Criticism of Joseph Smith

[Sunstone]

Please forgive my impudence, but most of you go about criticizing Joseph Smith in a very ineffective way. I don’t doubt that your criticisms help you shore up your own faith, but they really don’t hit Mormons in the soft spot.

If you want to criticize Joseph Smith in a way that will be more effective with Mormons–pay close attention. I have been a Mormon for 30+ years, have served a Mormon mission, have published articles on Mormonism, am a Ph.D., know a ton about Mormon history and doctrine, and am currently investigating the Roman Catholic Church.

So here’s what you don’t want to do:

1. Try to construct a false dichotomy that Joseph Smith must either be essentially perfect or so flawed as to not be worth serious consideration as a prophet. Any Mormon worth her or his salt knows that the D&C (a book Mormons regard as scripture) admonishes Joseph Smith for his faults many times. Here are some examples:

D&C 3:6-11: “how oft you have transgressed…you should have been faithful.”

D&C 5:21: “repent and walk more uprightly…yield to the persuasions of men no more.”

D&C 6:19: Oliver Cowdery is directed to “admonish” Joseph Smith “in his faults.”

D&C 20:5: Joseph Smith was “entangled again in the vanities of the world.”

D&C 24:2: “thou art not excusable in thy transgressions.”

D&C 67:5: Joseph Smith’s “imperfections you have known.”

D&C 90:17: “be admonished in all your high-mindedness and pride.”

D&C 93:47: “Have not kept the commandments and must needs stand rebuked.”

D&C 111:1: The treasure hunting purposes of Joseph’s trip to Salem are called follies.

Informed Mormons also can cite the flaws of those Bible persons who have authored canonical scripture or whom God has guided by revelation. For example:

Could a prophet…

Lie? Gen. 12:10-20, 1 Kings 13:11-32, Matthew 26:69-75

Get drunk? Gen. 9:21

Use a divination object? Gen. 44:5

Fail to understand a revelation? Acts 10:3, 1 Cor. 13:9-12

Give counsel not approved by God? 2 Samuel 7:1-5

Accept a position as the chief of magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers? Daniel 5:11

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

Moreover, credible Mormon historians have been presenting Joseph Smith with warts and all for some time. Richard Bushman, who was a Professor of History at Columbia University for years, details many of Joseph’s faults in his widely circulated book Rough Stone Rolling. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission has endorsed the LDS Church’s Joseph Smith Papers Project. Volume 1 is Joseph Smith’s journals from 1832-1839, and in that volume Joseph Smith comes across as flawed but sincere. Some Mormons still think of Joseph Smith hagiographically (i.e. with unrealistic virtue), but these aren’t the ones who are going to come to a Catholic website spoiling for a fight.

As Joseph Smith wrote in the December 1834 issue of the Messenger and Advocate,

I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man ‘subject to passion’ and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.

He was even more blunt when he wrote in the May 15, 1843 Times and Seasons that he “did not profess to be a very good man” and that he was “a sinner like other men.”

1. Take Mormons to task over Joseph Smith not being a martyr. I think it’s most accurate to say that he was murdered, that he deserved to be arrested for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, and that Mormons have memorialized him and his brother Hyrum as martyrs. Quibbling over the correct word doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
2. Rely too heavily on Faun Brodie’s No Man Know’s My History. Brodie does a good job of bringing in sources that criticize Joseph Smith, but she can’t stop herself from some very unprofessional surmising and speculating. Her guesses about Joseph Smith’s motives don’t square with Joseph’s Smith’s own journals and you’re not going to persuade a knowledgeable Mormon by parroting them.
3. Run straight into a “roots versus fruits” argument. Many Mormons find a great deal of happiness in the LDS Church, and see this as the “good fruit” of Joseph Smith, and despite some legitimate questions at the “root” of the LDS Church.

 

[Sunstone]

Instead, criticize Joseph Smith on the following grounds:

1. The fulfillment of Old-Testament style prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ means that a “restoration” through Joseph Smith is not what it claims to be. Hebrews 1:1-2 is a great place to go: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things…”

There’s also Jude: 3-4: “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was *once for all *entrusted to the saints.” (Italics are mine).

John 20:30-31 further suggests that believing in Jesus is the goal, and that the author of the Gospel of John doesn’t account for a need for some future prophets of Old Testament caliber (as opposed to the prophets discussed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, for example, whose words were not cannonized). He writes that “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in the book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”

1. Some of Joseph Smith’s “rewordings” of “revelations” are just too convenient to pass the sniff test. For example, Section 4 verse 2 of the 1833 Book of Commandments reads:

…and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

But the renumbered 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants reads:

and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

There’s also the addition of Peter, James, and John giving Joseph Smith the Melchezidek Priesthood in D&C 27 (It was in D&C 50 in the 1835 edition). None of this material was in the original section 28 of the 1833 Book of Commandments, and David Whitmer, who was faithful as a witness of the Book of Mormon, asserted that the notion of Melchezidek Priesthood evolved slowly in the Church. He objected to the Peter, James, & John story. In David Whitmer’s own words (and in a document that Mormons love to cite, although they avoid this part of it like the plague) he writes that:

When it became generally known that these important changes had been made in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, many of the brethren objected seriously to it, but they did not want to say much for the sake of peace, as it was Brother Joseph and the leaders who did it. The majority of the members – poor weak souls – thought that anything Brother Joseph would do, must be all right; so in their blindness of heart, trusting in an arm of flesh, they looked over it and were led into error.”

• David Whitmer, An Address to all Believers in Christ, p. 61

and

You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. you have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon… You who are now living did not change them, but you who strive to defend these things, are as guilty in the sight of God as those who did change them.

• David Whitmer, An Address to all Believers in Christ, p. 49

As D. Michael Quinn, who was the Chair of the History Department at BYU before he was excommunicated says in On Being a Mormon Historian and Its Aftermath:

In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants began a policy of retroactive editing by reversing previous meanings, adding concepts and whole paragraphs to the texts of previously published revelations. The official alteration of pre-1835 revelations is the more fundamental context for the later pattern of editing in the History of the Church.

 

[Sunstone]

1. There isn’t a smoking gun for the Book of Mormon, but there are enough pieces there that a reasonable person can conclude that Joseph Smith was a shaman who syncretized a number of important issues in his day. For example, consider the following passage from p. 83-84 of James Adair’s 1775 book, History of the Indians:

The Mosaic ceremonial institutions, are acknowledged by our best writers, to represent the Messiah, under various types and shadows; in like manner, the religious customs of the American Indians, seem to typify the same; according to the early divine promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; and that it should bruise his heel. – The Levitical high-priest wore a breast-plate, which they called Hosechim, and on it the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections; for they are the plurals of ???], Awóra, (which inverted makes Erowa ) and ???],

Thòràh, the law, as it directed them under dark shadows, to Messiah, the lamp of light and perfections. In resemblance of this sacred pectoral, or breast-plate, the American Archi-magus wears a breast-plate, made of a white conch-shell, with two holes bored in the middle of it, through which he puts the ends of an otter-skin strap, and fastens a buck-horn white button to the outside of each, as if in imitation of the precious stones of Urim, which miraculously blazoned from the high-priest’s breast, the unerring words of the divine oracle. Instead of the plate of gold, which the Levite wore on his forehead, bearing these words, ???], Kadesh li Yohewah, “holy, or separate to God,” the Indian wears around his temples, either a wreath of swan-feathers, or a long piece of swan-skin doubled, so as only the fine snowy feathers appear on each side.

There isn’t evidence that Joseph Smith copied from Adair’s popular tome, but it is reasonable to think that Joseph Smith tapped into the discourse that was prevalent because of books like Adair’s. Compare p. 377-378 of Adair’s work with passages from Alma 48-53 in the Book of Mormon:

Through the whole continent, and in the remotest woods, are traces of their ancient warlike disposition. We frequently met with great mounds of earth, either of a circular, or oblong form, having a strong breast-work at a distance around them, made of the clay which had been dug up in forming the ditch on the inner side of the inclosed ground, and these were their forts of security against an enemy… About 12 miles from the upper northern parts of the Choktah country, there stand… two oblong mounds of earth… in an equal direction with each other… A broad deep ditch inclosed those two fortresses, and there they raised an high breast-work, to secure their houses from the invading enemy.

James Adair, History of the Indians, p. 377-378

Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies… the Nephites were taught… never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy… they had cast up dirt round to shield them from the arrows… the chief captains of the Lamanites were astonished exceedingly, because of the wisdom of the Nephites in preparing their places of security… they knew not that Moroni had fortified, or had built forts of security in all the land round about… the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security… because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about… they [the Lamanites] began to dig down their banks of earth… that they might have an equal chance to fight… instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead… And [Moroni] caused them to erect fortifications that they might secure their armies… Teancum… caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land… And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they did cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers…

Book of Mormon, Alma, 48:8, 14; 49:2, 5, 13, 18, 22; 50:10; 53:3-4

I don’t mean for this to be exhaustive, but if you want to be more effective in your discussions about Joseph Smith, follow the fragments I’ve given you here. These topics will also give the Mormons who post on this board opportunities to dive into significant issues and to consider the possibility of a Joseph Smith who was sincere, and who has contributed to much of the good in their lives, but who was ultimately misguided.

