DiscussMormonism.com

Joseph Smith's 1844 bid for the US Presidency was a "long shot." but not
an impossibility. Had the Democrat and Whig candidates somehow alienated
enough voters, Smith might have possibly made it into office as an unexpected
"dark horse" third-party leader.

I ask my Mormon friends who might be reading this, whether the citizens of
the USA in 1845 could have trusted Smith after his inauguration?

If so, upon what basis would that popular trust been based? Common Sense?
Personal Divine Revelation? Smith's prior record as a leader? Mass Popularity?

My contention is that the people of the USA could NOT have trusted Joseph Smith
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Neither could they have
trusted him to put the best interests and security of the nation above all other
concerns: social, religious and political.

Am I wrong?

Uncle Dale

My guess is that he would have been assassinated.

Kishkumen wrote:My guess is that he would have been assassinated.

That is possible -- but Smith would have probably taken greater precautions
for his personal security than would, say, a fellow Illinoisian like Abe Lincoln.

Smith could have taken his personal bodyguards from Nauvoo to Washington;
and he could have installed a few of the officers of the Nauvoo Legion in key
positions in the armed forces or other government service, to guard him.

But, getting back to my original question -- I'll attempt to answer it as I might
have years ago, when I was something more of a "loyal" Saint than now:

Why Joseph Smith Might have been Viewed as a Trustworthy US President:

1. In his presidential platform Smith promised to be apolitical. Since people did
not much trust professional politicians, Smith's position was refreshing.

2. Smith had shown his ability to built an entire city, from scratch, in a short
period of time. People might have trusted him to accomplish what he promised.

3. Smith was the recipient of intense personal loyalty and affection among some
of the people who knew him best. Their trust could have spread nation-wide.

4. Mormons testified that Smith was a very decent, honest, altruistic man who
put the needs of people above his own desires. That may have helped him.

In short -- go through the list of laudable personal attributes and testimonies
to Smith's sterling character, as published in many LDS works, and we would
have THERE in that list, the possible BASIS for his presidential trustworthiness.

UD

.

Joseph's run for the presidency was not a serious run. But it would have given him a platform to put forth a righteous agenda for the United States. Also, he was light years ahead with his antislavery platform. Joseph Smith as my signature states wanted to revolutionize the world. His run for the presidency was an attempt to get the ball rolling in that direction. It was to lay such a foundation that would change the world. If he wasn't a prophet, he would have been successful as a politician or as a preacher.

The fact that he was actually serious about running for President demonstrates his inability to understand reality in 1844.

Here are a few aspects of his polarizing track record to keep in mind:

a) Smith had spent most of his adult life either running from the law or behind bars awaiting trial.
b) He was responsible for a destroyed bank
c) He had allienated many of his own followers (apostates didn't just disappear)
d) He demonstrated that he and his group could not get along with others (extermination order decreed against them by a sitting governor, being run out of several states etc)
e) He would have also been guilty of enough legitimate charges that he never would have made it through his first 4 years.

You can choose one of three reasons why someone would have wasted a vote for Smith:

a) It was a protest vote upon principle (because they knew there was no chance of him winning)
b) A litmus test for a possible future run
c) It was about God and miracles - a longshot vote for the foolish.

About his platform:

Until you put a pricetag on what it costs to run a plantation without slaves, you'd never have a majority vote in any slave state.

Smith brought a deeper meaning to the word longshot.

why me wrote:If he wasn't a prophet, he would have been successful as a politician or as a preacher.

That makes no sense at all on more than one level.

Define success.

why me wrote:Joseph's run for the presidency was not a serious run.
...

If not, then Joseph Smith was quite a convincing lair about that subject.

Having learned that his initial choice for a running mate was ineligible, Smith
promoted Sidney Rigdon as a vice-presidential candidate who was a resident
of the state of Pennsylvania. He then had Rigdon write to the PA legislature,
physically move back to that state with his family, and begin to thus satisfy
the requirements of getting both of their names on all the state ballots.

Smith published his political platform and had copies distributed by many
dozens of traveling elders, who fanned out across the USA from Nauvoo,
to promote his candidacy. Meetings were held in many towns and cities.

An independent Smithite party was begun and a national convention was
slated for later in 1844 at Baltimore. Money was spent, representatives
and delegates selected -- probable electors identified.

At the time of Smith's assassination, most of the top leaders of the Church
and the Council of Fifty were absent, promoting his candidacy.

But you say it was not a serious effort???

If the current Mormon General Authorities are now teaching you that Joe
Smith did not plan to campaign seriously (and had no intention of implementing
his political promises to the American people), I'll trust you are telling the truth.

Exactly when was it that The Brethren began to teach that the 1844 presidential
bid was a fraud? I'd like to compliment them upon that candid disclosure.

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:
My contention is that the people of the USA could NOT have trusted Joseph Smith
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Neither could they have
trusted him to put the best interests and security of the nation above all other
concerns: social, religious and political.

Am I wrong?

Uncle Dale

Depends upon your point of view, doesn't it?

Andrew Jackson, two presidents before this election, authorized the bribery of Indian chiefs to abrogate treaties signed by the Five Civilized nations and to drive the Indians from his beloved South. He killed a man in a duel. He stole his landlord's wife.

Van Buren, one president before this (not counting Harrison) was Jackson's henchman. As president he sided with the Spanish government to return the slaves of the Armistad.

Jackson today is lionized. Somehow I think Joseph Smith would have been a great president but could never have been elected given what was known about his plural marriages. He lacked the education of an his predecessors except for perhaps Jackson.

Uncle Dale wrote:

why me wrote:Joseph's run for the presidency was not a serious run.
...

If not, then Joseph Smith was quite a convincing lair about that subject.

Having learned that his initial choice for a running mate was ineligible, Smith
promoted Sidney Rigdon as a vice-presidential candidate who was a resident
of the state of Pennsylvania. He then had Rigdon write to the PA legislature,
physically move back to that state with his family, and begin to thus satisfy
the requirements of getting both of their names on all the state ballots.

Smith published his political platform and had copies distributed by many
dozens of traveling elders, who fanned out across the USA from Nauvoo,
to promote his candidacy. Meetings were held in many towns and cities.

An independent Smithite party was begun and a national convention was
slated for later in 1844 at Baltimore. Money was spent, representatives
and delegates selected -- probable electors identified.

At the time of Smith's assassination, most of the top leaders of the Church
and the Council of Fifty were absent, promoting his candidacy.

But you say it was not a serious effort???

If the current Mormon General Authorities are now teaching you that Joe
Smith did not plan to campaign seriously (and had no intention of implementing
his political promises to the American people), I'll trust you are telling the truth.

Exactly when was it that The Brethren began to teach that the 1844 presidential
bid was a fraud? I'd like to compliment them upon that candid disclosure.

UD

He went through the motions but he never could have seriously considered winning the election. The persecution that he experienced would convince him that he was not that popular. But of course, he went through the motions. His goal was to revolutionize the world and his run for the presidency would have given him a platform to do so. But to win, he needed cash and a broad support...both of which he did not have. But he would have been a good president. Would sidney after his salt sermon be a great pick for VP? I don't think so.

Inconceivable wrote:

why me wrote:If he wasn't a prophet, he would have been successful as a politician or as a preacher.

That makes no sense at all on more than one level.

Define success.

Critics define Joseph has a charleton with charisma. Two good qualities to be successful as a preacher or a politician.