“It is by no means improbable that some future textbook… will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.” Josiah Quincy, Jr., Figures of the Past, 1883
The above quote is oft used in Mormondom to impress people with a notable non-Mormon’s positive opinion of Joseph Smith. It can be found in numerous Mormon videos shown at LDS Visitors Centers. It is included in books about the “Prophet.” Most recently it was highlighted at Mormon Times in an article titled “Joseph Smith ‘most influential’ 19th century American.”
I found that Josiah Quincy’s book, Figures of the Past, is available online, so I read Mr. Quincy’s entire chapter on Joseph Smith and did a little additional research.
Josiah Quincy, Jr. visited Nauvoo in mid-May, 1844. His travelling companion was Charles Francis Adams, Sr., son and grandson of two American presidents. Being deemed important visitors, these men were received and welcomed by Joseph Smith. Mr. Quincy wrote:
Intelligence of our arrival had in some mysterious manner reached General Smith, and the prophet’s own chariot, a comfortable carryall, drawn by two horses, soon made its appearance. It is probable that we owed the alacrity with which we were served to an odd blunder which had combined our names and personalities and set forth that no less a man than ex-President John Quincy Adams had arrived to visit Mr. Joseph Smith.
After spending a day with the Prophet, Josiah Quincy wrote his impressions in a journal. Later he wrote about the visit in letters to friends. Later still he compiled his impressions into a chapter for his book. The chapter began with the now-famous quote; Josiah Quincy was impressed by Joseph Smith. But if all that he wrote in his book is considered, Josiah Quincy was not favorably impressed.
Mr. Quincy referred to the religious system of Mormonism as being comprised of “monstrous claims” (383). He said the sect created by Joseph Smith was filled with “demoralizing doctrines” (377). Quincy noted several times that Joseph Smith apparently thought very highly of himself and thought himself quite clever. Speaking of himself as the militia commander of 3,000 men, Smith reportedly explained,
“I decided that the commander of my troops ought to be a lieutenant-general, and I was, of course, chosen to that position. I sent my certificate of election to Governor Ford, and received in return a commission of lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion and of the militia of the State of Illinois. Now, on examining the Constitution of the United States, I find that an officer must be tried by a court-martial composed of his equals in rank; and as I am the only lieutenant-general in the country, I think they will find it pretty hard to try me.” (383-384)
When Joseph Smith talked about theology and his ability as Master of languages, Josiah Quincy wrote,
Smith was well versed in the letter of the Scriptures, though he had little comprehension of their spirit. He began by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and supported his views by the glib recitation of a number of texts…The degrees and orders of ecclesiastical dignitaries he set forth with great precision, being careful to mention the interesting revelation which placed Joseph Smith supreme above them all…The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages, and took down a Bible in various tongues, for the purpose of exhibiting his accomplishments in this particular. Our position as guests prevented our testing his powers by a rigid examination, and the rendering of a few familiar texts seemed to be accepted by his followers as a triumphant demonstration of his abilities. It may have been an accident, but I observed that the bulk of his translations were from the Hebrew, which, presumably, his visitors did not understand, rather than from the classical languages, in which they might more easily have caught him tripping. (385-386)
Perhaps the most concise and clearly stated opinion Mr. Quincy formed of the Prophet Joseph Smith is found following Quincy’s praise of the beautiful city of Nauvoo. He wrote,
And all the diligent workers, who had reared these handsome stores and comfortable dwellings, bowed in subjection to the man to whose unexampled absurdities we had listened that morning. Not quite unexampled either. For many years I held a trusteeship which required me to be a frequent visitor at the McLean Asylum for the Insane. I had talked with some of its unhappy inmates, victims of the sad but not uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth. It is well known that such unfortunates, if asked to explain their confinement, have a ready reply: ‘I am sane. The rest of the world is mad, and the majority is against me.’ It was like a dream to find one’s self moving through a prosperous community, where the repulsive claim of one of these pretenders was respectfully acknowledged. It was said that Prince Hamlet had no need to recover his wits when he was despatched [sic] to England, for the demented denizens of that island would never detect his infirmity. If the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic, he had, at least, brought them to a market where ‘all the people were as mad as he.’ (388-389)
Josiah Quincy’s travelling companion also wrote of this 1844 visit with the Prophet. Though his recollections are not as detailed as Quincy’s, Charles Francis Adams wrote this in his diary:
There is a mixture of shrewdness and extravagant self-conceit, of knowledge and ignorance, of wisdom and folly in this whole system of this man that I am somewhat at a loss to find definitions for it. Yet it is undoubted that he has gained followers at home and abroad…On the whole I was glad I had been [to see Joseph Smith]. Such a man is a study not for himself, but as serving to show what turns the human mind will sometimes take. And herafter [sic] if I should live, I may compare the results of this delusion with the condition in which I saw it and its mountebank apostle.
Such was the “powerful influence” these respected visitors found in Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Indeed, and there were those who felt differently:
He was also a loyal friend and cared deeply about others. He repeatedly extended a forgiving hand to prodigals, some of whom had caused him pain and misery. “I feel myself bound to be a friend to all . . . wether they are just or unjust; they have a degree of my compassion & sympathy” (PWJS, p. 548). One observer noted that the Prophet would never go to bed if he knew there was a sick person who needed assistance. He taught that “love is one of the leading characteristics of Deity, and ought to be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God. A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone but ranges through the world, anxious to bless the whole of the human family” (PWJS, p. 481). One Church member who stayed at the Smith home and witnessed the Prophet’s “earnest and humble devotions . . . nourishing, soothing, and comforting his family, neighbours, and friends,” found observation of his private life a greater witness of Joseph Smith’s divine calling than observing his public actions (JD 7:176—77).
Smith, Joseph
Richard L. Bushman, and Dean C. Jessee
R.
I like this article, Sharon often brings well-thought pieces to this board. i am pleased that an emphasis on having quotes or events taken out of context is a highlight of this post…let us see if the same rule applies in reverse, becuase it seldom has on this board.
