An eyewitness account of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometimes, when the "correlated" "Sunday School rendition is attacked and therefore re-examined, we learn upon re-examination that the Sunday School rendition was not so very far off the mark after all.

In terms of the Hegelian dialectic, we could view this as thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

One far wiser than I once taught specifically the way to 'know much' about prophets: 'Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them'.

I know what the fruit of Joseph the Seer has been in my life and in the lives of those with whom I most closely associate. That means I know Joseph.

Of course, I've also read a whole bunch of stuff too, but as a professionally trained historian, I'll privilege the present fruit over the partial and contested past any day.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sometimes, when the "correlated" "Sunday School" rendition is attacked and therefore re-examined, we learn upon re-examination that the Sunday School rendition was not so very far off the mark after all.

In terms of the Hegelian dialectic, we could view this as thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

 

When it comes to history and the correlated narrative I would say more often than not the narratives told have very little veracity from a historical accuracy perspective.  The stories are often 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand and very late reminiscences that often contract actual historical analysis. 

I wouldn't call these attacks though, some might view them as such, but more often than not its kind corrections from honest historians trying to update the record.  Unfortunately even after historians try to update the record the correlation department often ignores the more accurate history in favor of the faith promoting myth.  Change happens slowly, but it seems to be trending in a more open, honest and transparent direction as of late, thankfully.  

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to history and the correlated narrative I would say more often than not the narratives told have very little veracity from a historical accuracy perspective.  The stories are often 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand and very late reminiscences that often contract actual historical analysis. 

I wouldn't call these attacks though, some might view them as such, but more often than not its kind corrections from honest historians trying to update the record.  Unfortunately even after historians try to update the record the correlation department often ignores the more accurate history in favor of the faith promoting myth.  Change happens slowly, but it seems to be trending in a more open, honest and transparent direction as of late, thankfully.  

Methinks thou art stuck in the antithesis mode.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Methinks thou art stuck in the antithesis mode.

 

More of an antiNephiLehithesis.  :-)

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I found it. At least you've clarified what you are asserting.

But you are still merely asserting it. Using "demigod" when what you really mean is "Mormons say nice things about Joseph and I resent it," is rather overwrought hyperbole.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

The point is that you introduced the fact that you don't like Trump as a counter-argument against the observation that Joseph's critics spend an inordinate amount of time carping and criticising. But your counter-argument doesn't work. The fact that you don't spend an inordinate amount of time carping and criticising Trump merely means that your anti-Trumpism isn't as intense as the anti-Mormonism of those who do devote such time to Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer of the Lord.

Who was, and remains, a better man than his critics, or any of them.

And who actually did do the things he said he did, and saw what he said he saw.

And since the things that he did, and saw, are the most important details of his life, then anyone who knows those things inevitably understands Joseph far better than any unbelieving historian, however much they may know about the less-important details.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

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

I'm happy to recreate the discussion we had here.  Here are the relevant parts via Bednar:

Quote

We comprehend more fully the exceeding great and precious promises and begin to partake of the divine nature by responding affirmatively to the call from the Lord to glory and virtue. As described by Peter, this call is fulfilled by striving to escape the corruption that is in the world.

As we press forward submissively with faith in the Savior, then because of His Atonement and by the power of the Holy Ghost, “a mighty change [takes place] in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.”⁵ We are “born again; yea, born of God, changed from [our] carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God.”⁶ “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”⁷

Such a comprehensive change in our nature typically does not occur quickly or all at once. Like the Savior, we also receive “not of the fulness at the first, but [receive] grace for grace.”⁸ “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom.”⁹

Priesthood ordinances and sacred covenants are essential in this ongoing process of spiritual rebirth; they also are the means God has appointed whereby we receive His exceeding great and precious promises. Ordinances that are received worthily and remembered continually open the heavenly channels through which the power of godliness can flow into our lives. Covenants that are honored steadfastly and remembered always provide purpose and the assurance of blessings in both mortality and for eternity.

It appears to me he is saying it is essential we live the gospel in Mormonism in order to have this change, grow, and build.  That reasons then, those who aren't Mormons can't have this change, grow and build themselves.  I disagreed with that, as it seems to me all people have opportunity to change, grow and build, whether theya re Mormon, Christian, or anything. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One far wiser than I once taught specifically the way to 'know much' about prophets: 'Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them'.

I know what the fruit of Joseph the Seer has been in my life and in the lives of those with whom I most closely associate. That means I know Joseph.

Of course, I've also read a whole bunch of stuff too, but as a professionally trained historian, I'll privilege the present fruit over the partial and contested past any day.

