Did the early Church have military to support them?
What does the bible tell us to do when persecuted?
How many weapons did Paul or Peter have?
Why do this this was were they not persecuted?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did the early Church have military to support them?If you *really* want to understand what happened with this one, you need to understand 35+ years of history leading up to it.
Are you willing to do that?
If so, here goes the nutshell rendition:
In the 1830s, the church was headquartered in Missouri, a state which allowed the ownership of slaves. The church, however, was by and large opposed to slave ownership, and so this became a critical flashpoint between the church and the locals. Couple this with the church's collective and collaborative living environment that resulted in a powerful economy, a theological system that few outside of the church understood, and a massive population increase that threatened to make the church the majority population within the state, and the locals were terrified of the prospect that the church would one day come to dominate the ballot.
To this end, several mobs formed to attack Mormon settlements in the state. When neither the state nor federal government proved willing to intervene, the church was left to defend itself. This led to the Battle of Crooked River, where a group of Mormon militia met a mob that had gone to ground. One member of the mob was a Missouri state militiaman who had deserted his post to join in the carnage.
When the deserter was killed in the fighting, Governor Boggs was given a false report that the church had attacked a unit of actual state militia. Boggs responded by signing the infamous "Extermination Order" that called upon the state militia to kill or expel every Mormon in the state. Just days after this, Missouri militia rode into the settlement of Haun's Mill and killed 19+ people, including a 10-year-old boy who was executed in front of his mother as a show of force.
In the 1840s, the church tried again in Illinois, once again quickly establishing the most successful city in the state. However, after a few years of relative piece, a rogue newspaper emerged that made a number of wild allegations against the city leadership. The city council appealed to the Illinois Common Law, which permitted the shuttering of "nuisance" publications. The council ordered Joseph Smith, who was acting as mayor, to deal with matters. However, some sort of confusion reigned during this period, as while the law allowed for the seizure of the press the order was given for the press' destruction.
Newspapers across the state called for mobs to form and exterminate the church, to which Joseph responded by readying the town militia, a militia provided for by the town charter and approved by the state government. When this only made things worse, Smith and his brother Hyrum tried a few diversionary tactics before ultimately surrendering to authorities... who then charged them with an assortment of high crimes once they were in custody, rather than the smaller single crime of destroying the press.
A local militia group known to be hostile to the church was assigned the task of guarding the jail where the two were being held. When a mob descended upon the jail, the guards only put up a token level of resistance before either fleeing or joining the mob, which then stormed the building. Hyrum and Joseph were both gunned down, while their two visitors were injured and left for dead.
The church tried once again, this time in Utah. Unfortunately, a federal posting to Utah offered little in the way of pay or prestige, so in due time the federal government was forced to rely on increasingly unfit individuals to serve appointments. Tensions between the membership and the officials quickly grew, with insults and barbs being traded so freely that one local newspaper even declared that one official's drunken carcass was a frequent navigational hazard for anyone wandering the streets.
The final spark came when a servant in the employ of a particularly unpopular federal judge bushwhacked a local who was openly critical of the man. The servant was captured, and the judge was run out on a rail alongside his buddies. The judge knew it would be the end of him if a report got back to Washington before he did, and so he sent a false report claiming open rebellion. For reasons that have never been settled, President Buchanan took this report at face value and sent in 1,000+ soldiers (then a full third of the American military) to forcibly appoint a new governor. In his haste, he failed to send notice of intent, let alone anyone to actually investigate, and so when the church heard the news from mail couriers the general populace feared that the military was there for the purpose of genocide.
That popular leader Parley P. Pratt had recently been lynched in Arkansas after winning a controversial court case didn't help matters.
In the midst of it all, we had the Francher Party, a mixed group of settlers from... Missouri and Arkansas. The group had bet that by carrying only a limited amount of supplies, they could make faster time to California. But their gamble left them stuck in Iron County without the means of going any further. The group quickly made a nuisance of themselves to the locals, such that between this and the general paranoia the only people willing to trade with them were the local Paiutes.