Nevertheless, bottom line is that Adams and company are surely welcome to their own “opinion” are they not? I am sure other visitors and writings would both agree and disagree with the excerpts above.
And yes, though the “most” is arguable, influential definitely is not.
Interesting take on Smith. Certainly, it is their opinion, and yes, others may have differing opinions. But these quotes do reveal something different than what is commonly shown by Mormons.
I think the most problematic aspect is that Mormons use the first part to lift him up. Talk about using a quote out of context… It really only cements the impression that LDS only look to that which is positive to their faith and ignore anything that is not.
But also of concern was his attidudce regarding his (apparent) self appointed military position. He’s flaunting people with that and is full of arrogance there.
Sharon,
I was laughing out loud while reading this article. It pretty much summarized the impression I’ve developed regarding Smith. I knew the “one person’s opinion” would rear its head here at some point. I don’t know of any super secret agenda these two men had. They spent some time with Smith and gave their impressions of him and his colony of believers. Smith was a snake oil salesman and some folks are delighted and entertained by guys like this. Others can see through it and rejected the blowhards for what they are.
On the other thread I provided information regarding Smith’s character and veracity. It’s funny but our Mormon friends often can’t argue with the facts so they have to rely on the “opinion” angle to try and squirm-out of what is a clear cut indictment of Smith. I can’t remember the book or author, but he went around and got sworn affidavits from Smith’s neighbors regarding the Smith clan. It’s all pretty consistent and doesn’t paint a picture of the Smith’s that the Mormons want known.
Falcon, I think it is interesting how they have to change the topic or answer something that is not directly tied to the accusation.
In discussing sub regarding the warrant as evidence of Smith’s culpability, he says that I am then saying the there is evidence Jesus was culpable, too. He didn’t answer the claim but gave this emotive response.
I have to admit this can be said to be only their opinion, but to frank, it fits with so many other things we see surrounding LDS history. I think it is believable and reasonable.
Personally, I really don’t see the first quote being taken out of context. Josiah Quincy did state that he was likely the most influencial man of the 19th century. Whatever his personal oppinion about that influence, the fact that he recognized it is all that the LDS have ever really talked about.
It is much like saying Hitler was one the the most influential men of the 20th century. I think he was evil, but I recognize the influence he had (after all, it was World War II that ended the Great Depression). Does saying he was influencial automaticly mean the influence was good? No. It simply means he was influencial.
People try to downgrade Joseph Smith, make him out to be less than he truly was. This quote is sufficient to show how influencial he was, and how great his actions and work was. It is not meant to make him sound better, but simply to show that he had a powerful influence on the United States, and even the rest of the world, a greater influence than is acknowledge by many people.
As to his comment about this military position, I see no conceit, but a recognition of the humor in the situation. He wanted a Lieutenant General so that the Nauvoo army could opperate completely separate from the rest of the state. He set up Nauvoo, and aquire a city Charter, that made the city almost emtirely independant of Illinois. Why? Because of the persecution that the saints had endured. To protect them he got them the greatest power he could, including the position of Lieutenant general (which he was elected to fill). After he had done this he discovered the laws concerning Court Martials and had to laugh at how it all turned out.
In all of it I see a great precaution and desire to protect those whom he loved, not conciet.
(Let me read the who chapter from Josiah’s book and I will post again.)
Shem, are you maybe suggesting that one who is studying Hitler should stop at the comment that he was one of the most influential figures in 20th century Europe? That’s what it sounds like, because LDS evidently do use the quote to support and prop up Smith, not simply to state he was influential. Does this distinction make sense? See, one would be remiss to use a quote about how influential Hitler was without stating how destructive he was, too. This is especially true when the document in which the quote is found continues to talk about that destruction.
His military quote could I guess be humor, but what a strange sense of humor. I really don’t see it as funny, even if said in a jocular way. It only brought attention to himself and his position and that he didn’t think anyone could challenge him. Whether meant to be a joke or not, I find it troubling.
Of course, we were not there. But Adams and Quincy were there. Until a reason is shown to question their integrity regarding their comments, we should take them for what they say. And even if it is only their opinion, men can give reasonable and frank opinions. So, I see no reason to not believe what they say.
Thanks for the refresher, Sharon.
It’d been some time since I read that chapter. An interesting, balanced take on Smith by one of the most prominent secular statesman to ever visit Nauvoo (I think Stephen Douglass went there a couple times, though I could be wrong).
But I’m surprised you had nothing to say of the exchanges between Joseph Smith and the Evangelical (Methodist) minister traveling w/ Quincy! My, the conversation sounded like a spat straight from the pages of Mormon Coffee! 🙂
I (like most Mormons I think) am most touched by the fact tht Joseph Smith had no idea who was sleeping in his Mansion house on a given night, as it was constantly filled by new arrivals to the city. And tht he is considerate to look for high and low for the least imposing room in his own house (w/out removing the poor occupant) is also a nice show of his humanity (which is very apparent in all the reports of him, & in his own writing).
Diplomatic prowess, however, is a skill I don’t think Smith ever successfully impressed upon a man of proto-Ivy league education, like Quincy–though he often tried very hard. But Smith was self-assured and genuine enough that I don’t think he cared what people thought of him–that is, people other than his close friends, who could very easily hurt his feelings at times. (Incidentally, there were more than a few Illinois statesmen who–despite Smith’s failing extravagances as a diplomat–did like him very much as a person.)
Thanks again for the share,
mutu.
Falcon
No one is implying a secret agenda…i believe, like you, that these two mean gave their honest opinion of their experience. That alone does not mean that their “opinion” is true or false….funny thing about opinions, huh?
Also, surely their own religious beliefs had no influence on their perceptions or judgements, right? You are showing your naivete’ falcon.
MichaelP
I enjoy how you immediately take these quotes and apply them as truth. You claim that Adams’ writings are “believable” and you are justified in that claim, i have no claim against their integrity, but that does not mean they are right or wrong – just opinionated…but you also say they are “reasonable”, and i would ask you how are they reasonable? Is there a majority of historical writings and modern opinions that support your view of JS or does the majority support my view of JS? I would think that “reasonable” would apply to whomever enjoys that majority (as far as “reasoning” goes)..and i dare say that when it comes to those who have information and thoughts on JS, my views enjoy the lion’s share…..but that is just my opinion, right?
P.S. didnt Josiah Quincy try to get Jefferson impeached, only to suffer humilation in Congress….not to mention the war of 1812….I wonder if any of us should use him as a source.
So LDS-ORG-ERs, Why is it ok to use opinion to support or prop up a persons character, but it is not ok to use opinion to challenge that same persons ethical behavior?
Why is it that Boyd said in 1981, in The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect, he made the statements; “Some things that are true are not very useful.” Does this apply to cherry picking stories about JS?
which begs the question, is it useful for new investigators to know the whole story behind JS so that they can exercise their free agency too the fullest and make a worthwhile decision?
Then if after all is known is reveled and the investigator still decides to join, then they have full disclosure. Or is this not being true and faithful to the investigator?
Kevin
you said “So LDS-ORG-ERs, Why is it ok to use opinion to support or prop up a persons character, but it is not ok to use opinion to challenge that same persons ethical behavior? ” – who said this was ok? you may want to be specific. I subscribe to the notion that the situation and circumstance has a great influence on whether opinion is useful or not.
And as a former investigator, who converted as an adult, a skeptical adult, and i WAS more attentive to the negatives i could find about the church than i was the missionaries, i also “did the math”. However, when all was said and done joining the LDS church is what i did. No one hid things in closets or discouraging me from finding my own answers. So yes, it is useful for “full disclosure” and i do not see anything contrary to that with me conversion experience. (yes, i had the internet at that time).
I guess this has spun into a discussion regarding facts and opinions. It’s a pretty convenient place to find shelter for our LDS posters. So, is opinion just opinion or can it come under the heading of “true” opinion or “false” opinion? When we begin to collect the facts regarding Joseph Smith, a clear picture begins to develop. It’s not pretty.
I understand that the Joseph Smith presentation down at Nauvoo is super sanitized by the faithful LDS so are they giving “facts” or “opinions”. Joseph Smith had a warrant issued accusing him of being a disorderly person and an impostor. He was tried and convicted. That’s just the tip of the iceberg regarding his character so at some point a person earns a label which is not opinion but based on facts. Joseph Smith led a life of deceit that eventually led to him spending his last hours on earth in jail involved in a shoot-out.
I know for our Mormon friends the Joseph Smith story is uplifting, inspirational and makes tingles go up and down their whole bodies. But that’s because they believe it’s true. I don’t get the tingles because I know the facts regardless of opinions. If a Mormon’s eternal destiny weren’t resting on this and if it was just some figure in history they got excited about, I’d say big deal. But the fact is that what Joseph Smith taught and practiced will separate Mormons from God for eternity. History is replete with guys like Smith who deceived folks. It’s a sad thing in deed when people know the truth about Smith and reject the living God in favor of him.
Shem, reasonable is that it is not outrageous. In other words, the story presented is not something that sounds made up or exaggerated. It is for this reason it is believable. It is not something that sounds like it was out to destroy the man. In fact, in reading hte whole article, it ends with a somewhat conflicted view of the man– one where Quincy seemed to perversely like the guy. He, though he found Smith to be a bit of a loon and theologically wrong, was drawn to his strength of personality.
Its a very fair historical account.
Reasonable has nothing to do with numbers, nor does believable. It has to do with a rational consideration of the story and its text.
Is this the same who tried to impeach Jefferson? It sounds like it may be. But he was also mayor of Boston and president of Harvard, along with several other important positions along the way.
What I wrote for this blog is not really about Joseph Smith; it’s about the spin the LDS Church has put on Josiah Quincy’s comment. The Church misuses Quincy’s assessment of Smith, blatantly misrepresenting Quincy’s overall opinion of the man. It does this as part of a larger concerted effort to persuade investigators (and members of the LDS Church) that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
Consider this: In the 1899 edition of James Talmage’s Articles of Faith (“Written by Appointment and Published by the Church”), on page 25 Talmage titles a section recounting Quincy’s statement as a “Tribute to Joseph Smith– While few people outside the Church have had much to say in commendation of this modern prophet, it is interesting to note that there are some honorable exceptions to the rule.”
What is one to think about an organization that claims to be the one true church–and the only church with which God is pleased–that stoops to spin and misrepresentation in order to convince people that its founding prophet was a “good and great man” (quoted from the Carthage Jail Visitors Center video, which also quotes Josiah Quincy)? Doesn’t this make you wonder what else the Church is spinning in order to convince you that it is what it claims to be?
Sharon,
I really see no dishonesty in the church’s use of the statement from Quincy. It is in fact a true statement- Joseph Smith is one of the most influential individuals in American history. Making such a statement does not require a person to believe he was a prophet (I think this is shem’s point?). There are many reasons that this is true. As President Hinckley noted, the Book of Mormon has been named one of the 20 most influential books published in America. Over 130 million copies have been produced. The religion he founded is now practiced in over 130 countries. The adherents of that religion were instrumental in settling a considerable portion of the western U.S. Could go on. You get the idea.
How is it “spin and misrepresentation” for the church to use Quincy’s appraisal in presenting Joseph Smith. Is the implication that Quincy had nothing but glowing thoughts about the man? I argue that using the statement in no way implies such a thing.
Bottom line is that Quincy’s statement was an objective prediction that has to some degree been fulfilled with time.
It is amazing to me that if you look at all the claims against Joseph Smith, the vast majority are based on heresay, conjecture, and statements from individuals typically 3 or 4 steps removed from Joseph or separated often by decades. ANY defamatory claim against Joseph is categorically accepted as proven fact by people who invest energy in criticizing him and the LDS church (read any of falcon’s posts as an example). Unfavorable opinions of the man are embraced as fact with no further questions. Critics often scoff at the scholarship (or lack thereof) of LDS. But I think they should look in the mirror- emotions play a very big part in what is accepted as truth by those who hate the church.
