Sarah Pratt: Credible Witness?

[_harmony]

Cannot goodness and weakness reside within the same individual? My contention is that Joseph Smith was a good man with weaknesses. Even though God chooses to work with the weak of the world, this does not discount the fact and/or possibility that he also looks upon the basic "good-heartedness" of those same individuals. You know that a person can be good...yet weak when it comes to the appetites of the flesh..."the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".

Why is Joseph not held to the same standard as any other church member? Were any of us to do what Joseph did, we'd be summarily excommunicated and kicked to the curb. There would no "forgiveness", no allowance for weakness. There is no allowance for sexual weakness whatsoever! Why do those of us who expect the same accountablility as is routinely appied to members now be applied to Joseph so vilified? God is no respector of persons. He cannot work with an unclean vessel. Small human lies are not dealbreakers; lying to one's wife about extramarital peccadillos is.

[_BishopRic]

I assume that you've read some of Joseph Smith's private letters to his friends, and especially those to Emma, in which he frequently calls upon the mercies/blessings of the Lord?

He was a man of faith.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I've read much of what Joseph wrote, and what many closest to him wrote about him as well. "The evidence" I am referring to that indicates he was not inspired of God is the countless contradictions of what "God said" to him, and the results. I think it is universally accepted that if there is a "God" guiding the inhabitants of this earth, that "He" would know all. Most scripture says so.

So if it is proclaimed by a person who has allegedly talked to, and been guided by that "God" to prophecy an event (or outcome) in life, then it does not happen, isn't it logical to conclude the person was lying about his "conversation?" Joseph did this dozens of times, and when you consider this without the lens of a committed believer, it is glaringly obvious he was a liar, not a "man of faith."

[_Jason Bourne]

As for Emma, I’m glad you brought her up. Because, while it is true that she was consistent in her denial (especially to her children) that Joseph ever practiced plural marriage, yet she retained her conviction about his being a true prophet until the end of her life! If anyone should have felt at liberty to expose Joseph for what he “really” was, you would think it would be Emma Hale Smith Bidamon. What was her “vested interest” in maintaining, to her dying day, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet?

1: She was married to him for 16 years, bore his children, most likely loved him.

2: She gave the prime of her life to him and his the religion he founded.

3: Interestingly she denied that he practiced polygamy till the day she dies. So if you know she lied about that how do are you able to trust her other convictions. She seemed rather conflicted.

4: Her whole reputation was built on sustaining Joseph as prophet. How could she publically even deny it without huge amounts of shame and scorn?

What about Oliver Cowdery, the “source” for modern-day judgments on the Fanny Alger “affair?” What was his “vested interest,” years after having been alienated from Joseph Smith and the church, to realign himself with it at the end of his life? David Whitmer? Lyman Wight? Thomas Marsh?

Oliver is not the only source for the Fanny issue. I have addresed some of this as it relates to Oliver on the thread in the celestial forum about polyandry and plural marriage that Liz started.

[_beastie]

You said:

The question is, was he a good man? Was he good enough to permit God to work through him as a prophet of the restoration?

Several of us responded specifically saying that human beings are all a mixture of good and bad. The question is “was he GOOD ENOUGH to permit God to work through him”. When we responded mentioning his behavior that would make him extremely problematic in terms of being a trustworthy spokesperson, you responded with the scripture saying God uses weak vessels.

In other words, the answer to whether or not he was GOOD ENOUGH is irrelevant to you, unless our answer agrees with yours.

Put it this way. If Salesman Smith was trying to convince me to buy something that required a huge investment of time and money, and I found out that Salesman Smith, prior to his current sales job, was involved in a clear case of fraud (ie, telling people he could find buried treasures, guarded by spooky ghosts, by looking at a stone in a hat, and then when the treasures didn’t pan out, telling them the devil made those treasures slip away) AND was involved in a banking scheme wherein investors were duped by being shown a safebox full of sand with gold on top AND tried to convince people to buy unhealthy swamp land AND had secretive relationships with other women behind his wife’s back AND colluded with others in order to slander and libel women who tattled on him – I wouldn’t trust Salesman Smith as far as I could throw him.

Come on. Step outside your preference for belief long enough to recognize that Joseph Smith demonstrated behavior that anyone OTHER than someone who shared his religious beliefs would immediately and easily label “immoral”.

[_Jason Bourne]

You say I have a vested interest. What is it? I really want to know. Because, from my point of view, there are a host of sacrifices that must be made for me to remain faithful to the precepts of the gospel Joseph Smith taught. I would much rather tip back a Pilsner Urquel, or maybe smoke a joint or two on the weekends, or go on the road and rock the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs, or get back the quarter of a million dollars I have paid in tithing and take my wife on a round-the-world second honeymoon for an entire year, or not have to waste hour upon hour in poorly-managed ecclesiastical meetings, or be able to tell a relief society counselor that she’s being a petty bitch for looking down her nose at another woman in the ward who isn’t quite as “orthodox” as she “ought” to be. I would no longer be mocked and ridiculed when I go among unbelieving friends or associates. I would no longer have to be associated with a religious belief system that is widely disparaged as the acme of stupidity and its adherents the most egregious examples of gullibility in our world today.

