Response to Nate, Editor of
Allredite Messenger Magazine
Dear Nate,
Thank you for
your dignified response to my flyer which might easily be perceived as crass
and insensitive. Civility certainly is lacking in our society today and is
very much a treasure owing to its rarity. I have, however, chosen 'the
road most traveled by' (to coin a phrase) by choosing to 'err on the side of
caustic' (to coin yet another phrase). To me, being rude, sarcastic,
caustic, abrasive, insensitive and sardonic are far less egregious than failing
to clearly and succinctly delineate the sins of Mormondom, lest, peradventure,
those who profess a belief in Mormonism fail to understand that they are
heading for damnation owing to their murders, whoredoms and priestcrafts.
I would, by far, prefer to be perceived by people to be indelicate (even
comedic, ridiculous or an object of scorn) than to fail to clearly indict them
for abomination.
I shall not re-write my books in this email, but confine my
response to your specific points.
Discarding Discernment
Comparing the
touching of stones by the pre-mortal Christ to the handshake of discernment
(D&C 129) has no validity. The point isn't whether a spirit can touch
a temporal object or not, but whether a mortal can feel the hand of a spirit
and the answer is: no. This is why the spirit of a just man (or an
unembodied righteous spirit) will not offer his hand to a mortal. Satan
is quite a clever fellow it would seem, so why does he not just appear as an
angel of light (spirit of a just man) and then just refuse to shake
hands? He could then deceive his victim. The obvious answer is that
he is compelled to offer his hand, whether by his nature or by those in higher
authority (Michael, etc.). While this is not your argument, nor do you
advance it, nor have I heard this argument before, it is so typical of
"fuzzy" Woolleyite "logic"; it is also Luciferian.
Even though God provided a means to discern the spirits and angels, this
Musserite attempt to dismiss this test is just another attack on personal
discernment. If Lucifer can persuade you to dismiss personal discernment
and revelation and rely instead on one of his servants (false prophets), then
he can lead you into child murder (abortion) or whoredom and priestcraft.
Musserite equivocation aside, if Joseph Smith shook hands
with mortal men in 1886, it was because he was resurrected before that
time. Spirits of "just men" do not shake hands with mortals.
'Dumbing Down' the Resurrection
"51. And, behold, the
veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth
did quake, and the rocks rent;
52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose,
53. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matt. 27:51-53; KJV)
The Woolleyite
approach to the resurrection is reminiscent of the Catholic approach to the
Godhead which resulted in the deliberate stupidity of the
"trinity". If you don't like where the facts lead, just make
the topic of inquiry a mystery. How much of a "detailed
account" of the resurrection do you need? DNA sequence charts,
rehydration technique, genetic and molecular reconstruction technique?
The bodily contents of a person's grave are employed in their
resurrection. That's why the Book of Mormon calls resurrection a
"restoration" and not a "creation" or a "new
construction". If this "restoration" to a "proper and
perfect frame" requires the creation of an arm you never had, so be
it. What is the mystery?
If you die in a wilderness and the maggots and flies carry off the soft tissue,
your skeleton will just have to suffice for the foundation or framework of your
"restoration".
"29. Men and brethren,
let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and
buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand." (Acts 2:29, 34; KJV)
How does Peter
know that David was not yet resurrected and ascended to heaven? He
doesn't say that he knows whether the body of David was still in its
tomb. Peter's evidence was, apparently, that David's sepulchre was "with
us unto this day" indicating that David's sepulchre had not yet been
opened, like the graves of the saints who had been resurrected. An
unopened tomb was, apparently, Peter's evidence.
If a Woolleyite cannot figure out if he has been resurrected
or not, all he need ask himself is "is my skull in a box
underground?" If the answer is yes, then he has not been
resurrected.
"The Unknown Grave"
Unknown to
whom? Your theory that the "Re-orgs" dug up the wrong skeletons
in 1928 is really the only possible salvation for Lorin Woolley's
tale. If Joseph Smith's bones were exhumed in 1928, then Lorin
Woolley lied about meeting him and shaking his hand in 1886, end of story.