So many good people who did not have to stoop to lying are also recorded as testimonies of a Good Man. 🙂
The next day Joseph’s second trial began. Both James Davidson and John Reid acted as lawyers for Joseph during the trial. Many witnesses were called against Joseph; most of them lied about Joseph’s character and actions. This was apparent to the court and it did not allow their testimonies to be taken into account. Newel Knight was then examined:
“Did not the prisoner, Joseph Smith, have a horse of you?”
“Yes.”
“Did not he go to you and tell you that an angel had appeared unto him and authorized him to get the horse from you?”
“No, he told me no such story.”
“Well, how had he the horse of you?”
“He bought him of me as any other man would.”
“Have you had your pay?”
“That is not your business.”
The question being again put, the witness replied:
“I hold his note for the price of the horse, which I consider as good as the pay; for I am well acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jun., and know him to be an honest man; and if he wishes, I am ready to let him have another horse on the same terms.”
History of the Church. Vol. 1, pg. 89
I have never heard the Visitor Centre’s presentation about JS as I only had about 10 minutes to see around Temple Square when I was there, so I can’t comment on how it is used in context.
However, what was said about Hitler is true, he was a very influencial man in the history of Europe. He did many evil things, but he also did some good things as well which aren’t usually commented on because of the evil he did. Just saying that he was one of the most influential men in European history and leaving it there is not a misrepresentation, nor is it lying. It leaves the floor open to the people who hear it to do their own research and come up with their own opinion as to how good or bad he was.
Same with JS. The statement that he would be considered one of the most powerfully influential men in his period of time is not misquoting the author. To then go on and give one’s own opinion as to why is also not using the quote out of context. It still leaves the listener the opportunity to go and do their own research and make up their own minds. JS was told that his “name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” And we can see that happening now.
BTW, because of how I lived my life during high school most of my peers thought I was gay. A few years after high school, when meeting some of these people, they were surprised to know that I am not gay. If they had not met me and found this out, if you had asked them about my orientation they would still tell you I was gay – and High school was a long time ago for me. Just because people swore afidavits about JS and family, does not mean they are true, nor does it mean they are opinions. It could just be a total bias against them. And yes, it could be a comminuty that does it – like my high school year of 120 students.
I gave a sermon last night on Matthew 5:7, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” I think it has some bearing on what this thread has turned into, a conversation about the character of JS.
We define mercy as showing compassion or pity. But in the context, Jesus is speaking of those who are “blessed”. We need to look at this quality as being applied to those who will be saved, or are saved, because the un-regenerate can also display this quality, but they will not be “blessed”, or ultimately receive mercy.
Can the unregenerate show mercy? Yes, look at someone like Oprah Winfrey. She has given millions to those in need, and rightly so. She has the means, and it is a good work. But she also openly denies Jesus and promotes idoloters. Will her sins be covered by her good work? No.
And a list could be created of those like her: Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Angelina Jolie, your neighbor who is a drunkard and a blasphemer, but feeds the kids next door because the family is too poor to buy food. Do their compassionate works commend them to God? Do they buy them God’s mercy? What is the message of the Cross? Forviveness of sin and eternal life (blessing) by compassionate works, or forgiveness of sin by Christ’s shed blood? And is God’s mercy given to those who think they deserve it, or is it given to those who know they don’t deserve it (Read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 19:9-14).
So, what if JS was the most compassionate man who ever lived? What if he was the most influential man besides Jesus who ever walked the face of the earth? What if he slept outside in the cold when he had guests at his mansion? Do these good works commend him to God and pay for his sins? Or is he like Oprah Winfrey and the rest? JS was a man who defiled God’s word, said he would be a god, and exchanged God’s gift of salavation by grace with one of personal works and merit. He was a false prophet by all standards.
The Author and Proprietor of the Book of Mormon, practiced polygamy until he died, and lied about it, except to the inner sanctum of the Mormon Church. Why would he lie about a commandment from God??
I believe Sharon said that her intent here was to confront the whitewash job the Mormon church gives Joseph Smith. The SLC LDS not only has to leave out significant facts concerning their founding “prophet” but they have to invent new history to make him appear to be something he clearly was not.
Mormonism was founded on and is maintained by deceit. I believe this is one of the reasons Mormonism has trouble holding on to members once they find out how they’ve been lied to regarding Joseph Smith. There’s even a term for it called “shaken faith syndrome”. Mormon John Dehlin has a presentation titled “Why they leave the Mormon Church”. He goes through all of the facts that the Mormon church is not forth coming about concerning Joseph Smith. His conclusion is rather faulty in its reasoning because he tries to convince people to stay in the church even if it isn’t true because the church is still “good”. I don’t think I’d characterize an organization that has to go to such great lengths to hide the history of its founder by lies and deceit as “good”.
The SLC LDS church has had to more then double the staff handling resignations. Two-thirds of those on the rolls are inactive and half of returning missionaries go inactive. While the Mormon church lies to others it also lies to itself trying to justify the leaving as either the people were immoral or they were offended by someone. I’d go for the offended reason because it is offensive to find out that the organization you believed in and blindly supported took advantage of you by with holding pertinent information. That’s a nice way of saying they lied to you.
Joseph Smith a common target of anti-Mormons writers continue to attack his character to get others to believe that if it can be demonstrated that the Prophet was a detestable, low-life scoundrel then doubt can be cast upon his claims about the Restoration.
Of course this is only rigged with the usual low mentality, false witnesses, and disgruntled members. Who like Falcon, only want you to believe that the Church lied to you.
When the Prophet’s brother William was questioned about the accusation that Joseph was a lazy person he made these insightful comments:
“We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then, by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good day’s work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either… Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys. We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision.”
