Kris Frederickson, a MormonTimes.com columnist, recently wrote about Learning from others outside Mormonism. She wrote,
“My understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been greatly improved by the teachings of religious men and women over the ages, many of whom were never actually members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…”
MS. Frederickson went on to quote noteworthy statements from a diverse group of people including a Catholic saint, a nun, a slave, Galileo, Gandhi, Muhammad and C.S. Lewis. At the end of her article, returning to the Restoration, Ms. Frederickson wrapped up with a quote from Joseph Smith:
“All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness.”
Ms. Frederickson concluded,
“We cannot be self-righteous and call ourselves worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, tolerance and respect must be our watchwords.”
As I pondered Ms. Frederickson’s words, a sermon delivered by Joseph Smith on May 26, 1844 came to mind. In that sermon, testifying to the Saints against the LDS dissenters in Nauvoo, the Prophet said,
“I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted,* I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted…“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, 6:408-409)
How does Ms. Frederickson’s conclusion, “We cannot be self-righteous and call ourselves worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (based on a statement of Joseph Smith’s), correlate with the Prophet’s May 26th sermon?* Paul’s boasting, which he calls foolish and “talking like a madman,” is found in 2 Corinthians 11. Paul ends his “boasting” with these words: “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.”
§
To read the entire May 26, 1844 sermon by Joseph Smith see here or here.
I would like to correct this posting. It is a misrepresentation to indicate this was 1) a sermon as it was not an address of religious nature & 2) he was not testifying to the saints as you indicate.
There was a three day conference being held at Dresden, Weakly County, Tennessee, where “A large congregation assembled, but the proceedings were interrupted by a mob headed by some of the leading men of the county;”. Once the mob interrupted the meeting, this is the remarks he made to the mob that interrupted the service and had made false accusations against Joseph Smith. He was defending himself against their verbal attacks.
So to answer your question, how does her conclusion correlate…
1- The statements of the Prophet on this occasion was not doctrine being taught, but a speech of defense against his character and the false accusations being made.
2- The things said in the Prophets speech were not being taught as doctrine nor have they ever been taught.
Having said that, it sounds as though you expect the prophet to be perfect. Only Jesus Christ was perfect. So although he was a prophet, that does not mean he is perfect. His frustration may have gotten the better of him. Maybe the word boast carried a different meaning. Maybe the person who recorded the speech wrote it down wrong. Maybe he flat out made a mistake. Try not to read to much into this. If you were to weigh all of the good against the bad, the rights against the wrongs, although Joseph Smith will still have sins, the good far exceeded the bad. After all, he was still just a man.
Please adjust your post to more accurately reflect the truth.
Moderator’s note: This comment contains misinformation that is manifestly false. See Sharon’s reply below for a correction of chuck’s comment.
The only thing I have to say about Joseph Smith’s comments: He’s got a point.
And I whole-heartedly agree with chuck5000’s comments: Think of all the persecution and frustration laying on his mind. Big deal if he boasted about this. A huge thing that attracted so many people to the Prophet, was his warm and humble nature. He attributed everything he was, said, and did to God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Let’s go ahead and isolate one comment Joseph made, and make a judgment on his character. Is that fair? Sharon, shall we do that to you?
Chuck and Iamse7en, Sounds like you want to put together a pro-con list, and say, OK, he did more good, so we will excuse him. You also run the problem brought out before about how do you know what is doctrine and what is not? What should we take seriously from this fellow? This is evidently a picking and choosing affair. Another issue is that we can all excuse the occasional faux pas from our leaders. But when there are more than a couple, as in Joseph Smith’s case, you begin to wonder. Look at Obama’s pastor now.
Another question, Chuck, Joseph was still just a man, but he is a cornerstone of your faith?
History of the Church 6:408 indicates that Joseph was in Nauvoo when he made the comment under discussion here, not at the conference in Tennessee. Joseph wrote that on Sunday, May 26th at 10:00 am he “preached at the Stand.” The Stand was an outdoor location in Nauvoo where Church meetings, conferences, and Sunday services took place. Furthermore, History of the Church indicates that on the day following Joseph’s preaching at the Stand he rode past the Temple on his way to Carthage. (page 412)
I agree that there was not much content in Joseph’s address of a “religious nature;” however, it was a Sunday morning, “preached” before LDS Church members in Nauvoo, and described in History of the Church as an “Address of the Prophet – His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.”
Chuck 5000, you have the facts of this sermon wrong. Joseph preached these words at Nauvoo in the grove where the saints met for worship at 10 AM May 26, 1844, a Sunday morning. In light of this I would say that this preaching was of a religious nature, and Joseph was indeed testifying to the saints. What false accusations you do you believe he was responding to? Can you provide some documented examples?
Be that as it may, how could a cornerstone of Mormonism put himself above Jesus? Unless, of course, Joseph Smith saw himself as the real god of LDS worship. Is this type of boasting overlooked because many LDS members appear to reverence Joseph Smith instead of the one true God?
It is interesting that the notion of picking and chosing was brought up. I would find it very odd to actually see anything on this sight that would be considered a positive point of Joseph Smith Jr.
I remember reading a story of how a group of early saints had started talking about a family whose house had burnt down. After many had expressed their sorrow at the misfortune of the family, Joseph then pulled out some money and said, “I’m sorry to the amount of five dollars.”
I remember hearing another story of how when some men were heckling him for helping clean the house which was the women’s choir, he said, “Go and do thou likewise.”
These are only a couple of his acts. I submit that there has been picking and chosing here. As a man he was flawed, but if you only had it your way, only all the acts of indescretion would ever be published.
Well, Jacob, let me put it another way. I am sure Bobby Jones helped many people out, too. I am sur ehe had done a good many good deeds. Same with David Koresh. We could even say Hitler did good things, and he did! So did so many other monsters of the past. See, good deeds don’t make up a person. It is the heart.
Now, we obviously don’t know Josephs heart, and there’s no we can. We can speculate, but when we speculate, we have to look at all the evidence of what he did and what he said. You say that if we only had our way, only his indescretion would be published. In the same way, if you had your way, only his “saintly” actions would be published.
When we, the anti’s or Ev’s as you like to call us, look at all his actions. Personally, I know he did some good things. I know this well, but that’s not enough for me to excuse his faults. I say this because he claimed to be much more than a man. He says, in the quote above, he has done more than Jesus! This attitude alone requires a very high standard of living to maintain credibility. He was not able to do so, so we should think of him as no more than what he was, a man, an arrogant and deceitful man. This is based on his other actions.
I know you will dismiss much of this, and that’s OK, as long as you understand the need to look at the hole picture and not forget the things you don’t want to see.
Renee, you claim to know about the talk given and indicate it was of religious nature but you in fact have not even read it because you ask for examples. The false accusations are included in the talk. Right in the beginning of the talk he says:
“A man named Simpson says I made an affidavit against him, &c. Mr. Simpson says I arrested him. I never arrested Mr. Simpson in my life. He says I made an affidavit against him, I never made an affidavit against him in my life. I will prove it in court.” I’m not sure what church you attend, but if this sounds like a religious sermon to you, you may want to look for another church.
You should also note this is a compilation of other peoples memories.
“The report of this discourse was made by Thomas Bullock, but has either been lost or misplaced. The brief accounts by Willard Richards (Joseph Smith Diary) and Thomas Bullock (personal diary) are here published for the first time.”
Michael P, you bring up a good point. Let’s look at Obama’s Christian Reverend Jermiah Wright, or Christian Preacher David Koresh, or Christian Cult Leader Marshal Applewhite, or Christian Reverend Jim Jones. Joseph Smith doesn’t even fall into this same category. I know you would like to try to group him with them, but he was not even close to what these men represent. All of these other “false prophets” have led or are leading people to destruction, literally. Joseph doctrinal foundation was not built on boasting. Find one other speech or sermon where he talks about boasting. Where on the other hand, Jeremiah Wright stands by his racism as a foundational doctrine within his beliefs. Let’s be a little intellectually honest here folks.
Joseph Smith being a cornerstone of our faith refers to him being called as a prophet and the restoration of the gospel and priesthood. If his witness of God the Father and Jesus Christ didn’t exist, the entire church would not exist. That’s why he’s a cornerstone, the prophet, not the man.
Well, first of all, I have never pulled the “anti-mormon” accusation on anyone of this blog. So, please don’t try to discredit me with such statements.
Second. You know what, I have never refudiated that Joseph Smith was not more than a regular human.
It is interesting to see the seeming correlation between Joseph Smith Jr. and the other less desireable individuals. I am sure you can find similarities between them such as them being humans. But to pick people who have made such inhuman choices in their lives certainly prejudices the whole argument.
I will continue this conversation when more thought provoking points are made.
There is no way for anyone to try and white wash what JS said. You can not defend ANY comment where he claims to be greater than Jesus.
This comment was the starting of my research, which lead me to leave the LDS church.
I started researching and found out this speech was given after he had his men destroy the printing press and burn down the building it was in.
He had it destroyed because the man that owned the press left the LDS church because JS had sex with his wife and many other members wifes. He did this in secret from their husbands and did not want this getting out to the world.
He also had sex with 14 & 15 year old girls.
He sounds more like a Warren Jeff to me, not someone in the league of Jesus.
He was boastful, an adulterer. a pedophile and a liar.
And I am glad to be done with him and the LDS bunch!
Facts, thanks for joining the conversation! I agree with you that there is no way to defend or justify the sort of comment Joseph Smith made.
I’d like to put this sermon in its historical context. Joseph actually preached this on May 26th, a week and a half before the Nauvoo Expositor hit the street (June 7th). Under the orders of Mayor Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council, the Marshall destroyed the press and pied the type on June 10th. However, even though the Expositor had not yet been published, Joseph’s May 26th sermon did address some of the accusations (true accusations) that later came out in the paper.
Also, Joseph propositioned Jane Law, the wife of one of the dissenters, but she refused him.
Regarding the Prophet’s child brides, it has been documented that Joseph entered into plural marriage with two 14-year-old girls (Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Maria Winchester – see In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton). However, to the best of my knowledge, sexual consummation of these marriages has not been verified. If anyone knows of reliable documentation to the contrary, I am open to correction. ;>)
First, Chuck, you make a leap– from distortion to destruction. What about L. Ron Hubbard? I did pick obvious individuals, but there are others who have deceived without the destruction. Secondly, you miss the point. If one is a cornerstone, we need to have a very high standard, and he fails. If you were to say what he brought to the table in terms of restoring the church etc is the cornerstone, and not him, that would be different. But Joseph Smith is the cornerstone. In the previous post, it refers to HIM, not anything else, and you have hymms to Joseph Smith! You cannot, in good faith, tell me Joseph Smith the man is not revered as a cornerstone. See, we believe in the prophets of the Old Testament, but they are not cornerstones.
Now, Jacob, you may not havem but many others have. I apologize if you find that innappropriate. Actually, I’d say you have come pretty darn close to doing exactly that. See my first paragraph. The very fact that you consider him a cornerstone speaks volumes. And like Chuck, I am not sure you get my point, and only choose to see the extreme. The point is this: that each of those men did something good to others in their lives. The did some charity. Yet, their good work does not override the bad. Hence, the argument that JS gave $5 (more money then than now), and other charitable acts, does not make him a saint.
I think most Mormons don’t get it because they have a pre-commitment to Jospeh Smith. For non-Mormons, perfection and a lack of virture beneath that of Adolf Hitler are not the only two options. Joseph Smith is, and obviously should be, held to a higher standard than the average guy on the street. We are not asking for impecciblity here. A prophet can speak as just a regular a guy (even make mistakes), yet at the same time words do matter. Again, drop the all-or-nothing paradigm. Mormons set the bar for prophethood so low that any charlatan can (and has) walk over it.
Keep in mind, Joseph does not just boast here, he commits blaspemy! He brags about being a better church builder than Jesus Christ! Whether he is speaking as a prophet or just a regular guy this is disturbing.
This by itself would not be a death nail for Mormonism, but it does fit with the notion that Joseph Smith was a delusional narcissist. How much character evidence would one have to present to discredit Joseph Smith as a prophet? It is a serious question and not one that is rhetorical.
That people try to defend Joseph Smith’s boasting in this sermon is beyond me. Mormons say he was an imperfect man, but it is odd that when Joseph was at his worst they defend him the strongest.
Instead of boasting, I would call it pride. and I would put JS in the same leauge as Lucifer when he gave his 5 (I Will’s) that got him tossed out of heaven. Rick b
Really, this is a pretty damning comment, no matter the context:
“I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.”
I’d be curious the explanation of these exact words.
So would I as they are written from the journals of someone else. The actual talk was lost. I wonder what he REALLY said.
Chuck, I am really sorry but I find your newest post really sad. You guys refuse to hold your leaders accountable for the garbage they spew.
You guys believe things were written correctly when it fits your needs or you like what was said, and when you do not like what was said or have problems with it, then it was written down incorrectly.
2 examples are, the Adam God verses King Follet discourse.
Adam God is only 2 pages long at best, yet LDS cry it was written down incorrectly, yet K.F.D was 11 pages long written down by the same guy and is touted as the greatest sermon ever given by the prophet. Both are in the JoD and it is said, this is not Doctrine, yet the LDS believe much of the K.F.D. As Scripture. That is why I cannot believe you when you say what you and and feel you refuse to hear the truth. Rick b
Rick, I have stated clearly in the first post that I never claimed Joseph Smith was perfect. How would you expect me to hold him accountable? What would that take beyond what I have already said?
Sharon, I just realized you added a comment to my post basically calling me a liar. You have not shown how items 1) and 2) are manifestly false. Please show how items 1) and 2) are manifestly false, or correct your note.
As for the location of the meeting, I can concede it may be inaccurate. Here is how it is listed in H of the C Vol 6, including the bold topic heading as found on ldslibrary.com:
“Conference, Dresden, Tenn.
A three days’ conference was held at Dresden, Weakly county, Tennessee. Elder A. O. Smoot was chosen president, and D. P. Raney, secretary. A large congregation assembled, but the proceedings were interrupted by a mob headed by some of the leading men of the county; yet a candidate for elector was appointed by my friends.
Sunday, 26.-At 10 A.M. I preached at the Stand. The following synopsis was reported by Mr. Thos. Bullock, clerk of the steamer, Maid of Iowa.
Address of the Prophet-His Testimony Against the Dissenters At Nauvoo.
President Joseph Smith read…”
Give it Up Chuck,
When ever a snake gets cornered it strikes. You can not defend this speech from him no mater where is was given, or why you think it was given.
When all else fails, Mormons try and put a spin twist on things, such as “This was not documented” (or notarized and signed by JS himself), so it is just someone else’s word.
It is just his (JS) word that God and Jesus visited him. No one else was there. If you wish to believe him, that is up to you. I choose not to.
JS was full of himself and wanted to stand on a fence post and crow like a rooster and it WAS documented. A journal will hold up in court, and there was more that one journal to prove he said it.
This was not the only thing he did wrong. As I stated before he was and adulterer. Many times over. I supose you can put a spin on this too. What, “God made me do it”.
Sharon, “Google” the name Fanny Alger. She was a 15 year old girl that was living in the JS home. She was his first, RECORDED, affair. He got her pregnant and never married her. Emma even caught them in the barn together and kicked her out. (She should have kicked him out)
Mormons will defend him to their dying breath and I do not expect otherwise.
It is like “I can call my father a “Dead beat”, but I will fight you if you call him one.”
Chuck, I never said you said JS was perfect. I simply pointed out how you feel JS never really said what he said or maybe it was written down wrong. as I said, you LDS ALWAYS, claim things were written down incorrectly or they meant something other than what was said when you do not like it, yet when you agree with it, it is better than the word of God. Rick b
Chuck, how can you hold him accountable? Say it was wrong for him to say he was better than Jesus. Its that simple. Criticize the man for his comments. Its that simple. Call him out for his mistakes rather than say he didn’t mean it, it was taken down wrong, or that he was taken out of context. Those words are pretty direct, and certainly inappropriate for a man to base his faith on Jesus himself.
