Mr. Bingham,

I may yet write a more full response to your reply, but time does not
allows me at the moment to wade through all of the insults, sweeping
assumptions, and accusations that take us off the topic of Joseph's
resurrection.

I must begin by pointing out one error you made, which is that the
Messenger Magazine is not an official (or unofficial) publication of the
Apostolic United Brethren (or 'Allredites' as you call them).  One of
its previous editors was an 'Independent Fundamentalist' whilst in that
position, and it has had contributions from members of many branches of
Mormonism.

Back to the issue at hand, there are many points I do not feel you have
really addressed if at all, and so forgive me if I do not cover again
those arguments I feel I already addressed, but here I go with a few
thoughts I may have not made clearly before ...

I was amazed to find when I began reading that those arguments I thought
made plain that I considered doubtful, peripheral, and which are far
from the common view amongst 'Woolley' Fundamentalists you seem to
consider typical and fundamental to the issue.  The idea that Joseph
Smith was a spirit in 1886 is far from common, as I have only heard it
once from one person who seemed to be alone in their opinion, whilst the
almost universal opinion amongst us is that Joseph was indeed
resurrected.  This (and your treatment of the other theory on what the
resurrection involves) shows a distinct lack of knowledge on your part
of what most 'Woolley' Fundamentalists believe - although you are quick
to call it 'typical'.

You wonder who the grave was unknown to in the hymn I quoted about
Joseph's final resting place.  To this Joseph Smith's son David answered
the question that he himself (the author of the hymn) did not know where
the grave was, nor did he expect anyone else did.  Someone has to be
lying, and we have to either question his honesty, that of his mother to
him, or of his brother Joseph Smith III.  It is a matter of what reasons
those involved had for saying what they did.  It seems to me that David
had the least axe to grind, especially so long after his father's death,
and without the need to bolster the claims to his mother or brother.

Regarding the photographs made of the skull and the comparisons some
have made between them: having seen the erroneous assumptions
evolutionary anthropologists make out of more physical evidence than
that (which they can both handle and subject to tests), I cannot place
even more confidence in someones analysis of a few two-dimensional
photos of incomplete skulls, which you ask me to do.  As for whose
skulls they were I already alluded to an early Mormon 'legend' that two
other bodies of similar looking men had been buried in Joseph and
Hyrum's stead, which provides but one possibility.  I don't see any need
to prove the bodies aren't Joseph and Hyrums, just because some believe
there is a possibility they might be.

You mistakenly assume that a dubious story of Woolley flying to ordain a
White Lamanite in the Yucatan is a believed as universal truth by
'Woolley' Fundamentalists, when in fact it is only believed by a
relatively small number of Independents (chiefly Francis Darter, Rhea
Kunz, Lynn Bishop).  Your sweeping assumptions like this do not credit
you as someone who understands the subjects he is trying to critique.

To me it seems that on this subject (as well as others you have alluded
to) you are saying "all of the beans you have seen at the top of the
barrel at this time are black", whatever anyone else says about having
seen some white beans in there can just be dismissed, you cant
understand why they would say such a thing, and you can point out some
black beans to them to try and prove your case.  But of course to those
who have seen a white bean or two no amount of black beans will trouble
them, and they are content to wait for the day when the barrel is
opened.

You speak about those those who claim to have a 'witness' of the Pope,
but as someone who grew up a Catholic I can tell you that there is no
real concept in Catholicism of having a spiritual testimony of who holds
that office.  Catholicism is a religion in which tradition itself is
seen as evidence.  The idea of gaining a testimony in this way is
peculiarly Mormon.

As for all those who testify regarding Hickley, I can think of several
possibilities.  1) they have made an assumption - they may have a real
testimony of Joseph Smith or Book of Mormon, and presume that because
Hinkley holds the same office in the Church that this makes him Joseph's
successor in every way and therefore the current prophet. 2) Hinkley is
indeed the President of the LDS Church, and it is unsurprising that this
obvious fact should be confirmed to them. 3) Hinkley is a prophet to
those people, whether true or false is another matter. 

But we cannot judge or compare our spiritual witness to anothers, and if
we reject the idea of receiving a personal spiritual witness then we
must reject the creation, atonement, and first vision because we lack
physical evidences for all of these, and there are no end of people
eager to try and prove to us they did not happen.  When God tells us
personally something did happen, then arguments to the contrary pose
little threat, although out of a desire to help others come to the same
knowledge we may look at their reasoning and try to explain a different
way of looking at the subject to them (until their mind is open enough,
their vision broad enough, and they are spiritually inclined enough to
come to the same knowledge as we have).

You say that the Lorin Woolley story lacks witnesses, but this just
shows again your lack of study.  There are several accounts from John
Woolley, his father, written accounts by Daniel R. Bateman (who as a
monogamist who did not claim any authority had nothing to gain and
everything to lose by testifying to what he saw), and Samuel Bateman.
There is much more evidence for the 1886 meeting than one will ever find
in anti-Fundamentalist writings you seem to have so much faith in.  I do
wonder though whether it is lack of evidence that worries you, or the
challenge Woolleys account is to you personally if it was true.

Sincerely,

Nat