Ingenuous

[Questing Beast]

Ingenuous: without guile, frank, straight forward, innocent, trusting, open,  ... Real.

 

Was Joseph Smith ingenuous?

 

I want to believe that he was, at least at first, less so as he got into the role of "prophet". When he doubted the depth of that role, as it applied to himself, he was less prone to mistakes of going too far. But later, when he was more accustomed to receiving "revelation" on everything as it suited the occasion, he got into errors - that is, if you accept the contradictory evidence, which is deadlocked upon the "petard" of conflicting, viable, primary sources (e.g. William Marks' quote of JS in the 1853 newspaper article: "We are a ruined people", etc.)

 

Was Joseph Smith ingenuous to the end or did he fall into becoming disingenuous?...

[Storm Rider]

Tough question. I think men/humans can become progressively more susceptible to being ingenuous the more their own emotions come into play. It would be nice to think that leaders become more perfect as they learn more. There seems to be a disconnect between holiness and leadership. I think power corrupts regardless of where the power is found - politics, religion, or any other social structure. Holiness is obtained outside of the power construct of humanity.

Joseph said he was a rough stone. He did things to protect the restoration and its coming forth. I suspect he would do things differently, as we all would, if there were do-overs.

This is one of the reasons I never equate a man of God with a leadership calling. They may be good administrators and far from being holy.

[thesometimesaint]

No mortal Saint that I know of has claimed that level of perfection. God for some odd reason still talks to us.

[savedbygrace]

Tough question. I think men/humans can become progressively more susceptible to being ingenuous the more their own emotions come into play. It would be nice to think that leaders become more perfect as they learn more. There seems to be a disconnect between holiness and leadership. I think power corrupts regardless of where the power is found - politics, religion, or any other social structure. Holiness is obtained outside of the power construct of humanity.

Joseph said he was a rough stone. He did things to protect the restoration and its coming forth. I suspect he would do things differently, as we all would, if there were do-overs.

This is one of the reasons I never equate a man of God with a leadership calling. They may be good administrators and far from being holy.

I have recently read No Man Knows My History, one of the things that struck me was that Fawn Brodie portrays Joseph Smith as likeable, magnanimous, loyal, generous, a great sense of humour, able to send himself up, a family man, attractive and charismatic. All good qualities, as Storm says  we can become susceptible the more realisation we gain of our power. One thing is for sure he was certainly complex

Edited September 9, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Robert F. Smith]

Ingenuous: without guile, frank, straight forward, innocent, trusting, open,  ... Real.

 

Was Joseph Smith ingenuous?

 

I want to believe that he was, at least at first, less so as he got into the role of "prophet". When he doubted the depth of that role, as it applied to himself, he was less prone to mistakes of going too far. But later, when he was more accustomed to receiving "revelation" on everything as it suited the occasion, he got into errors - that is, if you accept the contradictory evidence, which is deadlocked upon the "petard" of conflicting, viable, primary sources (e.g. William Marks' quote of JS in the 1853 newspaper article: "We are a ruined people", etc.)

 

Was Joseph Smith ingenuous to the end or did he fall into becoming disingenuous?...

Was Joseph a naif innocent throughout his career, or did he cease to be a rube at some point?  How would we know?  What sort of evidence could be brought to break the deadlock of opinion?

 

Of course, Wm Marks' quote is hearsay, and certainly not primary evidence.

 

Was Joseph a disingenuous rascal?  Was he a liar and a cheat?  What sort of evidence might we bring against him in a court of law, Beast?  Even just a moot court?

 

Hey, Beast, are we (you and me) hoist on our own petard?

[Glenn101]

I have said this before, and I will redundate once again, I think that we all, believers and critics alike, will be well served to leave the judging of Joseph and others to God. Only He knows the state of mind and the intent of the heart. Unless one has walked a mile in anothers shoes, there is no way we can com close to knowing the burden they bear.

 

My only concern is whether Joseph Smoth was a prophet and whether he was the instrument of the restoration of the gospel chosen by God.

 

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

I have recently read No Man Knows My History, one of the things that struck me was that Fawn Brodie portrays Joseph Smith as likeable, magnanimous, loyal, generous, a great sense of humour, able to send himself up, a family man, attractive and charismatic. All good qualities, as Storm says we can become susceptible the more realisation we gain of our power. One thing is for sure he was certainly complex

I daresay he seems complex to you largely because you can't let go of the position that he lied about being a prophet anointed of God who received direct revelation from Jesus Christ. I accept it, and thus I don't find him nearly as in unfathomable as you say he is.

Really, it's something of an indicator of the divinity of his calling that unbelievers have such difficulty explaining it away and must go on and on about how "complex" he is.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[savedbygrace]

I daresay he seems complex to you largely because you can't let go of the position that he lied about being a rophet anointed of God who received direct revelation from Jesus Christ. I accept, and thus I don't find him nearly as in fathomable as you say he is.

I didn't say he was unfathomable, I said he was complex, and I think he was, most of us are. Getting back to Brodie's book, she portrays him as extremely complex man formed by the poverty of his childhood as well as the many influences around him at that time. But she does not demonise him which I found refreshing.

 

Neither was I trying to explain away anything, and I do not believe that people, believers, doubters, unbelievers who question Joseph Smith's  calling are in someway proving the divinity of it. To me that is a strange statement. And by the way, i haven't gone on and on about Joseph Smith's complexity, I believe this is the first time I have ever said it.

Edited September 10, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Questing Beast]

...

 

Hey, Beast, are we (you and me) hoist on our own petard?

Do you know anyone who isn't? That's what happens to mortals before "the end of all things". That's why turning to "God" is the only possible escape from insanity....

[Questing Beast]

The issue of JS's "complexity" exists because the story of the rise of Mormonism is complex and JS is at the very center of the story, the central character of the story literally. We have comments after his death, such as the Wm Marks' one I referenced in the OP (and if it is unreliable, so too is practically everything else that anyone else said that JS said). Compare that to BY doubting JS when it was rumored that patriarchal marriage was to be done away - AFTER JS had recently spent a lot of energy convincing BY et al. JS's disciples that it was from God. Emma threatened JS with divorce, and for the last nine months of his life he did not take any more wives or cohabit with the others. It is from this period that the Wm Marks' anecdote comes: when JS was vacillating between continuing "the practice" or abandoning it for very obvious and necessary reasons. His life had become incredibly complex by the 1840's. And by 1844 it had become unsupportable. He was over a barrel, to use another metaphor, in deep, deep trouble (water) no matter which way he went with it. Death was a release, an escape. We can look at even that two ways: removed by the Lord for leading the Saints astray, or delivered from his enemies and his impossible situation because his work was done....

[BCSpace]

Was Joseph Smith ingenuous to the end or did he fall into becoming disingenuous?...

 

I'd say to the end.  Consider this report:

 

According to the council's minutes, Smith said he "...would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us. "The Destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor"—Proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor".

[MormonMason]

I have recently read No Man Knows My History, one of the things that struck me was that Fawn Brodie portrays Joseph Smith as likeable, magnanimous, loyal, generous, a great sense of humour, able to send himself up, a family man, attractive and charismatic. All good qualities, as Storm says  we can become susceptible the more realisation we gain of our power. One thing is for sure he was certainly complex

Which one? The 1945 edition or the 1970 revision?

[savedbygrace]

Which one? The 1945 edition or the 1970 revision?

 

Hi MM, I had to go look, it is the second edition and her forward is dated 1970. I think i tried to get the 1945 edition, can't really remember if it was still available or if the price was prohibitive. Anyway, this is the one I have