Changing and Correcting Mormon Scripture

The January 2013 Ensign magazine seems to reflect a new effort toward transparency in the Mormon Church. In an article by LDS historian Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,” the author discloses “Many Revelations Were Later Revised by Joseph Smith through Inspiration”:

“Over the course of the first five years of the Church, Joseph and others under his direction made changes and corrections to some of the early revelation texts in an attempt to more closely portray the intent of the revelation. Other times, especially as the revelations were being prepared for publication, Joseph was inspired to update the contents of the revelations to reflect a growing Church structure and new circumstances…

“Some of the needed changes stemmed from errors made by scribes as Joseph dictated the revelation to them. Other changes were made as later revelations incorporated more teachings that had not been a part of the initial revelation.”  (Ensign, January 2013, 46)

Dr. Dirkmaat uses D&C 27 (found in the 1833 Book of Commandments as chapter 28) as one example of a revelation later revised by Joseph Smith. He notes that Joseph Smith’s history says “the first part of the revelation was written down in August 1830 and ‘the remainder in the September following.’” The section 27 heading included in the current Doctrine and Covenants says the same thing. Dr. Dirkmaat adds,

“In the earliest manuscripts, only verses 1–5 and parts of 15 and 18 were included, but as the text of the revelation was being prepared for publication in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the second portion of the revelation was added, nearly tripling the size of the revelation.”

The impression given to Ensign readers is that Joseph Smith received this revelation in two parts over the course of a few weeks’ time: a third of it in August 1830 and two-thirds more in September 1830; then he joined the two parts together for publication in 1835. But history doesn’t bear this out.

In The Joseph Smith Revelations Text & Commentary, author H. Michael Marquardt notes that the added text found in the current verse 11 (i.e., “Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days”) indicates a later textual addition. He cites a January 1st, 1834 letter written by Apostle and “Second Elder of the Church” Oliver Cowdery. In this letter Mr. Cowdery wrote, “Since I came down I have been informed from a proper source that the Angel Michael is no less than our father Adam, and Gabriel is Noah.” According to Mr. Marquardt, “This idea was not known to Cowdery until the end of 1833.” After citing a few more anachronistic additions to Book of Commandments (BOC) 28, Mr. Marquardt concludes, “It appears that all the added material dates from after the time when the commandment was received. The additions are too developed, the product of a later stage of theological evolution.” (74-75)

These later theological thoughts have been placed into the previously existing text of the original revelation. Though readers of the Ensign article might assume that the newer two-thirds of D&C 27 were added at the end of the original –- a different text received at a different time and appended to the first revelation — this is not the case. Joseph Smith’s revisions to the revelation were not appended onto the end of the existing text, but were inserted into the middles of two complete verses from the original revelation (i.e., vv. 6 and 7 in BOC 28). These verses were split apart by new, major blocks of text that were inserted in the middle of what, up until that point, had been understood to be a full and complete revelation (to illustrate, compare BOC 28:6 with D&C 27:5-14: “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with [insert 322 new words] all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world”). Thus, Joseph Smith’s scripture resembles the drafting of a term paper – a work in progress – rather than a direct revelation from God. Indeed, according to the Ensign article, “Joseph Smith saw the revelations as living and subject to change as the Lord revealed more of His will.”

An important aspect regarding the revised revelation that is missing from the Ensign article is the significance of the added content. Of course, since Mormons consider these revelations to be scripture, any and all content is significant. Even so, the 1835 additions to this revelation (D&C 27) speak of the alleged restoration of the Aaronic priesthood at the hands of John the Baptist (v. 8) and the Melchizedek priesthood/apostleship bestowed on Smith and Cowdery shortly thereafter via a visitation by Peter, James and John (vv. 12-13). As H. Michael Marquardt notes, “This 1835 addition is the earliest known record of Christ’s apostles being sent to visit Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery” (80). Author Grant Palmer concurs: “Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s” (An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 223-224).

The point of all this is that the basis for the authority of the Mormon Church, the restoration of the priesthood, appears to have been a bit of an afterthought. Claims of the restoration and bestowal of this divine authority did not exist in the first years of the Mormon Church. Even the scriptural references to this foundational power have been slipped in under a falsified (or at least misleading) early date.

It’s good that the Mormon Church is making an effort at historical transparency, but it still has a long way to go.

See the changes made to Book of Commandments Chapter 28, courtesy of Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in D&C and Pearl of Great Price, Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon Scripture, Priesthood and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Changing and Correcting Mormon Scripture

  1. grindael says:

    The point is that we don’t know exactly what Joseph Smith said. Clayton’s diary is not a word for word account, and it is likely that Joseph’s account was recorded by a scribe.
    I am not saying the change did not happen, but that it happened from these diaries to the History of the Church Manuscript, and we don’t know why. We do not have a clear picture as to the reasons it was made, and thus it is rather pointless arguing about it. Concerning the revelation you referenced, if it is not the same revelation than why does it need to be directly connected. Now, I know what I said, and I never once contradicted myself. section 132 was received in the early 1830′s, and most likely in 1831. However, it was not recorded until 1843. Did I ever say anything to the contrary. The simple fact that another revelation was received and recorded in 1831 means nothing. There were well over 30 other revelations recorded in this year that are now part of the Doctrine and Covenants. You have proved nothing.

    Sorry, but it is you who have proved nothing. Where is your proof that Smith received Section 132 in 1831? You have none, nada, zip. ZERO evidence of this kooky speculation on your part.

    As for Section 130, the point of bringing that up is another blatant error on your part, that nothing that Joseph Smith revealed was changed after his lifetime. You are wrong again. In fact, Smith directly contradicts himself. In a “revelation” given to Oliver Cowdery in 1829 Smith writes,

    Oliver, verily, verily I say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, which is your God and your Redeemer, even so sure shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with and honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which have been spoken, by the manifestation of my Spirit; yea, behold I will tell you in your mind and in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and WHICH SHALL DWELL IN YOUR HEART.~Book of Commandments, VII:1, Doctrine and Covenants 1835, XXXIV:1)

    The diary accounts are virtually identical, this is evidence that you are again in error that it is not a word for word account. There are TWO accounts, or did you fail to notice this?

    “The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have the personage of the H. G. in his heart. A man receive the gifts of the H. G., and the H. G. may descend upon a man but not to tarry with him.

    the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. 5–and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him,–

    This was typical of Smith, he constantly contradicted himself as he changed his theological views.

  2. grindael says:

    As to accounts of the ordinations, there were accounts before the mid 1830′s, but they did not identify the angels that appeared. So, while it may be true that the names of the angels were not given until this time (which I have no problem with) the events were recorded.

    Here is what actually happened:

    The first time that any mention of angelic messengers is documented was in 1834 at a meeting of the Kirtland High Council. Soon after, Cowdery also started to talk about angels. In 1835, he said, “[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself… After this we received the high and holy priesthood …” (Early Mormon Documents 2:452-453).

    The revelation referring to the Aaronic restoration is missing from the Book of Commandments, as well as from the original church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star (edition dated March 1833, p.6). The only known manuscript copy of the revelation makes no reference to the LDS priesthoods either (Origins of Power, p.16). All mention of priesthood was added at a later time. In fact, the addition included 459 words that were not in the original revelation.

    The account of the Melchizedek restoration is entirely missing. B.H. Roberts writes that “there is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals…” (History of the Church, 1:40fn). Palmer confirms that “no contemporary narrative exists…. the date, location, ordination prayer, and any other circumstances surrounding this experience are unknown” (An Insider’s View, 229).

    Even Joseph Smith’s own family did not know about the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. Quinn writes, “Smith’s own mother made no reference to angelic restoration of authority in an 1831 letter she wrote to her brother about the new church” (Origins of Power, p.19). Joseph Smith III, the son of the founder of Mormonism, admitted that “there is no historical evidence of such an event. Nor is there any evidence that Peter, James, and John were present…. It is not safe then to write historically that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ever ordained literally…” (Reorganized History of the Church 1:64-65). http://www.mrm.org/priesthood-restoration

    Proof please. BEFORE 1834.

  3. spartacus says:

    Shematwater replied to my argument from the DnC:
    There is only one reply to your question: If God commands it than that is a good reason.
    Comment: I did not have time to type the argument in a full formal way. However, you seem to be challenging my premise that there is never a (righteous) reason to erase the words of God. But then you give no reason that falsifies that premise. The following does not work.

