LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[He is the way]

Why is it that the evidence for the 'great apostasy' which supposedly occurred in the early 2nd century (or whenever...presumably very early, though Mormons here seem generally hesitant to fix it at a certain date or time period -- presumably because they'd then be asked for period-appropriate evidence of it, which they don't have) is always something in the middle ages?

So the Church was corrupted in the 2nd century because the Roman Catholic Church in particular did something in the 15th century? How does that make sense in any way whatsoever?

Did Peter actually pass on the keys to the priesthood? Who was the prophet who succeeded Peter?

 

[dzheremi]

Did Peter actually pass on the keys to the priesthood? Who was the prophet who succeeded Peter?

Wow. Those questions answered my questions so well. Good job.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

And yet I thought you considered the Catholic Church to have lost it by about 120 AD. What does something 777 years later matter if it was all done and lost in 120 AD? I guess I have to ask just when official LDS teaching has the date of the total apostasy. Or is that an evolving date?

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It was prophesied that that time would come when there would be a famine of God's word:

(Old Testament | Amos 8:11)

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I believe that the Catholic Church wanted power and they found power in the word of God. It seems to me that they believed that the word of God belonged to them and no one else. They used it for their own benefit:

"The Church Council of Constance assembled in 1414 under pressure from the Holy Roman Emperor to resolve the confusing and embarrassing situation in which the Church found itself with three popes all at once. There had been two rival popes since 1378 and three since 1409. The Council claimed direct authority from Christ and consequently superior power over any pope and succeeded in resolving the papal situation by the time it finished its labours in 1418. Meanwhile, in 1415, the Council had considered, and condemned as heretical, the teachings of the Prague priest Jan Hus and he was burned at the stake in Constance. It also condemned an Englishman whose writings had influenced Hus.

Fortunately for the Englishman, he was dead. Thought to have been born in the mid-1320s, John Wycliffe or Wyclif (there are several other spellings) was a Yorkshireman, who studied at Oxford University, became a fellow of Merton College and went on to win a brilliant reputation as an expert on theology. Ordained priest in 1351, he was vicar of Fylingham, a Lincolnshire village, from the 1360s, but spent most of his time at Oxford. In 1374 he was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire.

By that time Wycliffe had developed startlingly unorthodox opinions, which were condemned by Pope Gregory VII in 1377. He had come to regard the scriptures as the only reliable guide to the truth about God and maintained that all Christians should rely on the Bible rather than the unreliable and frequently self-serving teachings of popes and clerics. He said that there was no scriptural justification for the papacy’s existence and attacked the riches and power that popes and the Church as a whole had acquired. He disapproved of clerical celibacy, pilgrimages, the selling of
indulgences and praying to saints. He thought the monasteries were corrupt and the immorality with which many clerics often behaved invalidated the sacraments they conducted. If clerics were accused of crime, they should be tried in the ordinary lay courts, not in their special ecclesiastical tribunals.

Wycliffe advanced his revolutionary opinions in numerous tracts. He thought that England should be ruled by its monarchs and the lay administration with no interference from the papacy and the Church. In his On Civil Dominion of 1376 he said:

England belongs to no pope. The pope is but a man, subject to sin, but Christ is the Lord of Lords and this kingdom is to be held directly and solely of Christ alone.

His opinions gained him powerful supporters, including John of Gaunt, who intervened to protect him from infuriated archbishops and bishops. He lost some support in 1381 when he denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Parliament condemned his teachings the following year, but he was allowed to retire to his parsonage at Lutterworth."

More of this at: John Wycliffe condemned as a heretic | History Today

This leads to some questions, were the popes really prophets of God? Did they have all of the priesthood keys given to Peter? If not what happened to the priesthood of God? I believe that the priesthood was lost as was the true order of Christ's church that was built on prophets and apostles. Therefore the proper order needed to be restored to the earth. It should be noted that John Wycliff's body was exhumed and burned, he being declared to be a heretic. It seems such a shame because he did the right thing.

From the context Amos 8 is about the Land of Israel, not the church. Context is everything.

Amos 8
International Children’s Bible

The Vision of Ripe Fruit
8 This is what the Lord showed me: a basket of ripe fruit. 2 The Lord said to me, “Amos, what do you see?”

I said, “A basket of fruit from the end of the harvest.”

