What was the right path to take?

[pwrfrk]

In reference to Joseph Smith's martyrship, what was the right path to take?  Who decided on accepting Brigham Young and not Sidney Rigdon or James Strang?  Should it be a matter of popularity (the allegation made by the Christian Radicals that protest LDS activities), or is it by blood or by who was ordained and held the second-highest role (such as Sidney Rigdon)?

Please explain.

 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

In reference to Joseph Smith's martyrship, what was the right path to take?  Who decided on accepting Brigham Young and not Sidney Rigdon or James Strang?  Should it be a matter of popularity (the allegation made by the Christian Radicals that protest LDS activities), or is it by blood or by who was ordained and held the second-highest role (such as Sidney Rigdon)?

Please explain.

 

Brigham Young's proposal that the Church be led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (for reasons he explained about the keys) was accepted by common consent of those present at the August 8, 1844 Conference, as moved upon by the Spirit. Brigham Young was sustained as president of the Quorum during the following October conference, and as President of the Church once the First Presidency was eventually reorganized in December, 1847. The "right path to take" is that the Lord calls His servants, and the saints sustain that calling by common consent, by prayer and faith.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, pwrfrk said:

In reference to Joseph Smith's martyrship, what was the right path to take?  Who decided on accepting Brigham Young and not Sidney Rigdon or James Strang?  Should it be a matter of popularity (the allegation made by the Christian Radicals that protest LDS activities), or is it by blood or by who was ordained and held the second-highest role (such as Sidney Rigdon)?

Please explain.

 

From my understanding, there was no prescribed way of choosing the next prophet. I don’t know Brigham’s standing on the 12s line-up, but the despotism was done by revelation.

here is a link to the actual event that secured Brigham Young as Prophet

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-three?lang=eng

 

He was made head of the twelve after the martyrdom and then later made president of the church.

Brigham Young died in 1877 but it wasn’t till 1880 that John Taylor was sustained as a prophet.

John Taylor died in 1887 and Wilford Woodruff was sustained President in 1889.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Fether

[pwrfrk]

Reflecting on this, what is the likelihood of the FLDS, Strangites and RLDS returning to the Church?

 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

Reflecting on this, what is the likelihood of the FLDS, Strangites and RLDS returning to the Church?

Institutionally? Zero. Individually? Same as anyone else, I guess.

[estradling75]

The succession crisis is an interesting time in Church history.  And with many things in Church history things do not always go in the direction one might assume they should.

There are a few ways to handle it...  1st have a testimony that the church is true.  This is by far the easiest.  Because then History does not matter, whatever happened, happened the way God intended for it to happen and all is well.

This is the state that I think most members are in. 

The 2nd is to study, ponder and pray about it.  This of course is the standard answer the church gives.  The hard part about this is studying History.  Unlike the scriptures history is all over the place.  It is full of records that aren't necessarily all that easy to find, and there is no promise that the person recording the record was unbiased.  In fact you can count on the records being biased, that is human nature, the real question is can you tell what the bias is and account for it?  That is in many ways the hard way.

Then there is the 3rd way... trust someone else to tell you what the History is.  This is somewhat problematic at best because you are depending one someone else's studying, understandings, and interpretations.  This can leave one highly vulnerable if they get something wrong.  Too many member seem to be here.  Every time we see someone complain that the "Church Lied' about something historical its from members in this category.

[bytebear]

I can think of no other Latter Day Saint branch that fulfills prophecy of the truth church in the last days.  Only the LDS Church as led by the current prophet does that.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

17 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The succession crisis is an interesting time in Church history.  And with many things in Church history things do not always go in the direction one might assume they should.

There are a few ways to handle it...  1st have a testimony that the church is true.  This is by far the easiest.  Because then History does not matter, whatever happened, happened the way God intended for it to happen and all is well.

This is the state that I think most members are in. 

The 2nd is to study, ponder and pray about it.  This of course is the standard answer the church gives.  The hard part about this is studying History.  Unlike the scriptures history is all over the place.  It is full of records that aren't necessarily all that easy to find, and there is no promise that the person recording the record was unbiased.  In fact you can count on the records being biased, that is human nature, the real question is can you tell what the bias is and account for it?  That is in many ways the hard way.

Then there is the 3rd way... trust someone else to tell you what the History is.  This is somewhat problematic at best because you are depending one someone else's studying, understandings, and interpretations.  This can leave one highly vulnerable if they get something wrong.  Too many member seem to be here.  Every time we see someone complain that the "Church Lied' about something historical its from members in this category.