    Shem: It all comes down to my first point. If you accept Joseph Smith and his successors as prophets then you accept that these changes, of whatever nature they were, were commanded by God, and you don’t question his authority. If you do not accept these men as prophets than there is no way to explain the changes.
    Problem: It seems your belief in JS as prophet supercedes your beliefs about God. God’s actions are determined by the prophet instead of the actions of the prophet being determined or evaluated by the nature or revelation of God. (I’ll come back to this)
    Shem: I accept Joseph Smith as being a prophet of God, as well as those who succeeded him. Therefore I have no problem in accepting that God commanded that these changes be made.
    Problem: I find it interesting and worrisome that you argue FROM a belief in JS as prophet to th validation of his actions instead of his actions to the validation of his prophethood. It’s circular for one, since we ar discussing the actions as proof of his lack of prophethood. It also seems to give JS a free pass theologically. And it makes a huge assumption-that JS never fell as a prophet. When you prayed about his prophethood, did you pray about his whole life, conscious of all his actions, with psychological disinterested?

    Shem: You do not accept these men as prophets, and thus there is no way to adequately explain the reasons for them.

    Problem: Even if I did accept JS as a prophet, I would still not accept deletion of God’s word. Progressive revelation does not require deletion. Did God say it wrong the first time. Why would God erase His own words? Why not just have a second revelation that builds upon the first “line upon line” instead of overwriting it? God does not make mistakes. God can reveal more without having to erase. What reason could God have to erase His own words? What reason would a man in power have?

  4. spartacus says:

    Shem, I appreciate your response. I should have taken the time to write the argument in full and formally. That way I might avoid responses like yours that I believe are begging the question.

    I said that there is never a good reason to erase the words of God. That holds for God too. The assumption is that God does not do things from bad reasons. So God would never erase His own words, unless He has a good reason. Your response did not attempt to show how there could be a good reason to erase, for anyone, including God.

    Instead you argue that Joseph was a prophet so he can do that. In fact, that you don’t question his authority to do anything. But this is the very question was JS a prophet? No, because he did something no prophet could do with God’s will because God would never will it because God does not will things without a good reason and there is no good reason to do that. But you answer by simply saying, if God does will it then its ok and JS is a prophet. This is contradicting a premise without reason. You then continue with: I believe JS was a prophet so when JS did that it was because God would in fact will it and so it is ok and so JS is a prophet. This is circular reasoning and begins with begging the question.

    Again, I could have written the argument more completely to avoid this, possibly.

    The premise that God would never order His words deleted ought to be accepted by LDS because of the revelation from God that the Bible was corrupted by deletions (among other changes). [Note: where is that official revelation, anyway?] How likely is it that God would reveal that one scripture is defunct for loss of content but then order a prophet to remove content from another scripture? Instead of just adding a new revelation? Let alone without noting it at all? Why would God command a prophet to do the same thing as was done by “corrupt priests”?

  5. shematwater says:

    Spartacus

    With a better understanding of your argument, I will say one thing.

    First, is man to know every reason for every action that God performs, or for every command that God gives? Did Abraham understand the good reasons that God had in commanding him to sacrifice Isaac? I think this is more my point than what you see in my words. I don’t know why God does what he does most of the time. Many times I don’t know why he commands what he commands. But it is not my place to question it. If a change occurred, and such change was made by a prophet of God, then I can accept that the change was God’s will and I need no further explanation as to why God inspired the change.
    Now, you want to argue that this action proves that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and I do not agree. In this you are trying to mandate God’s nature and what God would consider a good reason for doing something. You can think of no good reason, and so you impose this thought onto the actions of God and declare that He can’t have a good reason. This does not work, as it is, as you put it, making God’s actions determined by a man. You want the actions of a prophet to be determined or evaluated by the nature of God. To this I say, we cannot truly understand the will and nature of God, and thus we cannot accurately evaluate anything based on this.
    Simply put, I can’t give you a good reason. But I do not need a good reason for this in order to believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, and that is the point.

    I will say one other things, actually. You say “I find it interesting and worrisome that you argue FROM a belief in JS as prophet to th validation of his actions instead of his actions to the validation of his prophethood.”
    I would argue that all Christians are very similar in their way of arguing the nature of God, or any theological point. They will say “The Bible is the word of God.” When asked how they know they respond “because it says so.” What other proof can they offer, and all other doctrine stems from this.
    “What is the nature of God?” He is a self-existing spirit. “How do you know this?” Because the Bible says so. “How do you know the Bible is accurate in what it says?” Because it is the word of God. And so on.

  6. spartacus says:

    Shem,
    I appreciate the honesty when you say that you can’t give me a good reason for JS to remove God’s words. You didn’t explicitly admit to arguing in a circle but you reiterated it in what you did say just above. And this proves one point that can come about from these Standard Proofs of mine. I do not imagine that LDS will read onenand suddenly see that the LDS church is false, but by responding to them in the only way they can – “I just believe”- then we can start to reveal how tenuous, how unfounded the belief is. In this case you seem to be saying that it is fine, even with the logical fallacy involved, that JS removed God’s words, it does not effect his status as a prophet to you because… you already believe he is a prophet. Thus the circularity, but more importantly it reveals how you and prrobably others allow JS a free pass since you already believe he was a prophet. It reveals an assumption that a prophet can never fall. S.o. here spoke about how nothing could or asked an LDS if there was anything they could think of that would disqualify JS or any prophet from that authority. In this particular case you show that removing God’s words AND not noting it AND it being of significant material is not one of those things.

    But then you try to claim that I am artificially making up God’s character and actions. But this is ingenuous as I used a specific exampsle and question – if God denounced the Bible for things removed from it, how could He then order JS to do the same? This is not me determining God’s actions. Rather I am letting God’s action speak on other supposedly God actions. Now if you want to argue that my basis of critique – assuming God’s consistency or integrity – is not necessary to God then, ok. Argue for an inconsistent God, if you want.

    I think onenof the strengthsnof thesensimple Standard Proofs is that even if they, or in this case just one of the four, does not lead an LDS to realize their error, it does force the revelation of their absurdity, if not for you Shem, maybe for those reading.

  7. spartacus says:

    Shem,
    you claimed that Christians have no basis to believe the Bible other than that the Bible says that it itslef is the word of God. This is false and ironic considering all the LDS out there right now either saying, typing, or thinking, “I love when someone tells me whatbI believe”. Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of God because itnsays that it is. They even consider the POSSIBILITY that it is because there actually is any and actually lots of independent support for it in archaeology, linguistics, and more as being accurate about at least something and actually lots of what it reports. They THINK t is the word of God because of fulfilled prophecy among other things. Christians BELIEVE AND TRUST it as the word of God because of all these things AND because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit of its truth to them.

    Given this it is either incredibly short-sighted or delusional of you to believe that Christians only believe the Bible because the Bible says that it is true, or evil to accuse so. Are there people who claim to be Christian and believe as you say, perhaps, but not the majority and so this would qualify as shortsighted or worse.

  8. shematwater says:

    Spartacus

    Now you have exposed the double standard of most Christians that post online against the LDS.

    “AND because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit of its truth to them.”

    This is the same for us. I know Joseph Smith is not a fallen prophet (which is a perfect possibility) because of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit that he is a prophet. Yet, how many people on this very blog have ridiculed us for claiming such. It happens all the time. I said what I said based on what this blog claims and allows as evidence. I have been told so often that my personal testimony from the Holy Spirit does not count, so why should yours?

    “They THINK it is the word of God because of fulfilled prophecy”

    I believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the many fulfilled prophecies he has given.
    My reasoning is not as circular as you think, when I am allowed to use everything that I am basing my faith in. But I am rarely allowed to do so.

    Even as far as archeology, I have seen many things that reinforce my faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the church as God’s kingdom on earth. But, since most people here don’t except them I can’t use them.

    Joseph Smith was a prophet; evidenced by his many fulfilled prophecies, as well as many things he spoke about that were not even known to scholars at the time, but have since been discovered; but most importantly, because the Holy Ghost declares him to be a prophet. With all this evidence that he is a prophet, I am able to accept that God instructed him on what to included and what to exclude from the various publications he wrote.

    One last point “if God denounced the Bible for things removed from it, how could He then order JS to do the same”

    Answer this: If God had condemned human sacrifice, how could he command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
    How can God condemn killing, and yet command death as the punishment for a number of sins?

    You reason that if God condemned the removing of words from one book he would not command the removal of words in another. The problem here is that you do not consider the circumstances, only the action. He condemns men for removing parts of the Bible without his authorization. He never condemned a man for obeying Him.

  9. spartacus says:

    Shematwater,

    A good response, if inaccurate.

    You said:
    Now you have exposed the double standard of most Christians that post online against the LDS.

    “AND because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit of its truth to them.”

    This is the same for us. I know Joseph Smith is not a fallen prophet (which is a perfect possibility) because of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit that he is a prophet. Yet, how many people on this very blog have ridiculed us for claiming such. It happens all the time.

    Response: I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that the issue on this blog with LDS testimonies is that they seem to be the ONLY evidence. Just as we all know about the missionary lessons – they want you to read PART OF the BoM and then PRAY. There is no time for anything else. I am sure just about all here can agree that no one can be argued into salvation, not least of which because there is no complete proof. There is, however, evidence that substantiates the witnesses of the Gospel, which make it more likely and which, with study, can lead one to a responsible prayer for Truth and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. Its the difference between strict fideism and a reason/evidentiary/faith approach to truth.

    I am glad to hear that you have looked into the details.

    Shem said:
    I said what I said based on what this blog claims and allows as evidence. I have been told so often that my personal testimony from the Holy Spirit does not count, so why should yours?

    Response: I’m not sure what you are saying here. You said that you believe he is a prophet so you can believe anything he did was on command of God. If that is what this blog has reduced you to, then you may want to think again, or others here should who have more or less contributed to this view on your part.

    Shem:
    “They THINK it is the word of God because of fulfilled prophecy”

    I believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the many fulfilled prophecies he has given.
    My reasoning is not as circular as you think, when I am allowed to use everything that I am basing my faith in. But I am rarely allowed to do so.

    Even as far as archeology, I have seen many things that reinforce my faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the church as God’s kingdom on earth. But, since most people here don’t except them I can’t use them.

    Joseph Smith was a prophet; evidenced by his many fulfilled prophecies, as well as many things he spoke about that were not even known to scholars at the time, but have since been discovered; but most importantly, because the Holy Ghost declares him to be a prophet. With all this evidence that he is a prophet, I am able to accept that God instructed him on what to included and what to exclude from the various publications he wrote.

    Response:
    Again, I am glad you are not going simply on a reading and a prayer. If you think that you can’t use the evidence you have here on this blog, again I think you may need to reconsider or those who have contributed to this view of yours need to reconsider their actions. I suspect that, if you have used such evidence on this blog, perhaps it was your presentation, not your attempt at evidence that garnered criticism. After all, the posters here are all about relevant evidence and reason, well presented, thought out, and backed up with good sources.

    Shem:
    One last point “if God denounced the Bible for things removed from it, how could He then order JS to do the same”

    Answer this: If God had condemned human sacrifice, how could he command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
    How can God condemn killing, and yet command death as the punishment for a number of sins?

    You reason that if God condemned the removing of words from one book he would not command the removal of words in another. The problem here is that you do not consider the circumstances, only the action. He condemns men for removing parts of the Bible without his authorization. He never condemned a man for obeying Him.

    Response:
    We’ll stay focused on the topic, for now.

    A decent point on your part. But I am not just going by God’s judgement (of the corrupted Bible) and His commands (to Joseph), I am going by His own declarations – that His word would never pass away. If God says His word will never pass away, and condemns the removal of His word (whatever the assumed authorization or lack thereof), and is supposedly restoring what has been lost, AND if it is not necessary to remove His word but simply give a new, related revelation, AND claims to reveal things “line upon line” instead of “line OVER line”, THEN why would He ever command His word to be made “passed away”, without even a citation, in His Restoral, instead of just going “line upon line”?

    Lastly,
    The problem I see is that you are still arguing in a circle. To say that JS was justified in doing what otherwise looks like a corruption of scripture, because he was authorized of God, is to beg the question. “JS was a prophet, so it’s ok”, “JS was authorized of God, so it’s ok”, “God told JS to do it, so it’s ok” are all equivalent (a prophet is s.o. who is authorized and commanded by God) and begging the very question, “Was JS a true prophet of God?” In an argument that is designed to answer the question, you cannot, reasonably or effectively, reply “Yes he was” or “Because I believe he was”

    I understand you believe you have evidence. I would love to hear it from you in a logically sound and evidentially supported way. Until then this Standard Proof based on the DnC has left us only with your circular response and a claim to such evidence. Looking forward to your perseverence in presenting such evidence in such manner on posts in the future, for at least my appreciation.

    Sincerely,
    spartacus

  10. shematwater says:

    Spartacus

    ““Was JS a true prophet of God?” In an argument that is designed to answer the question, you cannot, reasonably or effectively, reply “Yes he was” or “Because I believe he was””

    And that brings us back to my first point. I can’t prove he was a prophet. That kind of proof is impossible, because it is a matter of faith. All I can assert is that he is a prophet, and because he is I have no problem excepting what he did.
    Simply put, if you do not have faith there is no way to explain this. It is impossible. I can show you some of the reasons why I believe him to be a prophet, but that proves nothing, and, especially in a setting such as this, it can be easily dismissed by those who have already convinced themselves he is not a prophet.
    For this reason I have no desire to try and prove that Joseph Smith is a prophet. It is a waste of time.

    “If you think that you can’t use the evidence you have here on this blog, again I think you may need to reconsider or those who have contributed to this view of yours need to reconsider their actions. ”

    Let us discuss fulfilled prophecy for a moment. I have, in the past, shown a number of prophecies given by Joseph Smith that have been fulfilled. In general I am either ignored or I am told that I don’t understand the prophecy, because it obviously wasn’t fulfilled. I cannot give specifics at this time, as prophecy has not come up recently, and I have no desire to go back through the archives of this blog. However, since you have asked for some evidence, I will give you an example.

    D&C 87: 1-5
    “Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
    And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
    For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
    And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
    And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.”

    Consider the detail of this prophecy, and just how accurate it really is. The wars that would cover the earth in the last days would begin with the rebellion of South Caroline. It was this rebellion that started the Civil War, and since that time that has scarce been a day when there was not some war being fought somewhere in the world.
    It also accurately shows that the Southern states would divide against the Northern states, which is exactly how the Civil War was fought. But, beyond this, it states that the South would call on Great Britain for aid. This they did during the Civil War.
    Then we see that Great Britain would eventually call on other nations to help defend it, which first occurred in World War One, and later in World War Two. These two great wars fulfill the prophecy that “and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.”
    The slaves rising up against their masters can be seen in conflicts around the world. Slavery was not ended in much of the world until well into the 20th Century, and the prejudice of even the America’s carried on for the majority of that century. The Civil Rights movement would be part of this.
    The last part of this speaks of the remnants marshaling themselves and vexing the gentiles. The Gentiles are the nations of Europe who do not have a direct and unbroken line through Abraham. The remnants are the natives of various lands. This is foretelling that the colonizing of the various European powers would be brought to an end. This happened in India rebelling against Great Britain, or the nations of South America rebelling against other European powers. Australia’s independence is part of this as well.

    This very brief prophecy is a blueprint for the political world of the twentieth century. It is an incredibly simple and yet detailed prophecy of what was to happen over the next two centuries, and it has been fulfilled to the letter. Yet I have seen dozen of people claim that this is a false prophecy because they try to make it all fit into the time frame of the Civil War only; and then they ignore me when I try to show them the truth of what is being said.

    As I have said, the evidence is there, but because people reject it as evidence I have very little to work with.

  11. Kate says:

    shem,
    This section of the D&C was not a true prophecy, Joseph Smith took this from his surroundings and what was going on at the time. Most people then knew that a war between the North and the South was most likely going to happen. A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff of 1828 and the tariff of 1832 when South Carolina passed nullification laws. Notice how British manufacturers were also hurt by the tariff of 1828.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1832

    Once again, Joseph Smith took from his surroundings. I hate to be the one to tell you this but wars didn’t start with the Civil War, there have always been wars.

  12. Rick B says:

    Kate said

    I hate to be the one to tell you this but wars didn’t start with the Civil War, there have always been wars.

    Shem said he has read the Bible from Cover to cover, so either He lied, or he forgot what the Bible said, Jesus told us that there will be wars, and nation will rise against Nation.

    So for JS to make that claim, all he did was recite what the Bible tells us already.

  13. shematwater says:

    Spartacus

    You see my point. I think Kate and Rick illustrated perfectly what I was talking about.

    Kate

    I am sure that the tariff perfectly predicted the need for England to call on allies for defense, as happened in World War One. I am sure that all the wars in the past engulfed all the world as well, just as Joseph Smith said they would. And of course the ending of the Colonizing powers through native uprising was also perfectly predicted by the atmosphere of the United States at this time.
    You are ignoring the greater portion of the revelation so that you can reason away a small part and claim it as false, just as I said people due.

    Oh, and while wars always existed, they have never existed in the magnitude that they have since the Civil War. I still recall a new broadcast that celebrated the first day of world peace since that great war, as it was the first time that there was no war being fought anywhere. This scale of warfare was unheard of before the Civil War.

