Was Joseph Smith Trustworthy?

[_why me]

The big difference here is none of these people dug for buried treasure. Told stories about Golden Books before claiming to have one. Joe is the one that claimed to see God and/or Jesus in 9 vision accounts. Joe is the one who claimed to talk to Nephi/Moroni. Claimed to translate the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Bible, the Kinderhook plates, etc. not your list. Joe claimed to be greater than Jesus. joe claims to prophecy and visions, those on your list didn't.

It still rests with Joe.

I don't see the buried treasure as a problem at all. It would seem that with his experience he would be a good man for the job. In fact, it seems that he was being prepared for his destiny. Not only did Joseph Smith see god, but others who were with him saw other visions too if Oliver is to be believed.

But those on my list claimed to see something and stuck with it for their entire lives. Are they trustworthy becomes an important question. Now Joseph Smith's mom is included because her husband is one of the 11 witnesses. I am sure that he told his wife something about it and what transpired. And Emma was no women to be duped by a trick. I am sure that they both had interesting conversations about what was under the linen.

Was she trustworthy, after all she lied to her son about polygamy.

[_WjExMo]

Yep, he was completely trustworthy.

You hand him your cash, and you got back a 3 dollar bill.

Turn around, and he's married your wife and daughter right out from underneath you.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Okay, so let me ask the question again:

Was Oliver Cowdery trustworthy?

Was David Whitmer trustworthy?

Was Martin Harris trustworthy?

Was Joseph Smith's father trustworthy?

Was Emma Trustworthy?

Where the 11 witnesses trustworthy?

We need more trustworthiness than just Joseph Smith's.

I'm not at all convinced that we moderns can look back many decades into the past and
pass valid judgments upon individuals, within the context of their own time and place.

We can try to do that, I suppose. I sometimes try to do that -- with mixed results.

Each one of us can try and respond -- guessing how we ourselves would have reacted,
had we been alive back then. We can then tabulate our various opinions and develop
some sort of consensus.

But our results, in such a process, will not necessarily be the same as would have been
obtained back at the beginning of Mormonism.

D.P. Hurlbut gathered his own set of "trustworthiness" opinions from Smith's neighbors
back in 1833. Five years later, Heber Kimball admitted that there were not a hundred
Mormons left in the Church at Kirtland who still trusted Joseph Smith.

What value are such "snapshots" of public opinion? Things change over time.
Today there is a great LDS Temple at Palmyra -- so local perceptions must have improved.

You ask whether Martin Harris was trustworthy? The D&C judges him to be a "wicked man,"
who sets at naught his covenants with God.

You ask whether Hiram Page was trustworthy? The D&C condemns his peepstone fraud
and instructs Oliver Cowdery to repair the damage thus done in the Church.

Had you been living in Palmyra in 1830, how far would you have trusted Page and Harris?

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
But just as some left others joined and they did not join because the LDS church was restorationist.
...

That was precisely why my own ancestral relative, Andrews Tyler, joined in 1831.
Two years later -- after hosting Joseph Smith, Jr. at his cabin in Springfield, PA,
Andrews left the Church. He still believed in its "First Principles;" but he did not
believe in all of Joseph Smith's claims for the Book of Mormon.

On his deathbed, Andrews had his blessings restored and was accepted back into
the Church ---- still questioning the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith. But he continued
to hold fast to the "First Principles of the Gospel" and to the active presence of the
Holy Ghost in his life. That was enough (in 1835) for his re-ordination (without re-baptism).
In 1835 disbelief in the Book of Mormon's historicity was not yet grounds for excommunication.

Too bad he did not survive to see the Saints' Reorganization of the Church in 1860, eh?

UD

[_why me]

You ask whether Martin Harris was trustworthy? The D&C judges him to be a "wicked man,"
who sets at naught his covenants with God.

You ask whether Hiram Page was trustworthy? The D&C condemns his peepstone fraud
and instructs Oliver Cowdery to repair the damage thus done in the Church.

Had you been living in Palmyra in 1830, how far would you have trusted Page and Harris?

UD

Well, I don't know. If I were a normal person back then, quietly going to my small methodist church, I would not have trusted them at all. But then again, if I would have read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it, and received a witness, maybe my trust level would improve.