I respect that Hamba.  I personally haven't tried polygamy in order to test.  It seems vile on the face of it--particularly doing it behind my wife's back and marrying girls in their teenage years.  So that particular fruit is of no use to me.  I don't personally how to weigh that kind of stuff with the other stuff that works for me, in determining this.  As it turns out, in practice it's always more complicated than the simple direction of scripture. 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I found it. At least you've clarified what you are asserting.

But you are still merely asserting it. Using "demigod" when what you really mean is "Mormons say nice things about Joseph and I resent it," is rather overwrought hyperbole.

Mormons do much more than just say nice things about Joseph.  Songs, statues, special celebrations, theological elevation (next to Jesus), its really a hero worship, and that definition I posted for demigod, I believe applies quite well.  

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

The point is that you introduced the fact that you don't like Trump as a counter-argument against the observation that Joseph's critics spend an inordinate amount of time carping and criticising. But your counter-argument doesn't work. The fact that you don't spend an inordinate amount of time carping and criticising Trump merely means that your anti-Trumpism isn't as intense as the anti-Mormonism of those who do devote such time to Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer of the Lord.

Who was, and remains, a better man than his critics, or any of them.

And who actually did do the things he said he did, and saw what he said he saw.

And since the things that he did, and saw, are the most important details of his life, then anyone who knows those things inevitably understands Joseph far better than any unbelieving historian, however much they may know about the less-important details.

You're not even trying to be objective about your observations here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Mormons do much more than just say nice things about Joseph.  Songs, statues, special celebrations, theological elevation (next to Jesus), its really a hero worship, and that definition I posted for demigod, I believe applies quite well.  

You're not even trying to be objective about your observations here. 

I don’t know your nationality, but you must really have your knickers in a wad about what Americans do with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know your nationality, but you must really have your knickers in a wad about what Americans do with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. 

I'm a proud American patriot that loves my country, similarly to how I love Mormonism, but I have criticisms as well and I wish we didn't hero worship the founders either.  I revere the good things they did, just like I revere the good things Joseph did too.  Look at my comments about the traits I admire about Joseph. Its not a one sided simple picture of this complicated person. 

I don't like any kind of hero worship, sports players, religious & governmental leaders.  I see primarily negatives coming from this behavior.  

[Ushuaia]

On 11/6/2017 at 4:22 PM, theplains said:

D&C would say otherwise - "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for
the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

He tried to do some positive things but I feel his most significant sin was when he started teaching about a man who
became a God (and Heavenly Father) of our earth.  To some, this would constitute worshipping a false god.

Jim

I grew up with the “Joseph has done more, save Jesus only...” mantra ringing in my ears.

Later I learned that what we canonized there in the D&C was not a revelation, but an editorial written by Elder John Taylor for the “Times and Seasons” newspaper after Joseph’s sad and shocking death.

Maybe God feels the same way as John Taylor, but rather I chalk it up to hyperbole from a man overcome with grief and shock at his dear friend’s and prophet’s death, who himself had been horribly injured at Carthage and who witnessed the murder, and who - along with other leaders - was just beginning to contemplate the Church going forward without Joseph’s leadership.

They felt Joseph’s absence keenly.

When I consider that, I am more able to absorb John Taylor’s hyperbolic editorial language.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Ushuaia said:

I grew up with the “Joseph has done more, save Jesus only...” mantra ringing in my ears.

Later I learned that what we canonized there in the D&C was not a revelation, but an editorial written by Elder John Taylor for the “Times and Seasons” newspaper after Joseph’s sad and shocking death.

Maybe God feels the same way as John Taylor, but rather I chalk it up to hyperbole from a man overcome with grief and shock at his dear friend’s and prophet’s death, who himself had been horribly injured at Carthage and who witnessed the murder, and who - along with other leaders - was just beginning to contemplate the Church going forward without Joseph’s leadership.

They felt Joseph’s absence keenly.

When I consider that, I am more able to absorb John Taylor’s hyperbolic editorial language.

If it's true this was published first in the Times and Seasons  (what's your reference on that?) it would not be the only example of newspaper content that eventually was added to the canon. The Articles of Faith (part of the Pearl of Great Price), originally written as part of the Wentworth Letter, which was subsequently published in the Times and Seasons, is another example.

And no, it is not "hyperbolic editorial language." Everything said about Joseph Smith in Section 135 is true.

By the way, according to the Joseph Smith Papers website, the specific authorship of the text in Section 135 is not certain:

Quote

The revised heading in the 2013 edition removes the statement that John Taylor authored this section. Although he has been identified as its author since the early twentieth century, those later attributions were only given as tentative. When the section was first published in the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, it did not include an attribution, and no one involved in its publication ever identified the author. Evidence of who wrote the declaration is inconclusive. While it is clear that both Willard Richards and John Taylor, the only two surviving Latter-day Saint eyewitnesses to the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, shared information that is part of this document, others may have contributed to its construction as well.

