Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Simon Belmont]

When a man claims to speak for God, it kinda puts him off the human scale, Simon. Perfect isn't too much to ask of God, is it?

Personally, I'm much more interested in the misdeeds of our present leadership, one in particular.

Harmony, seriously? You don't know much about the church you claim to be a member of.

[_Simon Belmont]

I find it odd, frankly, that a person can start a "mega thread" on the issues

You are welcome, again, to not participate if it offends you.

with Joseph Smith and not feel somewhere in their soul a whisper that asks, "Why exactly am I even needing to start a thread on a person who claimed to be a prophet that excuses numerous issues including fraud, adultery, willful deceit, and undermines any probability of the LDS faith being true if such claims are even remotely valid?" Thus my Escher reference earlier.

Excuse me? Around here we do not make claims which cannot be backed up. So, where do you get the ideas about adultery, fraud, willful deceit.

Further, how would it "undermine any probability of the LDS faith being true if such claims are even remotely valid?"

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not sure what you mean, and moreover, "damning" is your term---not mine. It's not clear just what "context" would help justify, say, Zelph, or Joseph Smith's "courtship" of Helen Mar Kimball, or the Adam-God doctrine, or BY's teachings about the conception of Jesus, or the destruction of the printing press.

You see, I have a problem when critics continually bring these things up, even though they have been resolved.

Just one example: there is no evidence that the relationship with Kimball was ever consummated. Further, she felt protected and blessed to be a plural wife.

Where, in my above remarks, did I say anything about "consummation"? That's a distortion on your part. There *is* evidence that Kimball was made Joseph Smith's "wife" via coercive methods. ("Courtship" and "consummation" mean different things, yes?) The point here is that these sorts of facts tend to get omitted in "official" Church venues. That's been the point all along, and it's the point that you continue to deny---apparently so that you can grant the Church a free pass and absolve it of all wrongdoing. It's weird that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your own position: you freely admit that that Church has "dark" spots in its past, and yet you are unwilling or unable to see how these "dark" aspects can emotionally wound people.

There's no reason for me to do that. The simple fact that BY preached the doctrine from the pulpit is enough to cite it as "objectionable."

It is, indeed, objectionable.

Then my point stands: Your analogy involving Bob Ross was sloppy and inaccurate.

That said, I would think that Jean Baptiste, the beheaded "grave robber," probably counts as an instance of someone who was "blood atoned."

You can't be serious.

What's your hypothesis for his beheading, then?

What, some *other* sorts of murders by Church members are acceptable?

They are not acceptable, but they are not instances of blood atonement.

Which, of course, is beside the point. I brought up BA in the first place in order to demonstrate why your Bob Ross analogy was flawed. You attempted to show that the Church's "lies by omission" in regard to things like Blood Atonement are on a par with failure to discuss criticisms of Bob Ross's paintings.

Well, your argument in that regard has been blown to smithereens.

If you include, "don't read 'anti' material," then I suppose you're right---at least in part.

I include "don't read mis-representative trash"

Simon: your own argument here has been that the Church never wounds people emotionally via half-truths about its own history. You yourself, in your next comment, are going to suggest that the Church doesn't need to tell the full truth because doing so isn't "necessary"! Take a look:

The Church never, ever presents embarrassing history in the sorts of scenarios you're describing,

Please point out an organization that does.
Also, please state why it is necessary that they teach every little insignificant bit of history to come unto Christ.

Do history departments at reputable universities count as "organizations"? I'm glad that you're claiming here that this material is "insignificant" w/ regards to getting people to "come unto Christ." The obvious implication here is that telling people up-front about MMM, Blacks and the priesthood, Kolob, Zelph, and so on would be testimony-killers. Of course you and the Church don't want this stuff to surface in conversations about Mormonism.

Many people who wind up leaving the Church after reading encountering the "meat" state in no uncertain terms that they were harmed emotionally. The analogy is perfectly apt, Simon.

The "meat" that apostates encounter is almost always half-truths, misquotations, and other misrepresentations.