Alvin Smith died and was buried not long before Joseph's
meeting and wedding Emma Hale. Rumors that Alvin had been exhumed and
mutilated caused Joseph Smith Sr. to exhume and examine his son's
remains. Father Smith wished the community to know of his displeasure
with those who had started the false rumor and he wished to publicize the fact
that there had actually been no mutilation, so he had an ad printed in the
local newspaper to that effect. Fear of desecration was very much a part
of the Smith family 'collective memory.' Emma certainly came to know of
these events surrounding Alvin's burial and exhumation.
The bounty on the head of Joseph Smith caused Emma to
conceal the actual whereabouts of Joseph and Hyrum's burial sight after the
notorious martyrdom. It is hard to desecrate a body if its location is
unknown. Two coffins containing sandbags were buried at the public
funeral while the brother's remains were actually buried in the basement of the
Nauvoo House construction sight. After six months the remains were moved,
at Emma's direction, and buried beneath the floor of an out-building near the
Nauvoo Smith homestead where they remained until 1928. Emma, by all
accounts, respected and was fond of Hyrum, so what possessed her to bury Hyrum
and her beloved husband under the shed in the back yard without any
headstones? Simple, fear of desecration.
Emma's remains were found, not surprisingly, just to the
east of the empty brick and stone slab crypt that ostensibly held her remains
yet was empty. Why? Fear of desecration. Either Emma or her
suvivors didn't want anyone to know exactly where she was buried. The
skeletal remains of two men were found about seven feet from Emma's
location. Who were they? They were found inside the sod-covered
stone foundation of what once was a small out-building. Nate, you say it
was not the skeletal remains of Joseph and Hyrum, then who, pray tell, were
they? Perhaps a hole was dug in the floor of the shed for some
inexplicable reason and then a couple of drunken, Missouri horse-thieves fell
in, died of exposure, and were covered over after they were discovered and
then, many years later, Emma decided to be buried about seven feet away, just
for old time's sake.
I suggest that you obtain and study the book "In Search
of Joseph Smith" by Shannon Tracy. Tracy assembled a team who
employed the latest scientific methods to compare 1928 skull photographs, a 3-D
plaster cast of Joseph Smith's and Hyrum's faces derived from the original
"death masks" made before the brothers were buried, and also
contemporary portraits of Joseph in profile. The evidence showed a
perfect match of skull, death mask and Maudsley profile and confirmed the
obvious: namely, that the non-typical skull found just feet from Emma's actual
as well as her ostensible grave site was that of Joseph Smith.
It is obvious what happened. Emma was not comfortable
with Joseph's and Hyrum's remains being deposited in the unfinished basement of
the Nauvoo House construction sight, with a price, literally, on Joseph's
head. The floor of the shed could be dug out by night with the activity
concealed by its walls. In about six months from their first burial, the
brothers were to rest safely and secretly near the homestead. The myth of
the "unknown grave" would keep the brothers safe from the fate that
was rumored to befall Alvin, there would be no desecration other than that
possibly induced by persistent Utah (fundamentalist) rumors that Joseph's and
Hyrum's remains had been spirited west with the Saints, a rumor fostered by
none other than Lorin Woolley himself. These rumors possibly contributed
to the 1928 "less than meticulous" exhumation.
You see, Nate, Lorin didn't start spinning his yarn in
1929. That was merely the year he formalized and notarized it.
Whether Musser and Woolley knew of the 1928 exhumation or not is immaterial to
me. If you are going to tell a whopper, it just as well be a big one and
you just as well notarize it. That has got to make it true, right?
What I want to ask the notary is: did you shake hands with the resurrected
Joseph Smith?
As for Brigham Young's public discourses on Joseph's resting
place, it was merely a portion of a decades long, long-distance dialogue he had
with Emma and the Smith boys, another bone of contention. Young was
concerned that Joseph's instructions concerning his burial be carried out
precisely, yet Emma was more concerned with the safety and security of Joseph's
final resting place. You see, Emma was always far less concerned with
carrying out ecclesiastical instruction than was Brigham. Emma was 'large
and in charge' even while Joseph was alive; his death would not diminish it.
