New First Vision Video

[Calm]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

In all that I have said, I have never denied that Joseph told any lies.  However, I will defend him against any claims that he is a liar.  When people want to focus purely on the lies and deceit, ripping it completely out of its context, I find it to be unfair and, in some cases, dishonest.  In this case, context is everything.  When people are disturbed by any of this, is it helpful to focus on the lies and deceit?  Every person that I have discussed this with, outside of this board, after delving into the context, has come away with an understanding that makes it more understandable and far less troubling.  Crying, "lie here" and "lie there" is nothing but a deceitful, polemical tactic.

I get why T-shirt is taking this position. I think his point needs to be made.  Otoh, I think it is important to say even if at times Joseph was technically telling the truth (and I am not certain the example linked to above on FM is one of those, btw...the vast majority of stuff on FM I agree with, but here and there I would answer things differently), he meant to deceive.

Words are important, labels are important.  Unfortunately we don't always use them the same way and they can cover a huge variety of behaviour.  "Liar" covers the sociopath who cons his victims into trusting him and murders them as well as the little kid who claims he was not the one that took the last cookie.  Most of us would feel uncomfortable using the label for the latter case because we recognize as T-Shirt said one or two cases does not equate to harmful, destructive deception.  But there are some people who will use the label and rightfully protest they are using it correctly because usage isn't dictated by some obvious rule, but simply social conventions that allow people to choose their own standard.  

Because of this, it is better not to use labels except in the more extreme cases that everyone in a conversation agrees on and in other cases establish specific behaviors to discuss instead.  Unfortunately in JS's case, many may see him as qualifying for a "more extreme case".  At that point, I think it depends on what we want out of the conversation.  If we want to hear others' opinions as well as them hearing us, I would suggest we keep to discussing specific behaviours to avoid getting stuck in a 'yes, he is; no, he isn't' conversation that goes round and around going nowhere.

I think everyone here is insightful enough to recognize some are okay with the label "liar" and others are not.  T-shirt made a very persuasive, in my view, argument against the usage, but I can also see why Julie and JLH are comfortable with it.  However, given the number of posts and confusion the use of the label is creating, I would suggest coming to an agreement just to focus on specific instances of alleged deception and discussing them individually as that might bring out information someone doesn't already know or a point of view they haven't considered yet and at the very least, we will learn everyone's personal views in a way general language cannot provide.  Continuing a discussion on whether or not JS fits the label "liar" is highly unlikely to do that.

PS:  I am not interested in a conversation debating the general label, so in the future I will be ignoring those queries btw, which may mean I don't post at all if the conversation stalls there.  My apologies if this frustrates anyone, but at least I have given fair warning explaining why.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That was Fairmormon's explanation too.
I don't think it is a valid argument.  Yes, he was speaking of adultery.  Yes he was referring to the accusations made against him in the early days of the Church. 
That was the context of the discourse.

But he specifically stated he was accused then of having seven wives but he stated " I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago."  This makes the claim of his monogamy a contemporary one to the discourse, not a reminiscence.

What JLH said....

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then why throw such a fit when someone posts that Joseph told lies and deceived Emma?   

I've repeatedly stated that his motives and reasons for deceiving could be discussed.  But it seems you were focused on the word "liar" and now you agree that's accurate.  

Oh well.  This has been a strange discussion 

No, he is not saying the use of "liar" is accurate.  He sees his position as dealing with what accurately happened and I think he is and that was what he was referring to in his comment, not the usage of liar.

The difference in approach where all believe they are accurately presenting what happened appears to me to be acceptance or rejection of the label "liar" because of the baggage that it carries along with it.  Baggage is highly subjective, T-Shirt sees it as too heavy and therefore it moves the understanding into inaccurate portrayals.

I am in T-Shirt's camp at this point because this post I quote is significant evidence that his position will continued to be misunderstood if we don't agree to drop the use of liar and move to solely discussing specifics.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But there is no sound reason to admit that he lied. Given the context, the so-called smoking gun ("What a thing it is...") is nothing more than booger-tipped pointing finger.

Now this is the post/topic that should be debated.  List the instances and details of where one thinks Joseph lied and see if we can persuade CV to accept it.

