Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[selek]

How would you classify a response that starts off as "If you were as widely read as you pretend to be...."?

Not that I was asked, mind, but I'd classify it as "matching you tone for tone".

Thought so.

Case in Point.

For the record, it is you, not I, who insists on turning this personal.

My initial response to you directly addressed your argument, and how it actually supported Obiwan's claims.

It is you, not I who turned this personal, and it is you, not I who insists on the irrelevant de-railing.

As far as animonsity goes, I have none (okay, very little).

I am simply more interested in seeing the record set straight and the thread remaining on-topic.

As a gentle reminder:

The topic of this thread is "the conviction 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."

[Cold Steel]

...for those who say they can't understand how anyone come come to another opinion -- I say try a little harder, really, it's easy if you try. However you have to want to understand. I doubt many who are deep into the Church really want to know. You have to be willing to walk in someone else's shoes, and not in your own. It's scary, it really is at times. However that is how we humans learn to understand and grow. Pretend you are an actor playing a role. Then try to examine the issue from all sides, not just the safe one.

You're talking to us as though we're newcomers to the character of Joseph Smith and church history. You're entitled to your opinion, but remember where you are and who you're addressing.

Madsen said in his article that his " father explained the difference between courage in battle and gentleness in personal conduct," and Joseph Smith was known by his friends as a gentle, probing and sincere soul. He was not perfect and he had to endure years of being attacked (physically and in print) and no one came to his defense. To him, it seemed as though God, too, was determined to sit idly by while these wrongs were perpetrated on the saints. Smith was not perfect, and in his wrath he could let things get out of perspective; but he was a person of greatness, of courage and dignity. Recently I've been contrasting the lives and careers of George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Both were great generals, and both valued honor and integrity. But Patton was course and at times profane; MacArthur was a gentleman. Both had their faults. Both were egotistic and both were difficult to control. Both let their judgments be clouded by their senses of destiny and, in my view, both were wronged by unrealistic and equally egotistic political restraints. One could easily blind themselves to the greatness of both men by concentrating on their weaknesses, but that would be as wrong as doing the same regarding Joseph Smith. Great men sometimes have great faults, and this includes prophets, priests and kings. Joseph Smith endured much and he gave us much. But the Lord would not work through an unworthy vessel and He is the ultimate judge of his prophets. No one ever complains about the miracles he performed -- the people he healed, the devils he cast out or the dead he raised. But most of us here know his faults and his strengths. We're not ignoring either; however, we do ask for your respect while you're on this site. There are others where you can rave and be praised for it. But you might be better served by reading more comprehensive books -- books by those who knew him, were jailed with him, who spent considerable time with him. Consider, too, how many people were ready to give their lives for him in an instant. Consider, too, the Book of Mormon witnesses. How many people do YOU know who would lie for you and take it to their graves, regardless of the pressure? My mother loves me more than anyone and she wouldn't do it. No one with any integrity would do it, and you should study the integrity of those witnesses. Not only the ones who saw the Book of Mormon, but who were present when Jesus appeared -- when Peter, James and John, and Moses and Elijah and others appeared, and when revelations like Section 76 were given. I don't think you could do it, and I don't think anyone here could do it.

Just food for thought.

.

[hagoth7]

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

Do you hold Martin Luther to the same standard of full disclosure?

[hagoth7]

A person's level of investment in the LDS church is the most important determining factor for who will give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt.

What of those who give Abraham and Jacob the benefit of the doubt.

Are they heavily invested too?

[selek]

Do you hold Martin Luther to the same standard of full disclosure?

Or Martin Luther King, for that matter?

[Pahoran]

A person's level of investment in the LDS church is the most important determining factor for who will give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt.

The best possible response to this post is the screen name of the poster.

It is not necessary to accept Joseph's unique claims or his prophetic charisms in order to realise that he was an honest man who believed what he taught. In fact, my experience reading the claims of his detractors leads me to the opposite conclusion as the above "Bunk" paragraph asserts: it is almost exclusively his committed ideological opponents who call his honesty and sincerity into question.

Regards,

Pahoran

[handys003]

Ain't this thread cute. Based on the rules here - I guess all anyone can do is agree with the OP. Otherwise they would be talking bad about Joseph and we all know we can not have that.

Seriously though - for those who say they can't understand how anyone come come to another opinion - I say try a little harder, really, it's easy if you try. However you have to want to understand. I doubt many who are deep into the Church really want to know. You have to be willing to walk in someone Else's shoes, and not in your own. It's scary, it really is at times. However that is how we humans learn to understand and grow. Pretend you are an actor playing a role. Then try to examine the issue from all sides, not just the safe one.

If ya all really want to do the job of an apologist - first you need to understand where the other side is coming from. Know your audience if you will. Now, I doubt the audience here are those from other religions. No, my guess is the apologists job is to help convince those who are on the fence. To give them just a little wiggle room to stay.

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.

After reading here a long time - personally, if all you are going to do is pat each other on the back, and tell everyone else how righteous you are, then slam anyone with a different opinion (not that that happened in this thread, but it does happen a lot) - well, then you have your own reward don't you.

Funny how you show up for the first time since I joined in 10 months. Drive by sock puppets are not appreciated. Would you like to try to convince this former Atheist how I could come to a different conclusion?

[staccato]

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?

Yes, I am. This thread speaks to Joseph being an honest man. He lied about polygamy, to various people both personal and private. Dishonesty is dishonesty. He may have been sincere, but he definitely was dishonest.* A man who feels he has God behind him has no reason to fear.

*I consider omission of information to be dishonesty, as does the church.

[handys003]

Yes, I am. This thread speaks to Joseph being an honest man. He lied about polygamy, to various people both personal and private. Dishonesty is dishonesty. He may have been sincere, but he definitely was dishonest.* A man who feels he has God behind him has no reason to fear.

*I consider omission of information to be dishonesty, as does the church.

So you never lied in your entire life? I don't consider the man dishonest about polygamy as he was upfront in practicing in front of thousands. He walked the walk.

[ttribe]

Yes, I am. This thread speaks to Joseph being an honest man. He lied about polygamy, to various people both personal and private. Dishonesty is dishonesty. He may have been sincere, but he definitely was dishonest.* A man who feels he has God behind him has no reason to fear.

*I consider omission of information to be dishonesty, as does the church.

Oh boy...so if the man was dishonest in the minority of circumstances, you intend to paint him with that brush for his entire character? Is that correct?

[staccato]

Oh boy...so if the man was dishonest in the minority of circumstances, you intend to paint him with that brush for his entire character? Is that correct?

At the level of dishonesty that was occurring with Joseph and has practice of polygamy/polyandry, I would not consider it to be a minority of circumstances.

Dishonesty breeds lack of trust. I cannot and will not trust a person who is known for being dishonest. It is a dealbreaker for me. Because he seemed so nonchalant in bending the truth in polygamy, I distrust virtually everything else that came out of his mouth, including his practice of "translating" and his claims to be speaking for and on behalf of God.

[ttribe]

At the level of dishonesty that was occurring with Joseph and has practice of polygamy/polyandry, I would not consider it to be a minority of circumstances.

Dishonesty breeds lack of trust. I cannot and will not trust a person who is known for being dishonest. It is a dealbreaker for me. Because he seemed so nonchalant in bending the truth in polygamy, I distrust virtually everything else that came out of his mouth, including his practice of "translating" and his claims to be speaking for and on behalf of God.

So, you focus in on a brief period of the man's life, and on one subject (no less) and determine that the man was a liar from the beginning?

[handys003]

Staccato- CFR where was JS dishonest about polygamy?

[selek]

Oh boy...so if the man was dishonest in the minority of circumstances, you intend to paint him with that brush for his entire character? Is that correct?

Staccato (not surprisingly) condemns an awful lot of people as dishonest.

Harriet Tubman and the "station masters" on the Underground railroad.

Those who sheltered Jews, homosexuals, Allied soldiers, and political dissidents during World War II.

Those who resisted Communism and secretly published "subversive" papers in the Eastern Bloc throughout the last century.

Those who secretly held onto their Christian faith in Southeast Asia despite the efforts of Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot.

He condemns Peter, Christ's lead apostle, and by extension, he condemns all of the Biblical patriarchs, prophets, and every single person who ever lived save Christ (and himself).

In point of fact, Staccato does not hold this position- as it is logically and historically untenable.

He's really just here to flash his backside and flaunt his bigotry and condescension.

He makes his infamous declamation only to incite and offend, not from any rationale conviction that it is either just or true.

He's trolling- nothing more.

[selek]

Staccato- CFR where was JS dishonest about polygamy?

When he misled the torch and pitchfork weilding mobs who were thirsting for his blood and the blood of his followers.

When he failed to confess the deliberate and inflammatory distortions the various mobbers had spread to incite the mob and when he failed to give them the excuse to fall upon the Saints like locusts and continue their campaign of pillage, rapine, and murder.

Of course, Staccato feels that these campaigns were justified, and had he been there, would have been among the first to proclaim "gnits make lice".

[handys003]

Staccato (not surprisingly) condemns an awful lot of people as dishonest.

In point of fact, Staccato does not hold this position- as it is logically and historically untenable.

He's really just here to flash his backside and flaunt his bigotry and condescension.

He's trolling- nothing more.

You do know that sometimes when trolling you snag a Kajiki (Marlin) and can get hurt.

[selek]

You do know that sometimes when trolling you snag a Kajiki (Marlin) and can get hurt.

I'm always uncomfortable wishing that harm or ill befall others (no matter how much they deserve it)- my family has a history of that sort of thing actually coming true .....

....kinda like that urban legend about Harpo Marx and why he never spoke on camera....

....and I always feel guilty when it comes to pass.

[hagoth7]

...*I consider omission of information to be dishonesty, as does the church.

In that case, please share your Social Security number, bank names, and bank account numbers with the rest of the forum.

Thank you in advance for your "honesty."

[maupayman]

So, you focus in on a brief period of the man's life, and on one subject (no less) and determine that the man was a liar from the beginning?

It certainly increases the odds that he was a liar from the beginning, doesn't it? When we can clearly see that he openly lied at one point in his life, it seems natural to assume that he may have lied straight faced about other things too. Things that are harder to check on.

[Storm Rider]

It certainly increases the odds that he was a liar from the beginning, doesn't it? When we can clearly see that he openly lied at one point in his life, it seems natural to assume that he may have lied straight faced about other things too. Things that are harder to check on.

This one always gets me laughing. First, when I have read these allegations in context I have never gone away thinking that Joseph lied; he omitted the truth, but did not lie. Second, this pious state of, "well, if he lied once, then he cannot possibly be trusted" is a standard not one person can meet. Not one. Those of you who have brought this up, can you be trusted if we used the same standard? No, because each of you lies too dang much! You know, I know, everyone else knows it. You know why? Because we all lie about somethings in this life. I better keep quiet before I let loose with that 50 gallon drum of...

[maupayman]

This one always gets me laughing. First, when I have read these allegations in context I have never gone away thinking that Joseph lied; he omitted the truth, but did not lie. Second, this pious state of, "well, if he lied once, then he cannot possibly be trusted" is a standard not one person can meet. Not one. Those of you who have brought this up, can you be trusted if we used the same standard? No, because each of you lies too dang much! You know, I know, everyone else knows it. You know why? Because we all lie about somethings in this life. I better keep quiet before I let loose with that 50 gallon drum of...

You can sugar coat it all you want, he lied about polygamy. He said he only had one wife, that was not true. That's not ommitting truth. That's a lie, regardless of the context. I did not argue "well, if he lied once, then he cannot possibly be trusted". Smith made some amazing claims in his life, from his treasure digging through his religious experiences. Though there is evidence that he lied about those things, one cannot prove it in the way we can polygamy, due to the supernatural nature of his claims. So, i simply made the point that on one major issue, he has been shown a liar. This increases the chances of him lying about his supernatural experiences. Its a simple point and it still stands, despite you and your 50 gallon drum of.....

[handys003]

You can sugar coat it all you want, he lied about polygamy. He said he only had one wife, that was not true. That's not ommitting truth. That's a lie, regardless of the context. I did not argue "well, if he lied once, then he cannot possibly be trusted". Smith made some amazing claims in his life, from his treasure digging through his religious experiences. Though there is evidence that he lied about those things, one cannot prove it in the way we can polygamy, due to the supernatural nature of his claims. So, i simply made the point that on one major issue, he has been shown a liar. This increases the chances of him lying about his supernatural experiences. Its a simple point and it still stands, despite you and your 50 gallon drum of.....

CFR on polygamy.

[maupayman]

CFR on polygamy.

what aspect of polygamy?

[handys003]

what aspect of polygamy?

Where JS lied on Polygamy. Also to note as apparent in the gospels. No one tells the same story twice correctly or accurately.

[maupayman]

Where JS lied on Polygamy.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience." (Joseph Smith, "Address of the Prophet