Warren Jeffs/Joseph Smith, LDS/FLDS response to immorality

[_Mercury]

I think my point is obvious.

Your point that Mormons rationalize the indefensible behavior of joe is very obvious. Thank you for further enlightenment!

[_Sethbag]

Thanks Bob for providing me with a poster child for the attitude discussed in my original post.

[_Runtu]

I think my point is obvious.

Well, as far as I can figure it, your point is that we don't really believe what we're saying; we're just using Warren Jeffs as another club with which to beat Joseph Smith.

[_rcrocket]

Thanks Bob for providing me with a poster child for the attitude discussed in my original post.

Your opening post was very enlightening.

Aren't there better examples, people who actually knew the prophet Joseph Smith?

After all, William Strang claimed to see angels, claimed to have plates (and even showed them to whomever would ask!!), and claimed to be able to direct the right to practice polygamy. People fought and died for him. And, like Joseph Smith, he was martyred. Isn't this vignette adequate proof of the falsity of Mormonism?

Why is it necessary to cite (for your pointing and mocking) as an example a group of people and a prophet, Jeffs, who are displaced from Joseph the Seer by over 160 years?

I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?


rcrocket

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Yes, as long as there is duality in the world -- good and evil -- the likes of you are going to analogize the works of evil to the works of good to discredit the latter.

So which one is evil and which is good? Is Joseph Smith evil and Jeffs good? The point of the thread is the similarity of their behaviors. Where did you get your information about Warren Jeffs? Have you talked to the FLDS people about him? You wouldn't go to a Chevy dealer to learn about a Ford, right? The FLDS people received a spiritual witness that Jeffs is their prophet. Obviously, you have not received this same witness. To try to describe it to you would be like trying to describe color to someone who only sees black and white.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Aren't there better examples, people who actually knew the prophet Joseph Smith?

After all, William Strang claimed to see angels, claimed to have plates (and even showed them to whomever would ask!!), and claimed to be able to direct the right to practice polygamy. People fought and died for him. And, like Joseph Smith, he was martyred. Isn't this vignette adequate proof of the falsity of Mormonism?

Why is it necessary to cite (for your pointing and mocking) as an example a group of people and a prophet, Jeffs, who are displaced from Joseph the Seer by over 160 years?

I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?


rcrocket

Rcrocket, you make a great point. This is the best strategy to get true believers to open their mind. Applying my opinions of other religious leaders to Mormonism is what got me thinking outside the box. in my opinion, it is the best strategy to get Mormons (and any religious true believer) to think critically about their church and their leaders.

[_evolving]

I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?
rcrocket

the leap from orthodox Mormonisim to non-Christian agnostic or atheist - is a huge step.. arguing that Krishna and Christ are both individuals based on similar mythology would not go through the reality filter provided by the Mormon paradigm. in my opinion to accept the above as a plausible or possible reality, you would first need to comfortably acknowledge the similar behavior between Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith. or James Strang and Joseph Smith - or Gordon Hinkley and Joseph Smith -- of course the latter would provide more discrepancy that similarities.. but seeing these men as just men is a good place to start.

[_Sethbag]

Thanks Bob for providing me with a poster child for the attitude discussed in my original post.

Your opening post was very enlightening.

Aren't there better examples, people who actually knew the prophet Joseph Smith?

You mean people like William Law? Or perhaps people like Emma, who was so enfuriated by Joseph's philandering that she was about ready to rip his balls off? How about people like Sarah Pratt, who resisted Joseph's propositions to her and paid the price in reputation?

I'm not sure you understood the gist of the original post. The gist of the original post was to show that for people who have convinced themselves that their "prophet" is really God's true prophet on Earth, it really doesn't matter what that man has done, since they will simply choose to ignore it and disregard it and keep believing anyway. At least, that's the less-sophisticated way of doing it. The somewhat more sophisticated way is to justify or rationalize the bad behavior, or "shift one's paradigm" to accommodate that sort of behavior while retaining the Prime Directive, which is that the man be a true prophet, no matter what.

Can you actually tell me the difference between LDS people shrugging off the misdeeds of Joseph Smith and saying hey, all that is crap and I know he's a true prophet, and FLDS members shrugging off Warren Jeffs' own confession of serious immoral sin and denial of his prophetic mantle, and saying hey, that's all crap and I know he's a true prophet? Can you tell me what is the essential difference between these two, other than "we're right and they're wrong?"

After all, William Strang claimed to see angels, claimed to have plates (and even showed them to whomever would ask!!), and claimed to be able to direct the right to practice polygamy. People fought and died for him. And, like Joseph Smith, he was martyred. Isn't this vignette adequate proof of the falsity of Mormonism?

It's proof that people will do that sort of thing. It's not proof that Joseph Smith's followers did the same thing, but it definitely helps establish a "big picture" pattern, along with many other examples you might have cited, of misguided believers following a false prophet or leader. A large group, I might add, to which the Latter Day Saints belong.

[_Scottie]

I had cornered DCP about Joseph Smith and his charlatan ways in the polygamy thread at MAD, and he mysteriously jumped over to start arguing with Yme, completely ignoring our little thread.

I'll give some tidbits here...