When Musserites bump up against any documentation that
challenges their myth, they always 'run home to mama'. Brigham didn't
really mean what he said when he said Joseph was buried in Nauvoo; that was
just 'code talk', a ruse to hide the truth, or so says the fuzzy Woolley
logic. Brigham only said Joseph was buried in Nauvoo and wasn't
resurrected because he had really been spirited off to Utah and then
resurrected. Make sense? Sort of like Orwellian
"newspeak" and "doublethink": good is bad, war is peace.
1882 Revelation
"Joseph
Smith…is with me where I am." Your argument is that Joseph is
with God and is therefore resurrected. I would ask who is
"I". If "I" is Jehovah, would Joseph, therefore, be
on the celestial world where Jehovah previously received his exaltation?
If "I" is Adam/Michael, who is, by all accounts, translated (able to
walk down an isle in conference without being noticed - B.Y.), then is Joseph
on a planet reserved for 'such characters' (translated beings)? Though
the temporary habitation of translated beings is apparently a different locale
than spirit paradise, the two, upon occasion, at least, can mingle (i.e. in the
Church of the Firstborn - an assembly of angels and also the spirits of the
just men made perfect [Hebrews]). So, you see, Nate, though Joseph was
the spirit of a just man, he could be with the quickened (translated) Michael
in the Church of the Firstborn ("where I am") though he were
"not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead" (coroner -
Munchkin Land in the land of Oz - sorry, it's late, Nate)
Proof Against Reality
The defense
against all reason is a "testimony" or "witness".
"Many thousands" you say, have a testimony of the Lorin Woolley
story.
Many millions have a witness that the Pope is the 'vicar of
Christ'. Several millions of 'Mormons' (LDS) have a testimony that Gordy
Hinckley is a true prophet (even 6-year-olds).
The most telling evidence against Lorin Woolley is the lack of witnesses, and I
don't mean those who profess a warm and fuzzy feeling. I mean at least
one and preferably two people in addition to Lorin C. Woolley who left a
written testimony that they shook hands with the resurrected Joseph Smith.
Claims and rumors will not suffice. God does not establish His work with
only one witness.
The scriptures are witness enough against Woolley and the
fragments he spawned: "All tables are full of [vomit]"; "every
one of them is a hypocrite and an evil doer and every mouth speaks folly";
"they have all gone astray", save it be a few who are the humble
followers of Christ, nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do
err, because they are taught by the precepts of men."
What precepts of men? Lorin Woolley's tall tales and
false doctrines. The Book of Mormon prophets and Isaiah stand witness
against Woolley and they are just the beginning.
I have a testimony of the '86 revelation and have and will defend it, yet I
have been constrained to never defend Wooley's story with pen and paper and it
became a stupor of thought and has remained so.
Lorin's tale was a fraud to trap human souls, to control
them and take their money. Evil men have used his lies to create little
monopolies on priesthood and on plural marriage for the gullible who fall into
the trap.
Did Rulon Allred believe the Woolley story? He
probably did, but no expedition ever found 'Yucatan Man'. Why?
Because Joseph the son of Joseph is Joseph Smith and in all these many decades,
no seer from the Yucatan has ever generated so much as one verse of scripture
(that is what a seer does, Nate, generate scripture). Why? Because
'Yucatan Man' does not exist. He is a figment of Woolley's vivid and
prolific (if inept) imagination. He did not exist in the 1920's and he
does not exist now. What kind of seer is he that does not see, speak or
write?
As for "White City", a home of 'Joseph' in the
Yucatan, it has been found. It is merely white limestone cliffs standing
in contrast to the green jungle. The rest is just the natives telling
'gringos' what they want to hear; a white 'shang-ra-la' in the emerald
forest. "White City" may just as well be Minas Tirith in Gondor
of Middle Earth, and Yucatan Man just as well be the heir to the throne of
Gondor. (Forgive me, I don't mean to demean Lord of the Rings, yet it is
just an elf tale after all.)
