LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
This claim is new to me and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread.

According to a Mormon-friendly and official Church-published source, Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited by people that dressed like Quakers. With Philo Dibble, a close associate with Joseph Smith, as his source, Oliver B. Huntington wrote with significant detail:

The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could 'See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Seems to me this claim makes much of the other nonsense from Smith to be small potatoes.
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi, atrocious as that video is, remember that just about all religions involve the spilling of blood at some level, self-mutilation or self-inflicted suffering in the name of acquiring 'spiritual insights' :eye-poppi

Specifically to your post, all I can say is that during the season, bullfights are broadcast live here on public teevee.
What more is there to say?


From your source, slyjoe
Brigham Young expanded on the teaching that the Sun was inhabited.

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fathers. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized".8
Click to expand...

Brigham Young, July 24, 1870, Journal of Discourses 13:271.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/4872
 
pakeha said:
kerikiwi, atrocious as that video is, remember that just about all religions involve the spilling of blood at some level, self-mutilation or self-inflicted suffering in the name of acquiring 'spiritual insights' :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Which brings me to one of my favorite Terry Prachett quotes.

It was some time after its creation when most people forgot that the very oldest stories of the beginning are, sooner or later, about... blood. At least, that's one theory. The philosopher Didactylos has suggested an alternative hypothesis: "Things just happen. What the hell."
Click to expand...
 
SezMe said:
This claim is new to me and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread.

Seems to me this claim makes much of the other nonsense from Smith to be small potatoes.
Click to expand...

Not really. That sounds like the moon-man hoax that was in the newspapers in the 1830s. Try googling that, maybe with the name "Herschel," since that was the actual astronomer's name they used. The thing about the moon-men being dressed as Quakers is identical.

The hoax had nothing to do with the church and was just something floating around. A lot of people fell for it, so it's not surprising that Joseph Smith did too. It would be similar to a church leader claiming in 1939 that Martians were landing in New Jersey.

I absolutely disagree with this statement in the article: "All things considered, the argument that Smith actually taught such things about moon men is probably not strong enough to use."

It sounds exactly like something that anyone in the 1830s might say, because it's almost verbatim what they could read in the newspaper. Smith was known for incorporating current scientific theory into his revelations--health codes, Indians as lost tribes, etc.--so why not the supposed discovery of a leading astronomer?

Of course it's yet more evidence that Joseph Smith didn't have omniscient knowledge fed to him by God and fell for hoaxes like anyone else, but we already know that. The problem is that only hard-core history buffs know about the moon-man hoax today. To leave out such key information in an article on the topic, seems to be an attempt at deliberately making Joseph Smith look worse to gullible anti-Mormons who will believe anything that makes Smith look like a liar and conman, rather than, in this case, what he actually was: one of the many victims of someone else's hoax.

Brigham Young's claim about the sun, on the other hand, has no other historic context that I know of--anyone aware of any? So yeah, he's out on his own for that one, and clearly didn't understand the difference between planets and stars.
 
IIRC, the Great Moon Hoax had bat-people, not Quakers, so while it's true that many people believed the the moon was populated, I don't think that the newspaper's hoax was fully the origin of JS's belief, assuming he bought into that one. Certainly it could have influenced him, but there were all sorts of odd views flying around at the time, so who can say where it really started. Poe had his own Moon Hoax, though he never finished it, and I don't recall off hand if he described the inhabitants.

Quick googling is telling me that the earliest documentation of Smith's belief in moon men dates to 1881, so almost 40 years after his death. Who knows whether it was accurate after all that time, though it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
This claim is new to me and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread.

According to a Mormon-friendly and official Church-published source, Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited by people that dressed like Quakers. With Philo Dibble, a close associate with Joseph Smith, as his source, Oliver B. Huntington wrote with significant detail:

The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could 'See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Seems to me this claim makes much of the other nonsense from Smith to be small potatoes.
Click to expand...
Random thoughts: If Philo Dibble created a religion, I would totally join. That is a name that inspires confidence. Also, I want to adopt a pet and name it Philo Dibble.
 
kmortis said:
Which brings me to one of my favorite Terry Prachett quotes.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Pup said:
Not really. That sounds like the moon-man hoax that was in the newspapers in the 1830s. Try googling that, maybe with the name "Herschel," since that was the actual astronomer's name they used. The thing about the moon-men being dressed as Quakers is identical.

