What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Runtu]

I don't say we should write a blank moral check for the founders of major religious traditions. I don't say Joseph Smith was right in everything he said and did. No religious founder is above criticism.

Saying that you could justify something if you thought he had everyone's best interests at heart is perilously close to writing a blank moral check.

[_Kishkumen]

Saying that you could justify something if you thought he had everyone's best interests at heart is perilously close to writing a blank moral check.

Especially given the standard many apply in their justifications and arguments (excepting Nevo for the time being). One wonders what would qualify as evidence that a prophet did not have one's best interests at heart. Brigham Young, after all, suggested that executing a person might be in his best interests. The Old Testament and the LDS rhetoric of the 1850s suggested that mass slaughter might be in the best interests of some, according to divine decree. Who decides and what is the standard? Is there any reliable check?

[_Nevo]

What pressures [did Joseph face], other than the pressures of his over-active vas deferens?

I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to go into it in depth, but Ronald Esplin lays it all out in his JMH article "The Significance of Nauvoo for Latter-day Saints." I think Esplin's article provides some insight into why Joseph theological innovations in Nauvoo, including polygamy, were pushed through with such urgency and seeming recklessness.

[Guest]

So L. Ron Hubbard probably will be immune from charges of abusive behavior, but David Koresh probably won't be.

Hubbard is a great case to consider in this regard. Right now his movement appears to be prosperous and it has managed to attract some famous people. It claims millions of adherents, although it is difficult to gauge membership in a group that has more of a consumption model of participation. Maybe Hubbard and Miscavige are to be indulged their bizarre and abusive behavior because of the wonderful work Scientology does to get people to quit smoking, ideally by joining their group and paying for e-meter sessions to free their bodies from the ravages of oppressive thetans and bad memories on the route to Scientology deification as an Operating Thetan.

Would Americans vote for a Scientologist and send him to the Oval Office? Would we blame them for being unsettled about the idea? Would it be mere bigotry for them to be unwilling to do so? Of course, the whole argument gets really tricky when we exchange the word "Scientologist" with "Muslim," but clearly many Americans are not willing to vote for a Muslim and are determined to vote out a man whose great misfortune was to be conceived by one. So, yes, I think bigotry is a problem, but when you approach these questions from the Mormon perspective it is more useful to think about how to deal with the issue instead of simply condemning the masses for their rank bigotry.

If I were a Scientologist, for example, I would carefully consider how I formulated my arguments about the limits of the leader's legitimate power, particularly if I had my eye on the President.

[_Themis]

I might, if I was willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt; if I believed they sincerely had everyone's best interests at heart.

I don't say that Joseph was right to threaten. But I do think it is understandable under the circumstances, and frankly I'm willing to give him a pass on this. I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes, facing the pressures he faced.

This really is disturbing that you would give them a pass, and that you would probably have done the same. It does make some sense when I look around and see how many have given passes and even helped out in killing Jews because they believed their leaders that it was in their best interests. Killing ones neighboring country, man, women and children because God said to. It's this kind of thing that should make any sane person realize that they should not put to much trust in the spiritual experiences and the interpretations they believe or someone tells them to get.

I wonder why couldn't God have the decency to send and angel with a flaming sword to Emma. He at least had the decency to tell Joseph, Mary's Husband, that she was not sleeping around.

So I guess this is another thread in which no one could point to any specific lies in the Nauvoo Expositor other then strongly worded opinions that different people could reasonable disagree on.

[_Nevo]

Saying that you could justify something if you thought he had everyone's best interests at heart is perilously close to writing a blank moral check.

That's a fair comment. "To justify" means "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable." I'm only concerned here with what is "reasonable" or understandable behavior under the circumstances. I am certainly not arguing that people who believe they are acting in others' best interests are always, in fact, doing so. That's clearly not the case.

[_Themis]

But I do think that when a religious movement gains millions of adherents all over the world, giving meaning and purpose to the lives of people far removed in time and place from the faith's culture of origin, that perhaps—perhaps—there is something there. Perhaps those founders perceived some truths, enjoyed a measure of inspiration, and weren't wholly misguided.

Even if they enjoyed some measure of truth or inspiration does not mean we should accept or justify the bad. Even the worst people have some good in them.

[_Joseph]

Neho wrote: "But I do think that when a religious movement gains millions of adherents all over the world, giving meaning and purpose to the lives of people far removed in time and place from the faith's culture of origin, that perhaps—perhaps—there is something there. Perhaps those founders perceived some truths, enjoyed a measure of inspiration, and weren't wholly misguided."

*****************************************

Allah is great.

[Guest]

That's a fair comment. "To justify" means "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable." I'm only concerned here with what is "reasonable" or understandable behavior under the circumstances. I am certainly not arguing that people who believe they are acting in others' best interests are always, in fact, doing so. That's clearly not the case.

Again, I am interested in the distinction between what is "understandable" and what is to be held up as normative for the religion. Can I understand that it is the case that someone like Wayne Bent, David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, will, as a millenarian prophet, sleep with young women in his group? Yes, on an intellectual level I have to accept that this does happen. But the question is not exactly that in the end, is it? The question is more one of the place that Joseph Smith occupies in the tradition. That needs to be carefully defined in order to settle questions concerning what is permissible in the LDS model of leadership.

[_Buffalo]

What pressures [did Joseph face], other than the pressures of his over-active vas deferens?

I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to go into it in depth, but Ronald Esplin lays it all out in his JMH article "The Significance of Nauvoo for Latter-day Saints." I think Esplin's article provides some insight into why Joseph theological innovations in Nauvoo, including polygamy, were pushed through with such urgency and seeming recklessness.

Joseph's adultery started long before Nauvoo, and it wasn't necessary for him to bed 30+ women in order to establish the principle. On the contrary, it seems Joseph did everything he could to avoid establishing it by denying that he practiced it and outlawing it officially in the church.

Which begs the question, if he wasn't doing anything to productively establish it as doctrine, what were his motives for bedding so many women and girls?