Joseph the King in Mormon Theology

[_moksha]

Show of hands, who here believes the Smith lineage contains any Middle Eastern DNA?

The DNA could have been changed to show Celtic markers in order to confound the prideful gentile geneticists.

[_SteelHead]

You see, Joseph Smith is the direct desendant of Jesus Christ. Joseph of Arimathea hustled Mary of magdalena and her children into England after the crucifixion. Bada boom bada bing, Bob's your uncle, and Jesus your great, great grandfather. It used to be claimed that most of the early apostles of the Restoration were of the bloodline of Christ.

[_Benjamin Seeker]

Here is an in depth discussion of the first quote in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published by BYU: http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/David,_Pro ... _Last_Days

You'll find this first quote in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a trusted Mormon source compiled by one of the Joseph F. Smiths.

The second quote was published in D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 644. I'll look it up tomorrow morning and get the exact person/date of the source of the quote. Also, If you search Grindael's thread, you'll see he cites Brigham young's report of hearing something similar from Joseph Smith.

I looked at that article, and find that there is still too much uncertainty an lack of clarity involved. The most we can conclude from that is that Joseph Smith believed that God would raise up a future king over Israel of the loins of David by the name of David. Well, so what? That proves what?

It turns out there is a bunch more evidence than I was aware of and Quinn has already done a great job of collecting it all. Yes, Joseph Smith most certainly believed his son David would be a the last days King prophesied in the Bible, and Joseph Smith definitely thought his son was of the lineage of King David. Here are most relevant pages from Quinn's Origins of Power:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... kdxRm9pckE

And here are the footnotes to these pages:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... Xp2WjlZWmM

One of the prominent witnesses to this stuff is Brigham Young, by the way. Other witnesses include members of the anointed quorum (people who had received their second annointing) and members of the council of 50, one of Joseph Smith's plural wives, and even a revelation! It's all their on the couple pages I posted from the book.

[_grindael]

"That which the Presidency of this Church have said, and say now, is as much the law and the gospel as anything that has ever been said or written before for our guidance" (Henry D. Moyle, CR, April 1947, p. 158).

[_zerinus]

It turns out there is a bunch more evidence than I was aware of and Quinn has already done a great job of collecting it all. Yes, Joseph Smith most certainly believed his son David would be a the last days King prophesied in the Bible, and Joseph Smith definitely thought his son was of the lineage of King David. Here are most relevant pages from Quinn's Origins of Power:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... kdxRm9pckE

And here are the footnotes to these pages:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... Xp2WjlZWmM

One of the prominent witnesses to this stuff is Brigham Young, by the way. Other witnesses include members of the anointed quorum (people who had received their second annointing) and members of the council of 50, one of Joseph Smith's plural wives, and even a revelation! It's all their on the couple pages I posted from the book.

I don't consider any of this to be reliable historical data. I don't consider Quinn to be a reliable historian. A lot of disinformation exists about what was going on in those days. Emma for example denied that Joseph Smith taught polygamy, when she knew that he did. She just so hated polygamy that she didn't want to admit it. James Whitehead's testimony of Joseph Smith (which Quinn quotes in your links) likewise is very suspect. He likewise denied Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. Here is a quote from James Whitehead:

“I had a good opportunity of knowing if any such a thing [plural marriage] had been taught by the prophet or anyone else because I was there in his office and with him continually.​..I was well acquainted with his family and with his wife Emma and I never saw anything or heard of any such a thing being taught there in Nauvoo...When I lived at Nauvoo, I resided maybe three hundred yards from where Joseph Smith’s house was. I saw him there frequently, perhaps not every day but almost every day...Joseph Smith had one wife and her name was Emma​; I do not know of any other woman who claimed to be the wife of the prophet, there at Nauvoo, nor at any other place.” (Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C., p 473)

At the same time William Clayton bore a very different Testimony. It appears that James Whitehead at that time simply wanted to support Emma Smith, and her claim to make Joseph Smith III the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith, even if that entailed baring false testimony. The RLDS had a vested interest in those days in wanting to portray Joseph Smith III as the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith, and so they either invented or legitimized a lot of disinformation on the subject which you (and Quinn) are now relying on to support disinformation today. I am not buying it.

[_moksha]

I don't consider Quinn to be a reliable historian.

Sometimes historians choose to address inconvenient history.

A lot of disinformation exists about what was going on in those days. Emma for example denied that Joseph Smith taught polygamy, when she knew that he did. She just so hated polygamy that she didn't want to admit it. James Whitehead's testimony of Joseph Smith (which Quinn quotes in your links) likewise is very suspect. He likewise denied Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.

We need to remember that Joseph also denied that he practiced polygamy.

[_Benjamin Seeker]

It turns out there is a bunch more evidence than I was aware of and Quinn has already done a great job of collecting it all. Yes, Joseph Smith most certainly believed his son David would be a the last days King prophesied in the Bible, and Joseph Smith definitely thought his son was of the lineage of King David. Here are most relevant pages from Quinn's Origins of Power:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... kdxRm9pckE

And here are the footnotes to these pages:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwZtD ... Xp2WjlZWmM

One of the prominent witnesses to this stuff is Brigham Young, by the way. Other witnesses include members of the anointed quorum (people who had received their second annointing) and members of the council of 50, one of Joseph Smith's plural wives, and even a revelation! It's all their on the couple pages I posted from the book.

I don't consider any of this to be reliable historical data. I don't consider Quinn to be a reliable historian. A lot of disinformation exists about what was going on in those days. Emma for example denied that Joseph Smith taught polygamy, when she knew that he did. She just so hated polygamy that she didn't want to admit it. James Whitehead's testimony of Joseph Smith (which Quinn quotes in your links) likewise is very suspect. He likewise denied Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. Here is a quote from James Whitehead:

“I had a good opportunity of knowing if any such a thing [plural marriage] had been taught by the prophet or anyone else because I was there in his office and with him continually.​..I was well acquainted with his family and with his wife Emma and I never saw anything or heard of any such a thing being taught there in Nauvoo...When I lived at Nauvoo, I resided maybe three hundred yards from where Joseph Smith’s house was. I saw him there frequently, perhaps not every day but almost every day...Joseph Smith had one wife and her name was Emma​; I do not know of any other woman who claimed to be the wife of the prophet, there at Nauvoo, nor at any other place.” (Abstract of Evidence Temple Lot Case U.S.C.C., p 473)

At the same time William Clayton bore a very different Testimony. It appears that James Whitehead at that time simply wanted to support Emma Smith, and her claim to make Joseph Smith III the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith, even if that entailed baring false testimony. The RLDS had a vested interest in those days in wanting to portray Joseph Smith III as the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith, and so they either invented or legitimized a lot of disinformation on the subject which you (and Quinn) are now relying on to support disinformation today. I am not buying it.

Simply put, you may disregard whitehead if you think he is suspect and Quinn's interpretation if you don't think he's reliable. However, you still have tons of historical data on those two pages, and without coming up with a way to navigate all of that data and just dismissing it looks like you're just ignoring it!

[_zerinus]

Simply put, you may disregard whitehead if you think he is suspect and Quinn's interpretation if you don't think he's reliable. However, you still have tons of historical data on those two pages, and without coming up with a way to navigate all of that data and just dismissing it looks like you're just ignoring it!

If you are expecting me to go and research and analyze every one of those references just to convince you that they are unreliable, I am not going to. I have better things to do with my time. But the example I have given you is a sufficient demonstration. Whitehead is one of Quinn's chief witnesses in that link you had given. If one witness has been proved to be unreliable, what makes you so convinced that the rest of them can’t be? One unreliable evidence is sufficient to discredit Quinn as a reliable commentator, and his book as a reliable history of Mormonism. Quinn is a well known anti-Mormon and Mormon critic. He is simply not a reliable, fair, or unbiased observer of Mormonism. If you can’t already see that, then I don’t have much more to say.

[_Benjamin Seeker]

Simply put, you may disregard whitehead if you think he is suspect and Quinn's interpretation if you don't think he's reliable. However, you still have tons of historical data on those two pages, and without coming up with a way to navigate all of that data and just dismissing it looks like you're just ignoring it!

If you are expecting me to go and research and analyze every one of those references just to convince you that they are unreliable, I am not going to. I have better things to do with my time. But the example I have given you is a sufficient demonstration. Whitehead is one of Quinn's chief witnesses in that link you had given. If one witness has been proved to be unreliable, what makes you so convinced that the rest of them can’t be? One unreliable evidence is sufficient to discredit Quinn as a reliable commentator, and his book as a reliable history of Mormonism. Quinn is a well known anti-Mormon and Mormon critic. He is simply not a reliable, fair, or unbiased observer of Mormonism. If you can’t already see that, then I don’t have much more to say.

Take Quinn out of the picture for a minute here (I came to the same conclusion he did without reading his stuff, so we certainly don't need him.). What I'm saying is that you're unfairly dismissing the whole of the evidence. Ignore all of Whitehead and just deal with Elizabeth Durfee, a member of the anointed quorum, Phoebe Woodworth, another member, the revelation from July 27 1842, and Brigham Young.

I actually find it telling that both LDS and RLDS sympathetic sources are saying the same thing.

[_zerinus]

Take Quinn out of the picture for a minute here (I came to the same conclusion he did without reading his stuff, so we certainly don't need him.). What I'm saying is that you're unfairly dismissing the whole of the evidence. Ignore all of Whitehead and just deal with Elizabeth Durfee, a member of the anointed quorum, Phoebe Woodworth, another member, the revelation from July 27 1842, and Brigham Young.

I actually find it telling that both LDS and RLDS sympathetic sources are saying the same thing.

Answer remains the same. Data is not trustworthy or reliable. Joseph had too many enemies at that time who had an interest in spreading disinformation about him. Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the evidence for his claim is the Book of Mormon and the other revelations he has received; and that is what I go by. The Book of Mormon trumps everything else.