Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When everyone says "I can't see how anyone could come to a different conclusion" - well, you just pushed those on the fence off on the wrong side. Cause, that is closed minded, and judgmental all at the same time.

I have noticed something about people claiming that others are so closed minded. They themsleves tend to be the most closed minded of all. It must really scare you.

[Bunk]

And yet a person can not believe and still give the benefit of doubt for someone who lived so long ago, and whom, whatever you think of him, accomplished a great work against great odds.

Are you equating "give[ing] the benefit of doubt" to admitting someone "accomplisehd a great work against great odds"? If so, then even I give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe the LDS church of today is true or even particularly special. To me it looks mostly like a big corporation (except it is tax-exempt). So I am an example that proves your point.

And yet, more than anything, I try to hold back judgment of JS's character. I don't know whether he was singularly honest, honorable, and sincere. He may have been these things in his mind, when to many an honest and sincere outsider of that age he appeared to be a dishonest fraud.

And if only because so many love and revere him one ought to pause before making judgments which insult others and show their, the critics', littleness of mind.

I believe many critics of Joseph Smith are -- and were -- honest, honorable, and sincere. Not little minded. Will you say the same thing?

[Deborah]

I believe many critics of Joseph Smith are -- and were -- honest, honorable, and sincere. Not little minded. Will you say the same thing?

Frankly no. Not the ones on the internet in any case. Vitriol drips from the comments. That isn't to say there aren't those who disagree and are fair-minded as opposed to little-minded.

It is one thing to disagree that he was a prophet and even to say that you question aspects of his life. But some of the comments made are so personal and so degrading that one has to question the emotionalism behind them. One also has to question how someone 150 years removed can know someone so well as to make such judgments about his intentions.

[mapman]

By the way, I don't think Joseph Smith was perfect. He himself admitted as such. He got involved with the money-diggers in his early years and it took him several years to be able to retrieve the plates. He may have been too harsh on dissenters sometimes. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith was an honest and honorable man. He was not an angry con-men who used his power to satisfy his lust. The written documentation of his life doesn't support this.

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, I don't think Joseph Smith was perfect. He himself admitted as such.

Since there was only one perfect person who ever lived in mortality, this is hardly a startling acknowledgment. The salient point is that, with his imperfections, Joseph Smith in greatness and goodness shines with solar-like intensity next to a penlight beam when compared to the best of his detractors, past or present.

[sansfoy]

By the way, I don't think Joseph Smith was perfect. He himself admitted as such. He got involved with the money-diggers in his early years and it took him several years to be able to retrieve the plates. He may have been too harsh on dissenters sometimes. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith was an honest and honorable man. He was not an angry con-men who used his power to satisfy his lust. The written documentation of his life doesn't support this.

Joseph Smith was less than honest during the fiasco with the Kirtland Bank. Didn't he tell people he had boxes of silver in the vaults to back up the bank notes? And what about all the times he denounced polygamy from the pulpit while he had already married other women?

I believe the Quinn documented that Smith's estate at death as was worth over 1,000,000 in a time when this was a heck of a lot of money. Where did this money come from? He'd been a humble man of God since he was a boy.

[sansfoy]

Joseph Smith in greatness and goodness shines with solar like intensity next to a penlight beam when compared to the best of his detractors.

Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, CS Lewis, and Arthur Conan Doyle were all critics. I wouldn't say these people are "penlight beams."

[Scott Lloyd]

And what about all the times he denounced polygamy from the pulpit while he had already married other women?

Given the danger to the Church that public acknowledgment of polygamy would have posed at the time, are you really inclined to find fault here?

[SilverKnight]

Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, CS Lewis, and Arthur Conan Doyle were all critics. I wouldn't say these people are "penlight beams."

CFR that Abraham Lincoln and CS Lewis were critics of Joseph Smith.

I am aware of Mark Twain's criticism,

Twain was a gadfly and was critical of the bible and all organized religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, CS Lewis, and Arthur Conan Doyle were all critics. I wouldn't say these people are "penlight beams."

Twain and Doyle (two of my favorite 19th Century authors) were both guilty of sensationalism and distortion in what limited treatment they gave to Mormonism. And yes, I'd say they don't begin to approach Joseph in greatness. I'm not aware of anything Lincoln or Lewis said that would qualify them as detractors of Joseph.

[Vex]

Selek... I really hate you... and only for the following reason:

Two questions must be asked:

First, where precisely did Cooper gain the authority to lecture us on what an apologist "must" do?

He's sneered and condescended, and misrepresented our positions twice now- why then should we believe that he is in anyway impartial- let alone that he has our best interests at heart?

Cooper's conflict of interest is enough to make us question his motives. His derision simply adds to that already ample justification.

And thus Cooper violates his own maxim. "Know your audience"? Clearly, Cooper does not.

Do you know how many times I read that and re-read that only to come to the conclusion you forgot the second question! I want those minutes of my life back.

To me, Joseph in his life and works can be placed on firm footing with any of the other honorable men during the founding of our nation.

[Jaybear]

Dan,

Would you opinion of Smith change if you came to the conclusion that he was not a prophet of God?

[selek]

Selek... I really hate you... and only for the following reason:

Do you know how many times I read that and re-read that only to come to the conclusion you forgot the second question! I want those minutes of my life back.

My apologies, Vex, for camouflaging the second question amidst the first.

The second question was: "Why should we believe that Cooper is in anyway impartial- let alone that he has our best interests at heart?"

To me, Joseph in his life and works can be placed on firm footing with any of the other honorable men during the founding of our nation.

I quite agree, but since I am a mere deluded Mormon, my opinion cannot possibly be valid (as per sansfoy and Jaybear).

According to their statements of faith. tt is simply not possible for a rational mind to reach that conclusion outside of Mormonism.

Alas, poor Yorick, we knew him well...... but Joseph (apparently) has us ALL fooled.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dan,

Would you opinion of Smith change if you came to the conclusion that he was not a prophet of God?

The thought that he was not a prophet scares me. It scares me so much that even now I am typing from my cellar.

[SilverKnight]

Dan,

Would you opinion of Smith change if you came to the conclusion that he was not a prophet of God?

Nope, my opinion would not change one whit. I would still regard him as a prophet, even though I came to the conclusion he was not.

At that point I would become a living paradox, and tear a hole in the fabric of spacetime.

[Walden]

People who see any negative of the Church be it Joseph Smith or otherwise 99.999% of the time do so because they have quote mined something or many things at once seeming negative, then that thing is spinned more negative creating false conclusions. Thus the entire thing or things is taken out of context and then one BIG LIE is told about that thing or things. Truth is not the interest, but slander is. Not that there has been 100% perfection in the Church by it's people at every level, but NOT EVEN CLOSE to the level as promoted by anti-mormons, and as well not even close to the problems that have existed in the religions the religious anti-mormons come from, thus double standards are the rule to the anti-mormon.

Actually delving deep into the history without the quote mining one finds a very deep and profound work and people. I mean, just look at the latest on the KEP. Early mormons certainly were not dumb.

I am not so sure that "people who see any negative of the Church.....do so because they have quote mined something or many things at once seeming negative, then that thing is spinned more negative creating false conclusions." My departure from the church was mostly the result of my own questioning of LDS beliefs, church policy, church history and church practices. In fact, I wasn't much aware of the outside arguments until I had already left the church. I mean, I knew they existed, and of course I was always warned about the "anti-mormons" when I was in the LDS church, and I did see them standing outside the temple handing out "anti-mormon" material, but I didn't take the time to study their position when I made my decision to leave the LDS church. I think this is likely the case for many of those who left before the explosion of the internet.

You are right, there hasn't been "100% perfection in the church." Likewise, I don't buy that the church is as evil or nefarious as many anti-mormons would want you to believe. I happen to think that the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, though getting either group to admit as much is unlikely, to say the least. To me, the problem arises when one claims one absolute over the other; the truth can be tricky to discern. I also believe that both sides use half-truths, selective quoting and contrived scenarios to further their agenda. I think that we all know that Joseph Smith wasn't the greedy, deceitful, evil huckster that a small but vocal anti crowd likes to portray. And I think we all know that Joseph Smith wasn't completely honest in all of his dealings throughout his life. In short, I don't believe the issue of his character is black or white, but rather, very gray.

[maupayman]

This was before my time on these boards, but I was informed that Bob McCue challenged you (Daniel Peterson) to a debate on the subject of whether Joseph was a reliable source, or something like that. Is that true? Did the debate ever take place? Thanks.

[Jaybear]

This was before my time on these boards, but I was informed that Bob McCue challenged you (Daniel Peterson) to a debate on the subject of whether Joseph was a reliable source, or something like that. Is that true? Did the debate ever take place? Thanks.

I recall the specific question that was posed for debate was whether "JS was trustworthy."

[selek]

I am not so sure that "people who see any negative of the Church.....do so because they have quote mined something or many things at once seeming negative, then that thing is spinned more negative creating false conclusions." My departure from the church was mostly the result of my own questioning of LDS beliefs, church policy, church history and church practices.

In short, your departure from the Church was caused by your selective application of sources and a conviction that your own positions were wiser than those you carefully culled from the Church- precisely the phenomenon to which Obiwan was referring.

In fact, I wasn't much aware of the outside arguments until I had already left the church.

Selective application and biased weighing of the evidence remain selective and biased, whether you apply them to Church sources or to extra-curricular sources.

I mean, I knew they existed, and of course I was always warned about the "anti-mormons" when I was in the LDS church, and I did see them standing outside the temple handing out "anti-mormon" material, but I didn't take the time to study their position when I made my decision to leave the LDS church. I think this is likely the case for many of those who left before the explosion of the internet.

As stated, it is also irrelevant to the conversation.

In case you had forgotten, the topic at hand is NOT about your exit testimony (such things are actually forbidden by the board rules) but about the conviction of myself and others that the evidence- particularly his own writings and those of the people who knew him best- supports the idea that Joseph Smith was a good and decent man.

You are right, there hasn't been "100% perfection in the church." Likewise, I don't buy that the church is as evil or nefarious as many anti-mormons would want you to believe. I happen to think that the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, though getting either group to admit as much is unlikely, to say the least.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as was pointed out above.

If you have a point to make (that isn't a violation of board rules) please do so in your own thread.

In short, stop derailing this one with irrelevancies.

To me, the problem arises when one claims one absolute over the other; the truth can be tricky to discern. I also believe that both sides use half-truths, selective quoting and contrived scenarios to further their agenda.

Agreed.

I think that we all know that Joseph Smith wasn't the greedy, deceitful, evil huckster that a small but vocal anti crowd likes to portray. And I think we all know that Joseph Smith wasn't completely honest in all of his dealings throughout his life.

Agreed- but even within these shades of gray, the phrase "completely honest" is disturbingly subjective.

In short, I don't believe the issue of his character is black or white, but rather, very gray.

An opinion- but at least it has the merit of being on-topic .

[Walden]

In short, your departure from the Church was caused by your selective application of sources and a conviction that your own positions were wiser than those you carefully culled from the Church- precisely the phenomenon to which Obiwan was referring.

Selective application and biased weighing of the evidence remain selective and biased, whether you apply them to Church sources or to extra-curricular sources.

As stated, it is also irrelevant to the conversation.

In case you had forgotten, the topic at hand is NOT about your exit testimony (such things are actually forbidden by the board rules) but about the conviction of myself and others that the evidence- particularly his own writings and those of the people who knew him best- supports the idea that Joseph Smith was a good and decent man.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as was pointed out above.

If you have a point to make (that isn't a violation of board rules) please do so in your own thread.

In short, stop derailing this one with irrelevancies.

Agreed.

Agreed- but even within these shades of gray, the phrase "completely honest" is disturbingly subjective.

An opinion- but at least it has the merit of being on-topic .

selek, just a question and completely off topic....do you ever chime in to offer a unique or applicable opinion, or is your job here to critique, tear apart and scoff at other people posts?

[selek]

selek, just a question and completely off topic....do you ever chime in to offer a unique or applicable opinion, or is your job here to critique, tear apart and scoff at other people posts?

If you were as widely read as you pretend to be, you'd know the answer to this.

However, in the interests of full disclosure, the answers are "yes" and "yes".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

selek, just a question and completely off topic....do you ever chime in to offer a unique or applicable opinion, or is your job here to critique, tear apart and scoff at other people posts?

It appears at the very most hat he is critiquing and tearing apart this post of yours. I see no scoffing though.

[Walden]

If you were as widely read as you pretend to be, you'd know the answer to this.

However, in the interests of full disclosure, the answers are "yes" and "yes".

Why such animosity, why always so personal in your attacks.....why can't we keep this about the topic and not the individual personalities?

[Walden]

It appears at the very most hat he is critiquing and tearing apart this post of yours. I see no scoffing though.

How would you classify a response that starts off as "If you were as widely read as you pretend to be...."? Let me guess, you'd agree that it was quite alright, as long as selek, and not some "anti" was starting a post as such.

Thought so.

And I wouldn't classify his response as "tearing apart my post." He offers no insights or clarification regarding the topic. Instead, he "tears" me apart with claims that I left the church because I didn't understand it, board violations, etc. Not sure if he even spoke to my points, but rather, just pointed out was was on or off topic and made speculations regarding my understanding of the church. Yes, he certainly was "tearing apart this post."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How would you classify a response that starts off as "If you were as widely read as you pretend to be...."? Let me guess, you'd agree that it was quite alright, as long as selek, and not some "anti" was starting a post as such.

Thought so.

I was specifically responding ot his last post. I agree that there was scoffing in other posts of his. It appears you are not so good at guessing.