Did all of Joseph’s neighbors believe that he was a liar— Certainly not. Mrs. Palmer, a non-Mormon who lived near the Smith farm in Palmyra, said that before the Spring of 1820 “there was never a truer…boy than Joseph Smith.” Those people who had close, extended contact with Joseph also made note of his honesty. The Prophet’s younger brother William reports that in accordance with “religious training of the strictest sense, the order of [the Smith] family was truthfulness.” William mentions that up to 1823, when Joseph was seventeen years old, the family had “implicit confidence in what he said.” Why— Because “he was a truthful boy.” William also made this noteworthy comment. He said, “I suppose if he had told crooked stories about other things we might have doubted his word about the plates [of the Book of Mormon], but Joseph was a truthful boy.” The Knight family of Colesville, New York had extensive contact with Joseph when he was about twenty-one year of age and they “found him [to be] a boy of truth.” by Matt
Continued, reference by by Matthew B. Brown
So Larry Brown and your false theory, of author and Proprietor.
Summer of 1828, there are 13 separate references to Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon text. And finally, there is the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. In the 1830 rendition of this document it is clearly stated that the Prophet “translated” the golden plates, even though he is also designated as the “Author” of the book. To recap—In all four documents in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon where Joseph Smith is identified as the author of the text there is also a clarification that he is the interpreter or translator of the text. When the Prophet was listed as the “Translator” on the title page of the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon it was nothing new.
Modern revelation seems to be such an obstacle for many people today. Season that with a somewhat naive and romantic view that all the books of the Bible must have been written by infallible persons and you have the contemporary Evangelical.
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”
Thes 5:20
Matt 23:24
Amos 3:7
John 20:21
The fact that so many are attentive to our church and to this board prove the intial statement quoted above from Josiah Q. Adams….powerful influence indeed.
Right on subgenius 🙂
richard.
Hitler as a powerful person cannot be denied, nor can it be denied that Smith has shown to be influential, and arguably, powerful.
But I have seen a couple of times the statement that it is OK to leave an account of Hitler as simply: he was powerful in his time. It was said these two times that it would be intellectually honest to leave the statement at that and then the assumption is the person hearing the information will go out and determine for himself whether Hitler was good or bad with his power.
I have to disagree. I have to disagree because it is common knowledge that Hitler killed how many millions of Jews because he didn’t like them? While a very broad accepting of “honesty” would allow the comment to stand, it seems that there is a better way to address the comment if it is well known Hitler led the slaughter of so many people and started the war he did. This better way to is to be upfront about how he wielded his power, and that must include his atrocities.
It is also said that Hitler did do some good things, and he did. This is a reason why many Germans, even with knowledge of what was happening to the Jews, gave Hitler the power in question here. Does that he turned the German economy around and gave “Arians” hope excuse his abuse of power? I don’t think so.
And so we move to the comparison (it is interesting to who we are comparing, isn’t it?) between historical treatment of Hitler, and Smith, especially regarding Quincy’s journal entries. LDS think it is OK to state how Quincy thought that Smith would be powerful, but at the same time wasn’t sure about the nature of his power. He wasn’t sure because he didn’t fully trust the man and thought him a loon and a nut.
Yet LDS use a quote stating he would be very powerful to prove that Smith was indeed powerful, but that add implicitly that Smith was good and great.
The use of the quote seems, like saying Hitler was only just a powerful man, less than 100% honest.
Michael P. Great post! I think it’s great that we are using the comparison between Hitler and JS. I would have never associated the two, interesting dialog we have going on here. Thanks Shem for throwing the two names in the same hat.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that the murder of JS is one of the more tragic incidents in the history of the U.S. if not the world. Because of the murder, literary millions of people have been led down a destructive path, many families have been shattered, and lives destroyed.
Back to Sharon’s point, and I would have to agree, it is not full disclosure and honesty to tell only part of the story, isn’t this obvious?
I know the LDS posters are going to say that nothing is hidden, but then, why is it that the missionaries at the MTC are told not to go into specific details regrading some doctrine or JS history? Some people may look up the information, some may not, and for those who do not, it’s not they are not doing their own due diligence, it’s that they are taking the missionaries on their word; they are trusting them to tell them the important details. If you are going to use a quote from someone to support your claims, an honest organization would tell the whole story because if the organization truly believed in what they were teaching then the truth would stand alone. But the fact that 100’s of millions of people do not believe in JS suggests that the LDS truth does not support itself.
When the topic of God and honesty comes up there is no compromise or filtering that a person should impose upon another. I guess it is just conversion by the sword, in todays world (at lest in the U.S.) the sword is deceitful twists and mind control techniques.
A man’s character may be an indication that he is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit after salvation. This is an upward process: growing in holiness. But what we see in JS is just the opposite. We see a decline in character. His first book: The BoM, was a charicature of what JS believed Christianity to be, influenced by his interpretation of the means of salvation and his experience with revivals of the day, complete with people being “struck by the Spirit”. The BoM narrative sounds really religious, but how would the LDS feel about someone in their modern churches feigning a coma after being baptized, or babbling in tongues as occurrs in Pentacostal churches? These things were practiced by the early Mormon people. If that is the method God uses, why has it stopped?
Next, we see JS’s theology slipping as he morphs into the polytheism of the King Follet funeral, the BoA, and the PoGP. He goes from a servant of God restoring the knowledge that the native inhabitants of America knew the gospel also, to the restoration of “true Christianity”, and the knowledge that he will one day be a god. At the same time we see him consumed with making money, and obtaining “plural wives”, which is condemned in the first book he wrote as an abomination that even the Lamanites didn’t practice.
If JS was indeed bringing “reveation” from God, it would not contradict God’s former teachings throughout history in the Bible, nor would it contradict previous revelation in an author’s original work, nameley the BoM.
