Was Joseph Smith Trustworthy?

[_CaliforniaKid]

And so, I have to disagree with you. But it would be interesting to know the IQ level of the early members. I think that we would be pleasantly surprised that it was high.

I've read that people who join cults generally do tend to have above-average intelligence.

[_Inconceivable]

But in all seriousness KA, you're exactly right. If Joseph Smith lied often and unapologetically to his own wife, even claiming revelations to justify his actions, why should we assume he told the truth to anyone else?

This was the exact indictment I laid at the feet of Bill Clinton.

If his wife had no confidence to trust him, how could I, God or anyone trust him?

It's not possible.

I find it impossible to trust anyone that practices the religeon of situational ethics.

[_Kishkumen]

Since all of the above were involved directly or indirectly with the beginnings of the Book of Mormon much depends on their trustworthiness too.

And so, we are not just dealing with the trustworthiness of one man but also with a host of other people.

A person can be a trustworthy dupe. There is no contradiction in that.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh I see, so all the Mormons at that time were credulous...with monkey brains. I don't think so. Now lets look at it this way: People flocked to the Mormon church not because of Joseph Smith but because of the message. No one in Europe who came to the america to be with the saints ever met Joseph Smith. But they did meet the message that the church had.

The easiest way to take someone is to appeal to their hopes, desires, and vanity. The smartest people can be taken in. It has little to do with smarts and everything to do with human frailty.

[_Pokatator]

Lets look at it this way: Were the twelve apostles at the time of Christ trustworthy? I see some untrustworthy behavior. Was Paul trustworthy? Hard to say with what we know of him but most likely the members of the early church in Jeruselum might say no.

This is apples and oranges. The apostles were trustworthy to their deaths after the Holy Spirit came to them. Before yes questionable at times.

The real apples to apples comparison is Jesus and Joe. Was Jesus trustworthy? Was Joe trustworthy?

It is easy to find fault in a human being that is a public figure. Just look at the tabloids, many famous people with faultlines going through their lives. No one is perfect.

I agree, except for Jesus if you believe the Bible.

Now for the Mormon perspective:

Was Martin Harris trustworthy?

Was Oliver Cowdery trustworthy?

Was David Whitmer trustworthy?

Were the 11 other witnesses trustworthy?

Was Emma trustworthy?

Was Joseph's mom trustworthy?

The big difference here is none of these people dug for buried treasure. Told stories about Golden Books before claiming to have one. Joe is the one that claimed to see God and/or Jesus in 9 vision accounts. Joe is the one who claimed to talk to Nephi/Moroni. Claimed to translate the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Bible, the Kinderhook plates, etc. not your list. Joe claimed to be greater than Jesus. joe claims to prophecy and visions, those on your list didn't.

Nothing Joe produced is trustworthy. No archeological evidence, no Hebrew DNA, no accurate translation of anything Egyptian, stole from the Masons, went against the Book of Mormon to practice polygamy, lied to Emma and to his whole flock from the pulpit, was guilty of bank fraud, denounced Christian churches and then becomes a Methodist, denounces all the creeds and then writes the AofF, writes revelation in the D&C for his convenience. The list goes on and on. WhyMe the real question is: "Is there anything Joe produced that was trustworthy"? What the ratio 50 untrustworthy things against one trustworthy thing?

Joe put himself higher than Jesus. He should be and his church should be held to a higher standard than those on your list. You want to make excuses for the lamest of things, the most corrupt actions of Joe at any cost. You want to judge Joe by the lowest of standards. You have to lower the standards to make him look anywhere close to an honest person.

Face it WhyME the people on your list were duped by Joe. Their trustworthiness has nothing to do with this.

By the way WhyMe you're duped by Joe.

Since all of the above were involved directly or indirectly with the beginnings of the Book of Mormon much depends on their trustworthiness too.

No it still all rests with Joe. Even your later leaders have said so. It is either all true or Joe duped your list here.

And so, we are not just dealing with the trustworthiness of one man but also with a host of other people.

It still rests with Joe.

[_DarkHelmet]

So if Bernie Madoff can provide a list of friends and family who invested in his ponzi scheme, and those people appear to be trustworthy, does that mean his investment scheme was legal?

