Presentism and the Persecutors of the Early Saints

[_JohnStuartMill]

Of course, we all understand that 'why me" isn't here to help us, but to help him/herself hang on in Mormonism. That being the case, it is no wonder that why me can't afford to really think about where a former Mormon is or seek real understanding--to do so would completely undermine his/her reason for participating here.

This is not exactly true. I am not here to help me hang on to Mormonism. I am here to share my opinions about the LDS church. I can understand where a former Mormon is and seek understanding.

But I just think that you guys jumped the gun. The LDS church has not been proven false. The witnesses to the Book of Mormon have not been debunked. Nothing has changed much except the contant moaning about polygamy which seems to be in vogue when it comes to leaving the LDS church. And how Joseph Smith was not perfect.

But the LDS church has not been proven false.

Please point out the error in this argument:

P1: When they are speaking as such, prophets of God do not say anything untrue.
P2: If the President of a Church is not a true prophet, then the Church is not true.
P3: Brigham Young, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was speaking as a prophet of God when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage would always be death on the spot.
P4: The penalty for interracial marriage is not currently death on the spot.

C1: Brigham Young said something untrue while speaking as a prophet of God. (P3, P4)
C2: Brigham Young was not a prophet of God. (C1, P1)
C3: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true. (C2, P2)

[_TAK]

... I see the GAs and leaders of the church made up of believing men and women. I don't see them as cheats and scoundrels. So what is the reality of the LDS church?

Assume for a moment that Pres Monson and all the 1st presidency and apostles were in fact secretly practicing polygamy - despite the numerous statements the Church has nothing to do with polygamy and stopped it more than 100 years ago.. I assume since you had no Problem w/ Jos Smith lying .. Pres. Monson's lying is equally acceptable?

What if it were a massive financial fraud by Church leaders and lots of people lost money? That would be ok too?

[_moksha]

But there was an idea that it was all built on heresay that Joseph Smith was involved with Nancy, if I am correct in my interpretation.

Right on. Eli Johnson could well have been laboring under a misapprehension regarding their house guest Joseph and his kid sister. You know how these things get started. I think that Joseph's subsequent behavior should speak for his innocence.

But was Nancy unhappy as a Mormon? It seems that she died faithful.

Although Apostle Hyde divorced her before her death. Does anyone know if she took up residence in the Sara Daft Home?

.

[_Sethbag]

I don't think of it as a massive financial fraud in that I don't think the deception is malicious. I believe that the leadership of the church believes that it's true. It's organized, mutual self-deception, not malicious fraud.

It's just like the leadership of the JWs, who likewise truly believe that their organization represents Jehovah's interests with his blessing, on Earth. It's still all made-up bullcrap, but they actually do believe that.

And I'm coming around to the idea of a pious fraud for Joseph too. I'm currently going through "No Man Knows My History", and Brodie certainly seems to have believed in a version of the "pious fraud" explanation.

That is, Joseph Smith made prophetly pronouncements, performed prophetly acts, and people believed him. As he saw people believe him, he started to believe in himself. He eventually got to the point where he just sort of acted as he wanted, firmly believing that whatever he did was motivated by God, and his massive success and fanatical following bolstered his faith that God really was behind him. Rather than give him pause, the attacks against him by the apostates merely served to play to the siege mentality he used to rally people ever closer around him.

I firmly believe that David Koresh is a good example of the same phenomenon, where he first acted out by making pronouncements pretending to be prophetlike, and as he gained followers, his success convinced him that he really must be the real thing. I 100% believe David Koresh sincerely believed his own con by the end. And I'm willing to believe that Joseph Smith did too. Even when he was knowingly and purposefully employing deceit and deceptive means to win converts and retain previous ones. He could rationalize that and fit it within the context of his successes, and justify it.

[_Ray A]

And I'm coming around to the idea of a pious fraud for Joseph too. I'm currently going through "No Man Knows My History", and Brodie certainly seems to have believed in a version of the "pious fraud" explanation.

Just to note that Dan Vogel's pious fraud concept (prompted by Jan Shipps) was a revision of Brodie's black and white view of Joseph Smith. She believed he was a conscious fraud and imposter (see p. 418 of the Vintage Books paperback edition).

Vogel attempted a more "sympathetic" view in Prophet Puzzle.

[_John Larsen]

I don't think of it as a massive financial fraud in that I don't think the deception is malicious. I believe that the leadership of the church believes that it's true. It's organized, mutual self-deception, not malicious fraud.

It's just like the leadership of the JWs, who likewise truly believe that their organization represents Jehovah's interests with his blessing, on Earth. It's still all made-up bullcrap, but they actually do believe that.

And I'm coming around to the idea of a pious fraud for Joseph too. I'm currently going through "No Man Knows My History", and Brodie certainly seems to have believed in a version of the "pious fraud" explanation.

That is, Joseph Smith made prophetly pronouncements, performed prophetly acts, and people believed him. As he saw people believe him, he started to believe in himself. He eventually got to the point where he just sort of acted as he wanted, firmly believing that whatever he did was motivated by God, and his massive success and fanatical following bolstered his faith that God really was behind him. Rather than give him pause, the attacks against him by the apostates merely served to play to the siege mentality he used to rally people ever closer around him.

