Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[Vex]

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.

Nice. Don't comment on the actual argument that you can fully comprehend and articulate. Instead begin by an ad hominem attack. I will write how I please with what words I please considering that spelling is a rather recent development in the english language; look to some of the most revered writers of the english language (Shakespear comes to mind. Will you critque him the same way? Perish the thought).

Edit: the term U's is correct. It's possesive not plural and it's not indicating 'you' but 'USU###'

EDIT EDIT: I'll make a deal with you; address the agruments presented in a coherent matter and we'll worry about your personal issues later, okay?

[Vex]

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.

CFR on the bold.

Seams to me-h that you're havin' issues wyth supporting your claims.

[Mudcat]

CFR on the bold.

Seams to me-h that you're havin' issues wyth supporting your claims.

I think he is probably referring to that bit about the angel of God threatening to destroy Joseph Smith.

[Vex]

I think he is probably referring to that bit about the angel of God threatening to destroy Joseph Smith.

But he's implying explict sexual relations from said event, which as I recall, never transpired--Could be wrong so I'd like to see the Reference for it. I'm still waiting on the other CFR I requested to be fulfilled--but maybe that's just wishful thinking?

[ttribe]

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?

I would REALLY like to see the supporting documentation and calculations backing up this $1M number.

[Alf O'Mega]

You conveniently forgot the context. Joseph was not talking of the current (for him) period. A few sentences before this quotation, he said, "I had not been married scarcely [sic] five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

"...

"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."

See how the time frame he was referring to was at the beginning of his ministry ("married five minutes", "made one proclamation of the Gospel", "fourteen years ago"), not 1844?

That was the exact truth, and he denied only what was a lie about him.

You should go ahead and spring for the ellipsis-free edition of History of the Church:

Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me: the reason is, he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still.

Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man's ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet. God knows, then, that the charges against me are false.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.

William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery.

I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are

[Scott Lloyd]

I would REALLY like to see the supporting documentation and calculations backing up this $1M number.

Even if it is accurate, whence the insinuation of dishonesty on the part of the Prophet? It seems to me the burden of proof is on the one making the insinuation.

[sansfoy]

I would REALLY like to see the supporting documentation and calculations backing up this $1M number.

I'm sorry, I think I'm wrong. I thought I had read this in Quinn, but digging around I believe this figure refers to Brigham Young's estate, which is a different matter entirely, given that it was decades later and Brigham Young had well-know business interests.

Again, I apologize.

[ttribe]

I'm sorry, I think I'm wrong. I thought I had read this in Quinn, but digging around I believe this figure refers to Brigham Young's estate, which is a different matter entirely, given that it was decades later and Brigham Young had well-know business interests.

Again, I apologize.

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sorry, I think I'm wrong. I thought I had read this in Quinn, but digging around I believe this figure refers to Brigham Young's estate, which is a different matter entirely, given that it was decades later and Brigham Young had well-know business interests.

Again, I apologize.

Thanks for acknowledging the error.

[Vex]

danke, danke

[Ahab]

I like this latest "Mormon Scholars Testify" entry, because its author, based on years of working with the legal and business documents associated with Joseph Smith, is firmly convinced that Joseph Smith was an honest and an honorable man, and a sincere one:

http://mormonscholar...gordon-a-madsen

That's my firm conviction, as well, based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings." It's nothing that I can neatly prove, in the same way that I can construct a demonstrative syllogism, and others will, no doubt, dismiss my understanding of the man. But it's my very, very strong sense, after years of reading things that Joseph didn't write for publication: If I have any sense at all for genuineness in a fellow human being, any capacity to discern character in people, Joseph Smith was a sincere man.

Which, I think, is a very important thing to know.

I know the same thing about Joseph too, Daniel, and I agree that it is a very important thing for all of us to know.

When considering all of the people who have lived in past ages, and all who are living right now, I can't think of anyone other than very close members of my own family that I'd like to meet more than Joseph Smith, the prophet of God chosen for the Restoration.

