Side Panel

I suspect that visitors to this blog are confused from time to time to see a few of the recommended blogs on my side panel.

Few if any of them would agree with the doctrine of the three watches and most of the other stuff I write about.

The thing you need to realize about me is that I don’t need someone to agree with me in order to learn from them  and appreciate the talents and callings God has given them.

Ann Barnhart the crazy militant Catholic girl is someone that I have very little in common with religiously, but I admire so many things about her. It is worth a perusal to see what issues she is passionate about and to provide a backdrop for some issues worth pondering.

Dan Mead at weeping for Zion is absolutely incredible in the depth of his spiritual  understanding of Isaiah and John  and virtually any passages of scripture that he pontificates on.

Dan doesn’t seem to agree with me that Joseph is one of the primary servants coming back to redeem Zion but that doesn’t bother me,


Because he has produced a credible scenario of his own using the word of God.

That’s all I ask.

People that reject stuff because they “feel” a certain way make me crazy, but people like Dan that drink deep in the scriptures and have a rational belief system based on the Word of God, are a breath of fresh air to me and they are well worth listening to.

He has been on fire lately with his series on John… well worth reading.

I am not sure that Spek over at Justandtrue and I have ever agreed on anything  beyond the need for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, and yet, he, like Dan, can explain why he feels the way he does from the word of God.

That is all I ask.

His primary calling seems to be to emphasis the need for the spiritual rebirth.

What greater focus can one have?

Rock over at PureMormonism doesn’t even return my emails. That is how sufficiently I have pissed him off. I suspect it is over the polygamy issue and his belief that Joseph never taught it, which I think he is wrong about.

But that doesn’t change the fact that he is one of the most entertaining and thought provoking LDS researchers and bloggers on the internet.

If the five of us were put in a padded room without food and water and told that we needed to find three things of substance, relating to the gospel, that we agreed on before we could be released, we would probably scratch each others eyes out before starving to death.

So… what is my point?

My point is that one does not need to agree with someone else to be able to learn from them..

..and that, until the time comes when we experience that long awaited “unity of the faith”…

vive la différence


25 Responses to Side Panel

  1. JLC says:

    I like this. I couldn’t agree with you more. Thanks for your insights. I follow each of the plog sights you mentioned and really do like their arguments for what they believe. I’m left to ask myself who is correct. I enjoy both yours and Rock’s points on polygamy. I just don’t know who has the better argument but it stretches my mind and I like that. Again, thank you.

  2. rockwaterman1 says:

    Whoa, Watcher! I was not aware of any emails from you I have not returned! I must have missed some.

    I am not at all bothered that we differ on the issue of Joseph and polygamy. I remain friends with many people who are still convinced he practiced it. I would be petty indeed if I selected my friends based on their degree of agreement with me.

    Sorry for the perceived snub. As I hope you know, I am a great admirer of your blog, and read it regularly, although I still have much to catch up with in your early stuff. I’m going to do a search right now in my email box and see if I can find something from you I may have missed.

    Keep up the excellent work, my friend! I am, as ever, a devoted fan.


  3. It’s funny that you mention Dan. I was just commenting to my daughter yesterday how prolific a blogger that guy is, putting out a lot of material in the last four months in great depth and with long posts. He’s starting to make me look like a novice blogger even though, as far as I know, I started blogging first…

    • I should have included you in my remarks Anarchist.

      As I was making the short post I realized that your site is not on the side column (although I mention it countless times in posts) and being the technically challenged person that I am, I was unable to add it without extensive trial and error…

      I thought it would look strange to mention you without the link on the side.

      You have probably been my biggest critic as far as aggressively challenging many of my posts and for that I want to thank you.

      I recall one argument we had that must have produced an exchange of about 30 or 40 scriptural responses back and forth.

      I think you have caused me to search and reconsider my beliefs more than anyone I have met on the net.

      You also cause me more cognitive dissonance because I am always either steaming in frustration or wanting to give you a “high five” after reading your articles.

      Many of them are simply brilliant.

      Needless to say, you and I strongly disagree with regard to polygamy.

      which brings me back to

      vive la différence

      • Oh, I don’t care that my blog’s not on the side roll. Like you said, you link to me all over the place, so I think it is only fair that I others get some exposure, too. But I thought ‘vive la difference’ referred to the difference between guys and gals? (In case anyone wonders and isn’t aware, I’m a guy…)

        At any rate, I completely understand visiting blogs that don’t expressly hold to one’s beliefs. But I must confess, I never thought that you’d have a Catholic blog listed! That was quite the shocker. She’s a good writer, though I wish she would allow comments.

        Btw, thanks for the compliments. You should already know that you’ve impressed me, which is why I invited you to contribute in the first place. And you’ve taught me new things, which I’ve never considered before, causing me to modify my theology somewhat. That may not sound like such a big deal, but coming from me, it is. So, thanks for that.

      • Yes I also thought it always had to do with the dif between the guys and gals however, this is what one dictionary said

        French “long live the difference”, vive + la + différence.
        vive la différence
        Long live the difference (used to express appreciation of diversity).  [quotations ▼]
        [edit]Usage notes
        (Discuss(+) this sense) Often used as a humorous exclamation (e.g., by a man appreciating an attractive woman).

  4. What dictionary are you using? The online Merriam-Webster Collegiate only gives:

    : long live the difference (between the sexes)

    I’ll have to check other dictionaries now that you bring this up, I wasn’t aware people used the expression to indicate other types of diversity.

  5. rockwaterman1 says:

    Well, I searched my email for “Watcher” and “One who is watching” and came up empty. How about sending me another email, or even that lost one if you can find it?

    And yes, Viva La Difference has almost completely come to mean between the sexes, but that was not its only nor its original meaning. Reminds me of how the word “affair” has come to mean, in the popular mind, a sexual liason, when that meaning is relatively modern (since the 1960’s, I believe.) Before it took on that meaning, the word was usually prefaced with “Romantic” affair, or a “love affair.” The word “affair” by itself has nothing to do with sex, love, or romance, but in recent years “affair” has become a shorthand euphemism for sexual relationship.

    It is often assumed that Oliver Cowdery referred to the Fanny Alger incident as a dirty, nasty affair (the letter was actually a copy written in the hand of a reverend whose name I now forget.) I’ve seen the letter, and it’s difficult to ascertain by the use of the word “affair” whether Cowdery actually believed Joseph Was involved illicitly with Fanny Alger, or whether the “affair” he refers to was the gossip going around about it. It’s entirely possible Oliver was disgusted to hear all that gossip which he likely did not believe. Hard to tell.

    Either way, I find it befuddling that some people have used that statement as proof of Joseph Smith’s involvement with Fanny, since Cowderey only heard the gossip about it, he was not privy to any inside information. Oliver Cowdery was a witness to the Book of Mormon. He did not witness Fanny and Joseph in the barn.

    According to the fable, the people present were Joseph, Fanny, and Emma. Fanny never confirmed it, Emma scoffed at the idea when she heard it, and I’m not certain the story was ever in circulation during Joseph ‘s lifetime, so it’s possible he never heard the story himself.

    My understanding of the origins of the story was that it was related by Eliza Young on her Eastern speaking tour “exposing” her life as one of Brigham’s wives. And she claimed she got the story from some of the other wives of Brigham. It’s provenance seems to be gossip, but it sure has legs.

    But I’ve gone off topic, as usual. Viva my penchant for rambling!

    • Rock

      I guess I had a senior moment. I am sorry about the false accusation.

      Yes I remember reading something about the use of the word “affair” and how it may have been meant, with regard to Oliver’s statement. Very interesting.

      I think what I had wanted to ask you had to do with a issue.

      I am absolutely enchanted (have I miss-used yet an other word?!?!) by the original 13th amendment and associated ramifications and I have never heard you pontificate upon it. With the tremendous legal knowledge you have acquired, I would love to get your take on it. Even if you don’t believe it was ever ratified, I would love to get you views on it.

  6. rockwaterman1 says:

    It’s been some time since I read about the original 13th ammendment, but if I recall correctly, it prohibited anyone holding titles of nobility from working in government, and I believe it had been passed by the requisite number of states. It unfortunately got buried and forgotten because the Civil War broke out and a good half of the states seceded, at which time the Powers That Be who didn’t want that provision buried it.