 

[AtticusFinch]

I would think a post to your fellow Mormons would be just as appropriate.

I, too, served a Mormon mission. I have served in the EQ Presidency and in the Bishopric. My ex-wife served a mission. My ex-brother-in-law in a member of the Latin 70s (he is from Hoduras, where I served my mission). My cousin (though I have only spoken to him a couple of times) is Dean Jessee. My pen-pal on my mission Was L. Tom Perry. When I post things, I am not making anything up. I post facts. I have never read Brodie’s book.

I DID read, and own, Rough Stone Rolling. I thought it was a very good book. My best friend is LDS (In fact, he was who I chose to raise my children should my ex and I had died at the same time). I told him that any LDS who read the book would say, “see? this proves he was a prophet”, and any non-Mormon would read the book and say, “see? this proves he was not a prophet”. That is the mark of good, honest book. Anyway, Mormons here have accused me of hating. I do not hate the LDS Church. In fact, I love the LDS Church. I suspect I will forever feel a pull to go back since I have such fond memories of my mission. My mission was, as we always hear, the best two eyars of my life.

Bushman IS honest in his writing. I have also heard him speak. He puts to bed old stories Mormons always heard about how the Book of Mormon came to be.

But, back to my point…perhaps a post to your fellow LDs would be just appropriate.

1. Don’t paint JS as some sort of innocent man. He wasn’t.
2. Don;t act like JS was a martyr. He wasn’t. Yes, he was murdered. Yes, the murder was uncalled for and was WRONG. But he was shot in jail, a place he should have been for committing a crime.
3. Don;t whitewash LDS past. Catholics embrace the sins of the past. We know our warts and do not try to hide from them. Mormons need to do the same.
4. Don;t run from old faulty doctrine and say it did not exist. It did. Deal with it.
5. Stop believing that anyone who disagrees with you hates Mormons or the Church. Don;t be a martyr. People can disagree without hating. So, stop always being victims.
6. Catholics do not need saving. We believe we are where God wants us just as much as you do. Even LDS Apostles went to hear Pope Benedict speak at the meeting where he invited leaders of other denominations to speak. Why would they go listen to a man they think is lost?

I believe your post is a little out of line, but your heart is in the right place. You do not go to someone’s house and tell THEM how to act. You tell your own family how to act in the homes of others.

Finally, I do not believe anyone believes Joseph had to be perfect. Heck, not a single leader in the Bible was perfect except Jesus. But ecpect some disbelief and doubt of a man who made such claims and prophesies like the world would end in the 1800s, or that there were men on the moon and what kind of clothes they wore. Joseph claimed he spoke to directly to Jesus, yet made claims like that. But no one believes he had to be perfect. JS was an amazing man with an amazing talent. But it is hard to believe a man who had nine different versions of an experience that should have been unforgettable: a visit from God.

Peace to you.

 

[Ceeboo]

Hey Atticus,

Are you the same Atticus Finch I remember from MADB and LDS.NET??

WOW!!! You have changed

Welcome home!!

Peace,
Ceeboo

 

[Sunstone]

But, back to my point…perhaps a post to your fellow LDs would be just appropriate…

I considered this, but anticipated a response just like yours. As it is, I’ve tried to dump some of the powder out of the LDS apologists’ muskets anyway.

1. Don’t paint JS as some sort of innocent man. He wasn’t…

Agreed.

. Don;t act like JS was a martyr. He wasn’t. Yes, he was murdered. Yes, the murder was uncalled for and was WRONG. But he was shot in jail, a place he should have been for committing a crime. …

Yep.

1. Don;t whitewash LDS past. Catholics embrace the sins of the past. We know our warts and do not try to hide from them. Mormons need to do the same…

I see the LDS Church taking small steps in this area. *Rough Stone Rolling * and Richard Turley’s book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre are both steps in a good direction. However, I don’t expect to see points from either of these works in official, correlated Church materials any time soon.

1. Don;t run from old faulty doctrine and say it did not exist. It did. Deal with it…

This is tough for LDS as exactly what constitutes doctrine is pretty fuzzy. Apologists profit in the confusion.