    Rick

    The Bible is not as specific on how the wars would develop or where they would start.

  14. grindael says:

    So, no one can give you an answer about the Civil War Prophecy. Here is a detailed one. Sorry for the length, but it’s necessary to show how false this “prophecy” really is.

    Shem: Consider the detail of this prophecy, and just how accurate it really is. The wars that would cover the earth in the last days would begin with the rebellion of South Caroline. It was this rebellion that started the Civil War, and since that time that has scarce been a day when there was not some war being fought somewhere in the world.

    When do “the last days” start? What evidence do you have that they start in 1865? This is a great fallacy of believing that the Civil War was the war to start the wars of the last days. If you look at what was going on in the world, the Civil War was just another war. LOL, There has “scarce been a day” since the TIME OF CHRIST that this wasn’t the case.

    (You’re on the right track Kate) Here is a list of all the wars since the time of Christ:

    Ancient Roman Wars

    264 – 241 BC First Punic War
    218 – 202 BC Second Punic War
    149 – 146 BC Third Punic War
    215 BC 197 BC 168 BC Macedonian Wars
    91 – 88 BC – Social War
    82 – 81 BC – Sulla’s civil war
    58 BC – 50 BC Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars
    49 – 45 BC – Caesar’s civil war
    48 BC Battle of Pharsalus
    31 BC Battle of Actium
    291 – 306 War of the Eight Princes in China
    533 – 534 Vandal Wars

    Medieval European wars

    1096 – 1291 Crusades
    1337 – 1453 Hundred Years’ War
    1420 – 1436 Hussite Wars
    1455 – 1485 Wars of the Roses
    1454 – 1466 Thirteen Years’ War. Between Poland and Teutonic Knights, which finally broke the power of the latter.

    Pike and Shot

    1568 – 1648 Eighty Years’ War (war of Dutch independence)
    1588 Defeat of the Spanish Armada
    1618 – 1648 Thirty Years’ War across Europe, ends with the Peace of Westphalia.
    1639 – 1652 English Civil War
    1648 – 1660 The Deluge/Northern War, A series of wars involving Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Russia and Transylvania and Denmark
    1652 – 1654 First Anglo-Dutch War
    1664 – 1667 Second Anglo-Dutch War including the capture of New Amsterdam, renamed New York City
    1672 – 1674 Third Anglo-Dutch War
    1672 – 1678 Franco-Dutch War
    1680 – 1684 Fourth Anglo-Dutch War
    1689 – 1698 War of the Grand Alliance
    1700 – 1721 Great Northern War between a coalition of Denmark/Norway, Russia and Saxony/Poland on one side and Sweden on the other side
    1710 – 1711 Russo-Turkish War, 1710-11, a part of the Great Northern War
    1702 – 1713 Queen Anne’s War The North American part of the War of Spanish Succession
    1701 – 1714 War of Spanish Succession
    1736 – 1739 Russo-Turkish War, 1736-39
    1739 – 1742 War of Jenkins’ Ear
    1740 – 1742 1st Silesian War
    1744 – 1748 King George’s War The North American part of the War of Austrian Succession
    1740 – 1748 War of the Austrian Succession
    1744 – 1745 2nd Silesian War
    1756 – 1763 Seven Years’ War, known as the French and Indian War in the United States, and also 3rd Silesian War
    1754 – 1763 French and Indian War or the Seven Years’ War
    1768 – 1774 Russo-Turkish War, 1768-74
    1775 – 1781 American Revolutionary War
    1787 – 1792 Russo-Turkish War, 1787-92
    1792 War in defence of the constitution
    1789 – 1815 French Revolutionary Wars / Napoleonic Wars
    Battle of Trafalgar 1805
    Battle of Waterloo 1815

    Age of Rifles
    1806 – 1812 Russo-Turkish War, 1806-12
    1808 – 1809 The Finnish War between Russia and Sweden wherein Sweden cedes Finland to Russia
    1812 – 1814 War of 1812 fought between the United States and Great Britain, and part of the greater war between Great Britain and France
    1821 – 1829 Greek War of Independence
    1828 – 1829 Russo-Turkish War, 1828-29
    1830 – 1831 Polish-Russian war following November Uprising
    1835 Toledo War between US territory of Michigan and the US state of Ohio
    1839 – 1842 First Anglo-Afghan War
    1843 – 1872 Several Maori Land Wars in New Zealand
    1846 – 1848 Mexican War between the United States and Mexico
    1848 – 1849 Hungarian Revolt of 1848 waged by Hungary against Austria and later Russia
    1848 – 1851 First war of Schleswig
    1850 – 1865 Taiping Rebellion
    1854 – 1856 Crimean War.
    1857 – 1901 Caste War of Yucatán
    1859 – 1860 Italian Independence War

    These wars “covered the earth”. And they went on into the twentieth century, just like they had been going on in the nineteenth century, and the one before that, and the one before that, since the time of Christ. One important thing to note here is that Smith’s prophecy says “after this war shall be poured out on all nations”. Mormons then point to WWI. But Smith didn’t say that war would be poured out on all nations SIMULTANEOUSLY. We can see that war had already been poured out on all nations.

  15. grindael says:

    But let’s look at the specifics of Smith’s prophecy, and how it was interpreted by later Mormon “prophets”. They got it wrong, just as Jo Smith did.

    Shem: It also accurately shows that the Southern states would divide against the Northern states, which is exactly how the Civil War was fought.

    Many already knew that in 1832 this was coming, and ACCURATELY PREDICTED IT. More than one person at that time said so. John C. Calhoun, a senator from South Carolina, feared Northern interference in the affairs of the southern states. Although he opposed secession, Calhoun did argue that the southern states could protect their interests by nullifying acts by the Federal government they considered to be unconstitutional.

    The election over, General Jackson once more chosen, her party ties broken, her principles of opposition still unsanctioned and untested, South Carolina proceeded with her radical programme of redress. On the 24th of November (1832) a state convention, summoned for the purpose and formed upon the model of a constitutional convention, adopted and promulgated a formal Ordinance of Nullification, which declared the tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 null and void and without force of law within the jurisdiction of South Carolina, and gave solemn warning to the rest of the country that any attempt on the part of the federal government to enforce the nullified laws within her limits would sever South Carolina’s connection with the Union and force her to organize a separate government. The legislature of the State immediately took steps looking towards a resumption of some of the powers before formally surrendered to the Union, and provided for putting the State in readiness to resist coercion by force of arms. Mr. Hayne was recalled from Washington to become governor of the State; and Mr. Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to take his place upon the floor of the Senate, that he might, there contest every inch of the ground in debate. (History of the American People, Vol.4, Pg.36 – Pg.37)

    The tension was bad enough between the north and the south over slavery, that even in 1820, John Quincy Adams (then Secretary of State) predicted civil war himself 12 years earlier than Joseph Smith. The following can be found in the L.D.S Collectors Library under the bonus title American History, “An apprehensive view of the Missouri compromise”:

    THE Missouri Compromise was the first of the great measures that followed the spirit of mutual accommodation found in the Constitution itself. It was an arrangement between the free and slave States, embodied in an Act of Congress approved March 6, 1820, which provided for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave State, but which prohibited slavery in all other Louisiana territory north of the southern boundary line of Missouri. Jefferson betrays both apprehension and alarm for the future of the Union, in these three letters written in 1820. It is the Southern view of a lukewarm slave holder. Following it is the Northern view taken from the journal of John Quincy Adams, then (1820) Secretary of State. His prophecy of civil war, in the third paragraph, was fulfilled in 1861. Niles, whose moderate view follows, founded (1815) and edited “Niles’ Weekly Register,” the files of which are an invaluable record of contemporary events. (AUTHOR: Thomas Jefferson DATE: 1820 SOURCE: America, Vol.5, Pg.305)

    Here is John Quincy Adam’s diary entry for February 24, 1820, who had a conversation with Calhoun about a future Civil War & what would come after:

    I called at Calhoun’s office . . .. [After discussing other matters,] I also had some conversation with Calhoun on the slave question pending in Congress. He said he did not think it would produce a dissolution of the Union, but if it should the South would be from necessity compelled to form an alliance offensive and defensive with Great Britain. I said that would be returning to the colonial state; he said yes, pretty much; but it would be forced upon them.

    I asked him whether he thought, if by the effect of this alliance offensive and defensive, the population of the north should be cut off from its natural outlet upon the ocean, it would fall back upon its rocks bound hand and foot to starve, or whether it would not retain its powers of locomotion, to move southward by land. Then he said they would find it necessary to make their communities all military.