Calling it "the succession crisis" is not very accurate. There was no crisis, there were those who accepted Brigham and there were those who apostatized, that's it.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Calling it "the succession crisis" is not very accurate. There was no crisis, there were those who accepted Brigham and there were those who apostatized, that's it.

And yet for those who are interested in studying history should understand that is what it is called in some areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_crisis_(Latter_Day_Saints)

 

[Midwest LDS]

19 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

Reflecting on this, what is the likelihood of the FLDS, Strangites and RLDS returning to the Church?

 

There are many individuals from those groups who join our church. I actually met a former RLDS apostle on my mission who had joines us after a proohetic dream. He was teaching Sunday School at the time.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

And yet for those who are interested in studying history should understand that is what it is called in some areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_crisis_(Latter_Day_Saints)

 

I didn't say that it is not called that. I said it is not accurate history. That there was no crisis. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I didn't say that it is not called that. I said it is not accurate history. That there was no crisis. 

Perfect example of one person's view being presented as historical fact...  That is your opinion and you are welcome to it...  But plenty others feel differently and there is enough of them to have a solid Wikipedia page.  (Of course being on Wikipedia does not make that side true either... that is my point about studying history).

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by estradling75

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I didn't say that it is not called that. I said it is not accurate history. That there was no crisis. 

I think it’s a matter of perspective.  In Nauvoo, the issue was more-or-less settled by August 1844.  In Britain, it was never too big of a deal; because most Church members there had been converted by the preaching of the apostles themselves—they weren’t going to reject those same apostles for some Johnny-come-lately clown like Strang.  

But in LDS congregations around the US, it was much more of an issue.  Turner’s biography of Young and Givens’s biography of Parley Pratt both go into some of the headaches that Strang, Rigdon, William Smith, and other malcontents gave to the Q12 during this period and the inroads that some of these dissenters made within American congregations outside of Nauvoo.  IIRC, it may be that as many as half of the US Church membership outside of Nauvoo rejected apostolic leadership.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

20 hours ago, estradling75 said:

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Emmanuel Goldstein
Not worth the effort

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it’s a matter of perspective.  In Nauvoo, the issue was more-or-less settled by August 1844.  In Britain, it was never too big of a deal; because most Church members there had been converted by the preaching of the apostles themselves—they weren’t going to reject those same apostles for some Johnny-come-lately clown like Strang.  

But in LDS congregations around the US, it was much more of an issue.  Turner’s biography of Young and Givens’s biography of Parley Pratt both go into some of the headaches that Strang, Rigdon, William Smith, and other malcontents gave to the Q12 during this period and the inroads that some of these dissenters made within American congregations outside of Nauvoo.  IIRC, it may be that as many as half of the US Church membership outside of Nauvoo rejected apostolic leadership.

James Strang was a weird bird. I love the story of him having a crown made for himself and he then reigning as king of beaver island. LOL

Also, what is wrong with the Wikipedia page for him? This is an actual quote: "Building an organization that eventually rivaled Young's in Utah, Strang gained nearly 12,000 adherents at a time when Young claimed only 50,000." The last time I checked, 12,000 is actually less than 50,000. Wikipedia is always good for a laugh.

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I didn't say that it is not called that. I said it is not accurate history. That there was no crisis. 

Terms are interesting - there is opposition in all things - meaning that there was, is and always will be a crisis between good and evil.

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Terms are interesting - there is opposition in all things - meaning that there was, is and always will be a crisis between good and evil.

 

The Traveler

Agreed.

[estradling75]

19 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Wikipedia is definitely not the best source to go to. It is just a bunch of opinions, mingled with history. Original sources are the best place to find the truth, or at least the closest thing to the truth. Also, I am not the only one to say these things, so attacking my statement like that is just you being a jerk. Cheers.

Funny I thought we were having a discussion about history... You present a perfect example of the third case I was talking about and how it comes into existence.  You want to take offense to that... well that is your business...  But Brigham young has a quote about taking offense that applies here.