This is disproved by your own admissions on this thread. You yourself admitted that BY's preaching about Blood Atonement was "objectionable."

Then they blame the Church for "duping" them this whole time, when it was always their choice. Astounding!

You've essentially admitted that "duping" is what the Church does, since it isn't "necessary that they teach every little insignificant bit of history to come unto Christ." If you leave out the unpleasant truths, you run the risk that people will be hurt/upset when they learn the whole story.

[_Kishkumen]

They most definitely should. I was asking for a reference to someone who has actually been "blood atoned." Context, Rev. Kishkumen.

I trust I shouldn't have to spell out how I went from one to the other to someone as clever and learned as you. It was a legitimate concern, and I stand by it.

[_Kishkumen]

You see, I have a problem when critics continually bring these things up, even though they have been resolved.

LOL. Resolved? Resolved is a very subjective term here, professor. Obviously the fact that they have been "resolved" in your mind does not mean that they have been in the minds of others. I suppose that could be why critics "keep bringing these things up"!

[_honorentheos]

I find it odd, frankly, that a person can start a "mega thread" on the issues

You are welcome, again, to not participate if it offends you.

You misunderstand, Simon. I find it interesting in an odd way that "mega threads" always become this sort of "shine a light on everything without actually investigating anything" catch-all. In the end, I suppose it allows one to feel that they have done their due diligence. Personally, I have no problem with taking the broad view when that is actually what is done in the thread. In this case, it is not. You are focusing on one set of stairs in the Escher painting and saying, "Yes, we can walk on those", then going around and around to each set of stairs making similar odd remarks. Putting each piece together has it's place and value. Given the stated purpose of this thread, I think the mega thread was the wrong choice for getting at the heart of the issues regarding Joseph Smith, and better suited to your needs of acknowledging they are felt by others without actually examining them.

Which, by the way, is why I started the thread on the first vision. Given one of your responses below, I think I'll also start one on polygamy in the 19th century LDS church.

Excuse me? Around here we do not make claims which cannot be backed up. So, where do you get the ideas about adultery, fraud, willful deceit.

I could expound on this, but in the spirit of your thread I offer two words - Emma Hale. I assume you've read her biography?

[_Simon Belmont]

Where, in my above remarks, did I say anything about "consummation"? That's a distortion on your part.

You did not say anything about consummation, but you conveniently left out that there is no evidence that it ever happened. What, really, is the difference between Joseph Smith having a wedding ceremony or sealing with more than one women if (in this case) in wasn't consummated? It then just becomes a ceremony, and one either recognizes that ceremony's meaning, or he does not.

There *is* evidence that Kimball was made Joseph Smith's "wife" via coercive methods.

There very well may be, but I question the source of this evidence. For example, are you aware of this quotation by Helen Mar Kimball concerning being a plural wife?

I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right. At various times I have been healed by the washing and annointing, administered by the mothers in Israel. I am still spared to testify to the truth and Godliness of this work; and though my happiness once consisted in laboring for those I love, the Lord has seen fit to deprive me of bodily strength, and taught me to 'cast my bread upon the waters' and after many days my longing spirit was cheered with the knowledge that He had a work for me to do, and with Him, I know that all things are possible…

The point here is that these sorts of facts tend to get omitted in "official" Church venues. That's been the point all along, and it's the point that you continue to deny---apparently so that you can grant the Church a free pass and absolve it of all wrongdoing.

I have repeatedly stated that the Church is not perfect, and that is has black marks on its history.
I have also repeatedly stated that not every morsel of historical fact is brought up in Church meetings; I believe this is for two reasons:
[list][*]There simply is not enough time, in the one hour Sunday School session, for example, to focus on things that are not part of the official four-fold mission of the Church. It is, after all, what going to Church is for.
[*]Blemishes in the Church's history do not help bring people to Christ.

Again, did my third grade mathematics teacher lie to me when she didn't explain linear algebra?

