Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[handys003]

"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

[Walden]

Where is the lie in this statement? He is making an assertion to his innocence. Are you saying he committed adultry and denying such?

I think that the dishonesty is in the next part of the statement...."What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one..."

According to lds.org, Smith was married to at least 14 different women by the date the above referenced statement was made.

[sansfoy]

I think that the dishonesty is in the next part of the statement...."What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one..."

According to lds.org, Smith was married to at least 14 different women by the date the above referenced statement was made.

That's not a lie. He wasn't married to seven wives, he was married to fourteen, and note that he didn't say he wasn't married to those seven women, only that he could "only find one."

In other words, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

It's disingenuous for people to justify statements like the above (but they were going to tar and feather him!) while elsewhere Joseph Smith will be praised for the abuse he suffered when he refused to deny he'd seen an angel.

[Glenn101]

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.....

Actually it was true. Joseph was only married to one woman that was registered civilly. Whether he consummated any of the sealings to other women is debatable. The dna testing that has been done so far has proven any of the urban legends concerning offspring to be just that.

Glenn

[sansfoy]

Actually it was true. Joseph was only married to one woman that was registered civilly. Whether he consummated any of the sealings to other women is debatable. The dna testing that has been done so far has proven any of the urban legends concerning offspring to be just that.

Glenn

I don't understand this argument, though I've heard it many times. Is the claim that polygamy was fine for Joseph Smith so long as there were no children produced and the relationships were never consummated? Does this mean that a DNA test proving a descendant would somehow undermine Joseph Smith's righteousness?

And what does this say about Brigham Young, et al, who very clearly did have sexual relations with dozens of women to whom they were not legally married? If you're taking the above position, doesn't this mean these other prophets were guilty of adultery?

The only tenable position is to own polygamy fully, which means admitting and accepting Joseph Smith had relations with other women.

[maupayman]

Where is the lie in this statement? He is making an assertion to his innocence. Are you saying he committed adultry and denying such?

I reference to the above. Sorry I should have included earlier to avoid confusion. The writers tell a different story of Christ. Basically the same but changes to some story lines. There is no evidence of Pontius Pilate existing by archaeological evidence. Therefore is not Luke a liar?

As Walden noted, the part about only having one wife was the part I would consider to be a lie. And yes, it is likely that the author of Luke, whoever that may have been, was a liar. From my reading of Biblical scholarship, Mark is considered to be the closest gospel account to reality.

[maupayman]

Actually it was true. Joseph was only married to one woman that was registered civilly. Whether he consummated any of the sealings to other women is debatable. The dna testing that has been done so far has proven any of the urban legends concerning offspring to be just that.

Glenn

I've been meaning to ask about this, do we have Smith's DNA?

[USU78]

Something occurred to me while reading this thread, for which great thanks, Herr Professor Doktor:

Great men always attract gossip and detraction. It always seems to take the same vein.

With Gaius Julius Caesar, it was "He was every woman's husband; every man's wife."

With JSJr, it is, "He stole even his supporters' wives; he was a bisexual." Of course, that last is from our friend Quinn.

It's probably an even older phenomenon than that. Caesar evoked great loyalty in his supporters, who raved over his personal habits, his loyalty to friends, his great talents, his personal beauty. His opponents were reduced to sniping over trivialities, and his great talents provoked murderous jealousies.

Same with JSJr.

[sansfoy]

It's probably an even older phenomenon than that. Caesar evoked great loyalty in his supporters, who raved over his personal habits, his loyalty to friends, his great talents, his personal beauty. His opponents were reduced to sniping over trivialities, and his great talents provoked murderous jealousies.

Same with JSJr.

Caesar was a brutal military leader who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Gauls and enslaved hundreds of thousands more, then returned to Rome to overthrow the Republic and have himself declared dictator for life. I wouldn't think even Joseph Smith's detractors would look for a comparison to Caesar, let alone his supporters.

[USU78]

USU78: Something occurred to me while reading this thread, for which great thanks, Herr Professor Doktor:

Great men always attract gossip and detraction. It always seems to take the same vein.

With Gaius Julius Caesar, it was "He was every woman's husband; every man's wife."

With JSJr, it is, "He stole even his supporters' wives; he was a bisexual." Of course, that last is from our friend Quinn.

It's probably an even older phenomenon than that. Caesar evoked great loyalty in his supporters, who raved over his personal habits, his loyalty to friends, his great talents, his personal beauty. His opponents were reduced to sniping over trivialities, and his great talents provoked murderous jealousies.

Same with JSJr.

Caesar was a brutal military leader who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Gauls and enslaved hundreds of thousands more, then returned to Rome to overthrow the Republic and have himself declared dictator for life. I wouldn't think even Joseph Smith's detractors would look for a comparison to Caesar, let alone his supporters.

And so it continues, adding presentism to the sins of the snipers.

[sansfoy]

And so it continues, adding presentism to the sins of the snipers.

I know, and Herod wasn't so bad either, killing all those babies. To say that he was evil is just presentism.

