In Defense of Joseph Smith

[BrotherofJared]

Who knows. She may have had concerns that other women and their children would claim inheritance, both of property and of the leadership of the Mormons. Smith anointed his oldest son as his heir to his leadership position, three times. And when the boy was old enough to lead, he led the RLDS.

Social stigma of being a woman that participated in and supported a polyamorous lifestyle.

Jealousy, and the refusal to acknowledge Smith’s affairs as legitimate in any way.

Not wanting her children to know/believe their father was as he was.

Those are my guesses. Which, I think show she was concerned about her character and her children’s welfare. I don’t see that she ever viewed Smith’s affairs as marriages, spiritual or otherwise. So to her, no, there was no polygamy because she didn’t accept her husband’s extramarital affairs as marriages. He hid them as best and as often as he could from her, and when she did become aware or suspicious, she drove his other women off. These are not he actions of a woman who accepted polygamy as the Brigham Young followers did. Her testimony of polygamy is 180 degrees opposite of every woman who accepted polygamy and lived it willingly.

Brigham Young and his followers vilified her for decades to come, once saying about her that, “more hell was never wrapped up in any human being than there is in her”.

janariess.religionnews.com/2013/04/23/the-reinvention-of-mormon-emma-smith

The reason Emma denied it was ever practiced is because she didn’t like it. Plain and simple. But she did love Joseph, scoundrel that he was, and she did accept his teachings of eternal marriage because she was sealed to him. So, she had a conundrum that she was faced with: Reject polygamy and not be sealed to her husband or accept it and deal with it in the next life. But as for this life, he’s gone, it’s time to move on. The basis for this latter decision of course goes contrary to the RLDS doctrines on marriage. I believe that Emma realized that if you have eternal marriages, there is no way you can avoid polygamy and therefore expunged the doctrine from the RLDS organization.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I stopped reading after the first sentence…

Just as absurd if I posed a similar question…

If Catholicism was given to corruption and apostasy, how long do you think this religious movement would have lasted?

I think it can go for a long time if it’s the religion of the state and there was no freedom to practice any other religion. Yea. It could last a long long time.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I don’t think there is a Christian understanding in that article, of what it means to bear good fruit. Good fruit are not our successes, that any can be achieved (including by non-Christians) with hard work, planning and determination.

Good fruit is the quality of deeds, of the individual who is claiming to be a prophet. It is a moral judgement of the individual making the claim, not a judgement about the successes of his ambitions.

The argument, that good outcomes arise from bad fruit, and therefore the fruit is good, reflects the pragmatism of LDS moral theology.

Christian morality does not accept a good end as justification for immoral means to meet that end.

Or in other words, a good end does not make immoral actions good, and that is essentially the argument being presented by the author of the OP’s link. Then calling that good end “good fruit”.

It is the actions of Joseph Smith that are being looked at. When he has adulterous affairs, and claims they are commanded by God, and then teaches others to follow his sinful actions as divine command, then we can easily determine that his fruit is indeed, bad. If he claims to be able to translate ancient texts into English, but is shown to have just made stuff up, we can easily determine there is another bad fruit. Success in his ambitions, in spite of an immoral character, are not the good fruits.

If a good outcome, or even a partial good outcome, were the definitions of good fruit, any criminal who has had success, gotten away with it, then used their ill gotten gain for good, would meet the definition of bearing good fruit. Again, bad fruit is not the outcome of ambition, but a moral judgement of the person’s actions. To the point, that the good gains achieved via rotten fruits, are also rotten in the eyes of God. The good has been poisoned, as it were.

That is the exact deception that Jesus is warning us against. Bad fruits mean the tree is bad, even when the tree appears not so bad. So judge the actions of those claiming to be a prophet, to determine if what is being presented as good, is actually, good.

I think the quality of Mormons as Christians (meaning actually following Christ’s teachings), as a whole, is pretty good evidence that there was no deception. If you have no problem with the quality of fruit from other adulterous prophets, then you should have a problem with Joseph’s.

 

[BrotherofJared]

It is a red herring. We aren’t pitting a judgement of claimed prophecy based on societal norms of the day, but on the commandments given by GOD. Thou shalt not lie. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Jesus, who is God, is not only the author of these commandments, He certainly didn’t break any of them. Smith, on the other hand, did.

Jesus, does not seek forgiveness from Joseph Smith, but Smith certainly should have from Jesus. I’ve never seen any evidence that Smith ever confessed his own sins. More the opposite, always bragging about how all his actions, including the sinful ones, were desired by, and pleasing, to God.

I think he made this judgement by how successful he was in keeping his followers, and gaining more followers. To the point that, factual accusations against his immoral actions, he viewed as persecutions on par with Jesus. It was of course, a self-delusion. Jesus doesn’t call us to be persecuted for our sins, but to accept persecutions for the sake of righteousness.

It is human nature, of course, to self delude ourselves. It is God who cleanses us from our faults, the obvious and the hidden, not Joseph Smith.

Isn’t it interesting that Moses, the prophet who brought us the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” had more than one wife. Maybe he didn’t know the definition!?!

 

[iepuras]

I think it can go for a long time if it’s the religion of the state and there was no freedom to practice any other religion. Yea. It could last a long long time.

The Catholic Church lasted longer underground with periods of intense persecution before it became legal in the Roman Empire than the LDS church has lasted while being legal (albeit with practices such as polygamy that were illegal).

 

[BrotherofJared]

So Smith established a kingdom that will not fail, I don’t know why but I’m always amazed at what LDS take away from Christ and lay at Smiths feet. The presumption, the disrespect, the belittling it is, I can’t find words for it.

You mis-understand. We are not taking away from Jesus. Joseph was a prophet of Jesus, accomplishing what Jesus commanded him to do. In other words, Joseph was fulfilling Christ’s commission that upon this “Rock” He (Christ) will establish His kingdom against which the gates of Hell will not prevail.

 

[iepuras]

The reason Emma denied it was ever practiced is because she didn’t like it. Plain and simple. But she did love Joseph, scoundrel that he was, and she did accept his teachings of eternal marriage because she was sealed to him.

A lot of women love their abusers.

So, she had a conundrum that she was faced with: Reject polygamy and not be sealed to her husband or accept it and deal with it in the next life. But as for this life, he’s gone, it’s time to move on. The basis for this latter decision of course goes contrary to the RLDS doctrines on marriage. I believe that Emma realized that if you have eternal marriages, there is no way you can avoid polygamy and therefore expunged the doctrine from the RLDS organization.

That is a pretty crummy choice. I was a single woman in the LDS church for many years. During that time I thought the only way that I would be able to get married was to be the plural wife of a polygamist priesthood holder. Of course, I expected that this would only occur after death. I felt like I didn’t have any other choice. Accept being the property of a polygamist or go to hell. Yeah, some choice. I felt incredible sadness and that I was nothing but property to men who held the priesthood. It was soul-crushing. So much for “free agency”, “joy” in the celestial kingdom, and all that.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The word “catholic” means “universal”. The Catholic Church is the universal Church established by Jesus Christ. There is plenty of evidence that the early Christians were Catholic. Indeed, they believed many things rejected by Mormons, prime among them being the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Further, we find absolutely no evidence of uniquely Mormon beliefs in the ancient Christian Church. The early Christians were Catholic, not Mormon.

Except, of course, the obviously missing apostles. And that the name universal church doesn’t exist in the New Testament either. “If it be Moses church, then call it the church of Moses.” So why wouldn’t the early Christians call it the Church of Jesus Christ? Because it was too offensive to the state? possibly? maybe?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Again, therefore Islam must be true too right?

Do they worship Jesus Christ and savior and redeemer? Do they have the twelve apostles? Do they even remotely have a claim to a succession of authority in the priesthood? No? Okay then, enough said.

 

[BrotherofJared]

So Joseph’s successful church is substantial evidence that Joseph’s actions have been mis-read? By that logic, L. Ron Hubbard’s actions have been misread in light of the worldly success of Scientology… and any other successful deviant cult one might care to mention. Worldly success is not the best barometer of character or integrity as I’m sure you’d concede.

As an aside, most of the Mormon success has occurred, by the way, as Mormonism has become more mainstream and increasingly moved far from the deviant perversions of its founder, JS and BY. I’m sure if Mormonism continued the traditions of JS and BY, even their wordily success would be limited. The Mormon fundamentalists behave in a manner more akin to JS and BY… and I doubt anyone considers these Mormon fundamentalists to be anything more than deviant cult scum.

Not a good thesis, really.

Then I guess the adage “by their fruits ye shall know them.” is false.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Muhammad certainly has it going on in comparison to Smith 1.6 billion self identifying adherents compared to a church claimed 15 million, a number that is vastly different if people are asked to self identify.

RebeccaJ will probably not appreciate me using her comments in my own line of defense, but; it is not the numbers or even the speed of growth. It is the fruit itself, the quality of the fruit.

State religions, the source and methods of acquiring converts over time can account for a lot of members and they may even self identify, but the quality of that fruit is questionable. And in those states, they may all say they are one religion, but they practice a faith that is completely different that what they say they are.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Shouting down, really?

Actually, I asked if JS meant couldn’t - I guess you didn’t see that post.

I move through the posts serially, so my comments don’t reflect corrections that would have come if I had continued reading. But yes. I get the distinct impression that people here are showing down Joseph’s boasting.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Isn’t it interesting that Moses, the prophet who brought us the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” had more than one wife. Maybe he didn’t know the definition!?!

We know from the bible that Moses married Zipporah and we know that Moses later married an Ethiopian woman. What we don’t know (at least I don’t know) is whether Zipporah was still alive at that time.

Paul

 

[BrotherofJared]

1. There is evidence the Danites existed. Are you saying only Mormons critics say this? If so, you are misinformed.
2. Why did JS wear a military uniform? That is a fact, not a critical statement.
3. He ran for president. This information is available on LDS websites so not sure how that info would be critical.

I’m not refuting the existence of Danites. There is nothing wrong with JS wearing a uniform or being a general. And there is nothing wrong with Joseph running for President of the US. Those aren’t the critical components that I was talking about. But, when you lump derision on someones head, it does help to through in a few actual facts that can color our claims in your favor. Then you can say you were factual when, in fact, those facts have nothing to do with the argument.

Joseph did not hire Danites to do any killing. Every city of any size had a militia and had the right to form rank and file. Any citizen of the US can run for President if they meet the requirements. These are frivolous accusations that amount to only one thing: his people loved him. The city as practically all Mormon, naturally he’d be the general. I don’t think he could have avoided it. He was also the Mayor.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janderich
I think he wanted to rile up his accusers. They hounded him from every side and made false accusations. As introduction to the statement he said:
Joseph was not one to back down. I certainly can understand it.

What were the false accusations made against Joseph Smith that he was not willing to back down to?

Why do you think Jesus didn’t fight back when falsely accused?

Should a modern day prophet follow Jesus’ example?

Jesus also avoided certain death because it was not his time. I think prophets should follow the example of other prophets and do what Christ commands them to do. I believe this is exactly what Joseph did in spite of the popularity or social acceptance and yes, following God’s commands did lead to his death, just as other prophets (and I might add, apostles) did in the past.

 

[BrotherofJared]

We’ve been through this before on another thread. You were unable to show where in the Bible God commanded polygamy so now you are demanding we prove a negative? Mormons claim that polygamy is a commandment of God. It is on them to prove this claim. Citing the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants doesn’t cut it since we don’t accept the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

No I showed it, but it doesn’t say polygamy and so you won’t accept it. It’s also been shown that Nathan said that God gave David his wives, but; still the rationality that the practice was acceptable to God and commanded of God is just too much for your to accept.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Maybe BOJ needs to have a few words with LDS church leaders.

lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

Yea, right. The OP of the Danite statement was that he “hired” them to “murderer his enemies.” The Danites are real, but the rest of the accusation is blatantly false.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The Catholic Church lasted longer underground with periods of intense persecution before it became legal in the Roman Empire than the LDS church has lasted while being legal (albeit with practices such as polygamy that were illegal).

It wasn’t the Catholic church back then. Just because you guys keep calling the Catholic church doesn’t mean it was.

 

[BrotherofJared]

A lot of women love their abusers.

That is a pretty crummy choice. I was a single woman in the LDS church for many years. During that time I thought the only way that I would be able to get married was to be the plural wife of a polygamist priesthood holder. Of course, I expected that this would only occur after death. I felt like I didn’t have any other choice. Accept being the property of a polygamist or go to hell. Yeah, some choice. I felt incredible sadness and that I was nothing but property to men who held the priesthood. It was soul-crushing. So much for “free agency”, “joy” in the celestial kingdom, and all that.

You are entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I don’t see how you came to yours, but hope you can find peace in your life as you have it now.

 

[adrift]

This assumes that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. I don’t see the word Catholic anywhere in the New Testament. There is no evidence that early Christians were Catholic at all. Their trials are not the Catholic church’s trials.

In the beginning the followers of Jesus referred to following “The Way”.(Acts 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) In Acts 11:26 is the first time that they were called Christians but it was never called the Christian Church. In the New Testament it was just called the Church as there was only one. When it became necessary to have a name, it became Catholic first used to denote the Church the same Church that was the Way at the end of the first Century. Whenever you see the Church mentioned in the Bible it IS the Catholic Church. Just because the word isn’t there doesn’t mean that they are not the same. What the Church practices now Eucharist, Baptism, Confession, Praying for the sick, etc. is still practiced.