Then the Lord said to me, “An end has come for my people, the Israelites. I will not overlook their sins anymore.

3 “On that day the palace songs will become funeral songs,” says the Lord God. “There will be dead bodies thrown everywhere! Silence!”

4 Listen to me you who walk on helpless people.
You are trying to destroy the poor people of this country.
5 Your businessmen say,
“When will the New Moon Festival be over
so we can sell grain?
When will the Sabbath be over
so we can bring out wheat to sell?
We can charge them more
and give them less.
We can change the scales to cheat the people.
6 We will buy poor people for silver.
And we will buy needy people for the price of a pair of sandals.
We will even sell the wheat that was swept up from the floor.”

7 The Lord used his name, the Pride of Jacob, to make a promise. He said, “I will never forget what these people did.

8 The whole land will shake because of it.
Everyone who lives in the land will cry for those who died.
The whole land will rise like the Nile.
It will be shaken, and then it will fall
like the Nile River in Egypt.”

9 The Lord God says:

“At that time I will cause the sun to go down at noon.
I will make the earth dark on a clear day.
10 I will change your festivals into days of crying for the dead.
All your songs will become songs of sadness for the dead.
I will make all of you wear rough cloth to show your sadness.
You will shave your heads to show sadness.
I will make that day like the crying for the death of an only son.
Its end will be very painful.”

11 The Lord God says: “The days are coming
when I will cause a time of hunger in the land.
The people will not be hungry for bread or thirsty for water.
But they will be hungry for words from the Lord.
12 People will wander from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea.
They will wander from the north to the east.
They will search for the word of the Lord.
But they won’t find it.
13 At that time the beautiful young women and the young men
will become weak from thirst.
14 They made promises by the idol in Samaria.
They said, ‘As surely as the god of Dan lives . . .’
And they said, ‘As surely as the god of Beersheba lives, we promise . . .’
So they will fall
and never get up again.”

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Even today there are murderers in the Catholic Church. In fact there are murderers in every church as far as I know. I do not blame the leaders for what the members do. Neither should we blame current leaders for what past leaders have done. God is our judge. That being said, I believe the priesthood was restored to the earth and so was the proper organization of God's church.

Again Brigham Young's speeches promote violence against others.

Google brigham young blood promotes murder

"
''He did it,'' said Will Bagley, a history columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune whose book ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'' (University of Oklahoma Press) has been a best seller in Utah since it appeared in late July. ''The evidence is unambiguous.''

"
Reopening a Mormon Murder Mystery; New Accusations That Brigham Young Himself Ordered an 1857 Massacre of Pioneers (Published 2002)

"As far as I am concerned, I do not hesitate to say that I believe all these murders lie at his (Brigham Young's) door, and that he will have to be personally responsible of them. His hands are red with innocent blood, his garments dyed with it, and no 'atonement' can ever wash out the damning spots."—Mrs. Ann Eliza Young, in "Wife No. 19," page 199.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Did Peter actually pass on the keys to the priesthood? Who was the prophet who succeeded Peter?

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. The rest here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

 

[Daniel Marsh]

In Mormonism, the oath of vengeance (or law of vengeance) was part of the endowment ritual of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Participants swore an oath to pray for God to avenge the blood of prophets Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, who were assassinated in 1844. The oath was part of the ceremony from about 1845 until the early 1930s. Oath of vengeance - Wikipedia

 

[Peter1000]

Hundreds of massacres over the centuries ordered directly from the pope? If you really believe that we do have nothing to talk about. You have whitewashed your history and blackwashed ours.

Your history tells the whole story, just like our history tells of our 1 massacre.

 

[Peter1000]

In Mormonism, the oath of vengeance (or law of vengeance) was part of the endowment ritual of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Participants swore an oath to pray for God to avenge the blood of prophets Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, who were assassinated in 1844. The oath was part of the ceremony from about 1845 until the early 1930s. Oath of vengeance - Wikipedia

The oath asked God to meet out justice for the murder of JS and HS. We were not to seek revenge as a people, which we did not.

 

[Peter1000]

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. The rest here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

Did Linus ever proclaim himself a prophet or an apostle? No, why? Because he was ordained to be the bishop of rome only, not an apostle to the whole church with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He was only a bishop of rome.