I'm pretty sure the Gauls saw their destruction as a civilization to be a bad thing, the murder and enslavement of their people as a rather unpleasant outcome. And there were more than a few Romans who didn't care for Caesar overthrowing the Republic to set himself up as dictator for life, but rightly saw it as the end of their history as a free people.

But no, you dismiss it as presentism, as sniping of the small at the great and glorious.

I guess if you want to compare the character of Joseph Smith to a Roman dictator, go right ahead. Render unto Caesar, and all that...

[Vex]

I know, and Herod wasn't so bad either, killing all those babies. To say that he was evil is just presentism.

I'm pretty sure the Gauls saw their destruction as a civilization to be a bad thing, the murder and enslavement of their people as a rather unpleasant outcome. And there were more than a few Romans who didn't care for Caesar overthrowing the Republic to set himself up as dictator for life, but rightly saw it as the end of their history as a free people.

But no, you dismiss it as presentism, as sniping of the small at the great and glorious.

I guess if you want to compare the character of Joseph Smith to a Roman dictator, go right ahead. Render unto Caesar, and all that...

An offender for a word huh? Nice. The comparison is accurate in the scope U made it. Extrapolating that out is nothing more than missing the mark. If you'd like we could look at all the civilizations that were wiped out under other individuals that could be compared to Joe down the street if you'd like?

"How about them Isrealites, and having to 'wipe them from the face of the earth' or 'leave no one to piss against the bricks'?"

Keep clutching at straws though

[sansfoy]

An offender for a word huh? Nice. The comparison is accurate in the scope U made it. Extrapolating that out is nothing more than missing the mark. If you'd like we could look at all the civilizations that were wiped out under other individuals that could be compared to Joe down the street if you'd like?

"How about them Isrealites, and having to 'wipe them from the face of the earth' or 'leave no one to piss against the bricks'?"

Keep clutching at straws though

Can you please rewrite this in Standard American English? I'm having a hard time parsing your argument.

Are you saying Joseph Smith's character should be compared to that of Julius Caesar?

[LeSellers]

You can sugar coat it all you want, he lied about polygamy. He said he only had one wife, that was not true.

Please provide the quotation where he said this.

I believe I know which one it was, and it does not say what you claim for it.

Lehi

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

Which, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the LDS Church has very few converts.

[LeSellers]

"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

[Scott Lloyd]

It's disingenuous for people to justify statements like the above (but they were going to tar and feather him!) while elsewhere Joseph Smith will be praised for the abuse he suffered when he refused to deny he'd seen an angel.

How is that disingenuous? It's not self-evident to me. Please explain.

Added: Consider this analogy. A man is arrested by the Nazi SS and confronted for distributing leaflets exposing Hitler's atrocities. He defiantly acknowledges his actions. At the same time, he declines or refuses to give them information that would implicate his companions in the resistance against the Nazis.

I call his behavior laudable on the one hand and justifiable on the other. Consistent with your reasoning, you would say I'm being disingenuous to do so. Explain such an assertion, if you can.

[USU78]

sansfoy, on 10 August 2010 - 08:24 AM, said:

USU78: Something occurred to me while reading this thread, for which great thanks, Herr Professor Doktor:

Great men always attract gossip and detraction. It always seems to take the same vein.

With Gaius Julius Caesar, it was "He was every woman's husband; every man's wife."

With JSJr, it is, "He stole even his supporters' wives; he was a bisexual." Of course, that last is from our friend Quinn.

It's probably an even older phenomenon than that. Caesar evoked great loyalty in his supporters, who raved over his personal habits, his loyalty to friends, his great talents, his personal beauty. His opponents were reduced to sniping over trivialities, and his great talents provoked murderous jealousies.

Same with JSJr.

Caesar was a brutal military leader who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Gauls and enslaved hundreds of thousands more, then returned to Rome to overthrow the Republic and have himself declared dictator for life. I wouldn't think even Joseph Smith's detractors would look for a comparison to Caesar, let alone his supporters.

USU78: And so it continues, adding presentism to the sins of the snipers.

I know, and Herod wasn't so bad either, killing all those babies. To say that he was evil is just presentism.

I'm pretty sure the Gauls saw their destruction as a civilization to be a bad thing, the murder and enslavement of their people as a rather unpleasant outcome. And there were more than a few Romans who didn't care for Caesar overthrowing the Republic to set himself up as dictator for life, but rightly saw it as the end of their history as a free people.

But no, you dismiss it as presentism, as sniping of the small at the great and glorious.

I guess if you want to compare the character of Joseph Smith to a Roman dictator, go right ahead. Render unto Caesar, and all that...

Silly argument. I make reference to the snipers' habit of going into matters sexual. They are irrelevant for the most part. They are always inaccurate and unfair. So why spend so much hot air on them?

Because the unworthy and inferior cannot stand greatness . . . and great goodness.

Fact is: Snipers go for the sex every time.

You should be embarrassed.

[Vex]

Can you please rewrite this in Standard American English? I'm having a hard time parsing your argument.

Are you saying Joseph Smith's character should be compared to that of Julius Caesar?

I'm sorry? I'll use smaller words and smaller jumps in intuitive thought to parse my argrument for your understanding:

One can easily compare two distinct people and individuals who have vastly different lives. For instance one may reference Ceaser in comparison to Joseph Smith and have little difficulty in comparing their general traits or characterizations of their supporters and detractors. It would be similar to comparing Joseph Smith to Moses (which I think more closely represent your deginerative comparison to Ceaser--Both Moses and Ceaser lead their armies and wiped out millions of people. Joseph did not). Yet anyone can compre any individual selectively to their desire and want.

In the process of U's statements his assesment is accurate. Perhaps one should not look for offense when there is none to make. But go ahead and stretch to make your comparison if you want. I won't stop you... oh wait, maybe I will?

[sansfoy]

Silly argument. I make reference to the snipers' habit of going into matters sexual. They are irrelevant for the most part. They are always inaccurate and unfair. So why spend so much hot air on them?

Because the unworthy and inferior cannot stand greatness . . . and great goodness.

Fact is: Snipers go for the sex every time.

You should be embarrassed.

Embarrassed? Why, I'm downright humiliated. Or would be, if could figure out what you're going on about with this Joseph Smith/Julius Caesar comparison. Until then, I remain merely mystified.

Let's forget about the "great goodness" of Roman dictators and talk about Joseph Smith for a moment, since this is a thread about whether or not he is "honest, honorable, and sincere."

In 1830, the same year he organized the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was poor enough that Martin Harris needed to loan him the money to publish the Book of Mormon. In 1844, he died with an estate valued at over 1,000,000. This was a vast sum of wealth in 1844. Where did it come from?

[Vex]

In 1830, the same year he organized the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was poor enough that Martin Harris needed to loan him the money to publish the Book of Mormon. In 1844, he died with an estate valued at over 1,000,000. This was a vast sum of wealth in 1844. Where did it come from?

CFR. Where is the estimation coming from? Who estimated it and how?

[sansfoy]

How is that disingenuous? It's not self-evident to me. Please explain.

Added: Consider this analogy. A man is arrested by the Nazi SS and confronted for distributing leaflets exposing Hitler's atrocities. He defiantly acknowledges his actions. At the same time, he declines or refuses to give them information that would implicate his companions in the resistance against the Nazis.

I call his behavior laudable on the one hand and justifiable on the other. Consistent with your reasoning, you would say I'm being disingenuous to do so. Explain such an assertion, if you can.

I see. Good point.

[USU78]

Embarrassed? Why, I'm downright humiliated. Or would be, if could figure out what you're going on about with this Joseph Smith/Julius Caesar comparison. Until then, I remain merely mystified.

Let's forget about the "great goodness" of Roman dictators and talk about Joseph Smith for a moment, since this is a thread about whether or not he is "honest, honorable, and sincere."

In 1830, the same year he organized the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was poor enough that Martin Harris needed to loan him the money to publish the Book of Mormon. In 1844, he died with an estate valued at over 1,000,000. This was a vast sum of wealth in 1844. Where did it come from?

Nice attempted deflection.

Fact is, you're incapable of addressing the issue of why cowards cower behind alleged sexual foibles of the great.

Why do you?

[sansfoy]

I'm sorry? I'll use smaller words and smaller jumps in intuitive thought to parse my argrument for your understanding:

Actually, what I'm hoping for are fewer misplaced modifiers, more complete sentences, and a second glance at your writing to pick up on the copious misspellings, grammatical errors, and incomplete thoughts.

Look at the following segment, in which you have eight easily identifiable errors, to say nothing of issues of clarity. When you write so sloppily, all you're doing is foisting your work onto your readers.

If you are not yet capable of writing more clearly, I suggest you take a break from the board until you learn to write to a minimal standard of comprehensibility.

One can easily compare two distinct people and individuals who have vastly different lives. For instance one may reference Ceaser in comparison to Joseph Smith and have little difficulty in comparing their general traits or characterizations of their supporters and detractors. It would be similar to comparing Joseph Smith to Moses (which I think more closely represent your deginerative comparison to Ceaser--Both Moses and Ceaser lead their armies and wiped out millions of people. Joseph did not). Yet anyone can compre any individual selectively to their desire and want.

In the process of U's statements his assesment is accurate. Perhaps one should not look for offense when there is none to make. But go ahead and stretch to make your comparison if you want. I won't stop you... oh wait, maybe I will?

[sansfoy]

Nice attempted deflection.

Fact is, you're incapable of addressing the issue of why cowards cower behind alleged sexual foibles of the great.

Why do you?

This may surprise you, but the "great" are often guilty of sexual foibles: Bill Clinton, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Being powerful or even great and good in one area does not preclude fault in another. There are few things stronger than sexual temptation and the great and powerful have far more sexual opportunities. This is not a surprise.

The difference with Joseph Smith is not that he decided that the normal rules of love, sex, and marriage did not apply to him--this is depressingly common--but that he taught that God sanctioned his extra-legal sexual actions. Commanded it, even.

This is why we're discussing the issue.