Joseph acquired a six shooter at some point before the mob approached the jailhouse, and would use it to defend himself when they made their way up the stairs. with a hailstorm of bullets fired at them from every direction, Joseph fired his weapon through the door into the crowd of people and as prophesied the mob members were painted black. None of the men he shot died right away but what would happen to them later on, I can only describe as "the vengeance of the Lord" was carried out to the prophets persicutioners.

One man who received a bullet to the arm died weeks afterwards, after the flesh began to rot away from his body until his arm was completely deteriorated away. Later they found that maggots had entered his body and began to devour him from the inside out.

A similar report was given to Brother Pratt of two of the men who were laid up in a hospital in Sacramento, California. Though still boastful of their victory against the Church, the two were eaten alive by a type of black headed maggot that worked it's way through the vital system and completely destroyed the internals. Such was the grotesque manner of these two men's condition that leading up to the hours of their deaths they were isolated from the rest of the hospital due to the intense odor that permeated from their bodies as they were eaten alive.

One of the men became deteriorated to the point that while struggling for life his jawbone literally became detached from his face.

The hospital staff were in such a rush to dispose of the two decayed bodies that they did not wait for coffins to be constructed. They quickly gathered their flesh up into blankets and buried them outside of the hospital.

back to carthage

From the second story window of the jail house Joseph was shot from inside while attempting to escape. And after he laid on the ground, one of the mob members took a sword and grabbed him by the head in an attempt to decapitate the prophet. As the man raised his sword, a BOLT OF LIGHTNING CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN striking directly on the man's weapon as if it were a lightning rod! This event struck such fear into the hearts of the Mob that they quickly grabbed the paralyzed man who stood helplessly over the assassinated body of Joseph and they fled the scene.

Now I suppose you are wondering why Brother Pratt gave such explicite details of this event, and why I chose to share it with you.

First I would like to say that this is a sealed testimony that Joseph was a true prophet of god, and the Lord dealt out a true punishment to those who spilt innocent blood.

Next, I will refer you to the events which occurred in concentration camps in Germany. When President Eisenhower saw the scene of putrid death and human misery. He ordered his troops to take as much photo evidence as possible. When asked why, he replied;

"Because some day some son of a bitch will say that this never happened."

More by this Author

  • The Treblinka death camp
    10

    Treblinka was a Nazi extermination camp which was set up in a wooded area of the Masovian voivodeship of Poland near a small village which bears the same name. During the years of 1942 and 1943 more than 800,000 Jews...

  • Family history part 4
    32

    James William Dockery Born in 1768, Died in 1855 (Cherokee,NC) He had six children all living around the county of Buncombe. James married a woman by the name of Nancy, he is the oldest Dockery mentioned in the...

  • Evolution theory doesn't make sense.
    126

    Of the many fields of science which I am in agreement with there are a few questionable things which always seem to take the forefront of the political and social infrastructure. Such controversies have arisen...


Comments 44 comments

eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

Thanks for the hub. This was such a special and sad occasion.

Keep on Hubbing!


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

No false prophet would go through what he went through, he was hated and persicuted his entire life, and even through death, to this very day. Truly Jesus anointed that prophet and seer!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

This is a fascinating account of this time in history. Thanks for publishing this. I enjoyed learning more about this tragedy.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

Thanks for commenting James.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 7 years ago from USA


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

Sorry to tell you but if you were to read the above account, you will see that the aledged weapon was clearly and concisely mentioned, and elaborated upon with much detail, including even more detail of their miserable deaths, with results in context as vindicated by the Lord against the persicutioners of his prophet.

I find it interesting that the whole "Untold story" was not mentioned by the critics. Only that which was pathetically presented by conspiring minds.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 7 years ago from USA

Joseph Smith was a false prophet with a wild imagination, he plagiarized the bible and many other works to compile his unholy books. He was a freemason and was more than likely killed because he revealed freemasonic secrets and included them in the LDS religion. What did he gain? Power, respect, many, many wives and a cult following. He is a martyr because he died for his own selfish beliefs along with many other repulsive acts. NOT because he died for the cause of Christ. He said all Christian churches were evil, and he didn't want to associate with us. So why do you all want to be called Christians? You're not. Repent and trust in Jesus Christ.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Mormonism-


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

Ok then let me ask you one thing; Would these men blaspheme before God by continuing their lives, their honor, and their own search for salvation with a book that they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth. And never mind that their wives and their children were about to become fatherless and widows never mind that Their little band of followers would be homeless and be forced across frozen rivers marked with a trial of blood across an untamed frontier. Never mind that legions will die and other legions will live declaring to the four corners of this Earth that the Book of Mormon and the church that espouses it, to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me whether in this hour of death, these two men would enter the presence their eternal judge, quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very word of God would brand them as impostors and charlatans until the end of time.

