Dan Vogel On J. Smiths Intentions?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just joking.

I'm only suggesting that one of the main reasons for beginning the fraud was pious; there were undoubtedly others.

Remember, JS didn't separate religion and government.

JS the scoundrel

JS the deluded

JS the real prophet

JS the demon inspired

No problem.

What about JS the anti-Universalist? [one of your weaker analytical works, imo.]

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bump for jason e. I'd like an explanation on the claim that you are blind. Again, if you are, I owe you an apology. I hope you wouldn't make light of something like that.

[jason e.]

Bump for jason e. I'd like an explanation on the claim that you are blind. Again, if you are, I owe you an apology. I hope you wouldn't make light of something like that.

and i play hackeysack with the locknest!

Jason, knock it off. You are now in a situation of your own making, we don't allow personal questions but you have been giving out personal information. Don't mess with people about reading braille unless you are blind and if you aren't then you need to clean up the way you write your posts. ~ Mods

[Dan Vogel]

What about JS the anti-Universalist? [one of your weaker analytical works, imo.]

That would be a subset. Have you read Bushman's comments on this topic in his recent bio of JS? They aren't too far off mine. In fact, he cites my work.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That would be a subset. Have you read Bushman's comments on this topic in his recent bio of JS? They aren't too far off mine. In fact, he cites my work.

I've read RSR, just last month. It was one of the reasons I picked up some of your work. They aren't too far off, but they are, in my opinion, off enough. To me, the Book of Mormon has many particular points not held by Universalists, and I feel you overemphasized aspects of the BoM that don't actually teach against the Universalism of Smith's time. The BoM has many points that are easily and even more applicable today than they were in Smith's time. I wonder; did the man have a time machine in order to see our day, and know how to make a book that simultaneously appealed to anti-Universalism as well as other ideologies more advanced in our time than his? Truly, the "charitable" view of Smith as a pious fraud takes just as much faith to believe as that Smith was a prophet of God.

[Uncle Dale]

Truly, the "charitable" view of Smith as a pious fraud takes just as much faith to believe as that

Smith was a prophet of God.

If there were a middle ground, between "pious fraud" and "prophet of God," then what would

THAT middle ground be -- or what might it look like -- or what might the results have been?

Let's look at an item published in the Ravenna Ohio Star on Jan. 5, 1832, recording a text

evidently first written down on Dec. 7, 1830:

Behold, verily, verily I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works;

I have heard thy prayers, and have prepared thee for a greater work. Thou art blessed,

for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way

before me, and Elijah, which should come and thou knew it not....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscoh02.htm#010532

I think we have here a possible example of something that stands between a true prophet

(or a true prophetic voice) and a pious fraud.

Rigdon himself admitted that he taught many false doctrines before he became a Mormon,

and yet, somehow, in the midst of his problematic career as a maverick "Campbellite" preacher

of the visionary sort, he has "prepared the way" for Mormonism.

Can we make any similar application to Smith? Was his early use of a seer-stone, to hunt for

buried treasure, somehow a less than perfect set of experiences by which he "prepared the way"

for his later use of the same stone in "translating?"

Was his ability to gather around him a small but dedicated band of followers, in treasure searches,

a sort of experience that "prepared the way" for him to become the leader of a dedicated band of

religious followers?

Can this sort of investigation be put to any good use, or is is a "dead end" in our attempting to

comprehend Smith as something other than either a "pious fraud" or a "prophet of God?"

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Rigdon himself admitted that he taught many false doctrines before he became a Mormon,

and yet, somehow, in the midst of his problematic career as a maverick "Campbellite" preacher

of the visionary sort, he has "prepared the way" for Mormonism.

CFR, and also what doctrines was Rigdon teaching that were false specifically?

PS- I can't wait for that awesome Joseph Smith dry cleaning receipt you are gonna put up on your site, proving something random!

[Uncle Dale]

CFR, and also what doctrines was Rigdon teaching that were false specifically?

PS- I can't wait for that awesome Joseph Smith dry cleaning receipt you are gonna put up on

your site, proving something random!

If you'll read Rigdon's own accounts, as well as the accounts given by his neighbors at the time,

you'll see that when he converted to Mormonism he spoke to his two nearest congregations (in

Mentor and in Kirtland) and attempted to explain the truth of the new religion, and how he had

formerly preached errors and doctrines now shown to be invalid, in light of the BoM message.

I could wade through those old reports and compile a list -- but that would be stuff

for another thread. Or, you can do it yourself.

My main point is -- if Rigdon was not preaching perfect and pure Mormonism, prior to his conversion,

what he was preaching and teaching was evidently still somehow a preparation for that new religion.

I see here a possible middle ground, between wicked con-man and righteous latter day "spokesman."

Can we non-Mormons at least explore such possibilities, without being thought of as

"enemies of the latter day work?"

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you'll read Rigdon's own accounts, as well as the accounts given by his neighbors at the time,

you'll see that when he converted to Mormonism he spoke to his two nearest congregations (in

Mentor and in Kirtland) and attempted to explain the truth of the new religion, and how he had

formerly preached errors and doctrines now shown to be invalid, in light of the BoM message.

I could wade through those old reports and compile a list -- but that would be stuff

for another thread. Or, you can do it yourself.

My main point is -- if Rigdon was not preaching perfect and pure Mormonism, prior to his conversion,

what he was preaching and teaching was evidently still somehow a preparation for that new religion.

I see here a possible middle ground, between wicked con-man and righteous latter day "spokesman."

Can we non-Mormons at least explore such possibilities, without being thought of as

"enemies of the latter day work?"

UD

I agree that indeed, people can be close to the truth, bring themselves closer to God, and more receptive to the gospel message though they may not have all the details right. The people must be put "in a preparation for the word." Interesting indeed.