If Not to Heaven, then Hand-in-Hand to Hell

[_honorentheos]

Listening to the news about the discovery of Richard III's skeleton, I was interested to hear there was an organization who's purpose is to redeem Richard's reputation. My previous exposure to Richard the Third was limited to the character in Shakespeare's historical play and a book on the lives of the kings and queens of England I listened to years ago in audiobook form. Neither leaves the impression that Richard III was a man who deserved redemption.

Enter the Richard III Society.

While reading on this site, I was struck by the similarity of argument made with those used in apologetic attempts to defend Joseph Smith.

For example, I directed the above link to the page that describes Richard's crimes. Each is systematically shown, on this website, to be less damning or less cut-and-dry than most of us take the history to be.

Compare that to the FAIR page on Joseph Smith's polygamy: FAIR

Note that each "crime" of Joseph Smith is dealt with on it's own page following a link.

For most of us, it is sufficient to know that Richard the III took the crown in a criminal manner. Maybe we care that he was a complex character who, like almost all people, wasn't all corrupt. But we aren't here to judge him on merit alone, either. The magnitude of his crimes and the results for the whole of England clearly stand against him. The details that may excuse this or that accusation seem little more than a smoke screen....if we care at all.

Likewise, with Joseph Smith it seems knowing he lived polygamy, probably behind Emma's back for most of the time, is sufficient. It's undeniable, and it's abhorant. For those who would defend him, the forest seems to get lost for the trees. The tactic is similar - focus on casting some doubt on small details until the weight of them all causes one to toss up their hands and say, "I guess we'll never know the truth!"

Yet it seems even the Church knows that the big picture matters in Joseph's case. Otherwise, why not portray it the same way they portray Brigham's polygamy?

“And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”

[_ludwigm]

My kingdom for a horse?

I think the page You mentioned don't want to whitewash Richard III.
Does it colour the events a little more rosy? Maybe. The writers like him. Hunchbacked? So what, I like Quasimodo, as well...

Kings never was StFrancises (is this a real word?). They didn't preach to the birds, they ate them.

In every era, in every court, hundreds died by a click of the king's finger.
A few more death? Death of members of royal family? Today we call it collateral damage.

Prophets, founders of churches - especially of christian ones - are in different category. God's ambassadors should fit to their master's attributes. Should...

[_honorentheos]

Interesting argument.

So a religious leader should be judged by the ideal they set up as God, but a political ruler such as a monarch who is responsible for murder is just doing what monarchs do?

Boys will be boys, if you will?

[_ludwigm]

So a religious leader should be judged by the ideal they set up as God, but a political ruler such as a monarch who is responsible for murder is just doing what monarchs do?

Yes, exactly. If God's servants are the same as worldly leaders, then where is God's hand?

A political ruler may order nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while God ... er ... um ... I've forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah...