An eyewitness account of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo

[Gray]

I think Joseph was particularly sympathetic to people who struggled financially, having spent his formative years in just that situation.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You don't understand how giving someone a job, and then paying them with food greater than the value of the labour performed, undermines the largely un-"Thinking" assumption that Joseph was just in it for the money?

Okay.

I applaud his action, but it certainly was not a unique accomplishment in this case, in terms of being good to others.  Billions of people have done similar things. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That statement makes absolutely no sense.  A critic of Joseph automatically makes him a worse person?  This is what I call an emotionally biased opinion.  

I wonder if Scott knows what he pretends to know in this--Joseph's worst day.  I'm curious what that day looked like. 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That statement makes absolutely no sense.  A critic of Joseph automatically makes him a worse person?  This is what I call an emotionally biased opinion.  

I didn't read it that way, rather just compare Joseph to any of his critics you choose and you will see that he is the better man.  It is an observation, not an explanation.  Whether or not his criticizing of Joseph makes him so is another thing.  There could be many other things, some that might lead to him choosing to complain about Joseph that contribute to a lessening of character or at least not improving his as .joseph was improving his own through encounters with the Spirit, with God.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't read it that way, rather just compare Joseph to any of his critics you choose and you will see that he is the better man.  It is an observation, not an explanation.  Whether or not his criticizing of Joseph makes him so is another thing.  There could be many other things, some that might lead to him choosing to complain about Joseph that contribute to a lessening of character or at least not improving his as .joseph was improving his own through encounters with the Spirit, with God.

It's a sad day when we feel justified to define the better man when comparing to many whom we don't know.  If it's all by virtue of complaining of another, then Joseph is not free of such.  He also criticized other people. 

It does make me wonder though. This past Sunday I got into a bit of a discussion in EQ about whether the gospel makes us better.  The assumption is, as per a talk by Bednar, that the gospel makes us better people.  Therefore, any group of Mormons on these grounds, compared to each and every other group of people ought to be better men and women.  Does the workings of the Spirit in us make us better by virtue of being Mormon, if Mormonism is true compared to all others?  If so, then there'd be no question, it seems.  Any Mormon who is the most charitable person in the religion ought to be more charitable than any person who has ever lived.  Any Mormon who is the most empathetic person in the religion ought to be the most empathetic person in the world.  But if not in any of these cases, the claims are not true--at least not necessarily.  the problem, of course is, we'd never know on any of this.  We don't have a good enough view to know whether one person is better than another.  Any claim we make is subjective and only works from our perspective.  We're all running around with limited perspectives and we're all making our judgments from unjust places.  We may say, the gospel makes me better, but even that we don't know.  it may not.  it may make use worse.  But we can't rewind our life, start over and make a comparison, if say any one of us were not Mormon.  And even then, environment plays such a critical role in who we are, it seems to matter so little comparing individuals.  All we can do, it feels like, is eschew that which is obviously bad and be loving and encouraging and not tell each other that the religion makes us better, that God gives us special privilege.  It's kind of a wasted claim. 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Speaking only for myself, I have never come across any critic of the Prophet who managed to accomplish as much in a lifetime of carping and criticizing as Joseph did in an average month.

Nor have I come across one who comes anywhere near him in questions of character.

You've never met Joseph Smith, so to start with its a comparison you couldn't accurately make.  If your perspective about Joseph is based on the correlated LDS narrative you know virtually nothing about the historical Joseph, they have propped up his image into demigod status.  

Also, you're not even attempting to be objective about criticisms.  A person who points out flaws is stereotyped into critic status?  Think about the politicians you don't like.  Does that make you a critic because you don't like those politicians?  I don't like Trump, does that mean I'm going to spend my life "carping and criticizing" and not accomplishing anything worthwhile because I don't like Trump and am critical of him?  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder if Scott knows what he pretends to know in this--Joseph's worst day.  I'm curious what that day looked like. 

I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph.  

Sure.  I often wonder while sitting in Church if those who venerate him and solemnly testify of his greatness, even know much about him at all.  But I suppose I should be encouraged if, as occasion has it, they qualify their veneration of him by saying something like, "but he wasn't perfect". 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I didn't read it that way, rather just compare Joseph to any of his critics you choose and you will see that he is the better man.  It is an observation, not an explanation.  Whether or not his criticizing of Joseph makes him so is another thing.  There could be many other things, some that might lead to him choosing to complain about Joseph that contribute to a lessening of character or at least not improving his as .joseph was improving his own through encounters with the Spirit, with God.

