Seeking A Solid Response

[Jane_Doe]

I'm trying to understand what your current personal beliefs are about Joseph Smith.

Thank you for being direct about that, so I can directly get at things.


I believe that he was a prophet of God.

Now does that mean he was perfect? No! Heck no!!! He made so mega mega screw ups. He sinned. Majorly so. I readily acknowledge that. No idolizing here- all men are sinners and I'm not going to ignore that fact. Now, am I the person who's supposed to be his Judge and tally every action up and pretend I got perfect knowledge of it? No, that's God's job. I'm also not going to ignore the fact that God works miracles with crazy flawed instruments.

One thing that majority annoys me when I run into some anti-Mormon folks is that they want to hold Joseph Smith up to the position of idolizing him (so they can tear him down from that spot). Honestly, I find this entire approach to be a ridiculous straw man. And it really really ignores the fact that my faith isn't remotely based in Joseph Smith. Rather, my faith is rooted in God, communication with Him, study, and scriptures. Joseph Smith isn't the center of it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thank you for being direct about that, so I can directly get at things.


I believe that he was a prophet of God.

Now does that mean he was perfect? No! Heck no!!! He made so mega mega screw ups. He sinned. Majorly so. I readily acknowledge that. No idolizing here- all men are sinners and I'm not going to ignore that fact. Now, am I the person who's supposed to be his Judge and tally every action up and pretend I got perfect knowledge of it? No, that's God's job. I'm also not going to ignore the fact that God works miracles with crazy flawed instruments.

One thing that majority annoys me when I run into some anti-Mormon folks is that they want to hold Joseph Smith up to the position of idolizing him (so they can tear him down from that spot). Honestly, I find this entire approach to be a ridiculous straw man. And it really really ignores the fact that my faith isn't remotely based in Joseph Smith. Rather, my faith is rooted in God, communication with Him, study, and scriptures. Joseph Smith isn't the center of it.

I have no interest in idolizing anyone, in fact, I think reality can be skewed when viewed through the lens of sensationalism. We all put out pants on one leg at a time, as they say.

Do you think that Joseph Smith preyed on other's gullibility and a need to belong as impetus for his teachings, along with an opportunity to begin a religion in a geographical location that was primed for proliferation of new religions / sects?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Do you think that Joseph Smith preyed on other's gullibility and a need to belong as impetus for his teachings, along with an opportunity to begin a religion in a geographical location that was primed for proliferation of new religions / sects?

(Practicalist here)
Since no one's faith here is based on "because Joseph Smith said so" I'm not sure the point of this line of inquiry. Rather than judging 1800's folks through a 2100's lens, I think the far more profitable thing for each of us would be to go into things with eyes open and evaluate things intelligently each for ourselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

(Practicalist here)
Since no one's faith here is based on "because Joseph Smith said so" I'm not sure the point of this line of inquiry. Rather than judging 1800's folks through a 2100's lens, I think the far more profitable thing for each of us would be to go into things with eyes open and evaluate things intelligently each for ourselves.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You didn't answer my question.

Dude, I'm not Joseph Smith's Judge-- God is. I'm not going to take God's place and pretend to be his Judge, especially on such incomplete info we have. I already said all that.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dude, I'm not Joseph Smith's Judge-- God is.

It's ok to discuss what we do know about JS. You won't be judged for voicing your opinion on the matter.

I'm not going to take God's place and pretend to be his Judge,

I'm not asking God. I'm asking you, what your opinion is.

especially on such incomplete info we have. I already said all that.

I'm limiting my questions about JS to what we do know.

It seems to me you're bothered by this line of questioning, so I'll refrain.

 

[Ironhold]

Again you dodge the fact that they are QUOTING LDS SOURCES!

You are still attempting to get people to not pay attention through poisoning the wells!

Doctrines, joey smith sermons, pearl of great
Price, encyclopedia of Mormonism are sources

Do the research and get
Back to me , don’t rinse and repeat!

Was God a man before he became God? Was Adam a God? If you reject those claims you are not following the teaching of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young respectively.

To begin with, we need *you* to establish that you didn't draw those quotations from either of the two sources in disrepute.

From there, about half your sources aren't actually accepted, approved theological material. Basically, anything not put out by the church itself isn't official. How can you tell what was put out by the church itself? Look at the copyright. It'll either be "copyright Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "copyright Intellectual Reserve". If you see anything else there, it's unofficial at best.

This isn't something critical sources like CARM normally tell people.

So no, we're not looking at propaganda here.

 

[HitchSlap]

To begin with, we need *you* to establish that you didn't draw those quotations from either of the two sources in disrepute.

From there, about half your sources aren't actually accepted, approved theological material. Basically, anything not put out by the church itself isn't official. How can you tell what was put out by the church itself? Look at the copyright. It'll either be "copyright Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "copyright Intellectual Reserve". If you see anything else there, it's unofficial at best.

This isn't something critical sources like CARM normally tell people.

So no, we're not looking at propaganda here.

From what I know of LDS/Mormonism, unofficial sources tend to be most accurate. You have to admit, that LDS, much like the Vatican, is not inclined to publish reality when it might put them in a less than respectable light.

 

[Ironhold]

As to soteriology (salvation) Mormonism contradicts itself:

Whatever source you got this from pulled those passages from context and presented them wrong.

In fact, a lot of these "contradictions" rely on material taken out of context.

Moroni 8:10-15 -

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountableand capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

3 Nephi 12:1-2

1 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am.

2 And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.

D&C 20:29 - 37

29 And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

30 And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true;

31 And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength.

32 But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God;

33 Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation;

34 Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also.

35 And we know that these things are true and according to the revelations of John, neither adding to, nor diminishing from the prophecy of his book, the holy scriptures, or the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God, or the ministering of angels.

36 And the Lord God has spoken it; and honor, power and glory be rendered to his holy name, both now and ever. Amen.

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

To begin with, note that the portion of verse 37 you have has been chopped apart, with multiple pieces missing. Whoever gave you that citation didn't give you the full verse, let alone the passage. Strike 1.

The alleged Book of Mormon passage is also a hash of things rather than a direct citation. Strike 2.

From there, once everything is read in full and in context, we see that the alleged contradiction doesn't exist. Rather, baptism is part of the process, a process that includes faith and repentance. Repentance, in turn, means forgiveness and remission of sins (see D&C 20:29 above).

Children who are regarded as being below the age of accountability have no need for repentance or baptism.

Strike 3, this alleged contradiction is out.

Now that I've shown you this, will you cease to use this argument?

 

[Ironhold]

Are there any non-Mormon critics that you consider to be fair and unbiased in their Mormon critique?

At which level?

I say this as the absolute vast majority I've seen have put forward arguments that are shoddy at best, and usually rely on either a misunderstanding of whether or not a work was canon, material that's been removed from context (either textual or historical), or a work written by a "professional" critic who has since been exposed in some fashion.

The better people I work with realize that their arguments won't work and that they'll need to do their own independent research, at which we part company.

 

[Ironhold]

For instance, do you accept that Joseph Smith was at one point a "treasure hunter" in his early life?

I don't know of too many people who would dispute that.

For the time and place, "finding hidden treasure" was on par with our modern-day "winning the lottery" as a get-rich-quick number. In particular, IIRC there was a rumor that early explorers had hidden treasure in the area Joseph resided in and had never come back to claim it.

Most people in that area, like the Smiths, were struggling to make ends meet, and so visions of money often overrode other considerations... kinda like that one guy I saw a few years back throw down $90 on lottery tickets in a single transaction (what a day to gas up the car...).

 

[HitchSlap]

At which level?

I say this as the absolute vast majority I've seen have put forward arguments that are shoddy at best, and usually rely on either a misunderstanding of whether or not a work was canon, material that's been removed from context (either textual or historical), or a work written by a "professional" critic who has since been exposed in some fashion.

The better people I work with realize that their arguments won't work and that they'll need to do their own independent research, at which we part company.

I consider Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven to be historically accurate.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know of too many people who would dispute that.

For the time and place, "finding hidden treasure" was on par with our modern-day "winning the lottery" as a get-rich-quick number. In particular, IIRC there was a rumor that early explorers had hidden treasure in the area Joseph resided in and had never come back to claim it.

Most people in that area, like the Smiths, were struggling to make ends meet, and so visions of money often overrode other considerations... kinda like that one guy I saw a few years back throw down $90 on lottery tickets in a single transaction (what a day to gas up the car...).

Well, playing the lottery after conning people out of their money, to be fair.

 

[Ironhold]

Would you consider the following quote to be unbiased and factual in content?

Remember what I said above about shoddy research?

This is an example of it.