...And then a mysterious disease swept through the Paiutes, leaving one dead.
A local religious leader and the head of the local militia were already wanting the Franchers silent by whatever means necessary. This just gave them the excuse. A local mayor sent message back to Brigham Young asking what was to be done since the Franchers stood accused of trying to poison the Paiutes. Young sent orders back that the locals were to remain neutral; they weren't to lift a finger either way.
Unfortunately, the letter arrived a day too late, as members of the local militia had joined in with the Paiutes in giving slaughter.
Brigham Young didn't believe the allegations, and so offered to use his authority as head of the church to compel the locals to assist the government during their initial investigation in 1859, just months after it happened. But the largely failed invasion of Utah had done so much damage to the administration that the matter was quickly dropped. It would be 20 years before anyone would re-open the investigation.
And there you go.
Actually, the church leadership published an essay on the matter some years back recognizing that the involved parties acted out of fear and paranoia.
Imagine a long-running television series. You started watching it during season 19. You've seen that season, and have your complaints about it. But you end up discussing it with people who've seen the entire series start-to-finish, and so they have a larger, more complete perspective on matters. What you think is one thing, the general opinion is contrary.
That's what's going on here.
Many of the people who you're speaking to have been at this for a decades or even generations. We've seen self-professed "Good Christians" of all stripes break every commandment and then some, either in their efforts to destroy the church or their efforts to seek their own pleasure. Some did it because they felt justified in doing whatever they saw fit, while others did it because it was all about themselves and not God.
If you were to examine the Christian counter-cult movement, you'd see things that would likely shake you.
The wars conducted by Christians? Born again Christian? Can you show me?Have you never looked at the bloody WARS conducted by Christians, some specifically in the name of God? DJItalianspur, cast the bean out of your own eye.
??? Read something actually official:
CFR.
If you want it, go ask God. Thus far, you have refused to do so, suggesting you're not really interested in it.
No contributions with the Bible. As far as all men being sinners, that's 100% with the Bible too.
DJItalianspur: you're repeating the same untruths and straw man arguments over and over again. And they are the same ones people have spouted for decades. We have repeatedly assured you of the research and sources behind things, and presented you with the information. You have blatantly ignored it in favor of your mischaracterizations.
James 1:5. Quit ignoring it.
From Eziekial 37 let's see where we get the bible and the BoM of Mormon then?JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT HAVE A STRONG'S CONCORDANCE OR ANY OTHER HEBREW DICTIONARY WHEN HE WAS TRANSLATING THE PLATES!
He did not know anything about the word ets, not with in his realm of knowledge at the time. He was not well versed in Hebrew traditions, he didn't even know Jerusalem had a wall around it.
The stick of Judah is the Bible, the stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon. The gathering of Israel would not begin until these two were united in our hands, meaning they are both used in tandem, together as one voice of God. It's a symbol of the uniting of the two tribes back into one. The last part of the prophecy speaks of the lands promised to Jacob which were greater than his fathers, these he promised to the descendants Joseph. Adding Gen 49 we learn that this land lies beyond the boarders of Israel somewhere beyond Suez. The Book of Mormon story fits this to a tee, in the second chapter Lehi is told that he "shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you" it was a land promised to Jacob.
Think about it for a moment, if in the resurrection the Lord will bring back every single member of the house of Israel to the land of Israel do ya really think they will fit in. What maybe a billion or two?
Now the following comes from myself, I was once asked why Lehi would be preforming sacrifices if he wasn't a Levite and how could a Israelite not know his own genealogy? Seemed like two good questions. So I prayed about it and found the answer.
In that blessings it speaks of the branches, not the trunk but the branches which would go over the wall. In strongs the word translated branches means daughters. The daughters were branches of the family tree.