Now you bring up an interesting problem. If Joseph Smith (if he were a fraud) condemned both men, why did not these men spill the beans? Here would have been a great reason to come clean and say: hey Joe, remember me, I was in on it...don't try to jerk me around with these phoney revelations.

[_why me]

...
But just as some left others joined and they did not join because the LDS church was restorationist.
...

That was precisely why my own ancestral relative, Andrews Tyler, joined in 1831.
Two years later -- after hosting Joseph Smith, Jr. at his cabin in Springfield, PA,
Andrews left the Church. He still believed in its "First Principles;" but he did not
believe in all of Joseph Smith's claims for the Book of Mormon.

On his deathbed, Andrews had his blessings restored and was accepted back into
the Church ---- still questioning the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith. But he continued
to hold fast to the "First Principles of the Gospel" and to the active presence of the
Holy Ghost in his life. That was enough (in 1835) for his re-ordination (without re-baptism).
In 1835 disbelief in the Book of Mormon's historicity was not yet grounds for excommunication.

UD

Such is the problem with many members today. They are in the same boat as your ancestral relative. Hard to deny the Holy Ghost.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Hard to deny the Holy Ghost.
...

I am pleased to hear that you acknowledge the active presence of God's Spirit
in the religious lives of the Reorganized LDS.

I have even heard you say some things, along those lines, in the case of Roman Catholics.

If more Mormons exhibited your open-mindedness, I might be better inclined to fellowship them.

UD

[_why me]

...
Hard to deny the Holy Ghost.
...

I am pleased to hear that you acknowledge the active presence of God's Spirit
in the religious lives of the Reorganized LDS.

I have even heard you say some things, along those lines, in the case of Roman Catholics.

If more Mormons exhibited your open-mindedness, I might be better inclined to fellowship them.

UD

I believe that the holy spirit is in many places where there is holiness. I have felt peace and the gentle spirit of god in the catholic church in my area. I am sure that your relative also felt the spirit. I think that god would rather have a person to be a devout catholic than an atheist. Likewise for RLDS. I don't see evil in the RLDS.

I still remember when I was 18 I read a strange name on a church. It read: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I never heard of that name before and I never heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But they got me first because a young woman at my college orientation. I went to visit her and she and her roommate where watching General Conference and the rest is history. No marriage but a great friendship.

I would be surprised if Mormons would deny that people of other faiths can have the pressence of the holy ghost. But who knows...maybe so.

[_Ray A]

I would be surprised if Mormons would deny that people of other faiths can have the pressence of the holy ghost. But who knows...maybe so.

I'm slowly realising you don't know very much about Mormonism at all. With that in mind it's easy to see why you could actually end up embarrassing apologists. DCP may not be very well liked, but at least he knows what he's talking about, and when to remain silent.

Mormons believe that all people can experience the presence of the HG, but it will not remain with them as a "gift" unless they are baptised and confirmed into the Church. Thus for the "gift" to "work properly", they must be worthy of the HG, but they can, supposedly, call upon the HG and receive "his" administration more readily than someone who does not have that gift.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read the Book of Mormon all the way through. It's patently clear there are some very basic Mormon doctrines you don't grasp.

[_Uncle Dale]

\
...
Mormons believe that all people can experience the presence of the HG, but it will not remain with them as a "gift" unless they are baptised and confirmed into the Church.
...

There are also a sub-set of Mormons who have told me that the "Holy Ghost"
is only bestowed by the laying on of hands of LDS Elders with an unbroken line
of authority back to Joseph Smith, Jr.

Thus, any "non-bestowed" manifestations of the "Holy Ghost" are transitory in
nature and are not comparable to the "baptism of fire" reported for the 1st Pentecost.

In my own case, I have been told that I was deceived, in experiencing the abiding
presence of the Holy Ghost, because the line of authority relied upon by my
baptizers and confirmers had been "broken" in the RLDS "apostasy."

All of that having been said, I am not absolutely certain that the current LDS
First Presidency promulgates such a strict interpretation of doctrine. If the Mormon
leaders do not currently preach what I have just stated, then perhaps "why me"
has simply stated some recent evolution in LDS doctrine.

As for my own religious profession, I am quite happy to affirm that the "Holy Ghost"
is not automatically "bestowed" by the confirming elders of any particular church.

At least THAT is one point of common ground I can share with my atheist friends.

But, getting back to "trusting" in Joseph Smith, Jr. .........

Oh well, I don't care much for that doctrine either.

UD