1. Stop believing that anyone who disagrees with you hates Mormons or the Church. Don;t be a martyr. People can disagree without hating. So, stop always being victims…

Amen.

1. Catholics do not need saving. We believe we are where God wants us just as much as you do. Even LDS Apostles went to hear Pope Benedict speak at the meeting where he invited leaders of other denominations to speak. Why would they go listen to a man they think is lost?..

A great question.

I believe your post is a little out of line, but your heart is in the right place. You do not go to someone’s house and tell THEM how to act. You tell your own family how to act in the homes of others.

Reprimand accepted.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Hey Atticus,

Are you the same Atticus Finch I remember from MADB and LDS.NET??

WOW!!! You have changed

Welcome home!!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hi Ceebo!

When I saw you last, on a different board, I was going thru a Spritual crisis. Literally pulled in two directions. Long story…difficult story, but the bottom line is everything worked out for the best and to the Glory of God.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think my biggest problems with LDS posters in general are the same whether it is JS, or any other topic that is discussed.

1. They play the “victim” card much more than is necessary, and it diminishes times when it might actually be correct. i.e. the boy who cried wolf. Every religion has been persecuted at one time or another. It is not unique to the LDS, so give it a rest already.
2. When confronted with things they cannot or do not want to go into, their either try to divert the conversation, or just quit posting.
3. Some tend to make statements on something and try to make it look factual. When pressed for references, the requests often go unanswered.

Just my observations.

 

[Ceeboo]

Hi Ceebo!

When I saw you last, on a different board, I was going thru a Spritual crisis. Literally pulled in two directions. Long story…difficult story, but the bottom line is everything worked out for the best and to the Glory of God.

Ah yes!! “Spiritual crisis”, many of us face them at some point in our journeys.

Good to see you here!

Peace,
Ceeboo

 

[TheosisM]

Hi Ceebo!

When I saw you last, on a different board, I was going thru a Spritual crisis. Literally pulled in two directions. Long story…difficult story, but the bottom line is everything worked out for the best and to the Glory of God.

OH, I remember you from MADB. We argued a few months ago over whether the Catholic Church “walks the walk” on certain moral issues, and you claimed that it didn’t. Very interesting change. I am “ChristKnight” from that forum. It’s a little funny to look back at that thread. Anyway, I’m glad that you found your home.

 

[Jerusha]

I think the reason why so many exMormons and non-Mormons condemn Joseph Smith so virulently is that they subscribe to the Joseph-only theory of the origins of the BoM. He just wasn’t capable of doing it by himself, unless you want to go the fundie Prot route of satanic influence.

If you go on to look at a team effort, using materials borrowed from other works, you will see that JS was only a product of the environment in which he was raised, and was a front-man for a man named Sidney Rigdon.

 

[AtticusFinch]

OH, I remember you from MADB. We argued a few months ago over whether the Catholic Church “walks the walk” on certain moral issues, and you claimed that it didn’t. Very interesting change. I am “ChristKnight” from that forum. It’s a little funny to look back at that thread. Anyway, I’m glad that you found your home.

I was going thru a very tough time. I had a hard time dealing certain ways the scandal was handled. Bernard Law was an especially thorny issue.

But more than that, I was going thru a divorce, I had a cancer scare, my best friend (my Doberperson Rambo) died, I changed jobs, and several other things all happened at the same time. On top of that, I was feeling a strong pull to return to the LDS Church. I did a lot of praying and studying and things eventually worked themselves out.

Yes, I suspect that thread shows the frustration I was feeling at having my faith tested.

 

[twopekinguys]

I was going thru a very tough time. I had a hard time dealing certain ways the scandal was handled. Bernard Law was an especially thorny issue.

But more than that, I was going thru a divorce, I had a cancer scare, my best friend (my Doberperson Rambo) died, I changed jobs, and several other things all happened at the same time. On top of that, I was feeling a strong pull to return to the LDS Church. I did a lot of praying and studying and things eventually worked themselves out.

Yes, I suspect that thread shows the frustration I was feeling at having my faith tested.

You’ve proven that God meets us where we are. Because of our weaknesses, pride, etc. he goes that extra mile and comes to us where we are, and rescues us.

 

[lax16]

I think my biggest problems with LDS posters in general are the same whether it is JS, or any other topic that is discussed.

1. They play the “victim” card much more than is necessary, and it diminishes times when it might actually be correct. i.e. the boy who cried wolf. Every religion has been persecuted at one time or another. It is not unique to the LDS, so give it a rest already.
2. When confronted with things they cannot or do not want to go into, their either try to divert the conversation, or just quit posting.
3. Some tend to make statements on something and try to make it look factual. When pressed for references, the requests often go unanswered.