Back in the 1970s, Rev. Wesley P. Walters was going through a legal archive when he found a document that he believed proved that the trial ended in a conviction. He then tore the document out of the book it was archived in, smuggled it out of the building, and presented it to two other critics, Jerald & Sandra Tanner, who began to publicize it.

However, subsequent analysis of the document has shown it to be far more in keeping with the sort of documentation used in a pre-trial hearing, with the "fine" being Smith's bill for the proceedings.

This analysis, coupled with multiple rounds of analysis done on the other information provided about the case, has led to the conclusion that the matter never actually got further than the pre-trial hearing stage.

Lengthy piece from an apologetics site that summarizes it all: Mormon/LDS Answers: Questions about LDS Prophets and the Mormons

Despite this readily-available information, however, the matter keeps being put forward as some sort of "See! I told you so!" by critics.

As it is, Walter's actions in regards to the document were actually a more severe crime than what JS was accused of, and could have ended with Walters in jail had he not returned the document pursuant to a court order.

 

[Ironhold]

From what I know of LDS/Mormonism, unofficial sources tend to be most accurate. You have to admit, that LDS, much like the Vatican, is not inclined to publish reality when it might put them in a less than respectable light.

It is, however, what is officially accepted, and so when talking about official theology it's where you need to go.

 

[Ironhold]

I consider Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven to be historically accurate.

If you want a good book about the Utah Conflict as a whole, I'd recommend Norman F. Furniss' "The Mormon Conflict".

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Conflict-1850-1859-Norman-Furniss/dp/0300113072

Furniss goes back into the historical context that led up to the entire Utah Conflict as a whole, something I've seen precious few other non-Mormon authors do. In fact, he goes all the way back to the Missouri Conflict (where mobs of locals were attacking Mormon settlements in two counties) to find the origins.

He's also more than willing to call out people on both sides for their mistakes, something else I've not seen too many other authors do.

The paperback edition, which I've linked to, was put out by Yale University Press, so that should mitigate any questions about neutrality or authoritativeness.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It's ok to discuss what we do know about JS. You won't be judged for voicing your opinion on the matter.


I'm not asking God. I'm asking you, what your opinion is.

My opinion on that matter is "I'll let God be the Judge on that action and continue about my life following Christ". I honestly feel that me trying to judge on limited info is a waste of time (at best).

From what I know of LDS/Mormonism, unofficial sources tend to be most accurate.

No.

You have to admit, that LDS, much like the Vatican, is not inclined to publish reality when it might put them in a less than respectable light.

The Vatican in the prime source on what the Vatican beliefs. It's the primary source for that question. All other sources are secondary and hence inherently inferior. Now, am I Catholic- obviously not, but I am a person who cares about getting sources right so when I'm research Catholicism I focus on Vatican publications like the CCC.

 

[HitchSlap]

My opinion on that matter is "I'll let God be the Judge on that action and continue about my life following Christ". I honestly feel that me trying to judge on limited info is a waste of time (at best).

Yet, you've committed your life to a religion this man began. I find your statement odd, that only god can judge, and you have insufficient information of this man's life (according to you), yet feel compelled to devote your life to his religion.

No.

According to you, L.R. Hubbard claims of Scientology are correct, then?

The Vatican in the prime source on what the Vatican beliefs. It's the primary source for that question. All other sources are secondary and hence inherently inferior. Now, am I Catholic- obviously not, but I am a person who cares about getting sources right so when I'm research Catholicism I focus on Vatican publications like the CCC.

And your prophets, along with official publications, are LDS doctrine, so what's your point?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yet, you've committed your life to a religion this man began. I find your statement odd, that only god can judge, and you have insufficient information of this man's life (according to you), yet feel compelled to devote your life to his religion.

I already addressed that misconception:

One thing that majorly annoys me when I run into some anti-Mormon folks is that they want to hold Joseph Smith up to the position of idolizing him (so they can tear him down from that spot). Honestly, I find this entire approach to be a ridiculous straw man. And it really really ignores the fact that my faith isn't remotely based in Joseph Smith. Rather, my faith is rooted in God, communication with Him, study, and scriptures. Joseph Smith isn't the center of it.

 

[HitchSlap]

I already addressed that misconception:

I know you'd like to distance yourself from JS, but you understand why this is literally impossible. LDS / Mormonism would not exist had it not been for the direct actions of this one man.