Bushman biog: Sylvester Smith - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 01-01-2006, 03:38 PM

I found the account of Sylvester Smith during and after Zion's march interesting.

He and Joseph Smith got into a few sharp disagreements, with JS apparently threatening to assault him at least once, and likely twice.

SS then reported JS's behavior as unbecoming of a prophet to the council in Kirtland, who then considered the matter over a couple of sessions.

SS was basically forced to sign a retraction, which he did begrudgingly, after having first refused.

SS later served in a couple of high callings, including clerk (or secretary, can't remember) to JS.

The part I find interesting is that can you imagine someone in this day saying that GBH or an apostle had acted in an inappropriate way, and then have this seriously considered? And then to be given a calling of high responsibility?

We live in an era when people do not even oppose people being put into callings. Whereas the early church seems rough and tumble to me, the modern church is much less so.

Debate and common consent in such a large organization, I'm afraid, have become a distant tradition, and not a current practice.

01-01-2006, 03:38 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Bushman biog: Sylvester Smith I found the account of Sylvester Smith during and after Zion's march interesting. He and Joseph Smith got into a few sharp disagreements, with JS apparently threatening to assault him at least once, and likely twice. SS then reported JS's behavior as unbecoming of a prophet to the council in Kirtland, who then considered the matter over a couple of sessions. SS was basically forced to sign a retraction, which he did begrudgingly, after having first refused. SS later served in a couple of high callings, including clerk (or secretary, can't remember) to JS. The part I find interesting is that can you imagine someone in this day saying that GBH or an apostle had acted in an inappropriate way, and then have this seriously considered? And then to be given a calling of high responsibility? We live in an era when people do not even oppose people being put into callings. Whereas the early church seems rough and tumble to me, the modern church is much less so. Debate and common consent in such a large organization, I'm afraid, have become a distant tradition, and not a current practice.