Our leaders

[_harmony]

Our leaders today are so different from the flamboyant, outgoing, doctrine-creating leaders of the past. I'm wondering... which leaders today do you think would have been leaders in the beginning? Can you see Pres Monson sneaking around with Joseph, gathering plural wives behind Emma's back? Can you see Elder Oaks smashing a printing press, because it was printing the truth? Can you see Elder Scott standing in conference and laying plural marriage out for everyone to see and telling them to like it or leave?

Why were our early leaders not men of minimal integrity, while our leaders now for the most part show very high personal integrity? (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the money thing, for the purposes of this discussion.) Is this a process where the scoundrels gave it a start, and the men with integrity moved them aside and stepped into the leadership positions? Or did the early Saints want scoundrels for leaders for some reason, while the current Saints want a higher standard?

[_Jason Bourne]

You really think most the early leaders were intentional scoundrels?

I don't.

I have mixed feelings about Joseph and struggle to conclude about him. ALl my lifew I held him in the highest regards and now some of his history does trouble me. But I am not ready to dismiss him as a scoundrel.

I think BY was a hard man and demanding and even dictorial in his leadership. But I think he was essentially a decent and good man and believed in Joseph Smith as well as his own call.

And I believe the early members sincerely believed their leaders were what they claimed.

[Guest]

You really think most the early leaders were intentional scoundrels?

I don't.

I have mixed feelings about Joseph and struggle to conclude about him. ALl my lifew I held him in the highest regards and now some of his history does trouble me. But I am not ready to dismiss him as a scoundrel.

I think BY was a hard man and demanding and even dictorial in his leadership. But I think he was essentially a decent and good man and believed in Joseph Smith as well as his own call.

And I believe the early members sincerely believed their leaders were what they claimed.

And so what, the exact same can be said of the FLDS leaders.

To harmony, the current leadership are scoundrels as well. The only difference is they know how to keep up a polished public appearance.

[_Dr. Shades]

Why were our early leaders not men of minimal integrity, while our leaders now for the most part show very high personal integrity?

Because it takes a lack of integrity to start a false church.

Is this a process where the scoundrels gave it a start, and the men with integrity moved them aside and stepped into the leadership positions?

No, it's a case where the scoundrels merely died off leaving behind men of integrity.

Or did the early Saints want scoundrels for leaders for some reason, while the current Saints want a higher standard?

No. The early Saints didn't choose their leaders any more than the modern Saints choose theirs.

[_truth dancer]

Personally, I don't know how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels (putting it nicely).

I think they had minimal standards of morality and decency at best.

Aside from their followers they were certainly not looked upon as men of honor.

They lied, deceived, were unfaithful to their wives, manipulated others for their gain, and on and on.

I'm not sure about today's leaders. I think they are more concerned with public image than early leaders who seemed to care less, in fact, like the FLDS they believed the more they were disliked and persecuted the more it proved they were the chosen ones of God.

I think most of today's leaders are probably good and decent men but I have a difficult time with all the deception that goes on. Still, unlike early leaders I don't think most of them would sleep around while lying to their wives.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

Personally, I don't know how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels (putting it nicely).

That is because you have decided to accept the worst that you have read and dismiss and arguments to the contrary. I think the issues are complex. I think Smith started out with good intents and really believed he was speaking to God and was being directed by God. I think he went wrong in some areas but I think he really believed that God was directing him. In some of what he was doing I believe God was directing him.

I think they had minimal standards of morality and decency at best.

Why?

Aside from their followers they were certainly not looked upon as men of honor.

Actually this is not true at all. There were many in the public arena that had positive views of Joseph Smith.

T

hey lied, deceived, were unfaithful to their wives, manipulated others for their gain, and on and on.

Again I am not sure this is that cut and dry. Certainly I would agree with you on the polygamy issue. On other issues I am not so sure. And even with the polygamy issue they may have really believed this was of God, particulalrly the followers of Joseph. Maybe Joseph didn't but I think his followers did.

I'm not sure about today's leaders. I think they are more concerned with public image than early leaders who seemed to care less, in fact, like the FLDS they believed the more they were disliked and persecuted the more it proved they were the chosen ones of God.

I think almost without exception the LDS leaders today are men of high integrity and morals.

[_Nevo]

Personally, I don't know how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels (putting it nicely).

I think they had minimal standards of morality and decency at best.

Aside from their followers they were certainly not looked upon as men of honor.

They lied, deceived, were unfaithful to their wives, manipulated others for their gain, and on and on.

Wow, you're really on a roll today TD! Talking trash about Joseph Smith on the other thread, calumniating early LDS leaders en masse in this one. I think you'll find an answer to your question about "how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels" by actually looking at their lives. By and large, they were honorable and decent men--something that should be apparent to any fair-minded person.

[_Pokatator]

Our leaders today are so different from the flamboyant, outgoing, doctrine-creating leaders of the past. I'm wondering... which leaders today do you think would have been leaders in the beginning? Can you see Pres Monson sneaking around with Joseph, gathering plural wives behind Emma's back? Can you see Elder Oaks smashing a printing press, because it was printing the truth? Can you see Elder Scott standing in conference and laying plural marriage out for everyone to see and telling them to like it or leave?

Why were our early leaders not men of minimal integrity, while our leaders now for the most part show very high personal integrity? (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the money thing, for the purposes of this discussion.) Is this a process where the scoundrels gave it a start, and the men with integrity moved them aside and stepped into the leadership positions? Or did the early Saints want scoundrels for leaders for some reason, while the current Saints want a higher standard?

It is difficult for me to imagine any human being stooping as low as Joseph Smith and BY but I know that they do exist.

[_truth dancer]

Personally, I don't know how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels (putting it nicely).

I think they had minimal standards of morality and decency at best.

Aside from their followers they were certainly not looked upon as men of honor.

They lied, deceived, were unfaithful to their wives, manipulated others for their gain, and on and on.

Wow, you're really on a roll today TD! Talking trash about Joseph Smith on the other thread, calumniating early LDS leaders en masse in this one. I think you'll find an answer to your question about "how anyone can look at the lives of the early leaders and not acknowledge many were scoundrels" by actually looking at their lives. By and large, they were honorable and decent men--something that should be apparent to any fair-minded person.

I'm being too harsh. I apologize.

I don't think ALL early leaders were scoundrals, but guys who claim God wants them to sleep with girls and women other than their wives in my opinion are not pillars of the community, or honorable men.

I don't buy the "God said" excuse whether it comes from David Koresh, The House of Yahway prophet, Joseph Smith or anyone else. :-(

I'm sure there were non-believers who thought highly of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith... but it seems to me that the majority of folks didn't care much for them. It seems to me even Joseph Smith knew he was not well liked by gentiles, no? Were the LDS believers not often forced out of town because they were not liked?

Are you saying that people in those early days did indeed admire Joseph Smith and think he was an honorable man?

Aside from the polygamy issue, selling swamp land that was known to cause harm (even death) to people surely suggests some not so great traits, at least in my opinion.

I'm open to learning here.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't buy the "God said" excuse whether it comes from David Koresh, The House of Yahway prophet, Joseph Smith or anyone else. :-(

Well I agree that anytime anyone says God says we better be petty sure about it.

I'm sure there were non-believers who thought highly of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith... but it seems to me that the majority of folks didn't care much for them. It seems to me even Joseph Smith knew he was not well liked by gentiles, no? Were the LDS believers not often forced out of town because they were not liked?

There are lots of reasons the saints were driven out of places other than the leaders being scoundrals. And they may not have been liked for other reasons. Religous bigotyr comes to mind. Were the Jews in Germany during WWII treated the way they were because they were scoundrels. Were they disliked justifiably? I think you walk a dangerous path here.

Are you saying that people in those early days did indeed admire Joseph Smith and think he was an honorable man?

I thing there were non LDS who thought highly of Smith. I think they were limited but there were some. And his followers mostly trusted him and thought highly of him. Some abandoned him...most stuck with him.

Aside from the polygamy issue, selling swamp land that was known to cause harm (even death) to people surely suggests some not so great traits, at least in my opinion.

I do no think Smith knew the land could expose people to death. He may have known it was less than desirable.