    I pressed the conversation no further, but if the dissolution of the Union should result from the slave question, it is as obvious as any thing that can be foreseen of futurity, that it must shortly afterwards be followed by the universal emancipation of the slaves. A more remote but perhaps not less certain consequence would be the extirpation of the African race on this continent, by the gradually bleaching process of intermixture; where the white portion is already so predominant, and by the destructive progress of emancipation, which like all great religious and political reformations is terrible in its means though happy and glorious in its end.

    Slavery is the great and foul stain upon the North American Union; and it is a contemplation worthy of the most exalted soul, whether its total abolition is or is not practicable. If practicable, by what means it may be effected, and if a choice of means be within the scope of the object, what means would accomplish it, at the smallest cost of human sufferance. A dissolution at least temporary of the Union as now constituted would be certainly necessary, and the dissolution must be upon a point involving the question of slavery and no other. The union might then be reorganized, on the fundamental principle of emancipation. This object is vast in its compass, awful in its prospects, sublime and beautiful in its issue. A life devoted to it would be nobly spent or sacrificed.

    This conversation with Calhoun led me into a momentous train of reflection. It also engaged me so much that I detained him at his office, insensibly to myself till near five O’clock, an hour at least, later than his dining time.

    This remarkable observation by Adams was dead on. (Even about the mixture of the races, and how terrible things would be as this took place.) He is much more accurate than Smith and the Mormons ever were, and he never claimed to be a prophet!You see where the connection with Great Britain comes from? They were well aware of this as far back as 1820. It didn’t take a prophet to figure out that the South would call on Great Britain for help.

    Four days before Smith’s D. & C. 87 prophecy, on December 21, 1832 the Painsville [Ohio] Telegraph and Geauga Free Press printed excerpts from “The Crisis,” an article in the New York Currier and Enquirer. That article predicted that a war between the Northern and Southern states would soon begin in South Carolina. It gave some of the same warnings as Smith’s prophecy. Was that secular newspaper writer a prophet? Painsville is adjacent to Kirtland, OH, where Smith was living. Since the Painsville newspaper article was already in circulation when Smith’s prophecy was given, it seems likely that it “inspired” his prophecy. Thus, when the content of D. & C.87 is carefully examined along with the historical setting, it is not the great prophecy that LDS claim it is. (Thanks to Sandra Tanner)

  16. grindael says:

    Shem: But, beyond this, it states that the South would call on Great Britain for aid. This they did during the Civil War.

    So what? Again, this was not anything that wasn’t speculated about, and even prophesied about by others. Ellen G. White prophesied that the South would call on, and get aid from Great Britain too.

    “I was shown that if the object of this war had been to exterminate slavery, then, if desired, England would have helped the North. But England fully understands the existing feelings in the Government, and that the war is not to do away slavery, but merely to preserve the Union; and it is not for her interest to have it preserved.—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 258.

    The D&C says,

    and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

    What “other nations” did the South call on besides Great Britain? (Nations is plural) Who did Great Britain call upon to defend themselves against at this time? NO ONE. War was already “poured out” on all nations. (Read the list above) so this isn’t great guesswork on Smith’s part.

    Shem wrote: Then we see that Great Britain would eventually call on other nations to help defend it, which first occurred in World War One, and later in World War Two. These two great wars fulfill the prophecy that “and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.”

    What? Do you even know how World War I Started? It had nothing to do with Great Britain. Great Britain was one of the nations that voluntarily entered the war. They were not attacked by the Germans first, Germany invaded Belgium and Great Britain had a treaty with Belgium and entered the war directly because of this action. Great Britain did not call upon anyone for help. (Help was offered them by the U.S.) Even after German atrocities in Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania that killed over 100 Americans, America did not enter the war. The Germans knew that they would, because of unrestricted German U-boat (submarine) attacks. Germany then sent a letter to Mexico, telling them they would give them aid if they would ally with them against the U.S. This was the direct cause of the U.S. entering World War I.

    The problem is, is that Smith was talking about Great Britain at the time of the Civil War, not 50 years later. It is easy to put prophecy into general terms and then say “see” it was fulfilled hundreds of years later. But that’s not the way it works.

    Ezekiel 12:25 “For I am the LORD. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it,” says the Lord GOD.”‘

    Even Joseph Smith was so unsure about this prophecy that he did not include it in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, because what he predicted had not come to pass, South Carolina backed off until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, 28 years later. This prophecy was not canonized until 1876, over 10 years after the Civil War started.

  17. grindael says:

    Shem said: The slaves rising up against their masters can be seen in conflicts around the world. Slavery was not ended in much of the world until well into the 20th Century, and the prejudice of even the America’s carried on for the majority of that century. The Civil Rights movement would be part of this.

    This is so general that it could be anything and applied to anyone. But Mormon “prophets” and “apostles” give us the answer as to what Smith was speaking about. It is quite interesting that the Mormons sat out the Civil War hoping against hope that America would destroy itself, and then Young could become President as Heber C. Kimball blathered on about a few days before Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Kimball even boasted that it was “foreordained” that he would be Vice-President. Obviously delusional, this was the same bunch of “prophets” that predicted that the South would win the war, and that slavery would never be abolished because it was a “divine institution.” History has shown the results of Mormon prophecy. They get driven from one state to another, because decent people couldn’t stand their wicked practices and megalomaniacal aspirations for the country, and then frame it all as prophecy.

    “Prophet” Young during the middle of the Civil War would declare,

    “Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands. According to accounts, in all probability not less than one million men, from twenty to forty years of age, have gone to the silent grave in this useless war, in a little over two years, and all to gratify the caprice of a few—I do not think I have a suitable name for them, shall we call them abolitionists, slaveholders, religious bigots, or political aspirants? Call them what you will, they are wasting away each other, and it seems as though they will not be satisfied until they have brought universal destruction and desolation upon the whole country. It appears as though they would destroy every person; perhaps they will, but I think they will not.” (http://jod.mrm.org/10/248#250)

    Your “prophets” understood slaves rising up against their masters to be the slaves at the time of the Civil War. This is clear by their statements. They predicted the entire destruction of the United States, beginning with the Civil War. Wilford Woodruff called himself a “prophetic historian” and predicted (wrongly, as usual) at the beginning of the conflict between the States:

    “The foundation has been laid during the year 1860 To break up & annihilate the American Government and the scenes which will follow in quick succession will be terrible & horrible in their detail. This Nation is guilty of sheding the Blood of the Lords anointed, of his Prophets & Saints and the Lord Almighty has decreed their destruction. The Lord has Commenced a Controversy with the American Government and Nation in 1860 and he will never cease untill they are destroyed from under heaven, and the Kingdom of God Esstablished upon their ruins. Let the Gentiles upon this land prepare to meet their God.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 529, December 31, 1860)

    Young was so confident that the South would win, he made this totally laughable prediction,

    “The South are better prepaired & much faster than the North are. Lincoln has taken a Course to rather keep the North back. But the Curse of God will be upon the Nation and they will have Enough of it. The Rulers possess no Power in the Land. They have persecuted the Saints of God and the Rulers would do nothing for us but all they Could against us and they will now get their pay for it.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 570, April 27, 1861)

    At the end of 1861 “prophetic historian” Woodruff crows about his “prediction” that it would be a bloody year for America (and who couldn’t have made that prediction with a Civil War eminent?)

    “This is the last day of 1861 which has past and gone and borne its report to heaven of the deeds of all Nations and men. This year has brought to pass much of the fulfillment of the predictions of the Ancient and Modern Prophets of God. See this Journal Jan 1st 1861. I there declaired as a Prophetic Historian that this year would be the most distressing year America Ever saw since they were an independant Nation. Time has proven it so.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 615, December 31, 1861)

    Woodruff then gives a big dose of the rhetoric they were pounding the “saints” with, even in the wake of Mountain Meadows:

    “The American Nation as a United States Government is doomed To destruction and No power Can save it. They have forfeited all right and title to Redemption or Salvation at the Hand of the Lord or his Saints. It is decreed that the measure which they have meeted out unto the Saints shall be meeted unto them and they are hastening unto there work of desolation, war, Bloodshed, & destruction and wo, wo, is ther doom. The spirit of Prophecy would Cry O, Lord, Hasten thy work. Let the wicked slay the wicked untill the whole land is Clensed from the Corruption, sin, abomination, and wickedness which now reigns upon the face of the whole Earth. May thy Judgments Continue to be poured out upon this land of North America untill [p.617] the Blood of Prophets & Saints is avenged before the Lord and thy words fulfilled upon the Land of Joseph. Take away the sceptre rule and Government from the wicked & Corrupt and give it into the Hands of the Just even thy Saints, that they may rule in righteousness before thee. Give thy oppressed people O Lord the privilege of appointing there own Governor, Judges, and Rulers, from this time forth that thy Kingdom may be Esstablished upon the Earth, and the poor rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 616, December 31, 1861)