Why shouldn't we look at Joseph Smith with the same critical eye we would any other charlatan that claims God spoke to him?

To translate your hostile statement into something less question-begging: "Why shouldn't we be as careful in evaluating the claims to revelation of Joseph Smith as we would be with anybody else making such claims?"

We should be.

There seems to be general confusion as to why people have such a problem with this. How can you look at the way Joseph Smith went about instituting polygamy and not see charlatan attributes in him?

I can easily see why somebody, looking at the origins of plural marriage, might judge Joseph Smith a charlatan. As I've said many times, this is the most difficult issue, for believers, in Joseph's biography.

Here's the deal: Let's say that reports reach me that Robert has done something really horrific. Now let's say that I've been aware of Robert for years, and that I've long since formed a negative view of his character. These latest reports simply confirm my judgment. Alternatively, let's say that I knew nothing whatever about Robert before I heard the reports. The reports now form my judgment of him, unless something arrives to mitigate their implications. They're all I know about him. Finally, let's say that I've known Robert very well for many years, and have always known him to be selfless, kind, and honorable. In that light, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume (at least until further facts are in and, for example, I've had a chance to hear from him) that, even if the reports about him are shocking, there is something (and perhaps something fully vindicating) to say in his defense. The reactions are very different to precisely the same "fact" (the shocking reports).

It's all about prior assumptions. You've decided that Joseph was not a prophet. You believe that there is probably no God. Accordingly, plural marriage cannot have been a divine revelation. That cannot help but shape your evaluation of Joseph Smith's behavior at the beginnings of Mormon plural marriage. I believe that there is a God, and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. That too shapes my evaluation of his behavior. Early plural marriage is at best murky, and can easily seem quite evil -- and, particularly in our own sex-drenched contemporary culture, obvious quite non-divine explanations suggest themselves immediately. Our prior assumptions about Joseph Smith push us in different directions on this issue.

I happen to think that there are real historical problems with the notion that Joseph was simply motivated by lust. (Richard Bushman has alluded to some of these in Rough Stone Rolling.) I also think that awkwardness and hurt were bound to ensue with the commencement of plural marriage even if it was a commandment of God, and particularly given the fact that the earliest practice was (for reasons that are, again, understandable even to someone who believes in Joseph's prophethood) more or less clandestine. Was it messy? Yes. Does it, on its own, seem to count against his prophetic claims? Yes. Does that prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet? Not in my judgment.

If I understand what you are saying here, you seem to be insinuating that Josephs character was squeaky clean up until he started polygamy. I think there is sufficient evidence of charlatan type activities from his adolescence.

I don't think that anybody's character is "squeaky clean," apart from Jesus.

But I think that Joseph was a good and sincere man.

If I'm even remotely qualified as a judge of human character, what I've read from him in Dean Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith shows him to have been deeply devout, humble, and sincere. And Mark McConkie's extensive collection of materials in Remembering Joseph, along with Hyrum Andrus's much earlier They Knew the Prophet, is entirely consistent with that perception, as, I think, is Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.

And don't those types of men make the best charlatans? Those that have everyone fooled into thinking they are the salt of the earth?

I have no doubt that Joseph Smith was an exceptionally personable and charasmatic man. If he weren't, Mormonism would have never left the ground.

I think you're really, really stretching if you're going to try to turn the fact that scores if not hundreds of people who knew him left testimonials to his kindness, sincerity, humility, dedication, etc., into evidence against him.

And, by the way, when I speak of Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, I have reference, for the most part, to things that he didn't write for publication, that cannot plausibly be considered part of any "performance" for the public. They provide, I think, a real mirror into his soul -- and that soul seems to be sincerely devout. I understand that this is a subjective judgment, but we form judgments of the character of others all the time. We have no choice but to do it, and our success in business, in life, and so forth, depends upon our ability to do it. I've devoted a considerable amount of effort to getting to know Joseph (so far as it's possible to do at this distance), and I'll have to be convinced that I'm an unusually poor judge of character.

I don't think so. You admitted above that Joseph Smith did indeed do charlatan type activities, and you can see why someone might think him a charlatan.

Again, if I pointed out all the other false prophets and religious leaders that have done questionable activities, ones that you would call a charlatan, I'm pretty sure the followers would claim the same thing you do about Joseph Smith. That these leaders live an impecable, although imperfect life, and have the highest standards! That there is no way that THEIR leader could be anything but what he claims to be.

At which point he ignored me and started dialoging with Yme.

So, if I understood his point correctly, although Joseph Smith didn't have a squeeky clean track record, his life was of the highest caliber and this should outweigh any questionable activities he might have committed. Because, after all, they were just not what Joseph Smith would have done. He wasn't that kind of guy.

[_Zoidberg]

Even when the prophet comes right out and tells them he's a scumbag and has never been a prophet, they will still hold on to their preconceived notions. Amazing.

The Church (both LDS and FLDS) has outgrown its leaders, it looks like, and has become a self-sustaining entity.

Question for TBMs: if GBH were to publicly announce that he has never been a prophet (not necessarily confessing to being a sex offender or any such horrible deeds), would that affect your beliefs? Or would you write it off as him finally slipping into senility?