 

[Peter1000]

This doesn't address what I've asked about clearly. My specific question is about if there was anyone capable of being a Prophet/Apostle during the 1700 years of God's absence on Earth. We've already established some criterion for what it takes to be a Prophet. Namely the only thing that seems to be required is a sincere faith. Having wrong Ideas, being a sinner or possibly making mistakes and sinning during one's tenure as God's anointed doesn't automatically disqualify a person.

The question isn't about whether people were called by God.

Yes, there were many that were qualified to be apostles or prophets, but God did not call them after about 120ad because they would have been almost immediately killed and rejected by many in the church.

By 120-130 there was much scepticism in the church about people calling themselves "apostles", for there were many that were coming to the churches and declaring that they were apostles of Jesus Christ, but ended up just being freeloaders on local churches for food and shelter, and so many churches started to not accept these false apostles. It became a real problem.

 

[Peter1000]

Evidently Brigham Young had promised all of the Fancher cattle to local Indian leaders:

"...Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at Great Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers.

"Little was known of what they talked about until recently when it came to light that Huntington (apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he 'gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].' The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he said. But 'you have told us not to steal,' the Indians replied. 'So I have,' Huntington said, 'but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.' The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." (Forgotten Kingdom, p. 167-168)
...
This raises the question as to whether or not the LDS Church views the perpetrators of the massacre as committing "murder" or do they consider their acts "justified"? The Mormon scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 42:18, declares: "...he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." Also, Section 132:27 proclaims: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood,...after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant..." Since Lee had his temple blessings and marriages restored the LDS leaders must not consider him guilty of murder or shedding "innocent blood." [Section 132]

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE: ONE OF MY FAMILY'S BEST KEPT SECRETS
Mountain Meadows Massacre Contents

I'm not sure how giving the Indians the cattle raises the questions as to whether or not the church view the perpetrators of the massacre committed murder. Were they justified?
The answer is yes, they committed murder and the leader was executed for this heinous act. There was not justification for this heinous act.

First of all, these people were from Missouri, and were doing things to irritate the situation such as poisoning water holes when they left them, and wells and stealing cattle from ranchers and maybe Indians, and threatening to ambush and kill those damb Mormons, etc.

But the proper action would have been to take a regiment of soldiers and surrounded these people and take their firearms, then take them by the most direct route to the end of our territory, and then give them their guns back and tell them that if they ever come back, they will be declaring war on the Mormons and will be dealt with as if they were at war.

That is what should have happened. But John Lee went braindead and perpetrated a unbelievable event that will ever stain our good name as followers of Christ.

 

[Peter1000]

Baptism is not needed to be saved. Just ask the guy on the Cross with Jesus when we get to the final Judgement.

We believe the guy on the cross was either baptized by John or one of the apostles or he will be baptized by proxy either before the millenium or during the millenium.

 

[Peter1000]

1 Timothy 3:2-7
The sort of men to bear office: bishops
It is quite true to say that a man who sets his heart on holding office has laudable ambition. Well, for the office of a bishop a man must be of

Bishop
bish'-up: The word is evidently an abbreviation of the Greek episkopos; Latin, episcopus.

GENERAL

⇒See a list of verses on BISHOP in the Bible.

1. Use in the Septuagint and Classic Greek:
The Septuagint gives it the generic meaning of "superintendency, oversight, searching" (Nu 4:16; 31:14) in matters pertaining to the church, the state, and the army (Jg 9:28; 2Ki 12:11; 2Ch 34:12,17; 1 Macc 1:54; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:6). Nor is it unknown to classical Greek. Thus Homer in the Iliad applied it to the gods (xxii.255), also Plutarch, Cam., 5. In Athens the governors of conquered states were called by this name.

