The "do or die" approach to Joseph Smith.

[_Mercury]

I tend to think that there's a possibility that he may have been akin to this type of person...

A paranoid schizophrenic?

Not to mention sexual "deviant".

[_Doctor Steuss]

A very high-functioning one, yes. There are times in my days of doubt where I think Joseph believed he was a prophet, and spoke to G-d. In a way, this help explain it (and in a way, adds a bit of an explanation to the production of the Book of Mormon).

Huh. Personally, I prefer to avoid psychological solutions for shamans and prophets. I may not believe in the supernatural powers of either, but to explain away their behavior as mental illness is a dead end, imho.

You're probably right.

[_Mercury]

A very high-functioning one, yes. There are times in my days of doubt where I think Joseph believed he was a prophet, and spoke to G-d. In a way, this help explain it (and in a way, adds a bit of an explanation to the production of the Book of Mormon).

Huh. Personally, I prefer to avoid psychological solutions for shamans and prophets. I may not believe in the supernatural powers of either, but to explain away their behavior as mental illness is a dead end, imho.

What of Charles Manson? His behavior and cult following was a direct cause of his insanity combined with his charismatic nature.

[_Jason Bourne]

What does everyone think of Joseph B. Wirthlin's "do or die" approach to Joseph Smith. He must be accepted as a prophet or rejected as a charlatan. There is no middle ground. Do you agree? Wirthlin leaves no room for a Pious Fraud theory. Because of the specific claims Joseph made, Wirthlin is probably right.

"“Not everything in life is so black and white, but the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our religion seem to be exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, a prophet who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from Moroni’s lips, and eventually received at his hands a set of ancient gold plates that he then translated by the gift and power of God, or else he did not. And if he did not, he would not be entitled to the reputation of New England folk hero, or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, nor would he be entitled to be considered a great teacher, a quintessential American religious leader, or the creator of great devotional literature. If he had lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would certainly be none of these."

"“I am suggesting that one has to take something of a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 345–46)."

Joseph B. Wirthlin, “The Book of Mormon: The Heart of Missionary Proselyting,” Ensign, Sep 2002, 13

I am not sure I have an answer. However I think this position puts the Church in quite a bind. This is why the faithful mythical Joseph is the one the Church promotes and why it can really never do much different. A book like RSR that is more open about the difficult side of things even causes problems with such a stern line in the sand. For most only the heroic Joseph Smith will meet the parameters above. The CHurch must maintain such a view in light of such sayings.

[_Jason Bourne]

There were too many other people who were particpants in visions and manifestations with Joseph Smith to give any credence to the pious fraud theory. Of course, I suppose someone could think that a hundreds of people who experienced those events were all pious frauds, also. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Seems to me like it is "in for a penny, in for a pound."

Hundreds experienced visions and manifestations with Joseph? Hmmm, I can think of a handful, Three witnesses, Rigdon, who else? 8 witnessed did not see visions. Who else?

[_Runtu]

Hundreds experienced visions and manifestations with Joseph? Hmmm, I can think of a handful, Three witnesses, Rigdon, who else? 8 witnessed did not see visions. Who else?

Well, there was that time at the Kirtland Temple that after people who had been fasting had a little bit of wine, they saw visions.

[_Yong Xi]

My impression is that this "do or die" approach regarding Joseph Smith is only used when speaking or writing to members of the church. GBH basically said the same thing a couple years back in General Conference. When it is presented as either the "truth" or a "fraud", the intended audience will always pick "truth" because to them, the other choice is not possible. I think it is merely a tool to shore up faith of the believers. To the faithful it is like saying, "The sun either shines or it doesn't, now go ahead and choose."

[_Black Moclips]

Why not first one, then the other? I think its within the realm of possibility that there was some spiritual, God ordained event that put Joseph on the path. And I also think its possible that he strayed from that path. The D&C (written by Jospeph himself) is full of rebukes and warnings about his failings, the Saints failings, and that God would cut them off if they didn't repent. It makes it very clear that the "true church" could fail. This is why I don't understand the whole "God won't let the prophet lead us astray" argument. Scripture, both modern and ancient makes it very clear that God does just that, cuts people off.

Then I look at people like David Whitmer, and other people heavily involved in the founding of the church who left. Not because they didn't believe in the Book of Mormon or the church per se, but because of the leadership, mainly in Joseph. David Whitmer, in his Address to All Believers in Christ, goes far enough to basically say, if you believe my witness regarding the Book of Mormon, then believe that the same God told me to leave the church etc etc.

Anyway, its all confusing, and impossible to sort out. We weren't there, and will never know what happened in the undocumented 99% of the history of that day. The easiest and logical choice is to abandon it all and call it fraud. Certainly enough evidence for that. But then part of me still gets tugged and says there is "something" to it all. Not sure what though. But I can tell you its not the current day culture and practice of the church that calls me. Its the old history and amazing spiritual things that happened back then. The freedom of breaking away. The freedom of modern day revelation coming not to just prophets, but ordinary people. It would have been exciting back then, or at least I get the feeling that it was. But todays deathly boring meetings, lack of new exciting doctrines, principles and explanation of life's mysteries, and the pharisaical practices, leads me to believe something was lost.

[_Trevor]

What of Charles Manson? His behavior and cult following was a direct cause of his insanity combined with his charismatic nature.

Just because some of these folks are insane does not mean insanity accounts for the phenomenon.

[_Trevor]

I tend to think that there's a possibility that he may have been akin to this type of person...




(For anyone who doesn't recognize the face... it's John F. Nash).

Coincidence?