CV, just to be clear, do you believe this was technical truth which JS stated knowing it would give the wrong idea to those who did not know the more intimate details of his sealings or do you believe he was trying to give everyone the most accurate picture of what he was doing or something else?

[Calm]

We are way off topic.  How about starting a new thread on this limited instance so as to avoid the need to rehash the other stuff?

That okay with everyone?  Or does that mean too much reposting?

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That was Fairmormon's explanation too.
I don't think it is a valid argument.  Yes, he was speaking of adultery.  Yes he was referring to the accusations made against him in the early days of the Church. 
That was the context of the discourse.

But he specifically stated he was accused then of having seven wives but he stated " I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago."  This makes the claim of his monogamy a contemporary one to the discourse, not a reminiscence.

Yet you’re not explaining why you don’t see the arguments in the link as valid, just dismissing them with a broad brush. I don’t think you’ve though it through enough.

But since you’re cherry-picking a few lines to proof-text his lying about polygamy, consider the same lines with a fuller perspective:

He was being accused and lied about being an adulterer, and so went back to the beginning when, as a newlywed, he was accused of having seven wives, when he clearly only had one. He denounces the misrepresentation of and prejudice against plural marriage (that’s how I take the treatment of the unappealing term spiritual wifery) and complains of being accused of adultery when the laws to do support that charge (see elsewhere in the link). He asserts he is as innocent of adultery now as he was in 1827. He says that kept many men busy witnessing and recording his words and deeds the last few years, without a trace of wrongdoing.

Nothing in there about lying to Emma; nothing in there about lying bout or denying polygamy to his current audience.

I think it is additionally interesting that the source for this so-called smoking gun is not a transcript of anything, but a compilation created by scribes, editors and committee many years after the fact and largely from memory (History of the Church, mostly compiled after JS died,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_(Joseph_Smith) ; Millennial Star, 1861, and so forth).

This is why saying he is lying about polygamy is a shallow understanding interpretation of all the integrated facts.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Now this is the post/topic that should be debated.  List the instances and details of where one thinks Joseph lied and see if we can persuade CV to accept it.

CV, just to be clear, do you believe this was technical truth which JS stated knowing it would give the wrong idea to those who did not know the more intimate details of his sealings or do you believe he was trying to give everyone the most accurate picture of what he was doing or something else?

I think in this passage of History of the Church he was defending himself against charges of adultery, not trying to misdirect people from his polygamy. It think it is wrongly used as n example of the latter. He is clearly not on the offensive at this point, so only refers to an accurate picture of what he was doing (and that was not adultery) by making an appeal to the many witnesses and records he offered up for examination, and by discrediting his detractors. In a way he has nothing to prove, being cast in a defendant role.

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, he is not saying the use of "liar" is accurate.  He sees his position as dealing with what accurately happened and I think he is and that was what he was referring to in his comment, not the usage of liar.

The difference in approach where all believe they are accurately presenting what happened appears to me to be acceptance or rejection of the label "liar" because of the baggage that it carries along with it.  Baggage is highly subjective, T-Shirt sees it as too heavy and therefore it moves the understanding into inaccurate portrayals.

I am in T-Shirt's camp at this point because this post I quote is significant evidence that his position will continued to be misunderstood if we don't agree to drop the use of liar and move to solely discussing specifics.

Yes and I avoided using the word "liar".  My post above was in reference to tshirt agreeing with JLHPROF and bluebell.  I have stated that I don't like labels. I have also stated repeatedly that even though I believe Joseph lied in certain circumstances and also deceived to live polygamy, I wouldn't paint him with the broad brush of calling him a liar.

We're back to the ridiculous semantics.  I've tried to not use labels and have stated we should discuss why Joseph may have felt he needed to deceive, etc.. I haven't attached or even assigned motives.  

I think we get it (hopefully) and can move forward with a more productive discussion (here or starting a new thread since we're off topic).

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 But it seems you were focused on the word "liar" and now you agree that's accurate.  

No, I don't.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

No, I don't.

Again, got it 

I misunderstood your agreement with JLHPROF's post (it got a bit confusing to follow at that point).

You believe Joseph lied, but that he's not a liar.  Correct?  