    But none of this came to pass, and today we are the America that the Mormon “prophets” never foresaw. In 1862, Woodruff again claims that

    “the Lord will Continue to weaken this Nation untill they are broaken to peaces and Cast down to rise no more forever. The Lord has Commenced a Controvery with the Gentiles upon this Continent and He will never scease untill they are broaken up & destroyed. The Historian will have much material for History during this year.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.3, January 1, 1862)

    But not what “the Historian” thinks. Woodruff then reveals the Mormons plans, to set up their own “government” to take the place of the American government:

    “All the people were ripe for the organization of a State Governmet. The Heavens, the Earth the Holy Spirit & the people were all ready for this work. Our Fathers who made the declaration of independance and formed the American Constitution was inspired to lay the foundation of a Free and independant Government and the Lord protected them in it. But they did not know that they were inspired to do it. There was a veil over them that they did not know what the purposes of the Lord were or that he was protecting them. It is not so with us. We know that God is leading us and is inspiring his people to Esstablish his Kingdom & Governmet upon the Earth & we know it.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.6, January 5, 1862)

    A few days later, Young gives a speech and calls all of America “traitors” and that the former President should have been hung,

    “We have got a Government and what are they going to do about it? If the Constitution has been Carried out it would have hung President Buchannan and all who were associated with him in making war upon us.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.11, January 22, 1862)

    Woodruff again mentions to a group of “saints” the purpose of Mormonism on February 12:

    “I need not tell you that this is the kingdom of God, Esstablished by God Himself which is to take the place of all other kingdoms upon Earth and we are the People Ordained of God to Esstablish his kingdom upon the Earth, build up Zion and prepare the way for the Coming of Jesus Christ.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.22)

    Woodruff then tells the “saints” and the 12 apostles,

    “At all times when you assemble in the capacity of a Council to transact business let the eldest preside and let one or more be appointed to keep a record of your proceedings. And on the decision of Every important decision item let it be what it may let such decision be noted own and they will ever afterwords remain upon record as LAW, Covenant, & doctrin.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.23, February 12, 1862)

    Woodruff then goes on to say how important his “sacred history” was, and that it was like “testaments” of the original apostles of Jesus:

    “I have written more sacred History of the teaching of the prophets & Apostles & official acts of the Latter day Saints than would make several Testiments as large as the one Handed down to us by the Ancient Apostles. I have kept a Journal of almost Evry day of my life since I have been a member of [p.24] this Church. By refering to my Journals I Could tell Each day what I have done, the Company I have been in, and what was transpiring around me, and any Council and Teaching From the Presidency or Twelve Except whare I know there were reporters recording the same.” (ibid, page 23-24)

    But the testaments of the apostles of Jesus weren’t filled with hatred, vanity and false prophecy. (Ok, maybe a little vanity by James & John)

    Brigham Young was so delusional that he got up in a legislative assembly of his shadow Deseret government and said,

    “The Constitution does not give the Congress of the United States power to govern the people in a Territory any more than in a State Capacity. They have the power to admit States but not to form there government or send officers to rule over them.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.41, April 14, 1862)

    In August on 1862 Young mentions the return to Jackson County, in front of the Salt Lake Temple:

    “If we do not Hurry with this I am afraid we shall not get it up untill we have to go back to Jackson County which I Expet will be in 7 years. I do not want to quite finish this Temple for there will not be any Temple finished untill the One is finished in Jackson County Missouri pointed out by Joseph Smith. Keep this a secret to yourselves lest some may be discouraged. Some things we should keep to ourselves.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.71)

    Wilford said much in his journals about Smith’s south Carolina “prophecy”, but added some things that Smith told him at the end of 1863:

    “Thus Ends the year 1863. Joseph the Prophet said whoever lived to see 1860 would live to See the Commencement of the downfall of the United States. The Union was dissolved in 1860 & Civel war Commenced which has raged Ever since & the Land is beginning to be bathed in Blood & will Continue untill the words of the Prophet will be fulfilled. It is an important age of the world, and the Events of Each year are rapidly fullfilling the words of all Prophets since the world Began.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.143, December 31, 1863)

    Smith’s South Carolina “prophecy” was a good guess, but wrong. War was not “poured out upon all nations” (any more than it already was) and the United States had no “downfall”. With the ravages of the Civil War, came Sherman’s march and the destruction of many innocents in Missouri, which was pure delight to Woodruff, and a “great miracle” that shows this pseudo-apostle’s lust for blood and revenge:

    “The Lord is watching over the interest of Zion and sustaining his kingdom upon the Earth and Preparing the way for the return of his Saints to Jackson County Mo to build up the waste places of Zion. Jackson County have been Entirely Cleared of its inhabitants during the year 1863 Which is one of the greatest miracles manifest in our day. And those who have driven the Saints out of Missouri & spoiled them are in there turn now driven out and spoiled and there is much distress throughout all the land whare the saints have been persecuted. And the judgments of God will Continue upon the whole Nation untill the Blood of the prophets is avenged.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.148, January 1, 1864)

    At the end of the war, in 1865 Woodruff quotes Brigham Young’s personal “prophet” Heber C. Kimball stating:

    “Brother Kimball said that President Lincoln would be in the presidential Chair untill He had destroyed the Nation. The North will never have power to Crush the South No never. The Lord will give the South power to fight the North untill they will destroy Each other.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.216, March 6, 1865)

    As we see, nothing these “prophets” said came to pass. Lincoln was assassinated a few months later. The North preserved the Union, and “the Lord” didn’t give the South power to fight the North until America was destroyed, which these men were greatly anticipating, so they could set up their own Kingdom with Young as President.

  18. grindael says:

    Shem: The last part of this speaks of the remnants marshaling themselves and vexing the gentiles. The Gentiles are the nations of Europe who do not have a direct and unbroken line through Abraham. The remnants are the natives of various lands. This is foretelling that the colonizing of the various European powers would be brought to an end. This happened in India rebelling against Great Britain, or the nations of South America rebelling against other European powers. Australia’s independence is part of this as well.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. This was about the “remnant” the leftover “Lamanites” that would destroy the Gentiles in America so they could build the New Jerusalem . This didn’t happen. In fact, Brigham Young says that the Mormons would use the Indians to fight the Gentiles,

    Also said all the govornors & Presidents of the U.S.A Had rejected all our petitions from first to last. That when the Saints were driven from Illinois & perrish as it were on the Prairies then President Polk sends for a draft of 500 men to go into the Army. [Mormon Battalion] What for? That they might be entirely wasted away as A people. If the Brethren had not gone they would have made war upon us & the Gov of Mo would have been ordered not to have let us Cross the Missouri & the raising of the Battalion was our temporal Salvation at the time & said Polk would be damned for this act & that He with many of the goverment men had a hand in the death of Joseph & Hyram & that they should be damned for these things & if they ever sent any men to interfere with us here they shall have there throats cut & sent to Hell. And with uplifted hand to Heaven swore by the Gods of Eternity that He would never cease His exhertion while He lived to make every preperation & avenge the blood of the Prophets & Saints. That He intended to have evry hole & corner from the Bay of Francisco to Hudson bay known to us And that our people would be connected with every tribe of Indians throughout America & that our people would yet take their squaws wash & dress them up teach them our language & learn them to labour & learn them the gospel of there forefathers & raise up children by them & teach the Children & not many generations Hence they will become A white & delightsome people & in no other way will it be done & that the time was nigh at hand when the gospel must go to that people to. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 3, p. 241)

    On August 26, 1857 Woodruff recorded,

    “President Young also said that the United States are driving this people to war sooner than is for their good for we are civilizing the Indians & if they would give us time we would give them a knowledge so that when they do fight the Gentiles that they would have some Judgment & not kill women & Children & those who ought not to be killed. “ (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 84)

    In September of that same year , two days (the 13th) after Mountain Meadows Massacre Young told Capt Van Vleit of the U.S. Army who had said to Young,

    “I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to take you but to instill a New Governor in this Territory.” [Which was exactly what happened]

    Woodruff recorded,

    President Young said I Believe that you tell the truth that you believe this but you do not know their intention as well as I do. When you get away from here you will think of a great many things which you have seen and heard. The people have all the time accused [us] of Colleagueing with the Indians against the Government & they were much afraid that Joseph Smith would go among the Indians & they watched to keep him away from them. But now they have driven us into their midst and now I want you to watch the signs of the times & you will see that God will work against that Nations who are trying to destroy both the Indians & Mormons. The Government has become [p.95] Corrupt & they are the ones who are breaking the Constitution of the United States & if it is ever saved it will be saved by the Mormons who are the Elders of Israel. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 95)

    Of course the U.S. Government never needed to be “saved” by the Mormons. But that didn’t stop them from preaching it’s destruction. Again, in that same conversation with Van Vleit Young said,

    The intention of the Government is to destroy us & this we are determin they shall not do. If the government of the United States perish in sending Armies to destroy us in the name of the Lord we shall Conquer them. If the Government Calls for volunteers in Calafornia & the people turn out to come to destroy us they will find their own buildings in flames before [p.97] they get far from home & so throughout the United States. Again if they Commence the war I shall not hold the Indians Still by the fist any longer for white men to shoot at them but I shall let them go ahead & do as they please and I shall Carry the war into their own land and they will want to let out the Job before they get half through.
    (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 97)

    Young then said,

    And even should an Armey of 50,000 men get into this valley when they got here they would find nothing but a Barren waste. We should burn evry thing that was wood & evry acre of grass that would burn and you may tell them that they must bring with them their forage for their [ ] and muls for they will not find any thing to eat in this Territory when they come. Again you may tell them they must stop all emigration across this Continent for they Cannot tread in safety. The Indians will kill all that attempt it. You may tell Judge Douglass that when He Comes here again to enter into a treaty of peace we shall dictate those terms of peace & not him as He did before. Capt Van Vleit said that if Our Government pushed forward this thing & made war upon us He should withdraw from the Army for he would not have a hand in sheding the blood of American Citizens. After closing His remarks Presidet Young said God had set up his kingdom upon the Earth & it was here & the Lord would sustain that kingdom & he would destroy all that fought against it And if the Armies of the United [States] Came against us the Lord would permit them to be destroyed. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 97)

    A few days later, (Sept. 16) Woodruff wrote,

    It is Cold to day. I spent the day in the office. Some indians called upon President Young. The Chief of the Bannocks was among them. Brother Hamlin was here with the Chief of the D[esert?] Pi[edes?] Totsigauah. He was ordained an Elder. He called to see me & my garden. I gave him some peaches & peach pitts to take home & plant. Presidet Young said He w[anted/ished?] the Elders to marry the squaws of the Tribes to fulfill the commandment of God &c. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 98)

    On January 9, 1858 Woodruff wrote a prophecy by Heber C. Kimball,

    In company with Brother G. A. Smith I called upon President Heber C Kimball who had been sick for several days with the Quincy. He was able to set up. We conversed for some 3 Hours. He said that United States would not go down vary spedily but gradually and we would be held up as a target or as an Ensign for the Kings and Nations of the Earth to look at from time to time. And he was satisfied that the indians would do their rough work in a great measure before they embraced the gospel. Many remarks were made.

    This is what Smith meant in his “prophecy” and these men knew it. It has nothing to do with the Gentiles vexing the Gentiles, it has to do with the “remnants of the House of Israel” doing so. Please read one of your own scholars who understands Mormon doctrine far better than you do.

    The Civil War wasn’t the punishment of the fictional Mormon God on a sinful nation, it was the result of a group of men standing firm for the rights of the oppressed, something far beyond the contemplation of despots like Brigham Young and his chosen “apostles”. The Lamanites did not rise up, and the “saints” did not go back to Jackson County as Young predicted, even though they delighted in the destruction and the suffering of the people there.

    It wasn’t “the Kingdom of God or nothing”, it was more like compromise to survive, and the American Government proved to be too powerful for the “Kingdom”, (in the face of all their “prophecies” and blather) and they were forced to jettison their false timeline of world domination by the end of the 19th century, the polygamy, (as another “prophet” Joseph F. Smith committed perjury before the same Government he thought would be destroyed) and finally – holding on as long as they could (and with the threat of a Justice Department investigation) – their white supremacy doctrine.

  19. grindael says:

    Shem said: This very brief prophecy is a blueprint for the political world of the twentieth century. It is an incredibly simple and yet detailed prophecy of what was to happen over the next two centuries, and it has been fulfilled to the letter. Yet I have seen dozen of people claim that this is a false prophecy because they try to make it all fit into the time frame of the Civil War only; and then they ignore me when I try to show them the truth of what is being said.

    Nah. Rob Bowman wrote,

    Looking back 150 years after the beginning of the Civil War, it is understandable that some hearing that Joseph Smith had predicted the conflict 28 years earlier, even naming the State where the war would begin, would find this prediction to be an impressive fulfillment of prophecy. However, familiarity with the historical situation in Joseph Smith’s time leads to a different conclusion. While there were tensions generally between the southern “slave” States and the northern States, none of the southern States besides South Carolina was on a clear, aggressive path toward cessation from the Union. For four years before Joseph’s prophecy, the people of South Carolina had been debating how to respond to federally imposed tariffs that they felt hit their State’s economy particularly hard. Those who argued for “nullification” (the State’s right to reject a federal law ) had gained control of State politics by 1832, and in November—just one month before Joseph’s prophecy—held a “Nullification Convention” in which South Carolina formally declared the tariffs unconstitutional and threatened cessation if the federal government attempted to use force to collect the tariffs. This was all “front page news” throughout the United States in late 1832, and the possibility of a war between the northern and southern States with South Carolina’s “rebellion” as the flashpoint was widely recognized. Prediction in 1832 of such a war is not even evidence of extraordinary human prescience, let alone divine inspiration.

    On MRM’s great website they write,

    Despite these warning signs, some insist that as early as 1832 no one but Joseph Smith could have known that the United States could be plunged into a civil war. The fact is, not far from Smith’s Kirtland, Ohio headquarters, a newspaper called the Painesville Telegraph printed a story from the New York Courier and Enquirer entitled “The Crisis.” [link above] The article spoke of the “probabilities of dismemberment” stemming from discontent in South Carolina and Georgia over states rights. It is interesting to note that the date of this article is Friday, December 21,1832, just four days before Smith received his alleged “prophecy.”

    Since nothing came about from this incident, some people might argue that Joseph Smith either jumped the prophetical gun or is predicting the wrong rebellion. “Mormons, on the other hand, insist that Smith was a prophet because war eventually broke out about 29 years later.

    I decided to go on a little internet hunt to see if this had been done by anyone recently. I focused on the country of Syria. I was not suprised when I found this article (A Special Report on the re-election of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father) written in 1992 (20 years ago) that included a prediction by a Syrian national of a future Civil War. The article reads,

    “Although most Syrians refused to comment on the rallies or the election, one man proudly declared, “You have nothing like this in your country-you don’t have this kind of unity.”

    Such unity was less evident in Hama, the site of a brutal crackdown by the Assad regime in 1982. Hama is a stronghold of Sunni Muslims, who make up the majority of Syria’s 11 to 12 million people. Assad and most top government and military officials are members of Syria’s Alawite minority which makes up between 10 and 12 percent of the population.

    The 1982 revolt in Hama by Sunni Muslim Islamists against the secular Assad regime left as many as 25,000 people dead, according to Amnesty International. Assad’s brother, Rifaat, unleashed tanks on the ancient part of the city, leveling most of it. Hama’s top soil is still filled with chunks of concrete from houses that were bulldozed in the crackdown.

    Election rallies in Hama appeared to be better organized but less well attended than in other Syrian cities. Groups of young men, led by an older man waving a sword, paraded through the streets each night, but few Hama residents joined the chants. Instead, they stared in silence as the procession passed.

    Although most people in Hama refused to speak with me, one Sunni Moslem told me the same thing I had heard from Sunnis in other cities. “There will be civil war,” he said, adding, “We Syrians are far away from our book [Qur’an].” He predicted fighting only after the 61-year-old Assad, who has a history of heart problems, dies.

    Hafez died six years later and his son assumed power in 2000. Twelve years later, we have a Civil War in Syria.

    Add a few more details about wars, (which we know are always going to happen), and you have a prophecy like Smiths. But the devil is in the details, and that is where Smith failed. But he still duped a lot of people into believing he was a prophet.

  20. grindael says:

    Shem: This scale of warfare was unheard of before the Civil War.

    Keep deluding yourself Shem. The Battle of Baghdad in 1258 had 2,100,000+ casualties, including civilians. The Civil War had maybe half that. And be sure to look at all the other battles up to the Civil War.