[_Mercury]

In short, NO.

In long form, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I don't think it's a stretch to say that Smith's "slippery treasure" claim wasn't true.
He wasn't trustworthy in that claim, so why should his claim that an angel retrieved
the gold plates be trusted?
...

Dump a half dozen frogs in a big pot of water and then set that pot
atop a fire and very slowly increase the heat. Perhaps a few of the
frogs will jump out of the warming water -- but others may hesitate
to leave -- remaining until they have been boiled to death.

The first Mormons were like my imaginary frogs in the pot. Many of
them noticed changes in the Church's teachings and practices, but
they became aware of the changes gradually -- over a period of time --
and remained in the boiling pot.

Some of the initial converts never met Joseph Smith, Jr., or only had
transitory experiences of being in his presence. Other early converts
barely noticed the changes that were going on in the Church and in
Joseph himself. These members were either unaware of all the critics'
charges against Smith's behavior and character -- or they dismissed
those charges as being part of "persecution" by the "wicked Gentiles."

Thus -- for the converts who truly believed that they were joining a
"restoration" of the Apostolic Church of the 1st century -- the realization
that their leaders were "untrustworthy" came too gradually to have
much effect. Or else those realizations never came at all.

For these sorts of reasons I tend to excuse the first Mormons, who
really did not know what they had gotten themselves into.

Modern Mormons -- at least intelligent, educated ones -- have no
such excuse to fall back upon. Unless they are totally ignorant of
the multiple charges of dishonesty leveled at the topmost Mormon
leaders, since the late 1820s, they consciously choose to ignore
those allegations and to avoid confronting them in any meaningful
sort of way.

They seem to be the frogs who choose to remain in the boiling water --
because they trust that the water is really "not that hot."



Uncle Dale

[_why me]

Thus -- for the converts who truly believed that they were joining a
"restoration" of the Apostolic Church of the 1st century -- the realization
that their leaders were "untrustworthy" came too gradually to have
much effect. Or else those realizations never came at all.

For these sorts of reasons I tend to excuse the first Mormons, who
really did not know what they had gotten themselves into.

Modern Mormons -- at least intelligent, educated ones -- have no
such excuse to fall back upon. Unless they are totally ignorant of
the multiple charges of dishonesty leveled at the topmost Mormon
leaders, since the late 1820s, they consciously choose to ignore
those allegations and to avoid confronting them in any meaningful
sort of way.

Uncle Dale

Hello Uncle Dale!

Thank you for your rendition of hypothetical opinions about the early converts to the church. Yes, it truly amazes me just how dumb they all were not to notice that they were frogs in a slowly boiling pot. And I want to thank you for your high opinion of current members. Maybe you can start a thread about your opinion on the MAD board. I am sure that they will all appreciate your comments.

However, I can not agree with you about the early converts boiling inside a slow boiling pot of water. I think that they are some savvy. We need to remember that many left the church after the bank crisis. You can tell me that those who stayed stayed because they did not know any better. And of course, converts left the church even after meeting Joseph Smith because they did not consider him to be prophet looking.

But just as some left others joined and they did not join because the LDS church was restorationist. They joined because they believed in the Book of Mormon and because the holy ghost testified of the truthfulness of the message.

I don't think that we can overlook this at all. And although you sought to ignore it, it is a foundational part of LDS church.

[_why me]

Oh I see, so all the Mormons at that time were credulous...with monkey brains. I don't think so. Now lets look at it this way: People flocked to the Mormon church not because of Joseph Smith but because of the message. No one in Europe who came to the america to be with the saints ever met Joseph Smith. But they did meet the message that the church had.

The easiest way to take someone is to appeal to their hopes, desires, and vanity. The smartest people can be taken in. It has little to do with smarts and everything to do with human frailty.

Okay, so let me ask the question again:

Was Oliver Cowdery trustworthy?

Was David Whitmer trustworthy?

Was Martin Harris trustworthy?

Was Joseph Smith's father trustworthy?

Was Emma Trustworthy?

Where the 11 witnesses trustworthy?

We need more trustworthiness than just Joseph Smith's.