The Allreds have kept no "authority" (keys)
"alive". They have only perpetuated lies, priestcraft,
whoredoms and false doctrine. My only advice is to 'come out of her, lest
ye partake of her plagues'.
Sincerely,
Mike Bingham
As a post script,
if you are looking for DNA, perhaps you could organize a field trip for
Allredite youth and suggest that the 'Community of Christ' ('Reorgs') allow you
to conduct an archeological style dig where the Smith brothers were interred,
just feet from where they now lie. It is possible that Joseph's maxilla
and upper front teeth could still be found in the dirt within the old
foundation stones of the shed. You could use G.P.R. to find the
foundation, then start digging and screaming. Shannon Tracy believed the
maxilla (and therefore front teeth) were broken off from the skull by a shovel
strike. You could start the dig this summer. Who knows, the teeth
might contain enough DNA to test, if they can be found.
Let me know what the 'Reorgs' say to your proposal.
Or you could just safely dismiss the claims of 'lone witness
Woolley', knowing that the Lord provides two or three witnesses, not one -
better to err on the side of safety. If all else fails, rely on the
testimony of the scriptures. Now there is a novel thought!
"All tables are full of [vomit]."
As a final thought, as in the days of Peter, and David's
sepulchre, there is no burden of proof upon me to show that Joseph Smith has
not been resurrected. The burden of proof is upon the Woolleyites to show
that he has been resurrected. They must show an empty grave, tomb or
sepulchre, and provide at least two witnesses to the resurrected state of
Joseph Smith in order to even begin to argue that Joseph was resurrected prior
to 1886, for even this would be no proof if Joseph's remains were lost and the
witnesses were pathological liars. The Woolleyites can provide neither of
the two requirements and have no foundation for their claims.
The Smith family knew of the location of the "unknown
grave" and exhumed the brothers. Skeletal photographs and other
forensic evidence corroborates that Joseph Smith's skull and bones still lay
precisely where the family knew they were, beneath the floor of the demolished
shed they called the "bee-house". Sorry Nate, no empty grave,
no witnesses, no sale. Peddle Lorin Woolley's wild and wooly lore to the
gullible, who abound not merely in the "thousands", but the millions
and billions. So please, as suggested, get approval from the
"re-orgs", get some G.P.R. or acoustic equipment, or just use their
map (I have a copy from Tracy's book, if you want one), find the foundation of
the "bee-house", get a screen and start digging and find the broken
maxilla and teeth that were, apparently, so carelessly left behind in 1928.
Perhaps if you find the teeth and they are still intact
enough to harvest some DNA...you could use scientific comparison to determine a
probability of whether or not the remains are Joseph's. If you conclude
that they are not, you have still not proved the resurrection of Joseph Smith,
or satisfied the law of witnesses.
The burden of proof of Woolley's tale is on his fragments and
they have all failed to meet that burden: no empty grave, no witnesses
(plural), a seer who can't be found (Yucatan man) and 100% failure of Woolley
prophecy. The only authority these fragments have is that which is handed
over by their victims. Victims who are not "elect" because they
are deceived by "false prophets".
I would love to banter back and forth, but unless you
have more than third hand dreams and collective, fuzzy feelings, I shall have
to hold to the iron rod of revelation. I really need to employ my typist
more productively. I suggest you send for my book, A White Stone and A
World Church - I have a few copies left from the first printing and I have been
expecting delivery of 500 corrected and expanded copies from the printer.
I have a book on John's Revelation waiting final correction and a book
explaining Isaiah also waiting for my typist to finish, so I really shouldn't
be wasting her time on 'flying Lorin': the super-fabricator. Far too many
man-hours have been consumed and too many lives destroyed on Woolley's
fantasies already.
To all the "priesthood" councilors in all the
Musserite fragments, I say, perhaps for the last time, "come out of
her" (Babylon and the beast), lest the plague of destruction descend upon
you as well. And to any of the elect still mesmerized by Woolley's tall
tales and false doctrines, I say "come out of her" (Rev. 18:4)
"that ye receive not of her plagues".