It's weird that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your own position: you freely admit that that Church has "dark" spots in its past, and yet you are unwilling or unable to see how these "dark" aspects can emotionally wound people.

I see no contradiction. How does a historical fact hurt someone? For example, we are told a mostly romanticized version of the Revolutionary time period in our history classes in grammar school. Upon further reading, the student may discover that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and may have had a child with one Sally Hemmings. This information, although slightly disturbing, does not make me hate America, and I do not feel duped by America.

Then my point stands: Your analogy involving Bob Ross was sloppy and inaccurate.

Not really, because it is also objectionable that all of Bob Ross's paintings look the same. To some, no doubt, discovering this truth brought much heartache.

What's your hypothesis for his beheading, then?

I do not believe there is evidence that he was beheaded. He had his ears cut off, and was exiled to Antelope Island for stealing clothing out of grave sites. This has nothing to do with the Church.

Which, of course, is beside the point.

No, it is not. I requested a reference for someone who had been blood atoned. I made the stipulation that things like MMM were not valid as blood atonement examples. At which point implied that I supported murders by Mormons that weren't related to the blood atonement.

Well, your argument in that regard has been blown to smithereens.

Yes, the strawman you set up has been blown to smithereens, congratulations.

Simon: your own argument here has been that the Church never wounds people emotionally via half-truths about its own history.

Yes, except they are not "half-truths" anymore than addition is a mathematical "half-truth" because I didn't learn differential calculus in third grade.

You yourself, in your next comment, are going to suggest that the Church doesn't need to tell the full truth because doing so isn't "necessary"! Take a look:

Why do you believe that it is necessary? Do you imagine that every Church session should be an advanced course in history, or should it be a worship service like every other church? Likewise, would it be a good idea for my third grade teacher to teach me simple addition before delving into more complex mathematics?

Do history departments at reputable universities count as "organizations"?

Yes. Show me a mathematics 1010 class which teaches and tests on the entire spectrum of known mathematics.

I'm glad that you're claiming here that this material is "insignificant" w/ regards to getting people to "come unto Christ."

It is. The only significant material for Sunday School/Sacrament is that which testifies of Christ.

The obvious implication here is that telling people up-front about MMM,

We learned about this in Institute.

Blacks and the priesthood,

Talks in Sacrament and Institute.

Kolob,

I learned about this in Institute/Seminary.

Zelph,

I do not know why this bothers you. We do not even know if Joseph Smith believed anything about it. It is a third party corroboration of a couple of different early saint's journal writings. Give it a rest, it does not matter. I do not understand why you let Zelph bother you so much.

and so on would be testimony-killers. Of course you and the Church don't want this stuff to surface in conversations about Mormonism.

Sorry, my testimony is stronger than ever, and I learned about all of these things (except Zelph) at an early age.

This is disproved by your own admissions on this thread. You yourself admitted that BY's preaching about Blood Atonement was "objectionable."

It is, but it was his opinion. He is entitled to have one, just as you are or I am.

You've essentially admitted that "duping" is what the Church does, since it isn't "necessary that they teach every little insignificant bit of history to come unto Christ." If you leave out the unpleasant truths, you run the risk that people will be hurt/upset when they learn the whole story.

No, I haven't. I blamed the former members who are angry because they believe the Church duped them, when in fact, if they truly feel duped they have only themselves to blame.

[_Jersey Girl]

Simon

No, I haven't. I blamed the former members who are angry because they believe the Church duped them, when in fact, if they truly feel duped they have only themselves to blame.

Why? Why do they have only themselves to blame for feeling duped?

[_AtticusFinch]

Simon

No, I haven't. I blamed the former members who are angry because they believe the Church duped them, when in fact, if they truly feel duped they have only themselves to blame.

Why? Why do they have only themselves to blame for feeling duped?

because Simon can't bear blaming the false prophet he worships for all his lies

[_Jersey Girl]

Why? Why do they have only themselves to blame for feeling duped?

because Simon can;t bear blaming the false prophet mhe worships for all his lies

Was I talking to you?