Grant Palmer

[Hyrum Page]

In other words, we laughable, benighted fools who continue to hold to the opinion that Joseph, though not perfect, was a great man need to relinquish our illusions and genuflect to the wise and august intelligentsia who know otherwise.

I don't blame Pahoran for responding as he did.

By the way, I reject your premise. When someone fills a high and holy calling such as Joseph Smith held, I believe character is, to a large degree, an issue. Those who malign him, while rationalizing their view by insisting that character doesn't matter, are no doubt passing ill-informed judgment.

Hmmm. Well, now I understand better why he responded as he did, but I don't agree with his interpretation of what I wrote. And I completely disagree with your take on my post too. I was not looking down on you and your friends as "laughable, benighted fools." Really, Scott, that is a gross exaggeration of what I said. Hyperbolic in the extreme, in fact. To say something is "almost humorous" is not the same as saying it is "fall down on the ground, side-splittingly hilarious." OK?

And, hey, I am not here to tell you that you should think of Joseph Smith as less than a great man. But, even great men have weaknesses. The Bible is replete with examples, as is the history of the founders and leaders of many faiths. It seems to me that people waste a lot of time defending every last thing these human beings have done, sometimes, I fear, because they see this as a fundamental challenge of their own faith, when one might argue that God is capable of calling and using even weak human beings.

I hold my view to be a corrective of what turns out to be, in spite of the very best of intentions, nothing less than the deification of a human being and the creation of pharisaical standards that no human can really, in the end, live up to. These are the kinds of standards that caused many who knew Joseph as a person to forsake him, despite their witness that he was a prophet. I think you are misconstruing my position because you are suspicious that I am here making the argument that Joseph was a really bad man, but not to worry about it.

I have not here made that argument, although you and Pahoran seem determined to read that into my words. Is character important? It is certainly important for me to strive to live well. I trust that most of the people God has called are decent people, but if I place my faith in the arm of flesh, expecting these people to be "superhuman," then I am probably setting myself up for disappointment. I think it would be better not to get too wrapped up in defending the character of a human being as though no servant of God could have a significant flaw.

[Nomad]

Hmmm. Well, now I understand better why he responded as he did, but I don't agree with his interpretation of what I wrote. And I completely disagree with your take on my post too. I was not looking down on you and your friends as "laughable, benighted fools." Really, Scott, that is a gross exaggeration of what I said. Hyperbolic in the extreme, in fact. To say something is "almost humorous" is not the same as saying it is "fall down on the ground, side-splittingly hilarious." OK?

And, hey, I am not here to tell you that you should think of Joseph Smith as less than a great man. But, even great men have weaknesses. The Bible is replete with examples, as is the history of the founders and leaders of many faiths. It seems to me that people waste a lot of time defending every last thing these human beings have done, sometimes, I fear, because they see this as a fundamental challenge of their own faith, when one might argue that God is capable of calling and using even weak human beings.

I hold my view to be a corrective of what turns out to be, in spite of the very best of intentions, nothing less than the deification of a human being and the creation of pharisaical standards that no human can really, in the end, live up to. These are the kinds of standards that caused many who knew Joseph as a person to forsake him, despite their witness that he was a prophet. I think you are misconstruing my position because you are suspicious that I am here making the argument that Joseph was a really bad man, but not to worry about it.

I have not here made that argument, although you and Pahoran seem determined to read that into my words. Is character important? It is certainly important for me to strive to live well. I trust that most of the people God has called are decent people, but if I place my faith in the arm of flesh, expecting these people to be "superhuman," then I am probably setting myself up for disappointment. I think it would be better not to get too wrapped up in defending the character of a human being as though no servant of God could have a significant flaw.

It has become apparent to me that Hyrum has no idea of the degree to which he comes across as arrogant and condescending. He should join the folks over at MDB. He'd fit right in there.

[Hyrum Page]

It has become apparent to me that Hyrum has no idea of the degree to which he comes across as arrogant and condescending. He should join the folks over at MDB. He'd fit right in there.