In Ezra 2 there are a group of men who lay claim to being Levites yet they are "the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai ". Barzillai was a Ephraimite, following the story back there is a man who only had daughters and by their tradition if these daughters married out of the tribe and into another their children would be named as children of Ephraim on the records rather than under the husband's tribe. These men in Ezra where descendants of Levi through their father but Ephramites through at least one line on a grandmothers side however their genealogy could not be found.
In our story of Lehi he sends his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain a record from Laban and on it he finds his own genealogy. Lehi is surprised to find out that he is a descendant of Joseph. Throughout the story Lehi acts as a Levite priest, he preforms sacrifices so we have to assume he thought he was a Levite like these other men in Ezra. Yet he was also a branch of Joseph through one of the daughters and thus fulfilling the prophecy in Joseph's blessing.
Once more these men in Ezra could not find their genealogy, that's because Lehi had it.
Clearly you've never remotely studied Western history....Did the early Church have military to support them?
What does the bible tell us to do when persecuted?
How many weapons did Paul or Peter have?
Why do this this was were they not persecuted?
Let's start with all the Crusade Wars. How about the Massacre at Beziers with the motto "Kill them all, God will sort his own".The wars conducted by Christians? Born again Christian? Can you show me?
The part where you seemingly think it doesn't apply to you and should be ignored. Obviously I don't know for sure if it's true, but from the surface it looks like you majorly object to it.Tell me what part of James 1:5 I am ignoring?
Did the early Church have military to support them?
So was Peter's example the right thing to do? What did Christ do then?Luke 22 -
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 ¶And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
One of the 12 did in fact draw a sword and smite the ear off a servant who came to arrest Jesus.
As to your other questions - look what happened once Christianity and government became one and the same. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years' War, et cetra.
Clearly you've never remotely studied Western history....
Let's start with all the Crusade Wars. How about the Massacre at Beziers with the motto "Kill them all, God will sort his own".
Clearly all men are sinners.
The part where you seemingly think it doesn't apply to you and should be ignored. Obviously I don't know for sure if it's true, but from the surface it looks like you majorly object to it.
So you're claiming "No True Scotsman"?The crusades were done in the name of Christianity not by born again Christians.
I don't think Mormons are Christians and I don't think the Nazis were Christians but I don't put you together and claim that Mormons killed many Jews.
The biblical church is not part of any state and independent so the crusades were not a Christian war but done in the name of the state which claimed to be Christian.
Nope.Mormons are not muslims because they have similar beliefs on marriage and revelation right?
Why not? Are you not allowed to ask God certain things? Or only at certain times, like when somebody is bullying you?Of course James 1:5 applies to me, but not on weather a denominations is true or not or for how long or where or when e.t.c.
The action part is the true intent-- whether or not you're willing to act on the wisdom God can give you.Also wisdom does not imply a feeling you get if you pray something is true, wisdom is the application of the bible. If you can applied the bible to Joseph Smith or the BoM which part did you apply?
I've wondered for some time now if maybe Joseph Smith misunderstood what James 1:5 actually meant. But that doesn't invalidate what he thought it meant. Why wouldn't God answer Joseph's question when he asked it?James 1:5 is there for believer who suffer persecution which most believers do if they witness Christ (minor in the west in today's age, but it may get worse) I don't see how this wisdom during persecution can be applied to only one prophet and one book 1,500 years after James was written.
Also wisdom does not imply a feeling you get if you pray something is true, wisdom is the application of the bible.
From Eziekial 37 let's see where we get the bible and the BoM of Mormon then?
Verse 16 tell us who they are, but if you missed it, verse 18 does what? It asked the question what does this mean? Verse 19 -22 then show us!
Verse 22 is very clear, but if you still have missed it look at verse 23 - defile themselves any more with idols. Can a book defile itself with an idol or can a tribe? What about verse 24 - David my servant shall be king over them. King over the two books or the people? The books are not people and this chapter is about people. Insert the word book or interpret it to mean book and it makes no sense at all!
Have a quick look at Zechariah 10:6 this is exactly what Eziekial means.
Maybe all you need to do is read verse 22.