The hoax had nothing to do with the church and was just something floating around. A lot of people fell for it, so it's not surprising that Joseph Smith did too. It would be similar to a church leader claiming in 1939 that Martians were landing in New Jersey.

I absolutely disagree with this statement in the article: "All things considered, the argument that Smith actually taught such things about moon men is probably not strong enough to use."

It sounds exactly like something that anyone in the 1830s might say, because it's almost verbatim what they could read in the newspaper. Smith was known for incorporating current scientific theory into his revelations--health codes, Indians as lost tribes, etc.--so why not the supposed discovery of a leading astronomer?

Of course it's yet more evidence that Joseph Smith didn't have omniscient knowledge fed to him by God and fell for hoaxes like anyone else, but we already know that. The problem is that only hard-core history buffs know about the moon-man hoax today. To leave out such key information in an article on the topic, seems to be an attempt at deliberately making Joseph Smith look worse to gullible anti-Mormons who will believe anything that makes Smith look like a liar and conman, rather than, in this case, what he actually was: one of the many victims of someone else's hoax.

Brigham Young's claim about the sun, on the other hand, has no other historic context that I know of--anyone aware of any? So yeah, he's out on his own for that one, and clearly didn't understand the difference between planets and stars.
Click to expand...

So, Smith had not only the rocks in his hat but newspapers for 'sparking' his divine disclosers.

Pup, I appreciate your posts putting Smith's sci-fi fantasies into context.
I used to think there was some influence by Jules Verne in Smith's assertion, but the dates are wrong.
Do you know of any earlier sci-fi writers who might have influenced Smith?

The populated sun revelation by Young IS a good one. It brightened up an otherwise drizzly Tuesday.
 
Empress said:
IIRC, the Great Moon Hoax had bat-people, not Quakers,
Click to expand...

You're right. I was sure I remembered that, but it was bat people. Here's the text:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/text/display/the_great_moon_hoax_of_1835_text/

so while it's true that many people believed the the moon was populated, I don't think that the newspaper's hoax was fully the origin of JS's belief, assuming he bought into that one. Certainly it could have influenced him, but there were all sorts of odd views flying around at the time, so who can say where it really started. Poe had his own Moon Hoax, though he never finished it, and I don't recall off hand if he described the inhabitants.

Quick googling is telling me that the earliest documentation of Smith's belief in moon men dates to 1881, so almost 40 years after his death. Who knows whether it was accurate after all that time, though it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. It looks like his own particular spin on a general theme that was running around at in the 1830s.
 
First off , is short "god" simply means Holy intelligence authorized to subject all elements to will. Also, just as there are degrees in perceived qualities of beings, there are also differentials in perceived qualities and different purity's of matter. We are not the only intelligence in this solar system or the universe. We are a controlled population and material sphere in perpetual transition, with limited bounds and capacities, given limited information through the very materialism we have access to. We've been given clues. Time is not relevant. Intergalactic and Extra-galactic travel is subtly proposed and such travel defies the imagination.Matter is essential, inorganic is a fine and pure state, energized by light and possesses omnipotence over all matter of less purity. I can easily see beings beyond our technological scientific comprehension organizing worlds. If mortal man were given enough time and resources, he'd do it. But scriptures tell us while that is possible, its not the plan.

Here is my wordy Morman advesarys answer to my statement that humans are the only intelligent life in our solar system and that perhaps one day humans would inhabit the moons, planets and asteroids.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
First off , is short "god" simply means Holy intelligence authorized to subject all elements to will. Also, just as there are degrees in perceived qualities of beings, there are also differentials in perceived qualities and different purity's of matter. We are not the only intelligence in this solar system or the universe. We are a controlled population and material sphere in perpetual transition, with limited bounds and capacities, given limited information through the very materialism we have access to. We've been given clues. Time is not relevant. Intergalactic and Extra-galactic travel is subtly proposed and such travel defies the imagination.Matter is essential, inorganic is a fine and pure state, energized by light and possesses omnipotence over all matter of less purity. I can easily see beings beyond our technological scientific comprehension organizing worlds. If mortal man were given enough time and resources, he'd do it. But scriptures tell us while that is possible, its not the plan.
Click to expand...

Try telling that to the IRS.
 
SezMe said:
This claim is new to me and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread.

Brigham Young said:
The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could 'See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see
Click to expand...

Seems to me this claim makes much of the other nonsense from Smith to be small potatoes.
Click to expand...
What makes these declarations (there were others) so absurd is that Brother Brigham was ostensibly talking to god. The perception I had as a Mormon is that god would not let his prophets say idiotic things. The history of Young, Smith and other prophets appears to conform far more parsimoniously to the theory that they were ordinary people who either knew they were liars or who were deluded in their thinking that they actually were receiving god's wisdom from a rather inconsistent deity.

It doesn't pass the smell test. Over and over church leaders have expressed how important direct revelation is and how god would not lead his people astray. What the hell is up with a deity ignoring the fact that his *mouth piece was spouting absolute nonsense? Was god on vacation or did he just not give a ****? Of course you can say that we cannot question god or we cannot know the motivations and purpose of god. Fine, your deity is incomprehensible so please to avoid reason when talking about your chosen super hero character like Yaheweh/Elohim/Adoni/Jesus/etc...

*“The President of the Church is the mouthpiece of God on earth. Thus saith the Lord: ‘Thou shall give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ (D. & C. 21:4-5.
 
Last edited:
Hi Randfan,
It's been a while. I can tell you that I now have in laws from the faith, although they seem to be of the fairly rational type that dont preach, and the closest inlaw is of the atheist variety, but on good terms with the rest. I suspect that this is not your case from your tone, but I admit that I have not walked in your shoes.
 
Cainkane1 said:
First off , is short "god" simply means Holy intelligence authorized to subject all elements to will. Also, just as there are degrees in perceived qualities of beings, there are also differentials in perceived qualities and different purity's of matter. We are not the only intelligence in this solar system or the universe. We are a controlled population and material sphere in perpetual transition, with limited bounds and capacities, given limited information through the very materialism we have access to. We've been given clues. Time is not relevant. Intergalactic and Extra-galactic travel is subtly proposed and such travel defies the imagination.Matter is essential, inorganic is a fine and pure state, energized by light and possesses omnipotence over all matter of less purity. I can easily see beings beyond our technological scientific comprehension organizing worlds. If mortal man were given enough time and resources, he'd do it. But scriptures tell us while that is possible, its not the plan.

Here is my wordy Morman advesarys answer to my statement that humans are the only intelligent life in our solar system and that perhaps one day humans would inhabit the moons, planets and asteroids.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of Jack Nicholson's stoned rant about CTs and UFOs in Easy Rider, and Dennis Hopper's retort: "Man, what are you saying?"
 
Elind said:
Hi Randfan,
It's been a while. I can tell you that I now have in laws from the faith, although they seem to be of the fairly rational type that dont preach, and the closest inlaw is of the atheist variety, but on good terms with the rest. I suspect that this is not your case from your tone, but I admit that I have not walked in your shoes.
Click to expand...
Yesterday was my fathers funeral. Services were held at my mothers ward. The services were lovely and the many Mormon family members and friends who came to pay their respect to my father were as respectful of me and my beliefs as I was of them and theirs. Most everyone I know and love is Mormon. Most active. They are by and large decent moral people. Like most humans they are also quite capable of reason in most things though they compartmentalize their beliefs in Mormonism and the many problems, contradictions, anachronisms, etc..

I'm not anti-Mormon and outside of social networking I don't go out of my way to challenge the beliefs of Mormons. IMO: The culture of Mormonism has some good aspects to it and there is much about Mormonism and Mormons that I respect.

At the end of the day though when I'm asked I tell the truth as to my understanding of the Church and my experience with it.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Yesterday was my fathers funeral. Services were held at my mothers ward. The services were lovely and the many Mormon family members and friends who came to pay their respect to my father were as respectful of me and my beliefs as I was of them and theirs. Most everyone I know and love is Mormon. Most active. They are by and large decent moral people. Like most humans they are also quite capable of reason in most things though they compartmentalize their beliefs in Mormonism and the many problems, contradictions, anachronisms, etc..

I'm not anti-Mormon and outside of social networking I don't go out of my way to challenge the beliefs of Mormons. IMO: The culture of Mormonism has some good aspects to it and there is much about Mormonism and Mormons that I respect.

At the end of the day though when I'm asked I tell the truth as to my understanding of the Church and my experience with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, and my condolences for your loss. I will bear your words in mind in my future interactions with my in laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom