How Can I Respond To A Friend's Criticism Of Joseph Smith?

[drums12]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").
The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.
Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.
Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

Edited May 2, 2014 by drums12

[Storm Rider]

His recounting of history is a spin of some facts, but it is not history. What is funny is that he is guilty of the same thing he accuses Beck of doing. No, they are not reasonable, but he spins the story as well as any national politician does who "never had sexual relations that woman".  

 

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who followed in the same vein as many of the prophets of old. Prophets are not perfect - and they will tell you so repeatedly - but are men that God has called to complete a work. The history of prophets will provide examples of murder, incest, drunkenness, cowardliness, and oath-breaking.  You will also find them to be honest, stalwart, faithful, repentant, inspirational, heroic individuals who served God.

 

I would not get too bothered by your friend who has left the Church.  If anything, tell him good spin and move on.His is a cup that overflows and he will not listen to anything at this time. When the time comes share your testimony.  The Spirit always seeks after his own; we just need to continue to plant seeds. 

[Disciple?]

Love is a powerful motivator. Tell your friend that what he is saying is unequivocally false and you love him. That will forever plant the seed of love within him preparing him for further missionary work in the future.

[The Nehor]

Wait, Beck was saying Joseph Smith was arrested for stealing a stove?

 

I wish I could say I was surprised if it is true. I tried to watch the keynote address but gave up five minutes in.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").

The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.

Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.

Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)?

I would remind your friend that it was Joseph who was Prophet...Beck is an entertainer. If ones actions on any one given day excusing all of our leaders, then there is nothing to redemption and we are all doomed.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Wait, Beck was saying Joseph Smith was arrested for stealing a stove?

 

I wish I could say I was surprised if it is true. I tried to watch the keynote address but gave up five minutes in.

If he did say, then in all fairness I have stolen many things, "from" a stove.

[Bikeemikey]

Most of what he said (as related to historical events) is accurate...

It is the emotional slant placed on the events that lends them all a negative tone.

The idea of being a prophet and a martyr are subjective statements. He doesn't believe that, obviously. You can't prove it.

I'd not really spend anytime talking with him about it.

[mrmendoza]

I guess that the martyrs of old Christiondom are the only ones some people think of when they use that term. You know the ones that embraced the lions that sought to kill them! To me though, you can still die a martyr, while defending yourself or your cause. Martyrdom is from dying for the cause, not for standing around and letting yourself be killed. Remember the Alamo! 

Your friends description of a " mob orgainized by Joesph Smith under color of 'law',leaves a lot of room for a very slanted point of view!

The politics of the time were very volatile, and of course the doctrine of "plural wives" was a very difficult concept for many of the othewise faithful Saints to accept. Even some of Josephs closest compainions refused to accept it!

But while all that may be a major issue inside the church at the time, the problem that the Navoo Expositer created was extremly problematic. It not only tried to "expose" the doctrines that it found distasteful, it sought to repeal the Navoo Charter! Having been forced out of their homes at gunpoint in New York, Ohio, and Missouri, the Navoo Charter was the only source of any real protection under the law that was available to the Saints. 

Was Joseph Smith too envolved in politics? I think probably so. Was the destruction of the Navoo Expositor a wise thing to do?

It seems, inretrospect that it was not. But Joseph was simply doing all he could to save the church! In the short term, it cost him his life, but in the long run the the Church continues to prosper even today!

Mike

[EllenMaksoud]

I have a dear friend who I agree with politically on most things (the purpose of this thread is not political).  He left the Church about ten years ago, and although he generally abstains from open criticism of the Church and its leaders (at least around me and on facebook), he posted the following today, commenting on Glenn Beck's recent speech at Liberty University in which Beck apparently spoke about Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  I've not listened to or read Beck's speech, as it is not the focus of this thread. 

 

I don't mean to upbraid Beck for the commitment he displays to his faith, but his treatment of Joseph Smith in this address displays a gift for artful dishonesty that would earn Jay Carney's envy.  Contrary to what Beck says in this speech, Joseph Smith wasn't arrested and sent to Carthage Jail for allegedly stealing a stove. At the time, Smith was the literal dictator of Nauvoo -- President of the LDS Church, Mayor and Chief Magistrate of the City Government, candidate for the US Presidency, and secretly crowned "Prophet, Priest and King over Israel on Earth." He was literally untouchable in Nauvoo, which is one reason why his Second Counselor William Law - a devout and faithful Mormon - published a dissident newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which objected to Smith's dictatorial consolidation of power and his illicit practice of polygamy, which included an overture by Smith to Law's wife (her rejection eventually led to Law's excommunication for "apostasy").

The Nauvoo City Council, a body that was an instrument of Smith's will, "ordered" him to suppress the Expositor as a "public nuisance." A mob organized by Smith under color of "law" destroyed the printing press, prompting Law and his associates to flee in fear for their lives. This led to a warrant being issued for Smith's arrest -- and he responded by attempting to flee the jurisdiction, only to be shamed by his wife into returning and submitting to arrest.

Smith, his brother Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were incarcerated at Carthage, where they were set upon by a masked mob. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered; John Taylor was shot, and his life may have been saved by a pocket watch that deflected a round that may have killed him.

Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr; he had been smuggled a firearm that he quite properly used in an attempt to save his life and those of his friends. He was in jail because of his own violent and lawless acts, and those who had taken him into custody were criminally derelict in failing to protect him from mob violence until he could face trial for the charges against him.

 

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

Here are a few things to consider.  So, Glen Beck is a mormon ... So what. I remember him in the early 2000's. He was an opinionated hater. I suppose I have just violated one of my own rules by dissing him. I generally avoid people who make one sided arguments.

 

Yes , Joseph Smith was our first leader and a prophet. He also blew it a few times. Well so did David, Solomon and Moses. Anyone used by God does not have to be perfect.

 

And, forgetting the past history, consider what the church is today. By in large, the congregations of the church are loving, healing, safe places. Sure the church makes mistakes because it is people. Forget about Joseph Smith's past, and focus on your future. And this man is not your friend.

[eddie]

Some of the things he brings up are cases of he said vs she said. The William Law's wife case for example alleges that he made advances on her, but she made this accusation after charges of adultery were made towards her. Basically two stories were out there, and Law believed his wife.

As for the Expositor, it was legal to shut down a paper for libel and being a nuisance in 1844. Destroying the press was likely against the law as a destruction of property, but the case never went to trial. Likely they would have had a fine to pay and replace the equipment, but due to the action by the city council, they were within their rights to shut it down.

In any case Smith did flee due to mob action after it happened, but was persuaded to return. He came back knowing he would be killed, but did so to keep the violence away from others in Nauvoo. He did have a gun, but was a prisoner at Carthage. It was an armed mob that overran the jail and killed he and Hyrum.

Look, people can spin things how they want. Consider Jesus Christ and how that can be told. A man responsible for inciting riots and teaching laws contrary to orthodox Jewish law was found in a garden. After one of his accessories attacked a Roman Law official by cutting off his ear, he was taken into custody. He was found guilty at a trial due to the testimony of one of his closest associates. He was punished in accordance with Roman Law at the time. He showed no remorse for his actions, and possibly brought great turmoil and natural disasters after his death.

See how easy it is to spin a story to make Caiphas look good in the final chapter of the life of Jesus. William Law's wife made accusations against Smith, but like most other things they can't be proven, and she had motivations to hide her indiscretions.

[saemo]

He was found guilty at a trial due to the testimony of one of his closest associates. He was punished in accordance with Roman Law at the time.

Luke 23:1-4

Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate. They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.”

Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”

Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.”

13-16

Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

[Avatar4321]

I guess that the martyrs of old Christiondom are the only ones some people think of when they use that term. You know the ones that embraced the lions that sought to kill them! To me though, you can still die a martyr, while defending yourself or your cause. Martyrdom is from dying for the cause, not for standing around and letting yourself be killed. Remember the Alamo! 

Your friends description of a " mob orgainized by Joesph Smith under color of 'law',leaves a lot of room for a very slanted point of view!

The politics of the time were very volatile, and of course the doctrine of "plural wives" was a very difficult concept for many of the othewise faithful Saints to accept. Even some of Josephs closest compainions refused to accept it!

But while all that may be a major issue inside the church at the time, the problem that the Navoo Expositer created was extremly problematic. It not only tried to "expose" the doctrines that it found distasteful, it sought to repeal the Navoo Charter! Having been forced out of their homes at gunpoint in New York, Ohio, and Missouri, the Navoo Charter was the only source of any real protection under the law that was available to the Saints. 