  21. Kate says:

    grindael,
    Awesome. I have to admit that patience is not one of my virtues. I don’t have the patience to respond with tons of details, but your responses are so good and I’m glad you do have the patience to post them :)

    shem,
    I think grindael has more than covered what I was saying, the only thing I can add is that you want me to get this:

    “The last part of this speaks of the remnants marshaling themselves and vexing the gentiles. The Gentiles are the nations of Europe who do not have a direct and unbroken line through Abraham. The remnants are the natives of various lands. This is foretelling that the colonizing of the various European powers would be brought to an end. This happened in India rebelling against Great Britain, or the nations of South America rebelling against other European powers. Australia’s independence is part of this as well.”

    Out of this:
    And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.”

    It’s not happening. You put too much into these sentences and you have done that with the whole prophecy. You’ve added your opinion and speculation to it.

  22. shematwater says:

    Spartacus

    I think Grindael and Kate have more than proven my point. What I gave is an accurate explanation as to the meaning of the Prophecy given by Joseph Smith. However, since people are determined to not believe they will come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim it was false. Thus it becomes impossible to claim such reasoning in a discussion with them, as I have already mentioned.

    Of course people do the same thing for the many prophecies in the Bible, are Christians ignore them. So, I am going to ignore all this, as it does not directly concern our discussion. Simply put, I see the fulfillment of prophecy, and I don’t care what others have to say about it. I have the testimony of the Spirit as to the truth of the matter, and that is more than enough for me.

  23. grindael says:

    I think Grindael and Kate have more than proven my point. What I gave is an accurate explanation as to the meaning of the Prophecy given by Joseph Smith. However, since people are determined to not believe they will come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim it was false. Thus it becomes impossible to claim such reasoning in a discussion with them, as I have already mentioned.

    Of course people do the same thing for the many prophecies in the Bible, are Christians ignore them. So, I am going to ignore all this, as it does not directly concern our discussion. Simply put, I see the fulfillment of prophecy, and I don’t care what others have to say about it. I have the testimony of the Spirit as to the truth of the matter, and that is more than enough for me.

    Shem, proven what point? That you don’t know much about history? That your “accurate explanation” of the meaning of Smith’s “prophecy” doesn’t fit the facts? And that you, like most other Mormons I have encountered can only, after being presented with the real facts, have to resort to the word “twist”. You live in a bubble. A factless bubble. Never mind that your interpretation is full of holes, inaccurate historical data, and a true lack of comprehension of Mormon Doctrine, you are still right in your little self absorbent bubble. It’s only impossible to have a reasoned discussion, because you can’t (as I have said time and again) present any evidence to support your claims.

    And if you would like to quote me some Bible Prophecies that you think we Christians ignore, I would relish the opportunity to do the same thing I did with Smith’s false prophecy, show that you don’t know what you are talking about.(But you won’t because that would entail having to have a reasoned discussion outside your factless bubble.) To have a testimony of the truth, you must know the truth. It’s obvious that you left it outside of your bubble.

  24. Kate says:

    shem,
    “However, since people are determined to not believe they will come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim it was false. Thus it becomes impossible to claim such reasoning in a discussion with them, as I have already mentioned.”

    Do you have any idea the heartache and turmoil I went through trying desperately to find truth in Mormonism? I suffered greatly for 3 years trying to prove it all true. Every subject I researched and studied showed that what I had been taught my whole life was a lie. Facts don’t lie but the LDS church sure did. I spent another year coming to grips with the lies I’d been taught. That’s 4 years of heartache, so I didn’t come to my decision “not to believe” lightly. I found all of my facts in the LDS church’s own publications. Facts that I refuse to twist, spin or put on a shelf.
    One thing I have learned from participating on this site is that Mormons will ignore all truth if it goes against what their church says TODAY. It doesn’t matter how many facts are given, Mormons ignore the truth.
    You can’t change history, grindael has shown you historical facts about this prophecy, wars and prophecies of your other prophets pertaining to this one. I have to think that you didn’t even read anything he posted. Yes I know it was long, but it was so worth the read.
    You gave a detailed post about what this prophecy means, if you could just post some evidence from your leaders to back up what you said, that would be greatly appreciated.

  25. shematwater says:

    Grindael

    Maybe you should listen to my words so that you can understand them. I never once said that Christians ignore prophecy. I said that many non-Christians can come up with very logical reasons as to why many of the prophecies in the Bible were not fulfilled, and yet Christians will ignore all these reasons because they believe the prophecy was. Thus, in following that example, since I know this prophecy was fulfilled, I am perfectly fine with ignoring all your logical reasons as to how it wasn’t.
    Please get this strait.

    Kate

    I am not in the mood to discuss prophecy right now. I gave what I did as a courtesy to Spartacus, and that is all. You have proven my point in that I cannot discuss these things as evidence for my faith for the simple reason that you have already rejected them and thus you will always ignore it. You have proven that time and again, as have most non-LDS on these blogs.

  26. grindael says:

    Shem said:

    Of course people do the same thing for the many prophecies in the Bible, are Christians ignore them.

    How do you “listen” to written words? Of course, I can COMPREHEND your words, and I did so correctly, because the words Christians ignore them, follow prophecies in the Bible. And there is not one word about non-Christians in that sentence, or your paragraph, you only say “people”. Plus, if you want to convey your message with accuracy, touch up on your grammar. And of course you ignore the truth, you’ve been doing that ever since you came to this site. Again, you put forth your whacko opinions, then you are given evidence you are wrong, and you ignore it, or find some other trivial reason for not continuing the conversation because you can’t rebut the simple evidence provided. Stay in your bubble, it’s where you belong.

  27. shematwater says:

    Grindael

    Are you so ignorant that you really cannot grasp the English language enough to understand what I am saying? Or is it that you have to grasp at anything you possibly can to try and discredit what I say?

    You give only one sentence from my post, and thus you ignore the entire context of that sentence and try to make something out of it that was never there.
    The subject of my post was your insistence that we dismiss this prophecy as being fulfilled. That is the context of the one sentence you quote.
    I said in the first paragraph “However, since people are determined to not believe they will come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim it was false. Thus it becomes impossible to claim such reasoning in a discussion with them, as I have already mentioned.”
    It was after this that I stated “Of course people do the same thing for the many prophecies in the Bible, and Christians ignore them.”

    Let us actually use our intelligence here. What do you think I was talking about when I said they do the Same Thing? I was saying that many people (obviously non-Christians) “come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim” Biblical prophecy was not fulfilled. In saying that Christians ignore them I was not referring back to the prophecies, but to the people that treat the prophecies this way.

    My Grammar is just fine. The subject of the sentence you quoted was the people, and thus the Christians were ignoring the people, as they were ignoring the subject of the sentence. The prophecies is the object of the sentence, and thus not what the Christians are ignoring. It is you who has no clue as to what grammar is if you think that what you say even remotely resembles what I said.

  28. Rick B says:

    Grindeal,
    I have been down this path with Shem before also, Pointing out things like, How do you listen to written words. He says the same things to me, Just like with the Topic or issue of Witnesses. Your a witness because you were there, you were involved, so your a witness, But then according to Shem, if you were there, and were involved, yes you’re a witness, But at the same time, If you did not write an account, then your really not a witness and your being their does not really count. So 4,000 plus people don’t matter. I don’t think Shem really cares about the truth, or he is severely convicted but is fighting it.

  29. grindael says:

    Shem,

    I understand English just fine. But your disjointed sentences, bad grammar and skewed logic make it hard to follow what you are saying, and you keep changing it every time you are proven wrong. You are a liar. You said, (waaaay back there, where you have probably already forgotten)

    This very brief prophecy is a blueprint for the political world of the twentieth century. It is an incredibly simple and yet detailed prophecy of what was to happen over the next two centuries, and it has been fulfilled to the letter. Yet I have seen dozen of people claim that this is a false prophecy because they try to make it all fit into the time frame of the Civil War only; and then they ignore me when I try to show them the truth of what is being said. As I have said, the evidence is there, but because people reject it as evidence I have very little to work with.

    You said PEOPLE. Not “non-christians”. And the people who are speaking to you and who reject this ARE CHRISTIANS. Then you said,

    However, since PEOPLE are determined to not believe they will come up with any excuse to twist its meaning so that they can claim it was false. Thus it becomes impossible to claim such reasoning in a discussion with them, as I have already mentioned. Of course people do the same thing for the many prophecies in the Bible, are Christians ignore them.

    You simply can’t write a coherent thought, and then expect us to understand what you are saying. You mentioned those “people” again, and then prophecies that Christians ignore. You DID NOT mention non-christians ONCE. Stop lying, or go back and retake High School English.

  30. grindael says:

    Shem,

    No more responses. I’m not going to be called ignorant by you again when you’ve been caught lying. Move on. You’re done here, on this thread.

Comments are closed.