I firmly believe that David Koresh is a good example of the same phenomenon, where he first acted out by making pronouncements pretending to be prophetlike, and as he gained followers, his success convinced him that he really must be the real thing. I 100% believe David Koresh sincerely believed his own con by the end. And I'm willing to believe that Joseph Smith did too. Even when he was knowingly and purposefully employing deceit and deceptive means to win converts and retain previous ones. He could rationalize that and fit it within the context of his successes, and justify it.

I think Joseph himself provided the model for his thinking. Outlined in the Book of Mormon and alluded to in his other prophetic writings is the "sealing power" in which God grants his truly devote a sort of spiritual blank check. With the sealing power "whatsover" actions taken by the anointed one God will back up. I think that Joseph believed himself endowed with this power from his spiritual experience as a youth, and he introduced this theory in 1830. He believed not necessarily that he was always channeling the voice of God, but that he was God's agent and God would back up whatever he said and did. Thus to lie was of no consequence. Neither would be taking other wives--it was justified in the past so he would be justified in the future. Joseph only need to have one spiritual experience and the rest just follows.

[_Mary]

Been reading the letter that Joseph wrote to Nancy Rigdon, which really does shed great light on Joseph's apparant or seeming moral ambivalence...

http://www.mormon-polygamy.org/nancy_rigdon_polygamy

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire

There's the blank cheque right there...

Was also reading a letter that was written by Benjamin Winchester, who at times was an intimate of Joseph, and gives an interesting view of him.

"I have entertained him for a month at a time while we lived in Philadelphia, while he was hiding from a mob. There was not a particle of true religion in him. His talk was never about anything pure or elevating. He liked to talk about be[ing] a great general or leader, and commanding people, and getting beforethe public. He could not reason on anything. He was well versed in Billingsgate vocabulary. Well versed in blackguard language for his evidences. He liked to use slang and cutting remarks on his persecutors. He loved to give orders to the church and to show authority. As a boy he was wild and curious. His mother and father expected great things of him. He carried what he called a 'Peep stone' through which he claimed to see hidden treasure & etc. This is what he afterwards called his 'Urim and Thummem.'

On reasons Benjamin stayed even though he saw Joseph's behaviour which perhaps many felt was less than comely for a prophet.. (this sounds familiar)..

I often saw Smith's bad conduct but they admonished me to keep on. They pointed out to me just as bad things in other churches. They pointed to the men of the Bible, how wicked many of them were, and how oppressive they were; yet that God approved of them -- so I kept on and thought it was all right.

and why he was killed (Benjamin seems to believe that masons were involved seeing that Joseph was making the lodge open to all and sundry)...

The mob consisted mostly of masons, and those who were indignate over plural marriages, seduction, etc. Smith was a perfect libertine. Women got to running after him because they believed him to be a prophet. The whole church is a rotten concern."

all from: http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1900winc.htm

How reliable is Benjamin? It seems pretty obvious that he got some things wrong, but his perspective is interesting. If Joseph is staying with him while hiding from a mob, I can believe that he (Joseph), out of the society of the saints would take the opportunity to take a break from religion so to speak, and be more himself without all the expectations of those around him (including parents)...??

[_why me]

Was also reading a letter that was written by Benjamin Winchester, who at times was an intimate of Joseph, and gives an interesting view of him.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1900winc.htm

How reliable is Benjamin? It seems pretty obvious that he got some things wrong, but his perspective is interesting. If Joseph is staying with him while hiding from a mob, I can believe that he (Joseph), out of the society of the saints would take the opportunity to take a break from religion so to speak, and be more himself without all the expectations of those around him (including parents)...??

Oh yes, Miss Taken, Good ol' Benjamin certainly can be believed!! After reading this testimony I want to laugh my head off.

[_Mary]

Do you dismiss Benjamin Winchester completely Why me, or is there anything of interest we can gain from his recollections? I know he had left the church, but on the Book of Mormon for instance, he is quite clear in his remarks that he felt that the Spalding Manuscript was not involved in the coming forth of the book. (though he must recognise the similarities as he suggests that Joseph was some kind of spiritual medium who could have had access to Spalding).

He puts an interesting perspective on DP Hurlburt, which I am sure is in keeping with an apologetic standpoint..

Mary

[_why me]

Do you dismiss Benjamin Winchester completely Why me, or is there anything of interest we can gain from his recollections? I know he had left the church, but on the Book of Mormon for instance, he is quite clear in his remarks that he felt that the Spalding Manuscript was not involved in the coming forth of the book. (though he must recognise the similarities as he suggests that Joseph was some kind of spiritual medium who could have had access to Spalding).

He puts an interesting perspective on DP Hurlburt, which I am sure is in keeping with an apologetic standpoint..

Mary

He went overboard in describing Joseph Smith. IF Joseph Smith was as he claimed him to be, I see no hope for the early church to survive based around that character that Winchester claims that he had.