This is a gross over simplification though, and pretty much impossible to do, so why even bring it up.  Its hard enough to debate who the best basketball player of all time was, is it Michael Jordan or Lebron James, and thats limited to just the arena of a professional sport with statistics and measurements and everything done in public observable ways.  How could we possibly go about comparing the worth of one person to another person.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I often wonder while sitting in Church if those who venerate him and solemnly testify of his greatness, even know much about him at all.  But I suppose I should be encouraged if, as occasion has it, they qualify their veneration of him by saying something like, "but he wasn't perfect". 

Its similar to how we prop up other heroes from history.  The founding fathers, war heroes, religious heroes, etc.  They are caricatures, but not real people.  The difference with this kind of thing in the modern age is that we have actual written evidence to consult that tells a very different story.  We can know much more about what Joseph Smith actually did, we have his writings, we have witness accounts, we have all this evidence.  For people that actually consult the evidence, a very different Joseph emerges. 

Some of these people, like a Richard Bushman, continue to be committed Mormons, but if you listen to Bushman talk, the kind of Joseph he understands is a completely different person than the kind of Joseph the church promotes.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its similar to how we prop up other heroes from history.  The founding fathers, war heroes, religious heroes, etc.  They are caricatures, but not real people.  The difference with this kind of thing in the modern age is that we have actual written evidence to consult that tells a very different story.  We can know much more about what Joseph Smith actually did, we have his writings, we have witness accounts, we have all this evidence.  For people that actually consult the evidence, a very different Joseph emerges. 

Some of these people, like a Richard Bushman, continue to be committed Mormons, but if you listen to Bushman talk, the kind of Joseph he understands is a completely different person than the kind of Joseph the church promotes.  

I agree.  We humans are weird though.  We can fill our brains with all information possible about someone, but we might still think he/she is larger than the rest of us because the good so far outweighs any perceived negative.  Plus the negatives might not be, since history is not such a conclusive field.  Indeed any story we can dig up suggesting Joseph was lacking in character might be something less than an honest evaluation of the particular situation considered.  the complexity of us humans rears it's ugly head and Joseph is something different to everyone. 

I'd say there are many things complicating anyone's particular opinion of Joseph being the greatest of all, though.  Ignorance is but one of them. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  We humans are weird though.  We can fill our brains with all information possible about someone, but we might still think he/she is larger than the rest of us because the good so far outweighs any perceived negative.  Plus the negatives might not be, since history is not such a conclusive field.  Indeed any story we can dig up suggesting Joseph was lacking in character might be something less than an honest evaluation of the particular situation considered.  the complexity of us humans rears it's ugly head and Joseph is something different to everyone. 

I'd say there are many things complicating anyone's particular opinion of Joseph being the greatest of all, though.  Ignorance is but one of them. 

Its just sad with religion because we are told not to elevate people to this kind of status as part of the theology of religious belief, but I guess human nature overrides even the tenants of the religion itself.  I think it shows a collective immaturity, but I'm hopeful that we're growing and as we get more honest and vulnerable as a community that we can forge a better path forward.  

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph.  

I grew up disliking the Joseph I was taught about at church.  Think I was told once too often how I should admire him (like someone telling me I am going to love a movie or book kills my interest in them).  I learned to admire him through reading histories of Bushman and Arrington as well as listening on this board and others about how they view the man so I came to see him in many new ways.  And there were many teachers at church that obviously used noncorrelated resources to build their own view of him, which then was shared through their testimonies, personal commentary, etc.

Assuming that just because one has grown up in the Church that means we have been programmed to one dominant  correlated paradigm is not a realistic belief, in my opinion.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I grew up disliking the Joseph I was taught about at church.  Think I was told once too often how I should admire him (like someone telling me I am going to love a movie or book kills my interest in them).  I learned to admire him through reading histories of Bushman and Arrington as well as listening on this board and others about how they view the man so I came to see him in many new ways.  And there were many teachers at church that obviously used noncorrelated resources to build their own view of him, which then was shared through their testimonies, personal commentary, etc.

Assuming that just because one has grown up in the Church that means we have been programmed to one dominant  correlated paradigm is not a realistic belief, in my opinion.

Good point, lots of different experiences, and I was speaking mainly from my personal one and my observations.  I admire your instincts to question the narratives presented to you at such an early age.  I wasn't so inclined back then...  