You just outlined it really in reverse. You have devoted your life, lifestyle, culture, money, family, time and so on to a religion founded by Joseph Smith. You have a vested interest in maintaining that belief because if it is gone look at all you have given up for it. Man would you feel stupid, robbed, dupped, like life may have been wasted and so on. You have been mocked so if you decide now Joseph Smith is not a prophet than the mocking and disparagement had some merits. I think this is really pretty clear.

[_BishopRic]

You just outlined it really in reverse. You have devoted your life, lifestyle, culture, money, family, time and so on to a religion founded by Joseph Smith. You have a vested interest in maintaining that belief because if it is gone look at all you have given up for it. Man would you feel stupid, robbed, dupped, like life may have been wasted and so on. You have been mocked so if you decide now Joseph Smith is not a prophet than the mocking and disparagement had some merits. I think this is really pretty clear.

Yes, just as many of the followers of Joseph never denied his claims of divine guidance (including his many sex partners), many modern LDS members will never entertain the thought of him being a liar. The investment of all what Jason said, but particularly, the ego, tends to keep the people I've talked to from even discussing the issues we talk about here...too much emotional risk.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm saying absence of evidence does not prove something did not exist.

In your world, perhaps, but it is true that the absence of evidence leads to the inferential proof that something does not exist, especially where there is every opportunity for the proof to surface.

Given no negative statements from Joseph Smith's wives, despite (1) affidavits they made in the press, (2) their known identities and availability to enemies of the church, and (3) the departure of some of them from the church, the absence of negative statements from them does, in fact, imply inferential proof there was nothing negative for them to report.

You, however, argue that the absence of negative statements from Joseph Smith's wives does not rule out the presence of negative statements. That is true, but you then take the next illogical step. Because they are not ruled out, they must/should/may/might exist.

And now, your friend Beastie jumps on the bandwagon for this illogical idiocy. Carry on, you two. The quality of your analysis is poor.

Sure Bob. This is all speculation and conjecture. Even so it is backed by reasonable assumptions and conclusions. Yet you miss a point. Even if every one of JSs wives were quite fine with the relationships and never had nary a question or doubt, this does not make the way Joseph Smith behaved with them fine, nor mean that God was really telling him to do this.

[_Brackite]

Are you channeling Juliann, Will? This is perhaps the dumbest defense of polygamy I've ever heard: the women didn't complain, and our disapproval of the practice means we're anti-feminists who want to silence these women who deserve to heard, dammit! Hell, the Jonestown folks didn't complain while they were lining up to drink the Kool-Aid, did they? What a stupid, stupid argument, Will.

Hello Runtu,

Juliann is at it again, for this defense of Polygamy. Here is a very Recent Post of hers, on the MA&D Message Board:

From juliann:


You appear to be the one who can't move on.

First, your website is intellectually dishonest. They are careful not to footnote so that anyone can read an entire selection.

Second, you are quoting "averages". That means some married earlier and some married later.

You claim, " Sure there exceptions, as there are today but that didn't mean it was acceptable." CFR that it was "unacceptable" to marry at early ages in the 19th century merely because of a statistically created average age.

Third, stop treating Mormon women as stupid dupes who were traded like corn. It is offensive and untrue.


( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3192&st=40 , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

[_harmony]

Are you channeling Juliann, Will? This is perhaps the dumbest defense of polygamy I've ever heard: the women didn't complain, and our disapproval of the practice means we're anti-feminists who want to silence these women who deserve to heard, dammit! Hell, the Jonestown folks didn't complain while they were lining up to drink the Kool-Aid, did they? What a stupid, stupid argument, Will.

Hello Runtu,

Juliann is at it again, for this defense of Polygamy. Here is a very Recent Post of hers, on the MA&D Message Board:

From juliann:


You appear to be the one who can't move on.

First, your website is intellectually dishonest. They are careful not to footnote so that anyone can read an entire selection.

Second, you are quoting "averages". That means some married earlier and some married later.

You claim, " Sure there exceptions, as there are today but that didn't mean it was acceptable." CFR that it was "unacceptable" to marry at early ages in the 19th century merely because of a statistically created average age.

Third, stop treating Mormon women as stupid dupes who were traded like corn. It is offensive and untrue.


( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3192&st=40 , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Who is she addressing, Brackie? And who does she think she's kidding? Many of them were dupes who were traded like corn. Brigham treated his dogs better than he treated some of his wives. And her outrage at someone who gets outraged that their family member was one of those dupes who were traded like corn is outrageous! My husband's family has several polygamous marriages... all of them were dupes, talked into doing something outrageous by a man masquerading as God's mouthpiece who was following the path laid out by another man masquerading as God's mouthpiece, long after his one gift had been fulfilled.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I love how pointing out how women have been exploited and abused by men-- a staple of feminist historiography-- is for juliann actually sexist because it implies these women failed to stand up for themselves. Seems pretty backwards to me.