Was Joseph Smith too envolved in politics? I think probably so. Was the destruction of the Navoo Expositor a wise thing to do?

It seems, inretrospect that it was not. But Joseph was simply doing all he could to save the church! In the short term, it cost him his life, but in the long run the the Church continues to prosper even today!

Mike

 

How could the mayor be too involved in politics?

[eddie]

Luke 23:1-4

Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate. They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.”

Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”

Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.”

13-16

Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

I said the Jews deemed him to be guilty, not Pilate. The larger point being that it is easy to tell stories in to fit an agenda. Obviously Jesus Christ was guilty of nothing, and his trial was illegal.

Joseph Smith was accused of many things in life, and almost all of the charges were dismissed. He was not perfect, and made mistakes and had times where he had to repent, but accusations are not convictions.

[saemo]

I said the Jews deemed him to be guilty, not Pilate. The larger point being that it is easy to tell stories in to fit an agenda. Obviously Jesus Christ was guilty of nothing, and his trial was illegal.

Joseph Smith was accused of many things in life, and almost all of the charges were dismissed. He was not perfect, and made mistakes and had times where he had to repent, but accusations are not convictions.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just responding to your post where you said Jesus was found guilty (he wasn't) and was punished according to Roman law. How is someone punished for something they did not do, and under what law did that punishment take place?

In the case of Joseph Smith, there was never a trial where he was found innocent or guilty. Some speculate he would have been found innocent, others speculate he would have been found guilty. Both are speculations.

There is no speculation surrounding the accusations aimed at Jesus. He was found innocent, and put to death anyway.

[BCSpace]

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)?

 

I can't comment on Beck's statements but here is how I once responded to the supposed overtures by JS to William Law's wife:

 

Don’t forget Robert Foster and his wife also. It should be noted that Law and Foster were both chief city contractors in Nauvoo and they and Smith disagreed much over building finance which is how all this got started.  They then began making accusations against JS regarding their wives:

 

Bushman (2005, pp. 660–61) (noting that Smith claimed that Jane Law had proposed to him (660–61), citing Journal of Alexander Neibaur, May 24, 1844 (Smith claimed that Jane Law lured him into her house alone, embraced him, and proposed to him, but that Smith resisted her advances); also noting that Smith confronted Mrs. Foster with two witnesses and got her to say that during their dinner, Smith had made no sexual advances and had not "preached the spiritual wife doctrine" (530–31).)

 

An interesting statement regarding JS by Law before all this happened:

 

“I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it”

William Law to Isaac Russell, 29 November 1840, Archives Division, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah, as cited in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1994), 11

 

At best, this is a “he said she said” case.  Non catastrophic to any of the Church’s truth claims imho.  Looking at the supposed polyandrous cases we discussed above and noting there was no cohabitation, I tend to believe Smith over Law and Foster who had other cause (the economic disagreements) to be angry.  Sex certainly has been a mainstay of criticism against JS, but the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

If you get more on Joseph Smith's plural marriages or polygamy.  See the link in my siggy. Look under the History tab for bios on each wife and rebuttals to criticism in each case.

 

For the Nauvoo Expositor, here is another answer I gave once and it might be a good place to start:

 

As Mayor, JS and the city council ruled the newspaper a public nuisance and had the press destroyed.

 

They did so vote, citing the famous English jurist, William Blackstone, on what constitutes a libelous press along the way.  Has one read the four page Expositor?  The main charge cited in this list of questions seems to be false as per the above [overtures to other men's wives].  My opinion is that the Nauvoo city council was right, that not only being libelous, the paper incited violence considering the highly charged emotions of the time.

 

In addition, whatever one thinks of one’s own First Amendment rights today, the fact of the matter is that the city ordinance allowing the destruction of the press was legal.  At the time, the First Amendment was applied only to the federal government.  It was not applied to the states until the 14^th Amendment.

 

 Maybe it’s just me, but I like to have a little fire in my prophets even if they get out of line sometimes.  Not saying at all that JS was out of line here, but if this incident disqualifies JS as a prophet, then we must also disqualify Jesus as the Christ according to Matt. 21:12–16 and John 2:13–17.

 

In addition, JS was willing to and did pay the price:

 

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".

 

My kind of prophet.  He puts his money where his mouth is.