Just clarifying so we can move on to a more productive discussion. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[T-Shirt]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You believe Joseph lied, but that he's not a liar.  Correct?  

Needs more explanation, but close enough.

I posted the following earlier in this thread and seemed to get lost.  I am interested in your thoughts:

Quote

If you could suspend your disbelief for just a minute and look at this from Joseph's point of view, with the perspective that he really was commanded to practice plural marriage, and was threatened by an angel after having put it off, then the whole thing plays out very logically.  We know, pretty well, that his marriage to Fanny Alger did not go well and that Emma was not happy about it.  According to D&C 132, Joseph is specifically given the right to enter into more marriages without Emma's permission or knowledge, as long as she had initially been instructed in the principle.  However, it appears that he was reluctant to cause more marital problems, nor did he want to injure Emma further, so he put it off until warned by the angel.  It makes perfect sense that he would not want to try to convince Emma again.  He was in a no win situation, either keep peace in his marriage and continue to delay, or obey God.  He did not want a repeat of the incident with the 116 pages of manuscript, so it is not hard to understand, right or wrong, why he chose to obey God and not tell Emma.  We may not like it, but for a man who loved God and loved his wife, this plays out exactly how one could imagine.  The only question really is, was Joseph really commanded, by God, to practice plural marriage?  Only you can answer that for yourself, but the sequence of events, in my opinion, plays out in such a manner that makes his story plausible if not likely.

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by T-Shirt

[notHagoth7]

On 3/4/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ouagadougou said:

- Did JS join and/or attend a Methodist church following the 1st vision when he was commanded not to (as stated below)?  

Joseph Smith History 
Chapter 1:

 "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

I'll just touch on this one.

He was not commanded to avoid attending other faiths. On the contrary. Joseph instead said that the Methodist faith was the closest [he and family had yet encountered?] to the truth. 

Joining vs. attending a faith are two different things.

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

I'll just touch on this one.

He was not commanded to avoid attending other faiths. On the contrary. Joseph instead said that the Methodist faith was the closest [he and family had yet encountered?] to the truth. 

Joining vs. attending a faith are two different things.

LDS apologists say the following about JS joining the Methodist church:

 

"Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

It's acceptable for JS to record the First Vision account years after it took place -- but not acceptable for others to record years later (in interviews/affidavits) that JS joined another church?  

"...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in. ^[1]"

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_become_a_member_of_Emma_Hale_Smith's_Methodist_congregation_in_1828,_eight_years_after_the_First_Vision%3F

The first vision account clearly shows God told JS the following:

"My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know  which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore  did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who  stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never  entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that  I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said  that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all  corrupt..."

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/3

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/9/2017 at 7:58 PM, Ouagadougou said:

LDS apologists say the following about JS joining the Methodist church:

It's acceptable for JS to record the First Vision account years after it took place -- but not acceptable for others to record years later (in interviews/affidavits) that JS joined another church? 

 

It is acceptable for a person to retell an event that happened to them years after it happened.  That is light years different than having people make claims years later in regards to someone else and then have nothing to back it up.  Hearsay is not good evidence at any time and it is even worse when it made 50 years or so later when pretty much all the credible witnesses of the time are dead and not around to refute it.  Joseph also said that truth can be found in all faiths.  Good people are found in all faiths.  To have some sort of casual association with other religions was not prohibited to Joseph.  He was not to join them or become a part of them.  To accept their teachings.  You don't see any conflict that Joseph had between what Moroni was telling Joseph and what some pastor or minister was telling Joseph.  There is no evidence of Joseph saying "Let see, do I believe Moroni or my Methodist minister."

Edited March 11, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[notHagoth7]

On 3/9/2017 at 7:58 PM, Ouagadougou said:

...It's acceptable for JS to record the First Vision account years after it took place -- but not acceptable for others to record years later (in interviews/affidavits) that JS joined another church [class]?...  

"...while he...was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister...put his name on the class book..."

Let's please be quite clear.  Joining a Methodist class is quite different from joining another church. 

By doing the former, (merely joining a Methodist class), Joseph actually was being serious...and humble...and was not at all in conflict with God's commands.