Here how your statement fits.  You publicly declared that there was "No Succession Crisis."  And that is fine as an opinion for you to have and I would even wager that you personally are in the first category which is great (although that is just a guess on my part)

The problem becomes when someone else latches on to your statement as a truth.. Then they read the wikipedia or even other primary sources from people who had struggled.. Maybe they read the records of those that believed Sidney Ridgon and find some merits to the case they made.  Suddenly they feel you (or worse yet the Church) were being dishonest and lied to them.  Because you did not tell them about it... you brush it off and not having happened. 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by estradling75

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Funny I thought we were having a discussion about history... You present a perfect example of the third case I was talking about and how it comes into existence.  You want to take offense to that... well that is your business...  But Brigham young has a quote about taking offense that applies here.

Here how your statement fits.  You publicly declared that there was "No Succession Crisis."  And that is fine as an opinion for you to have and I would even wager that you personally are in the first category which is great (although that is just a guess on my part)

The problem becomes when someone else latches on to your statement as a truth.. Then they read the wikipedia or even other primary sources from people who had struggled.. Maybe they read the records of those that believed Sidney Ridgon and find some merits to the case they made.  Suddenly they feel you (or worse yet the Church) were being dishonest and lied to them.  Because you did not tell them about it... you brush it off and not having happened. 

 

Again, not worth my time. Take care and don't hurt your fingers typing so furiously.

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Wikipedia is definitely not the best source to go to. It is just a bunch of opinions, mingled with history. Original sources are the best place to find the truth, or at least the closest thing to the truth. Also, I am not the only one to say these things, so attacking my statement like that is just you being a jerk. Cheers.

I am not sure that I can always agree that Original sources are the best places to find truth.  Often those caught up in the moment are more biased than those not threatened by what took place.  Sometimes it is better to consider results and what is sustained over time when attempting to determine which choices are more beneficial than other choices.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 14, 2018 by Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Just now, Traveler said:

I am not sure that I can always agree that Original sources are the best places to find truth.  Often those caught up in the moment are more biased than those not threatened by what took place.  Sometimes it is better to consider results and what is sustained over time when attempting to determine which choices are more beneficial that other choices.

 

The Traveler

I would take original sources over many histories written with modern confirmation bias. I guess it just depends on the type of original sources we are talking about. 

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Again, not worth my time. Take care and don't hurt your fingers typing so furiously.

Interesting how you have repeatedly judged my intentions and motivations and been totally wrong every time...  And you have been told you are wrong but you hold to it anyways.

[Traveler]

19 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I would take original sources over many histories written with modern confirmation bias. I guess it just depends on the type of original sources we are talking about. 

As a scientist - I attempt to broaden my understanding of things.  Initial or original sources often had limited and biased views.  I believe it is more important to understand bias when dealing with any witness.  For example I recently observed a serious accident.  The investigators (Police) took my statements as an outside observer along with a few other original witnesses.  But then they took measurements of skid marks and of the seen along with pictures.  They then matched the information of the observers with the data and measurements.  Interestingly none of the original sources were as accurate as they thought - myself included.

I am of the notion that original sources are worthless without an preponderance of collaborative empirical evidence not connected to or from any particular opinion.  And that anyone with a predisposed strong bias should be recused from investigating in behalf of any particular notion of what is truth.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 14, 2018 by Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Interesting how you have repeatedly judged my intentions and motivations and been totally wrong every time...  And you have been told you are wrong but you hold to it anyways.

You just can't let go can you?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As a scientist - I attempt to broaden my understanding of things.  Initial or original sources often had limited and biased views.  I believe it is more important to understand bias when dealing with any witness.  For example I recently observed a serious accident.  The investigators (Police) took my statements as an outside observer along with a few other original witnesses.  But then they took measurements of skid marks and of the seen along with pictures.  They then matched the information of the observers with the data and measurements.  Interestingly none of the original sources were as accurate as they thought - myself included.

I am of the notion that original sources are worthless without an preponderance of collaborative empirical evidence not connected to or from any particular opinion.  And that anyone with a predisposed strong bias should be recused from investigating in behalf of any particular notion of what is truth.

 

The Traveler

Relying on original sources can often lead you to better evidence. As a history student I often found that by reading original journals of people that lived through an event were more correct than a history written by an author 300 years removed from the event. I can see your point in the scientific fields, but it is not always the case when dealing with filtered history. The maxim that "history is written by the victors" is often sadly the case. A good example of this is the diary of Anne Frank; without the diary we would have less information and only the story that the surviving father could provide. There was a lot that was going on in her life that her father was not aware of. That gives us further insight and leads us to further original sources.

There are other examples that I could point out, but I think this one makes my point.