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Mormons do much more than just say nice things about Joseph.  Songs, statues, special celebrations, theological elevation (next to Jesus), its really a hero worship, and that definition I posted for demigod, I believe applies quite well.  

You're not even trying to be objective about your observations here. 

"Theological elevation next to Jesus?"

Never heard of it.

(And yes, I know all about D&C 135, and "Praise to the Man" and "Joseph the Seer." But I've never seen anything that would give any reasonable person grounds to conclude that he has been theologically elevated "next to Jesus" in LDS thought.)

Speaking of "Joseph the Seer" there is one rather nice couplet in it that I've always liked.

Let fiends now rage in their dark hour

No matter; no matter; he is beyond their power.

It still seems relevant, somehow.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

"Theological elevation next to Jesus?"

Never heard of it.

 

Nor have I. But there's hyperbole for you!

 

 

[Ushuaia]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's true this was published first in the Times and Seasons  (what's your reference on that?) it would not be the only example of newspaper content that eventually was added to the canon. The Articles of Faith (part of the Pearl of Great Price), originally written as part of the Wentworth Letter, which was subsequently published in the Times and Seasons, is another example.

And no, it is not "hyperbolic editorial language." Everything said about Joseph Smith in Section 135 is true.

By the way, according to the Joseph Smith Papers website, the specific authorship of the text in Section 135 is not certain:

 

Calm down, Scott. Not everyone with a different approach to an ecclesiastical matter is adversary.

[Jeanne]

If this thread has turned to talking about JS...may I ask a question to the devout mormons on this board..I am NOT being snarky here..I am very curious as to what all of you believe was the reason for the tar and feathering.

I ask because like Ushuaia, I grew with with a different JS that I am familiar with at this point.

Thank you..for any reply.

Mods..I ask this in sincerity and hope that you won't shut me down.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jeanne

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

And yes, I know all about D&C 135, and "Praise to the Man" and "Joseph the Seer." But I've never seen anything that would give any reasonable person grounds to conclude that he has been theologically elevated "next to Jesus" in LDS thought.

Funny that you reference "Praise to the Man" when it reads "Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren."

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

"Theological elevation next to Jesus?"

Never heard of it.

(And yes, I know all about D&C 135, and "Praise to the Man" and "Joseph the Seer." But I've never seen anything that would give any reasonable person grounds to conclude that he has been theologically elevated "next to Jesus" in LDS thought.)

Speaking of "Joseph the Seer" there is one rather nice couplet in it that I've always liked.

Let fiends now rage in their dark hour

No matter; no matter; he is beyond their power.

It still seems relevant, somehow.

Having done more "save Jesus only" in D&C 135 is really the only evidence needed to make this point, but thankfully there are many quotes from other modern day prophets that act as additional witnesses to this idea.  First, the history of the church statement by Joseph Smith bragging about his accomplishments:

Quote

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. 

Next we have the Brigham Young statement in the JoD talking about everyone needing Joseph Smith's consent to enter the Kingdom. 

Quote

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true.

Another Brigham Young gem from the journal of discourses tells us how important it is that we believe in Joseph Smith, because otherwise we are antichrists.  

Quote

I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist.

Joseph F. Smith said this as well, which sounds a lot like Brigham's earlier comments: 

Quote

The day will come—and it is not far distant, either—when the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith will be coupled with the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, as his representative, as his agent whom he chose, ordained and set apart to lay anew the foundations of the Church of God in the world, which is indeed the Church of Jesus Christ, possessing all the powers of the gospel, all the rites and privileges, the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and every principle necessary to fit and qualify both the living and the dead to inherit eternal life, and to attain to exaltation in the kingdom of God.[

Harold B. Lee said this:

Quote

No man can accept Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, no man can accept this as His church, the Church of Jesus Christ, unless he can accept Joseph Smith as God's mouthpiece and the restorer of His work in these latter days.

There are many other quotes as well, but I think this is more than enough to make my point.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So that particular fruit is of no use to me.

And yet, from my professionally trained perspective, the fruits of plural marriage are found throughout the Church to this day, and I suspect you actually do have use for some of them.

Have you by any chance read Kathryn Daynes's study of how the practice of plural marriage in 19th-century Manti, Utah, advanced the economic interests of disadvantaged women and created a 'marriage market' wherein women were able to choose husbands based on desirability rather than availability?