They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined denied, attacked, and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart possibly more that any other book in religious history, and yet it still stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born paraded and died, from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spalding to deranged paranoid, to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination. Because there is no other answer than the one that Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 7 years ago from USA

Mormon martyrs 50-75 (still wrong) including Smith who killed two men before he was killed

Christian martyrs millions and growing

The book of Mormon is an apostate and it does NOT stand anywhere but in the minds of brainwashed Mormons. The bible has been through every thing you can imagine. What book does every communist leader try to rid the world of ? Not the book of Mormon, Not the pearl of great price , not doctrines and covenants, None of the above, only the Bible, Why? because it’s the true word of God. THE END.

How many of Joseph Smith “prophecies failed? Many. Proof he was a false prophet.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

And what happened to those two me who he shot? (Defending his own life against mob justice, by the way.) One man who received a bullet to the arm died weeks afterwards, after the flesh began to rot away from his body until his arm was completely deteriorated away. Later they found that maggots had entered his body and began to devour him from the inside out.

A similar report was given to Brother Pratt of two of the men who were laid up in a hospital in Sacramento, California. Though still boastful of their victory against the Church, the two were eaten alive by a type of black headed maggot that worked it's way through the vital system and completely destroyed the internals. Such was the grotesque manner of these two men's condition that leading up to the hours of their deaths they were isolated from the rest of the hospital due to the intense odor that permeated from their bodies as they were eaten alive.

One of the men became deteriorated to the point that while struggling for life his jawbone literally became detached from his face.

The hospital staff were in such a rush to dispose of the two decayed bodies that they did not wait for coffins to be constructed. They quickly gathered their flesh up into blankets and buried them outside of the hospital.

Hundreds upon hundreds died as they were forced out of their homes and out of three states. I don't know why the number of fatalities should matter, perhaps you believe that a religion must be false because not enough people have died for it.

I would like to see which of Joseph's prophecies you believe have failed, or would you just prefer to throw out random, baseless accusations without any refrences?

Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, The truth hurts.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 7 years ago from USA

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22

D&C 114:1 April 17 1838 Smith said Patton would go on a mission and spread his(Joseph) name on his mission not Jesus' name but Patton died Oct 1838 and Never went on a mission. Check the context Smith as a prophet FAIL.

Sept 21, 1823. Joseph Smith says in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:40, that Moroni told him that Isaiah 11 was "about to be fulfilled." Isaiah 11:6-11 prophesies that the wolf and the lamb, the calf and the lion, etc. shall dwell in peace together, and that nothing will "hurt or destroy," and that the earth shall be "full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." FAIL

In total over 66 FAILED PROPHECIES

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gaFFMKQYRc

www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm

Joseph Smith was a true profit of Satan! THAT TRUTH HURTS


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

D & C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith, under the inspiration of the Lord, issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission. Although Patten was killed, his affairs were in order when he died so that his family could endure his absence. This alone indicates the Lord's foreknowledge of Patten's death. And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?

In any event, Patten's death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the "great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal 'now'."[2] The Savior does know all that will happen to us individually, but he still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord's will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten's mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Judas, of his own choice (unlike David Patten) never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn't make the Lord a false prophet in the case of Judas. Nor were the Lord and His prophet, Joseph Smith, mistaken in the case of David Patten.

The Lord knocks at the door and gives the promise or opportunity. Whether we open the door and respond in a way to reap the potential blessing is up to us, and in many cases, up to the righteousness of others. In David Pallen's case, extenuating circumstances prevented him from serving an earthly mission: a mob killed him. To understand the case of David Patten, one might study D&C 124:49, which states if "their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

Joseph Smith actuallymade some amazingly correct prophecies.

