Episode 113: Kirk Watson on Reincarnation in Early Mormonism

 

Episode 113: Kirk Watson on Reincarnation in Early Mormonism

Robert E. Bonner on the United Kingdom Making Amends in 1872 for its Role in Oceanic Rampages Against the Union During the Civil War

  

Not until late in 1872 would the government of the United Kingdom make amends for its role in the rebellion’s oceanic rampages. By that point, this heated Anglo-American controversy had smoldered for ten full years. Demands for British compensation aggravated three US presidencies (with two secretaries of state and four London-based ministers doing the heaviest lifting) and five British ministries (which cycled through four foreign secretaries and three ambassadors to Washington). Also entangled in the dispute were elected and appointed officials like Senator Charles Sumner, the negotiators of the 1871 Treaty of Washington, and the representatives from five countries whose Geneva deliberations imposed a burden of $15 million on the UK for its negligence. Publicists on both sides of the Atlantic ranged widely across issues. Canadian politics, greater rights for Ireland, and the separatist Cuban insurgency against Spain each came to figure in what seemed to be interminable debates. Forging an agreement seemed to be an imperative, however, coming as it did during an especially delicate moment in nineteenth-century US relationships with other world powers.

 

Diplomatic historians have devoted considerable attention to the dizzying complexity of this prolonged standoff, while studies of international law have, in various ways, understood the arbitration judgment of the 1872 settlement as a high point of Victorian legal innovation. The quality of that existing scholarship allows us to narrow the focus on how the settlement demonstrated the waning precedent of Confederate pariahdom. Meaningful changes occurred in how leading participants framed three critical issues: which British actions were most objectionable, how Britain’s disregard of the rebellion’s proslavery propagandism ultimately mattered, and which solutions could secure a satisfactory settlement.

 

Nearly all of America’s postwar accusations and denunciations were framed while the Alabama and the other raiders were still at sea. Official diplomatic dispatches from Seward and Adams after 1862 accused the Palmerston government of violating its own professions of neutrality by allowing shipyards to fit out fearsome weapons that seemed to imperil civilization itself. Charles Sumner escalated the controversy with his 1863 New York speech on the immorality of bestowing belligerent status on a slave-mongering rebellion. His case, and that made by a host of other Americans, detailed a cycle of knowing complicity with a uniquely vicious regime and aired suspicions that something more nefarious than simple negligence was at work. A corollary of such charges was the demand that the British government bear not just the “direct” costs (the total damage inflicted on ships by Liverpool-built cruisers) but those “indirect” expenditures (computed to represent a considerable portion of all US wartime spending). No less important to some was the moral imperative that the British acknowledge how they had contradicted their vaunted support for global emancipation by aiding the Confederacy.

 

William Seward, who continued as Andrew Johnson’s secretary of state after Lincoln’s death, made little headway on settling with the British until the middle of 1868. Matters got off to a bumpy start that spring when President Johnson, then under political siege, selected General George McClellan, Lincoln’s nemesis in the army and foe in the 1864 election, to replace Charles Francis Adams as minister to the United Kingdom. That provocative move was quickly voted down by a Senate that had a short time earlier nearly removed the president through an impeachment trial. The Senate then approved one of its own by authorizing, by a unanimous vote, the mission of Reverdy Johnson. A long-serving Marylander, Johnson’s proslavery conservatism had been most evident in his representing Dred Scott’s enslavers during the 1850s, in a case that affirmed the sanctity of slave property more generally. In war, he was a stalwart Unionist who came grudgingly to vote for an antislavery constitutional amendment. Charles Sumner, who had worked well with the Democrat on the Committee on Foreign Relations, helped to make him minister by swaying the votes of his colleagues and the opinions of overseas friends. He came to regret doing so soon enough. Johnson’s overly soft demands to the British government were compounded by his “convivial and apparently sympathetic association with the bitterest English partisans of the rebellion.” Repeated gestures of friendliness toward Confederate backers John Roebuck, Lord Wharncliffe, and even Alabama builder John Laird stirred outrage from the American and British progressive press. Johnson returned with an agreement that John Jay II sneeringly referred to as “the Alabama Wrong.”

