Parley P. Pratt's body to be moved to Utah

[_Sethbag]

A descendant of Parley P. Pratt has successfully petitioned to have PPP's body disinterred from his grave in Arkansas, and moved to Utah.

I guess this means PPP hasn't been resurrected yet. At least, if the example of Jesus in rising from the tomb with his original body (albeit improved and refreshed) means anything.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23945756/

[_Inconceivable]

I never heard the story in this context.

This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Pratt took McLean's wife while on a prostlyting mission in California (the "South"?).
2. She remained married to McLean when she left with Pratt to Utah.
3. They left without the children she had with McLean
4. Their (McLeans) children were sent to Arkansas by their father to live with his parents
5. Pratt was in Arkansas by himself to take McLean's children (to Utah) - not a prostlyting "mission" as Mormons are permitted to assume.
6. The woman was still married to McLean when he killed (the home wrecking, children stealing, womanizing, adulterous pervert) Pratt.

What did I miss?

Pratt was exhonerated in court specifically for what? Define "estrangment". Posthumously? Which court and where?

"Most" scholars discount the connection between MMM and Pratt? Huh?

[_Inconceivable]

At least, if the example of Jesus in rising from the tomb with his original body (albeit improved and refreshed) means anything.

Although he remained faithful all of his life, my grandfather's faith was shaken while on his mission in the '20's when he was told Joseph and Hyrum's bodies were exhumed and re-enterred - post resurrection. He was always permitted to assume they were resurrected as Jesus was claimed to be until he found out otherwise.

The explanation given him was that Jesus had to have his old body because of it's unique immortal/mortal constitution. We mere mortals don't. But then what did food provide Jesus with (pre and post resurrection)? Mortals digest food not only to replenish/create energy but to rebuild/replace dead cells - unlike, say the internal combustion engine. Is Jesus' constitution now a "Mr. Fusion"?

The important question:

Then what is the importance of memorializing or consecrating a resting spot for human remains (by authority of the Melchizedek priesthood) to "come forth on the morning of the first resurrection" if there is no intention that it be reconstituted?

Think about it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I guess this means PPP hasn't been resurrected yet. At least, if the example of Jesus in rising from the tomb with his original body (albeit improved and refreshed) means anything.

The same goes for Joseph and Hyrum Smith, at least in 1927 (or thereabouts), when their remains were found, exhumed, and buried where they are today.

[_Dr. Shades]

I guess this means PPP hasn't been resurrected yet.

Of course that's what it means. According to LDS doctrine, the morning of the first resurrection won't happen until after the Second Coming of Christ.

So PPP not having been resurrected yet is in complete accordance with what Mormonism teaches anyway.

[_karl61]

from this page:

http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_t ... 91700.html



"The first Utah Legislature passed an act that said no one who hired a lawyer "in any court of the Territory shall be compelled by process of law to pay the counsel." There wasn't a big call for lawyers in Utah's early history since apparently no case came to trial until January 1851, when Great Salt Lake County convicted some transients for stealing. When frontiersman Howard Egan went up to greet fellow pioneer James Monroe at Cache Cave that fall, the situation changed. The two men stepped aside for what appeared to be a friendly talk, but at the end of the chat, Egan shot Monroe to death for seducing his wife.




Apostle George A. Smith launched a brief but interesting legal career as Egan's defense attorney. He argued it was "a principle of mountain common law that no man can seduce the wife of another without endangering his own life." The jury agreed with Smith's logic: "The man who seduces his neighbor's wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!"

[_Doctor Steuss]

"Most" scholars discount the connection between MMM and Pratt? Huh?

The majority of it, yes. Unless one buys into the Missouri Wildcats gossip.

[_moksha]

Apostle George A. Smith launched a brief but interesting legal career as Egan's defense attorney. He argued it was "a principle of mountain common law that no man can seduce the wife of another without endangering his own life." The jury agreed with Smith's logic: "The man who seduces his neighbor's wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!"

I wonder if the jury had either been shielded from information about the Nauvoo experience, if it had been forgotten or if Mormon mores has changed considerably by that time?

[_Inconceivable]

I guess this means PPP hasn't been resurrected yet.

Of course that's what it means. According to LDS doctrine, the morning of the first resurrection won't happen until after the Second Coming of Christ.
So PPP not having been resurrected yet is in complete accordance with what Mormonism teaches anyway.

Not exactly correct.

The first resurrection has been on going from Jesus and will continue until the judgment. The second resurrection which will be after the Judgement - you know, for people like me that were wicked enough to reject the Mormon Jesus.

[_Inconceivable]

Apostle George A. Smith launched a brief but interesting legal career as Egan's defense attorney. He argued it was "a principle of mountain common law that no man can seduce the wife of another without endangering his own life." The jury agreed with Smith's logic: "The man who seduces his neighbor's wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!"

I wonder if the jury had either been shielded from information about the Nauvoo experience, if it had been forgotten or if Mormon mores has changed considerably by that time?

The argument by George A. Smith is also found in the Journal of Discourses 1:95. I found it to be a troubling read 20 years ago when I first came upon it.

Smith believed that Egan was fully justified in hunting down James Monroe and murdering him for seducing his wife.