The specific prophecies that are said to be false or incorrect by critics are typically based on hearsay or unreliable sources or are based on incorrect interpretations of what is said. There is no reliable evidence to say that Joseph Smith fails any sound test based on Deut. 18:22.

Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Nathan, an angel of God, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud.

I could provide several "False prophecies" by old testament prophets if Deuteronomy were held to the same standard.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 7 years ago from USA

Joseph as a Prophet of God=FAIL. As for Patten Joseph mentioned a city in America where he would serve. NOT on the other side. Pleeeze! You cannot explain away all 66 of Joseph failed prophecies Patten is just one of the most famed failed prophecies of Smith and your spin can't fix that. As for the old testament go ahead and try you will fail much like Joseph Smith. Smith plagiarized the bible and many other works to compile his unholy books. He was a freemason and was more than likely killed because he revealed freemasonic secrets and included them in the LDS religion. You forgot to refute this in your earlier spin class. Joseph Smith was a liar and will lead you to HELL.

Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60). FAILED PROPHECY

Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!

Why is about 1/8th of the B of M copied directly from the KJV (1611AD) when it was alleged to have been written some 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gL7w2coR3g

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

The truth hurts,

There is nothing in D&C 114 about a city in America. Which city do you think he was talking about? I thought you said there were more than 66 failed prophecies. None the less you.

I still don't see why you feel the need to say he was a freemason, as I have said before, being a member of the free masons was like being a member of the PTA, alot of people were members, including several of the founding fathers of this country. This countrie's sentiment towards freedom of religion stems from the masons ideology.

You want biblical examples of failed prophecies? Here you go.

Jonah

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4)—no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them—much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah.

Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).

Ezekiel

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre would go to Babylon (Ezekiel 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar's army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, as prophesied in (Ezekiel 27:31). However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for (Ezekiel 29:17-20) reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29. Here are verses (Ezekiel 29:17-20):

17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD. (emphasis added)

Yes, Tyre is no more, but its complete destruction apparently did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and certainly the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure."[5]

The purpose in raising this issue is not to question the wisdom of the Lord, nor the truthfulness of the Bible, but to point out that an overly critical attitude and a strict application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed—but beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed, even though they be mortal and fallible.

Jeremiah

Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah—a great and inspired prophet—who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity—not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes—albeit in prison—yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

Nathan

Other examples include Nathan:

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.[6]

Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.

Samson

And the angel who spoke to Samson's mother:

[In] Jud. 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.

Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.

is not a prophecy that the Nauvoo House would stand "forever and ever." It is a command to build the Nauvoo house, and to permit Joseph and his family to "have place therein" "forever and ever."

Leaders of the Church constantly encouraged members in Nauvoo to live up to this commandment. Due to a lack of funds, workmen, and materials, the Saints eventually focused on the command to build the Nauvoo Temple (see D&C 124:55.)

God may issue commands, but such commands are not always obeyed. And, God may alter commands if the free agent choices of enemies alter the situation, as the same se


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 7 years ago from washington Author

Also, the argument aunthenticicating the origins of the book of Mormon based on how long the golden plates stayed on Earth is irrelevent, you said it your self, can you show me the ark of the covenant, or the holy grail? or even the origional cross that Jesus was crucified on? Or how about the ark that Noah built?

It doesn't matter why they are gone, otherwise there would be no need for that timeless factor of faith in things which are not seen but are true.

any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.

...to quote another writer of Christianity Today [magazine],[2] "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," and that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well.

As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?

Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age have been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.

Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.

What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language.

But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.

Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.

Now as to [the] question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

? ? ?

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.

One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."[3]

Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.

At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."[4] Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.

By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 6 years ago from washington Author

Strong35Colette, your comment didn't show up, try again.


Carlos 5 years ago

Maggots don't eat living tissue.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

So the tissue on the inside was already dead. Good to know.


ruffridyer 5 years ago from Dayton, ohio

The idea that true martyrs don't fire back is nonsense. I wrote a hub covering this very issue. Most martyrs were tied or chained, had no access to weapons and weren't defending other friends who's lives were also being threaten. A good post.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Check out the wiki definition;

A martyr (Greek: ??????, mártys, "witness"; stem ??????-, mártyr-) is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief or cause, usually religious.

Not too many stipulations that support the latter argument.

Thanks for reading.


Zack 5 years ago

Let's clarify everything about religion. It is only "real" to people because humans have imagination. We can imagine something to be "real". Children believe Santa is real and does magical things, that doesn't make him real. There are still people today that believe the earth is flat, that doesn't make it real. In fact you can show them a picture of the round earth and they choose to believe the earth is a flat disc. The fact that all religions REQUIRE faith (belief) means it not real.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Interesting logig Zack, Tell me how do you explain the bare bones fact that I have personally seen miracles. That after I have prayed to God I have received answers, and put my hands on the heads of friends and family members and in actuality healed them, and they were healthy the minute I said amen. I have heard countless stories of the healing power of God who has manifest himself through the power of his priesthood.


Zack 5 years ago

People see what they "want" or "believe". Attributing coincidences or natural occurrences to a god is still belief. Studies have shown positive thinking and placebos heal people (thats the power of beliefs, not god). Attributing everything good to a god and everything bad to a devil is so simple minded (think of primitive tribes and their beliefs in gods).

If prayer works then pray for a person missing a limb to magically have it regrow or reappear, it won't happen. When you witness that, I will believe whatever religion you want me to.

Another simple fact is that church attendance and religious people are on the decline because the world is becoming more educated and less superstitious. So enjoy believing in ancient books written by men claiming to have heard a god while the rest of the world wises up.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

zack,

Is it the power of posative thinking that has brought people back from the dead just by hearing the voice of Christ or his desciples? You are asking signs from a God you don't believe in. Faith comes first, then miracles.


Zack 5 years ago

Well that's sound "logic". Believe first, even if it is incorrect, and then you will see it. That's exactly why people that believe in aliens see UFOs or kids that believe in Santa see his sleigh. If we go with your weak faith "logic" then I guess all of the other world religions are correct as well, since they operate on faith and see "miracles".

What ever happened to thinking first before believing something that is completely false? Religion is the greatest hoax ever invented, they can promise anything because the "proof" is after you die.

Seriously, actually start thinking, questioning, and understanding your own and other religions, rather than having blind faith (which is what religion wants). Sure, it's more work than blind faith but it might just open up your eyes to the truth. Although there are many people who are afraid of the truth and being outside of their faith box so they choose to ignore it.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Zack,

Even believing in nothing takes faith. And I can tell you with first hand experience that never in my life have I ever been associated with a group of people who look forward to the new, stay in touch with the old, and weigh so carefully and thoughtfully and prayerfully everything in between, and their faith is more relevant than any modern day think tank, or brain trust of comparable endeavor, of which I know.

In times of troubles, heartache, and low self worth, nothing is more comforting than to know that we have a father in heaven who loves us and shares our pains and sorrows, and is so willing to immediately forgive us from our sins.


Zack 5 years ago

So in other words you admit you're believing (even if it is not true) because it is comforting to you. AKA Positive thinking. This is in fact a very human behavior so I can agree with that aspect. I don't mind that, I disagree with people using religion to push their beliefs onto others. That's the stuff that starts wars, marries off children, takes people's money...etc. because "God" said it was OK.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Zack, nowhere in my response did I say that I believe in something because it's comforting. It's simply a comfroting fact that is accompanied with the truth. I believe in God because he has spoken to me through the power of his Holy spirit. Faith is a hard concept for the unbeliever to accept because generally they have a wall of skepticism built around them. I believe that people cause wars, not God.


Zack 5 years ago

Faith is a very simple concept for "unbelievers". It's believing in something without proof. Wow that's truly a difficult concept.

It's a shame religion falls apart without faith whereas the laws of physics and science do not. Just like religions all differ based on geography and culture whereas science does not. Even within the major religions there are differing sects and interpretations, which is another way to tell religion is man made.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

As I said, you don't understand what faith is. You have to experience it, just as with any other thing you experience. You can explain it, but until you actually exercise your spirituality in real honest prayer to your creator you will never fully understand the power of godliness manifest in your life.


Zack 5 years ago

A person's experiences are based on their own frame of reference. That is why two people can have the same exact thing happen to them and yet have two different experiences. Your experiences are based on your beliefs from something you were taught and chose to believe as truth, therefore you translate it through your frame of reference. If you were taught another religion and accepted that one, then your experiences would reflect that frame of reference. Either way, you've proven you're comfortable/stuck in your box/beliefs whereas I am willing to change and adapt my beliefs as new data comes available.

I've researched plenty of religions and they all follow the same pattern: they were created by men, who claim some divine inspiration and have a big payout at the end if you follow their rules (typically based on the cultural beliefs at the time i.e. Slavery, Polygamy...etc.). Notice how that sums up thousands of religions right there, including Mormonism. Think about that.

I'm done here, you can either keep telling yourself what you believe is true or you can start understanding the truth by analyzing new data from new sources. You wouldn't base your knowledge on a single book would you, so why base all of your beliefs on one?


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Zack,

I have no problem with adapting my beliefs as new information is presented to me. Such was the case with the children if Israel, the people of Abraham, And yes even Joseph Smith.

By the way, what was the big payout for him? Oh yeah, It was martyrdom. That sounds like so much fun.

I've seen your argument many times over presented to me and I'm sure the argument for religion has been presented to you. You choose not to adapt to those assertions just as I choose not to adapt to yours. So lets not pretend like you have some special ability to adapt to disbelief that is superior to that of those who adapt to religious ideology or beliefs.


passingtheword 5 years ago

Who cares about Joseph smith. The LDS church act like Joseph smith can save use. oh ya you do believe that J of D Vol 7 P 289

, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

passingtheword, that is a gross misrepresentation of what was said as usual.

Many traditional Christians envision Peter standing at the "pearly gates." They are uncomfortable with the misunderstanding that Brigham Young said Joseph Smith will take Peter's place. The thoughtful reader, however, will search the entire discourse delivered by Brigham Young and see that this is not what he was teaching.

Each dispensation has a prophet at its head. Moses taught in his dispensation that those who looked to the serpent on a pole would live. This was a type (Alma 33:19) or similitude of the Savior. Those who didn't obey Moses and would not look, didn't live. Accepting what Moses said in that dispensation was the "passport" to life.

As Christ said:

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:45-47)

If they didn't believe in Moses, he wasn't their "passport."

Noah offered "salvation" to those who would join him in the ark. Those who were disobedient and failed to enter the ark were swept off the earth in the flood and ended up in spirit prison (1 Peter 3:20). Again, as the prophet of his dispensation, Noah provided the "passport" for those who accepted the word of God that came through him.

In the meridian of time, those who accepted the apostles and prophets and did not reject the message of Jesus Christ were saved. As the Lord said to the apostles, "He that receiveth you receiveth me" (Matt. 10:40).

While speaking about our own dispensation, Brigham Young said that people of this dispensation will not enter God's Kingdom without the "consent" and "certificate" of Joseph Smith as a passport to entering where God and Christ are. Brigham Young then explained what he meant: "It is his [Joseph's] mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption" (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.289).

The "passport," then, that people will need to enter heaven is the same as they have always needed, no matter what dispensation they lived in. To accept Christ is to accept his prophets: without the priesthood authority and inspired teachings of the Lord that have come through Joseph Smith, no one in this dispensation, living or dead, can be redeemed.

Anti-Mormon critics distort this view, trying to make it appear that Joseph Smith will be standing by the gate of heaven admitting or rejecting those who seek to enter. This is not the picture that is painted by Brigham Young. He was merely stating that the mission of Joseph Smith, God's prophet, was "to see that all the children of men in the last dispensation are saved, that can be through the redemption."

It should be recognized that the Savior is a great delegator. He has delegated to the "head" of each dispensation certain responsibilities, including some preliminary judging responsibilities. For example, in New Testament times the Apostles were told that they will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). Literally, then, those of the Twelve Tribes won't "get to Heaven" without the consent of the Apostles.