 

The Reverdy Johnson treaty, drawn up during the final stage of Andrew Johnson’s disastrous presidency, raised the ire of the Committee on Foreign Relations, which unanimously rejected it. Chairman Sumner echoed his 1863 speech with an assault on foreigners’ unforgivable and loathsome aid to slave-mongers, and his withering assault on Britons created a transatlantic sensation. Britain had betrayed its “avowed creed” by aiding those who “in the very madness of barbarism” had aspired to raise an empire on the cornerstone of bondage. During a pivotal moment in human history, “England gave her name, her influence, her material resources to the wicked cause, and flung a sword into the scale with Slavery.” Such an instance of gross immorality was perplexing. “Strange that the land of Wilberforce” would depart from “the rule of justice and good neighborhood” in conduct that was “pernicious in proportion to the scale of operations, affecting individuals, corporations, communities, and the nation itself.” Perhaps worst of all, “down to this day there is no acknowledgment of this wrong,—not a single word.” In such circumstances, Sumner argued that only a “generous expression” of contrition could produce “a just settlement” and “harmony between two great and kindred nations.” British opinion makers pushed back. The Spectator of London conceded that the country’s dalliance with slaveholders had been an “act of marvelously bad taste and bad feeling” and thus opened the way for an expression of regret. But this paper also insisted that the government’s neutral posture could in no way be understood as “an international crime.” Given that new doctrines of recognition had not resulted in expanded human rights commitments, it was a difficult to argue otherwise.

 

Sumner’s speech ensured the Senate’s rejection of the 1869 treaty, but the heat of that performance, and its insult of Britain, caused him to forfeit a subsequent public role in crafting a substitute treaty. He continued to push the new secretary of state, Hamilton Fish, behind the scenes, and his influence was evident in official communications referring to the “perpetual and exclusive slaveholding republic” erected by wicked Confederates. The senator and the administration locked horns on several issues, chief among them Sumner’s fixation on Great Britain’s 1861 declaration of neutrality. That emphasis moved the conversation from the matter of whether an impious rebellion deserved full sovereign status (which no power had ever granted) to whether its status as a belligerent should have been conceded (the prevailing stance of the entire international community, which followed the early lead of the British government). Sumner’s stubbornness about the issue bedeviled cabinet-level consideration of whether Cuban freedom fighters should be accorded belligerent status, which would have opened the United States to charges of doing to Spain what it insisted others should not have done to them. Other Caribbean currents and countercurrents eventually doomed Sumner’s once mighty influence, which ceased altogether when his opposition to the annexation of the Dominican Republic cost him, in the spring of 1871, the chairmanship he had so deeply prized.

 

The senator’s ambition to achieve a Sumnerian contribution to international law peaked in 1869, only to subside at year’s end with his quixotic plan to sever ties to existing slave powers. Overwrought language forecast how a “grand discussion” about a sweeping settlement might remodel the existing, and badly outdated, maritime code and “place our republic at the head of the civilized world.” In his own efforts, he returned repeatedly to his elaboration of “ocean belligerency” in 1863. It stood to reason, he explained to all who would listen, that powers incapable of bringing prizes into their own ports, where they could put cases before functioning prize courts, had no basis to pursue legitimate high seas captures. To take and burn enemy vessels while in international waters, as Semmes and others had done, could be made into a piratical act by raising the bar of who might qualify as a high seas belligerent. Sumner’s fixation on that technical point effectively pivoted from questions of morality (the wicked attempt of the rebellion to vindicate and spread human bondage) to ones of capacity (especially the seaborne Confederacy’s inability to move captured prizes past an effective US blockade).

 

Questions about the intersection of legality and morality in postwar settlements were addressed head-on by Johann Bluntschli, who worked with Francis Lieber to establish the Alabama dispute as a test case for academic experts to resolve national disagreements over international law. The Heidelberg professor was dismissive about attempts to establish the ethical shortcomings of one’s wartime enemies. It was a commonplace, after all, for one party to claim as a “sacred right” what the other denounced as a “scandalous iniquity.” If the North had the stronger case that its enemies’ slaveholding was an “abominable” affront to world opinion, the South’s aim to protect a “historic right” to human property logically followed the US defense of that prerogative before 1860. Outside great powers could hardly be blamed, Bluntschli wrote, for crafting a policy of neutrality in a clash between two entities capable of conducting regular warfare aligned with the general wishes of their respective citizenries. Absent from Bluntschli’s analysis was a consideration of aspects of Confederate pariahdom (whether ideological, maritime, or religious) that threatened greater disruption than that posed by less aggressive slaving states. His neutral tone was typical of wider European assumptions that immorality was not necessarily at odds with the existing law of nations. Indeed, advocates of reform rested their case for change on the gap between universally held moral principles and rules that operated as authoritative. Bluntschli seemed to be at pains to sustain his antislavery absolutism as he moved from international law to political science. His theorizing about the modern state in the mid-1870s added a new element in detailing the unique cruelty of a race-based slavery that denied a shared humanity. But his belief in the natural inferiority of the “negro” complicated his assessment about the extent of rights to those lacking the “rare self-control and manly energy” of white Europeans. If Black former slaves fully deserved their freedom, it did not follow that they should exercise the suffrage within self-governing polities. He doubted whether multiracial democracy was ever prudent.