    For reasons I don’t recall, that amendment would have prevented a good many lawyers from running for office, probably because of the designation “Esquire.” I’d have to further research the issue to learn for certain.

    At any rate, with fewer lawyers in government, the country would be a much better place. These days most folks think a law degree is a prerequisite for elective office, but in reality a person doesn’t even need to have been a lawyer in order to sit on the Supreme Court.

    For further info, I would google “lost 13th amendment title of nobility” and see what comes up. Also I think AntiShyster Magazine (now defunct) had much to say on the issue; some of those may be online, so you might add that word to the search. I think I’ll look it up again myself, but for now I don’t have the time.

    All is forgiven for the defamation of my stalwart character over the email issue, as you more than made up for it with the high praise you provided me in your piece.

    • Anarchist and Rock,

      I am finding it interesting that both of you find the use of the term “affair” from Oliver’s accusation so significant. Particularly since both of you take opposite sides of the polygamy issue.

      Correct me if I am wrong but Anarchist, you fully believe in Celestrial polygamy and can’t wait to get your hands on you next wife.

      Rock, despite an overwhelming amount of documentation to the contrary, you don’t even think Joseph Smith ever practiced or taught it.

      So… with two completely different worldviews on the matter, you both seem to think that the possible misconception of the word “affair” could possibly be significant.

      I personally find it rather insignificant myself, because there is sufficient contextual evidence to demonstrate that sexual impropriety is what Oliver was accusing Joseph of and it was what he was upset about.

      Here is an excerpt from Bruno’s site that the Anarchist provided.

      Unfortunately for Hales’ argument, a later source in the same chapter of his book clarifies for us just what Cowdery intended. The minutes of the Far West High Council trial held against Cowdery contain an account by David W. Patten, who “went to Oliver Cowdery to enquire of him if a certain story was true respecting J. Smith’s committing adultery with a certain girl…he [Cowdery] then went on and gave a history of some circumstances respecting the adultery scrape (emphasis mine) stating that no doubt it was true.” This quotation reveals that indeed, Oliver Cowdery was unambiguously accusing Joseph of adultery, and that the word “scrape” in this instance was associated by all involved with Cowdery’s accusation of an affair between the Prophet and Alger. That in the Cowdery letter the original word “scrape” has been replaced by the word “affair” by a later scribe is certainly interesting, and it may be true that “affair” can refer to something besides a sexual relationship. But the High Council Minutes nowhere use the word “affair” to modify the word “scrape.” Rather, they use the word “adulterous,” and clarify that the “scrape” intended by Cowdery was “J. Smith’s committing adultery with a certain girl.”

      More importantly, IMO, here is an excerpt from Rough Stone Rolling

      According to Bushman, “Joseph never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin. Presumably, he felt innocent because he had married Alger.” (pg 325 Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling)

      More than likely, this is the point you were driving at when you provided the link, Anarchist…


      At one time you said you were still open to the possibility that the conclusions of Richard and Pamela Price could be wrong and that you were open to further information on the topic.

      Were you aware that I contacted them about some of their research and they refused to respond to me?

      It seems odd to me that they would not want to respond and explain themselves.

      I would love to have a private dialogue with you regarding the information in the following post sometime if you are interested.

      Anyway, I know you are both pretty well read on this general topic and you both have strong views. I value your opinions but we must agree to disagree on this issue.

      If I am missing something about the “affair” issue please enlighten me.


  7. brandnu11 says:

    The three watch’s are reflected in the parables of the three meaures of leaven. She (church) hid three measures of meal until the whole (wheat loaf) was leavened.

  8. Hey Anarchist

    How come my comments get blocked on your site.

    How could anybody want to block a sweet spirit like me from sharing observations!

  9. No one is blocked on my blog. The moderation settings often put people into the queue if they use certain words, links, or the length is long, but no one, as yet, has been blocked (banned), so it sounds like some problem on your end. Perhaps you keep missing the “post comment” button?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: