The "do or die" approach to Joseph Smith.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:16 pm

What does everyone think of Joseph B. Wirthlin's "do or die" approach to Joseph Smith. He must be accepted as a prophet or rejected as a charlatan. There is no middle ground. Do you agree? Wirthlin leaves no room for a Pious Fraud theory. Because of the specific claims Joseph made, Wirthlin is probably right.

"“Not everything in life is so black and white, but the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our religion seem to be exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, a prophet who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from Moroni’s lips, and eventually received at his hands a set of ancient gold plates that he then translated by the gift and power of God, or else he did not. And if he did not, he would not be entitled to the reputation of New England folk hero, or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, nor would he be entitled to be considered a great teacher, a quintessential American religious leader, or the creator of great devotional literature. If he had lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would certainly be none of these."

"“I am suggesting that one has to take something of a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 345–46)."

Joseph B. Wirthlin, “The Book of Mormon: The Heart of Missionary Proselyting,” Ensign, Sep 2002, 13

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:21 pm

I think it leaves some room for pious fraud, but it seems Elder Wirthlin doesn't see pious fraud as laudable, and if purposeful dishonesty was the root of all Joseph Smith did, it would discredit him.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:22 pm

There were too many other people who were particpants in visions and manifestations with Joseph Smith to give any credence to the pious fraud theory. Of course, I suppose someone could think that a hundreds of people who experienced those events were all pious frauds, also. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Seems to me like it is "in for a penny, in for a pound."

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:40 pm

Were I to take Elder Wirthlin's counsel to heart, I would no longer believe the Bible to be the word of God.

Oh, wait a second, I don't.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm

I tend to think that there's a possibility that he may have been akin to this type of person...

(For anyone who doesn't recognize the face... it's John F. Nash).

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:44 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote:I tend to think that there's a possibility that he may have been akin to this type of person...

A paranoid schizophrenic?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:47 pm

Trevor wrote:
Doctor Steuss wrote:I tend to think that there's a possibility that he may have been akin to this type of person...

A paranoid schizophrenic?

A very high-functioning one, yes. There are times in my days of doubt where I think Joseph believed he was a prophet, and spoke to G-d. In a way, this help explain it (and in a way, adds a bit of an explanation to the production of the Book of Mormon).

Post by **_karl61** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:48 pm

charity wrote:There were too many other people who were particpants in visions and manifestations with Joseph Smith to give any credence to the pious fraud theory. Of course, I suppose someone could think that a hundreds of people who experienced those events were all pious frauds, also. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Seems to me like it is "in for a penny, in for a pound."

and some of those who saw visions or manifestations were teenagers who married him and then were dumped.

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:49 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote:A very high-functioning one, yes. There are times in my days of doubt where I think Joseph believed he was a prophet, and spoke to G-d. In a way, this help explain it (and in a way, adds a bit of an explanation to the production of the Book of Mormon).

Huh. Personally, I prefer to avoid psychological solutions for shamans and prophets. I may not believe in the supernatural powers of either, but to explain away their behavior as mental illness is a dead end, imho.

Post by **_Mercury** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:56 pm

charity wrote:There were too many other people who were particpants in visions and manifestations with Joseph Smith to give any credence to the pious fraud theory. Of course, I suppose someone could think that a hundreds of people who experienced those events were all pious frauds, also. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Seems to me like it is "in for a penny, in for a pound."

You have to be kidding. the closed circle of associates were either playing along or were complicit in the fraud. Occams razor slices away the idea of the fantastical events and common sense dictates these events did not happen.