That ain't at all the same as joining the Methodist church. So let's please not pretend there's a conflict, when there isn't any.

Over the years, I have had the distinct privilege to join numerous study sessions and classes (and even led a few) among other faiths. And I learned a tremendous amount in the process...by being serious and teachable. Joseph even went so far as to say that doing such was our specific duty, if we wished to come out true Mormons:

"The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence, we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may....'Have the Presbyterians any truth?' he asked on another occasion. 'Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.'" (TPJS, 313, 316)

With such an understanding, is it any surprise/shock that Joseph would humbly and sincerely enroll in a Methodist class? Nope. Joseph later taught the same principle by example, even inviting those from other religious persuasion to preach to the saints from the pulpit in Nauvoo, etc.

Should we do as Joseph did? Certainly. When it comes to learning with/from people of other faiths, we are all *supposed* to benefit from cross pollination. It's a crucial part of the plan.

Thoughts? Impressions?

Edited March 11, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

On 3/9/2017 at 1:00 PM, JLHPROF said:

That was Fairmormon's explanation too.
I don't think it is a valid argument.  Yes, he was speaking of adultery.  Yes he was referring to the accusations made against him in the early days of the Church. 
That was the context of the discourse.

But he specifically stated he was accused then of having seven wives but he stated " I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago."  This makes the claim of his monogamy a contemporary one to the discourse, not a reminiscence.

It was only a contemporary claim if we accept the quotation/transcription as completely accurate to every word he spoke. (I'm not so quick to jump on that bandwagon.)

Most such transcriptions were fleshed out (our initially recorded) well into the Utah era when marital issues were coloring people's perceptions (on both sides of the aisle) of what was said/meant by earlier statements.

Thoughts?

Edited March 11, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Ouagadougou]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is acceptable for a person to retell an event that happened to them years after it happened.  That is light years different than having people make claims years later in regards to someone else and then have nothing to back it up.  Hearsay is not good evidence at any time and it is even worse when it made 50 years or so later when pretty much all the credible witnesses of the time are dead and not around to refute it.  Joseph also said that truth can be found in all faiths.  Good people are found in all faiths.  To have some sort of casual association with other religions was not prohibited to Joseph.  He was not to join them or become a part of them.  To accept their teachings.  You don't see any conflict that Joseph had between what Moroni was telling Joseph and what some pastor or minister was telling Joseph.  There is no evidence of Joseph saying "Let see, do I believe Moroni or my Methodist minister."

Wasn't it Nephi (and not Moroni) at one point?  

[Ouagadougou]

On 3/11/2017 at 11:48 AM, notHagoth7 said:

Let's please be quite clear.  Joining a Methodist class is quite different from joining another church. 

By doing the former, (merely joining a Methodist class), Joseph actually was being serious...and humble...and was not at all in conflict with God's commands.

That ain't at all the same as joining the Methodist church. So let's please not pretend there's a conflict, when there isn't any.

Over the years, I have had the distinct privilege to join numerous study sessions and classes (and even led a few) among other faiths. And I learned a tremendous amount in the process...by being serious and teachable. Joseph even went so far as to say that doing such was our specific duty, if we wished to come out true Mormons:

"The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence, we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may....'Have the Presbyterians any truth?' he asked on another occasion. 'Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.'" (TPJS, 313, 316)

With such an understanding, is it any surprise/shock that Joseph would humbly and sincerely enroll in a Methodist class? Nope. Joseph later taught the same principle by example, even inviting those from other religious persuasion to preach to the saints from the pulpit in Nauvoo, etc.

Should we do as Joseph did? Certainly. When it comes to learning with/from people of other faiths, we are all *supposed* to benefit from cross pollination. It's a crucial part of the plan.

Thoughts? Impressions?

If there is no conflict, why does FAIR and apologists have to explain that he did or didn't join the Methodist church?  

After seeing God and having God tell you that these churches are false, I don't see why JS would take interest in other churchs? 

Here are numerous other conflicts to the first vision:

http://www.calvaryslc.org/files/mormonism/26_questions_about_joseph_smith_s_first_vision_story.pdf

All valid questions...

If you have a question ask it. If you have a point make it. But do not use this board for unreviewed anti-Mormon ministry dumps. If we continue to receive complaints about your methods you will be put on Limited or banned.