However, the correlated narrative continues to dominate, I would argue for the majority of the people.  Until the church starts producing portraits in media that show a more complicated Joseph, I think the younger generations will continue to be fed a caricatured Joseph from the church and a completely different Joseph when they search on Google.  

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its similar to how we prop up other heroes from history.  The founding fathers, war heroes, religious heroes, etc.  They are caricatures, but not real people.  The difference with this kind of thing in the modern age is that we have actual written evidence to consult that tells a very different story.  We can know much more about what Joseph Smith actually did, we have his writings, we have witness accounts, we have all this evidence.  For people that actually consult the evidence, a very different Joseph emerges. 

Some of these people, like a Richard Bushman, continue to be committed Mormons, but if you listen to Bushman talk, the kind of Joseph he understands is a completely different person than the kind of Joseph the church promotes.  

Scott has been reading message boards, going to conferences, and likely has plenty of personal books that are outside the "correlated" narrative.  It is the height of arrogance to discuss Scott and others as if we aren't here, tell us what and how we believe...that unlike you when exposed to new ideas and narratives, you have determined by how we respect Joseph that we have never been able to escape the childhood stories he was told.

Perhaps you should consider that it is you who is trapped in your childhood experience of Joseph, that in your rejection of authority figures you simply rejected what you were taught without a realistic consideration of its historic value and thus have some negative views that are not based on actualevidence, but rather a strong bias that tilts interpretation to the negative side even while giving you the feeling that you have courageously been enlightened by facing the gritty and distasteful truths while most of the rest of us flounder in an idealized childish version.

I don't believe either case is true, but I think my scenario is just as likely as yours, especially since you just interpreted my described gut rejection based on not liking being told who or what I should like or dislike as some sort of higher instinct to skepticism when it definitely wasn't that.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Scott has been reading message boards, going to conferences, and likely has plenty of personal books that are outside the "correlated" narrative.  It is the height of arrogance to discuss Scott and others as if we aren't here, tell us what and how we believe...that unlike you when exposed to new ideas and narratives, you have determined by how we respect Joseph that we have never been able to escape the childhood stories he was told.

I'm not making this personal about Scott or anyone in particular, you have misunderstood me if you think that's the case. Sounds like you're getting a little worked up about what I said, so I'll let that lie.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you should consider that it is you who is trapped in your childhood experience of Joseph, that in rejection of authority figures you rejected what you were taught without a realistic consideration of its historic value and thus have some negative views that are not based on actualevidence, but rather a strong bias that tilts interpretation to the negative side even while giving you the feeling that you have courageously been enlightened by facing the gritty and distasteful truths while most of the rest of us flounder in an idealized childish version.

I don't believe either case is true, but I think my scenario is just as likely as yours.

If you disagree with  my point about the Richard Bushman version of Joseph being a different Joseph than what is taught in correlated Mormonism, please show me why you think I'm wrong.  You are obviously upset by something I said, but I'm not sure what exactly.  I don't believe I've got a negative bias towards Joseph, but I will admit that we're all biased in different ways based on our experiences, and I try hard to look at all sides of issues, that is one reason I continue to engage on this message board, because I know no matter how much I disagree at times that I want to consider the opinions of others and try to understand them better.  I don't want to fall prey to an echo chamber and confirmation bias.  

It is probably not a good idea to dismiss comments by labeling them as emotional. Be respectful.

[Calm]

I am not upset (people should stop equating intensity with "upset", it would lead to less misunderstanding) though creating others' personal history for them is something I feel strongly about whether it is believers telling nonbelievers they are trying to justify sin or something else when they are critical or express doubt or nonbelievers telling believers they haven't been able to escape the brainwashing of correlation or whatever.  I believe it is inappropriate to tell others how they came to believe what they believe.  They have a right to tell their own narrative.  Plus there are many different pathways to paradigms.  I see this type of broad generalization as way too simplistic for how people interact with their culture and personal experiences.  It allows one to be dismissive of others' beliefs as less informed, less nuanced, less everything without actually taking the time to study them in depth to determine what they are.  Instead assumptions are imposed on the other and conversations such as the one you and stem indulged in take place where you get to call millions of people collectively immature.

You may be speaking generically of the majority of Mormons (which in no way makes it either more accurate or more acceptable or less arrogant in my view), but that line of discussion started with a comment about Scott.

" stemelbow said: 

I wonder if Scott knows what he pretends to know in this--Joseph's worst day.  I'm curious what that day looked like. 

Hope:  I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph."

If Scott is not one of those who appreciates a demigod, then your comment is random and nonsensical.  If he is in your view, it is a logical progression of thought (if your own speculative paradigm/myth you are expressing was accurate).

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not upset (people should stop equating intensity with "upset", it would lead to less misunderstanding) though creating others' personal history for them is something I feel strongly about whether it is believers telling nonbelievers they are trying to justify sin or something else when they are critical or express doubt or nonbelievers telling believers they haven't been able to escape the brainwashing of correlation or whatever.  I believe it is inappropriate to tell others how they came to believe what they believe.  They have a right to tell their own narrative.  Plus there are many different pathways to paradigms.  I see this type of broad generalization as way too simplistic for how people interact with their culture and personal experiences.  It allows one to be dismissive of others' beliefs as less informed, less nuanced, less everything without actually taking the time to study them in depth to determine what they are.  Instead assumptions are imposed on the other and conversations such as the one you and stem indulged in take place where you get to call millions of people collectively immature.

You may be speaking generically of the majority of Mormons (which in no way makes it either more accurate or more acceptable or less arrogant in my view), but that line of discussion started with a comment about Scott.

" stemelbow said: 

I wonder if Scott knows what he pretends to know in this--Joseph's worst day.  I'm curious what that day looked like. 

Hope:  I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph."

If Scott is not one of those who appreciates a demigod, then your comment is random and nonsensical.  If he is in your view, it is a logical progression of thought (if your own speculative paradigm/myth you are expressing was accurate).

I can understand what you're saying, and I wasn't intending to over simplify or tell the story of a group of people that I don't have some personal experience with (remember, I'm a Mormon and was raised orthodox and am speaking from personal experience).  I try very hard to not make things personal and to not stereotype people or make them into a straw-man argument.  I never used the word brainwashing.  Thank you for explaining your point and your passion about it. 

I also made no attempt to be dismissive of others.  I think my critique about the correlated Joseph as being a different kind of Joseph that is a caricature of the actual man is accurate and I believe the evidence supports that assertion.  I would like to discuss it further if you disagree with me on that point. 

My response to stemelbow was not a direct slight on Scott or anyone else.  I'm making observations about things in general and I can support those ideas with examples if you're interested in discussing it.  It sounds to me like you take issue with the term demigod, so let me clarify.  I'm using that term in the sense, not that Joseph is portrayed has having mythological powers, but I would use this second definition from Merrriam-Webster to describer what I meant:

Quote

a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine

I think John Taylor's description of Joseph in D&C 135 is an example of this.  We sing songs venerating Joseph, we have statues, memorials, we even recognize and celebrate his birthday to some extent.  I believe it is hero worship, and I'm critiquing it because I think its inappropriate.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On his worst day, Joseph was a better man than his critics, past and present. 

How do you know this?

[T-Shirt]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 He did a lot of bad things too. 

Quote

He did many quite questionable things...

Of these, "many" bad and questionable things that he did, I would be interested in seeing your top ten list so we might discuss it in a dispassionate manner.  And, since you are big on evidence, let's see the evidence you have for your top ten list.

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not upset (people should stop equating intensity with "upset", it would lead to less misunderstanding) though creating others' personal history for them is something I feel strongly about whether it is believers telling nonbelievers they are trying to justify sin or something else when they are critical or express doubt or nonbelievers telling believers they haven't been able to escape the brainwashing of correlation or whatever.  I believe it is inappropriate to tell others how they came to believe what they believe.  They have a right to tell their own narrative.  Plus there are many different pathways to paradigms.  I see this type of broad generalization as way too simplistic for how people interact with their culture and personal experiences.  It allows one to be dismissive of others' beliefs as less informed, less nuanced, less everything without actually taking the time to study them in depth to determine what they are.  Instead assumptions are imposed on the other and conversations such as the one you and stem indulged in take place where you get to call millions of people collectively immature.

You may be speaking generically of the majority of Mormons (which in no way makes it either more accurate or more acceptable or less arrogant in my view), but that line of discussion started with a comment about Scott.

" stemelbow said: 

I wonder if Scott knows what he pretends to know in this--Joseph's worst day.  I'm curious what that day looked like. 

Hope:  I believe that if you are raised on the church's media and correlated curriculum of my lifetime, the Joseph you learn to appreciate is not a real person.  He's a myth, a legend, and a demigod.  Its not the real Joseph Smith, its a crafted hero Joseph."

If Scott is not one of those who appreciates a demigod, then your comment is random and nonsensical.  If he is in your view, it is a logical progression of thought (if your own speculative paradigm/myth you are expressing was accurate).

I'm not sure what you are saying, Calm.  Are you saying Scott does know Joseph's worst day from which to judge a bunch of other people whom he likely does not know? 

I do believe both hope and I were pointing out how Scott's judgment of others didn't make much sense, or we couldn't make sense of it.  We were challenging his claim, not trying to be mean.  He made the claim, after all. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Of these, "many" bad and questionable things that he did, I would be interested in seeing your top ten list so we might discuss it in a dispassionate manner.  And, since you are big on evidence, let's see the evidence you have for your top ten list.

Tempting for sure.  I've never created a list of grievances.  I despise Trump and I don't have any list of his faults either.  I'm not a person that dwells in the negative.  I won't give you a top 10 list, but just off the top of my head I will share a few thoughts on some of the more negative aspects of Joseph's character as I perceive them.  

I think about deception being an important trait that started with treasure digging and was compounded and expanded with the BoM and the revelations he started to dictate and then continued to expand until the Nauvoo years when his ego was so large the thought he could get away with just about anything and his excesses with polygamy and pouncing himself king and ruler in the council of fifty and his wanting to be president are all examples of how what started with simple deception could bear such bad fruit in the end.  

I would be amiss if I didn't state some positives about this man as well.  He had many very admirable qualities.  His loyalty to family and friends was fierce.  He was a forgiving man, and I think showed humility at times.  He was God fearing at the same time and I believe he genuinely wanted to do good in the world.  His aspirations for a Zion community for charity towards others and for rethinking the traditions of the past are all amazing qualities and I admire and find many of his articulations inspirational.  I love D&C 121, I have much of it memorized.  I love many verses in the BoM as well.  I find many of his ideals that he articulated to be inspirational.  I love the idea of the entire human family needing salvation, living and dead, in order for anyone to be saved, this idea inspires me and makes me want to be a better person.  

He's such a complex character, and for much of my life I've been proud that I share the same birthday with him.  

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You've never met Joseph Smith, so to start with its a comparison you couldn't accurately make.  If your perspective about Joseph is based on the correlated LDS narrative you know virtually nothing about the historical Joseph, they have propped up his image into demigod status.

Really?

Examples, please?

I've never seen anything in the "correlated [ugh!] LDS narrative" that any reasonable person would recognise as "demigod status." Exactly how many dragons do you think the "correlated [ugh!] LDS narrative" asserts that Joseph slew?

Besides: if your perspective about Joseph is based on, say, Fawn Brodie's narrative, then you know virtually nothing about the historical Joseph. She discarded him from the outset and replaced him with the lazy, oversexed rake of her imagination.

Quote

 Also, you're not even attempting to be objective about criticisms.  A person who points out flaws is stereotyped into critic status?  Think about the politicians you don't like.  Does that make you a critic because you don't like those politicians?  I don't like Trump, does that mean I'm going to spend my life "carping and criticizing" and not accomplishing anything worthwhile because I don't like Trump and am critical of him?  

And yet there are people who devote an awful lot of time trying to find fault with Joseph; rather more, I suspect, than will even recognise the name of Donald Trump 170+ years after his death.

Edited November 8, 2017 by kiwi57

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Really?

Examples, please?

I've never seen anything in the "correlated [ugh!] LDS narrative" that any reasonable person would recognise as "demigod status." Exactly how many dragons do you think the "correlated [ugh!] LDS narrative" asserts that Joseph slew?

Besides: if your perspective about Joseph is based on, say, Fawn Brodie's narrative, then you know virtually nothing about the historical Joseph. She discarded him from the outset and replaced him with the lazy, oversexed rake of her imagination.

And yet there are people who devote an awful lot of time trying to find fault with Joseph; rather more, I suspect, than will even recognise the name of Donald Trump 170+ years after his death.

See my post earlier where I explained my use of the term demigod and examples of how Mormons do this.  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69815-an-eyewitness-account-of-joseph-smith-at-nauvoo/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1209771790

Also, as for Donald Trump, if anyone decides to found a religion of Trump that has millions of followers in 170 years from now, I'm sure there will be plenty of critics and apologists defending and criticizing his legacy too.  Its really not that unexpected.  

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

  The assumption is, as per a talk by Bednar, that the gospel makes us better people.  Therefore, any group of Mormons on these grounds, compared to each and every other group of people ought to be better men and women.  

Makes me wonder whether Elder Bedar would agree with your interpretation of his remarks.  

Edited November 9, 2017 by cdowis