Or have you read Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's consideration of how plural marriage was directly linked to the women's rights movement and the empowerment of women in general? (I love her anecdote about the woman who said to her suitor, 'Yes, I'll marry you, but only if you marry my sister too'. I remember discussing this point with Kenneth Godfrey, and he shared how his historical research had been filled with women/wives who arranged for their widowed mothers, sisters, best friends, etc. to marry their husbands.)

When I was doing my master's study at one of the large public universities in America, I invited one of my friends from the history department to come to church with me one Sunday. On the drive home, I asked him what he'd thought about the experience. His response: 'That last class was the weirdest thing I've ever seen'. I quickly reviewed everything that had been said or done in elders quorum that morning, but I couldn't come up with anything troubling, so I asked him what he found weird.

'Dude, there were like a dozen men in there with babies. You'll never see that anywhere else'.

Good observation. And whenever I go to church or spend time with Church members and see fathers who happily care for their children whilst their wives are engaged in something else, to my historically trained perspective, I see more of the fruits of polygamy. 
The practice of plural marriage changed marriage in the Church forever, and it changed the relationship between men and women and between parents and children. The world, in my opinion, is only now catching up to what the Saints have known and practised for a long time as a consequence of how plural marriage upended and restructured social patterns and paradigms relating to family, gender roles, etc.

When I read someone like Joseph F. Smith, for example, describe in the early 20th century the absolute importance of men being kind to their wives and children, spending time with them, and being personally invested in their care, I see the fruits of polygamy. Is that really of no use to you?

Edited November 9, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are many other quotes as well, but I think this is more than enough to make my point.  

I love all those quotes!

[kiwi57]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Having done more "save Jesus only" in D&C 135 is really the only evidence needed to make this point,

I agree. It just doesn't make the point you think it makes.

What the statement actually means is that only Jesus has done more.

Section 135 says that Joseph is less important than Jesus.

So thank you for making my point.

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

but thankfully there are many quotes from other modern day prophets that act as additional witnesses to this idea.  First, the history of the church statement by Joseph Smith bragging about his accomplishments:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Boasting

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Next we have the Brigham Young statement in the JoD talking about everyone needing Joseph Smith's consent to enter the Kingdom. 

Matthew 19:28

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Brigham isn't making Joseph "next to Jesus." He's making him next to the original apostles.

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Another Brigham Young gem from the journal of discourses tells us how important it is that we believe in Joseph Smith, because otherwise we are antichrists.  

Joseph F. Smith said this as well, which sounds a lot like Brigham's earlier comments: 

Harold B. Lee said this:

There are many other quotes as well, but I think this is more than enough to make my point.  

Yes, I see your point. You can't see statements to the effect that Joseph was the Lord's chosen servant without leaping to the unsustainable (and risible) conclusion that that somehow amounts to a "theological elevation" of Joseph "next to Jesus."

[kiwi57]

44 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Funny that you reference "Praise to the Man" when it reads "Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren."

Yes, and?

I "mingle" with various people who are not the same as me.

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, I see your point. You can't see statements to the effect that Joseph was the Lord's chosen servant without leaping to the unsustainable (and risible) conclusion that that somehow amounts to a "theological elevation" of Joseph "next to Jesus."

Its pretty clear to me that Joseph has a higher status than all other prophets according to those quotes.  That one quote from Joseph F. Smith says the name of Joseph's name will be "coupled with the name of Jesus".  So he is theologically elevated at status higher than other mortals, higher than all other prophets, and a status close to Jesus.  This is all part of the theological tradition of Mormonism and I think more than makes my point of a higher status for Joseph which I think contributes to the hero worship that I find troubling.  

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its pretty clear to me that Joseph has a higher status than all other prophets according to those quotes.  That one quote from Joseph F. Smith says the name of Joseph's name will be "coupled with the name of Jesus".  So he is theologically elevated at status higher than other mortals, higher than all other prophets, and a status close to Jesus.  This is all part of the theological tradition of Mormonism and I think more than makes my point of a higher status for Joseph which I think contributes to the hero worship that I find troubling.  

I on the other hand don't find this troubling at all.
Joseph Smith IS next to Jesus (or right below him).  
He is higher than the other prophets in this dispensation as he is the dispensation head and therefore presides over them.

John Taylor got it right.

47 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, and?

I "mingle" with various people who are not the same as me.

And then there's D&C 132:49

•  For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

I've never understood why even believing members are so unwilling to place their dispensation head at a higher level than other men.  The Jews had no issues doing that with Moses or Abraham.  The early Christians were the same with Christ (or Peter depending on who you consider the head).
Joseph Smith is one of only 7 dispensation heads.
Top 7 out of billions of God's children.  I'd say that's worth a bit of respect.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by JLHPROF