Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[Deborah]

Respectfully,

Mudcat

And for an example of a critic (in the sense of someone who disagrees) who is respectful and not vitrolic, there is Mudcat.

[Jaybear]

IMO, seems the only acquiescence from a critical standpoint, would be that Joseph Smith could have been honest, sincere and honorable only if he had some sort of mental condition that sparked these visions and so forth. Even then such a branding of honesty and honor would devalue any real positive character statement in the long run.

Very insightful. In fact, given Smith's remarkable accomplishments, I am puzzled that any critic would believe that Smith was delusional. I surely don't.

As for polygamy, does anyone really believe that Smith was compelled by an angel with a drawn sword to take multiple wives? Wouldn't it be easier, from an intellectual perspective, just to acknowledge that while Smith was a true prophet, he was not without his flaws.

[Ahab]

IMO, seems the only acquiescence from a critical standpoint, would be that Joseph Smith could have been honest, sincere and honorable only if he had some sort of mental condition that sparked these visions and so forth. Even then such a branding of honesty and honor would devalue any real positive character statement in the long run.

Even if Joseph had some sort of mental condition... while also being honest, sincere, and honorable... he would still qualify as one of the best Christians that has ever lived upon the face of this Earth. If he had made any kind of mistake, it would have been an honest mistake, because of the fact that he would have been honest, sincere, and honorable man.

What more can any of us hope for than to be honest, sincere, and honorable while also being as true to God as we know how to be?

[selek]

Very insightful. In fact, given Smith's remarkable accomplishments, I am puzzled that any critic would believe that Smith was delusional. I surely don't.

As for polygamy, does anyone really believe that Smith was compelled by an angel with a drawn sword to take multiple wives? Wouldn't it be easier, from an intellectual perspective, just to acknowledge that while Smith was a true prophet, he was not without his flaws.

Gotta love the Catch-22 in Jaybear's reasoning- the 'rational' approach to 'rehabilitating' Joseph as a prophet is to throw revelation under the bus.

The 'intellectually honest' approach is to just admit that Joseph made stuff up.

Jaybear graciously concedes that Joseph wasn't insane- and expects us to 'compromise' by admitting he was a lecher and adulterer.

That's a 'heads I win, tails you lose' proposition if ever there was one- and demonstrates the futility of trying to reason with the rabid critic.

Any 'discussion' must serve to advance his position. Any 'compromise' must serve to move his football down the field- and mere facts be damned.

From Jaybear's perspective, the only 'honest' position is that Joseph was a crook.

The open-mindedness and willingness to consider the evidence and other points of view is simply staggering.

[Jaybear]

Any 'discussion' must serve to advance his position. Any 'compromise' must serve to move his football down the field- and mere facts be damned.

From Jaybear's perspective, the only 'honest' position is that Joseph was a crook.

The open-mindedness and willingness to consider the evidence and other points of view is simply staggering.

Its very simple Selek. Just answer two questions.

Do you unequivocally believe that Smith refused to take on plural wives so God sent an Angel wielding a drawn sword to threaten his life?

What rational reasons exist that would compel a rational and intelligent person who is not a member of your church to believe such a claim?

[maupayman]

Gotta love the Catch-22 in Jaybear's reasoning- the 'rational' approach to 'rehabilitating' Joseph as a prophet is to throw revelation under the bus.

The 'intellectually honest' approach is to just admit that Joseph made stuff up.

Jaybear graciously concedes that Joseph wasn't insane- and expects us to 'compromise' by admitting he was a lecher and adulterer.

That's a 'heads I win, tails you lose' proposition if ever there was one- and demonstrates the futility of trying to reason with the rabid critic.

Any 'discussion' must serve to advance his position. Any 'compromise' must serve to move his football down the field- and mere facts be damned.

From Jaybear's perspective, the only 'honest' position is that Joseph was a crook.

The open-mindedness and willingness to consider the evidence and other points of view is simply staggering.

The intellectually honest approach is to admit that he likely made it up. We would all likely agree that other people, who are not LDS, who have claimed they were visited by angels, had revelation from God, translated an ancient book using a stone etc. likely made those claims up. That, or delusional, though i doubt many people have claimed to translate a book using a stone.

[ttribe]

The intellectually honest approach is to admit that he likely made it up.

So, you're saying it's intellectually dishonest to consider our own spiritual experiences in evaluating the extant evidence?

[Ahab]

So, you're saying it's intellectually dishonest to consider our own spiritual experiences in evaluating the extant evidence?

I think he's saying that when anyone, like Joseph, claims to have seen things Jaybear doesn't believe he really saw, Jaybear would rather believe that person was being dishonest rather than delusional.

Give Jaybear some more time and maybe he'll at least be able to admit that Joseph might have been honestly mistaken in claiming to see what he saw, and then maybe with a little more time he'll even be able to believe that Joseph was actually being honest while also seeing what he actually saw.

[maupayman]

So, you're saying it's intellectually dishonest to consider our own spiritual experiences in evaluating the extant evidence?