 

Europeans more generally grew averse in these years to antislavery argumentation, and many commentators made a harder turn to racism than Bluntschli did. Nevertheless, the United States continued to rest its case for damages inflicted by British-built raiders on the most infamous qualities of the Confederacy. Americans’ 1872 brief at Geneva established how Britain’s “studied unfriendliness or fixed predisposition adverse to the United States” was “inconsistent with its duties as a neutral” and did so through a chain of argumentation that replayed the public diplomacy of Confederate pariahdom. Americans assumed, the brief noted, that Britain would never act “in favor of supporters of slavery.” Passages from secession orators, notably including Stephens’s Cornerstone Speech, established the dark clarity of Confederate designs. A pro-Southern tribute from William Gladstone late in 1862 sealed the case of how an iniquitous British government sympathized with a barbarous power. Gladstone, who by 1872 had moved up within the Liberal Party to become the sitting prime minister, realized the awkwardness of being prominently included in the American account of the wartime record. He composed a record of his contrition for the “most singular and palpable error” of his public statements about a Southern people having made a nation. His country’s Geneva representatives convinced him that circulating the note was unwise. On the eve of his death, he deemed that advice to have been misguided and regretted he had not made amends publicly and forthrightly.

 

In the end, the settlement of the claims in 1872 marked a “new departure” that echoed much of what was underway in American domestic politics. Old topics, most notably those regarding British betrayals of abolitionism, were put aside while earlier high expectations were trimmed. Sumner voted for the treaty, reasoning that its inclusion of an arbitration process (a centerpiece of the peace movement he had earlier supported) compensated for its many shortcomings. The absence of a formal apology greatly disappointed him, as did the hesitancy of congressmen and British negotiators to recast existing maritime law more comprehensively. In the immediate aftermath of the Geneva proceedings, Charles Francis Adams marked the closing of the “great experiment” by commenting, with a sense of approval, that Americans had achieved “as much success as we possibly could have expected.” (Robert E. Bonner, The First Pariah State: How the Proslavery Confederacy Menaced the World [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2026], 129-33, 135)

 

The following image is taken from ibid., 134:

 

 Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

 

Lukas K. Pokorny: The Book of Daniel Contains False Prophecies

  

The history of religions is rife with cases of prophetic failure, as is the history of NRMs. “Prophecy” here refers to the prediction that a particular event will usher in salvational transformation. More precisely, the realization of this millenarian expectation is tied to a specific period of or point in time. Failure in this regard means that the dated prediction has not come to pass—at least not in the way originally anticipated. A famous historical example of unfulfilled prophecy is the book of Daniel, a second-century BCE text in the Hebrew Bible. The transformative events prophesied by Daniel that would lead to the creation of God’s Kingdom in a specific context and time did not occur. The Qumran community (c. 150 BCE-70 CE), known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, drew their messianic hopes from this biblical text but did so in vain. Prophetic failure led to growing disappointment. The response was to extend the end-times (or “eschatological”) chronology into the indefinite future. Ultimately, however, the group ceased to exist. (Lukas K. Pokorny, “How do new religious movements respond to failed prophecies?,” in New Religious Movements in 5 Minutes, ed. Lukas K. Pokorny and Franz Winter [Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2026], 78)

 

 Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Russell Ashdown's Response to Allegedly False Prophecies of Joseph Smith

 The following is taken from Russell Ashdown, "Joseph Smith's False Prophecies?"

False Prophecies-Are they really false.

1. D&C; 57 states that Independence, Missouri is the center place of Zion. D&C; 62 says the saints would be preserved and rejoice together in the land of Missouri. But they were not preserved in Missouri but were driven out and did not rejoice.

Not a false prophecy. Several other verses in the D&C; clarify the promise made in Section 62:6. Read them carefully.

A. D&C; 35:24 "Keep all the commandments and covenants by which ye are bound; and I will cause the heavens to shake for your good, and Satan shall tremble and Zion shall rejoice upon the hills and flourish." Notice here that the qualifying condition here is the Saints are to keep all the commandments and covenants they were given.

B. D&C; 39:13 "Thou art called to labor in my vineyard, and to build up my church, and to bring forth Zion, that it may rejoice upon the hills and flourish." The church is in the process of this right now so that Zion may be brought forth.

C. D&C; 49:24-25 "But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose. Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed." Here we see that this promise is to occur at some point before Christ’s second coming. That has not happened yet so this statement concerning Zion is not false but is still to be determined. Also, notice that it says on the hills and mountains. Zion is more that just Independence, Missouri. As there are no real mountains there. Zion is anywhere that the Saints are assembled.

D. D&C; 52:42 "And thus, even as I have said, if ye are faithful ye shall assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies." Once again, we have a qualification, "if ye are faithful". The question is, where the Saints before they were driven out faithful and keeping all the commandments. No. Thus the promise that the Lord made to them was revoked for the time being. The day will come when it will all be fulfilled and those who mocked it will be put to shame. Not a false prophecy as the second coming has not happened yet.

2. D&C; 87 (Civil War Prophecy) Some say this is false as South Carolina rebelled had rebelled when Smith wrote the rebellion and that the war did not start til many years later. Great Britian was called on but did not get involved in the war, war was not poured out on all nations, nor did the slaves rise up against there masters as a major part of the war. This view Anti-Mormons have is once again false and shows how much they will twist the truth to deceive as many as they can. Anyone who picks up and reads the whole section carefully will find out that this is not a Prophecy on the civil war.

The section heading states "…the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African Slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world." Notice the latter part of the statement.

Now lets look at the revelation and see what it states. Verse 1 "…wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina…" Wars is plural. Not war as Anti-Mormons would like to portray. I guess they can’t see the difference between a singular and a plural word. So in verse one, we see that this revelation refers to more than just the civil war.

Verse 3 states that Great Britain would be called on in the civil war, and "they (referring to Great Britain) shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations;…" This did occur in World War I and II as Britain called on other nations so that it could defend itself.

Verse 4 states "…after many days slaves shall rise up against their masters…" This is not a reference to the Black slaves in America, but slaves throughout the world who have been oppressed by dictators and want their freedom (Political, Social, and whatever else). This has happened in Eastern Europe and other parts of the world and we may yet see more places in the future.

So this is not a false prophecy but a true prophecy. Some which has been fulfilled, some that is now, and some that will yet be in the future. So stay tuned.

3. D&C; 115:1-12 "Saints commanded to build a house to the Lord in Far West, Missouri, "until it is finished, from the cornerstone unto the top thereof, until there shall not anything remain that it not finished." Temple was never built. This "false" prophecy is too easy. In fact, those Anti-Mormons who use it should be ashamed of themselves. All I have to say on this is "Since when is a commandment, a prophecy." This is not a false prophecy because it is not a prophecy.

4. D&C; 114 "Verily, thus saith the Lord: it is wisdom in my servant, David W Patten, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring…" But Patten died October 15, 1838. This is another case of a "false" prophecy which is not a prophecy. This is a mission call that the Lord is giving to Patten. Patten had the choice to either accept or reject it. Even though the Lord was aware that Patten would not actually fulfill this mission, he still gave Patten the opportunity to accept the call. That may have been the main purpose for it. Just another test to see if Patten would do the right thing.

It should also be noted on how he died. Enemies of the church took 3 prisoners and said they would kill them and would then proceed to burn the saints out. Joseph Smith appointed Elder Patten to lead 75 men against the mob of 30-40 to free the prisoners without bloodshed. In a confrontation, Patten was shot in the stomach and died that night.

Another thing that should be looked at is that there are other mission calls in the Doctrine and Covenants which were fulfilled. Do Mormons use these as evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet by these true prophecies. No!!! The reason is that they are not prophecies. D&C; 28:8, 30:5 and section 32 and 60 are examples. Some other examples that are very similar to 114 are Sections 79 and 80. These came to pass but once again, these sections like 114 are only mission calls. NOT PROPHECIES.

5. D&C; 111:1-11 Regarding Salem, Mass.: "I have much treasure in this city for you…I will give this city into your hands…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours." There is no record that either the city or any of its wealth ever came to Smith." Well lets look at these verses in a little more detail. Verse 4 "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts: and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours." Well it is clear that it says "in due time" in this verse. No time frame is given by the Lord but when the Lord sees fit. Also this revelation was not just given to Smith but to the church in general. So you in this sense does not necessarily have to mean Smith but also everyone else. This revelation has yet to be fulfilled when the Lord comes again and establishes his kingdom on earth and all nations, cities, and towns will by governed by the church or the Lord. The wealth will be used at that time for rightous purposes. So stay tuned.

6. D&C; 97:19 (August 2, 1833) says Zion cannot fall or be moved out of its place (Jackson County, Missouri). Prior to this prophecy, on July 20, 1833, Zion fell and the church was run out of town. Joseph Smith was in Kirkland, Ohio at this time, and unaware of the Missouri problem when he received this revelation. Well lets look at the context of this verse 15-21. "And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it; Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples. And now, behold, if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible. And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there. And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower. Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion-THE PURE IN HEART; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn.

First, the Lord places conditions on verse 19. If "Zion do these things…" If Zion does not do these things, the Promise from the Lord is not binding. Secondly, Zion is more than Jackson County Missouri. It is the Pure in Heart. Also the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the land of Zion which also can refer to the American Continent. So the term Zion can mean more than one thing. Yes, the church was driven out of Jackson County do to their disobedience to certain things that the Lord was not pleased with. This still does not mean that this is a false prophecy. When the Saints are ready and the time is right , the Lord will open the way for the return to Jackson County. Remember the nations of the earth shall say that Zion can’t fall nor be moved because the Saints will be righteous and will be obedient to the Lord’s command, thus the Lord’s power will be over them. These verses are not referring to the 1833 period but some later period when the temple is built and city is built.

7. Joseph Smith said he saw in a vision the Celestial Kingdom with the "12 apostles of the Lamb who are now upon the earth." (Church History, Vol. 2, pp. 380-381). 5 of the 12 later on left the church. Thus Joseph Smith’s vision was wrong. So Anti-Mormons say but once again, there is not false prophecy. First, at the time that the vision was given, all 12 were in good standing of the church. Had they continued to be faithful, then they all would have eventually made it to the Celestial Kingdom. The Lord knows all things, both in the past, present, and future. The Lord knows the eventual destination of each individual. We however do not. The Lord loves all of his children and gives them every opportunity possible for them to return to him. His children however have agency to follow him or reject him.

Now lets use some common sense. At the time the vision was given, all the apostles were in good standing with the Lord. Had the vision shown 5 of the 12 not in the Celestial kingdom and even further, named those apostles not in the kingdom, what would be the result of those apostles, who are presently in good standing, been. They would have given up at that point forward. Thus the Lord would have been the main instigator of them leaving the church. Just imagine yourself , a believer back in Paul’s time, being told by Paul that he received a revelation from the Lord that you would not make it into heaven. Would you still remain committed to the church or to Christ knowing that when you die, you are going to Hell and there is nothing you can do about it? I think not. If we fall, it is our fault. The Lord is not going give a revelation or vision that will start the process of a person failing to return to his presence. Think about it.

8. Joseph Smith said "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri…that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left." The wrongs were never redressed. Is this a false prophecy. If Joseph was speaking as a man, then yes. But if he was speaking as a prophet of God, then not necessarily. Though it has been many years since this was pronounced, a few years to the Lord many be many years to us. We need to be careful in putting our perceived time frame to that of God. Time is relative. After all, a 1000 years is one day for the Lord.

9. D&C; 112 Revelation to Thomas Marsh. Says God knows Thomas’ heart and he had a great work for him to do; he was chosen to hold the keys to the kingdom. Marsh was president of the 12 at that time, but apostatized 15 months later. Is this a false Prophecy. NO!!! Same situation here as it was with the 12 in Number 7. Marsh’s pride lead to his apostasy. He was not humble. He began to defy the righteous decisions of the High Council and the First Presidency, in a trivial case concerning his wife. Marsh, like the 12 in number 7 have their right to make decisions for their own lives and the Lord is not going to stop that. Jesus called Judas to be an apostle but Judas fell away. Does that make Jesus a false prophet because of Judas actions later on. NO! Lets be consistent.

10. D&C; 84: 2-5, 31. New Jerusalem Temple was to be built in Joseph Smith’s Generation at the temple lot in Missouri. Was not and has not been built yet. Is this a false prophesy. No!!! These verses state that it will be built in "this generation" but what does the word generation mean. It can mean many things. To some, 100 years is a generation, to others it is 120 years. To others, including LDS beliefs, generation expressed here and in other scriptures can be a reference to in indeterminate amount of years. Jesus said:"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign". This reference is not referring to a certain number of years but a period of wickedness. A generation in Section 84 may be a reference to the time of this present dispensation. Which could be hundreds of years long.

11. D&C; 124:56-60 says the Nauvoo House was to be built and belong to the Smith family forever, and was to be a place of refreshment for visitors. House was not completed and the property is owned by the Reorganized LDS church. Is this a false prophecy? No!!! Why not. Well first, this is not a prophesy but we have here another commandment. Remember, commandments are not prophesies. Verse 56 shows that "And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built in my name…" Second, Anti-Mormons purposely do not the conditions placed on the promises the Lord makes to his people in this section in verses 45-54. I will not write all of it but 47 seems to be sufficient for the needs here. It says "And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord." Here he is referring both to the temple and the Nauvoo house. See verse 56 where it says "let it be built in my name…" Anti-Mormons don’t mention this as they lose an opportunity to deceive people if they did.

12. History of the Church says in Vol. 2, p.145 speaks of a return to Zion (Missouri) in 1836. It did not happen. Is this a false prophecy?

No! Here is what it says. "…to be in readiness to move into Jackson county in two years from the eleventh of September next, which is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion. If-verily I say unto you-if the Church with one united effort perform their duties; if they do this, the work shall be complete-if they do not this in all humility, making preparation form this time forth, like Joseph in Egypt, laying up store against the time of famine, every man having his tent, his horses, his chariots, his armory, his cattle, his family, and his whole substance in readiness against the time when it shall be said: To your tents, O Israel! Let not this be noised abroad; let every heart beat in silence, and every mouth be shut. Now,my beloved brethren, you will learn by this we have a great work to do, and but little time to do it in; and if we do not exert ourselves the utmost in gathering up the strength of the Lord’s house that this thing may be accomplished, behold there remaineth a scourge for the Church, even they shall be driven form city to city, and but few shall remain to receive an inheritance; if those things are not kept, there remaineth a scourge also; therefore, be wise this once, O ye children of Zion! And give heed to my counsel, saith the Lord." …and so long as unrighteous acts are suffered in the Church, it cannot be sanctified, neither can Zion be redeemed;…"

So we see here that there is not as much as a prophecy here as a promise from the Lord that if the Saints to the things the Lord commands then Zion shall be redeemed. If not, they would be punished. If anything, we have a fulfillment of prophecy here as the Saints did not do all the things the Lord commanded them and they were scourged from city to city.

Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Christian Stucki, Letter to Wilford Woodruff (May 1889) Querying the Status of Adam

 The following is a transcription of:

 

Christian Stucki letter to Wilford Woodruff (CHL Call no.: CR 1 171)

 

President Wilford
Woodruff

Santa Clara May 1889

 

there is a subject that needs
some explanation I think.
there are a good many who
think that Adam is our God
and that we should worship
him. this has bin taught in
our Sunday school and also at
meeting in this place also
that the Savior was Adam.
Now there are some towards
not believe it but a good many
do. I think we should know
who we should pray to.

 

Christian Stucki

 

 

Dr. Stephen Smoot DESTROYS Sean McDowell with FACTS and LOGIC

 

Dr. Stephen Smoot DESTROYS Sean McDowell with FACTS and LOGIC

BTW: as unlikely as it is, I would happily debate/dialogue with Sean McDowell on soteriology, sola scriptura, ecclesiology, and other topics, such as the nature of 'grace.' This would be important, as I am one of, if not the, LDS apologist who knows the most about Reformed theology. My email is ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457) on Isaiah 10:15

  

10:15 Shall the axe glorify itself without him that hews with it? Or shall the saw lift itself up without him that uses it, as if one should lift a rod or staff?

 

“Does the axe strike the wood without human intervention? Does the saw divide it into two, three, or four? Can a rod or a staff strike without someone to perform the action? How then can you think that you have become the master of the nations that you have conquered apart from my will?” He rightly compared him even to inanimate objects, since he was suffering from extreme stupidity and irrationality.

 

But it shall not be so

 

He says, “I will not leave you in your current ignorance, but the punishment will make you acknowledge the Master of all.” (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on Isaiah [trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2026], 44)