What do you think?
Of course James 1:5 applies to me, but not on weather a denominations is true or not or for how long or where or when e.t.c.
When I suffer persecution (I would say I suffer very minor persecution at an intellectual level, as I am the only Christian in my work place my views are always dismissed as old fashioned and religious) (I have been shouted at when I witness Christ on the street) I pray for wisdom, God enables me to continue and have peace and understanding. Now this is bad example because I have not come anywhere near the levels of persecution the early church have, but I still have this promise and thank God for it)
If I was going through such persecution that I struggled to understand why God would allow me to go through this (like job) then I have James 1:5 as the perfect comfort and strength to continue through.
James 1:5 is there for believer who suffer persecution which most believers do if they witness Christ (minor in the west in today's age, but it may get worse) I don't see how this wisdom during persecution can be applied to only one prophet and one book 1,500 years after James was written.
Also wisdom does not imply a feeling you get if you pray something is true, wisdom is the application of the bible. If you can applied the bible to Joseph Smith or the BoM which part did you apply?
Probably not Eziekial 37?
I've wondered for some time now if maybe Joseph Smith misunderstood what James 1:5 actually meant. But that doesn't invalidate what he thought it meant. Why wouldn't God answer Joseph's question when he asked it?
Let me slightly alter the statement Jesus made in Matthew 7:9-11. "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask him if the stone he has is bread, will sit there silently and say nothing while a deceiver tells him it is when it's not?"
It doesn't matter if you disagree with me or vice verse but this is the bible, can you look at verse 22 and study it? the lds do not forbid this or claim you can only interpret according to them right?Well again you and I are going to disagree with the intent of a verse, but you asked if the Bible spoke of Joseph Smith and the Bible and I laid i all out for you. It's your discussion to reject it.
This discussion on James 1 is rather odd. Every time I read the parable of the prodigal son I see something different in it. It all depends on how I need to be fed spiritually, every passage in the Bible is going to mean something different to each of us and at different times in our lives.
That letter of James is broken up into several thoughts which come together at the end.
The first three are about developing patience with God's timing "...let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." It's not just about persecutions but about trials, from Strongs; the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy
Persecution can be a trial but so can the death of a loved one or sickness or poverty. In 1 Tim Paul says "they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare..." So anything going on in your life can be a trial and while going through that trial you may lack wisdom.
Strongs says the word translated wisdom means "...the varied knowledge of things human and divine, acquired by acuteness and experience..." it could be science and learning of men or "the knowledge and practice of the requisites for godly and upright living"
I remember a story about a young man who had finally found a job, they were far and few between. He was given a sledgehammer and told to knock off all the old cement from some fence poles. He worked all morning on it and didn't get very far, he was beginning to think he could not keep going because his muscles were getting sore but he needed that job. He prayed asking for more strength but instead he heard the voice of the Spirit say 'strike the pole'. So he tried it and bang the cement began to crack and after just a few more wacks the cement crumbled. It was the vibration of the pole which made the cement crumble. He lack wisdom of the science and the Lord helped him discover it.
In Joseph Smith's case he had been to several different churches and listened to their preaching, he had come to the point of having faith and desired to repent but he lacked wisdom of which church to turn to. Right here on these boards we see you 'Christians' arguing over Calvinism and other theories of salvation. Within Joseph's family there were divisions of thought.
This was his trial, which one of these churches are preaching the truth? He needed the kind of wisdom which gives "the knowledge and practice of the requisites for godly and upright living". So he reads in the Bible to ask God and he has faith to walk out into the forest kneel down and the rest is history.
We each have that ability but we have to have the desire to know for ourselves and we must ask in faith, nothing wavering.
So you're claiming "No True Scotsman"?
Nope.
Why not? Are you not allowed to ask God certain things? Or only at certain times, like when somebody is bullying you?
The action part is the true intent-- whether or not you're willing to act on the wisdom God can give you.
When it comes to wisdom, God already said that He gives it liberally and upbraidth not.But God does not give us anything and everything we ask for, God is sovereign and we are not.
That's actually an important tenant of LDS beliefs.I don't believe God has given us the bible for us to interpret how we want. If we have the freedom to interpret it how we want then we can make the bible say whatever our evil hearts want to, look at the parables Christ taught, quite often he explains them, but if we ignore his explanation, well we can justify anything.
CFR.Joseph Smith and his family were not from a strong Christian background and were not familiar with the bible or the book of James. I am not sure if they were Christians or claimed to be at the time..
Asking "does scripture overrule scripture" doesn't make much sense...So why read the bible or the BoM if we can use James 1:5 for guidance, what purpose does scripture serve, does James 1:5 overrule scripture?
Except he did...Smith didn't use much scripture for guidance
You're the only one suggesting such a ludicrous thing.Should we ignore Gods word and use James 1:5 and follow our hearts desire (which will be evil).
Huh?If you prayed James 1:5 why did you not receive why Smith claims he received?
Yep.What action part did you apply, did you use James 1:5 for the 30,000 denominations you mentioned earlier
We've only addressed this same question 25 times...These questions are not really raised when you look at James 1:5 in context, which I am sure you are allowed to do?
No one is suggesting anything else.I do believe God guides and directs us by our prayers but only if it is inline with his word.
I last attended an Evangelical church in December, and yes I listen to the Spirit there.Which scripture did you use again when determining if the lds was Gods will for your life? What was wrong according to scripture with... let's say you local evangelical church?
Interesting that Jospeh Smith would not have needed a church in order to repent and find faith, the church does not save anyone. The bible is the truth the church are the people, Joseph should have gone to the word, most prophets, teachers and those who genuinely wanted to seek God would have studied the word diligently and Looked at the lords patten for pray and instruction, they would have repented of their sins and tried to live a life of holiness but Smith instead of doing any of this went into the wood alone..... the rest is history, history recorded by Smith witnessed by no one, 1,500 years after the last book of the bible was complete. It does raise questions does it not?
Now you mention something interesting you say every part of the bible is going to mean something different to each one of us and at different times. I believe this is massive error and not just you personally or the lds if they also claim this) sometimes in Christian churches this happens and more so than ever in the last 70years. This is something that is almost guaranteed to bring error in. Look at Christ's quotes from the Old testament and the apostle Paul's. If these mean different things to different people it totally destroys their arguments and the bible. This is never the case the bible is and claims to be universal. This rules out any application and justifies anything! Look at the 10 commandment these have to universal and not mean different things to different people.
Even if you use this (I am not claiming you are) to weaken the bible and justify modern day prophets/apostles to same blanket statement could be applied to what they say.
Gods word is much more powerful than that, it is eternal and a light our feet, look at psalm 119.
Interesting that Jospeh Smith would not have needed a church in order to repent and find faith, the church does not save anyone.
This rules out any application and justifies anything! Look at the 10 commandment these have to universal and not mean different things to different people.
I should say he was wondering which preachers version of salvation was correct and at that time baptism was still very much apart of Christianity, should he be immersed or sprinkled.
The Ten Commandments are a little different than a parable or even advise about praying for truth. As a young person my focus was on the prodigal son, as a parent my focus was on the forgiving father. And then there is the brother's jealousy to think about.
"The same is true about James one Joseph wrote; ".. it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.... While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
And so he did turn to the Bible seeking truth,
"Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart."
that was the Holy Spirit working on him.
What difference would full immersion or sprinkling have made to Smith, he could not have been baptised as he did not know if he was saved. Why did he not read the word on baptism or salvation, this is what everyone else would do right?
You say he was wondering, well he should have been diligently studying the Word, bringing questions reading commentaries.
You can justify any act and claim God gave you wisdom by James 1:5.
When you say he turned to the bible, he read one verse out of context, why did he not read one of the gospels? Or do you think he had another agenda?
maybe what is more accurate is never has a scripture been used out of context
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?