DiscussMormonism.com

Welcome to The Joseph Smith Megathread!

This is the thread to air all of your grievances with the Prophet and founder of that religion most of you think is a fraud. It is no secret that I have extensively studied Smith, and as the Joseph Smith Resident Scholar at MDB, I invite all to participate in this thread.

I will begin by pointing out some of the alleged problems with the character of Joseph Smith.

Multiple First Vision Accounts

In another thread TChild stated:

Tchild wrote: So, when an ex-believer expresses dismay that there are multiple first vision accounts (a fact), for example …

To which I replied:

Simon Belmont wrote: As I was driving home today, I passed an old fashioned bakery called "Pat's", an exotic automobile dealership with a 2009 Ferrari on the lot, a motocross store, and a computer repair shop.

Here is the story, as I explained to my mother:
Mom, on my way home I drove past Pat's Bakery today and remembered when you used to take me there for doughnuts on Saturdays.

Here is the story, as I explained it to my friend who happens to love Ferraris:
Dude! I saw a sweet F70 at the exotic dealership on my way home today, we should go check it out!

Here is the story, as I explained to my Dungeons and Dragons club:
Hey guys, on my way home today I saw this new computer shop, we need to go check it out. I hear they stock the new GeForce!

Here is the story, as I explained to my brother, who is heavily into motocross:
Hey bro, I drove past your favorite shop today! Those motocross cycles looked sweet in the window.

Joseph Smith told variations of his story, too. It doesn't make the First Vision untrue.

Further, former president Gordon B. Hinkley said:

GBH wrote: I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.
—Ensign, October 1984

This really is not the issue critics portray it as.

Polygamy / Treatment of Women

The purpose of polygamy practiced by the early saints was not necessarily sexual in nature. It is well known that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, even marrying teenage girls. Helen Mar Kimball was perhaps the youngest of Smith’s wives (age 14). Historian Todd Compton, in reference to this marriage, notes that “there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage”. Although this is just one example, I believe that the polygamy of the early Church is nothing like we imagine it to be, based on my extensive studies.

In another post, harmony asserted:

harmony wrote: Actually... he lied. Straight faced and from the pulpit. You can paint it any color you like, but the fact is... he lied.

When I asked for a reference, beefcalf chimed in:

beefcalf wrote: "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of Church, vol. 6, page 411)

Joseph Smith did not lie. He only had one legal wife, although he was sealed to many women. As I have said before, these sealings were probably not sexual in nature. He loved Emma, she was his wife and his true love.

For my final remarks, I would like to reassert my position on Joseph Smith:

There are only three possibilities:

1. Joseph Smith was a con man; he knew what he was doing was absolutely a fraud. His motivation was money and sex.
2. Joseph Smith really, truly believed he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, and they directed him throughout his short life. Everything he did, and everything he endured were because he truly believed he was what he claimed to be. But, he was completely wrong, and suffered from a major mental illness.
3. Joseph Smith was everything he claimed to be, and it was the truth.

Option 1 does not follow:

• A con man, upon facing death, will certainly reveal his con in order to save his life. There may not be any guarantees that his life will be spared after giving up the con, but when his life is in danger he will try everything to influence his captors to spare it. This is simple Human nature – fight or flight.
• A con man, upon facing multiple tarrings and featherings, beatings and verbal slander throughout his entire life, will certainly reveal his con in order to stop the chaos, to restore peace and safety to his life.
• A con man does not convince “witnesses” and followers to endure the persecution they endured by simply being associated with Joseph Smith. One of these people will surely “rat out” the con man in order to restore peace and security to their lives, especially if they gain very little from the con. Likewise, a con man does not convince another convert to lead hundreds of people to walk across the United States without the con eventually being revealed. It has never been revealed in 180 years.
• There were witnesses, who never denied (even on their death beds) that the Book of Mormon was translated via the plates. This is not to say that the witnesses were without flaw. One particular case of that of Martin Harris, who left the Church and bounced around to a dozen or so other denominations. This is expected, because when one has a powerful spiritual experience as Harris did, he would seek those confirmations again in other faiths. He came back to the fold, late in his life. He never denied the Book of Mormon.

Option 2 does not follow:

• Joseph Smith was repeatedly shown to be highly intelligent.
• If there was a mental disability, somewhere, somehow it would have been written about or documented. No such writings exist.
• Even his most hated former associates never claimed he acted strangely or like that of a mental patient.

Option 3 is the only logical explanation. Luckily for us, it is the truth.

Funny stuff.

madeleine wrote:Funny stuff.

Please stay on topic.

For example, please point out what you find humorous.

Simon Belmont wrote:

beefcalf wrote:Which is why he carried a six-shooter to protect himself (something you will not hear from the good folks at the Carthage jail, I can say from direct experience).

You need to brush up on your history, lest your credibility take a nose-dive.

History of the Church wrote:While confined in jail on the false charge of treason, Joseph and Hyrum were allowed the privilege of visitors. Cyrus Wheelock, a friend of the Prophet’s, managed to secure a pass to see Joseph and slipped both Joseph and Hyrum handguns. The Smith brothers reluctantly accepted the guns and Hyrum said, “‘I hate to use such things or to see them used.’ ‘So do I,’ said Joseph, ‘but we may have to, to defend ourselves.’” (HC 6:608.)

He did not "carry" a six-shooter to protect himself. He was given one later, and reluctantly took it. It was a pepperbox pistol, not a six-shooter.

beefcalf wrote:Why would he carry a firearm,

He didn't!

You are dead wrong about most things concerning JosephSmith.

I don't think I could have concocted, even in my wildest fantasies, a more perfectly extreme example of nitpicking than what you have just provided.

