For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?

[kozlosap]

The only excuse I’ve seen Mormons provide for this, is that the marriages were never consummated, that is, they were “only sealings”.

And President Clinton never “inhaled”!!!

 

[Chris-WA]

I was looking for a book on the history of the mormon religion, something that was scholarly instead of a hatchet job (like I don’t want to read the Bart Ehrman version of an anti-mormon book, but just a legit history book). I was looking around and thinking “One Nation under gods” by Richard Abanes looked good. Would anyone recommend this or another book?

Get An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer. It was published in 2002. Mr. Palmer is a fourth-generation Mormon who taught in the church’s CES (Church Education System) for 30 years. Excellent scholarly work full of citations and footnotes. Grant’s deep dive into early church history brought him to the conclusion that Joseph was not who he claimed to be.

The book focusses in on several areas: Joseph Smith as a translator/revelator, the sources of the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s First Vision accounts, the priesthood restoration, etc.

You can also view some of Grant Palmer’s talks on Youtube. He’s given a number of talks and has appeared on other programs as well. Here are two excellent ones about early Mormon history:
youtube.com/watch?v=kHsvZooc4Bc

youtube.com/watch?v=3KpYoMGCqpE
Because of Mr. Palmer’s research and publication of his findings, he was eventually summoned to a church court and disfellowshipped.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was looking for a book on the history of the mormon religion, something that was scholarly instead of a hatchet job (like I don’t want to read the Bart Ehrman version of an anti-mormon book, but just a legit history book). I was looking around and thinking “One Nation under gods” by Richard Abanes looked good. Would anyone recommend this or another book?

LDS consider Abanes biased.

For scholarly works, you might try someone from this list.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And President Clinton never “inhaled”!!!

 

[Chris-WA]

What is also interesting is looking into the history of the First and Second “Great Awakenings” in the early US and how these traveling preachers found a way to make a lot of money in a short time. They could also stay one step ahead of the people duped by broken promises by traveling often. The birth of many different religious sects began during those times. Look carefully at the history of both the LDS and the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same context. Look at the time frame and how they might have been seen the benefits of these operations. Perhaps even inspired by them. In fact, the founder of the JWs has a very interesting background as a con man. Perhaps some of these preachers had good intentions, but some were true con men.

Funny you should bring that up because historians have determined that the Book of Mormon was heavily influenced by 19th century Evangelical Protestantism in Joseph’s own environment. The Great Awakening revivals that Joseph attended in his area provided a lot of material he put into the Book of Mormon. Some of the stories come right from them. There are many parallels that are too numerous to mention here but suffice it to say that Joseph borrowed a lot of stuff from 19th century Methodists and put it right into the BoM. He also borrowed a huge amount of material from his 1769 edition of the King James bible, including its errors, and put it in there too. It’s becoming more and more clear that the BoM is a 19th century creation and not a historical record of ancient America.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

I’m happy to see that others have noticed the possible influences for JS.

 

[Chris-WA]

The only excuse I’ve seen Mormons provide for this, is that the marriages were never consummated, that is, they were “only sealings”.

How the heck do they know that?

First they said that Joseph was not a polygamist (Joseph publicly denied it himself). Now they admit he was a polygamist, cause when historians find new evidence that Joseph had an adulterous affair, the church says he was married to the woman. Still chapel Mormons are largely unaware of this and the missionaries certainly won’t tell you. If you go see the movie about Joseph in Salt Lake, you won’t see it in there either. Can anyone deny that the church presents a false picture of who Joseph Smith was?

 

[RebeccaJ]

How the heck do they know that?

First they said that Joseph was not a polygamist (Joseph publicly denied it himself). Now they admit he was a polygamist, cause when historians find new evidence that Joseph had an adulterous affair, the church says he was married to the woman. Still chapel Mormons are largely unaware of this and the missionaries certainly won’t tell you. If you go see the movie about Joseph in Salt Lake, you won’t see it in there either. Can anyone deny that the church presents a false picture of who Joseph Smith was?

They don’t know, but it isn’t possible to a Mormon mind that Joseph ever did anything wrong.

LDS members deny it all the time and every day. Their personal testimony tells them Joseph Smith could do no evil.

But yes, I agree with your points.

 

[Chris-WA]

I’m happy to see that others have noticed the possible influences for JS.

LDS apologists have argued Joseph could not have produced the Book of Mormon himself because he had limited formal education. It’s true that he had limited formal schooling, but it does not follow that this makes him incapable of producing such a work. Joseph was very well schooled in the bible, contemporary Protestant religions, and the local issues of the day. He had an incredible memory, was a gifted story-teller, and had a vivid imagination. All this comes from historical documentation from his family and associates. Couple that to the sources he had available to him, and Joseph was quite capable of writing the BoM with no divine help.

 

[Chris-WA]

They don’t know, but it isn’t possible to a Mormon mind that Joseph ever did anything wrong.

LDS members deny it all the time and every day. Their personal testimony tells them Joseph Smith could do no evil.

But yes, I agree with your points.

I agree that many Mormons seem to have a mental block when it comes to objectively taking a look at Joseph Smith and seeing him for who he really was. For them, feelings trump evidence.

But there are many others who did take a deeper look at things and they are no longer in the church. That number is rapidly growing primarily because of the internet. The church cannot effectively hide this information anymore. LDS apologists at FARMS and FAIR have been unable to answer the questions, and no one in the church leadership has been able to do it either. If you have seen/read their sporadic interviews they only make it worse by evading/denying. Ezra Taft Benson’s denials of the doctrine of men becoming gods was particularly troubling. Does he think we’re stupid? He was either incompetent or lying. Neither is good.

When in a discussion with a Mormon and their only answer is to bear their testimony, they have lost the argument. That is the act of final desperation when they have no answers.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris, why are you presenting only part of the facts? The truth is Joseph never provided a translation of the Kinderhook plates. Why did you leave this out of your above explanation?

Hello Janderich,
I thought I would choose your post to initiate a brief response to this thread.
While I do not know “why” Chris chose to do what Chris chose to do, I do know he stands with many folks who make similar choices.
Folks like Loraine Boettner. Or even Chinique or Hislop.

I wonder how many Catholics spend their time with Boettner or would recommend it to anyone?
I remember point by point refuting the “Boettner list” long ago during my early Internet forays.

I am tempted to say, “there is nothing to see here,” but that is untrue. The ways of critics of the church are one thing that can be seen in Chris’ post. But more important than that is the fact that much of Chris’ post touches on real history. I do not know if Chris is a former LDS or never LDS or ???. What I do know is that many folks claim to have left the church because of information that Chris touts. That might in fact be why he touts it, but again I cannot know. Knowing much more than Chris shared about the information, I know that there is much to see here. When it is all done, I think the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS weather the storm quite handily.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

Hello Janderich,
I thought I would choose your post to initiate a brief response to this thread.
While I do not know “why” Chris chose to do what Chris chose to do, I do know he stands with many folks who make similar choices.
Folks like Loraine Boettner. Or even Chinique or Hislop.

I wonder how many Catholics spend their time with Boettner or would recommend it to anyone?
I remember point by point refuting the “Boettner list” long ago during my early Internet forays.

I am tempted to say, “there is nothing to see here,” but that is untrue. The ways of critics of the church are one thing that can be seen in Chris’ post. But more important than that is the fact that much of Chris’ post touches on real history. I do not know if Chris is a former LDS or never LDS or ???. What I do know is that many folks claim to have left the church because of information that Chris touts. That might in fact be why he touts it, but again I cannot know. Knowing much more than Chris shared about the information, I know that there is much to see here. When it is all done, I think the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS weather the storm quite handily.

Charity, TOm

Tom, I don’t appreciate the “I know more than you do argument.” Let’s stick to the points made in the thread. If you want to refute them, by all means go ahead and present your evidence. But don’t try to discredit me without offering anything. That is a cheap shot.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris,
So I might know, what faith tradition do you embrace? I am quite prone to the quid pro quo logical fallacy when folks attack my church with ill-conceived arrows.
In response to your question, nothing you posted is new to me. I have read and thought about these issues for many years.
Maybe all you want to hear is, “If what Chris posted was the whole story and the only story, I would not be a LDS.” I believe there are many compelling reasons to not be a LDS. Some are even true and balance representations of the issues. Of course I believe there are many compelling reasons to not be a Catholic, to not be a Lutheran, and to not be an Atheist.

Would it surprise you to know that study after study has shown that LDS are more informed than other Christians about most aspects of religion? I am not sure if there has been a study about LDS knowledge of LDS history verses non-LDS Christian knowledge of Christian history or verses Catholic knowledge of Catholic history or ???, but it is my observation that LDS know a lot more about our history than do most Catholics know about theirs or most Protestants about theirs. If you are an atheist, you are in a group that has above average religions knowledge.

Anyway, you asked, “For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?”
I know of all you referenced. I dispute your conclusions. I believe you neglected to share relevant info. And I am a faithful LDS who believe Joseph Smith was an above averge man in most respects and LDS should generally be proud of the life he lived and the choices he made.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, I don’t appreciate the “I know more than you do argument.” Let’s stick to the points made in the thread. If you want to refute them, by all means go ahead and present your evidence. But don’t try to discredit me without offering anything. That is a cheap shot.

I try to avoid “cheap shots.” My message is not that I know more than you do. My message is a response to your question. You asked if Mormon’s knew what you presented. I do. I do not believe your presentation is fair. I do not believe all things you think are facts are facts. But, I do have a knowledge of the historical documents that lead critics to say what you say.

You may believe I cannot refute the assertions you make. I know there are LDS boards where your assertions would likely receive attention if you offered them in a less shotgun manner, but I will not address them here. You are welcome to conclude whatever you wish about this. Let me leave you with the words of a former Catholic priest (I always remember his quote to be more broad in its application, but it is still with mentioning):

More to the point though, as regards the underlying motive for this thesis, was my eventual perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label “Christian” to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church—with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church—as to its “non-Christian” status—were equally flawed.

Charity, TOm

 

[SteveVH]

I try to avoid “cheap shots.” My message is not that I know more than you do. My message is a response to your question. You asked if Mormon’s knew what you presented. I do. I do not believe your presentation is fair. I do not believe all things you think are facts are facts. But, I do have a knowledge of the historical documents that lead critics to say what you say.

You may believe I cannot refute the assertions you make. I know there are LDS boards where your assertions would likely receive attention if you offered them in a less shotgun manner, but I will not address them here. You are welcome to conclude whatever you wish about this. Let me leave you with the words of a former Catholic priest (I always remember his quote to be more broad in its application, but it is still with mentioning):

Charity, TOm

Wow! Tell you what. Why don’t you just choose one of the items given by Chris and address that? I can certainly appreciate your hesitancy in addressing a myriad of points at once.

But please, do not quote people who are only identified as a “former Catholic Priest”. I don’t think that is allowed on this forum but more importantly it harms your credibility. If you quote someone you must identify them.

Peace.

Steve

 

[iepuras]

I believe you neglected to share relevant info.

What information did Chris-WA neglect to share exactly?

And I am a faithful LDS who believe Joseph Smith was an above averge man in most respects and LDS should generally be proud of the life he lived and the choices he made.

Proud of 30+ wives, including 14 year old girls, married women, and wards of his family?

 

[iepuras]

You asked if Mormon’s knew what you presented. I do. I do not believe your presentation is fair. I do not believe all things you think are facts are facts. But, I do have a knowledge of the historical documents that lead critics to say what you say.

So you know these things. It is beyond my limited understanding as to why you choose to stay LDS. You have your reasons.

However, there are **many **LDS who don’t know of these historical issues. Don’t assume that because you know of these issues, all LDS do. They don’t. I certainly didn’t. I attended church faithfully. I attended seminary in high school. I attended BYU and took religion classes there. I was even an ordinance worker at the temple.

Then I read Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling”. I read it because it was sold at Deseret Book. I didn’t want to read anything “anti-Mormon”. I was a faithful LDS, remember? That book eventually led me out of the LDS church and helped me see that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. There were so many shocking historical facts that I had never heard before. I felt betrayed and lied to by an organization I had trusted since I was a child.

Many of the LDS I grew up with didn’t know these things either. When they learned of these things, they left the LDS church too.

 

[TOmNossor]

Wow! Tell you what. Why don’t you just choose one

of the items given by Chris and address that? I can certainly appreciate your hesitancy in addressing a myriad of points at once.

But please, do not quote people who are only identified as a “former Catholic Priest”. I don’t think that is allowed on this forum but more importantly it harms your credibility. If you quote someone you must identify them.

Peace.

Steve

Steve,
The OP never asked that any of the points be “addressed.” It asked if Mormon’s knew them. I do.
Joseph Smith freely forgave WW Phelps who left and returned to the church.
Joseph Smith received and shared revelations that pointed to his imperfection, errors, and weakness.
These are good conclusions based on the historical record.

If you dispute them we can talk about it.

The stuff Chris brought up in the OP is what “sticks” when critics throw accusations at my church. Extensive discussions on these issues will only affect the most open minded of people and I doubt Chris, you, or me are among them. Concerning many of his topics … One of my standard tu quoque fallacy responses when questioned by Catholics is to point out that Catholics believe sexually depraved men can validly hold the papacy so let’s move on to other topics.