When you have no way to verify that your spiritual experiences are what you claim they are, yes.

[ttribe]

When you have no way to verify that your spiritual experiences are what you claim they are, yes.

Explain what you mean by "verify."

[Ahab]

When you have no way to verify that your spiritual experiences are what you claim they are, yes.

If God verifies that Joseph saw what he claimed he saw, how would you feel about that?

[Walden]

If God verifies that Joseph saw what he claimed he saw, how would you feel about that?

How does god verify this?

What if god doesn't verify this?

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

I've been to this nations' capital a few times. I am always left in awe at it monuments, building, history, and the fact that it even works much of the time. I have no way of verifying those feelings to anyone else, other than my words. You can choose not to believe that I have those feelings, and that I have even visited Washington DC, but that doesn't mean that Washington DC does not exist.

[Ahab]

How does god verify this?

HOW is irrelevant to my question. My question was:

If God verifies that Joseph saw what he claimed he saw, how would you feel about that?

What if god doesn't verify this?

My question was, basically:

What if God did?

[maupayman]

Explain what you mean by "verify."

Ill paste from Merriam-Webster online:

2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of <verify the claim>

[ttribe]

Ill paste from Merriam-Webster online:

2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of <verify the claim>

Please don't talk to me like I am dumb. I believe you know what I was asking - what do you mean by your use of this term? What steps do you expect to take universally to "verify" in the sense you are arguing here?

[maupayman]

maupayman:

I've been to this nations' capital a few times. I am always left in awe at it monuments, building, history, and the fact that it even works much of the time. I have no way of verifying those feelings to anyone else, other than my words. You can choose not to believe that I have those feelings, and that I have even visited Washington DC, but that doesn't mean that Washington DC does not exist.

I don't doubt people feel things about the BoM, I just doubt where mormons believe those feelings came from and what they mean.

[maupayman]

Please don't talk to me like I am dumb. I believe you know what I was asking - what do you mean by your use of this term? What steps do you expect to take universally to "verify" in sense you are arguing here?

I mean what it says, it is impossible to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of spiritual experiences. I think you know what i meant, so please don't talk to me like I am dumb.

[Ahab]

I don't doubt people feel things about the BoM, I just doubt where mormons believe those feelings came from and what they mean.

In other words, you don't believe it was God, our Father, who told us what he told us, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Just so you know, I do understand, because I also wouldn't believe it, either, if God had not also told me, personally, in which case I would only have the word of some man or men, other than God, which just wouldn't do it for me.

[ttribe]

I mean what it says, it is impossible to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of spiritual experiences. I think you know what i meant, so please don't talk to me like I am dumb.

I'm not the one who broke out the dictionary there did I?

I'll ask again - what steps do you go through to verify the accuracy of any given subject?

[Ahab]

I mean what it says, it is impossible to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of spiritual experiences. I think you know what i meant, so please don't talk to me like I am dumb.

Where does "it" say what you are saying "it" says?

You're the only one I see saying: "it is impossible to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of spiritual experiences.

Your premise is flawed, and that's where you're messing up, big time.

[LeSellers]

As for polygamy, does anyone really believe that Smith was compelled by an angel with a drawn sword to take multiple wives?

I do.

Wouldn't it be easier, from an intellectual perspective, just to acknowledge that while Smith was a true prophet, he was not without his flaws.

It might be easier "from an intellectual perspective", but that is far from the only perspective one may observe.

It is far easier from other perspectives to accept the fact of the threat. What is so difficult about that, anyway?

Lehi

[selek]

The intellectually honest approach is to admit that he likely made it up.

And thus we have a second sample of the same dogmatic assertion.

The only way to achieve 'intellectual honesty' is to accept the materialist philosophy.

To do anything less- regardless of the evidence- is to be irrational.

Their faith allows no other possibility.

And thus we see that there is no compromise, no willingness to entertain other opinion, or to examine evidence that does not fit neatly into their ledgers.

Our only option- if we wish to be considered 'rational' is abject surrender and dhimmism.

Their creed is no less dogmatic than that found in any OTHER autocratic theology.

I recommend that anyone interested in how to best characterize Jaybear's and Maupay's arguments head over to CBS.COM and watch the classic Twilight Zone episode "The Obsolete Man" with Burgess Meredith.

It's free and no registration is required.

It's also absolutely apropo to this discussion.

[maupayman]

In other words, you don't believe it was God, our Father, who told us what he told us, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Just so you know, I do understand, because I also wouldn't believe it, either, if God had not also told me, personally, in which case I would only have the word of some man or men, other than God, which just wouldn't do it for me.

Ok, and how did God tell you? This is where you will probably lose me.

[maupayman]

I'm not the one who broke out the dictionary there did I?

I'll ask again - what steps do you go through to verify the accuracy of any given subject?

You asked what I meant by verify, I told you. No offense was intended. Any number of steps can be taken to verify claims, depending on the nature of the claim. If you give me a specific example, I could give you an idea. You keep asking, but I don't see where you're going with this.