Joseph Smith: Truth-teller, Or Deceiver?

[Neighbor]

Leaving aside the inevitable cat-calls of "magician" and "tool of Lucifer," is there any possible

explanation of how Nephites might be fictional, and yet the intents and outcomes of the religious

ministry of Joseph Smith, Jr. be sincere and righteous?

UD

The origins of the BOM were not JS, but the musings of one curious author, compounded by 'frontier legends' (as we may have what are termed 'urban legends' today), compounded by one envious wanna be reformationalist Sidney Rigdon, who thought A. Campbell a pius fraud in that he won everything by smart argmentations (apolgetics) instead of the plan truth of the gospel in truth and love and following the Spirit.

Rigdon had a grudge to settle, which was the purpose of the BOM. Joseph was a tool, but a tool smarter than Rigdon in whit and charisma. At the beginnings things weren't too far out in doctrine, so long as Rigdon was doing the leading. Later on, when the basics were settled and agreed to and Rigdon thought to challange the young prophet, the matter was settled over gesting around on the sabbath which Rigdon thought below the mannerism of the prophet - which the prophet quickly made a fool of Rigdon in public spectacle.

Once that was past, then the 'apostates' were castigated, then you had a following with no leading except the prophet and his way or else. Then the false doctrines crept in wholesale. D&C being the final indescresion, to which I hear JS told them to burn it because he was sure it was not of God and was indeed his undoing.

So it goes on today that small steps have been taken to right what should have been righted long ago.

I thank God to be a Christian and am not a bit ashamed of not being a Mormon. When they start practicing the Sacrament prayer in their official doctrine - the very teachings and commandments of God from Jesus Christ - well then I might be inclined to believe otherwise. I think that is where they were starting from and somehow got way off the proper footing of faith. Faith is in Jesus Christ, the prophetic word made sure, not on a fable that hinges on one mans hidden witness not made public until years after it supposedly happened.

I would rather imagine that had God and Jesus appeared to JS that he would have made much of it from the start. His character of all the other visitations claimed make that amply plain to me.

[Uncle Dale]

Sidney Rigdon, who thought A. Campbell a pious fraud in that he won everything

by smart argmentations...

Rigdon certainly did grow continually away from Campbell, after his early infatuation with the

man and his religion. And, yes, Campbell was a sarcastic smart-a** who liked to pick theological

fights. But if that was true of Campbell, it was equally true of Rigdon -- Rigdon, however, did not

have the guts that Campbell did, and would not engage in controversial public debates like Campbell.

But all of that is "small potatoes," I think.

I think that Rigdon was a visionary, who was subject to vivid dreams, fantastic hallucinations,

and voices speaking to him in his own head. These manifestations he considered to be gifts of

the Spirit.

Campbell said there were no such contemporary gifts of the Spirit and cited the Bible for his

evidence -- "whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues,

they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away."

In return, after 1830, Rigdon could quote OTHER scripture, to show Campbell to be wrong.

Half of the Book of Mormon is an argument for the continuation of spiritual gifts among the

righteous remnant of God's people.

UD

[Neighbor]

At the risk of ruining my reputation here:-), I must confess there is much true doctrine in the book of Mormon. I just cannot believe it is authored as purported or translated as claimed. The faults I have with Mormonism are the additional 'revelations' that are clearly against the revelations Jesus supported as true. Jesus said the time was coming that worship would not be associated to the temple of God in Jerusalem, but that wherever one was, if two or more were gathered in His Name that He would be there with them - He WOULD BE PRESENT.

If only LDS believed the truth as Jesus taught it, there is no doubt in my mind I'd join the next day:-)

(but how is that to happen if they don't purge the leaven out?)

Thanks for the link to the Gov. Ford info!!!

[USU78]

the religious zealots that JS picked as his witnesses

Nice misdirection, MC. When in doubt of another's motivations, demonize the other, especially by comparisons with koolaid-drinking actual zealots, since the other's motivations cannot possibly be sincere.

USU "An ad hominem a day keeps one's doubts away" 78

[USU78]

Here's what Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois had to say,

on pages 256-258 of his "History of Illinois":

The most probable account of these certificates is, that the witnesses were in the conspiracy, aiding the imposture; but I have been informed by men who were once in the confidence of the prophet, that he privately gave a different account of the matter.

UD

Quite a convenient and, may I add, self-serving bit of hearsay there, Rabbi.

[Jaybear]

Nice misdirection, MC. When in doubt of another's motivations, demonize the other, especially by comparisons with koolaid-drinking actual zealots, since the other's motivations cannot possibly be sincere.

USU "An ad hominem a day keeps one's doubts away" 78

Who but the religiously devout would believe that (1)God would strike dead anyone that looked at the plates without his consent; (2) God made words appear on a stone in the bottom of JS's hat; (3) An angel took the plates back to heaven.

Somehow apologist expect the rest of the world to ignore the fact that the witnesses JS selected did not include any disinterested skeptic, but were comprised solely of Whitmers, Smiths, and religious zealots.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[Confidential Informant]

Somehow apologist expect the rest of the world to ignore the fact that the witnesses JS selected did not include any disinterested skeptic, but were comprised solely of Whitmers, Smiths, and religious zealots.

Ah, to live life with such a simplistic view. Of course, your response ignores the fact that each of the three witnesses in turn had reason to hate Smith and the Mormons and to deny what they'd seen and yet they never did.

If you question their veracity when they were on Joseph's side why don't you confirm it when they weren't?

C.I.

[Uncle Dale]

Quite a convenient and, may I add, self-serving bit of hearsay there, Rabbi.

Indeed! We human beings seem prone to that sort of thing.

Not to mention <blush!> we anti-Mormons and Mormons....

Uncle "I've not yet concluded which side of that fence has the greener grass, it seems" Dale

[Jaybear]

Ah, to live life with such a simplistic view. Of course, your response ignores the fact that each of the three witnesses in turn had reason to hate Smith and the Mormons and to deny what they'd seen and yet they never did.

If you question their veracity when they were on Joseph's side why don't you confirm it when they weren't?

C.I.

I didn't just question their veracity, I also questioned their gullibility.

Moroever, what makes you think I don't question their veracity when they were not on JS side. Consider this statement by Whitmer:

"if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

I think he either lying or deluded when he claimed to hear the voice of God on both occasion. How about you?

[USU78]

Indeed! We human beings seem prone to that sort of thing.

Not to mention <blush!> we anti-Mormons and Mormons....

Uncle "I've not yet concluded which side of that fence has the greener grass, it seems" Dale

Someone with as much affection for the subject of his study as our ain dier Rabbi can never be accused of being "anti" anything.

USU "No it's not at all the same thing" 78

[auteur55]

Even aside from that, what would they gain by announcing they were liars?

A greater question would be, what did they gain from not announcing they were?

Persecutions? Smeared reputation? Loss of property?

What?

[Uncle Dale]

A greater question would be, what did they gain from not announcing they were?

Persecutions? Smeared reputation? Loss of property?

What?

Ever read Oliver Cowdery's letter to David Whitmer, written a couple of years before

Oliver died? In it he reaffirms that he and David are the rightful heirs to very high leadership

positions in the Church. Why on earth would he and Whitmer want to throw away that

self-identification, reputation and potential authority?

Why have all the pretenders to all the thrones of the past gone on pointing to themselves

as the rightful rulers? Why did not Bonney Prince Charlie and all the rest just come out and

admit that their royal causes were bogus?

By remaining a sort of faithful witness, Martin Harris at least got some degree of respect in

his final years and a decent burial in Cache Valley -- Oliver is remembered for his final

re-association with the Saints and not for less shining activities in his "apostate" years.

And, if I might include myself in this August body of men, why do I myself not renounce

and warn against my own earlier testimony of the Reorganized Church? Surely that was an

imperfect witness and I was deluded on a number of doctrinal points --- so, why keep up the

loyality to a church I know was founded on Emma Smith's fraud??????

Answer: Because, despite the fraud, I know the Church is true.

Uncle Dale

[auteur55]

Ever read Oliver Cowdery's letter to David Whitmer, written a couple of years before

Oliver died? In it he reaffirms that he and David are the rightful heirs to very high leadership

positions in the Church. Why on earth would he and Whitmer want to throw away that

self-identification, reputation and potential authority?

I was privy to sit in on a private meeting Elder Hales had with the missionaries some years back. He related a story to us about an event that occured while the Bretheren were gathered together in the Temple to discuss church affairs. In this particular temple room there is a picture of the savior and under him a picture of all the Prophets of the church from Joseph on down. They also have a picture of Hyrum next to the prophet being one the martyrs. He said while he was praying he strangely said "Oliver, Oliver where are you?" at the end of the prayer. Unsure where that came from he asked Hinckley after the meeting what his thoughts were. He said that Oliver's picture was supposed to be where Hyrum's was but because of pride he lost out on the blessing.

Pride continues to be so many great men's undoing in the church. To this very day.

Wouldn't you agree U.D?

[Uncle Dale]

Pride continues to be so many great men's undoing in the church. To this very day.

Wouldn't you agree U.D?

Yup!

And wasn't that what Brigham said to Willard, ten minutes before the handcart news came in?

Excuse my Reorganite bad manners --- of course there has been deleterious pride among the

Latter Day Saints. Like the Jews before us, we seem particularly prone to the smugness and

self-appointed importance that comes with being "the chosen people."

Some rise above the temptation -- I've always had good impressions of Samuel H. Smith,

Orson Spencer, John Whitmer, and a handful of other early leaders whom I admire.

Oliver and David no doubt thought themselves more important in "The Kingdom" than was their

allotted role --- but that factor may also help explain why they did not deny their previous

testimony of the "latter day work."

There are probably lessons here for all of us (including anti-Mormons) to learn.

Would make an interesting conference talk.

UD

[Neighbor]

OK, what is the Emma fraud????

[Uncle Dale]

OK, what is the Emma fraud????

Founding the Reorganized Church, for one thing.

Yes -- I know there was a central core to the Reorganization before Emma and her family

joined up in 1860, but it was her influence upon Joseph Smith III that made the RLDS Church

what it was in its earliest manifestations. Their denial of the Smith men's polygamy at Nauvoo

was a great "draw" in gaining converts, but that and some other doctrinal points were patent

falsehoods -- which I perhaps oversimplify under the term "Emma's fraud."

UD

[Neighbor]

That makes sense. I'm still thinking about this though:

Half of the Book of Mormon is an argument for the continuation of spiritual gifts among the

righteous remnant of God's people.

UD

What passages in the BOM might one look to for this understanding?

That is the biggest fault I've had to live with in the coC (not to be confused with CoC).

In my youth I actually believed THEY were the only true Church on earth (that's what they taught me). I went to college to be a minister like my dad and experienced persecution and public ridicule for believing the Spirit was actually imparted as a result of the promise of God and chided that I needed a scribe to follow me around and pen every word I spoke.... They just didn't get it!!!

Believe me, this comment about Rigdon is making a lot of sense and hitting close to home. What a mess the pride of men has made of the Lord's work. The coC imagines themselves too important AND deny the Holy Spirit - dare I say "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof"? If we ignore the witness and guiding of the Spirit in our lives how can He be part of our lives and living in us and the cause of the good that we do?????

Why on earth didn't the missionaries get off the odd proofs of the BOM text 'two sticks' prophecy and get on with practical aspects of LDS faith such as being led by the Spirit??? and how to know you are being led by THE Spirit (which will always witness Gods word as forever true and imperrishable) ? (am I wrong to think this is true? - I don't think so because it is what Jesus Himself taught!:-)

Perhaps we are afraid to think that God saves people who believe in Jesus but don't believe everything like we do?

[Uncle Dale]

That makes sense. I'm still thinking about this though:

Half of the Book of Mormon is an argument for the continuation of spiritual gifts among the

righteous remnant of God's people.

UD

What passages in the BOM might one look to for this understanding?

The precept of spiritual gifts bestowed upon the righteous remnant permeates the BoM --

beginning with Lehi's visions/prophecies and continuing on down to the supernatural protection

rendered unto Moroni's hidden plates. Between those two sets of incidents any reader will find

a continual interaction of God and Lehite/Nephite throughout the entire book, which is based

upon the understanding that spiritual gifts are not taken from the earth (which was Alexander

Campbell's argument -- that they had ceased with the death of Jesus' apostles).

While a good deal of the BoM story happens BEFORE the death of Jesus Palestinian apostles, the

New World disciples and their succcessors carry on the inspired/empowered work until near the

end of the story. And, as though to prove that spiritual gifts survive, even during the greatest

apostasy, three of the original Nephite disciples remain forever upon the earth, and presumably

continue to experience some measure of supernatural powers and apostolic authority.

Picture yourself in Campbell's position, as he first read the newly published Book of Mormon, which

was beginning to circulate among the overly-literalistic, "show-me-it-in-the-scriptures" Campbellites

of northern Ohio. Here was a large concentration of Christian primitivists whose motto was "Where

the scriptures speak, we speak; and where the sciptures are silent, we are silent."

Suddenly those people had an entirely new set of "scriptures" in their hands -- "scriptures" which in

every case backed up the arguments of Sidney Rigdon against those of Campbell himself.

No wonder Alexander Campbell took the trouble to write and publish the first lengthy attack upon

the Book of Mormon -- and no wonder that he and his father quickly traveled up to northern Ohio,

to personally try and stop the continued conversion of Campbellites there to Mormonism.

If Sidney Rigdon did not write the BoM, then it at least fit his religious purposes precisely --

it not only provided him with "proof" that he was right in every theological dispute he had with

Campbell, but (by a chain of events initiated by prophecies in the book) Rigdon was vested with

a hitherto absent "power of the priesthood" and "continuing presence of the Holy Ghost," whereby

he could claim divine authority and spiritual powers Campbell could never match.

Why are Mormons so reluctant to study this part of their history? Why are there hundreds of books

available on Joseph Smith and his religious work/theology, but only two books on Rigdon ever made

available for Latter Day Saint readers during the last 100 years?

??????

That is the biggest fault I've had to live with in the coC (not to be confused with CoC).

In my youth I actually believed THEY were the only true Church on earth (that's what they taught me). I went to college to be a minister like my dad and experienced persecution and public ridicule for believing the Spirit was actually imparted as a result of the promise of God and chided that I needed a scribe to follow me around and pen every word I spoke.... They just didn't get it!!!

Believe me, this comment about Rigdon is making a lot of sense and hitting close to home. What a mess the pride of men has made of the Lord's work. The coC imagines themselves too important AND deny the Holy Spirit - dare I say "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof"? If we ignore the witness and guiding of the Spirit in our lives how can He be part of our lives and living in us and the cause of the good that we do?????

Why on earth didn't the missionaries get off the odd proofs of the BOM text 'two sticks' prophecy and get on with practical aspects of LDS faith such as being led by the Spirit??? and how to know you are being led by THE Spirit (which will always witness Gods word as forever true and imperrishable) ? (am I wrong to think this is true? - I don't think so because it is what Jesus Himself taught!:-)

Perhaps we are afraid to think that God saves people who believe in Jesus but don't believe everything like we do?

Some measure of diversity among the Jesus followers was always the case -- from the very beginning,

they were united in their experience, but individualistic in their testimony. We have four evangelists'

gospels instead of just one -- we have the theology of James as well as that of Paul -- we have a

Jewish-centered message as well as a Gentile-centered message.

Up to a point, its is biblical to insist that everybody "believes everything like we do;" but that common

consensus of faith and belief can be taken to such extremes that it becomes absurd ---- and the source

for endless divisions and splinterings within the "Body of Christ."

Will the Jesus followers EVER get beyond that problem? Sidney Rigdon wished that they would, but he

chose some very deceptive and unrighteous means to try and achieve his goal.

We can do better than that ---- we must do better than that!

UD

.

[alexkidd]

It was not a con! Con-men don't die for the con. He believed it completely.

Pa Pa

Jim Jones says otherwise.

[Uncle Dale]

Jim Jones says otherwise.

CAUTION --- I just got thrown out of one thread here for mentioning the name of a criminal cult leader

in juxtaposition with latter day prophets.

I hope this thread is not closed down, due to such a reaction from indignant Saints.

There have no doubt been con-men who have died for their cause -- even the Mormons themselves

admit this was so in the case of the "Prophet" James J. Strang.

On the other hand, I suppose that it must be admitted that the typical religious confidence man would

not expose himself, his family, his most loyal supporters and a great number of his followers to the

very real threat of death and destruction at the hands of their more powerful enemies.

A complex issue -- and one not resolved by off-handed references to the Peoples' Temple or the

Branch Davidian examples, I think.

Uncle Dale