 

 

Obviously you may want to adjust the tone to suit your case but I think you have a good start.  IIRC Dallin H Oaks is of the opinion that the destruction of the printing press was illegal.  I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with him on that account as one need not be a lawyer to understand and interpret the law.  Others should please feel free to add to and/or critique my answers.  They're just the surface but can go deeper.  FAIR makes some of the same arguments some of which I have quoted or paraphrased above.

 

The bottom line is that there always seems to be a rational, logical, and faithful response or conclusion to all criticisms of the Church.  The critics have woven such a web that sometimes it can take some research to find the proper response, but there are many here who can help you with that.

 

Good Luck!

Edited May 2, 2014 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

Why not just agree with your friend that Glen Beck misrepresented some of the circumstances of Joseph Smith's death?  There's no need to defend the man (Beck). 

 

On my mission we called this "Building a Relationship of Trust" by "Building on Common Beliefs."

Edited May 2, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

A friend is someone who knows everything about you, and likes you anyway. Just agree to disagree.

[Bikeemikey]

Why not just agree with your friend that Glen Beck misrepresented some of the circumstances of Joseph Smith's death? There's no need to defend the man (Beck).

On my mission we called this "Building a Relationship of Trust" by "Building on Common Beliefs."

We used to BRT all the time...

What's that called now?

[Flyonthewall]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just responding to your post where you said Jesus was found guilty (he wasn't) and was punished according to Roman law. How is someone punished for something they did not do, and under what law did that punishment take place?

In the case of Joseph Smith, there was never a trial where he was found innocent or guilty. Some speculate he would have been found innocent, others speculate he would have been found guilty. Both are speculations.

There is no speculation surrounding the accusations aimed at Jesus. He was found innocent, and put to death anyway.

Just as an ignorant spectator here... Jesus was crucified by they Romans. Perhaps the Jews simply used the Romans as an executioner, but there was some law that was perceived to be violated by either the Romans or Jews that caused Jesus to be crucified.

[Senator]

We used to BRT all the time...

What's that called now?

 

Salesmanship?

[drums12]

Why not just agree with your friend that Glen Beck misrepresented some of the circumstances of Joseph Smith's death?  There's no need to defend the man (Beck). 

 

On my mission we called this "Building a Relationship of Trust" by "Building on Common Beliefs."

I am no fan of Beck.  Frankly I can hardly stand to listen to him.  He seems to worship the god of Ares rather than the God of Israel.  My concern is the painting of Joseph as a megolamaniac seeking to rule the world.  Granted, a superficial glance at his ordinations as priest and king of the world can appear that way,  but I don't think this was the case.

Edited May 2, 2014 by drums12

[Tacenda]

I am no fan of Beck. Frankly I can hardly stand to listen to him. He seems to worship the god of Ares rather than the God of Israel. My concern is the painting of Joseph as a megolamaniac seeking to rule the world. Granted, a superficial glance at his ordinations as priest and king of the world can appear that way, but I don't think this was the case.

I think he thinks he's Joseph incarnate. Edited May 2, 2014 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

I'm not very familiar with the events in question, but it seems my friend has taken the most damning possible interpretations of Joseph's conduct in Nauvoo.  How can I respond in a cordial, intelligent manner?  Are his conclusions valid (not necessarily correct, but reasonable)? 

You're not familiar with the events surrounding the Prophet's death?  That would be the first thing I'd correct if I were you.  Study and research this for yourself so that if you do respond, you can do so with facts and your own knowledge.  It's up to you if you want to respond, but at least educate yourself on this topic.  As far as Beck goes, his version is pretty inaccurate.  But then, your friend's response puts a negative spin and interpretation on the event.  So, learn the facts for yourself.

Edited May 2, 2014 by ALarson

[omni]

I hear all the time that Joseph wasn't perfect, and this seems to be a great example of his fallibility. Destroying the Expositor was clearly wrong, but somewhat understandable given the history the Saints had gone through and certainty didn't merit the response taken by the violent mob.

[Garden Girl]

You're not familiar with the events surrounding the Prophet's death?  That would be the first thing I'd correct if I were you.  Study and research this for yourself so that if you do respond, you can do so with facts and your own knowledge.  It's up to you if you want to respond, but at least educate yourself on this topic.  As far as Beck goes, his version is pretty inaccurate.  But then, your friend's response puts a negative spin and interpretation on the event.  So, learn the facts for yourself.

 

I agree with this...

 

GG