NOM

From my critical, historical (and biased) perspective the origin of the Danites is interesting. The presence of a secretive, oath driven society, complete with hand signs, penalties, and promises of obedience must seem significant, at least to the curious. TBM’s would likely deny Joseph Smith’s involvement in the Danite organization, as per his own statements, but it seems even a faithful parallelist like Hugh Nibley would recognize troubling coincidences. Does your experience with temple ordinances cause you to doubt the faithful account of the Danites being originated by Sampson Avard?

The signs and oaths are one part of the evidence that JS approved the formation of this group. The Salt Sermon and the Danite Manifesto are other pieces. I tend to think that JS was not aware of the full extent of their activities, but was unwilling to put a stop to them.

At the very least, the Danites are like DezNat today. The church leaders know about them. They choose not to stop them because that would be uncomfortable. After all, Danites were going after apostates like DezNat is today. DezNat is, apparently, not committing acts of physical violence, but their "Apostate of the Day" seems to indicate a desire to intimidate.

The institutional LDS church claims both publicly and privately that the endowment and the associated promises are strictly for the ordinances of salvation. It is not supposed to ever be a way to cover for some conspiracy or covering for sins. I largely believe that this and the temple rec holders in my life take their covenants seriously such that they really only want to follow the commandments of God as they see it.

However, this still leaves a framework in place where some fervent soul could make engage in deeply troubling activities thinking that their covenants lead them towards an inevitable, God-sanctioned conclusion. I think plural marriage is among those conclusions and it's easy to see how Danites and DezNats could find their own ends in the same way. It's not overt incitement. But a sufficiently charismatic leader could use the mechanism of temple covenants.

I don't blame apologists for wanting to distance themselves and their favorite Restoration away from the Danites and some terrible crimes. At some point the explanation of Danites and their activities is how their uninspired and unfortunate interpretations were not in harmony with the gospel according to the correlation department.

Remember reading a story way back about the Danites still existing (probably call themselves something else, like Utah Law Enforcement Officers Association or something like that) made up of various LDS police and FBI agents. What brought that up was the police harassment being received by Mayor Rocky Anderson of SLC.

Not sure about endowments but I imagine they have ceremonies they enact with hand signals and oaths. Maybe dancing the Hokey Pokey and all shouting "that's what it's all about" at the end. I doubt they wear any special uniform other than an apron and chef's hat* to identify one another.




* Probably got a discount through the Utah Restaurant Association's donut division.

Modern practise and understanding of the endowment is significantly different to that of JS and his gang of polygamites. The fact it was instituted in secret and hidden from the bulk of the Church is a good indication of its nefarious intentions. Not only did the framework exist for the Danites subversive behaviour, the entire impetus for the formation of the endowment was to create an elite secret inner circle that would ultimately break the law. The oaths, the penalties and accompanying signs were not just for salvation, but carried very real penalties participants agreed to when going through the endowment. The wording of the oaths subtly changed in the early 20th century from I will have…insert weird disembowelment thing…to a softer I would rather have done to me when discussing what was to happen when revealing oaths and covenants to the uninitiated.

It’s difficult to understand and interpret intentions and the vibe surrounding their actions through the evolved, sanitised and heavily correlated lens of today’s truncated version.

no1saint wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:57 pm The fact it was instituted in secret and hidden from the bulk of the Church is a good indication of its nefarious intentions.

Kinda like the Second Anointing.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:04 am

no1saint wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:57 pm The fact it was instituted in secret and hidden from the bulk of the Church is a good indication of its nefarious intentions.

Kinda like the Second Anointing.

Random thought: Even the "First Anointing" (endowment) is hidden from many members of the church.

Think about it:

• Practically every "member" under the age of 18.
• Every "member" who doesn't live "close enough" to a temple (I'm thinking the bulk of members in places like Africa.)

Would that be "the bulk of the church?"

Then again; Even those who have had the "First Anointing" have no clue about any real meaning in the ritual, except what they make up through motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:32 am Think about it:

• Practically every "member" under the age of 18.
• Every "member" who doesn't live "close enough" to a temple (I'm thinking the bulk of members in places like Africa.)

Would that be "the bulk of the church?"

Not to mention every "member" who doesn't pay a full tithe, struggles with addictive substances, is honest about some things that many members just lie about, or if you turn back the clock a little bit, who was not married to a member or who had the wrong color skin.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:15 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:32 am Think about it:

• Practically every "member" under the age of 18.
• Every "member" who doesn't live "close enough" to a temple (I'm thinking the bulk of members in places like Africa.)

Would that be "the bulk of the church?"

Not to mention every "member" who doesn't pay a full tithe, struggles with addictive substances, is honest about some things that many members just lie about, or if you turn back the clock a little bit, who was not married to a member or who had the wrong color skin.

Yeah, it also just hit me: Even using the church's own "active member" numbers, the majority of baptized members "leave the church." I'm going to guess that a lot of those folks haven't received even their "First Anointing." Taking that into account, and those other things we have mentioned, I'm happy to use my own motivated reasoning and confirmation bias to say: The "First Endowment" is hidden from the bulk of the church.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:06 pm The "First Endowment" is hidden from the bulk of the church.

You know it's SACRED not SECRET, right? Right?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:32 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:06 pm The "First Endowment" is hidden from the bulk of the church.

You know it's SACRED not SECRET, right? Right?

AND... It only costs 10%! (Of your gross income. In perpetuity. And if you are like my family, you pay 10% before you sock it away for retirement. Then you take a bit out of the nest-egg to give as gifts and pay another 10%. And then you tell those who will receive the gift that they need to pay 10% also. Angry? Me? Maybe. Just a teeny tiny bit...)

Sorry for the thread-jack.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:04 am

no1saint wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:57 pm The fact it was instituted in secret and hidden from the bulk of the Church is a good indication of its nefarious intentions.

Kinda like the Second Anointing.

Fair point. I wonder how many members either know it exists or even knows what it truly means.

no1saint wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:50 am Fair point. I wonder how many members either know it exists or even knows what it truly means.

If I recall didnt the Deseret News publish the names of members receiving their second anointing in SLC temple?

JOSEPH SMITH’S JOURNAL ENTRY ABOUT THE DANITES, WHICH WAS LATER CROSSED OUT
An entry from Joseph’s journal is significant: “July 27 (1838) some time past the brethren or saints have come up day after day to consecrate, and to bring their offerings into the store house of the lord, to prove him now herewith and se[e] if he will not pour us out a blessings that there will not be room enough to contain it. (Malachi 3:10) They have come up hither thus far, according to the ord[e]r of the Dan-Ites, we have a company of Danites in these times, to put to rights physically that which is not righ[t], and to clense the Church of verry great evils which hath hitherto existed among us, inasmuch as they cannot be put to rights by teachings & persuaysons, This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captain over ten. (JSP: J, v. 1, p. 293)
The Joseph Smith Papers notes: “the description of the Danites, a Mormon paramilitary organization, in the entry for 27 July 1838 was scribbled through. The passage was further obscured on one or more subsequent occasions.” (JSP: J, v. 1, p. 293)

A few years later Joseph was saying:
In the History of the Church there is a record of a January 1844 hearing where a Brother Norton brings up “Daniteism.” The following statement from the record says: “The mayor (Joseph Smith) suggested the propriety, since Rockwell and others are clear, and as we have the promise of protection from the governor; and as the police are now well organized, that they put up their guns and that the (Nauvoo City) council pass such an order. The Danite system alluded to by Norton never had any existence> It was a term made use of by some of the brethren in Far West, and grew out of an expression I made use of when the brethren were preparing to defend themselves from the Missouri mob, in reference to the stealing of Macaiah’s images (Judges 18)—If the enemy comes, the Danites will be after them, meaning the brethren in self-defense. (HC: v. 6, p. 165)

The two posts above are a great early example of how the Church attempts to create "Faithful History."

Great stuff, Deacon. Thanks for posting this!

Thanks right back for all I've learned from you. I'm learning The Joseph Smith Papers will show research unless it comes in conflict with Joseph Smith- then they slip back into apologetics.