Chuck, if Joseph Smith said what he is recorded to have said (particularly the boasting), do you have the integrity to unequivocally condemn it as blasphemous?
Huh? Would this even give Joseph a license to say blasphemous things?
Again, would this even give Joseph a license to blaspheme? Do alleged prophets have the moral freedom to blaspheme when it doesn’t fall into the oh-so-magical category of “official doctrine”?
You guys keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourselves. Stop making excuses for Joseph and have the integrity to condemn what he is recorded to have said. If you can make a compelling case that the account was embellished, go for it. Otherwise it just looks like hedging.
That is blasphemy. When one keeps trying to find a justifiable context for it, he or she only shows how little Christ’s name is truly valued.
Of Joseph you sing, “Great is his glory and endless his priesthood”. You defend the one is allegedly “mingling with gods” in marrying teenagers behind Emma’s back, in marrying other men’s wives, in sending men on missions to proposition their wives, in blasphemous boasting, in the belittling of God.
It’s all there for the world to see. The angels look down with shock and horror at it.
Stopping praising the man and start praising the Son of Man as the one who created all worlds and all universes and all realities,
Aaron
Facts, Thanks for the reminder on Fanny Alger. The source I was using (In Sacred Loneliness) put her age at 16 when she married Joseph Smith (he was 27), which is why I didn’t cite her. Whether Joseph and Fanny’s relationship was a marriage or an affair is debated among historians… At any rate, we do know that Joseph was involved with some very young women – or would it be more accurate to call them girls? Thanks again for the heads-up.
Aaron,
I know we try to keep our interaction here noninflamatory, but reading what you posted had the word “cult” jump out at me. The degree to which Mormons will over-look statements like these in order to maintain faith in Joseph Smith is very typical of a distinctive cultic mind-set. Denial is one of the most prevalent characteristics of people who want to maintain a certain psychological equilibrium. It’s seen in all sorts of situations but most often in abusive relationships or mind control groups. It’s pretty tough to challenge a set of personal beliefs especially if someone holds to a notion that God/god is communicating and revealing “truth” to them. I heard a retired Christian psychologist say one time that “if a fella says God told him something, that’s pretty much the end of the argument.” In short, reason, rational thought and evidence don’t count for much with such a person. So the quotes you provided won’t count for much to a true believer. They must be explained away.
chuck5000 said: “So would I as they are written from the journals of someone else. The actual talk was lost. I wonder what he REALLY said.”
I’m wondering if someone could verify for me how many (approx.) of the talks that are considered prominent (or even how many of the talks altogether) in the HotC are taken from 2nd-hand/3rd-hand sources?
Also, chuck5000, you seem to discredit the information presented in that speech from the journals due to the fact that they aren’t “official” sources — (to me) If that argument is to have any merit to it, then one must call into question the reliability of the sources themselves.
RickB brought up an interesting point about this — here’s what he said:
“Adam God is only 2 pages long at best, yet LDS cry it was written down incorrectly, yet K.F.D was 11 pages long written down by the same guy and is touted as the greatest sermon ever given by the prophet.”
If what RickB says is true, then is it correct to assume that chuck5000’s argument (that because the source is 2nd-hand, it should not be considered) is no longer valid?
I think if we can answer that question, then we should be able to get back to the heart of the matter (AKA, The boastful words of Joseph Smith)
Wow! I didn’t realize how frenzied everyone would get. Where have I ever said he did not say these things? I have never denied that he said them and I find it interesting that all of you are claiming such. In addition, I am not making the claim in and of myself, but since none of you have the integrity to provide it, here is the quote that accompanies the article right in the H of the C.
“The report of this discourse published in History of the Church was made by Thomas Bullock, but has either been lost or misplaced. The brief accounts by Willard Richards (Joseph Smith Diary) and Thomas Bullock (personal diary) are here published for the first time.”
You cannot deny this as a source without denying the source in and of itself. So I haven’t discredited anyone, I merely stated that I wonder what was really said. All of you Christians blew it out of proportion. But I am not surprised. This just goes to show you how you all twist things when it benefits you. And Sharon, you lack moral integrity to ignore this and side with someone taking your post off topic when you are so adamant about providing the details of this. Block me if you want, but you simply cannot be trusted; you are not an honest person.
Who am I to condemn anyone? If any of you feel like you are sin free and can “cast the first stone,” go right ahead. I’m not, so I won’t.
You all make me laugh. Many girls were married at very young ages this early in history. The fact that today it’s socially unacceptable plays no role in what was acceptable then. Besides, how does that have anything to do with “Self-righteous Boasting?”
Aaron, can you explain why you are able to bend the rules while holding everyone else to a different standard? Why do you get to make extremely long posts while we are limited? That plays to unfair advantage as to responses. You say you limit us to encourage more people to participate, yet you are at liberty to assume the soap box. What gives?
Chuck,
The degree to which Mormons can justify the actions of their leaders and prophets is a source of continual amazement/amusement to me. So we have a lot of young girls getting married years ago (as you stated). I believe Loretta Lynn, the country singer, was married at 14. But here’s the difference, I don’t think her husband Moony was marrying a bunch of women and justifying and manipulating (girls/women) on spiritual grounds. There are common threads that run through the lives of false religious prophets. One of these is sexual misconduct and the use of power to exploit people. Another is maglomania and narcissim. That is, in my opinion, the basis for JS boasting. Bill Clinton’s explanation for his conduct with Monica L. was that he did it because he could. Joseph Smith had a dynamic engaging personality that drew people to him. I’m sure his boasting in a convincing manner was part of the appeal. In the end, however, people have to make their own choices. When this is done based on “spiritual” emotion rather than on verifiable evidence, they are led down a road of distruction.
The degree to which Christians take one sentence out of years of sermons, talks, and events and hold it as the beacon by which they justify their descriptions of the church and the men who led it is what is amazing to me.
It also amazing to me that when you feel trapped in some why, you all instantly jump to polygamy and with all the spin and hyperbole you can, you talk about it referring to “little girls” and use terms like “sexual misconduct.”
Let’s look at this for what it is. Once instance. I don’t recall who said it, but they mentioned on this blog. When they are dealing with a situation you look at it in two ways: 1) an isolated incident 2) a pattern of behavior. This is an isolated incident as there is no pattern of boasting elsewhere in his teachings. I am sure someone will drum up something, twist and interpret it to fit their definitions, and present it as such, but there is nothing found like this ONE statement anywhere else.
But again, as I have presented in my previous post, this was taken down from journals. The original discourse was lost. So was this really what was said? Maybe. But if this is accurate, are you perfect? Is anyone on this blog perfect? Further more, if this is your display of humility, and am glad I am not associated with any of you. From the sounds of it, you think you are better than Joseph Smith and are making a public statement to that fact by your judgement of him. So who is boasting, really?
Chuck.
See, There you go again! When cornered with the truth, you turn to finger pointing and name calling.
I as well as you, are not without sin. But everyone must draw a line in the sand and say I will not cross this point with my actions.
I would NEVER make such a boastful statement as JS did about putting himself on the level of Jesus.
I would NEVER cheat on my wife, whether it was with a under aged girl or with my neighbors wife.
I would never try to cover-up my adulterous actions by destroying someone else’s property to try and hide behind a church.
I see this a major problem with his credibility as a church leader or as a person.
He was on a crash course with destruction and with all of these things catching up with him and they did.
Would you like to find out that your wife was having an affair with your Bishop, and he tried to tell you that the Lord told them to do it? Him, Me and His Lord would be having more that words to settle this situation.
And they did with JS. Right or wrong, he got himself in that mess with his actions and words.
I do not condone murder on ether is of this issue.
The more you get away with, the more you think you can get away with.
He was a very prideful man, and Pride covers a multitude of sins!
Chuck,
By the way, I’m the one who talked about a behavior being judged as an isolated incident or a pattern. With Joseph Smith we have a definite pattern of behavior. I believe he “claimed” something like 33 women as “wives”. I think any fair minded person would say that 33 incidences of adultery constitutes a pattern of behavior. And this idea that we are taking things out of context is one of a couple of defenses LDS folks use to explain away the writings and sermons of the “prophets” that are more than a little embarrassing. The others (defenses) being that it was just the prophets opinion not an official pronouncement, and finally, a person has to have an LDS mind set to truly understand what is being said. In this instance, I take Joseph Smith at his word. He believed what he was saying. He was a braggard and one given to telling incredible whoppers. But you’ve bought the man’s program and will alibi anything to protect your emotional investment in your faith in him. The more preposterous the claim, the more “faith” it takes to believe it, the more spiritual and devoted the follower of Smith is seen to be by the rest of the faithful.
Chuck, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Willard Richards or Thomas Bullock were being sloppy or malicious, or that they had any intention of so flagrantly misrepresenting Joseph Smith as saying something so horrifically blasphemous. Until you can offer compelling evidence, it just looks like you’re hedging. I’m not even getting the impression that you are willing to condemn what Joseph Smith is recorded to have said.
This is our (Sharon, Bill, and I) blog, so the very few times when we feel like diving in at length we have the freedom to leave an extended comment. It is “unfair” from the start, since we are writing the original posts with multimedia and potential verbosity. Apart from us primary authors, everyone else has the same limitations, whether Mormon or non-Mormon.
In any case, it looks like you’ve had quite sufficient room to make your points, and you have made them loud and clear. You are not willing to engage the words and actions of Joseph Smith with moral sensitivity. As Jesus said, “You must be born again”.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Chuck,
Falcon asked you a question that I want to add to.
How come JS can take many wives and claim it was from God, God allowed him to or commanded him to, and you simply believe it is true?
Yet if your bishop took your wife and said God told the bishop to take your wife, I would be willing to bet my life you would not believe the guy for one minute. am I correct? and if so, why can JS do it but no one else. If I am wrong, then what other evidence would you buy out side of, (God told me so). Rick b
Chuck, you said,
I think this is false, but neither Sharon or I think you were lying about this, because it seems you were inadvertently misreading History of the Church. On page 408 I can see how one could accidentally merge the preceding content to “Sunday, 26.—At 10 A.M. I preached at the Stand” with that which follows. Smoot was apparently chosen to preside on the 22nd (during the three-day conference), while Smith “preached at the Stand” on the 26th. So Smith’s sermon to the saints and the three-day conference were held at different times. For verification see a Gospelink entry of Times and Seasons.
Also, you quoted,
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that is in the HotC? Perhaps it’s a later annotation? I cannot find it there, but I did find it in LDS Library 2006… in a footnote in Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, p. 406. I believe the “brief accounts” mentioned are Willard Richards writing, “10 A M. preached at the stand about Joseph Jackson and the Mobocrats” in the Joseph Smith diary, and Thomas Bullock writing, “At the Stand recording J. Smith’s sermon” in his own diary. From what I understand, both Thomas Bullock and Willard Richards were responsible for much of what ended up the HotC, so I’m at a loss as to how any of what you’ve quoted helps your case. Here you have eye-witness historians who are personally responsible for the historical accounts in question, men who are favorable to Smith, men who have a dedication and devotion to Joseph Smith, men who have no apparent malicious agenda against Joseph Smith, men who are particularly good at recording history, men who are revered by Mormon academics as excellent historians. Why you try to turn this into an occasion for doubting the account puzzles me.
My problem isn’t really in your historical claims (some of which have been repudiated), but in your unwillingness to see Smith’s words and actions as alarming. Remember, later on in this same sermon Smith claims, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” This of course was a lie, for he had over thirty wives at the time of the sermon. You said earlier,
But the evidence shows that some very significant accusations were largely correct, not false. And yet Joseph Smith denied them to cover his fanny (his own fanny, not Fanny Alger). Some accusations were (I assume) false, but it would be incorrect to simply describe them all as false.
Jesus said of true and false prophets, “by their fruits you shall know them”. Shouldn’t we take these fruits into consideration?
Sincerely,
Aaron
Of interest:
“Age of eligibility for women in Joseph Smith’s time-frame would start at a minimum of 19 ½ years old.” (>>)
For the lurkers out there, yes, the rabbit hole goes very deep…
Chuck, in all due respect, you are hedging. You have been confronted with a simple request: to denounce the statement. You haven’t. All you have done is raised a question as to who said it, if it was said at all. All the evidence points to it as a Joseph Smith comment, and it is therefore a reasonable conclusion to attribute it to him.
Further, if you discount this one, how many others are we to discount? How do we know the good ones are really his, too?
Finally, as I read through his “speech”, I noticed a trend to deny and accuse the others of lieing. Sound familiar? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but the similarity in technique was quite apparent to me.
I am not accusing W. RIchards or T. Bullock or being sloppy or malicious or anything of the sort. Please stop trying to read so deep into my comments. I have no hidden agenda.
I have stated that I believe Joseph Smith to be imperfect. But I refuse to condemn him. I will ask again, who on this blog is perfect enough to condemn him? If you feel you are, go right ahead and condemn. I for will not. I have my faults and sins as well. I am in no position to judge him.
Facts, thanks for proving my point. You are boasting how perfect you are in not boasting, cheating on your wife, or carrying on adulterous actions. How is this any different? You are still boasting. And you sound prideful as well.
I am not certain how the topic for this post went from Boasting to Poligamy, but it appears you Christians are all up in a frenzy about it. As for your comment about my Bishop, it just goes to show your complete lack of understanding on the subject. It would: 1) never come from a bishop as he does not lead the church; 2) under the current doctrine, he would be excommunicated and punished as a result; 3) I cannot confirm that taking another mans current wife is how Gods law works. Having said that, I will not have to worry about it as God has taken that law from us quite some time ago.
You can say I am hedging, I won’t disagree. That is fine. I can take the accusations. I would rather do that than to “throw rocks inside a glass house.” I have sateted multiple times that I don’t believe anyone is perfect (other than Jesus Christ) including Joseph Smith. Or even our current prophet for that matter. But again, who are you to judge? Do you really see yourselves as that much better than JS in the eyes of God?
I can condemn past Christian leaders who went astray. I can condemn, him, too. Look, you revere him, to the point of him being a god. His comments were out of line. You know, you can also condemn a man you still generally agree with. You can call them out when they go astray. This is called keeping one accountable.
I appreciate your honesty in saying you cannot condemn him, but its interesting how you justify it. You justify it by saying we are all inperfect, and so we cannot condemn him. Trouble with that is that if we take that standard, we could not condemn ANYBODY. No one could be called out, which renders all things useless.
Another interesting aspect of your refusal to call him out is to do so after saying he is a man, and an imperfect one at that. But you refuse to call him out at a moment when he was out of line? I’m curious, when was he impefect and how?
I think you are giving lip service to his imperfection. Unless you can give me specific, detailed instances of him acting improperly (saying he had a big ego, or a bad temper, or something like that won’t cut it), I will keep this judgment on you. Criticize me for that, but hey, I’m being honest.
Chuck,
We are not asking for perfection here. We just want our spiritual leaders to be blaspemy free. We have not formed a circle around Joseph Smith with rocks in our hands; we are not condemning.
We are just asking you to apply the same standard to Joseph Smith that you apply in your wards on a weekly basis. Your church reprimands, disfellowships, and excommunicates members. Call a spade a spade. Then we can talk about how this affects Joseph’s status as a prophet.
Chuck, if Richards or Bullock weren’t being sloppy or malicious, then what were they being? Smith’s boasting is quite the thing to “accidently” include. You’re the one who seems to be giving the impression that we perhaps can’t trust the account of Smith’s sermon.
If you don’t want to condemn Smith as a person entirely, fine. If you don’t want to condemn Smith for simply being imperfect, fine (that was never the issue to begin with; again, you’re hedging). But what about specifically condemning his blasphemous boasting? You are saying one thing and doing another. You are conceding that Smith is imperfect (which really isn’t a big step forward considering everyone affirms that), yet you are unwilling to engage his specific actions and words and deal with them for what they are.
Chuck, I say this not to spite you, but let me be forthright: a lot of people feel embarrassed for you as they read through all this. This is not going well. Your logic is seemingly as follows: since we are all imperfect none of us have the right to condemn a person’s actions. By this same logic are you also unwilling to condemn the actions of those who committed the crimes of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Are you sure you really want to stick with your current logic? Do all actions and words—even blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ—suddenly become immune to appropriately harsh criticism simply because “no one is perfect”?
Sincerely,
Aaron
This has been discussed before in another topic months ago. The answer I gave was this – Jesus stated that His true believers will do greater things than He did while He was on this earth. Aaron mentioned that this meant about bringing people into the faith. This is what Joseph is ‘boasting’ about here. That he has brought people to a faith in Jesus by restoring the true church through the power of God and this church will not fall into apostasy as promised by God like the churches in the Bible have done. But because you do not believe in the great apostasy you cannot believe in this explanation, but it does fit in with our teachings.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
But if you think Joseph was ‘alone’ in doing this boasting and this proves that he is a false prophet, then what about Moses? He boasted about providing Israel with water after smiting a rock, when he was told by God to speak to the rock and it was God who ‘provided’ the water. Moses was chastised by God about this and he was punished by not being allowed into the Promised Land.
So there are scriptural bases for this ‘boasting’. Whether it was the right thing to do or not is irrelevant as Joseph is only human and prone to making mistakes.
As for the question about Ms Frederickson’s comment – that is her interpretation of what Joseph said. This has nothing to do with church policy. What Joseph said about boasting is that it retards the human mind and hinders our progress. It says nothing about ones’ worthiness or standing in the church or God’s eyes. Yes it is from the devil and needs to be absent from our lives but that’s all.
Wow, we’re going in a full circle. We got the impression that the account by eye-witness / professional historians who loved Smith was unreliable, we got the impression that Smith sinned and his boasting was a mistake attributed to imperfection, then we get the impression that it was completely justifiable.
The wheels on the bus…
Ralph,
I’ll give you this, you are amazingly creative. With you LDS folks, I find myself scratching my head and saying, “What? Where in the world do they come up with this stuff?” Do you follow any rules at all when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Or is everything based on “personal revelation and confirmation”. Using your approach, anything can work. You said something like the restored church “will not fall into apostasy as promised by God like the churches in the Bible have done”. What are you talking about? Where do you get that? I can’t find what you’re saying in the Bible. What churches in the Bible? When you make statements like that please provide references.
Falcon,
In the OT there was a church and an organisation for the church. For instance, the Israelites were under a theocracy for a while as they wandered through the wilderness. Moses was both the spiritual leader and head (president for want of a better word) of the Israelites. He was given by God 12 of the princes of Israel to assist in the governing of the people and 70 of the elders of the people to assist in the spiritual governing of the people. The Levites became the priests to perform the ordinances and rituals. They believed in the true God and worshiped Him. As we can see in the Bible, they became apostate to the point that they crucified their Messiah, Jesus. So there is one church in the Bible that became apostate.
The next was the church established in the NT by Jesus. As I said in my previous post, “because you do not believe in the great apostasy you cannot believe in this explanation, but it does fit in with our teachings.” We believe that the church from the NT became apostate, and if you want references for that go to the LDS main page, or go to MRM and look up their articles refuting this claim – it gives the LDS references for an apostacy. So no it is not my interpretation of the Bible. I am following the LDS interpretation and if you do not subscribe to it that’s fine by me.
Using your definition of church as being a body of people worshiping God and not an institution, there has always been a church on this earth from Adam onwards. However, as we can see from the Bible the Jews apostasised centuries before Jesus’ birth. So that part of my defense above fits into your belief. The only part that doesn’t is the NT church apostasising.
Ralph,
Isn’t this fantastic how all of your claims fit together with LDS beliefs? Quite frankly, I could develop a religion based on UFOs and use the Bible to support it. It’s really not a difficult chore. First of all, there was no “church” in the Old Testament. The “church” is a new testament concept. The Jews were definitely a yoyo bunch when it came to their devotion to God. It’s the nation of Israel. It goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant. “Twelve princes” (?) where’s that? Are you talking about Jacob’s twelve sons. Princes (?) No! The Jews became apostate and crucified Jesus? The Jewish leaders rejected the Messiah, the Romans crucified Jesus. I’m sorry, I’ve got this need to get things right. If you want to say that this is LDS interpretation, I say yes, you are right! And what a fantastic interpretation. I have seen where the LDS religion is a real cut and paste affair. Make it up from whole cloth and change on a dime. I wonder what LDS folks are like when they put together a jig saw puzzle? Do they cut the puzzle pieces to make them fit? Come on Ralph, you’re way to smart for this.
Falcon, thanks of the fantastical rhetoric.
Taking Joseph Smith’s quote at face value, I could see how many who do not hold my faith would find fault with his words. But then again, this is not any different than almost any other statement he has given ever since his telling of his first vision.
Ralph brings up the most important point to regard. It comes down to the basis of the great apostacy. If if did happen then what Joseph Says is true, the church set up by first Jesus and then the apostles died as soon as the last apostle died. Is this boasting, perhaps. I probably would never have said such a thing. But then again I have never been put into a leadership position of an entire church.
As far as blasphemy, that is only your interpretation and I do not accept that. You guys make up your own rules and expect us th follow them. You do not try to gather any understanding about our beliefs and belittle us every step of the way. I find many statements here grossly inflamitory, and used in a way as to disparage any who truly wish to explain our faith. I try to speak on this sight so that at least a point of understanding may be achieved even if an agreement does not.
Again, as I have said before, we live in a day and age where a great majority of peoples words are recorded. Every phrase and statement is open to the world to see. How we chose to view them and understand the purpose behind it goes to the character of the person who uses that information.
I don’t agree with all the things that is spoken about in other religions, but I can also see the good of them as well. Many churches in our world honestly endeavor to promote the value of mankind. Those of especially the christian faiths can lead people to a faith in Christ, and that is the most wonderful thing of all. For every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that He is the Christ and the savior of mankind. Yet with all that, is it not great for those who have brought people to faith
Jacob,
You’re going to have to explain alittle better what your “faith” is. I see Mormon faith as pretty much a closed minded acceptance of what is promulgated by the LDS leadership as revealed truth and confirmed by spiritual feelings and a rejection of verifiable evidence. So, it is true, there is an LDS concept of faith. I don’t subscribe to that type of faith. Joseph Smith had more than one version of his first vision, but that can also be explained away as are other troublesome facts. Restored gospel? I’ve asked several times about Biblical proof that the apostles practiced plural marrage, temple rituals, believed God was an exhalted man, and that men can become gods, but to no avail. So the concept of a lost belief system and its subsequent restoration is the product of Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination. But it served his purpose. I think you conveniently and by design underestimate the Christians who blog here. We have a very good understanding of Mormon history, doctrine and the LDS thought process. As a Biblical Christian, I recognize we’re in a spiritual battle here to contend for the faith.
I can thoroughly study buddhism, islam, or even the roman catholic church history. And, even though I could write a pretty good paper on that information, I am in no more of a position to claim authority on those religions as you could claim on mine.
The arguments are the same as those of other faiths or even those of no faith. 1) Here is my criteria, 2) you prove it. I am in no position to prove anything to you. Do you seek to understand why we have our faith or do you seek merely a point of contention? Because for each issue that is brought up on this forum, I have only seen a handful of people who have conceded any points but a vast majority tries to ill-define what our faith is based on “history” twisting it with your already biased unbleiving nature and then when we try to defend our beliefs in any way, shape, or form you belittle our faith which is of no greater or lesser nature than your beliefs. You have your beliefs but I don’t sit here calling you a liar because you have your faith. And, claim as much as you want, there are major points in the bible that are not empircally proved other than your faith alone.
It all still comes down to which one is right. I believe I am right, and you believe you are right, but I do not in the least try to demean you because of what you believe is right. I respectfully disagree with you. But I still respect your faith. Because, if there is the smallest possibility that you are right, I don’t want to totally demean or degrade your faith simply because I had my own.
So, you don’t believe me. So what, my faith is not based on whether or not you believe me, but based in my belief in God. I also believe in the second great commandment given by Christ. I do love my neighbor.
If our church was the church of Joseph Smith Jr. then I guess we would be in trouble. But, fortunately for us, it is not. It is the church of Jesus Christ, and is not based on men because men can err. Our doctrine is true.
The idea that Joseph’s boast here is justified because of the alleged great apostacy, and because Jesus said that his follows would do greater things, is just base. In all seriousness, stuff like this is why other faiths do not want to play with you.
The great apostasy is essential for the Mormon faith and its sad that Mormons would take refuge in something that is demonstrably false. If first century Christians had a faith like Mormonism, Mormons would be bringing forth loads of damaging evidence as plenty would exist; Christians and Jews wrote tons. In all their writing we see nothing resembling Mormonism and we see a whole lot that contradicts it. The Bible does speak of apostacies both in the OT and in the NT, but nowhere does it say that a total apostacy did or will occur which is what a restored gospel would require.
Also, it should be noted that Joseph’s boast is not even true! He did not suffer more than Paul. Others in that generation suffered more than he did. A bunch of Latter-day Saints had left him by this time. Many men throughout history have led churches that were much larger than the Latter-day Saints at this time (or any time).
Notice how Joseph separates himself from Peter, John, Paul, and even Christ. He seems to differentiate between the Latter-day Saints and the followers of Jesus. The whole thing seems like a carnal view of church building. The abandonment of Jesus was foretold (Jesus called it out before it happened) and part of God’s plan. Yet, Joseph sees it like a black mark on Jesus’ reputation and a bonus for him (because it never happened – but it did).
Muhammad Ali once said that it’s not a boast if it’s true . . . well, this one is not true.
Wow. There is some interesting stuff above. Can someone please explain to me better how Joseph Smith claiming he has suffered more than these men and that he has done more than Jesus makes sense? I don’t get it. When I look at the Bible, and Moses, for instance since that was used, Moses never claimed to be better than God, which is what saying you’ve done a better job than Jesus is saying. Peter was crucified upside down? Paul was in prison how many times and was shipwrecked? And Joseph Smith suffered more than them? It doesn’t make sense.
The failure to condemn him, and with the escuse that “if I weren’t Mormon, too, I could see…” doesn’t quite make it either. The quote is very specific, and very direct. No matter the context, his comments are troubling. I’ve heard time and again how he is just a man. OK, we got that. Now show us how he was just a man.
Oh, and Jacob, are you now saying you are not Christian, if you go to great lengths to say you have a different faith? Are you saying your Jesus is different from mine and that our faiths are radically different?