⇒See the definition of bishop in the KJV Dictionary

2. New Testament Use:
The word is once applied to Christ himself, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1Pe 2:25). It abounds in Pauline literature, and is used as an alternative for presbuteros or elder (Tit 1:5,7; 1Ti 3:1; 4:14; 5:17,19). The earliest ecclesiastical offices instituted in the church were those of elders and deacons, or rather the reverse, inasmuch as the latter office grew almost immediately out of the needs of the Christian community at Jerusalem (Ac 6:1-6). The presbyteral constitution of Jerusalem must have been very old (Ac 11:30) and was distinct from the apostolate (Ac 15:2,4,6,22-23; 16:4). As early as 50 AD Paul appointed "elders" in every church, with prayer and fasting (Ac 14:23), referring to the Asiatic churches before established. But in writing to the Philippians (Ac 1:1) he speaks of "bishops" and "deacons." In the GentileChristian churches this title evidently had been adopted; and it is only in the Pastoral Epistles that we find the name "presbyters" applied. The name "presbyter" or "elder," familiar to the Jews, signifies their age and place in the church; while the other term "bishop" refers rather to their office. But both evidently have reference to the same persons. Their office is defined as "ruling" (Ro 12:8), "overseeing" (Ac 20:17,28; 1Pe 5:2), caring for the flock of God (Ac 20:28). But the word archein, "to rule," in the hierarchical sense, is never used. Moreover, each church had a college of presbyter-bishops (Ac 20:17,28; Php 1:1; 1Ti 4:14). During Paul's lifetime the church was evidently still unaware of the distinction between presbyters and bishops.

⇒See also the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Of a formal ordination, in the later hierarchical sense, there is no trace as yet. The word "ordained" used in the King James Version (Ac 1:22) is an unwarrantable interpolation, rightly emended in the Revised Version (British and American). Neither the word cheirotonesantes (Ac 14:23, translated "appointed" the American Standard Revised Version) nor katasteses (Tit 1:5, translated "appoint" the American Standard Revised Version) is capable of this translation. In rendering these words invaria bly by "ordain" the King James Version shows a vitium originis. No one doubts that the idea of ordination is extremely old in the history of the church, but the laying on of hands, mentioned in the New Testament (Ac 13:3; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; compare Ac 14:26; 15:40) points to the communication of a spiritual gift or to its invocation, rather than to the imparting of an official status.

Bishop in the Bible
(An overseer, a supervisor)
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ...
Titus 1:5-11 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ...
⇒Bible Encyclopedia for BISHOP.

A TITLE OF JESUS
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Bishop in the Bible

This entire study, which I am impressed with says nothing about a bishop being able to ordain bishops, or someone less than a bishop being able to ordain bishops.

Either Titus was a person sent by Paul to look for men qualified to be bishops, or Titus was an apostle (unrecorded in the bible) and was looking to ordain qualified men to the office of bishop.

It does not say that Titus actually ordained a bishop, no vergiage like that.

 

[Peter1000]

"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons), stoked by religious zeal and a deep resentment of decades of public abuse and federal interference, murder 120 emigrants at Mountain Meadows, Utah on September 11, 1857. "
120 emigrants murdered at the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
The Aftermath of Mountain Meadows | History | Smithsonian Magazine
Mormon Historians Shed Light On Sept. 11, 1857

Now, we both committed the same Fallacy and neither proves anything.

Yes, we have been talking of this.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Even today there are murderers in the Catholic Church. In fact there are murderers in every church as far as I know.

Yup. Even Mormons. David was a murderer, and so was Paul.

I do not blame the leaders for what the members do.

Of course not. Unless the leaders encouraged that behavior. But for the most part no, the leaders are not responsible for the bad things done by the members.

Neither should we blame current leaders for what past leaders have done. God is our judge.

Generally yes. Apostolicity is a pedigreed thing though, and if the past spiritual leader did something awful it may just be on them and them alone, but it may also be that they corrupted their successors, so those need to be examined carefully. That IS the Mormon point, but it is also a Catholic thing. And we see this care of the pedigree, care of who is chosen a bishop, and the continued but rare use of excommunication.

That being said, I believe the priesthood was restored to the earth and so was the proper organization of God's church.

And, as you know, I believe the priesthood has endured even past leaders who have done their best to destroy the Catholic Church

 

[chevyontheriver]

This entire study, which I am impressed with says nothing about a bishop being able to ordain bishops, or someone less than a bishop being able to ordain bishops.

Either Titus was a person sent by Paul to look for men qualified to be bishops, or Titus was an apostle (unrecorded in the bible) and was looking to ordain qualified men to the office of bishop.

It does not say that Titus actually ordained a bishop, no vergiage like that.

Timothy and Titus were what we would today call apostolic delegates, ambassadors for the apostles, with the authority the apostles gave them to pick and ordain bishops.

But I'm curious to know if you distinguish between the Twelve and apostles in general. For example, Paul was an apostle, and Barnabas, and Andronicus and Junias. How does that work in the LDS?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Although we believe in sustaining the law, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not run by the government.

Seems like it was the opposite, particularly in the beginning of the LDS.

Wasn't the Catholic Church run by the government for a time?

Which years were those? Which government?

Wasn't the Pope told what to do during the Spanish inquisition? I believe that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella controlled the church at that time and told the Pope what to do that is according to what I have read.

I think you have your history of the Spanish Inquisition a bit muddled. Here is a true story for you. A common crook in Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition who got caught by the government, would if he were smart unleash a stream of blasphemies so the government would be forced to hand the criminal over to the Inquisition. Why? Because the Inquisition was far more lenient and merciful than the government and would generally release the guy. The government would inflict a far nastier sentence. And we know this because the Spanish Inquisition kept excellent records.

I believe that the church should be involved in the secular realm, but not to be controlled by it. God does not hate politics or those involved in politics. That being said I actually admire the Jehovah's Witnesses for NOT fighting in wars.

And I agree. Catholics have an anti-war streak and the more common just war position. I'm somewhere in the middle of those. Oh, I might add that the Church controlling the State is not a great idea either.

Do you have a prophet and apostles in your church?

Yup. We're all priests and prophets and kings but the bishops and their priests have the priesthood of Melchizedek, the role of prophet, and the authority to teach and lead.[/QUOTE]

 

[He is the way]

Again Brigham Young's speeches promote violence against others.

Google brigham young blood promotes murder

"
''He did it,'' said Will Bagley, a history columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune whose book ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'' (University of Oklahoma Press) has been a best seller in Utah since it appeared in late July. ''The evidence is unambiguous.''

"
Reopening a Mormon Murder Mystery; New Accusations That Brigham Young Himself Ordered an 1857 Massacre of Pioneers (Published 2002)

"As far as I am concerned, I do not hesitate to say that I believe all these murders lie at his (Brigham Young's) door, and that he will have to be personally responsible of them. His hands are red with innocent blood, his garments dyed with it, and no 'atonement' can ever wash out the damning spots."—Mrs. Ann Eliza Young, in "Wife No. 19," page 199.

Your first link was about Will Bagley's book
Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows

Here is one if the reviews of the book:

"Bagley certainly fails to produce evidence to indict Gov. Young of any crime now.

For example, Bagley's "smoking gun"--the journal of Dimick Huntington--speaks vaguely of Gov. Young's "giving" the cattle of emigrants on the road south to the Piutes, but fails to mention that none of the Indians present at that event were anywhere near Mountain Meadows until after the atrocity was consumated. The Piutes who did participate knew nothing of this purported deal. You'd expect such sham evidence from the likes of Barney Fife, not a serious or unbiased historian.

Further, Bagley presumes to channel Gov. Young's thoughts regarding the Mormon's September, 1857 "war strategy" against the aggressive U.S. Government/Army. Bagley speculates that Gov. Young ordered the massacre of the Fancher train to in some way "intimidate" the U.S. Government by closing the overland trails and "violating" his gubernatorial oath of office. In the context of major American newspapers demanding the genocide of the Mormons, this is an utterly preposterous stretch--especially with a hostile Army marching on Utah. To use this reasoning, Bagley must believe Gov. Young to be either exceptionally stupid/obtuse or perhaps "Jim Jones" suicidal to deliberately give Pres. Buchanan and the Army the very excuse they needed to justify the elimination of the "Mormon Problem" once and for all...this would also justify the unjustified march of the Army. Elsewhere, Bagley acknowledges that Gov. Young was a "fox"--a very shrewd operator. If Bagley is so biased to advocate such conflicting/tortured logic, perhaps he also can conjure the tunnel-vision necessary to believe in the tooth fairy."

Therefore I don't believe there is clear evidence to incriminate Brigham Young. As for the other link there is nothing there to cause me to believe Ann Eliza Young. I have read her biography and know her reputation as a gold digger with a chip on her shoulder because she didn't get what she wanted.

 

[chevyontheriver]

To everyone, what is the definition of Apostle? Requirements?

Not answering, but asking for what distinguishes the Twelve from other apostles like Paul?