Just my observations.

I agree 100%

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I think my biggest problems with LDS posters in general are the same whether it is JS, or any other topic that is discussed.

1. They play the “victim” card much more than is necessary, and it diminishes times when it might actually be correct. i.e. the boy who cried wolf. Every religion has been persecuted at one time or another. It is not unique to the LDS, so give it a rest already.

This is NOT blaming the victim, but LDS history is rife with Joseph Smith and the Mormons bringing it on themselves–Smith’s lynching, the Missouri War, the Expulsion from kirkland, etc…

 

[dianaiad]

I think my biggest problems with LDS posters in general are the same whether it is JS, or any other topic that is discussed.

1. They play the “victim” card much more than is necessary, and it diminishes times when it might actually be correct. i.e. the boy who cried wolf. Every religion has been persecuted at one time or another. It is not unique to the LDS, so give it a rest already.

Not a problem…as soon as you and those like you stop claiming that we deserve it, or that it didn’t really happen, or that we should 'get over it already…" when you are not willing to ‘get over’ the things about our policies that you disagree with–and that are no longer applicable, like blacks and the priesthood.

1. When confronted with things they cannot or do not want to go into, their either try to divert the conversation, or just quit posting.

Personally, I believe that answering the question once is sufficient.

1. Some tend to make statements on something and try to make it look factual. When pressed for references, the requests often go unanswered.

I do love irony.

Just my observations.

Generalizations are fun, too.

 

[why_me]

I think my biggest problems with LDS posters in general are the same whether it is JS, or any other topic that is discussed.

1. They play the “victim” card much more than is necessary, and it diminishes times when it might actually be correct. i.e. the boy who cried wolf. Every religion has been persecuted at one time or another. It is not unique to the LDS, so give it a rest already.
2. When confronted with things they cannot or do not want to go into, their either try to divert the conversation, or just quit posting.
3. Some tend to make statements on something and try to make it look factual. When pressed for references, the requests often go unanswered.

Just my observations.

Well, mormons were victims in a land that claimed religious freedom and yet, they were not free to practice their religion. I would call that victimization. I don’t remember the catholic faith in america being driven around the states by angry mobs burning their homes and murdering them. But I could be mistaken.

As far as your post number two goes, well, I have seen mormons answer the same questions over and over again. And it seems that they are not afraid to go into something. But the question as to whether you are listening, well, that is quite another matter.

And as for your last number, well, I have answered questions and have included the references. But since you have me on ignore, you tend to miss them.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Not a problem…as soon as you and those like you stop claiming that we deserve it, or that it didn’t really happen, or that we should 'get over it already…" when you are not willing to ‘get over’ the things about our policies that you disagree with–and that are no longer applicable, like blacks and the priesthood.

There is the victim syndrome again. No one said YOU deserve anything. Other have simply claimed that there were things that happened to Mormons back then that are understandable based on things Mormons did.

Personally, I believe that answering the question once is sufficient.

Yes. If it is answered correctly and honestly. I have seen neither from Diana, Why, and Parker.

Generalizations are fun, too.

Isn;t that a generalization?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Well, mormons were victims in a land that claimed religious freedom and yet, they were not free to practice their religion.

Not always. They were “victims” in lands they swarmed into and began trying to run everything their way. They were “victims” in lands where they swindled many people in a bank failure. They were “victims” in a land where they formed a 5000 man militia and dared anyone to cross them. They were “victims” in a land where they slaughtered innocent men, women and children. And the children they did not kill, they kidnapped

As far as your post number two goes, well, I have seen mormons answer the same questions over and over again. And it seems that they are not afraid to go into something. But the question as to whether you are listening, well, that is quite another matter.

If you ask me what 2+2 is and I say 15, I have answered the question…the question is, are you going to keep asking because you want a correct and honest answer?

And as for your last number, well, I have answered questions and have included the references. But since you have me on ignore, you tend to miss them.

Well, you answered questions SORTA and you provided faulty references. So,…

 

[why_me]

Hey Atticus,

Are you the same Atticus Finch I remember from MADB and LDS.NET??

WOW!!! You have changed

Welcome home!!

Peace,
Ceeboo

I remember him now! I think that he was a little anticatholic if I remember correctly. Yea, he certainly has changed since he became a catholic again. I remember that he was very concerned about the sex scandals in the 1970’s in the catholic church.

Now we have other sex scandals in the catholic church. It must be a little bizarre for him.