Wow, Nomad. I am surprised that what I thought was a perfectly reasonable post in response to a rather terrible distortion of my views elicits a comment about my arrogance and condescending tone. I suppose you would prefer I allow other people to tell me what I am saying, regardless of how inaccurate their interpretation is?

[Nomad]

Wow, Nomad. I am surprised that what I thought was a perfectly reasonable post in response to a rather terrible distortion of my views elicits a comment about my arrogance and condescending tone. I suppose you would prefer I allow other people to tell me what I am saying, regardless of how inaccurate their interpretation is?

I have no preference concerning anything you do, to tell the truth. I was simply making an observation. It is one based on much more than just your present interaction with Scott Lloyd. That's all. I have nothing more to say, and so I will be going.

[HiJolly]

[Scott Lloyd]

[Hyrum Page]

I have no preference concerning anything you do, to tell the truth. I was simply making an observation. It is one based on much more than just your present interaction with Scott Lloyd. That's all. I have nothing more to say, and so I will be going.

Fine. Thanks for doing little more than levelling criticisms of my tone and offering vague allusions to your in depth knowledge of me. You have truly enriched the discussion.

[Hyrum Page]

"Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord" (Isaiah 52:11; 3 Nephi 20:41; Doctrine and Covenants 38:42; Doctrine and Covenants 133:5).

A commandment isn't a guarantee that we will live up to it.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I am going to assume that you were nodding when you read that, since you got it so terribly wrong. I know you are smarter than that. Really.

What did I get "so terribly wrong," exactly?

Why would you assume that I intended to use this to blacken Joseph Smith's character, when clearly my point was that his character ought not to be an issue?

Why would you assume that I assumed any such thing?

Oddly enough, having read your post and replied to it, I did in fact get your point. Actually I mostly agree with your point.

My response did not go to your argument, but simply to the propriety of using a paraphrase of something Brigham Young once said about Joseph Smith's character without noting that he said it before the two of them had ever met.

Did I suggest in any way that I thought, or that Brigham thought, Joseph Smith was a horse thief and an adulterer? Are you practicing your mind reading skills? If so, you really need a lot more practice.

All I said was that Brigham made what I thought was a wise observation about the relative importance of the prophet's individual character in the comparison with the value of what he taught. Does that help any?

Since I already understood that, the answer is: not really.

Clearly if I had found anything substantive enough to fault, I would have done something with it.

So absent anything fault-worthy, you resorted to a "rather terrible distortion."

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

ad hominem is the fallacy of trying to prove a person argument is wrong by pointing out irrelevant negative facts about the person making the argument. To simply call someone on the carpet for what is preceieved to be bad belavior is not a case of ad hominemperceivedbehavior.

Perhaps you aren't aware, Tovarich Tarski, but the sole purpose of the notorious "FARMS-are-a-bunch-of-character-assassins" meme is to persuade others that nothing FARMS produces can be taken seriously.

Hence, the ad hominem fallacy. Textbook example.

I also object to calling Chris hypocritical-- it misses the mark.

If indulging in ad hominem in the very act of accusing others of the same is not hypocritical, then what is?

Tell me, what kind of friend requires that they must never be criticized or the friendship is off?

What friend? Oh, you mean Chris? I'm sure that he, and Bob Betts, and Aaron Shafavaloff, are all our friends equally.

Chris is quite simply a good person and seems to me to be unusually loyal to the persuit of truth itself rather than just staking out ground as a loyal critic or a loyal apologist.

IOW, he agrees with you.

He should be contrasted with you Pahoran. Your unconditional attack-dog loyality to prominant apologists and insulting and intellectually contentless attacks on anyone who dares question your ingroup is utterly predictable and repetative.

Alternatively, he could be contrasted with you. On much the same grounds.

As for the apology, I can only note that quite a few big players here have to my knowledge seldom if ever mustered an apology for anything.

At least they haven't apologised with one face and kept right on offending with the other.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

A commandment isn't a guarantee that we will live up to it.

No. But it gives a glimpse into what the Lord requires of His anointed. Which argues against the notion that character doesn't matter when the Lord chooses His servants.

And in point of fact, very nearly all of the individuals the Lord calls to high positions of authority are people of sterling character. Hence, my discomfort over the apparent suggestion that the image of Joseph Smith having impeccable (and I made it clear I don't mean perfect or infallible) character is to be laughed at. By comparison, many of his detractors are spiritual pygmies.

[Hyrum Page]

What did I get "so terribly wrong," exactly?

I mistakenly conflated your post with Scott's. My apologies.

Anyhow, as I have pointed out, I did not intend to blacken Joseph's character through the Young quote.

[Hyrum Page]

No. But it gives a glimpse into what the Lord requires of His anointed. Which argues against the notion that character doesn't matter when the Lord chooses His servants.

And in point of fact, very nearly all of the individuals the Lord calls to high positions of authority are people of sterling character. Hence, my discomfort over the apparent suggestion that the image of Joseph Smith having impeccable (and I made it clear I don't mean perfect or infallible) character is to be laughed at. By comparison, many of his detractors are spiritual pygmies.

In the apostle Paul, He required the person who was participating in the murderous persecution of Christians. In other words, I don't think this is as neatly schematic as you seem to suggest here. For this reason, Dante sagely placed a minor character from the Aeneid in heaven, as well as the emperor Trajan. He understood that there is room for mystery in God's judgment.

As for Joseph Smith having impeccable character, it is difficult to say. I don't condemn the man. On the other hand, one's judgment will have a lot to do with one's faith. And at that point the argument becomes circular. If you have faith that he was called of God, then things that others would condemn on their face have a decent defense. If one does not have faith that he was called of God, there are certainly items there that would lend themselves to condemnation.

At the very least I would have to say that he did things that would cause most people some pause. Where they would go from there is perhaps a matter for personal prayer and reflection.

[Mortal Man]

I'm speaking in Richard Bushman's seminar at Claremont Graduate University early on Thursday afternoon

So how'd it go?

[Chris Smith]

Although I have quite a few disagreements with Dan, I have to give him credit for being a thoroughly engaging speaker, no less this time than the first time I heard him speak. The man is genuinely funny, and deeply learned.

Among the things I learned: Muhammad's "first vision" may not have been of the angel Gabriel at all, but rather an anthropomorphic throne theophany that was later edited out of the tradition when anthropomorphism became theologically non-?al?l.

By the way, Dan, just a reminder that the "carbon-dated horse skull" argument has been debunked.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the apostle Paul, He required the person who was participating in the murderous persecution of Christians.

The obvious difference being that Paul had thoroughly repented in abject humility prior to his call to the apostleship. Joseph Smith's accusers charge him with wrongdoing after he was called as the prophet of the last dispensation and, essentially, through the rest of his life.

In other words, I don't think this is as neatly schematic as you seem to suggest here.

I, on the other hand, see very little substance to the notion that character doesn't matter when God chooses his prophets.

For this reason, Dante sagely placed a minor character from the Aeneid in heaven, as well as the emperor Trajan. He understood that there is room for mystery in God's judgment.

I don't deny that God uses people, including those with less-than-stellar character, in ways that accomplish divine purposes. I just think that those on whom He bestows priesthood keys, such as Peter and Joseph and his successors in the presidency of the Church, are in a special category.

As for Joseph Smith having impeccable character, it is difficult to say. I don't condemn the man. On the other hand, one's judgment will have a lot to do with one's faith. And at that point the argument becomes circular. If you have faith that he was called of God, then things that others would condemn on their face have a decent defense. If one does not have faith that he was called of God, there are certainly items there that would lend themselves to condemnation.

So, one without faith who presumes to judge Joseph Smith, then, is guilty of unrighteous judgment, according to the Biblical definition (see John 7:24).