Joseph Smith Boast

[havejoy]

I was asked what my thoughts are on the 'Joseph Smith Boast' and had no idea what it was. It's supposed to be in "The History of The Church" and he claims to be greater than Jesus.

Does anyone have access to this and, if so, would you please tell me if there is a Joseph Smith Boast and what he really said. Thanks.

[bytebear]

Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact - FairMormon

[Lakumi]

Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact - FairMormon

doesn't say anything about him claiming on being "bigger then Jesus"

its an untrue statement, since after he died the church had off shoots. But that didn't happen until after he died, right?

[pam]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/135.3?lang=eng

May have attributed Joseph Smith as having said this. But it was written by those after his death.

[Palerider]

I was never aware he said that. I am sure those not in favor of the church have made it out that he did say it.

[havejoy]

It's supposed to be in the History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409. Can someone who has this check and see what it says. I have a feeling this is a misrepresentation of the excerpt from D&C 135 Pam posted above.

[Irenaeus]

BYU was so kind as to provide the History of the Church online

https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx

The quote can be found in Chapter 19. It's a bit past 2/3 of the way down. It's the second paragraph after the header "Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo." As the header's name implies, the context is that Joseph Smith is talking about those who he says are persecuting him. The part of the quote in question, as mentioned in an earlier link, is this:

"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."

I am personally of the opinion that the quote comes across as rather prideful, but while that doesn't do wonders for one's perception of Joseph Smith's character, it doesn't really serve as proof against his being a prophet or the LDS church being true. Jonah in the Old Testament was not a particularly likable sort and rebelled against God several times, but he was still most certainly a prophet.

Just my take on the matter.

[pam]

One must also keep in mind that the 6th volume was written and published many years after Joseph's death.

The writers had to rely on memory and were known to throw in their own thoughts. At that time it was also common to write in 1st person and have it appear as if the quote actually came from the person himself...in this case Joseph Smith.

[Palerider]

One must also keep in mind that the 6th volume was written and published many years after Joseph's death.

The writers had to rely on memory and were known to throw in their own thoughts. At that time it was also common to write in 1st person and have it appear as if the quote actually came from the person himself...in this case Joseph Smith.

Exactly

[Irenaeus]

One common critique directed towards Mormon faith is that they will ignore or deny things that cast a negative light on their church. I bring this up because that is kind of the impression I've gotten from this thread thus far.

I'm not saying that the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't say what was attributed to him isn't a possibility. What I am saying is that, when you have a quote from a book that was written agent's of the church Joseph Smith founded, published by his successor, and currently found on a website run by that church's university, it seems prudent to suppose that there's a good chance he did say it. Even if he didn't say it, its something the church was willing to attribute to him, which makes the church still somewhat accountable for the sentiments contained within it.

I should mention that this isn't a critique against the truthfulness of Mormonism. As I mentioned earlier, the worst thing that this quote can be taken as meaning is that Joseph Smith had pride issues, which has nothing to do with whether or not he was a prophet. My point is that, if a non-member or questioning member comes across a quote that seems to be legitimate, and the only response they can find to it within the church is denying it, then their impression of the church is unlikely to improve in the exchange.

I should also make clear this isn't directed at any one person. All the points raised here were fair ones. My point only is that nobody within the church seemed to be dealing with the possibility of it being legitimate.

[The Folk Prophet]

the worst thing that this quote can be taken as meaning is that Joseph Smith had pride issues...

It's not that simple. And, frankly, Joseph Smith and a pride issue would be just as much a stumbling block to people as the church supposedly denying quotes. You hear this sort of thing oft times in the anti circles. "If the church would just fess up it would be better." Nonsense. It would not be better. The haters would still hate. The apostates would still apostatize. The unbelievers would still not believe.

Regardless, the church upholds this particular position (that Joseph didn't actually imply that he was greater than Jesus) because it speaks to Joseph's understanding of our Lord and Savior, to whom Joseph spoke with directly on several occasions. There is no way Joseph misunderstood the God he worshiped. It is entirely implausible with what the church holds Joseph Smith to have been. Moreover it would directly conflict with other teachings that Joseph gave, in point of fact, his whole theology.

[Irenaeus]

I certainly agree that Joseph Smith having pride issues would be a stumbling block to people, though I disagree about is being as much of one as obfuscation. In the case of the former, on a gut level we have a tough time relating to people we feel negatively about, so feeling negative about Joseph Smith would make it hard for somebody to join the Church he founded. That being said, a person could not like Joseph Smith and still believe he's a prophet if the evident for his being one is compelling. Denial of a statement that appears to be legitimate, however, leaves a person only with the opposing sides interpretation, which usually isn't going to be favorable.

I appreciate that some people will never be convinced no matter how convincing the evidence. That being said, I also firmly believe that there are people who can be convinced if the evidence is compelling.

I would also argue that it is possible for a prophet to be simultaneously prideful and a prophet. I again would like to cite the example of Jonah, who spends much of his titular book in the bible defying and/or complaining to God. I'm sure the doctrine he preached to the Ninevites was spot on, but he was still kind of a whiny jerk.

My point wasn't that Joseph was a bad or prideful guy, only that that was the worst interpretation that one could take away from the verse, and that that fact alone wouldn't necessarily disprove anything. It could pose a stumbling block for some people in the same way that bad rhetoric makes any argument less persuasive, but the persuasiveness of an argument doesn't necessarily track with the truthfulness of it.

Also, you mentioned that the church's stance was that Joseph Smith didn't say he was greater than Jesus. While I'm sure that is the position the church would take, part of the issue here is not that the church denies his having said it, but rather that fact that I haven't found any place where a general authority or anybody within the institutional church has addressed the issue at all. I appreciate that the church doesn't want to legitimize every wild accusation by officially responding to every one that pops up, but this seems like a case where a person of good faith could legitimately interpret the quote in an unfavorable way, and it is oft cited enough that it should probably warrant some response.

I guess my point is that I'm saying that the church should "fess up." Rather, I'm saying that it would seem prudent to at least address the accusations and offer up counter-interpretations. Then, a person who is on the fence about what Joseph Smith meant there has a church-friendly interpretation they can weight the merits of opposed to the more hostile interpretation.

As always, these are merely my opinions and should be regarded as such :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I certainly agree that Joseph Smith having pride issues would be a stumbling block to people, though I disagree about is being as much of one as obfuscation. In the case of the former, on a gut level we have a tough time relating to people we feel negatively about, so feeling negative about Joseph Smith would make it hard for somebody to join the Church he founded. That being said, a person could not like Joseph Smith and still believe he's a prophet if the evident for his being one is compelling. Denial of a statement that appears to be legitimate, however, leaves a person only with the opposing sides interpretation, which usually isn't going to be favorable.

I appreciate that some people will never be convinced no matter how convincing the evidence. That being said, I also firmly believe that there are people who can be convinced if the evidence is compelling.

I don't really see the difference. But that's my take. Call the church a liar or call Joseph arrogant...it's all excuses to walk or turn away from the real objective of the church and Joseph, which point is to bring people closer to Jesus. And there is a specificity to HOW this is to be done, and it is not, nor has it ever been evidence. The clear message of both Joseph and the Church on the issues is the same. Ask God if the church is true. Everything else is a distractor.

Also, you mentioned that the church's stance was that Joseph Smith didn't say he was greater than Jesus. While I'm sure that is the position the church would take, part of the issue here is not that the church denies his having said it, but rather that fact that I haven't found any place where a general authority or anybody within the institutional church has addressed the issue at all. I appreciate that the church doesn't want to legitimize every wild accusation by officially responding to every one that pops up, but this seems like a case where a person of good faith could legitimately interpret the quote in an unfavorable way, and it is oft cited enough that it should probably warrant some response.

Based on the current trend of publishing essays, I wouldn't put it past the church doing just so in the near future. It will be interesting if they do. However, in my experience, this doesn't seem to be one of the major detractors for people. I could be mistaken on that. But I'd say the things addressed are MUCH bigger issues for people. Polygamy. Blacks and the priesthood. And, thanks to the popularity of the South Park clods, the own-your-own-planet thing (which, actually, was only a side note in the issue being addressed--the belief that one can become like God).

[Irenaeus]

And there is a specificity to HOW this is to be done, and it is not, nor has it ever been evidence..

While I will agree that the principle approach taken by the LDS church today is something along the lines of "pray and you'll know we're right," I would say a pretty good argument could be made against the claim that the Church has never relied on evidence.

If you go back to the biblical era Church, you can see clear examples of reason being employed in the Acts of the Apostles. A couple good examples would be Paul's sermon on the Unknown God and Apolinaris' preaching in the synagogue. In many places Christ and the Apostles are said to "open the scriptures," which is generally accepted as meaning that they were explaining them in a way that was compelling and pointed towards the truthfulness of Christianity. Another early Church example would be Justin Martyr, who relied rather heavily on reason, though he dates in the mid-second century, placing him in that nebulous time frame that may or may not be a part of the great apostasy by LDS standards.

From my perspective, the "prayer standard" of determining the right church has a major flaw in that the church uses a sort of circular logic to justify it. If you pray about the truthfulness of the LDS church, you'll get one of two answer, its true to its not. If you get the former answer, the church will claim its from God, and if you get the latter answer, it'll claim that its from either Satan or yourself. It seems like you could replace Mormonism in that scenario with any other group and get similar results. I would be curious to see if any sort of formal study had been done on that subject, but I doubt it.

I guess my position then would be that we have to use our reason to find truth. Admittedly, reason can err, and that's where we do need an assist from divine intervention. The big difference as I see it is that, if you rely only on a feeling given from God, then the testimony dies with the feeling. If you rely on solid reason obtained with God's help, even if God feels far away during a rough patch, the sound reasoning remains sound.

Just my take on the matter.

[McLainDow]

May take on this is this is the Lord's church but, It is run by finite vessels. It is a wonder and wonderful what the Lord does through these finite vessels. If an accuser wants to magnify one quote someone may or may not have said in a large body of work by said person that is their right but, that accuser should remember their own faults and sins and cleanse themselves before pointing out others mistakes.

[havejoy]

Moses was a murderer. David had Bathsheba's husband killed. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Joseph Smith wasn't perfect. God can use anyone He wants to use in spite of their failings.

[Anddenex]

I have never understood why any Christian would profess the "prayer standard" as an error in logic. True irony.

That is just my take on the matter.

[Lakumi]

I always thought some people were a tad unfair to the LDS church, in terms of its past, when there are other churches with even worst past (even if you only go back to 1830) the Catholic one being the prime example!

Maybe cause they come to your door who knows...

[mordorbund]

And here's a linky that essentially says the same think as ByteBear's FairMormon site, but in a more conversational tone: http://askgramps.org/10277/did-joseph-smith-say-hes-done-more-than-jesus

Thanks Irenaeus for posting the link to the original sermon. I think the article I've linked to does well to give the context and tone of the whole sermon and recognizes that Joseph was engaging in "a bit of silliness".

[Just_A_Guy]

Probably also worth noting that by May of 1844 Smith had seen the apostasy of Kirtland, the defections in Missouri, had watched Bennett ushered out of the Church and was in the midst of rooting out Bennett's inner circle. The Church-at-large was well aware of the first two, at least.

Smith, and his audience, knew very well that he hadn't "kept a whole Church together", and that the "majority of the whole" (as it was constituted in the early Kirtland period) had not stood by him. Hence, the irony/humor.

[The Folk Prophet]

From my perspective, the "prayer standard" of determining the right church has a major flaw in that the church uses a sort of circular logic to justify it. If you pray about the truthfulness of the LDS church, you'll get one of two answer, its true to its not. If you get the former answer, the church will claim its from God, and if you get the latter answer, it'll claim that its from either Satan or yourself. It seems like you could replace Mormonism in that scenario with any other group and get similar results. I would be curious to see if any sort of formal study had been done on that subject, but I doubt it.

The prayer standard is not a sociological standard, it is a personal one. Whether everyone else in the world claims they have received a revelation that their way/church is true or not is irrelevant. It is a personal promise to each of us from the Lord that if we sincerely and humbly seek Him, He will guide us to the truth. I doesn't matter how many people claim this to be true. It only matters what we find to be true when we act upon this promise. The church does not claim to be true because the members have acted upon this promise. The church claims to be true because it is true, but the evidence for the truth is individual. It is not an en masse case of, "we all got revelations so that proves the church is true". My revelation that the church is true does nothing for my neighbor. They must gain this knowledge from God themselves in order to know.

I guess my position then would be that we have to use our reason to find truth. Admittedly, reason can err, and that's where we do need an assist from divine intervention. The big difference as I see it is that, if you rely only on a feeling given from God, then the testimony dies with the feeling. If you rely on solid reason obtained with God's help, even if God feels far away during a rough patch, the sound reasoning remains sound.

There is no such thing as sound reasoning by fallible (and often idiotic) mortal beings. We simply do not have all the information. How can we make reasonable conclusions without all the information? We can't. God, however, has all the information. Relying upon the "prayer standard" as you call it, is the only reasonable course.

[Finrock]

I love Joseph Smith. He was a weak, fallible man, just like me. But, even so, God was with Him as God has been with me at times. This shows you the great love and mercy that Heavenly Father has for us, his children who are living in mortality (a fallible and imperfect condition). It isn't a surprise or even a disappointment to God that we fail. He knew we would and He knows we will.

The more I learn about Joseph Smith, flaws and virtues alike, the more I respect, honor, and love him. He lived under no pretenses. His statement here that is used to supposedly show how "prideful" he was is in fact the exact opposite. Joseph Smith knew his desperate need for God and the Savior and when you read the whole speech from whence this quote that is criticized is taken, you see a man who knew exactly how weak he was and exactly how much he needed the Savior.

-Finrock

[Roseslipper]

With small and simple things The Lord will do His work!!!!!

[Still_Small_Voice]

Moses was a murderer.

I disagree. Moses killed an Egyptian in the defense of an Israelite. It was not murder.

"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." - Exodus 2:11-12

[LeKook]

How I see it:

The apostle Paul boasted too. He died for the gospel.

So did Joseph Smith.

Wow, maybe they were human!