Latter-day Saints do not believe Joseph Smith is the keeper of the gate of heaven, nor the one who determines whether we are saved. Some Christians think they will instead meet Peter at the "pearly gates," but The Book of Mormon teaches who will really be the final "gatekeeper":

O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name (2 Nephi 9:41).


passingtheword 5 years ago

onus--- whatever .. you are defending something that you don't even know. if you can't post it don't respond.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Are we resorting to personal attacks now? I think the accusation was answered rather thoroughly. You say I am speaking of something I don't know about, I say it is easier to be a skeptic than a believer.


passingtheword 5 years ago

onus... i wish we could meet in person and talk about this. it is so sad that in order to defend the book of mormon you have to put down the bible. All of the Lds prophet of old say that the bible causes confusion, that it will cause people to stumble. Is your faith in Joseph smith or Jesus Christ? Growing up i learned more about Joseph Smith then Jesus Christ. You can't say that you did not learn something else. Because the curriculum that i learn you learned.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Hardly, I would never put down the bible. simply because critics use the bible to point out inconsistencies with the Book of Mormon is a display of their unwillingness to accept the huge parallels which are present between the two. You cannot put down the Book of Mormon without putting down the bible as well, and that is because the Book of Mormon supports the bible and is a second witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ.


passingtheword 5 years ago

the Book of Mormon contradicts the bible. at the time when joseph smith came out with this mormon cult, people were getting there knowledge of God from the bible. But Joseph smith said everyone is an abomination. The lds church is saying that the bible can't stand alone so it can't be true. "as long as it is translated correctly". tell the truth man. you do put the bible down because your religion puts it down. and what jesus do you worship? just like another falls prophet Hinkley said the lds worship a different jesus.

oh and fyi. we 20 more people just got saved up here at BYU. by the time i leave here BYU will be a christian school.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

The term "cult" as you so adamantly apply to my religion is for shock and awe as a dishonest attempt to sway onlookers into the belief that Latter Day Saints are easily manipulated fanatics who blindly follow their leaders

More specifically, conservative Christian authors, especially fundamentalists and Evangelical Protestants, narrowly define a Christian cult as a group who claims their beliefs conform to Christianity, yet factually deviate from Christian "fundamental beliefs."

This mind set, although conceived for the purpose of preserving their religious values, is one of the largest causes for hatred amongst Christians, It throws honest truth seekers into the pile with suicidal, separatists, and Satanists. They want you to see any church which does not fall within their standards as brain washers, and with their leaders equated to infamous characters such as Jim Jones, Alister Crowley, Charles Manson, or David Koresh.

So what is the current definition of a cult? It is commonly held in the public eye that they are separatists, they block themselves outside of society and attain a paranoid view of the rest of the world, They are founded by eloquent speakers who dupe the gullible into prospects of enlightenment. They use brain washing tactics to get their followers to conform to their ideology and sometimes commit murder or suicide.

The rising of these particular organizations is random at best, they are easily distinguishable for those who govern themselves by the laws of common sense. Unfortunately we live in a society full of uncertainty, people rely on vices and addiction; self esteem is low for those who compare themselves to movie stars, and super skinny super models. They are those who simply wish to fit in, and feel the need to be part of something. They are people just like everyone else, they are those who are children of God who have gone astray.

When a church goes on the offensive towards other religions they indoctrinate this "Defending the faith" attitude which puts a stain on their entire format, they don't focus on their own beliefs, instead they spend their time criticizing others, they devote entire classes to it. people commit to hours of scholarly research in a degrading attempt to debunk other belief systems when they should be focused on their own salvation.

The fact of the matter is Latter Day Saints are indeed Christians and a large Christian organization at that, with over 14 million members. At the time that you applied for entrance to BYU it already was a Christian College and continues to be such. As I have said before the Bible is one of the four standard works that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints ad hears to and diligently studies. To use the book of Mormon as a companion to this sacred text is to fulfill the scripture it's self, "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."


passingtheword 5 years ago

sooooo cults have the influence to have people murder and commit suicide. Like those lds followers that killed those men women and children (Mountain Meadows massacre)

Or when BY said that those that don't Believe in the lds church should be hewn down (killed) Or when Brigham Young said that there are some sins that can only be forgiven by spilling your own blood (suicide) You remember hearing about this right? The Good o blood atonement taught by our late great prophet Brigham Young. And I could go on and with this crap.