[why me]

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. 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.

You have made a good point. When one reads Joseph's letters, one can see a man who believed that he was doing god's work. He wrote beautiful letters to his wife Emma and showed concern for those who believed he was prophet. But he wasn't perfect and he made mistakes. But since the human condition is mistake ridden it is only natural for all of us not to be perfect.

But what JS accomplished within his short lifespan was quite amazing and impressive. And then, he went to his death with his brother for the faith.

[sansfoy]

Thank you.

And thank you for not rubbing my nose in it.

I think I was confusing these this event with the conflict between Emma and Brigham over Joseph Smith's estate. Apparently church finances and those of the leadership were not disentangled at the time.

Operating on limited funds, he led the majority of the Latter-day Saints west in 1847. Brigham Young went on to become extremely wealthy. Stanley P. Hirshson reported that "in the 1870 census he [brigham Young] declared personal property worth $102,000 and real estate valued at $1,010,600." ( The Lion of the Lord, by Stanley Hirshson, Knopf Pub., 1969, p.247) Evidently Young did not have a problem with using or borrowing funds from the LDS Church for his personal use. This practice created considerable problems after his death in determining what was actually his and what was in fact the property of the church.

LDS historian Leonard J. Arrington wrote:

"Brigham Young and other church authorities, when need required it, drew on the tithing resources of the church, and at a later date repaid part or all of the obligation in money, property, or services. No interest seems to have been paid for the use of these funds.... This ability to draw, almost at will, on church as well as his own funds, was a great advantage to Brigham Young and was certainly one of the reasons for his worldly success.... while Brigham Young was probably the largest borrower of funds from the trustee-in-trust, he was certainly not the only one." ("The Settlement of the Brigham Young Estate," 1877-1879, Reprinted from the Pacific Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Feb. 1952, p.7-

[LeSellers]

You should go ahead and spring for the ellipsis-free edition of History of the Church:

I have it already.

Eight intervening paragraphs of railing against his 1844 persecutors clearly establish the vintage of the accusation he is denying.

The references to the beginnings (as I recalled in the earlier message: "married five minutes", one proclamation", "fourteen years ago"), all point to a much earlier provenance of the charges he was refuting.

Lehi

[ttribe]

I think I was confusing these this event with the conflict between Emma and Brigham over Joseph Smith's estate. Apparently church finances and those of the leadership were not disentangled at the time.

Correct. Things have changed considerably since those days.

[Alf O'Mega]

The references to the beginnings (as I recalled in the earlier message: "married five minutes", one proclamation", "fourteen years ago"), all point to a much earlier provenance of the charges he was refuting.

That's just obtuse. He explicitly references current accusations ("another indictment," "charged me with adultery"). I don't see how you can appeal to context and then ignore it.

[USU78]

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.

Not much surprises me . . . for example that a sniper would hang onto the sex at all costs, regardless how silly and irrelevant the issue is. It's lazy, just like writing f@rt jokes into PG movies and having the pretty girl utter the "R"-rated word in an otherwise PG movie to get a PG-13 rating. It appeals to the lowest common denominator in each demographic.

You go for the sex, you reveal yourself to be a lazy thinker appealing to lazy thinkers.

Me? I'm not worried that Abraham was a polygynist or that he owned slaves or that he stepped out of the way when his legal wife disciplined his borrowed concubine. I'm likewise not worried that Isaiah ran around Jerusalem buck naked for a couple of years . . . or that he went out of his way to marry a hooker. I'm not even worried that TJ may have exercised his droit de seignieur with the help.

I'm least worried by those who worry about such things.

Presentism of the most profound kind is what it is such folks engage in.

[USU78]

I think I was confusing these this event with the conflict between Emma and Brigham over Joseph Smith's estate. Apparently church finances and those of the leadership were not disentangled at the time.

Emma had far more to fear from JSJr's trustee/referee in bankruptcy (and the creditors he represented) than BY and the Brighamites at the time. Those creditors were a nasty bunch, beating up on a widow and a fugitive people.

[Deborah]

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

Please see the posts after this for evidence of what I said which was

[maupayman]

You conveniently forgot the context. Joseph was not talking of the current (for him) period. A few sentences before this quotation, he said, "I had not been married scarcely [sic] five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

"...

"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."

See how the time frame he was referring to was at the beginning of his ministry ("married five minutes", "made one proclamation of the Gospel", "fourteen years ago"), not 1844?

That was the exact truth, and he denied only what was a lie about him.

Lehi

Fair enough, I had not read that part before. Do you have the entire quotation, or know where I can read it? Never mind, thank Alf.

[Pahoran]

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.

Well well, if it isn't my old buddy Sans foi.

Firstly: welcome to MA&DB.

Secondly: it is up to the mods to invite people to take breaks from the board. Try to be just a little less presumptuous next time.

Now, I know it is difficult for beginning readers, who don't yet recognise words so they have to spell their way through things; but one thing you'll find as you progress in learning to read is that you will be able to overlook spelling errors and still read for comprehension. I was able to understand Vex's point just fine.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cold Steel]

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

Well, this brings us to the situation of Abraham, who wasn't entirely honest about his wife. The Lord told him what to say.

The Lord dictates what is acceptable and what is not. There was a time when graven images was a sin, and the Jews were forbidden to do it. But the Ark of the Covenant had graven images on it, and today the commandment is no longer required. So we have images of Jesus, of Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and other church leaders.

Does what Joseph Smith and others did negate them as men of God?

I don't think so. Some considered it serious enough to brand Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. I don't buy it for Joseph Smith or any of our other leaders. In your case, I suspect you wouldn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet even if "dishonesty" issue didn't exist. Or would you? Had Joseph Smith not denied plural marriage, would you accept him as a prophet? If we took plural marriage completely off the table, would you accept his prophetic office as a dispensation head and as a prophet of God? If not, why not?

[handys003]

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.

Actually that is not how I interpret it. It's all how you want to get out of the meaning. I was looking in the context of what is worthiness to be a wife as the others may not have been exemplifying such. Also what sansfoy noted in post #78.

Second- concerning any of the writers of the gospel including Mark. Are you saying that all of them were perfect saints and never lied? I think your confusing telling a lie with the concept of blatant dishonesty. There is not a single man in history (except Christ) who has not told a lie many times no matter how big or how small on this planet. That like you when you or myself have told a lie does not mean we are dishonest in nature.

[Mudcat]

To all,

I have been reading this thread a bit and find the whole thing a bit perplexing.... but an interesting read nonetheless.

Thought I would actually weigh in.

I don't think any attempt between believing LDS and critic(non-believer, what have you) to dialogue on the issue will bear any fruit. IMO, there is simply to much predispositional bias on all counts.

I would be hard pressed to believe an LDS could view Joseph Smith as dishonorable, disrespectful and insincere and still maintain belief in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS. On the part of LDS there is a predispositional bias, likely based upon what they believe is some confirmation from God, that most if not all of Joseph Smith's statements were accurate... most specifically anything that the CoJCoLDS maintains as doctrine.

Critics on the other hand have an entirely different set of predispositional biases. The first, chiefly being that they have no such confirmational experience and therefore no reasons to draw such conclusions. Also there are complicating factors that range from an atheists rejection of the existence of any sort of Christian type of God to that of a non-LDS Christian that has predispositional biases that directly conflict with the veracity or lack thereof of Joseph Smith.

I think it a bit unfair for either side of the coin to make presumptions of what someone who disagrees should or shouldn't think on the matter. The whole thing is just a bit to deep in the narrows to abscond oneself from their predisposed position.

That being said, the discussion reminds of dialogues about the person of Christ himself. Please don't mistake this as some statement of putting Joseph Smith on the same pedestal as Christ or something.. that isn't my intent.

I am sure you have likely heard the term