Well, let me hereby state for the record that I find certain aspects of Joseph Smith's conduct vis--vis the doctrine of plural marriage problematic. I am also quite willing to concede that he could be overbearing and coercive at times.
For example, on 21 February 1843 the Prophet told the Saints: "The building of the Nauvoo House [a hotel] is just as sacred in my view as the Temple. I want the Nauvoo House built. It must be built. Our salvation depends upon it" (quoted in Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi [Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1965], 186; italics mine).
Historian Robert Flanders noted:Work on the Temple was pushed feverishly from the beginning, and the Saints were hounded and badgered to ever greater zeal in its behalf. The revelation commanding the Temple had stipulated a dire condition regarding its building: "I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. But behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable to me [and] you shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God."
Just what the length of that "sufficient time" was, Smith did not say; but the threat was taken seriously. It was a constant goad and spur to greater effort. The Prophet urged the Temple on the people with rewards of great spiritual blessings to be received when it was done, of mysteries to be revealed, and of powers and gifts to be bestowed. An I. R. Tull, a resident of Pontoosuc, a village a few miles up the river, came to Nauvoo frequently to sell produce. He related a conversation with a Massachusetts man who had gathered to Nauvoo in hope that Smith could heal his blind eyes. "I asked him why the Prophet did not open his eyes. He replied that Joseph had informed him that he could not open his eyes until the Temple was finished"
In October 1841 the Prophet made another dramatic threat to speed the work on his two public houses. When the semiannual General Conference opened, "The President made some remarks on the inclemency of the weather, and the uncomfortable situation of the Saints with regard to a place of worship, and a place of public entertainment." The following day Smith, "by request of the Twelve Apostles, gave instructions on the doctrine of baptism for the dead, which were listened to with intense interest by the large assembly. He presented baptism for the dead as the only way that men can appear as saviours on Mount Zion." But at the conclusion of his discourse the Prophet announced: "There shall be no more baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the Lord's House; and the church shall not hold another General Conference until they can meet in said house. For thus said the Lord!"
The conference adjourned sine die. The threat was not carried out; the font was ready for use the following month, and there continued to be conferences, though that of the following April was styled a "special" rather than a "general" conference. But the Prophet's threatened interdict was not without effect; it was repeated in communications to the Saints outside of Nauvoo and stood as an example of his vindictive zeal.
According to the original revelation, God might declare the "sufficient time" ended at any time. "The brethren seemed to vie with each other in their diligence," said Ebenezer Robinson, "as many of them feltif they failed to have the work accomplished by the time appointed, they lost not only their own souls' salvation, but also that of their dead friends, for whom they had been baptizedI confess that was too strong meat for me" Robinson reasoned that the baptism of the living could not be revoked and that the salvation of the dead could not rightly be made to depend on the performance or nonperformance of the living. "I came to the conclusion that the Lord did not give that revelation" (Flanders, 199-200).
http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/12 ... ply-126971
I'm picking this example in part because it is relatively trivial. In this case, I think the favorable interpretation is some piously fraudulent behavior. Regardless, the point is that even a believer can accept that Smith was a pious fraud at times.