[Calm]

"If there is no conflict, why does FAIR and apologists have to explain that he did or didn't join the Methodist church? "

Because people create problems sometimes where they don't actually exist, sometimes in simple misunderstanding, sometimes in maliciousness.

[Calm]

On March 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, JLHPROF said:

I'm more interested in where she says "His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God."

I wonder what that would have meant.

Just as an FYI, in checking out Mormon Enigma for more Emma and polygamy quotes, I came across this and thought that some might see it as contradicting "money had become her God" since she could have done the same and added to income most likely:

"Joseph Smith III tells of Emma's return from a journey to find the bar in place. As her biographers tell the story:

...Emma entered the main room of the Mansion House on April 24 [, 1843]. A bar, complete with counter, shelves, and glasses for serving liquor stood in the room. [Orin] Porter Rockwell reigned supreme over it. Emma sent her eleven-year-old son into a meeting to tell Joseph she wished to speak with him; she waited in the hall.

"Joseph, what is the meaning of that bar in this house?" Emma asked with restraint obvious to her young son, who later recorded the confrontation. Joseph explained that a new building across the street was planned for Porter Rockwell's bar and barbershop, but until it could be completed Rockwell had set up the bar in the Mansion. "How does it look for the spiritual head of a religious body to be keeping a hotel in which a room is fitted out as a liquor-selling establishment?" she asked earnestly. Joseph countered that all hotels had their bars, the arrangement was only temporary, and he wanted to make up for Rockwell's months in prison. [7]

Rockwell had been jailed for months, and reached Nauvoo in financially desperate straits. Joseph hoped to find a trade for his old friend and bodyguard.

Emma was not persuaded by this argument:

Unconvinced, Emma told Joseph he could hire someone to run the Mansion for him. "As for me," she continued, "I will take my children and go across to the old house and stay there, for I will not have them raised up under such conditions as this arrangement imposes upon us, nor have them mingle with the kind of men who frequent such a place. You are at liberty to make your choice; either that bar goes out of the house, or we will!"...

Joseph answered, "Very well, Emma; I will have it removed at once." Soon a frame structure, designed to house the bar and barbershop, began to rise across the street. [8]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_sold_liquor_in_Nauvoo

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just as an FYI, in checking out Mormon Enigma for more Emma and polygamy quotes, I came across this and thought that some might see it as contradicting "money had become her God" since she could have done the same and added to income most likely:

"Joseph Smith III tells of Emma's return from a journey to find the bar in place. As her biographers tell the story:

...Emma entered the main room of the Mansion House on April 24 [, 1843]. A bar, complete with counter, shelves, and glasses for serving liquor stood in the room. [Orin] Porter Rockwell reigned supreme over it. Emma sent her eleven-year-old son into a meeting to tell Joseph she wished to speak with him; she waited in the hall.

"Joseph, what is the meaning of that bar in this house?" Emma asked with restraint obvious to her young son, who later recorded the confrontation. Joseph explained that a new building across the street was planned for Porter Rockwell's bar and barbershop, but until it could be completed Rockwell had set up the bar in the Mansion. "How does it look for the spiritual head of a religious body to be keeping a hotel in which a room is fitted out as a liquor-selling establishment?" she asked earnestly. Joseph countered that all hotels had their bars, the arrangement was only temporary, and he wanted to make up for Rockwell's months in prison. [7]

Rockwell had been jailed for months, and reached Nauvoo in financially desperate straits. Joseph hoped to find a trade for his old friend and bodyguard.

Emma was not persuaded by this argument:

Unconvinced, Emma told Joseph he could hire someone to run the Mansion for him. "As for me," she continued, "I will take my children and go across to the old house and stay there, for I will not have them raised up under such conditions as this arrangement imposes upon us, nor have them mingle with the kind of men who frequent such a place. You are at liberty to make your choice; either that bar goes out of the house, or we will!"...

Joseph answered, "Very well, Emma; I will have it removed at once." Soon a frame structure, designed to house the bar and barbershop, began to rise across the street. [8]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_sold_liquor_in_Nauvoo

Oh...I just have to so admire her...you rock Emma!!