Subgenius, you need a class in hermeneutics. The scripture you quote was ripped completely out of context, revealing faulty biblical exegesis. 1 Thess 5:20 may be appropriate, but quote the passage in context:
In 1989 a friend of mine, Colleen Ralson, then director of the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center, was leading a Christian outreach in front of Carthage Jail. The occasion was the rededication of the historic site. Gordon B. Hinckley was there. He walked up to Colleen, took her hand, and smiling warmly said, “You are doing a wonderful job.”
Colleen could have accurately quoted Mr. Hinckley in a video used to promote the work and mission of the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center. She could have included the photo of the smiling LDS Church leader holding her hand. The sound bite may have gone something like this:
Colleen could have done that, but she didn’t because she believed it would have been dishonest. Was she mistaken?
I get a kick out of our Mormon friends when they go into full “revelation” mode. I’m all for revelation. The problem with Mormonism is that their brand of revelation can be blown out of the water without much effort. We’re told to test revelation. I’ve tested Mormon revelation and found it to be false.
Anyone who hangs around here very long knows of my charismatic, pentecostal, full gospel orientation to Christianity. They also know I frequently tune in GOD TV channel 365 on Direct TV because they seem to have become the home of the modern prophetic/revelation movement within the Christian Body. Now if you were with me in my man-cave watching along you’d hear me saying things like, “No, No, OK, Maybe, Forget it, Yes-you got that right.” Paul very clearly tells us to test prophesy and by extension, revelation. John tells us to test the spirits. Mormons not only have zero knowledge of Biblical interpretation and exegesis, they do not hold their leaders accountable for their prophetic utterances. Joseph Smith was a complete and total disaster when it came to revelation, prophesy and general morality. When Mormons start thinking for themselves and don’t leave the thinking to their very flawed leaders, they end-up exiting the program. Unfortunately too many of them become atheists thanks to Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.
No amount of white washing or omission of pertinent facts, can hide that Mormonism, with its different god and different jesus, is of a different spirit.
Again, I think people are being a little too idiotic about this quote, and the claims against the LDS are simply stupid.
The intent in using this quote was never to appeal to Mr. Quincy as evidence of Joseph’s devine calling, but to show that even a Non-member recognized the power and influence he did, and would have.
Why is this important? Partly because most non-members of that time did not hold that oppinion. It was believed by most that if Joseph died his influence would also die. This was not believed by most members, but having a non-member believe it as well is something worth noting.
A second reason is because some idiots in the modern day try their best to downplay the great influence he had. Evidence of this is seen the absurd claim that Joseph did not die a martyr’s death. If he was not a martyr than we can downplay his influence, we can make people think a little less of his life. To counter this very subtle attack on the history and power of this great man the LDS church has appealed to the writings of Josiah Quincy to show that his influence is very real and just how powerful it is.
This is the intent of the LDS church. It is not to twist this quote into saying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, only as evidence that his influence is real, and more powerful than many modern people would like to believe.
Shem, I am curious, how does the entry not show his opinion of the man? yes, it is his narrative, but it is HIS narrative in that he was writing his thoughts on Smith, not just simply what happened.
Even still, using the quote is problematic for the reasons I gave above. That still stands.
And what is it you follow Smith for? Is it just his political views, or also his religious?
I find it curious that in the world of Mormonism, the Salt Lake City sect seems to be the only one of the group that feels the need to hide and reframe its doctrines and practices but also it’s history especially as it relates to Joseph Smith. There are numerous strains of “the one true church” which is in-and-of itself problematic for the SLC sect, but the others are straight forward, in my experience.
I watched the address at the April general conference of the COC by the head of their group, and the guy was actually very refreshing to listen to. I especially liked what he had to say about their members confronting the history of Mormonism.
The SLC sect is really a mess, bowing continually to societal pressures and calling it revelation. The FLDS knows who they are. They’re Nauvoo Mormons. The other groups are more preNauvooian. The SLC are Mormons pretending to be evangelical Christians and doing so by stealth. So their attempts to cover-up what can no longer be covered up, is futile and makes them look dishonest, which they are.
Sharon,
Colleen Rolson was a friend of mine as well. And I’ve heard the same experience from her own lips on several occasions. If it hadn’t been a decade since I last saw her I’m sure I would’ve heard it several more times over. I’ll tell you just what I told her: her illustration, rather than demonstrate the potential bogusness of Mormon presidents as prophets of the Lord, more clearly demonstrates why Protestant Christians will never accept a living prophet of the Lord. They don’t want a prophet; they want the Lord himself, or nothing (but “the Bible”) at all. And even God himself, short of apocalyptic persuasion, could only hope to persuade them otherwise. After all, even the testimony of angels are the veritable testimony of devils according to many Evangelicals who have pressed Paul’s words upon me! But is this really the humility and meekness in seeking the word of God that was put forth by the man who said, “we believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” I know many of you see hardly any of these things in Mormon faith, or in Joseph Smith, and it is your failing there that keeps you from being heard and understood by more Mormons. The truth is, Paul’s statement not only applies in many ways to the essential Christian hopes and beliefs of Joseph Smith and a good many Mormons; it’s a statement that clearly challenges the Bible-only-as-word approach insisted on by conservative Protestants.
As for Mrs. Rolson (Colleen), and in direct relation to the topic of this post, she once laid on me one of the better compliments I’ve received in my life when she forcefully told me, near verbatim, that I reminded her of Joseph Smith “more than any Mormon” that she’d had ever met. “You are cocky and arrogant just like him. You think you know the word of God, just like him!”
Wow, now that accusation by Colleen certainly puts me in odd company! Especially when we consider the millions of Evangelicals who would never be confused as being cocking and arrogant in knowing what the word of God is (and isn’t)!
Truth is, despite my apparent cockiness & arrogance, Colleen was very happy to see me when I’d pop in for my daily visit in the three straight years of summer visits I made to Nauvoo in the late 90s (each time staying at least 4 days). While she was incessant in her doctrinal scolding & mocking, the longer I stayed, the more she would also show a side of her that was very kind; & she clearly liked that I was very open about myself in ways that transcended the concerns of religion. She was a delightful woman who very much appreciated that I saw past her hostile religious causes to embrace her essential self. And I wish that she understood that in that regard I think I also showed a little of Joseph Smith (though I pale in comparison).