Brian Hales has produced far and away the most extensive coverage of Joseph Smith’s polygamy including the records that are used to suggest that Joseph had sex with other men’s wives, had sex with young girls, and in general was a sex crazed individual. His research assistant/lead began the project as an ex-Mormon, but rejoined the church.
My personal reading of all of this points me STRONGLY to the conclusion that whatever happened with these things (and Brian Hales, Don Bradley, Todd Compton, Richard Bushman, Dan Vogel … neither agree with one another nor possess certainty), it is quite unlikely that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy because of a sexual appetite. If polygamy was not introduced due to sexual appetite then why? I could not (due to time and the need to re-educate myself) and do not desire to review ages and marital status and … on each individual purported spiritual or spiritual/physical marriage. When this is done, brilliant informed people do not have the same conclusions. But, the folks most informed agree with me, “Joseph Smith was not some sex maniac, coupling with multiple women to satisfy his libido.” The historical record IMO almost rules this out. The clarity with which I see this results in me placing much more importance on other aspects of Joseph’s life than on his polygamy (I might note that the idea of being a polygamous man is not attractive to me, I sympathize with the statement, “My brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.”).

I often presume folks are immersed in these issues and I do not need to provide references for common quotes. That was my error in my previous post. The above quote is Brigham Young. The Catholic Priest was Jordan Vajda.
Charity, TOm

 

[SteveVH]

One of my standard tu quoque fallacy responses when questioned by Catholics is to point out that Catholics believe sexually depraved men can validly hold the papacy so let’s move on to other topics.

But they never made sexual depravity a doctrine of the Church, as did Joseph Smith with polygamy.
TOmNossor;12401728:

Brian Hales has produced far and away the most extensive coverage of Joseph Smith’s polygamy including the records that are used to suggest that Joseph had sex with other men’s wives, had sex with young girls, and in general was a sex crazed individual. His research assistant/lead began the project as an ex-Mormon, but rejoined the church.

My personal reading of all of this points me STRONGLY to the conclusion that whatever happened with these things (and Brian Hales, Don Bradley, Todd Compton, Richard Bushman, Dan Vogel … neither agree with one another nor possess certainty), it is quite unlikely that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy because of a sexual
appetite.

Then why did he try to hide it from Emma?

If polygamy was not introduced due to sexual appetite then why? I could not (due to time and the need to re-educate myself) and do not desire to review ages and marital status and … on each individual purported spiritual or spiritual/physical marriage. When this is done, brilliant informed people do not have the same conclusions. But, the folks most informed
agree with me, “Joseph Smith was not some sex maniac, coupling with multiple women to satisfy his libido.” The historical record IMO almost rules this out. The clarity with which I see
this results in me placing much more importance on other aspects of Joseph’s life than on
his polygamy (I might note that the idea of being a polygamous man is not attractive to me, I sympathize with the statement, “My brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin.”).

I think Brigham Young should have gone with his gut on that one.

Peace.

Steve

 

[gazelam]

LDS, I know you revere Joseph Smith as your founding prophet, but have you ever really taken a deeper dive into his history? The LDS church presents a very romanticized, rosy picture of Joseph the man, but historians both inside and outside the church tell a much different story. If you knew, for example, that Joseph had adulterous affairs and married at least 33 women, many of whom were teenagers as young as 14 or already married to other men, how would that affect your belief in his credibility as a prophet? If you knew that he threatened some of these women if they refused his proposals, but promised salvation for their whole family if they accepted, would that change your mind about the man? If you knew that Joseph lied to his first wife, Emma, as well as to many others about his affairs and plural marriages, would that affect you in any way?

If you knew that Joseph conned people out of their money by claiming he could find buried treasure for them by looking at seer stones in a hat, and that he used the exact same method to translate the Book of Mormon, would that bother you? If you knew that he copied extensive portions from his copy of a 1769 edition of the King James Bible, including its translation errors, and put them right into the Book of Mormon, would that cause you to ask some questions? If you found out that Egyptologists have proven that Joseph completely mistranslated the papyrus scrolls to create the Book of Abraham, and that those scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham at all, would you take a second look? If you learned that Joseph was conned by some locals who created fake ancient metal plates (the Kinderhook Plates) and then presented them to him for translation, would you still think he had the ability to translate anything?

I ask these questions because the historical evidence overwhelmingly shows that Joseph did all these things and many more just as bad or worse, yet most chapel going LDS have no idea and continue to believe that Joseph was a great man, husband, father, and prophet.

I don’t know whether it’s because you have been told not to look deeper into the history because it’s “anti-Mormon,” or whether the emotional connection simply trumps history, or if it’s because you just haven’t ever heard these things before, but I would simply challenge you to take a deeper look for yourselves. If Joseph was a good man and a true prophet, then you have absolutely nothing to lose by doing the research. Ultimately, it’s truth that matters and I would encourage you to not accept canned or evasive answers. The history is there. All you have to do is read it.

Utah is the most charitable state in the USA.

nationaljournal.com/next-economy/big-questions/the-5-most-and-least-charitable-u-s-states-20140508

Matthew 7:18-20 (KJV)

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.