Onusonus I’am not sure if you know this, but Utah ranks #1 in teen suicides. And I blame this on the lds church. Because even though we don’t teach this blood atonement in the way it was taught in the past, it is still taught. Just like I have seen all my life if you question the church everyone saids you are falling away, everyone turns they’re backs on you. You can’t say this is not true. Why do you think we (new true Christians up here at byu) have to study the True Word of God in privet. Because we would probably get kicked out of school kicked out of our families and all of our friends that we grew up with will not talk to use. You can’t say this is not true.

Onus... i am not Criticizing , iam telling you what i have lived through what i have been taught by the lds church.

and again with the bible you don't believe that the kjv bible is true. if so the lds church whould not say that it is true "as far as it was translated correctly. Which Joseph smith is the one that determaned what was right and what was wrong. Just like he added versus to the bible and added his name to them.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Right because christian religions have never had people killed before. I think you will find that throughout the history of Christianity there has been many many murders in the name of Christ, the crusades, the inquisition, the Salem witch trials, to name a few.

lets put the history in context for a moment. The Latter Day Saints of Brigham Young's day had been severely persecuted, driven out of three states after the murder of their Prophet Joseph Smith, lost countless family members at the hands of mobs, suffering frozen earth burials, wading through frozen rivers, and walking a trail of blood over an untamed prairie floor. And even when seeking refuge in Utah they still endured persecution by the government which was attempting to remove their spiritual leader from office. Yes you might say that a little paranoia had set in, none the less after some harsh words were said, young sent out a letter warning militia not to attack caravans coming through the area which came too late and a tragedy occurred. The church has never condoned the actions of what happened that day. As for the purported blood atonement you say still exists to this day, I would like to see any proof of it being implemented in the LDS church.

When one analyzes and compares the content and implications of the individual references and sub-topics, however, the full extent of the blood atonement "shell game" becomes even more dramatically apparent. The deception and misdirection involved with the original critics who scoured Journal of Discourses for references (and later generations who uncritically parrot the original claims), is a classic example of B. H. Roberts's "orchard" analogy.

This tactic is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: "This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning." Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard?

Critics, of course, continue to insist in the absence of corpora delicti (physical evidence of blood atonement victims) that the standard blood atonement proof-texts are enough on their own to discredit Mormon prophets and apostles, even without physical evidence, regardless of whatever else Mormon leaders have said. Critics' primary aim is to influence people's impressions and preconceptions of Mormons, and they will continue to frame their arguments in ways that they think present Mormonism in a bad light. Making the entire orchard available and accessible to investigators and the curious allows them to judge for themselves whether or not it is dishonest or dishonorable of critics to knowingly or ignorantly fail to deal with "the rest of the story." Whether ignorantly or knowingly, critics who continue to use and encourage blood atonement claims to influence people's impressions and perceptions of Mormonism are guilty of serious wrongdoing themselves, perhaps even rivaling what they accuse Mormonism and Mormon leaders of, as harsh as that sounds.


Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 5 years ago from washington Author

Now you made the claim that the LDS church does not believe in the Bible.

Over the past two centuries, with the discovery of an increasing number of ancient biblical texts, it has become clear that the process of canonization and of transmission of sacred writ has not been without its problems. This is generally acknowledged by Bible scholars, many of whom are Protestants whose more fundamentalist co-religionists reject them as "liberals." In recent years, a new breed of Evangelical scholar has been emerging, many of them spurred on by the Evangelical Theological Society. Many of these new scholars acknowledge that Bible translations and manuscripts are not error-free and maintain that only the texts as originally recorded by the biblical authors were completely authoritative and free of mistakes.

Another irony is that this is precisely what Joseph Smith taught when he declared, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

Since that time literally hundreds of differing translations of the bible have been produced all containing various takes on what parts of the original scripts meant. Along with the more obvious fallacies in translation as we have seen when a single word in the bible can literally have dozens of different meanings, we must weigh in the factor that when an individual lists to interpret the bible and produce their own version of the bible in some instances it tends to agree more with the religious implications of the said translators.

You can see plenty of examples in the NIV version of the Bible where the translators have taken a passage of scripture and pulled it over to one side of the meaning in order to best fit their understanding of the text. Hence portions of the translation leave out vital aspects and detract from the fullness of what was originally being conveyed. Hence Latter Day Saints read the bible and study it as an account which was divinely inspired of God but written and translated by fallible men just as was the Book of Mormon.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working