The last time I checked in on Colleen in Nauvoo was six or seven years ago, I think, & was saddened to find that she had moved, & had sold her house & ministry to a retired, high-ranking Naval officer & his wife. They, unlike her, were very openly kind people (to Mormons), who were equally committed in bringing Mormons to Christ in the way they saw fit & true, but from what I could see were much more capable at reaching Mormons bc/ they were more willing to listen to them, rather than contend w/ them. I had a thoroughly delightful conversation w/ them that lasted probably 2or more hours, in which I was able to openly & honestly give my condolences to him for the heart-breaking experiences he had had w/ his Mormon family over his struggles w/ the faith, and his eventual abandonment of it.
In the end, this wonderful couple openly acknowledged to me that Colleen had literally fled from Nauvoo because of the misery she had experienced in isolating herself from those in the community—both Mormons & non-Mormons alike. The casualty of promoting a cause at the expense of reaching out and embracing others. Which is really a shame, because the Colleen I knew had a lot to give in the way of embracing others. And many more Mormons would have listened to her had she been of that heart and mind.
Sincerely, mutu.
By the way, the filtered profanity of my post was in the use of a word that also means “rooster”, but definitely not as a vulgar reference to male anatomy.
Just as that word meaning more or less pompousness.
mutu.
Hay mantis,
I have no problem accepting prophets or for that matter apostles, teachers, evangelists or pastors as is outlined in Ephesians 4:11-13. But they have to be the real deal. Mormon prophets don’t meet the Biblical requirements as Mormonism is not Christianity. The Mormon prophets meet the requirements of Mormonism just like any other religion outside Christianity has their own prophets and “holy” book for that matter.
So no, I don’t accept Mormon prophets seeing both them and Mormonism as a religion that is not Christianity but some other religion that has its own god and gospel. So please qualify your statement when you make it because your fundamentally wrong.
And the Jews couldn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah because they knew that Messiah couldn’t be a mere ruffian from Galilae, and they knew that the Messiah would never claim divinity. And they knew that the Messiah would never cross Moses’ words as they knew them plainly to read, nor would he ever surccomb to a shameful death. Yet as you and I plainly know and believe, all these things clearly define Jesus of Nazareth.
falcon, do you think you know the written “Word” better than Jesus’ Pharisaical opponents knew the written “Word”?
In every generation, the Word of God is missed by those who think they know what it must be, and what it must not be. And I’m as concerned over the fate of Mormons in this regard, as I am about anyone else living right now. Mormons, just like Evangelicals, too often think they know where, and where not, the Word of God is to be plainly found.
Jesus Christ is God of all creation, not of a mere book or religion.
Sincerely, mutu.
Falcon
you said
“knows of my charismatic, pentecostal, full gospel orientation to Christianity”
again, your opinion is showing, i have been off and on here and never seen proof of such claims, i have seen quite the contrary in the tone and manner of your posts.
Also, you said
“Mormons not only have zero knowledge of Biblical interpretation and exegesis, they do not hold their leaders accountable for their prophetic utterances”….do you have proof of this claim…so often you make baseless claims in your posts, please, provide a 2 2 for your =4.
liv4jc
i expect that any references made from the Bible on this board will be reviewed in their context. And your quoting the verses fors and aft of 5:20 only reinforces my point.
I was thinking last night about this article and I remembered something that I thought was very amusing. A few months ago I presented some work about Calvin, Luther and the Wesleys from other people’s research and gave the websites as well. These people were very scathing in what they had to say about these men including accusing Calvin of having a hand in the killing/murder of a number of people especially Severtis. What was the response of most Evs on this site? My research skills were called into question, in fact one person actually questioned my ability to be a career researcher. Then I was told to go and look at other websites that promote a better story about these men. Gee, does this all sound familier? These responses did not address the thoughts/opinions of the people that created these websites. These websites were based on historical events and eyewitnesses’ testimonies, just like you Evs base your attacks on JS by historical evidences and eyewitnesses’ testimonies.
My point – There are many things floating out there about many people, some true, some not and others are a slight stretch of the truth. Yes, we LDS defend JS while you Evs try to pull him down because we believe in him and you don’t. This happens to Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys and Jesus, Himself. So what’s the diff?
subgenius,
You need to come up with a new strategy. The “it’s your opinion” is wearing pretty thin. It tells me your back is against the wall when it comes to Mormonism so you’ve reduced your arguments to a motto. Pretty standard stuff for Mormonism. The facts are not in dispute. If you want to keep echoing the “opinion” line why don’t you just say “ditto what I said before”. Mormons on this blog demonstrate everyday that they have no systematic approach to Biblical interpretation. It’s pretty much grab a verse and throw it out and hope for the best.
You want proof. You can get my name and email address from the moderators. Contact me and I’ll give you my address and you can come and visit and we’ll spend some time together. I gave about a five part audio presentation a year ago on MC on the subject with my testimony. Perhaps the moderators can find it and make it available to you.
Mutu,
Your analogy doesn’t work. Following your argument, all prophets are legitimate. Joseph Smith isn’t Jesus and Smith’s revelation was false. Jesus is the manifestation of God. He is the living Word. Mormons have a rather reduced view of Jesus and so I can see where you would try to make some link between Him and Smith or perhaps even yourself since you plan on becoming a god. The only difference between you and the Mormon “god” is that he’s just further along in his progression than you are.
To tell you the truth, I have a lot of anger welling up inside me right now at the very thought of you attempting to find some sort of link between Jesus and Joseph Smith. If you meant to set me off, you’ve done it. Smith was a scoundrel of the first order. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. May God have mercy on you.
Well, my parting message to you, falcon: don’t be a Colleen Rolson. (This is my limit post of the day.)
God’s mercy (through Christ) will be upon the merciful. In other words, those who are worthy of mercy. Need I point out from the NT Jesus’ many clear statements explaining this?
And he who is angry with his brother will be subject to (eternal) judgement. And despite the attempt by at least one medieval scribe of this Sermon on the Mount verse to state otherwise, I think you’re aware that there is no “cause” under heaven that justifies our anger towards another human being. None.
Sincerely,
mutu.
Sub, the opinion thing is running short especially since you have given nothing in excess of your opinion.
Mutu, others have hit on it, too, but your assumption is that we reject all prophecy and all revelation, and then based on that, you say we are missing what is shown in Mormonism. How wrong are you. We do not reject LDS because we are close minded or because we aren’t open to revelation. No, we reject it because it doesn’t line up with what is in the Bible. Christ’s message was actually an extension of and is very consistent with what was written in the the OT. You can’t say that about LDS to Christianity.
Oh, and what point is your story about the mutual friend? Is it an attempt to smear, and one that relies on hear say? I bet we have someone here who can substantiate the claim she was run out of town…
Ralph, I am not going to argue about historical sources regarding Calvin and Luther and others. I frankly bet that they did have some aggressive tendancies to neighbors who saw things differently. But I will say a couple things about the history they found themselves in: Catholics revolted against and Catholicism was a power beyond religion. Catholicism was the dominant political power and any threat to the faith was also a threat to their political power. Hence, pride and lust for power surrounded their lives.
Another point here is that I cannot accept them as prophets or anything beyond men who contributed greatly to disseminating the Bible, which was not widely read or understood outside of the clergy (the Catholics). In other words, I don’t owe them any allegience, but realize what they did.
With Smith, you have to not only acknowledge his power but you him allegiance to. And that necessarily entails being deferential to him and his progeny. To the contrary, I can call Luther and Calvin bad men and not violate any loyalty.
Anger towards another. Here’s a simple question: was Jesus ever angry towards anyone?
The answer, I think, is yes. It seems this happened more than once in the Bible.
Yes, we are to forgive, and show mercy, and all of that, but never does it say we are not to be angry. I think there are indeed causes to get angry about.
Is this a discussion you really want to have?
Mantis,
I, for one, would LOVE to hear you expound on what Christ had to say about Mercy
Concerning,” Joseph Smith’s powerful influence.”
How much of the truth about Joseph Smith have
sincere LDS been told by their leaders from
what’s contained in the LDS historical archives?
What’s in the archives that’s been restricted?
What’s in the First Presidency’s vault?
“Faith promoting history”, or truth?
The fact that rank and file Mormons have serious
concerns about this is evident by the following
article in the Deseret News:
“LDS in survey call for unvarnished history”
“Active Latter-day Saints want their church to
provide a ‘frank and honest’ presentation of
church history, unvarnished by attempts to
sugar-coat the past in order to make it more
palatable. That’s one finding to come from a
new e-mail survey done by the family and church
history department of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints…..Latter-day Saints
surveyed ‘want to be leveled with’ when the
church presents information about its past….”
[Deseret Morning News,May 27 2007 ]
Considering the status of Joseph Smith Jr. that
LDS have ascribed to him, it would nice to know
all the information in the LDS archives.
Guest and visitors, our dear Christian friends who post here at MC seem to think that Joseph claimed to have power. I have always wondered what that was suppose to mean and where it was derived from. I cannot find in our scriptures, or any of his translations or even in the Doctrine and Covenants where he claimed to have power.
If he did anything to show his authority it was to give all credit to God the Father and his calling as a Prophet. Power is not Priesthood, it is the Authority to act in the name of God and through one’s worthiness God can perform His power. Credit was never given to Joseph as someone that acted with power, nor did Joseph credit himself with any special powers.
I have a real issue with the following statement: With Smith, you have to not only acknowledge his power but you him allegiance to. And that necessarily entails being deferential to him and his progeny.
Thanks for the opportunity to bring this point out in the light.
Regards, Richard.
By the way, I think someone above was looking for this:
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/york/appendix1.htm#affidavits
Hank, surely you recognize the differences in Power. There is Positional power, personal power, and indirect effected power; there is probably a few more but this is all I can think of at the moment.
JS had a great deal of positional power. He was the leader of his organization, he was the leader of the militia, and he was the Mayor of the town. When he held all three positions that equals a whole ton of power.
And quit frankly in his last years he exercised his power with reckless regard to a lot of people and their welfare. Take for example how he manipulated that 14 year old girl into marrying him ( I cannot remember her name, then one who’s father he sent away on a mission). He had the Expositor destroyed because they were exercising their freedom of speech.
Now Hank, I am not asking for a Mormon explanation regarding my examples, I know what they are. I am using those examples to show that JS had a great deal of power and he exercised them frequently.
I think that Mr. Quincy was a shrewd man who saw through the arrogance and ego of Joseph Smith. I think he also saw the fanaticism of his followers and how Smith’s influence would grow the movement in later years. Perhaps if Smith had lived and not been martyred, and the Saints had not obscured and covered up a lot of his doctrines and teachings, he would have been less influential. Mr Smith’s ego would have been his demise, given time. But Smith’s a lot of Smith’s doctrines were openly spoken of by later “Prophets” in the isolated setting of the Salt Lake Basin and we have those to measure against the true gospel of Jesus Christ. In terms of power, Joseph was powerful over his people and was not shy in expressing it. He memorized some Hebrew and claimed to be an expert in all languages, claimed to be the only man on earth who had direct access to God and the “true” religion. I liken him to David Koresh, (the similarities are striking), and if Smith had lived, how much younger would his plural wives have gotten, and like Koresh, his ego would have made him take bolder and bolder steps and his doctrines would have gotten farther and farther off the track of mainstream Christianity. As it was, he had to lie about and hide what his true teachings were and when I was on my mission we were told it was because you feed followers mild before you give them meat. The meat of Mormonism they now give only after the member is in the Church for a period of time to make it harder for them to leave. Joseph Smith was no Hitler, but he spawned a cult that has deceived millions of people.