You're almost one of us Simon! Let go! You know the truth. Let it set you free from all these silly rhetorical games and mental contortions! It's scary, I know, but you can do it!

beefcalf wrote:I don't think I could have concocted, even in my wildest fantasies, a more perfectly extreme example of nitpicking than what you have just provided.

You're almost one of us Simon! Let go! You know the truth. Let it set you free from all these silly rhetorical games and mental contortions! It's scary, I know, but you can do it!

Oh, come now beefcalf, I hoped that you would provide interesting discussion on this thread (and hope that you still will, when you have the time).

Simon Belmont wrote:

beefcalf wrote:I don't think I could have concocted, even in my wildest fantasies, a more perfectly extreme example of nitpicking than what you have just provided.

You're almost one of us Simon! Let go! You know the truth. Let it set you free from all these silly rhetorical games and mental contortions! It's scary, I know, but you can do it!

Oh, come now beefcalf, I hoped that you would provide interesting discussion on this thread (and hope that you still will, when you have the time).

You are correct. I am in bed, using my iPad. Keyboard is... non- optimal. Will pick it up again tomorrow (after I get home from church, if you can believe it).

Simon Belmont wrote:

madeleine wrote:Funny stuff.

Please stay on topic.

For example, please point out what you find humorous.

Sealing: "An ordinance performed in the temple eternally uniting a husband and wife"

I think it is funny stuff when Mormons say Smith's sealing weren't marriages.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?local ... 82620aRCRD

Simon Belmont wrote:
Because there are only three possibilities:

You forgot the pious fraud possibility which I think is the most reasonable. People are rarely if ever pure honest or total fraud. I think Joseph could have believed strongly yet willing to do some con in order to help people believe which in his mind was doing what God wanted. You don't have to have a mental issue either. There is also a host of mental problems people can have as well as how bad they have them.

1. Joseph Smith was a con man; he knew what he was doing was absolutely a fraud.
2. Joseph Smith really, truly believed he had a vision, and that he was supposed to start a church, but he had a mental illness.
3. Joseph Smith was everything he claimed to be, and it was the truth.

A con man, upon facing death, will certainly reveal his con in order to save his life.

That possibility was never given to Joseph. They were not there to get a confession, and not all the things they took issue with were religious.

A con man, upon facing multiple tarrings and featherings will certainly reveal his con in order to remain safe

Could you provide evidence for this. Again the problem is assuming a total fraud which is not likely, and he again didn't have much of a choice. You also have to look at what he gains or loses in confessing.

A con man does not convince hundreds of people to walk across the United States without the con eventually being revealed.

This is clearly wrong. People have followed numerous religious cons, even dying for them.

There were witnesses, who never denied (even on their death beds) that the Book of Mormon was translated via the plates.

Although this is a more complicated issue, it should be clear that witnesses have stuck to other stories you and I don't believe. The strangites had their witnesses and I have never seen any evidence of recanting. DCP suggested he heard one did but couldn't provide any evidence. There is also some evidence that does not suggest some saw physical plates, and Joseph could have provided a prop, especially if a handful were in on it.

2 does not follow:
[list][*]Joseph Smith was repeatedly shown to be highly intelligent.

Highly intelligent people are not immune to mental issues, plus what kind of problem are we talking about, their are so many different kinds.

If there was a mental disability, somewhere, somehow it would have been written about or documented. No such writings exist.

It can depend on the particular mental problem and it's severity.

Even his most hated former associates never claimed he acted strangely or like that of a mental patient.

Read above

3 is the only logical explanation. Luckily for us, it is the truth.

Unfortunately the evidence both spiritual and physically doesn't back this up :)

The purpose of polygamy practiced by the early saints was not necessarily sexual in nature. It is well known that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, even marrying teenage girls. Helen Mar Kimball was perhaps the youngest of Smith’s wives (age 14). Historian Todd Compton, in reference to this marriage, notes that “there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage”. Although this is just one example, I believe that the polygamy of the early Church is nothing like we imagine it to be, based on my extensive studies.

Doesn't sound like your studies were all that extensive. I believe Todd Compton does provide evidence for sexual relations with some of his wives, and I don't think he did with Helen. I'm not sure why people want to think somehow Joseph's polygamy is different then BY. Why is it that a number of apologists who actually do have more extensive research on polygamy accept that he did have sex with some of his wives?

When I have more time I will throw out some sources, but for now just a couple of thoughts. The conclusions you have reached after having done extensive research hold no water. One must wonder if the extensive research you have done solely relied on FARMS and FAIR wiki. There is more than enough evidence, first hand, to conclude that a handful if not many of Josephs plural marriages included sexual intercourse. The whole apologetic concept of trying to prove whether he did or did not is not even relevant because the successor of Smith also practiced polygamy and had sexual intercourse with many many women as did most other authorities in the church. The first vision accounts problematic because they are entirely contradictory. Add the apparent persecution Smith claimed to receive for telling others the vivid details of his vision, yet he never divulged the real details until much later. The pieces are all there that it was added to as time passed on.

Joseph was a pious fraud, he wanted to start a revolution in the religious world in accordance to one of his grandfathers dreams and he believed in what he was doing. I have no doubt Smith believed he had visions, that he believed he saw the angel Moroni and that he believed he was acting as a seer when he peeped inside his hat at a little stone. His spiritual experiences were real to him, though in reality they were entirely manufactured in one way or another. How heavily the doctrines of the restoration line up with masonic legends and lore was the end of the line for me in realizing he made it all up.

Check this out, http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31961538
Its from Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. An interesting theory regarding Spiritual manifestations. Funny enough i think I saw a picture in the slides of images of the first vision.